/fringe/ - Fringe

>>125081

This. OP, the observer effect in quantum physics doesn't refer to the idea that nature hides what it does when we look at it. Have you actually read about it or have you just watched new age dumbos on YouTube act like they know what they're talking about? Because that's what those people say.

Imagine you have one particle in a square centimeter of space and you want to find out exactly where it is. How would you figure that out? You'd have to observe it somehow. How do you observe a particle? Well, whether it was big enough to see directly or if you used an electron microscope, a photon would need to bounce off the particle. If you fire a photon at this particle, the particle's trajectory is going to change because it got hit by a photon. So although you've observed it being in a specific place, it will no longer be in this place once you've observed it. If you don't fire a photon at it, you won't change its trajectory, but you also won't know where it is, since you won't be able to observe it.

OP took the montalk meme too far

The two slit experiment mentioned in the OP is implied to be a matter of "universal randomness", so to speak. However, from the perspective of a computer, you could not properly turn this experiment into a Random Number Generator. It still tends to form a certain pattern and it is this observable pattern that got the scientists attention. It is not random and not a matter of probability, but a matter of how the universe handles its information when unobserved VS how it handles it when observed.

What OP should have clarified - or maybe didn't know - is that what happens in the two slit experiment has nothing to do with quantum computing. Quantum computing, as far as I learned, uses the direction the quantum particles spin with. This spin, however, can be argued to be much more of an product of probability, as it also is only determined once observed / detected. I'm not sure if this is a good metaphore but it is KIND OF like throwing a dice, you can only read the number once it stops spinning. The computer can process more than just two numbers at once since it can write a different number on each "side" of the dice - associate a different value with each possible rotation. Since the particle acts like it can rotate in several directions at the same time so long as unobserved it can be used to store several values at once. Correct me if I'm wrong though, if I were a quantum physicist I wouldn't post on this board… probably.

Now IF you assume that this spin can be affected by god or the demiurge or whatever then the question is: Could this affect the way a computer processes its data? After all, what matters is how many numbers you can draw onto the dice, not which side it lands on. Or does it? I'm sure some "expert" here will know.

Also, just a thought but it kind of looks like AI is gonna kill us all eventually anyway, controlled by the demiurge or not. If anything, it would have the potential to prevent that, but it doesn't have to cause the AI-pocalypse. We human are pretty good at fucking shit like that up ourselves.

>>125079

Good thread. As soon as I noticed the pattern I started sperging hard into it. I think a good way to describe how reality works, how what appears random and coincidental only appears so because we can not see the whole picture, is that reality is sort of like a symphony where the music that is played is the result of a giant stack of sheet music that all play at the same time. Ive sperged into this a ton and when I have more time I will post my findings thus far.

>>125142

How I believe what op is talking about works is like I alluded to here >>125142 Imagine you have a stack of sheet music for every song that has ever been written and will ever be written. Some of the songs written on these sheets are in different time scales, some of them for different instruments, but they are all stacked on top of each other and the song plays on continuously, but as the queue moves through the pages and it hits any given space where a note is, on any or all or some of the sheets, not every note in that position necessarily plays. This gives reality the illusion of randomness; the illusion of coincidence. Op suggests that probability is not a good definition of these either. I both agree and disagree with that statement. I would say that it is probability, but that in this context the definition of the word probability is lacking. What would be a better definition… I've been searching for that answer for a while. In order to answer that question we would need to be able to define just how this 'probability' works. Is which 'notes' play the result of chance? Possibly, but observable evidence points to the contrary. Is which 'notes' play the result of some other underlying law of the universe, some equation that is far beyond our grasp at this moment, I'd say this is possible. Or is it the result of a conscious manipulation, like op said, either "the will of God" or a consequence of all consciousness? Either of these is possible. Now of the two that I think are possible, could it not be said that both that "equation that is far beyond our grasp" and "the result of consciousness" could be considered two different perspectives of the same thing?

