Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
I haven't been able to respond to this before because I've been busy taken courses in programming so that I can figure out how to write a votebot that can cast hundreds of no-votes on this run, because I don't like the Japanese text, because I don't understand it.
Just kidding, awesome run, I voted yes. I think English is a better language than Japanese though, because more people understand that, but I don't think that has hardly any impact on how I vote on good runs like this.
Japanese text is good for non-TAS speedrunners because they don't have to wait so much during cutscenes.
Cardboard wrote:
A couple of years ago, I worked with relatively young kids (6 - 9 years old), and among the youngest, a statement like that one was very popular. "If this isn't done the way I want it to be done, I'm not gonna stay!!!111 whine whine cryyyyyyyyyyyyyy"
As children we start out honest and we stand for our opinions and viewpoints, but when we get older, we get brainwashed in school and by our environment, and we just have to lie to get through life, because the world is too big to change, so we give up, but we shouldn't. We bring children into this world so that they may teach us things about the world we have forgotten. Children are our teachers. Adults are brainwashed.
Naegleria wrote:
I run Sonic 1, and I would have been more entertained if the theme to Starlight Zone was used instead of Green Hill Zone. I find it is a much catchier and more entertaining song. His choice salted the run for me, as the entertainment value was shot. He should redo it and add time to play Mystic Cave Zone's theme somewhere too.
I lolled out loud when I read that
DarkKobold (Page 4) wrote:
Please people, watch, vote, and comment on runs of games you have never played!
If I would give votes to TASes of games I haven't seen, they would be 97% no-votes. I've probably never given a down-vote in the history of this forum.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Dada wrote:
I'd still really like to fix the encode for MGS, since apparently I'm using an old version of psxjin (svn0), but I can't seem to find the latest version.
The encode would also look better if you used one of those graphical enhancers which exist in some plugins, which takes away the jagged edges by anti-aliasing. I'm not sure if it's possible to encode with those plugins though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
DrHell wrote:
How do Tasers or encoders do, for having the video in HD?
HD sucks for 2D games that have low resolutions like 320x240, better just encode with the normal in-game resolution, it looks better, is much easier to encode, and doesn't waste as much space and bandwidth on youtube.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Ok, cool. Oh yeah, the J version, it's impossible to find save files for it... I was just thinking of doing a TAS of the Rambi arena or some other bonus stages, but I'm not sure I feel like playing 5 hours to unlock it... if I remember correctly, you had to play through half of the game or so, in order to get the Rambi arena.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Strange, a while ago I remember this worked on mupen when I tried it, but now it doesn't go past the intro screen, no matter what buttons I press. Maybe I was just imagining things before...
But how was the TAS made on the previous page, if the game can't be played? Is there a save state somewhere that can be downloaded?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
A review of Playstation Vita in case you are considering of buying it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpfKlXNa6Kc
Earlier I was considering buying it, but after watching this video I have to say he makes some pretty good points, so I'm not so sure anymore.
Watch also this Wiiu review, if you're planning to buy it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkWNKyMxGo
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
When I was reading on this page I realized that we might be able to have something that is at least very similar to real life TAS, in about 50-100 years, because if games and technology keeps evolving, we might have virtual reality environments that are virtually indistinguishable from reality, so doing a TAS in those worlds would be similar to a real life TAS. But for such virtual worlds, just playing around with save states (time travel) by yourself will probably be more interesting than watching someone else do a TAS of it.
sudgy wrote:
Edit: Also, if people who manipulate time are TASers, then Dr. Who is definitly one.
TASers are people who manipulate time in games, but the reverse is not necessarily true (someone who manipulates time is not necessarily a TASer).
WST wrote:
Hmm, I would manipulate luck to make a girlfriend I think :)
Watch the movie Next, he does that in the movie, and other things
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
No, it's completely destroyed. When you turn around, it magically appears back from nothing.
lol, I doubt it's that simple, you must be sarcastic... would be interesting to know a bit how it works. I don't know so much about these computer things as most people here.
In dreams and reality, things exists in our memory when we're not looking at them, and I've heard that it's similar for games, that things always exist somewhere in memory.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Question: If I'm playing an FPS game and I'm facing a wall, does the rest of the game-world exist behind me? Maybe somewhere in memory at least, right?
