Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Universe as Simulation

Expand Messages
  • Mr. J
    Well - The reason I believe is because if just feels right. It really doesn t change anything as the rules, constants and algorithms are already in place. We
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
      Well -

      The reason I "believe" is because if just feels right.


      It really doesn't change anything as the rules,
      constants and algorithms are already in place. We may
      be able to infer them, but the trick is placing new
      algorithms within the machine.

      We never create new rules or constants but everything
      we create is really just another set of algorithms.
      Basically instructional sets.

      So if this is so, it should be possible to go
      somewhere instantly in the universe and not just
      travel through it. Literally set your coordinates, run
      the algorithm and be there between refresh rates.

      It also quickly allows for the mergers of science and
      religion too. It even allows for multiple gods.

      Maybe mass == memory. A memorized form or forms of
      energy in time.

      I think we think too much about molecular and atomic
      interactions when they are actually just rule sets and
      algorithms.

      Maybe homeopathy is just the base algorithm left
      behind.......

      Early morning poetry as I wait for my Free Energy
      Crack.

      -j-








      --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@...> wrote:

      > So, you have no way of telling. Then, why do you
      > believe?
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: Mr. J <jaemsjohn@...>
      > To: Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@...>
      > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:00:38 PM
      > Subject: Re: The Universe as Simulation
      >
      > Well unfortunately I am not a mathematician.
      >
      >
      > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@...>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > --- Huh? You're a poet. Send me calculations.
      > >
      > > In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J"
      > > <jaemsjohn@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1381&category=Science
      > > >
      > > > The Universe as a simulation is very interesting
      > > to
      > > > me. It makes more sense to my thinking.
      > > >
      > > > Gravity can then simply be defined as that. All
      > > > objects will pull to each other via this
      > > formula.....
      > > > there that is it. No gravitons and no
      > > > space warping. It just is.
      > > >
      > > > Then everything simply falls into algorithms
      > > versus
      > > > any laws. And
      > > > a algorithm can be sequential. In other words
      > this
      > > one
      > > > won't start
      > > > until the last one completes with the answer X.
      > > >
      > > > The refresh rate then simplifies the speed of
      > > light
      > > > and even zero
      > > > point creation of stuff too. Happened on the
      > > refresh.
      > > >
      > > > on and on.
      > > >
      > > > So how do we get free energy then? Well we have
      > to
      > > > hack it
      > > > from the inside and that usually means inserting
      > > some
      > > > algorithms
      > > > back into the system.
      > > >
      > > > -j-
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      ______________________________________________________________________
      > > ______________
      > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
      > > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      > Be a better friend, newshound, and
      > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
      http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    • Gary S.
      So we really are in The Matrix? IMHO, the movie didn t depict the inside of a sim very well -- the premise, that the rules can be bent, seems alien to a real
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 1, 2008
        So we really are in The Matrix?

        IMHO, the movie didn't depict the inside of a sim very well -- the
        premise, that "the rules can be bent," seems alien to a real
        computer environment. Objects in a sim are really just data, the
        sim's programs operate ON the data, the data objects themselves
        cannot initiate a new routine.

        Moving instantly to another point in the sim's space would be
        limited by program hard limits like max. values and simulation step
        size. Short of "breaking out" from the data object space into
        routine space, say via a buffer overflow, I'd say it would be pretty
        tough to even bend any of the rules the smallest bit. As for
        generating a buffer overflow, pretty hard to do when the overlying
        sim is running what the data objects are doing.