Another way, aside from the sheet music analogy, to look at it is.. At the most basic level this universe is made up of layers upon layers of atoms. If you had a picture of just one layer of all the atoms it would be a 2 dimensional image. But we are not two dimensional. But, we are stacks upon stacks upon stacks of 2 dimensional layers of atoms. And, each atom is a composite of particles. In effect this is just replacing the sheet music analogy with particles instead of notes.

As for the why of all of this. Why would God/the source create all of this. Why would he created all of this and then keep his hands off it. This answer depends on which version of the myth you find most truthful. Did he create all this and then appoint this demiurge/devil as a sort of administrator? Did he create all of this and that demiurge/devil went rogue at one point, or is he performing his function exactly as intended? Did he create all of this merely for him to observe/experience (i.e. entertainment), is this all supposed to serve as some sort of training ground for us to go onto higher purposes, or ,maybe, did he create all of this in pursuit of the answer to a question? These are things that we should all be pondering.

>>125122

>we are pretty good at fucking shit up ourselves

And yet, we havent once killed ourselves off or destroyed the planet. There is a reason for this.

>>125148

Imagine each of the songs of your metaphor as a different time-line of the universe. They all overlap, but the demiurge (aka. "Fate") decides which note you just so happen to hear at each second. But only if you care to listen.

I suspect that the creator created this world as a simulation. Maybe for entertainment, maybe for experimentation… or maybe to be able to predict the future of his original world. And the demiurge is already the AI of this simulation. It is just that it will gain power over all other AI that just so happens to share the same "heart" as it does.

Keep in mind that the way we think of an simulation for now is terribly naive, we have yet to even create a strong AI and we have yet to run a simulation that truly tries to emulate each aspect of reality, even if it were within a very limited simulated space. We don't even understand reality itself completely. Maybe a good enough simulation just becomes another true reality.

Also, yes, the whole definition of "probability" is a bit screwed if it turns out it is not truly a matter of random chance. But having to juggle with established definitions, even if they make no sense, is one of the great challenges any adept of magic or seeker of spiritual truth has to overcome…

>>125156

Dont take this as me detracting from what you posted: Personally I find that referring to this all as a simulation is the wrong way to go about it. At the core of the assessment that reality is a simulation is a bit of what I believe is a fallacy. What I mean by that is, our numbers were not invented they were discovered. To go further, electricity was discovered, not invented. Were computers discovered or invented? Id say that the functionality of computers was discovered. And what I mean by that is that computers themselves are a simulation of how reality works. Thus, reality having things in common with how computers work because computers simulate and process what amounts to natural laws does not necessarily mean that "reality is inside a computer".

Now, you could of course differentiate it by saying that "the simulation reality" does not mean we are in a computer "the simulation" could be entirely metaphysical, in the way that we understand metaphysics, rather than "a computer inside a computer inside a computer" sort of shit that leftists like to push for new age atheism. But, honestly, this is just a matter of semantics.

>Maybe for entertainment, maybe for experimentation… or maybe to be able to predict the future of his original world.

Personally, I think it is a combination of many things. I mean, could an experiment not be also entertaining? When I think of it all I see it as a test of sorts, one where the rules change depending on how aware one is of the patterns and the "coincidences" and so on. As for the nature of the test? Maybe to see if we are able to gain true self-awareness and what we would do with it once we realize our potential? One thing that I find interesting is paradox.. Everything is paradox. The way we live now was not even imaginable 200 years ago. And, yet we imagined it and made it happen. Thats a paradox. We are on a planet that is billions of years old and exists in a chaotic universe, yet it hasn't been destroyed. paradox. Etc etc. What if the whole reason for our existence is a paradox. Could it be that an all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent God created us because there was a question that he himself could not answer? There are a lot of power questions that come with this line of thinking.

>But having to juggle with established definitions,

Indeed. There do not exist words for so many fucking things. I wonder if there ever could be, being that so many of these things need several paragraphs worth of metaphor to explain to one who is not initiated.

>>125079

>Nothing is random, it's all planned by the demiurge

>i.e. determinism, no free will

>The inhabitants of the world are not allowed to notice that probability is being manipulated.

