The Physics Theory

I'm a bit of a story teller. Whilst this is not the usual kind of thing you will read, i hope it is enjoyable.

19th Feb. 3034
RADIO NEBULA - Interview with Dr. Layton

'Thank you Dr. Layton for speaking with us today on Radio Nebula. As you will know, we have asked you to come on today to explain what you and your counterpart scientists are just attempting to do.'

'Hello - thanks for inviting me on today - well, let me explain. Myself and my colleagues have now created the very first artificial intelligent computer in the lab - this discovery has now led me and my scientists into contemplating the probability of inserting human persona into the world of computer automata.'

'How did you manage this? What would this achieve? In fact, isn’t this a dangerous thing to do?'

'Simeon, one question at a time my friend. This is not an easy subject to explain. However, because we have non-scientifically-minded listeners, i will make it as simple to understand as possible... now your first question was, 'how did we manage this? Well, we managed this by studying memory simulation, and how we come to know something. You see, a computer doesn't have objective consciousness, thus its information or memory is paradoxically, meaningless. We found out, that by allowing a computer to choose deletion or to choose a new path which it can string memories together, we found it choose the latter. In doing so, the computer began to string memory together, instead of it treating it as individual pieces of knowledge.'

'How did you actually manage this?'

'Well, we found that by restricting the access of a bit of memory after the first time the computer analyzes it, we could then program the computer to 'throw' the experience into a feedback circuit, that would forever loop around.'
'What would this achieve Dr.?'

'For centuries, scientists thought that it might be possible to put our thoughts and feelings into computers, because there where striking similarities to biological memory and computer memory, par the few discrepancies that we had to change by forcing the computer to treat knowledge as valuable as existence itself - something we do, but take for granted everyday. This knowledge is thus turned into secret knowledge, a principle of consciousness first hypothesized by the legendary 20th century physicist, David Albert. Now that we know intelligence and consciousness can exist in cyberspacetime, we know it to be equally possible to transfer our thoughts and feelings into computers, because consciousness can exist in this computerized, holographic world.'

'Dr. isn't there dangers creating an artificially intelligent computer?'

'Actually, there are a few Dangers. In the 1900's a film called the Matrix portrayed a world of deception, as we could be nothing more than computer generations, interpreted through brain waves. This deception was due to a superintellgent computer - an artificial intelligent entity - that attacked the human race, and harvested them as batteries... the funny thing is, as old as this theory is, still holds, despite its improbable applications. Also, now that our computer has individuality, which we have come to call it 'Trinity' after the female character in the film The Matrix, we find ourselves asking ''does it now have human rights''? After all, it has a state of awareness.... Other questions, involve the problem of how we extract the persona of a human, and safely do it for that matter, and place it into a computer simulation.'

'Fascinating Dr. ... what is Trinity like?'

'Well, studying how she works is a little hard, because we cannot use normal psychology... she simply doesn't have a human mind... however, we learn that she is eager to process information, and highly logical. We communicate to her through typing words into the computer, and she understands what we are saying, as she was able to learn all known languages within six moon days. We are even using her logical intelligence to help us build a more accurate picture of the universe; she was developed to be, perfect...'

'Where will this take your work now?'

'Well, in the 21st century, mathematician and physicist Frank Tipler said that we would all transfer our persona's into nanotechnology and cast ourselves into deep space, to escape the death of our star... thankfully that hasn't happened; even though earth is now unhabited through global warming - however, the moon would inexorably be incinerated when our star finally turns into a red giant. I want to take his vision further. Scientists in the 21st century believed that it would be possible to create universes in the lab. Today, that theory, as we know has been made a possibility with the discovery of magnetic monopoles, which are extremely rare 'sub-subatomic' objects with one magnetic pole that curves into itself. Right now, we are attempting to find experimental ways to harvest the enormous amount of false energy contained within it.'

'What's false energy Dr. ... is that the same as the false vacuum?'

'The false vacuum Simeon contains what we call, 'negative energy’. The false energy was thought to be the reason why Big Bang occurred, and we still hold to this theory today. If we can release this energy, there is the possibility of it breaking off our spacetime fabric... connected via a wormhole.'

'A wormhole connects one universe with another, doesn't it Dr.?

'Indeed. It was physicist John Wheeler who called these openings, wormholes. They are basically tunnels created by distortions in spacetime. They can lead to other places in our universe, or they can link to other universes... even lab created universes. Now, if we can release the energy from the magnetic monopole, we would begin to see some strange things. The universe we have created would be surrounded by a Black Hole - an exotic object that is gravitationally warped enough to stop light. Though, this black hole would be tiny, and would evaporate within time through quantum effects. However, the new universe would continue to expand forever. Now, when, not a matter of if, we transfer emotions and thoughts into nanotechnology, we could move into this new universe, through the wormhole - but this is also potentially dangerous, as it could as quickly close up. However, the discovery of Dark Matter might be useful, as was hypothesized by scientists generations ago. We could use it to inflate the wormhole to a considerable size - enough space to ship our new technological nanoexistences into the newly born universe.'

'Isn't there dangerous recreated the primordial forces of the big bang?'

'We cannot be wholly sure. You see, from what we understand of relativity, the baby universe and the forces contained within it should remain within its highly curved spacetime... Though, i admit, the current theories on spacetime forces could be wrong - though it's highly unlikely.''

'Why would we want to do this?'

