Matrixism - A religion based on The Matrix
- Thread starter DynoMight
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
He doesn't say that. He says the big bang beginning of the present universe followed on from the end of the previous universe.
Penrose's non-conformal cyclic universe theory is far too complicated to be expressed in one sentence, and he does not try to do away with the big bang but with inflation.
Like most of the other silly memes you post, this one is an incomplete half-truth. It is a pity you continue to spread misinformation here, imo
It is like a big old house with screen doors and 5 kids in Kansas summer.
It just keeps banging and banging
It just keeps banging and banging
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
It has to do with Matrices (Matrixes), I understand.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...bel-laureate-roger-penrose-1730064-2020-10-09
Dr. Michio Kaku speaks about, "Flatlines",
Which makes me think of Barbour's "Platonia".
Kaku:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(book)
Barbour: And, Platonia,
https://www.edge.org/conversation/julian_barbour-the-end-of-time
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...bel-laureate-roger-penrose-1730064-2020-10-09
Dr. Michio Kaku speaks about, "Flatlines",
Which makes me think of Barbour's "Platonia".
Kaku:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(book)
Barbour: And, Platonia,
https://www.edge.org/conversation/julian_barbour-the-end-of-time
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
What does? Physics? What do you mean you understand?
Of course there are matrixes in physics/maths. Where do you think the word originated? Does that justify your version of Matrixism involving nde's, etc? Penrose says our universe started with (what appeared to be) a big bang, but which arose from the (non-conformal) photons left after the death of a previous universe. Is Penrose a Matrixist? Is Kaku a Matrixist?
Because you take a word from physics doesn't make it mean what you want it to mean.
Do you know anything about Roger Penrose, or did you just find a half-truth meme with his name on it? Do you understand even a little about any of the science whose memes you keep trying to use to justify your Matrixism belief? Why don't you make an effort to learn more?
You cannot make the science fit your simulation theory by digging up memes about science you haven't spent any time trying to get a proper handle on, imo
Why don't you stop abusing these scientists' work and just stick to what you do know and understand?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
Sorry. I do apologise for my tone in the above post. But IMO theists have to understand that this sort of 'science woo' is a major cause of the dismissive attitude of modern scientists to 'faith' of any form? A sincere forum like this needs to try to correct the misinformation spread by trivial memes shared on from various shallow social media platforms, imo. Anyway our IO forum should not become one of them?
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
I get some reading in.
My revelation begins though with John's declaration involving, "the sin of the world", and my interest in the NDE, regarding the accounts explaining it by Experiencers.
What drives humanity since the Fall, which equates with every other creature on the planet.
"The Survival Instinct", and resulting ego.
My revelation begins though with John's declaration involving, "the sin of the world", and my interest in the NDE, regarding the accounts explaining it by Experiencers.
What drives humanity since the Fall, which equates with every other creature on the planet.
"The Survival Instinct", and resulting ego.
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
Interesting how you still manage to get it all so wrong then?
It could be a case of confirmation bias -- that you are going into these guys looking for what supports your own agenda? I do like how Jim Al Khalili makes quantum physics accessible to the non-mathematical layman. Not sure the Roger Penrose tome does likewise, lol?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality
The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe is a book on modern physics by the British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, published in 2004. It covers the basics of the Standard Model of particle physics, discussing general relativity and quantum mechanics, and discusses the possible unification of these two theories.
The book discusses the physical world. Many fields that 19th century scientists believed were separate, such as electricity and magnetism, are aspects of more fundamental properties. Some texts, both popular and university level, introduce these topics as separate concepts, and then reveal their combination much later. The Road to Reality reverses this process, first expounding the underlying mathematics of space–time, then showing how electromagnetism and other phenomena fall out fully formed.