        --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J" <jaemsjohn@...> wrote:
        >
        > Well -
        >
        > The reason I "believe" is because if just feels right.
        >
        >
        > It really doesn't change anything as the rules,
        > constants and algorithms are already in place. We may
        > be able to infer them, but the trick is placing new
        > algorithms within the machine.
        >
        > We never create new rules or constants but everything
        > we create is really just another set of algorithms.
        > Basically instructional sets.
        >
        > So if this is so, it should be possible to go
        > somewhere instantly in the universe and not just
        > travel through it. Literally set your coordinates, run
        > the algorithm and be there between refresh rates.
        >
        > It also quickly allows for the mergers of science and
        > religion too. It even allows for multiple gods.
        >
        > Maybe mass == memory. A memorized form or forms of
        > energy in time.
        >
        > I think we think too much about molecular and atomic
        > interactions when they are actually just rule sets and
        > algorithms.
        >
        > Maybe homeopathy is just the base algorithm left
        > behind.......
        >
        > Early morning poetry as I wait for my Free Energy
        > Crack.
        >
        > -j-
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@...> wrote:
        >
        > > So, you have no way of telling. Then, why do you
        > > believe?
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message ----
        > > From: Mr. J <jaemsjohn@...>
        > > To: Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@...>
        > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:00:38 PM
        > > Subject: Re: The Universe as Simulation
        > >
        > > Well unfortunately I am not a mathematician.
        > >
        > >
        > > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@...>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > > --- Huh? You're a poet. Send me calculations.
        > > >
        > > > In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J"
        > > > <jaemsjohn@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1381&category=Science
        > > > >
        > > > > The Universe as a simulation is very interesting
        > > > to
        > > > > me. It makes more sense to my thinking.
        > > > >
        > > > > Gravity can then simply be defined as that. All
        > > > > objects will pull to each other via this
        > > > formula.....
        > > > > there that is it. No gravitons and no
        > > > > space warping. It just is.
        > > > >
        > > > > Then everything simply falls into algorithms
        > > > versus
        > > > > any laws. And
        > > > > a algorithm can be sequential. In other words
        > > this
        > > > one
        > > > > won't start
        > > > > until the last one completes with the answer X.
        > > > >
        > > > > The refresh rate then simplifies the speed of
        > > > light
        > > > > and even zero
        > > > > point creation of stuff too. Happened on the
        > > > refresh.
        > > > >
        > > > > on and on.
        > > > >
        > > > > So how do we get free energy then? Well we have
        > > to
        > > > > hack it
        > > > > from the inside and that usually means inserting
        > > > some
        > > > > algorithms
        > > > > back into the system.
        > > > >
        > > > > -j-
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        _____________________________________________________________________
        _
        > > > ______________
        > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
        > > > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        _____________________________________________________________________
        _______________
        > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
        > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
        > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
        >
        >
        >
        >
        _____________________________________________________________________
        _______________
        > Be a better friend, newshound, and
        > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
        http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
        >
      • Tom Schum
        A simulation runs on a platform. If we inhabit the simulation, how can we exist outside it? And, how can we know that we are inhabiting a simulation instead
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 2, 2008
          A simulation runs on a platform. If we inhabit the simulation, how
          can we exist outside it? And, how can we know that we are inhabiting
          a simulation instead of reality?

          Even if we could know one way or the other, how could we effect any
          sort of change in the simulation, since it would be all the reality
          we might know, and not put there by us either?

          This seems less a matter of physics than philosophy.