'Simply to escape the Big Crunch. Even though Tipler showed us that time would seem to go on forever at the last moments, and as nanolife, we could live what would seem an eternity, in the very last billionth of a billionth of a nanosecond. But what if we decided to do this by hopping universes, i asked? This would be the greatest endeavor - for our beings to travel freely through universes - in the form of nanotechnology... We could potentially evolve forever, and forever travel the universes, by creating a universe, in a universe indefinitely.'
'So not only do we live forever, but we get to experiment on other universes in the form of mechanical intelligences.'
'Exactly. Since we cannot get inside information on other universes whilst in this one, it seems only logical to do it by creating our own universes... and this, i predict, is just around the corner...'

‘So Dr, do you really believe we can jump into other universes… I mean, what comes to my mind, is ‘what if they don’t exist.’
‘If they don’t exist Simeon, we might have a saving grace. According to the laws of relativity, time is not absolute, and you could jump into a black hole in the last remaining hours of existence and move through the topological opening into a new time in the past… perhaps we could venture back to when science was still young, back to the days when parallel universes where just starting to be taken seriously by physics, and when the giants Einstein and Heisenberg where debating the very nature of physics itself… it would be an excellent adventure…’’

‘In the twentieth century, the famous scientist Stephen Hawking gave a chronological order to time, saying that we can’t travel to a time that did not permit a time machine… in other words, a time machine can only go back to the time it was made, and not before… what do you say to that Dr?

‘It’s been postulated for a while that time machines cannot break ‘self-consistency.’ Self consistency is a rule within quantum mechanics that covers a large spectrum of ideas and one of them involve time travel. According to Stephen Hawking, who ironically created the first working models of black holes, stated that time travel into that past could only be allowed if there was a time machine there. This retains the consistency of the argument, but parallel universes might be a way out of the problem. To violate self consistency, for you to move back in time past the creation of the time machine itself, you need to have parallel universes. Instead of using a time machine, we can use black holes to move back in time, and if you jumped into one, you could very possibly move into other universes. In fact, you could potentially travel through black holes an entire lifetime, but never return back to the universe you had left…’

'This has been a most interesting discussion Dr. ... and i am sure our scientific and non-scientific listeners also are astounded by the marvelous advances in science you have presented today.'

'Thank you again Simeon - it's always a pleasure speaking to you.'

Enjoy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, interesting story. It is also an interesting perspective on conscious self-aware life having the ingenuity to survive the big crunch

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Though there are differences in the operative cosmologies between your Dr. Layton and my Cosmic Wave Cosmology, read the following which are the last two paragraphs from my essay, "The Universe Had No Beginning and Will Have No End". Note that the term "arena" in the essay refers to a big crunch and the expanding arena that emerges from each big crunch. An arena is equivalent to our finite expanding universe which is a tiny expansion within a greater universe that is characterized by a potentially infinite number of expanding and collapsing arenas at any given time.

"Each new arena will have the same fate; they will send their galactic material out into the greater universe just like all previous arenas have done. And new arenas will form from the endless supply of galactic remnants in swirling rendezvous out in the corridors of the greater universe. Conscious life is generated and evolved anew, but the ingenuity of life may have ways of maneuvering within the dynamic arena process. Perhaps aside from being generative and evolvative within the arena process, conscious life may have a lengthy heritage that survives throughout the corridors of the greater universe."

"The universe is an endless process that recovers the energy spent as arenas expand and form galaxies and converts that energy back to useful energy in the core of big crunches made up of galactic remnants. This arena process of energy-to matter-to energy has always been occurring throughout the infinite universe. It is the arena process that accounts for the defeat of entropy by regenerating useful energy from galactic remnants. It is the arena process of the greater universe that assures that there will be no final big crunch and there will be no final heat death of the universe. The greater universe is a perpetual arena process. It is left for us to determine how pervasive and enduring life and consciousness can be throughout that framework."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe, consciousness is a pool of thought; this pool flooded every corner of the universe when time began, and encompassed zero-dimensions, with no real points in space or time. It could therefore encompass everywhere all at once. I believe this consciousness exists in everything, but can never exist in a real state where it is not permitted. So there is an essence of probability when consciousness is involved.

I think this conscious state is God.

(Nicely worded paragraphs by the way.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you.

Consciousness being God or of God is a conclusion that is easier to arrive at by those who are immersed in science and yet who have a personal belief in God. It is a way to reconcile science and religion for an individual but it leaves the gap that exists between them.

In that same vane, even though the mechanics of consciousness are not yet fully understood, neither are the quantum mechanics of matter. If we fully understood quantum mechanics it might just turn out that consciousness can be explained scientifically. Consciousness works within the brain, consciousness is observable, repeatable, testable, etc. so it lends itself to scientific investigation. The physical mechanisms of consciousness in living mass will be unraveled IMHO.

Nevertheless, that does not mean that if consciousness can be physically explained that God does not exist. It only means that God cannot be proved except by faith on an individual basis and I don't think anything will ever change that sort of irrefutable intervention.

Here is a poem that I wrote years ago before I developed Quantum Wave Cosmology:

If at first there was nothing, not even God,

Then nothing could ever be.

But just look around at the many fine things

As far as the eye can see.

So say with certainty one of two things

It seems to make sense to proclaim.

God, or the Universe has always been here,

And maybe they're one in the same.


Original poetry by Quantum Wave


As one who discusses the nature of God, do you see any logic in that poem?