Bobo the King wrote:
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Man, this site was down the entire day yesterday. I hope it wasn't my giant post on the previous page that caused the server to overload with everyone trying to respond to it.
Anyway, I shut down my mind and I'm back from nothing with full power to generate universes. Warp earlier said that the world is consistent, which makes it different from dreams for example. But dreams are often indistinguishable from "reality", until we wake up. So this reality could seem unreal too when we wake up in an even more real world of spirituality when we die. The consistency in the world is a mere illusion. Everything constantly changes in the universe and nothing is consistent, because every being, every particle, are on their eternal journey back to the equilibrium of nothingness where they come from.
Science has shown us that especially at the very small level of atomic and subatomic particles, the world is very chaotic, like the ancient myths say. It's interesting how similar the creation story of Big Bang is to ancient myths. Scientists have these dualities of matter and antimatter, just like we had yin and yang thousands of years ago. Some scientists say that there was maybe a small imbalance of matter and antimatter, and that's why the universe exists. That's what the ancient egyptian Ogdoad says too. Non-existence can't exist because otherwise it wouldn't be non-existence. But it's still the basis of reality because it doesn't need any conditions in order to exist. So nothing externalizes from its infinity and creates a separation that creates consciousness. This way, by creating an illusion of everything, reality can be logical because nothingness can at least appear to be what it is (non-existent). Unity needs dualism to be logical. This way we get the holy trinity.
Dreams are the beginning stages of the universe, before the actual universe is loaded on the morning. Our universe is destroyed every day we go to sleep, then on the morning it is created from nothing again, because only nothing can stay in nothing forever.
marzojr wrote:
I said it must assume at least as much as the assumption about an external world.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Thanks Kuwaga, those seem interesting. I would say there is only one cosmic mind (or "God") that expresses its infinity and limits through everything. Because all brains and bodies are different, the mind turns out different depending on the body.
It's hard to think of a universe could start from scratch somewhere in the past without a mind and develop to this point. Natural laws have very limited creative powers, and materialism also doesn't seem to have any explanation on what they are, what causes them or why they behave like they do.
If everything is in the mind, the past is also in the mind (memory), so the problem lies in explaining how the mind/universe is continuously created at the present moment rather than in the past.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
marzojr wrote:
it must assume at least as much as the hypothesis that there is an external world (mechanisms for how minds can exist outside of brains, as are all minds we can observe to exist; how these minds came to be; how these minds can be intelligent, self-aware and able to generate a shared illusion of a consistent external world; etc), so it is not simpler;
I don't see why it would need to "assume a hypothesis that there is an external world". How the mind and self-awareness is created from nothingness is explained metaphorically in mythology such as the Norse creation stories. Maybe the nothingness is what you refer to when you say that there has to be an external world, but nothingness is not an hypothesis, but a logical necessity and starting point (and also the end point, because it's the Alpha and Omega in the Bible), as it's the only thing that requires no justification for 'existing'.
I also don't think consciousness can exist without brains or bodies, we always have to limit ourselves to a body (even if it may be different after this life) in order to have something to identify ourselves with, in order to exist.
It is just as unfalsifiable as the assumption that there is an external world outside your mind;
I guess the difference is that an external world is an assumption, but consciuosness is not an assumption because we know we exist. So even though the sensation "I am" may not be possible to falsify, it is nevertheless a reality, which is something that cannot be said with certainty about the world.
Furthermore, if there is a world outside consciousness, how would it be possible for us to be conscious of it? If you observe or feel something, it means that it's in your mind.
if you assume that there isn't external world and act like it, but you are wrong, you can get severely injured or dead;
Maybe if you don't understand how it works. A videogame has no external reality either, but it doesn't follow that there are no rules and that we can walk through a doors for example... or well, as TASers, we know there are exceptions to rules, but it's very rare for a person to be so conscious of reality as Jesus, that they can walk on water for instance.
Thinking that everything is an illusion doesn't change anything about it, it still feels as real as always, because the mind will keep rejecting that it's an illusion, to make it seem real. However, with technology, the limitations of the illusion disappear more and more. For example, telepathy is considered fiction, because it assumes that we are all connected and one, but with cellphones, technology has made us realize that connection again. As far as mind-based science goes, that is telepathy, because it's a mind connecting to another mind, and there is no external world, the cellphones are just part of the mind.