          Tom Schum

          --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
          >
          > So we really are in The Matrix?
          >
          > IMHO, the movie didn't depict the inside of a sim very well -- the
          > premise, that "the rules can be bent," seems alien to a real
          > computer environment. Objects in a sim are really just data, the
          > sim's programs operate ON the data, the data objects themselves
          > cannot initiate a new routine.
          >
          > Moving instantly to another point in the sim's space would be
          > limited by program hard limits like max. values and simulation step
          > size. Short of "breaking out" from the data object space into
          > routine space, say via a buffer overflow, I'd say it would be
          pretty
          > tough to even bend any of the rules the smallest bit. As for
          > generating a buffer overflow, pretty hard to do when the overlying
          > sim is running what the data objects are doing.
          >
          > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J" <jaemsjohn@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Well -
          > >
          > > The reason I "believe" is because if just feels right.
          > >
          > >
          > > It really doesn't change anything as the rules,
          > > constants and algorithms are already in place. We may
          > > be able to infer them, but the trick is placing new
          > > algorithms within the machine.
          > >
          > > We never create new rules or constants but everything
          > > we create is really just another set of algorithms.
          > > Basically instructional sets.
          > >
          > > So if this is so, it should be possible to go
          > > somewhere instantly in the universe and not just
          > > travel through it. Literally set your coordinates, run
          > > the algorithm and be there between refresh rates.
          > >
          > > It also quickly allows for the mergers of science and
          > > religion too. It even allows for multiple gods.
          > >
          > > Maybe mass == memory. A memorized form or forms of
          > > energy in time.
          > >
          > > I think we think too much about molecular and atomic
          > > interactions when they are actually just rule sets and
          > > algorithms.
          > >
          > > Maybe homeopathy is just the base algorithm left
          > > behind.......
          > >
          > > Early morning poetry as I wait for my Free Energy
          > > Crack.
          > >
          > > -j-
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@> wrote:
          > >
          > > > So, you have no way of telling. Then, why do you
          > > > believe?
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ----- Original Message ----
          > > > From: Mr. J <jaemsjohn@>
          > > > To: Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@>
          > > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:00:38 PM
          > > > Subject: Re: The Universe as Simulation
          > > >
          > > > Well unfortunately I am not a mathematician.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@>
          > > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > > --- Huh? You're a poet. Send me calculations.
          > > > >
          > > > > In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J"
          > > > > <jaemsjohn@> wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1381&category=Science
          > > > > >
          > > > > > The Universe as a simulation is very interesting
          > > > > to
          > > > > > me. It makes more sense to my thinking.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Gravity can then simply be defined as that. All
          > > > > > objects will pull to each other via this
          > > > > formula.....
          > > > > > there that is it. No gravitons and no
          > > > > > space warping. It just is.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Then everything simply falls into algorithms
          > > > > versus
          > > > > > any laws. And
          > > > > > a algorithm can be sequential. In other words
          > > > this
          > > > > one
          > > > > > won't start
          > > > > > until the last one completes with the answer X.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > The refresh rate then simplifies the speed of
          > > > > light
          > > > > > and even zero
          > > > > > point creation of stuff too. Happened on the
          > > > > refresh.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > on and on.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > So how do we get free energy then? Well we have
          > > > to
          > > > > > hack it
          > > > > > from the inside and that usually means inserting
          > > > > some
          > > > > > algorithms
          > > > > > back into the system.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > -j-
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
          _____________________________________________________________________
          > _
          > > > > ______________
          > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
          > > > > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
          _____________________________________________________________________
          > _______________
          > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
          > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
          > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          _____________________________________________________________________
          > _______________
          > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
          > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
          > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
          > >
          >
        • krishields
          ... I agree Tom. It doesnt matter weather or not it is a simulation, we still have the rules that we must follow. Weather you want to call it hacking base code
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 2, 2008
            --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > A simulation runs on a platform. If we inhabit the simulation, how
            > can we exist outside it? And, how can we know that we are inhabiting
            > a simulation instead of reality?
            >
            > Even if we could know one way or the other, how could we effect any
            > sort of change in the simulation, since it would be all the reality
            > we might know, and not put there by us either?
            >
            > This seems less a matter of physics than philosophy.
            >
            > Tom Schum
            >


            I agree Tom. It doesnt matter weather or not it is a simulation, we
            still have the rules that we must follow. Weather you want to call it
            hacking base code in a simulation or re-arranging energy in reality to
            suit your needs, its all the same thing, just different descriptions.
            Energy in reality would be the same thing as base code in a simulation.
            What matters is what can we do with what we are given, weather it
            be "real" or "simulated".

            Kris
          • xingu1306
            Tom, The other day I saw this link about the simulation on supercomputers http://www.stage6.com/user/Das3Zehn/video/2017024/24C3---Simulating-
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 9, 2008
              Tom,

              The other day I saw this link about the simulation on supercomputers

              http://www.stage6.com/user/Das3Zehn/video/2017024/24C3---Simulating-
              the-Universe-on-Supercomputers

              I have to say it is not very convincing. I did bother to see the
              whole video.