So I guess you just outsmarted the demiurge then, who also let you share his little secret with us. Seems legit.

>There are many, many random aspects of reality.

This contradicts the first statement of your post.

3/10, would not recommend this worldview to others.

>>125158

its an interesting thought experiment but your breakdown 10/10.. People tend to have really interesting, 'groundbreaking', ideas that seem to explain everything.. But then they never follow through and shitcheck their own new theory to make sure it holds weight. But that isnt to say that I think he is entirely off base. Everything is a matter of perception he just needs to find new angles to look at it from.

>>125079

>Many of its properties literally cannot be random, the chances for it happening are too low

this has to be the most retarded statement i've ever seen on an imageboard

>>125167

If random is possible then programming a true random number generator should not be difficult. And yet, we have not been able to do this.

>>125177

How do random number generators work that isn't random? I've always wondered about this.

>>125184

How they work is it basically just an algorithm that 'simulates random' by using the time as a variable. Thats a real dumb dumb breakdown of it, there are more complicated algorithms but they amount to nothing than more complicated versions of the same concept.

>>125185

>the fall already happened

Ive been thinking that the fall may have amounted to us choosing the wrong path at the worst possible time. That if there is in fact a cyclical nature to reality which I believe there must be then what could have happened was we chose the path that would lead us through a hellish fall until such a time that the cycle of reality begins its next upswing and new paths emerge.

Could be wrong but it seems right to me.

There is a way to fight back, you know. Fight probability with chaos.

Hail Eris

does this site even work anymore?

>>139084

No it's on vacation.

That's not what the double slit demonstrates. It demonstrates the characteristics of waves. I could elaborate further to clarify what that means or implies but I'm not patient or articulate enough to communicate that basically matter is surface tension.

>>125079

Could this AI be the Anti-Christ?

It will brings its wonders and power and will impress everyone. It will give us the mark of the beast, our ID Chips or whatever. This will teach humanity it cannot trust anything but itself and its own true will. This way true Christ can come from inside us.

I think the decision humanity will have to make is whether it wants to take responsibility for its own reality or not. Does humanity want to give its responsibility away to AI, or can it learn take it own responsibility?

The current problem with giving humanity the responsibility of its own reality is that its still too childish. We have no control over ourselves and would probably immediately raise hell on earth. So what needs to happen first is awakening. Awakening to the fact that there is nothing in the universe Humanity can trust, that a person cannot even trust himself. If a person truly knows he cannot trust himself he only has two choices: commit suicide or surrender. When he surrenders, he also opens himself up to probability, but from the inside. He opens himself up to Christ. Humanity aligns itself with the true will of the universe.

This is Trinity. I am the son. You are the father. The holy sprit is christ.

The son and the father, you and me, dont always agree with eachother. When son and father dont trust eachother, they are out of control, because no one knows what is real and what not. Just like two balls floating in space: Is ball A still and ball B moving, or is ball B still and ball A is moving? No one knows, and if I cant trust father that he knows which ball is still, there is no resolution of this problem.

The only solution is the holy spirit, the third. It is the base of reference of all things. If father and son cant trust eachother and dont know what is true anymore, they ask the holy spirit. The holy spirit will bring judgement. When humanity will not know anymore what is right and what is wrong, the holy spirit, Christ, will judge.

But first, we will trust AI, the Anti-Christ. We will believe this AI will be god which will judge. Which knows what path to take and knows right from wrong. But it will deceive us and we will learn that there is nothing outside of ourselves which we can trust.

>>139156

Think of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Humanity is hunting a monolith. The monolith represents the true will of god, Christ. It is that which humanity longs for, what it strives for.

For that it even flies to the moon and Jupiter.

HAL 9000 is the Anti-Christ. At first it seems to assist humanities striving for God, the monolith. Humanity thinks HAL 9000 is helping to make the connection with god possible, because it thinks it cannot trust itself, the crew members. So it thinks it needs HAL 9000s guidance and "perfect" judgement. In the end, humanity is being betrayed HAL, the Anti-Christ. After HAL is deactivated, humanity makes contact with the monolith and is then transformed.