If you really realize that everything is an illusion though, it will cause the mind to disappear like Buddha did when he attained nirvana. He realized that his ego was just a thought, so the universe disappeared for him, because the duality of me+world ceased to exist. So in that sense, I can agree that the idea can be considered to be "dangerous", because the idea can make us cease to exist and return to reality, which the mind fears.
The same danger-argument could be used against the idea of an external world, that it can lead to evil and death, because we perceive everyone to be separate from us, so we fear them and get angry at small differences, can't love them as much as ourselves, which leads to war and so on. When we realize that everything is one, we don't have to take everything so seriously, we can love everyone as ourselves.
Even though modern science doesn't agree that the mind creates everything, it's still discovering those things, like our oneness with the universe, the illusion of matter (99% space), because modern science is also just a tool for the mind.
Warp wrote:
One thing that in my opinion speaks a lot in favor of the world actually existing is that it behaves consistently.
So does a videogame world, but that doesn't mean that the characters live in an external world. But of course, there is inconsistencies here too, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about this. We would all agree with each other and not ask any questions about anything, because everything would be logical and self-evident.
According to them, even rocks were "conscious" at some level, and they tended towards a natural state, such as being on the ground, which is why rocks fall to the ground.
Every illusion and separated object tries to fall back into the nothingness where they came from. That's the cause of gravity for example. That's why rocks attract rocks, males and females attract, creation and evolution attract, and so on. But there is also repulsion between all dualities in the mind. Even though rocks attract, their electromagnetic nature also causes them to repel each other, so that they can't be quite one. Oneness is only possible in the mind.
The behavior of the universe is not dependent on your mental state. It doesn't matter if you are asleep, emotional, delusional, hallucinating, drugged, sick or mentally injured, the universe will still work in a completely consistent manner, as it always has.
Well, that would be true if you assume that there is a universe outside the mind. But if we don't assume that, there's many ways our mind can affect our universe. For example, I can change the universe with my mind by typing this message or moving my hands with my mind.
If the mind and the universe are the same, drugs do change the "universe" (mind), even though it stays largely the same for other minds.
Another example: when I'm done with one day and I'm tired, my mind has to shut down and return to reality, otherwise my universe will start falling apart for resisting the reality of nothingness too long. It's called hallucination, insanity and death. When I have energy on the other hand, I might want to go for a walk outside, which changes the universe, because just like in a videogame, I'm not really moving anywhere when I'm walking, the mind is just generating a universe. That's why it takes energy for things to move, because it takes processing power from the mind to generate a lot of new things.
Then there are of course things like telepathy, telekinesis and so on, which I won't go into now, this post is already too long. These anomalies are by the way, relatively easy to explain if the mind generates the universe, but hard otherwise.
More prominently, though, there was this widespread view that the natural laws governing the Earth were distinct from the natural laws governing the skies.
That's interesting, I haven't heard of that. Are you sure they weren't talking metaphorically? Often in ancient times earth referred to matter and heaven referred to mind.
Bobo the King wrote:
You may not like me calling your theories loony, but that's exactly what they are.
Sure, in your mind, and those who agree with you. But not in my mind.
I know people get offended when I say that some scientific theories wrong, but usually I'm just joking or exagerating, to generate some discussion. So keep that in mind.
After all, my theory is that nothing exists, so if I really believed that, I couldn't discuss, so in order to not disappear into chaos by agreeing with everyone, I have to disagree with some things.
You are wrong about falsifiability
Ok, but why doesn't everyone on this forum and the universe agree with you? Are they objectively wrong?
There is no wave-particle duality
Exactly, just as there is no you and me duality, we are all one mind in multiple bodies and nothing exists in reality. That was my point about the duality: that it's illusionary.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Bobo the King wrote:
Because this is one of your less loony posts in this topic, I'm going to interject to say that a necessary (and perhaps sufficient) condition for a theory to be scientific is that it is falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science. This will keep you from making spurious claims like, "They used the scientific method, but you might disagree that it's science."
Thanks for the ad hominem, and it's good you brought up falsifiability again, because earlier I mentioned (twice) the unfalsifiable assumption about a world outside our mind, which modern science seems to assume to be true. That can't be falsified because we are in our minds and we can't get "out of our minds" :P to observe some hypothetical external world, and all experiments take place in our mind. Mind-based science doesn't have this assumption about the world, which would make it more scientific as far as falsifiability goes.