              --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > A simulation runs on a platform. If we inhabit the simulation, how
              > can we exist outside it? And, how can we know that we are
              inhabiting
              > a simulation instead of reality?
              >
              > Even if we could know one way or the other, how could we effect any
              > sort of change in the simulation, since it would be all the reality
              > we might know, and not put there by us either?
              >
              > This seems less a matter of physics than philosophy.
              >
              > Tom Schum
              >
              > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@> wrote:
              > >
              > > So we really are in The Matrix?
              > >
              > > IMHO, the movie didn't depict the inside of a sim very well --
              the
              > > premise, that "the rules can be bent," seems alien to a real
              > > computer environment. Objects in a sim are really just data, the
              > > sim's programs operate ON the data, the data objects themselves
              > > cannot initiate a new routine.
              > >
              > > Moving instantly to another point in the sim's space would be
              > > limited by program hard limits like max. values and simulation
              step
              > > size. Short of "breaking out" from the data object space into
              > > routine space, say via a buffer overflow, I'd say it would be
              > pretty
              > > tough to even bend any of the rules the smallest bit. As for
              > > generating a buffer overflow, pretty hard to do when the
              overlying
              > > sim is running what the data objects are doing.
              > >
              > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J" <jaemsjohn@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Well -
              > > >
              > > > The reason I "believe" is because if just feels right.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > It really doesn't change anything as the rules,
              > > > constants and algorithms are already in place. We may
              > > > be able to infer them, but the trick is placing new
              > > > algorithms within the machine.
              > > >
              > > > We never create new rules or constants but everything
              > > > we create is really just another set of algorithms.
              > > > Basically instructional sets.
              > > >
              > > > So if this is so, it should be possible to go
              > > > somewhere instantly in the universe and not just
              > > > travel through it. Literally set your coordinates, run
              > > > the algorithm and be there between refresh rates.
              > > >
              > > > It also quickly allows for the mergers of science and
              > > > religion too. It even allows for multiple gods.
              > > >
              > > > Maybe mass == memory. A memorized form or forms of
              > > > energy in time.
              > > >
              > > > I think we think too much about molecular and atomic
              > > > interactions when they are actually just rule sets and
              > > > algorithms.
              > > >
              > > > Maybe homeopathy is just the base algorithm left
              > > > behind.......
              > > >
              > > > Early morning poetry as I wait for my Free Energy
              > > > Crack.
              > > >
              > > > -j-
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > > So, you have no way of telling. Then, why do you
              > > > > believe?
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > ----- Original Message ----
              > > > > From: Mr. J <jaemsjohn@>
              > > > > To: Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@>
              > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:00:38 PM
              > > > > Subject: Re: The Universe as Simulation
              > > > >
              > > > > Well unfortunately I am not a mathematician.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@>
              > > > > wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > > --- Huh? You're a poet. Send me calculations.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J"
              > > > > > <jaemsjohn@> wrote:
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1381&category=Science
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > The Universe as a simulation is very interesting
              > > > > > to
              > > > > > > me. It makes more sense to my thinking.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Gravity can then simply be defined as that. All
              > > > > > > objects will pull to each other via this
              > > > > > formula.....
              > > > > > > there that is it. No gravitons and no
              > > > > > > space warping. It just is.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Then everything simply falls into algorithms
              > > > > > versus
              > > > > > > any laws. And
              > > > > > > a algorithm can be sequential. In other words
              > > > > this
              > > > > > one
              > > > > > > won't start
              > > > > > > until the last one completes with the answer X.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > The refresh rate then simplifies the speed of
              > > > > > light
              > > > > > > and even zero
              > > > > > > point creation of stuff too. Happened on the
              > > > > > refresh.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > on and on.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > So how do we get free energy then? Well we have
              > > > > to
              > > > > > > hack it
              > > > > > > from the inside and that usually means inserting
              > > > > > some
              > > > > > > algorithms
              > > > > > > back into the system.
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > -j-
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
              _____________________________________________________________________
              > > _
              > > > > > ______________
              > > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
              > > > > > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
              > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
              _____________________________________________________________________
              > > _______________
              > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
              > > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
              > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
              _____________________________________________________________________
              > > _______________
              > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
              > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
              > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • xingu1306
              Forgot to mention that I fell asleep. ... how ... any ... reality ... the
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 9, 2008
                Forgot to mention that I fell asleep.

