Interactions as manifestations in the mind.

Reality Questioned:

Cognition enabled by Electrical Impulses (Action Potentials)
in the neural networks in tandem with neurofeedback
 in the Brain creates Consciousness. 

It is a good question as to ask "how do I know If I am real, and what if all matter==mind?"  or if all interactions are manifestations in the mind through information from the senses.. It is through the experience of other mind's creations and their activity that interacts with mine that makes me believe it to some extent. However even this feeling could be evoked for a brain in a jar, for eg a brain in a jar which can receive and process wireless signals from a source, the source needs to know what parts of the brain to trigger and activate to simulate consciousness and the source of signals also needs to know how those signals look like for flawless simulation for the brain in the jar, in order for it to do that it needs to be coded or translated at least from a REAL physical brain, (like transferring software made on one system to another system with the same architecture) so maybe now I can confirm at least the fact that another brain exists on which I was written or expressed and it helps in simulating mine.

Simulatable Universes:

Structure formation in a computer-simulated Universe covering a dynamic range of a factor of 10000 in linear scale.
Can it give rise to structures we see around us?
Image courtesy of  Virgo Consortium

Now to ask the question, if that complex brain which can create such a powerful flawless simulation of me for me exists, why not it just be my own, wouldn't that be just more efficient to make it absolutely flawless? (this is where Buddha asks the question and wants to dissolve the "I exist" notion and make it one universal entity)  Therefore now I confirm the existence of mine through an induction of the existence of another (but this induction is also refutable like Buddha wants it to be). If everyone has the right to claim that their minds exists using this route then we might as well have everyone existing in interaction, proactively in experiencing this co-op video game using their systems to simulate their individual worlds. The brains still exists, which does not necessarily include the whole me. However we have the same descriptions of the worlds except in complete psychotic cases (like playing an First Person Shooter with different levels and worlds for each person playing in the co –op etc) and seeing how interesting it gets... The key seems to be to not search for meaning. However I like to think of us as probes to testing this idea as to why atoms itself were brought into being to create brains however brains exists a priori and hence it doesn't make sense to question the creation of the sub domains of the created, similar to the case of you or I having already been born and then and only then being capable of asking the question as to why we were born in the first place.

10 billion particles to trace the evolution of the matter distribution in a
cubic region of the Universe over 2 billion light-years on a side
Image Courtesy : Max Planck Society's Supercomputing Centre  & Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysics

Provoking Anthropomorphisms:

If this is a random accident or just a running experiment, this is where the  anthropic principle comes into picture which says that its only because of the occurrence of certain environment that leads to the birth of sentience with which we can ask that very question. So there needs to be an environment (something real) that precedes the ability to ask such questions and thought itself, hence the environment is real and If I am the product of a real environment, I am real as the thought and the sub domains preceded my existence! The next possible question would be to ask if it possible to run a simulation without a physical engine to run it, which seems slightly implausible even for dominant futurists in the field. If so then where, how, and with what is the simulation running, who is running it (does SOMETHING need to run it or does it self propagate and if it does self propagate which laws provide it the motivation to do so )? This I suspect we cannot know. The game of life is way easier to play and manipulate. 

Still from "The Thirteenth Floor" suggests how computer scientist
could end up discovering the laws of simulatable universes.

The '13th floor' Inspired argument:

Okay let's look at it this way, you're here now to ask the question as to if this is a simulation if this is real or not if "matter==mind", lets say we assume it is not real then in principle you could be driven enough to break the simulation and show others how to since you don't know its ultimate purpose, but if a simulation is smart and powerful enough, why would the very simulation allow you to know and understand how to break it? If it has a (hidden devious) purpose to imprison you, wouldn't that be detrimental to the whole simulation's continued functioning? If something-someone gives you the ability to ask if its real, then that something must be dead sure of no giveaways, the universe gave us this ability to question it and its purpose or whatever made us is quite sure of its physical existence to make sentient beings able enough to question it and test it, If it's not real and we are being fooled to think that it is at some point we all will break it(agreed). This, the universe will NOT allow if it knows we possibly CAN at some point, so you are imprisoned in this game till you are alive. However it also allows us to do exactly that if we wish to, so far (we can destroy the entire earth if anyone amongst us wishes, can't we, if earth is like a big system of imprisonment). So all I'm saying is that the universe is either pretty strongly sure that we can't break it and is asking us to bring it on. Either way you have to play its game. There is no escape except death which you'll invariably prefer to get in the end. Play well & enjoy it meanwhile I leave you with this quote from Professor of Physics, University of New Hampshire!