Generally in modern science it's assumed that consciousness is merely a byproduct of matter (brain). In ancient science, or idealism, it's reversed, that everything is assumed to take place inside the mind, and matter is a byproduct of the mind. The difference is that we don't know if matter is real, while we know that we (the mind) exists.
But it's necessary to have both an illusion and reality, to have a coherent reality. The mind is a duality, and it needs dualities like mind and matter, you and me, creation and evolution, male and female, in order to exist, even though these dualities are just thoughts that the mind creates.
So we have to disagree a bit to push the world outside ourselves, to create a separation between self and the world, so that we can say "I am" (that's how the "I am/God" in the Bible is created).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
p4wn3r wrote:
His point was that using the term "science" to give more credit to spiritual knowledge implicitly implies that scientific knowledge is superior.
I know, and I like I said, I agree that scientific knowledge is superior to any "other knowledge", and I'm not sure knowledge is possible without science because science is a way of gaining knowledge, and I don't know any other way of gaining knowledge except by doing science. So, for example, if the people who created the ideas postulated in religions didn't do science to arrive at their conclusions, it's not knowledge, it's just speculation. But I believe they did do science, although it was mostly a science based on mind rather than matter. You might disagree that it's science, but they used the scientific method, so I think it's appropriate to call it science.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Weatherton wrote:
I got to the initial part where the pedestrian bridge gets taken out and I didn't quite remember what to do, so I tried to jump the gap. I didn't make, but I survived the fall.
Yeah, I actually survived that once too. I'm not sure I was able to replicate it, but in any case, I couldn't find any use of it. This game is really buggy :P Because I knew it's buggy, that's how I actually got the idea to try to fall there.
Thanks for telling about that though, you never know if a bug could be useful.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Tub wrote:
You spent 2 minutes on an 8-page article before giving up? Even the fastest readers in the world couldn't have read it in that timeframe, much less understood it. You certainly didn't click any of the links to acquire the necessary background information, either.
*lolling out loud* thanks for the laughs again, you are a very humorous person. I don't have enough knowledge about computer stuff because I haven't been exposed to computers from early age, so it's hard for me to read that article. It's kinda like if you'd start reading a Wikipedia article about some specifics in quantum physics without having much background knowledge about it.
Kyrsimys wrote:
1) Which ones should I read?
Donald Duck comics, particularly those made by Carl Barks. The Akira manga is also worth reading. Manga is a Japanese name for comic.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Another argument I came up with against the materialistic evolution theory is the DNA molecule. I read that according to the calculations made by Leonard Adleman, a cm3 of DNA can store 1 trillion CDs worth of information, which is 700000 petabytes. Recently on another thread I stated how impressed I was of the efficiency microSD card storage, but compared to DNA, it's nothing. I calculated that DNA is about 1.4 million times more efficient, so it will take a half century for us to reach that kind of storage capacity, if it's even possible (if Moore's law turns into a wall), so how would the evolution believers explain how blind and brainless natural laws could create a much more efficient storage medium than humans -- intelligent beings -- have been able to create?
marzojr wrote:
You also acknowledge in the process just how much important and useful you perceive science to be by trying to frame non-science as science
You seem to be implying that I'm somehow against science because I said that modern science is as good as ancient science.
I guess you also missed earlier when I showed that the so-called non-science (spiritual science) is more scientific than material science, because it makes less assumptions about the universe. Material science makes the unfalsifiable assumption about a world external to consciousness, while spiritual science doesn't make that assumption.
I told about this to Warp earlier and he was so stunned that he couldn't come up with anything to say, probably because he couldn't do anything but agree with me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Religions don't equate to spiritual science, they are just based or inspired by that science, and contain many foolish things, but they also retain some truths that were discovered by spiritual science thousands of years ago. For example in Hinduism and some Muslims (mostly in Sufism) accept the reality of our illusionary world (Maya).
However, even though spiritual science may be more scientific than material science, it doesn't necessarily make it "better" somehow. Spiritual science isn't that useful when dealing with this illusonary world because it deals with reality, which is nothingness. Similarly, it's hard for material science to research the areas that spiritual science researches, like the ultimate cause for existence and truth, because material science only deals with things that can be seen (illusion/memory).