                --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "xingu1306" <xingu1306@...> wrote:
                >
                > Tom,
                >
                > The other day I saw this link about the simulation on supercomputers
                >
                > http://www.stage6.com/user/Das3Zehn/video/2017024/24C3---Simulating-
                > the-Universe-on-Supercomputers
                >
                > I have to say it is not very convincing. I did bother to see the
                > whole video.
                >
                >
                > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > A simulation runs on a platform. If we inhabit the simulation,
                how
                > > can we exist outside it? And, how can we know that we are
                > inhabiting
                > > a simulation instead of reality?
                > >
                > > Even if we could know one way or the other, how could we effect
                any
                > > sort of change in the simulation, since it would be all the
                reality
                > > we might know, and not put there by us either?
                > >
                > > This seems less a matter of physics than philosophy.
                > >
                > > Tom Schum
                > >
                > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > So we really are in The Matrix?
                > > >
                > > > IMHO, the movie didn't depict the inside of a sim very well --
                > the
                > > > premise, that "the rules can be bent," seems alien to a real
                > > > computer environment. Objects in a sim are really just data,
                the
                > > > sim's programs operate ON the data, the data objects themselves
                > > > cannot initiate a new routine.
                > > >
                > > > Moving instantly to another point in the sim's space would be
                > > > limited by program hard limits like max. values and simulation
                > step
                > > > size. Short of "breaking out" from the data object space into
                > > > routine space, say via a buffer overflow, I'd say it would be
                > > pretty
                > > > tough to even bend any of the rules the smallest bit. As for
                > > > generating a buffer overflow, pretty hard to do when the
                > overlying
                > > > sim is running what the data objects are doing.
                > > >
                > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J" <jaemsjohn@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Well -
                > > > >
                > > > > The reason I "believe" is because if just feels right.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > It really doesn't change anything as the rules,
                > > > > constants and algorithms are already in place. We may
                > > > > be able to infer them, but the trick is placing new
                > > > > algorithms within the machine.
                > > > >
                > > > > We never create new rules or constants but everything
                > > > > we create is really just another set of algorithms.
                > > > > Basically instructional sets.
                > > > >
                > > > > So if this is so, it should be possible to go
                > > > > somewhere instantly in the universe and not just
                > > > > travel through it. Literally set your coordinates, run
                > > > > the algorithm and be there between refresh rates.
                > > > >
                > > > > It also quickly allows for the mergers of science and
                > > > > religion too. It even allows for multiple gods.
                > > > >
                > > > > Maybe mass == memory. A memorized form or forms of
                > > > > energy in time.
                > > > >
                > > > > I think we think too much about molecular and atomic
                > > > > interactions when they are actually just rule sets and
                > > > > algorithms.
                > > > >
                > > > > Maybe homeopathy is just the base algorithm left
                > > > > behind.......
                > > > >
                > > > > Early morning poetry as I wait for my Free Energy
                > > > > Crack.
                > > > >
                > > > > -j-
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > > So, you have no way of telling. Then, why do you
                > > > > > believe?
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > ----- Original Message ----
                > > > > > From: Mr. J <jaemsjohn@>
                > > > > > To: Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@>
                > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:00:38 PM
                > > > > > Subject: Re: The Universe as Simulation
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Well unfortunately I am not a mathematician.
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > --- Alan Moorehead <awmoorehead@>
                > > > > > wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > > --- Huh? You're a poet. Send me calculations.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J"
                > > > > > > <jaemsjohn@> wrote:
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1381&category=Science
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > The Universe as a simulation is very interesting
                > > > > > > to
                > > > > > > > me. It makes more sense to my thinking.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Gravity can then simply be defined as that. All
                > > > > > > > objects will pull to each other via this
                > > > > > > formula.....
                > > > > > > > there that is it. No gravitons and no
                > > > > > > > space warping. It just is.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > Then everything simply falls into algorithms
                > > > > > > versus
                > > > > > > > any laws. And
                > > > > > > > a algorithm can be sequential. In other words
                > > > > > this
                > > > > > > one
                > > > > > > > won't start
                > > > > > > > until the last one completes with the answer X.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > The refresh rate then simplifies the speed of
                > > > > > > light
                > > > > > > > and even zero
                > > > > > > > point creation of stuff too. Happened on the
                > > > > > > refresh.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > on and on.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > So how do we get free energy then? Well we have
                > > > > > to
                > > > > > > > hack it
                > > > > > > > from the inside and that usually means inserting
                > > > > > > some
                > > > > > > > algorithms
                > > > > > > > back into the system.
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > > -j-
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
                _____________________________________________________________________
                > > > _
                > > > > > > ______________
                > > > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                > > > > > > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                > > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
                _____________________________________________________________________
                > > > _______________
                > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
                > > > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                > > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
                _____________________________________________________________________
                > > > _______________
                > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
                > > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • catboat15@aol.com
                Now we seem to entering the realm of philosophy not physics. You may say I have a red car. but how do I know what you see as red makes the same reaction to
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 9, 2008
                  Now we seem to entering the realm of philosophy not physics.
                   