The math behind discovering everything that does and even all that does not!

To start with an idea that would seem like a summation of all human knowledge in one single paragraph of understanding, a few assumptions have to be made. At any point if you feel uncomfortable with accepting these assumptions you can feel free to carry on or drop out.  

Assumption 1. There is a finite extent of the universe till which we can probe details into, using the information that has originated from the big-bang and how far it has travelled it has travelled in that time since it originated.

Assumption 2. There is an extent of the universe which is beyond our probing and assimilation, within which (if finite) exists possibilities that cannot be understood by the laws that describe our extent of the universe.

Assumption 3. Within this domain that is unavailable to our grasp, exists every possibility of circumstance and environment. Hence every event that can happen (can be imagined or cannot be imagined) within this domain has  a finite infinitesimal probability of occurring. All the events that cannot occur also have a infinitesimal probability of happening (say P(E)= 1E-50), the probability being so low that it tends to zero(but still isn't zero) in our universal scales.

Suppose you have an engine which runs Assumptions 1 to 3 constantly for an indefinite period, entering the finite region to a domain beyond our reach, it will eventually churn out the entirety of events that can ever be known for the history of time, because of the fact that even if something that had the probability of an event occurring in assumption 3, this machine would make a certainty, It would occur!

The SPACE for my thoughts.

1. FINDING THE EXTRA DIMENSIONS

Revealing extra dimensions means using small enough "ants", in other words particles whose wavelengths are short enough to "notice" the extra dimensions. That means very high energies, probably even higher than the LHC achieves. But it is possible that the LHC experiments could see some phenomena that indirectly support the existence of these extra dimensions, which would give string theory a major boost.

2. LOOK BACK INTO THE BEGINNING?

When you look at stars and galaxies in the night sky you are looking back in time. The further away an object is, the longer it has taken for its light to reach us. The furthest back we have been able to see is to about 400 million years after the Big Bang. This was about the time the universe had cooled sufficiently for protons and electrons to combine to form hydrogen atoms. Even with the biggest super-telescopes being planned, we will never be able to see right back to the beginning of time for the simple reason that there was no light to see until around 380,000 years after the Big Bang. This is like an optical curtain at the edge of what cosmologists call the Dark Ages, before which there were no stars or galaxies emitting electromagnetic radiation for us to detect.

3. STRINGY DARK MATTER

Another theory states that dark matter may be a higher vibration of the string and we, for example are the lowest vibration (the lowest octave) of tiny little rubber bands vibrating everywhere. But a string can twang and you can have higher vibrations of a rubber band and we think that these higher octaves (vibrations) are dark matter.

4. PATTERNS IN THE DARK

If looked at closely a possible pattern emerges, taken into consideration that these might just be gross approximations, 

1.Having no mass, nor volume - Energy.

2.Having no mass, yet volume - Dark Energy.

3.Having mass, yet no volume - Dark Matter.

4.Having both mass, and volume - Matter.

5. EXTRA DIMENSIONAL DARK MATTER

Have always had the intuitive feeling that dark matter, simply put, is matter from other dimensions in hyperspace. String theory does lead credence to such claims as it supports hyperspace and multi-dimensional particles. Sometimes I fantasize of massive, multi-dimensional galaxies systematically interlaced in between our 3 dimensional space. The laws of EM and optics may be closely related to the fact as to why we can not "see" this matter. Our eyes are the byproduct of evolution. Three dimensional matter produces three dimensional photons aka light and our eyes were designed to see this light. As I write this I realize it may be possible that extra dimensional matter may create extra dimensional light.