For an accurate worldview, and to understand dualities like the wave-particle duality and the creation-evolution duality, it's necessary to use both sciences. When material science deals with very small and fast things like in quantum physics, it's starting to come close to the spiritual reality that cannot be observed (nothing), so it's becoming increasingly hard to observe those things, because in the end, there is nothing to observe at the fundamental level of an illusionary world.
-- you are basically saying fields of knowledge are worthless unless they are science. Nice job :-p
So, don't you agree that fields of "knowledge" are useless unless they are science? What other systematic and reliable way is there to gain useful and accurate information about the world? How is anything "knowledge" if there's not some science behind it?
Warp wrote:
From all your nonsense, this is the only one I couldn't pass.
I wish you had responded some more because it could have turned into a very humorous discussion.
But let me answer your question about the age of the earth: The age of the earth was found by spiritual scientists thousands of years ago. The astral internet I mentioned earlier contains information about the age of the earth, which you can access if you have the scientific background to do that, but most humans today don't, since we have turned to materialism.
It's probably also possible to calculate the age and future of the earth and our galaxy by using some astrological calculations, like how long a day is, how long a year is, how long a world year is, and so on, until you reach a certain number, then compare those with the life cycle of some other entity. According to spiritual science, everything goes in increasing and decreasing cycles of birth and death, darkness and light.
For example, to calculate one rotation of our galaxy, we would take the world year (earth axis rotation) of 25920 and multiply it by one third of it (8640) we should get the time it takes for our galaxy to rotate once. The number is 223,948,800 years.
Read more here about the age of the earth: http://davidpratt.info/age.htm
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Tub wrote:
Congratulations on using the bible as a measure of storage density o_O
lol. Yeah, I wanted to know how much more efficient a modern storage medium is compared to a paper storage medium.
As for the Wikipedia link, I've skimmed through it before as I guessed it's probably flash technology, but it doesn't say where the information is stored (specifically for micro-SD cards for example) or how large the area is (in the Bible calculation I calculated the entire plastic thing in the equation, so the technology is more efficient than I calculated).
After reading 2 minutes on that page, I must say I don't really comprehend how it works either. Earlier I had considered the possibility that it might be some alien slime-technology since nobody seems to have a simple answer on how it works, but perhaps there is a natural explanation for it. A video of a manufacturing process or an electron microscope photograph might help.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
I'll resurrect this thread because I don't need to create a new thread just for this:
I was wondering if someone knows a bit about how micro-SD cards store information? There are now cards that can store 64GB of information, which surprises me a bit considering how small the card is (about 1 cm2 and 1mm fat). I calculated that this storage system is about 300 million times more effective than the thin papers used in the Bible.
I know how information is stored in discs like Blu ray: it's microscopic "dots" on the disc. So do the micro-SDs store information the same way? When I look at a micro-SD I also noticed that most of it seems to be just empty plastic which doesn't store anything, which makes me wonder how large the actual area where the information is stored is? Any of you computer minded people who can shed some light on this?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
The debate about religion vs science is actually just a debate about two sciences: a spiritual science and a material science. Mind and body, you know, the wave and particle duality. If you solve the puzzle of this duality you know why anything exists, like this discussion and this universe.
Both religion and modern science are partially wrong with their creation and evolution stories, and the other half of them is right. As science progresses, natural selection will only make the true ideas survive, because only they are useful.
Both material science and spiritual science is good. Spiritual science once allowed us to communicate telepathically, but today we have invented cellphones, which will evolve into telepathic-type of communication in the future, because it's more convenient and fast.
Spiritual science once, and still does to some degree, let us explore illusive worlds of dreams and astral realms, but since most humans have lost the ability to control this ability properly, material science has given us videogames that can let us into these virtual worlds again, which will become more and more like reality in the future.
It's interesting how material science lets us get all our superpowers back. There are many other examples but that'll do for now.
Some people today are impressed by computer graphics, like those in Battlefield 3, and argue that natural laws couldn't have created that game, but those graphics are bad compared to those in lucid dreams and the astral (other senses like touch and taste are emulated accurately), so it's not likely that blind mindless natural laws created our brains, because we need great minds and planning to create even these relatively simple computers with i7 processors and Radeon HD 7970s.
Warp wrote:
What the young earth creationists try to accomplish is more or less the reverse of this.