The book is just over 1100 pages, of which the first 383 are dedicated to mathematics—Penrose's goal is to acquaint inquisitive readers with the mathematical tools needed to understand the remainder of the book in depth. Physics enters the discussion on page 383 with the topic of space–time. From there it moves on to fields in spacetime, deriving the classical electrical and magnetic forces from first principles; that is, if one lives in spacetime of a particular sort, these fields develop naturally as a consequence. Energy and conservation laws appear in the discussion of Lagrangians and Hamiltonians, before moving on to a full discussion of quantum physics, particle theory and quantum field theory. A discussion of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is given a full chapter; superstrings are given a chapter near the end of the book, as are loop gravity and twistor theory. The book ends with an exploration of other theories and possible ways forward.
The final chapters reflect Penrose's personal perspective, which differs in some respects from what he regards as the current fashion among theoretical physicists. He is skeptical about string theory, to which he prefers loop quantum gravity. He is optimistic about his own approach, twistor theory. He also holds some controversial views about the role of consciousness in physics, as laid out in his earlier books (see Shadows of the Mind).
The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe is a book on modern physics by the British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, published in 2004. It covers the basics of the Standard Model of particle physics, discussing general relativity and quantum mechanics, and discusses the possible unification of these two theories.
The book discusses the physical world. Many fields that 19th century scientists believed were separate, such as electricity and magnetism, are aspects of more fundamental properties. Some texts, both popular and university level, introduce these topics as separate concepts, and then reveal their combination much later. The Road to Reality reverses this process, first expounding the underlying mathematics of space–time, then showing how electromagnetism and other phenomena fall out fully formed.
The book is just over 1100 pages, of which the first 383 are dedicated to mathematics—Penrose's goal is to acquaint inquisitive readers with the mathematical tools needed to understand the remainder of the book in depth. Physics enters the discussion on page 383 with the topic of space–time. From there it moves on to fields in spacetime, deriving the classical electrical and magnetic forces from first principles; that is, if one lives in spacetime of a particular sort, these fields develop naturally as a consequence. Energy and conservation laws appear in the discussion of Lagrangians and Hamiltonians, before moving on to a full discussion of quantum physics, particle theory and quantum field theory. A discussion of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is given a full chapter; superstrings are given a chapter near the end of the book, as are loop gravity and twistor theory. The book ends with an exploration of other theories and possible ways forward.
The final chapters reflect Penrose's personal perspective, which differs in some respects from what he regards as the current fashion among theoretical physicists. He is skeptical about string theory, to which he prefers loop quantum gravity. He is optimistic about his own approach, twistor theory. He also holds some controversial views about the role of consciousness in physics, as laid out in his earlier books (see Shadows of the Mind).
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
That you are misrepresenting the work of all the scientists whose names your memes on these forums have included so far? Pretty much, yes.
What do you understand of Penrose's theory of a non-conformal cyclic cosmology? Nothing deep -- just the basic idea of what Penrose proposes happens at 'the end of time'? How does the universe end? Not whether or not you agree but in your own mind since you quote him, what you understand of what he says?
Last edited:
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
RJM, I'm not going to debate you about Penrose' work.
I brought up what he stated, after I expressed how that at the Fall, everything changed!
It may have caused this universes beginning, in time and space!
As the evolved, animal/mammal...
Aren't we so cool, RJM? We are the Cats Meow no?
Figuring out so much, over time, developing the technology we have? (Though, we can't seem to figure out how to keep everyone fed however.)
Our additional dna, our extra forebrain, our opposible thumbs... Yeah!
We Got it, all right?
Sure.
Just a thought... with the latest info we've received about "UAE's", the way they are charactetized, and can easily evade our most powerful flight technology... do you think that Dr. Michio Kaku is on a right path?
It doesn't seem to you, that we are very much like his two dimensional flatlanders?
With someone reaching down to us and manipulating these UFO's from seemingly an extra dimensional source?
Shutting down a flight pilots dashboard, before he gets a chance to set off a missle at it?
Evading our craft and showing up in a location they somehow knew the pilot would be heading to?
Do ya Mortal?
Not so much after all, really. RJM.
Last night I was hearing about two military pilots accounts, from both Iran and from Peru.