6. HIGGS - THE NEW ETHER

This field is made up of Higgs bosons, which would be small particles that bind this field to matter.Sounds a lot like ether to me. In point of fact, if you dig hard enough, it becomes quite evident that what Higgs did was reformulate, rename, or rephrase the ether in a term that was palatable to mainstream physicists; but make no mistake, what he is talking about is ether, plain and simple. This Higgs boson, or binding particle, has also been dubbed the God particle, the particle that gives matter its mass.

7. TACHYONIC IMAGINARY NUMBER 

Gamow tells the reader that, in the 1920’s, in the process of measuring the rate of electron spin, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered that the rate was 1.37 times the speed of light! Paul Adrian Dirac figured out a way around the problem. As explained by Gamow, Dirac decided to use the imaginary number i, or the square root of negative one to stand for the tachyonic orthorotational speed of the electron. By using this imaginary number, relativity would not be violated. Relativity could now be combined with quantum physics.

8. TESLA’S DYNAMIC THEORY OF GRAVITY – ANYONE ?

Sun was absorbing more energy than it was radiating.

Tesla’s dynamic theory of gravity. All matter is constantly absorbing ether all the time at the tachyonic speed of 1.37 times the speed of light. This is the world of ether. By its nature, the ether exists in a realm that transcends the speed of light. Gravity is simply the absorption of ether by, for instance, the earth. The reason we fall back to the earth when we jump up is not because of some mysterious disconnected force called gravity; we fall back to the earth because we are in the way of the influx of ether. That is what gravity is. It is absorption of ether by the elementary particles. It is the elusive Higgs boson, or God particle, the force/process that gives matter its mass. And it happens in a continuous fashion all the time , the ground state electron is assumed to emit Larmor radiation which causes it to spiral inward, but this does not lead to collapse of the orbit because the electron also absorbs zero-point energy.

9. WIRELESS ELECTRICITY

tesla’s experiments – Unworkable but writable over concepts.

10. WHAT MAKES GRAVITY WEAK ?

Dimensional analysis into the revealing of the forces leaking into the other dimensions. So that the overall effect of Gravity decreases and leads to a inverse squared relationship . Could be explained. 

 

11. PLACNK LENGTH - SIGNIFICANCE

The Planck area, equal to the square of the Planck length, has a clearer role in quantum gravity. Black hole entropy is known to be given by where A is the area of the event horizon. The action in string theory is proportional to the area of the string worldsheet, and area is quantized in loop quantum gravity.

The physical significance of the Planck length, if any, is not yet known. Because the Planck length is the only length that can be formed from the constants c, G, and ħ, dimensional analysis suggests that lengths of special significance in quantum gravity are likely to be small multiples of the Planck length. In some theories or forms of quantum gravity, it is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, giving it a discrete or foamy structure, but other theories of quantum gravity predict no such effects. If there are large extra dimensions, the measured strength of gravity may be much smaller than its true (small-scale) value. In this case the Planck length would have no physical significance, and quantum gravitational effects would appear at much larger scales.

 

12. GRAVITATIONAL ANALOGY

The trouble with the rubber sheet analogy is that the objects on the sheet don't distort it by themselves. The earth's gravity pulls them down into the sheet. Maybe an expanding balloon in space would be better. The inertia of the objects on its surface would deform it. Maybe objects curve space because they have inertia and the universe is expanding. This theory agrees with the observation that the rate of expansion is increasing. If it weren't we'd have no gravity.

13. GRAVITATIONAL SPEED = C

Is equal to the speed of light that means it must be composed of photon like particles. that left aside when an object does explode does the effect travel of light travel faster or does the gravitational force travel faster.. It would then make sense that effects of gravity onlytranslate through spacetime at c, hence C is the maximum speed to which gravity can accelerate any object.

14. ZERO POINT ENERGY DEVICE(quantum perpetual motion machine)

A thought experiment for a device that readily demonstrates how the Casimir force could be put to use in principle was proposed by physicist Robert Forward in 1984. A ''vacuum fluctuation battery'' could be constructed consisting of stacked conducting plates. Applying the same polarity charge to all the plates would yield a repulsive force between plates, thereby opposing the Casimir force which is acting to push the plates together. Adjusting the electrostatic force so as to permit the Casimir force to dominate will result in adding energy to the electric field between the plates, thereby converting zero-point energy to electric energy.

One can imagine an even simpler microdevice in which the Casimir force pushes two plates together thereby engaging some kind of lever which does work. There is no practical application in these examples since ideally it would take just as much energy, and in practice somewhat more energy owing to frictional and other losses, to separate the plates for a second cycle. Nevertheless, this would demonstrate the concept of conversion of zero-point energy in principle if the Casimir effect attribution to zero-point energy is correct (which is debatable). 

This is owing to the circumstance that the zero-point energy density is assumed to be constant: no matter how much the universe expands it does not become diluted, but instead more zero-point energy is assumed to be created out of nothing.

15. WHY THEORIZE ?

On the other hand don't think that "spin 2" etc will explain much because gravitons are attempts to explain a mathematical result as a physical entity. Sometimes such explanations seem to "explain" things, most of the time we have more math than fits our universe. In other words, even Einstein had some difficulty deciding which mathematical formulation for general relativity would be best to use...he had several and had to discard most......it was the "equivalence principle" which led him to be able to guess which one might match experimental results. "spin two" was an "accidental" discovery hiding within string theory when it was discovered. 

Nobody even knows if gravitons exist, and if they do, where they came from, where they are going, and whether they might survive a grand unification theory (combining quantum mechanics and general relativity). All particles and energy may result from spontaneous symmetry breaking; that's the best theory we seem to have currently. But in fact nobody knows for sure what any particle "is" (Exactly what is an "electron" for instance) maybe a "string"?? Maybe a probability wave function) , nor what time, space, and gravity actually are. What we do have are some neat theories that make predictions and to the extent we can test them experimentally seem to work pretty well. 

It's good to keep in mind things (the world around us) are very deceiving: are you the "same" person you were a year or two ago?? Not really, just about every cell in your body has been replaced!!! Our five senses are narrowband filters that keep out 99.9% of what is around us so we are easily mislead. Somehow, though, our brain has developed beyond our meager senses. So we are able contemplate "gravitons" even though we cannot sense them.

16. EM SPECTRUM’S EXTENSIONS 

The long wavelength limit is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length, although in principle the spectrum is infinite and continuous. 

17. DISTURBING THOUGHTS

Oscillating universe theory

Q: 1 So if the universe keeps oscillating like bang-crunch-bang again. What could the purpose be?

Ans: to find as many possibilities for the created to find out about The creator . Its the ultimate satisfaction a creator can get. when his creations are able to figure out and understand the creator himself . Maybe thats the ultimate purpose of the created. to figure out who's the creator. 

Q: 2 If we are created by chances , was it to enjoy life as a gift and be done with it and thats all ?

or has it been given to seek the ultimate truth ? is there an ultimate truth.

Or is like the lies we use when we need to please someone ?

Possible Ans : If everything is an accident, there's no reason to figure anything out. If everything is futile, purpose is an imaginary concept. But if everything was created, and if everything has a purpose, shouldn't it be the underlying goal of all mankind to discover that Creator and find that purpose?  And so we endeavor to discover our Creator and fulfill our purpose, while using science as merely one of our tools.  So we should include the speculation that God may have created everything for a purpose and that perhaps the universe we see is evidence for God.

18. MATHEMATICS OF LOGIC.

a.) Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states that: Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory

b.) Gödel's second incompleteness theorem can be stated as follows:

For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, Tincludes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.