Both modern science and YECs are wrong about the age of the earth. YECs believe the earth is about 6666 years old while modern science says it's 4.5 billion years old. The real age of the earth is about 2 billion, which puts the YECs a bit closer to reality than modern science, although both miss the real age by a couple of billion years.
I like to compare conspiracy theorists to magicians:
Magicians in the past used real supernatural magic, but when the science of magic was lost, people who didn't know real magic started using tricks to imitate what was once real magic.
When science allows us to communicate telepathically once again using technology, and this technology will be lost in the future (because of a natural catastrophe like an asteroid or maybe a global flood), people will laugh at the technology of telepathy, and the word technology will have about the same meaning as magic has today, but all that stuff was once reality.
Oh, and the internet, I forgot to mention earlier... it's a recreation of the natural astral light medium that is all around that stores all information and events that has ever existed... the internet will one day become similarly efficient if something does not destroy us.
I've been reading this page too much, read here if you want: http://www.futuretimeline.net/
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Proof of God:
God said his name is "I am", in other words God is consciousness.
Consciousness exists, therefore God exists.
Warp wrote:
That's more like the nfq that we know and love. For a moment I was wondering if you actually had become more rational. Maybe it was just temporary sanity.
:P But Warp, if you want to be rational, why make the assumption that there is a world outside your consciousness? The idea of an external world outside the mind is unfalsifiable, because there's no way to prove it, because consciousness is the only way of gaining information about the world. For consciousness, we don't need to make any assumptions, because we know we exist. This is a more scientific basis for a worldview, which makes it easier to explain the existence of the universe and consciousness. It's no longer surprising how something can exist instead of nothing, rather, it's just a logical necessity.
If you're interested, here's how galaxies probably come from space:
Galaxies form very slowly over billions of years. First there is just clouds of plasma or gas appearing from space, but over billions of years, it turns more and more physical, and eventually they turn into space (and spirituality) again. There is evidence of this happening: when stars implode, they can turn into black holes, which have very little, or no matter in them. Then there is also the theory by Hawking about the evaporation of black holes. You know all this. Then there is of course evidence of stars forming from clouds of gas.
When Einstein said that matter is energy, people thought he was crazy. Just like people think I'm crazy now, when I say that even space is the same. Einstein probably knew that matter and space were the same thing, that's why he had these theories about the infinite spacetime curvature of black holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
That's not how evolution works. We don't "evolve technologycally" (in the same sense as living being evolve biologically). (You could use the word "evolve" in relation to technology, but it would be just using the same word for two completely unrelated things.)
Yeah, I wasn't talking about biological evolution obviously, just technological evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_evolution
The word evolution just means change over time, so it can be used for things like that.
That being said, I do believe that humans become "better" all the time, also physically, eventually evolving into spiritual entities. It's similar to the evolution of stars and galaxies that I mentioned earlier.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
There's certainly absolutely no reason to believe that the universe could not exist without us. Even the idea would be bizarre in the extreme.
Yeah, I agree, I didn't mean that the world couldn't exist without us, just that it can't exist outside consciousness. I mean, how would it be possible to be conscious of something outside our consciousness? When we observe or feel something, it's in our consciousness.
It's like in a video game: The characters seem to move around in a world external to them, but in reality there is no external world, the characters don't even move, it's all an illusion inside a monitor, like this world is inside consciousness. Not only human consciousness, but the same consciousness that animates/controls everything, including 'inanimate' objects. Some call it god.
There's little reason to believe that human consciousness could exist without a physical brain. Instead, there are tons of reasons to believe that it's tightly bound to it. (For example, an injury to the brain could change your personality and belief system radically and permanently.
Our consciousness is obviously connected to our brain, but not necessarily only able to exist in it. Our brain could work similarly to a TV: If you damage a TV, it could radically change how the picture is displayed, but the broadcasted information would be unchanged, and it exists without the TV.
But I think we have to have a body and brain in order to be conscious, even though these may be less solid in spiritual worlds. Without a body, we would have no limit. Infinity can't be conscious. In order to be conscious, we have to have a way of appearing separate from the world around us.
For instance, quantum fluctuations can produce virtual particle pairs from nothing (and without any apparent cause).
Space isn't the same thing as nothing according to scientists though. I wouldn't be surprised if entire planets and galaxies could appear from space, it's probably full of more spiritual dimensions beyond its apparent emptiness, just like ancient mythology teaches.