Straight from the pilots mouths.
Are the above accounts spiritual? Or, Hyperdimensional? Or?
I brought up what he stated, after I expressed how that at the Fall, everything changed!
It may have caused this universes beginning, in time and space!
As the evolved, animal/mammal...
Aren't we so cool, RJM? We are the Cats Meow no?
Figuring out so much, over time, developing the technology we have? (Though, we can't seem to figure out how to keep everyone fed however.)
Our additional dna, our extra forebrain, our opposible thumbs... Yeah!
We Got it, all right?
Sure.
Just a thought... with the latest info we've received about "UAE's", the way they are charactetized, and can easily evade our most powerful flight technology... do you think that Dr. Michio Kaku is on a right path?
It doesn't seem to you, that we are very much like his two dimensional flatlanders?
With someone reaching down to us and manipulating these UFO's from seemingly an extra dimensional source?
Shutting down a flight pilots dashboard, before he gets a chance to set off a missle at it?
Evading our craft and showing up in a location they somehow knew the pilot would be heading to?
Do ya Mortal?
Not so much after all, really. RJM.
Last night I was hearing about two military pilots accounts, from both Iran and from Peru.
Straight from the pilots mouths.
Are the above accounts spiritual? Or, Hyperdimensional? Or?
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
Geo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 263
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 28
Again, bottom line, your not a believer.
Yet.
Issues...
A RENOWNED theoretical physicist claims to have proof of God through theoretical particles.
By SEAN MARTIN
13:37, Mon, Dec 12, 2016 | UPDATED: 20:13, Mon, Dec 12, 2016
.
Michio Kaku, who is highly regarded in the scientific community thanks to his work in helping to popularise the String Theory, has developed a new theory which he says points to the existence of God or an intelligent designer for the universe.
The American scientist, who is a professor in theoretical physics at the City College of New York, came to his conclusion by studying “primitive semi – radius tachyons.
These tachyons are theoretical particles that have the ability to “unstick” matter in the universe or vacuum space between particles, essentially leaving everything free from the influence of the universe.
This led Mr Kaku to the conclusion that the universe was created through design, and not random chaos and that we could be living in a type of “matrix
He said of his research: "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.
'Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore.
'To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.
With all of the calculations that would need to go into creating a successful universe, Mr Kaku says that God is a mathematician – which could imply that we are living in a simulation, which many experts are considering the notion of.'
He said in a YouTube video: 'The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician.'
'The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace. ' "
Thomas, I presented the various scriptures from the Bible, and they are valid.
All you're saying to me is you haven't considered the Wachowski's illustration as true, haven't considered that they carefully discussed these things amongst themselves growing up, and you hadn't stepped back from our situation to objectively considered what is truth.
Both from scripture, or from science.
Max Tegmark - "Our Mathematical Universe".
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
@Geo
But it appears you need to be careful about hearing only what you want to hear?
Let’s accept that Michio Kaku believes in God. That is not so unusual for a scientist as some would like to think.
My natural reaction was to do a quick google search for an article on the subject:
Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God
In this 2018 article by someone named Robby Berman, Michio Kaku responds to this statement:
“Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studiesquoted Kaku as saying, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
By saying this:
“Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."
"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.”
Perhaps you are familiar with the concept that science needs to be ‘falsifiable’ – meaning even the theory of gravity is open to being proved wrong, if someone finds a way to do so. If a theory is not open to be proven wrong -- even though it has proved right thousands of times -- it is not regarded as true science.
I’m aware that most people don’t open links, so I include the rest of the article here. Not saying it’s true or false, but making sure to tell the whole story:
Part of the problem, of course, is that "God" has different meanings to different people, and in discussing It/Him/Her, there’s apt to be confusion. And yet believers continue to ask scientists this question, perhaps seeking scientific confirmation for their faith. They want to know if Kaku’s an atheist, but when we can’t agree on what God is, “atheist” has even less meaning.
In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”
It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.”