                  You may say "I have a red car." but how do I know what you see as red makes the same reaction to my eye, nerve, brain that you see.
                   
                  Just hope when we finally reach and understand it all we don't find that we are experimental animals being run through some complex maze while the "super scientists" measure our reactions.
                   



                • Mr. J
                  And why would there be no physics in a simulation? I am just thinking that why not? We are creating simulations. We are now creating robots. Granted this is
                  Message 8 of 10 , Feb 9, 2008
                    And why would there be no physics in a simulation?

                    I am just thinking that why not? We are creating
                    simulations.
                    We are now creating robots. Granted this is also in
                    the realm
                    of creationism vs. evolution, but, so what. One needs
                    to first
                    create before the echo of evolution can begin.

                    Just seems to align more closely along occams razor.
                    Why
                    forces and just not rules? And then there are the
                    algorithms.

                    Makes more sense to me and will definitely allow us to
                    hack
                    the program from the inside. This would mean that we
                    could
                    actually change the physics.

                    Which I guess than poses a question, "Is physics
                    mutable or
                    immutable?"

                    -j-




                    --- catboat15@... wrote:

                    > Now we seem to entering the realm of philosophy not
                    > physics.
                    >
                    > You may say "I have a red car." but how do I know
                    > what you see as red makes
                    > the same reaction to my eye, nerve, brain that you
                    > see.
                    >
                    > Just hope when we finally reach and understand it
                    > all we don't find that we
                    > are experimental animals being run through some
                    > complex maze while the "super
                    > scientists" measure our reactions.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all
                    > time on AOL Music.
                    >
                    (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
                    > 48)
                    >



                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    Be a better friend, newshound, and
                    know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                  • krishields
                    ... Seems you are fixated on this universe as a simulation... As I stated before, your explanation is just using different words to explain the same phenomena.
                    Message 9 of 10 , Feb 9, 2008
                      --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. J" <jaemsjohn@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > And why would there be no physics in a simulation?
                      >
                      > I am just thinking that why not? We are creating
                      > simulations.
                      > We are now creating robots. Granted this is also in
                      > the realm
                      > of creationism vs. evolution, but, so what. One needs
                      > to first
                      > create before the echo of evolution can begin.
                      >
                      > Just seems to align more closely along occams razor.
                      > Why
                      > forces and just not rules? And then there are the
                      > algorithms.
                      >
                      > Makes more sense to me and will definitely allow us to
                      > hack
                      > the program from the inside. This would mean that we
                      > could
                      > actually change the physics.
                      >
                      > Which I guess than poses a question, "Is physics
                      > mutable or
                      > immutable?"
                      >
                      > -j-
                      >

                      Seems you are fixated on this universe as a simulation... As I stated
                      before, your explanation is just using different words to explain the
                      same phenomena. It really doesnt matter what words you use,
                      the "rules" / "laws" / "forces" are all there and are all the same
                      damn thing. You *can* change these "rules" / "laws" / "forces", the
                      question is how do you do it, and how is it going to affect the
                      universe/simulation? Would you really want to mess with something
                      like that anyhow?

                      Kris
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.