He’s stuck by what he sees as its exquisite simplicity, pointing out that all of the laws of physics could fit on a single sheet of paper, and, “In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long.” He asserts that with his string field theory, he had that one-inch explanation of everything, but that with new developments in membrane theory, he needs a little more room. For now.
Still, Kaku says, this will happen. Physics is the opposite of most other fields of study, he says: With every new advance it gets simpler, and in that lies his sense of wonder. “So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty, [the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.”
Kaku recounts:
"When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe."
That other kind of God clearly has less appeal for Kaku, as it generally does for physicists and other scientists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who says that believers he talks to tell him that God is all-powerful and good, but when he looks at ”all the ways Earth wants to kill us,” he just doesn’t see how both could be true.
So when Kaku asserts that the goal of string field theory is to “read the mind of God,” it’s important to remember he’s talking about Einstein’s God of Order. To “read the mind of God” would be to find that (one-inch) equation that explains everything in the cosmos. Bearing in mind the continual game of leapfrog going on between math and physics, and that the latest leap is physics' string theory, which requires a new type of math, Kaku mischievously suggests that the ultimate solution to the schism between physicists and mathematicians could be that God is a mathematician. And, he says, the mind of God — the explanation of Order — may turn out to be string field theory’s “cosmic music,” the resonating of strings through 11-dimensional hyperspace.
All good
But it appears you need to be careful about hearing only what you want to hear?
Let’s accept that Michio Kaku believes in God. That is not so unusual for a scientist as some would like to think.
Fair enough, although The Express from which you take your article is regarded as a bit of a clickbait rag newspaper in this part of the woods. Not your fault for not knowing that, of course.
My natural reaction was to do a quick google search for an article on the subject:
Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God
In this 2018 article by someone named Robby Berman, Michio Kaku responds to this statement:
“Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studiesquoted Kaku as saying, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
By saying this:
“Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."
"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.”
Perhaps you are familiar with the concept that science needs to be ‘falsifiable’ – meaning even the theory of gravity is open to being proved wrong, if someone finds a way to do so. If a theory is not open to be proven wrong -- even though it has proved right thousands of times -- it is not regarded as true science.
I’m aware that most people don’t open links, so I include the rest of the article here. Not saying it’s true or false, but making sure to tell the whole story:
Part of the problem, of course, is that "God" has different meanings to different people, and in discussing It/Him/Her, there’s apt to be confusion. And yet believers continue to ask scientists this question, perhaps seeking scientific confirmation for their faith. They want to know if Kaku’s an atheist, but when we can’t agree on what God is, “atheist” has even less meaning.
In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”
It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.”
He’s stuck by what he sees as its exquisite simplicity, pointing out that all of the laws of physics could fit on a single sheet of paper, and, “In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long.” He asserts that with his string field theory, he had that one-inch explanation of everything, but that with new developments in membrane theory, he needs a little more room. For now.
Still, Kaku says, this will happen. Physics is the opposite of most other fields of study, he says: With every new advance it gets simpler, and in that lies his sense of wonder. “So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty, [the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.”
Kaku recounts:
"When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe."
That other kind of God clearly has less appeal for Kaku, as it generally does for physicists and other scientists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who says that believers he talks to tell him that God is all-powerful and good, but when he looks at ”all the ways Earth wants to kill us,” he just doesn’t see how both could be true.
So when Kaku asserts that the goal of string field theory is to “read the mind of God,” it’s important to remember he’s talking about Einstein’s God of Order. To “read the mind of God” would be to find that (one-inch) equation that explains everything in the cosmos. Bearing in mind the continual game of leapfrog going on between math and physics, and that the latest leap is physics' string theory, which requires a new type of math, Kaku mischievously suggests that the ultimate solution to the schism between physicists and mathematicians could be that God is a mathematician. And, he says, the mind of God — the explanation of Order — may turn out to be string field theory’s “cosmic music,” the resonating of strings through 11-dimensional hyperspace.
All good
Last edited: