The notion of the state standing in the stead…?

Written by admin on September 14, 2009 – 9:50 am -

of an aggrieved party is a ______ intended to frame violations of law as wrongs against the people as a whole.

A. Fiction
B. Simplication
C. Convention
D. Deliberation

Stuck on this homework question…. and a few others. Im so bad at Political Science (

D deliberation//// and don’t feel bad so is our new president////

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 2 Comments »

I’m a bad writer. Can you help me? Please? Read it, rate it, and please edit it. It’s a rough draft?

Written by admin on September 12, 2009 – 11:12 am -

Some of us go to church on Sunday, acknowledge our deities, then walk out the door and get on with a Godless routine. Despite the extraordinary representations that we claim are factual from reading holy texts about spiritual beings, a heavenly realm, and the imminent resurrection of the dead, why do we resume our impermissible acts? Many of us reflect upon our deeds with karma, the implications of an afterlife. We ponder the existence of Hell yet fail to maintain our devoutness. In general, sins are perceived merely as mistakes which should be quickly repented. But it’s more critical than this, I believe that our faithfulness to the religion tests the capacity of our conviction. Do we really believe in God? If so, why do we repeatedly challenge our religious morals, knowing the serious consequences? And what could be more serious than the outcome of our everlasting fate? Why cling to some saintly noble premise with either blindness or wavering strength when you can just dive into fun and pleasure? I think most deists avoid the thoughts that rebel and adhere something others believe in so they don’t feel lost and unruly because generally atheists are misinterpreted into being disloyal. Unfortunately, some deists are forced to adapt to these conventional notions and myths because they are born into that religion and not because they chose it based on research and exploration. I was born into a moderately religious Muslim family. Growing up with the immediate Islamic customs and traditions, I was blindfolded from the agnostic thoughts that questioned the existence of supernatural forces and mythical illusions that were extremely accentuated. This brought me to a conclusion of what is right and what is wrong. If I opposed my religion, I felt I was doing it in an attempt to escape responsibility for my actions, satisfy the inner devil and disregard Intelligent Design. However, if I accepted it then I was defying the entire theory of Evolution and the laws of natural selection. Apparently both are controversial but I felt like science was more reliable since it was evaluated through experimentation rather than hollow myths. The best evidence that there probably isn’t a God is that belief in God is so deeply culturally embedded. When we study world religions, it’s obvious that, throughout time, all of these different people are making up their own stories about God. But no one can equally prove that Satan is fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other. They lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them. He who asserts must prove, and so unless the deist can offer some convincing argument for God’s existence, I will be justified in Agnosticism. Now, I don’t want to make this a personal rambling but I feel like many students can connect. Religion isn’t that big a concern in our society and I believe most Americans are “functionally” atheists. I was at a tough time in my life when I was looking for God or something to tell me where to go. I tried to find it through science and knowledge. I figured religion and science are one in the same. That the truth is in partly, at least, what we see and experience through science so religion in no way should conflict with it while keeping it’s integrity. But I wanted to believe so much that at least the Quran and the Abrahamic religions could be partly right that I tried with all my brains to have it all converge into one beautiful meaning, and you know what, it came to make more sense than I thought it would. I can convince myself there is a God through my own findings the past couple of years. But with all the contradictions in all religions, I could never convince myself that they’re a hundred percent right. And that’s what I failed at. Maybe I’m failing because I’m looking for that hundred percent. I feel much better being religion-less than having one. I feel free, yet I know right from wrong. When I do something good, I feel good; when I do something bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion. However, to some extent, I maintain Islamic customs to keep my parents satisfied. I felt more angered the years I believed in a God that’s ready to smite me for accidentally saying a curse word in my mind that is blasphemous, than I did in the years I didn’t know of a God. Not that I’m an atheist, or against religion. It’s just when you’re back in a corner and feeling threatened to be a certain way or else you will pay with your soul, you feel even more stressed and angered in your life. Think about it. If someone is there standing over you and ready to smite you for a screw up and roast your soul for eternity if you fail, I’m one of those where I’m going to feel more pressured and if the whole deal is to play nice and be happy, then it’s counter-productive. I just don’t believe in Heaven and Hell anymore, believe me, I’ve tried. I think most people who claim this principle do it because they’re culturally adapted to it. I don’t think anyone would incessantly sin and decrease their chances of ending up in Heaven if they truly had faith. They are just scared to admit it. True faith only begins when we erase doubt, everyone is doubtful because everything is based on human assumptions. If we cannot comprehend God, then how can we reason with any confidence concerning his existence? It’s easy to say a God exists, but do we really believe?

Maybe you can make it shorter? It’s kinda long!

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 3 Comments »

How many of you can’t read this?

Written by admin on September 8, 2009 – 12:31 pm -

I think you wasted your time.

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 48 Comments »

Spiritually speaking: What do you think about this binary notion?

Written by admin on September 4, 2009 – 11:38 am -

I thought this video depicting a fictional "cult" to be very comical yet also very thought provoking.
What if we could truely conquer the Universe through ignorance (or mathematically speaking: Intelligent Nothingness–In other words, Achievement of Ultimate Knowledge through the Cultivation of Ultimate Ignorance)? Just like the binary computer system based on 0 & 1 to create a whole digital universe?
And since the brain is very often figuratively viewed as a computer, wouldn’t you think we could make such a binary system work for our discovery of THE UNIVERSE itself, and its CREATION (or one of them– if it’s truely the case there are other ones which may or may not have been created based on such a system)?
P.S: I know it might sound like pseudo science or science fiction but: Just what if…?

http://www.mitchlampert.net/Ignoranti/

Please watch video in link. Thanks.

Look up Ray Kurzweil and The Technological Singularity…

I think that may have some answers for you.

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 4 Comments »

Is High Technology In the Bible?

Written by admin on August 25, 2009 – 1:49 pm -

There are readers out there who would be surprised or offended with the notion that high-technology was described in the Bible. There are other readers who have realized that the only explanations to Biblical mysteries are ancient Close Encounters. A good question is: Why are certain, Old Testament events written about in the Bible? The answer could be that these were special events between basically two groups of people: One group was the primitives or the general state of humanity in Biblical times. The other group was the relatively few HUMANS that still retained and utilized technology originating from the days of Atlantis.

When angels made an appearance, they were always human. Those who caused the Great Flood; gave Moses the instructions on building the Ark of the Covenant; and warned Lot then destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah…were human beings. But, these people had advanced knowledge and flew ‘chariots’ in the sky. They resided on the tops of mountains; well away from the simple world of Bible prophets in the lowlands.

The most amazing example of an Old Testament Close Encounter is the Book of Ezekiel. Read the beginning of Chapter 1 in the King James Bible…only imagine that it is a UFO landing. With this idea in mind, Ezekiel’s experience is almost understandable. Ezekiel’s Book was so controversial that it nearly did not survive the religious editors who did throw out the Book of Enoch.

‘The Spaceships of Ezekiel’ by Blumrich is an award-winning book that should be read by anyone investigating Biblical mysteries. Blumrich is a scientist and NASA designer of the Saturn V rocket. He wrote that his son informed him, after reading an Erich Von Daniken book, that the prophet Ezekiel described a spaceship landing. Blumrich was positive that he could disprove that concept because of his technical skills in this field. The ancient text could not possibly portray a feasible craft; he assumed. The NASA designer wrote that he was never so surprised when he actually read the Book of Ezekiel. The ancient words did indeed conform to a realistic vehicle.

In the beginning of Ezekiel, the prophet wrote of the approach of four faces from above. In reality, the ‘four’ referred to the landing legs of the craft. Blumrich was shocked when he read the Old Testament report of ‘straight legs’ of ‘burnished brass’ with ’round feet.’ The NASA scientist himself designed the metallic, straight legs and round footpads of the lunar lander. The famous quote from Ezekiel is ‘a wheel within a wheel.’ Once the lander touched down, Ezekiel saw wheels. This is the exact chronology of what would occur with a modern vehicle. The UFO landed, transformed into a wheeled rover then rolled along the ground. Ezekiel was only familiar with wheels from simple carts that moved in one direction. But, the prophet described wheels that moved in all directions which was completely alien to Ezekiel.

Enoch was Methuselah’s father and Noah’s grandfather. His Book should be in the Old Testament. It has surfaced from independent sources which validate the ancient text. The Book of Enoch was edited out of the Bible by the Ecumenical Council for its controversies. Enoch, like Ezekiel, was taken on many flights by the gods (angels) and witnessed great horrors and beauty. 39/3: ‘…a whirlwind carried me off from the earth…’ There are numerous references to whirlwinds which ‘spirited’ Enoch away into the sky. The angels ‘showed me all the hidden things’ and ‘mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven.’ Enoch saw views that ‘no man shall see.’ In 33/4, Enoch states: ‘I saw a great and glorious device.’

32/2: ‘And thence I went over the summits of the earth, and passed above the Erythraean Sea, and went far from it, and passed over the angel Zotiel (another ship?).

14/18-19: ‘I looked and saw a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal and the wheels thereof as the shining sun…from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so great that I could not look thereon.’ Enoch mentions crystals and wheels. The throne could be a vehicle where the angels sat and underneath were fires from the rocket thrusters. The ‘vision caused me to fly and lifted me upward and bore me into heaven.’

There are numerous references to PORTALS or windows where Earthly and celestial views appeared. 33/2: ‘…portals of the heaven open. 3. And I saw how the stars of heaven come forth.’

The Book of Enoch speaks of much destruction, chaos and corruption on Earth; as well as among the angels. Like Genesis, Enoch mentions ‘giants’ and ‘the Watchers.’ There were ‘the Satans’ – the ‘Sons of Heaven’ – ‘angels of punishment’ – ‘instruments of Satan’ – and the same specific Genesis angels: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, etc. ‘God’ is never mentioned; only plural gods or angels. Enoch was taken to the mountaintops where the gods resided. He observed things that no primitive could understand. The angels ‘corrupted the sons of man.’ It was these various humans, with the technology, that played God and decided the fate of the children on Earth.

The main reason Enoch’s Book was deemed heresy and taken out of the Old Testament could have been the accurate astronomy. Page after page concerns the sun, moon, yearly cycles and heavenly statistics. ‘Paths of the sun and moon,’ ‘their stately orbits,’ ‘courses of the luminaries’ and ‘revolve in their circular chariots’ are only a few quotes of Enochian wisdom.

75/8: ‘And I saw in the heaven running in the world, above those portals in which revolve the stars that never set.’ Only from space are there stars that never set. Remember, the Church during the time of Ecumenical editing condemned accurate astronomy. (Ask Galileo). Religious officials wanted the public to think that the Earth was flat, did not move and was in the center of all things.

During these ancient times, there were mad scientists (angel-demons) who cloned anything they wanted. The mythological animals were real; they were genetic experiments. Also, wars of the gods occurred. Nuclear warfare was not beyond the capability of the angels. Robert Oppenheimer, creator of modern atomics and a student of early books of India, knew that nuclear wars happened in the Old World. The deserts of today are the result of ancient, atomic wars. Assuming that these conclusions are true: The Great Flood was probably green-lighted by good gods who wanted to reduce high radiation levels. Also…the perverted creatures and their power-crazed, genetic engineers needed to be eliminated on a global scale. The Earth was a mess and needed to be wiped clean.

There was a Great Flood that covered all of the land. Sea shells were found on top of Mount Everest. There is water erosion on the Sphinx. All land is a sedimentary deposit. Many Noahs sailed during Waterworld. The Chinese have their old stories of an Ark and a Great Deluge. Numerous indian cultures have their legends of a Flood, a Noah and an Ark.

Most people do not believe in the Biblical story of Noah because of a basic problem: How could a few people gather ALL the animals, feed and care for them on board a ship for months? The answer comes from…who controlled the Earth thousands of years ago? The angels (the humans with the technology) built the Arks, collected the animals and caused the rains. The chosen animals were probably the best examples of their specie and worthy of being saved. It is scientifically possible to place a life form in suspended animation reduced down to its DNA. This was the cargo within the Arks. The samples of DNA would be revived, later, after the waters receded. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention that Noah went out and gathered each animal. It only says Noah brought them into the Ark. If the ‘life cannisters’ were all assembled for the Noahs by the gods and the simple people merely carried them in and secured them in place, then this does explain the Noah story.

The world began again. In Genesis, it says that after the Flood: Noah went to live with the ‘gods.’ This was one of the few plural references that survived the editors of the Bible. The reference ‘gods’ was later changed to the singular ‘God.’ The simplified term was changed to accommodate a world that had become extremely simple.

Atlantis was Eden. Compare these two legends. Each was our mother-civilization or the place where we originated. Each was a Paradise. Each fell and mankind had to leave in disgrace.

It is not far-fetched how the people of Earth could divide itself into two races; a simple one and a complex one. If a nuclear war happened today, the survivors would continue in tribal communities. After generations, they would forget what technology was. But, the few who knew of the coming nuclear devastation and even caused it…would have protected themselves and be the few who still possess advanced knowledge. These ‘gods’ could deal with the numerous primitives as they saw fit. This concept is ancient history.

The Genesis story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not a mystery when you plug in the idea of a modern technology. How do two cities, realistically, get wiped off the face of the Earth? The inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may know the answer. Two, human angels came into town and warned people of the coming destruction:

19/17: ‘…Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.’
19/24: ‘Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’
19/26: ‘But his wife looked back from behind, and she became a pillar of salt.’
19/28: ‘…the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.’
19/30: ‘…he (Lot) feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.’
The angels directed Lot and his family to save their lives by running to the mountain. A land mass can protect one from a nuclear blast. The cities were ‘consumed’ with ‘brimstone and fire.’ This is a perfect description of a nuking. A mushroom cloud moving vertically could be the meaning of ‘went up as the smoke of a furnace.’ Lot’s wife did not make it; not because she looked back, but because she trailed ‘behind’ the rest of her family. A primitive seeing an atomic explosion would be more than stunned; they would tend to stop in their tracks. Not looking back is good advice to those running for their lives. The ‘pillar of salt’ could have come from finding her body later and discovering the effects of radiation. Finally, hiding in a ‘cave’ because of the fall-out until the land was ready for habitation is very logical.

Genesis 1/26: ‘And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’
2/21: ‘And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh…’
In Genesis 1/26, there are important clues that the creation of Eve from Adam was not conducted by a singular God. In this one sentence, there are three plural references: ‘us,’ ‘our’ and ‘our.’
This was a CLONING operation observed by a primitive who did not understand. First, one of the technicians caused Adam to fall into a ‘deep sleep.’ This was the anesthesia. Second, a cell must be taken from somewhere on the body to create another body. The rib area was where the cell was taken. They ‘closed up the flesh’ is a modern expression describing the completion of the operation. Master-cloners could quickly form an adult and change the sex from the original. This idea was illustrated in a Star Trek Next Generation episode where a primitive was brought back to life and mistook Captain Picard as a god. He prayed to ‘the Picard’ and was later corrected.

Before the Red Sea parted, there were two UFOs leading the people out of Egypt. Exodus 13/21: ‘And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them away; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.’ These objects in the sky could very well be spacecraft when you consider: clouds (or smoke) by day and fire by night. Rocket thrusters could create billowing smoke in sunlight. But, at night, the flames from the propulsion systems would be what was mainly visible. These chariots in the air could have held back the waters of the Red Sea with forcefields.

Exodus 14/22: ‘And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon dry ground: and the waters were a wall (on either side).’ With a flick of a switch. turning off the forcefield at the appropriate time, the ‘waters returned, and covered the chariots’ of the Egyptians.

All through Exodus, this Lord God demands that ‘I am the Lord’ and ‘I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord, your God.’ In 15/3, there is a strange reference: ‘The Lord is a man of war.’ This is curious because it says God is a ‘man’ and not a very nice one. It is more like God is a big bully; having power over people; pushing his weight around only because he has the ability to do so.

There is a warning in 19/12 to ‘go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.’ This Biblical God was not God. 19/18: ‘And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire…and the whole mount quaked greatly.’

In Exodus, Moses was given instructions on building the Ark of the Covenant. The inventive genius, Nikola Tesla, wrote in ‘The Wall of Light’ that Moses had to have been a skilled electrical engineer. The Ark, Tesla concluded, was a very powerful ‘condenser.’ It created intense vibrations that could smash solid stone. The Israelites carted the device into battle and won wars with it; not unlike the vibration weapons the Fremen used in the film ‘Dune.’

I Samuel 14/5: ‘And when the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout…’ 4/8: ‘…who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians…’

In II Samuel 6/6-7…a simple man named Uzzah, disregarded warnings, touched the Ark improperly and was electrocuted! ‘…Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.’ The man attempted to place it back on the ox-drawn cart and died. They had no concept of high-voltage. 6/9: ‘And David was afraid of the Lord that day.’

The story of Jericho is told in the Book of Joshua. The actual site of Jericho was found. The stone walls were over ten feet thick. What could bring down massive walls? According to the Old Testament, it was the power of the Lord. Marching around the stone fort and blowing trumpets could not possibly shatter such walls. The Ark of the Covenant was there and responsible for ‘tumbling down’ the walls of Jericho. There are numerous references to, again, a great shout.

Jonah was taken aboard a submarine. But, the prophets would not have that modern word; so the description became a ‘great fish.’ How were the 10 Commandments cut into stone? The finger of God could have accomplished this if they were lasers. The burning bush may have been electric. The Virgin Mary could have been artificially inseminated.

The Biblical reports were not understood 500 years ago or even 100 years ago. It was only until the 20th Century and its technology that we could finally understand what was really happening. There is evidence that our REAL prehistory was similar to science-fiction. Most people either reject the Bible as nonsense or believe it is the absolute word of the Supreme Being. The Bible is the most amazing account of Close Encounters. The events were real; they happened; but the truth is extraordinary.

can you repeat that?

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 8 Comments »

scientist say life can be a dream?Is the some maniac crazy mad scientist method?Or fiction bs?

Written by admin on August 19, 2009 – 12:39 pm -

DEEP THOUGHT, the supercomputer created by novelist Douglas Adams, got there first, but now the astronomer royal has caught up. Professor Sir Martin Rees is to suggest that "life, the universe and everything" may be no more than a giant computer simulation with humans reduced to bits of software.

Rees, Royal Society professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, will say that it is now possible to conceive of computers so powerful that they could build an entire virtual universe.

The possibility that what we see around us may not actually exist has been raised by philosophers many times dating back to the ancient Greeks and appears repeatedly in science fiction.

However, many scientists have always been dismissive, saying the universe was far too complex and consistent to be a simulation.

Despite this, the idea has persisted, popularised in films such as Tom Cruise’s Vanilla Sky and The Matrix, starring Keanu Reeves.

It was also the basis for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, written by Adams, who died in 2001. In the book, Deep Thought creates the Earth and its human inhabitants as a giant calculating device to answer the "ultimate question".

The BBC’s rerun of the radio version of Hitchhiker finished recently, just as Rees was putting together his contribution to the debate in which he will concede that the depictions by Adams, Cruise and Reeves might have been right after all.

In a television documentary, What We Still Don’t Know, to be screened on Channel 4 next month, he will say: "Over a few decades, computers have evolved from being able to simulate only very simple patterns to being able to create virtual worlds with a lot of detail.

"If that trend were to continue, then we can imagine computers which will be able to simulate worlds perhaps even as complicated as the one we think we’re living in.

"This raises the philosophical question: could we ourselves be in such a simulation and could what we think is the universe be some sort of vault of heaven rather than the real thing. In a sense we could be ourselves the creations within this simulation."

Rees will emphasise that this is just a theory. But it is being increasingly discussed by other eminent physicists and cosmologists.

Among them is John Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University. He points out that the universe has a degree of fine tuning that makes it safe for living organisms.

Even a tiny alteration in a fundamental force or a constant such as gravity would make stars burn out, atoms fly apart, and the world as we know it become impossible. Such fine tuning, he has said, could be taken as evidence for some kind of intelligent designer being at work.

"Civilisations only a little more advanced than ourselves will have the capability to simulate universes in which self-conscious entities can emerge and communicate with one another," he said.

The idea that life, the universe and everything in it could be an illusion dates back more than 2,000 years. Chuang Tzu, the Chinese philosopher, who died in 295BC, wondered whether his entire life might be no more than a dream.

René Descartes, the 17th century French philosopher, raised similar questions. But he famously came down in favour of existence, saying: "I think, therefore I am."

The idea was resurrected last century, notably by Bertrand Russell, who suggested that humans could simply be "brains in a jar" being stimulated by chemicals or electrical currents – an idea that was quickly taken up and developed by science fiction writers such as Isaac Asimov.

However, some academics pour cold water on the notion of a machine-created universe. Seth Lloyd, professor of quantum mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said such a computer would have to be unimaginably large.

"The Hitchhiker’s Guide is a great book but it remains fiction," he said.

from The Sunday Times, Britain http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1358588,00.html

As regular readers may know, one of our favourite quotes is "All that we can see or seem is but a dream within a dream" – Omar Khayyam. We’ve only had the terminology to describe what the universe might actually be for a little over a decade. A fractal hologram, an infinitely recursive quasi-Mandelbrot (isn’t the similarity between ‘Mandelbrot’ and "Mandala’ slightly fascinating?), an 11-dimensional brane, all terms which skate the surface of deeper reality and the nature of multiple intersecting and interpenetrating dimensions. Until these words appeared it was extremely difficult to work with these apparently slippery concepts – or even to conceive of them. And popular culture has certainly made its contribution to the new noosphere…

The future isn’t what it used to be. As all the world is mindstuff, we all need to have better, happier dreams and pictures of our future if we are to deserve a great mil

I didn’t read all of that because it was way too long, but it sounds like Sir Martin Rees is copying The matrix and most of that are just people looking for attention. We’re the simulation of gods mind dumb ass. That’s as scientifical as it gets. Those guys just need to get laid or just over all get a life.

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 1 Comment »

Scienist say hs can ll be a dream?WHATS your opinion?or do you think this is bs like i do?

Written by admin on August 17, 2009 – 9:53 am -

Rees, Royal Society professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, will say that it is now possible to conceive of computers so powerful that they could build an entire virtual universe.

The possibility that what we see around us may not actually exist has been raised by philosophers many times dating back to the ancient Greeks and appears repeatedly in science fiction.

However, many scientists have always been dismissive, saying the universe was far too complex and consistent to be a simulation.

Despite this, the idea has persisted, popularised in films such as Tom Cruise’s Vanilla Sky and The Matrix, starring Keanu Reeves.

It was also the basis for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, written by Adams, who died in 2001. In the book, Deep Thought creates the Earth and its human inhabitants as a giant calculating device to answer the “ultimate question”.

The BBC’s rerun of the radio version of Hitchhiker finished recently, just as Rees was putting together his contribution to the debate in which he will concede that the depictions by Adams, Cruise and Reeves might have been right after all.

In a television documentary, What We Still Don’t Know, to be screened on Channel 4 next month, he will say: “Over a few decades, computers have evolved from being able to simulate only very simple patterns to being able to create virtual worlds with a lot of detail.

“If that trend were to continue, then we can imagine computers which will be able to simulate worlds perhaps even as complicated as the one we think we’re living in.

“This raises the philosophical question: could we ourselves be in such a simulation and could what we think is the universe be some sort of vault of heaven rather than the real thing. In a sense we could be ourselves the creations within this simulation.”

Rees will emphasise that this is just a theory. But it is being increasingly discussed by other eminent physicists and cosmologists.

Among them is John Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University. He points out that the universe has a degree of fine tuning that makes it safe for living organisms.

Even a tiny alteration in a fundamental force or a constant such as gravity would make stars burn out, atoms fly apart, and the world as we know it become impossible. Such fine tuning, he has said, could be taken as evidence for some kind of intelligent designer being at work.

“Civilisations only a little more advanced than ourselves will have the capability to simulate universes in which self-conscious entities can emerge and communicate with one another,” he said.

The idea that life, the universe and everything in it could be an illusion dates back more than 2,000 years. Chuang Tzu, the Chinese philosopher, who died in 295BC, wondered whether his entire life might be no more than a dream.

René Descartes, the 17th century French philosopher, raised similar questions. But he famously came down in favour of existence, saying: “I think, therefore I am.”

The idea was resurrected last century, notably by Bertrand Russell, who suggested that humans could simply be “brains in a jar” being stimulated by chemicals or electrical currents — an idea that was quickly taken up and developed by science fiction writers such as Isaac Asimov.

However, some academics pour cold water on the notion of a machine-created universe. Seth Lloyd, professor of quantum mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said such a computer would have to be unimaginably large.

“The Hitchhiker’s Guide is a great book but it remains fiction,” he said.

This is an old, but still valid question. The "I think therefore I am" quote is a good one, as it points out that the ONLY thing we can ever be 100% sure of in the universe is that we, ourselves, exist. Everything else around us is just what we make of it, what we think it is.

As for a computer being powerful enough to design an entire universe, I find this highly unlikely. For one thing, anything a computer could come up with would be "virtual". It wouldn’t have any mass. It would just be a pretend universe.

Even still, it might be able to calculate everything that would happen in a universe, but the only way any computer could do that (just like the only way any computer can do anything at all) is if progammers entered all this factors and information in first. Scientists and astronomers, as advanced as they may be, still don’t even know what the universe is made out of, so they couldn’t put this information in to a computer for it to work with. They don’t even know how our tiny, little solar system works, let alone the entire universe.

Also, the idea that a computer running a programme this complex could point to "us" being nothing more than a part of some grand design ourselves is counter-argumentative. It’s along the same lines as the argument that God must exist because (this is a genuine quote I heard):

"Of course God exists. How else do you explain life on Earth? Out of all the planets in all the galaxies, how come we live on this planet, the one that can sustain us?"

Which, in my opinion, proves absolutely nothing. We exist on this planet BECAUSE it can support life. It’s not like God was carrying round a big box o’ humans, searching for a planet that they could survive on. We evolved along with the planet, it’s not part of great design, it’s millions of years of hard work, trail-and-error and sheer dumb luck.

And most importantly, the Matrix sucked.

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 4 Comments »

Do you think the earth would be better off with 90 percent of human population dead?

Written by admin on August 15, 2009 – 10:52 am -

AUSTIN A University of Texas professor says the Earth would be better off with 90 percent of the human

population dead.

Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine, Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edwards

University on Friday. Pianka’s words are part of what he calls his doomsday talk a 45-minute presentation

outlining humanity’s ecological misdeeds and Pianka’s predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans

themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization.

Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered

biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the

lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness

rather than fear.

This is really an exciting time, he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only

minutes earlier he declared, Death. This is what awaits us all. Death. Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese

Curse, May you live in interesting times, he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?

6.5 billion humans is too many.

In his estimation, We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable, all the while leaving the planet parched.

The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

That’s 5.8 billion lives lives he says are turning the planet into fat, human biomass. He points to an 85 percent

swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall likely at the

hand of widespread disease.

[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity, Pianka said. Were looking forward to a huge collapse.

But don’t tell local citizen scientist Forrest Mims to quietly swallow Pianka’s call to awareness. Mims says its an

abhorrent death wish and contends he has no choice but to take a stand.

Mims attended the educators doomsday presentation at the Texas Academy of Sciences annual meeting March

2-4. There, the organization honored Pianka as its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist another issue Mims vocally

opposes.

This guy is a loose cannon to believe that worldwide genocide is the only answer, said Mims, who filed two

formal petitions with the academy following the meeting.

Joining the crusade, James Pitts, who received a Ph.D. in physics from UT-Austin, became the second to publicly

chastise Pianka when he filed a complaint Saturday with the UT board of regents. He insists a state university is

no place to disseminate such views.

He writes:

Pianka’s message does not fall within the realm of his professional competence as a biologist, because it is a

normative claim, not a descriptive one. Pianka is encouraged to use his ecological expertise to predict the likely

consequences of certain technological and reproductive strategies, but to evaluate some as good, bad, or worthy

of prevention by genocide is the realm of philosophy or political science, not science. His message falls no more

within his professional competence than it would for a physicist to teach religion in class or a musician to

encourage racism.

But Pianka, a 38-year UT educator, maintains hes not campaigning for genocide. He likens mankind’s story to an

unbridled party on a luxury cruise liner. The funs going strong on the upper deck, he says. But as crowds blindly

absorb the festivities, many fail to notice the ship is sinking.

The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism, he said, describing the belief system in which humans are the

central element of the universe. This is that common attitude that everything on this Earth was put here for

[human] use.

To Pianka, a human life is no more valuable than any other a lizard, a bison, a rhino. And as humans reproduce,

the demand for resources like food, water and energy becomes more than the Earth can sustain, he says.

Ken Wilkins, a Baylor University biology professor and associate dean, agrees the inevitability of a crashing point

is unarguable.

The human population is growing, he said. We will see a point when we reach the carrying capacity there aren’t

enough resources.

But resources arent the only threat, Pianka says. Its the Ebola virus he deems most capable of wide scale

decimation.

Humans are so dense (in population) that they constitute a perfect substrate for an epidemic, he says.

He contends Ebola is merely an evolutionary step away from escaping the confines of Africa. And should an

outbreak occur, Pianka assuredly says humanity will quickly come to a grinding halt.

The professors not the only one who can articulate this concept. Because Pianka includes his doomsday material

in his coursework, Ebola and its potential play a notable role in some students studies. A syllabus for one course

reads:

Although [Ebola Zaire] Kills 9 out of 10 people, outbreaks have so far been unable to become epidemics because

they are currently spread only by direct physical contact with infected blood. However, a closely-related virus

that kills monkeys, Ebola Reston, is airborne, and it is only a matter of time until Ebola Zaire evolves the capacity

to be airborne.

It is here that some say Pianka ventures from provocative food for thought to, as Wilkins said, very extreme

material that violate many peoples views including his own about the treatment of human life. While many praise

Pianka’s boldness and scientific know-how, others say he crosses an ethical line in his treatment of Ebola’s

viability as a killer.

In an evaluation of Piankas course performed anonymously in keeping with university policy one student offered:

Though I agree that conservation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that

90 percent of the human population should die of Ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation

awareness.

Mims says hes seen countless doomsday predictions come and go. But Pianka’s is different, Mims said. Pianka,

he insists, exhibits genuine cause for alarm.

Mims worries fertile young minds with a thirst for knowledge may develop into enthusiastic supporters of a

deadly disease, advocating the fall of humanity.

He recommended airborne Ebola as an ideal killing virus, Mims said. He showed slides of the Four Horsemen of

the apocalypse and human skulls. He joked about requiring universal sterilization. It reminded me of a futuristic

science fiction movie with a crazed scientist planning the death of humanity.

But as confident as Mims is in his assessment, he faces one unarguable fact: Most of Pianka’s former students are

bursting with praise. Their in-class evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like the most incredible class I

ever had and Pianka is a GOD!

Mims counters their ovation with the story of a Texas Lutheran University student who attended the Academy of

Science lecture. Brenna McConnell, a biology senior, said she and others in the audience had not thought

seriously about overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the meeting. But though McConnell arrived

at the event with little to say on the issue, she returned to Seguin with a whole new outlook.

An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what’s become a new conviction:

[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one! she wrote. I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10

percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think hes right.

Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she’s decided Ebola isnt the answer, she’s still

considering other deadly viruses that might take its place in the equation.

Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because its the easiest answer to this problem of overpopulation, she

said.

Though listeners like McConnell may walk away with a deadly message, Pianka maintains this is inconsistent

with his lecture. One UT official said Pianka is likely well within his rights as a tenured educator.

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure a set of guidelines recognized nationwide

guarantees college professors vast classroom liberties. But Neal Armstrong, vice provost for faculty affairs at UT,

said even this freedom is not without limits.

Faculty members have the right of free speech like anyone else, he said. In the classroom, they’re free to

express their views. There is the expectation, though, that in public especially when speaking on controversial

topics they must make every effort to be clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the university.

Students should be able to discern on their own the validity of views like Pianka’s, Armstrong said. But if

allegations of Pianka actively advocating human death were to be confirmed, he said there might be some

discussion about the appropriateness of that subject.

I would hope that’s not what’s intended, he said. I don’t think that’s appropriate for the classroom, but that’s my

personal statement.

Robert K. Jansen, chair of the section of integrated biology under which Pianka is classified, said his

understanding of the doomsday material left no cause for concern.

Its important for students to get all opinions, and they have to do that on a daily basis, he said. To hold a

classrooms attention, Jansen says educators must often speak their mind in a fashion bold enough to garner a bit

of shock.

The Texas Academy of Science uses a similar approach in defending its decision to honor Pianka with the

Distinguished Scientist award. Though TAS offered no direct comment to the Gazette-Enterprise, an email sent

from TAS President David Marsh to Mims in response to Mims first letter of protest reads:

We select the DTS speaker based on his/her academic credentials and contributions to science. We do not

mandate the subject he/she decides to address, nor will we ever. I would suggest that one of the purposes of any

such presentation is to stimulate discussion which indeed it did.

In his petitions, Mims inquires about the groups stance on Pianka’s talk, asking if the recent honor should be

interpreted as an endorsement by TAS. Marsh responded firmly, saying the award does not represent any formal

backing of Pianka’s ideas.

But despite the academy’s flat denial of any wrongdoing, Mims maintains his stance. He said thus far, he’s seen

no response to the second petition.

I completely agree with one assertion made several times by Dr. Pianka: The public is not ready to hear that he

hopes 90 percent of them will be exterminated by disease, Mims said.

McConnell said the TAS audience, unlike Mims, was in awe of Pianka’s words. They offered a standing ovation,

and enthusiastically applauded Pianka’s position, Mims said.

There was a good deal of shock and just plain astonishment at what he had to say, the student said. Not many folk

come out and talk about the end of the human population in as candid of a manner as he did. Dr. Pianka received

a standing ovation at the end of his talk, if that says anything. What he had to say was radical, no question about it,

but that is not to say that at least some of what he had to say is not true.

Though Pianka turned down requests for a sit-down interview, he maintains he is not advocating human death.

Does he believe nature will bring about this promised devastation? Or is humanitys own dissemination of a

deadly virus the only answer? And more importantly, is this the motive behind his talks?

Responding to these very questions, Pianka said, Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire]

so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.

As of press time, Pitts who sent his appeal via email Saturday had received no response from the university, but

he says, Its too early for any responses to have been made. Meanwhile, Pianka urges humanity to heed his call to

be prepared, saying were going to be hunters and gatherers again real soon.

This is gonna happen in your lifetime, he told his St. Edwards audience. Do you wanna go there? Weve already

gone there. We waited too long.

Yes i agree that the world will be a better place is 90% of its population dies. Dieing not in the physical sense of the word but a much deeper meaning, the death of ego’s, stereotypes, prejudices, beliefs and complexes. Death of adult thoughts and springing back to the childlike innocence and clarity

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 26 Comments »

Critical Alert: The Swine Flu Pandemic – Fact or Fiction?

Written by admin on August 9, 2009 – 4:56 am -

Critical Alert: The Swine Flu Pandemic – Fact or Fiction?

American health officials declared a public health emergency as cases of swine flu were confirmed in the U.S. Health officials across the world fear this could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, where seven people are confirmed dead as a result of the new virus.

On Monday April 27th, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its pandemic alert level to four on its six-level threat scale,1 which means they’ve determined that the virus is capable of human-to-human transmission. The initial outbreaks across North America reveal an infection already traveling at higher velocity than did the last official pandemic strain, the 1968 Hong Kong flu.

The number of fatalities, and suspected and confirmed cases across the world change depending on the source, so your best bet — if you want the latest numbers — is to use Google Maps’ Swine Flu Tracker.

Several nations have imposed travel bans, or made plans to quarantine air travelers2 that present symptoms of the swine flu, such as:

Fever of more than 100
Coughing
Runny nose and/or sore throat
Joint aches
Severe headache
Vomiting and/or diarrhea
Lethargy
Lack of appetite
Top global flu experts are trying to predict how dangerous the new swine flu strain will be, as it became clear that they had little information about Mexico’s outbreak. It is as yet unclear how many cases occurred in the month or so before the outbreak was detected. It’s also unknown whether the virus was mutating to be more lethal, or less.

Much Fear Mongering Being Promoted

I suspect you have likely been alarmed by the media’s coverage of the swine flu scare. It has a noticeable subplot – preparing you for draconian measures to combat a future pandemic as well as forcing you to accept the idea of mandatory vaccinations.

On April 27, Time magazine published an article which discusses how dozens died and hundreds were injured from vaccines as a result of the 1976 swine flu fiasco, when the Ford administration attempted to use the infection of soldiers at Fort Dix as a pretext for a mass vaccination of the entire country.

Despite acknowledging that the 1976 farce was an example of “how not to handle a flu outbreak”, the article still introduces the notion that officials “may soon have to consider whether to institute draconian measures to combat the disease”.

WHO and CDC Pandemic Preparedness Seriously Broken

The pandemic warning system has failed as it simply doesn’t exist, even in North America and Europe. To improve the system, massive new investments in surveillance, scientific and regulatory infrastructure, basic public health, and global access to common sense interventions like vitamin D optimization are required.

According to the Washington Post, the CDC did not learn about the outbreak until six days after Mexico had begun to impose emergency measures. There should be no excuses. The paradox of this swine flu panic is that, while totally unexpected, it was accurately predicted. Six years ago, Science dedicated a major story to evidence that "after years of stability, the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fasttrack".

However, maybe this is precisely what public health authorities desire.

This is NOT the First Swine Flu Panic

My guess is that you can expect to see a lot of panic over this issue in the near future. But the key is to remain calm — this isn’t the first time the public has been warned about swine flu. The last time was in 1976, right before I entered medical school and I remember it very clearly. It resulted in the massive swine flu vaccine campaign.

Do you happen to recall the result of this massive campaign?

Within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the vaccine. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths.

However, several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after they were injected with the swine flu vaccine. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics.

And the swine flu pandemic itself? It never materialized.

More People Died From the Swine Flu Vaccine than Swine Flu!

It is very difficult to forecast a pandemic, and a rash response can be extremely damaging.

As of Monday April 27, the worldwide total number of confirmed cases was 82, according to WHO, which included 40 cases in the U.S., confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control. But does that truly warrant the feverish news headlines?

To put things into perspective, malaria kills 3,000 people EVERY DAY, and it’s considered "a health problem"… But of course, there are no fancy vaccines for malaria that can rake in billions of dollars in a short amount of time.

One Australian news source,3 for example, states that even a mild swine flu epidemic could lead to the deaths of 1.4 million people and would reduce e
The rest of this article can be read from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/28/Swine-Flu.aspx

every day 40 000 people die world wide with the flue
on those figures how can W.H.O work out that 160 deaths(not all confirmed and if the daily number ie 160 over 8 days =20 per day ) constitute a bigger threat than 40 000 every day .
on the statistics (who acknowledges the 40 000 per day figure~read their reports)
the sums do not add up
it is the IF’S~MIGHT’S AND MAYBE’S they include in the report that makes it look bad.
the who is after extra funding for it’s work ~is this a sick PR attempt to get funding

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 3 Comments »

Do parallel universes really exist?

Written by admin on August 7, 2009 – 2:39 am -

If the did exist parallel universes, would they be like our ­universe. or a branch off from ours, and our universe is branched off of others.
This thought boggles the mind and yet, it is still comprehensible. Notions of parallel universes or dimensions that resemble our own have appeared in works of science fiction and have been used as explanations for metaphysics.

Every possible combination of every possible thing results in a new dimension.

The way i think about it:
2 dimensions is x and y like a graph,
3 dimensions is x, y and z like space,
4 dimensions is x, y, z and t – time
5 dimensions is like 4 dimensions with a different outcome of a set scenario, e.g. a person deciding to go left or right at a fork in a road.
6 dimensions is like the same person taking a left at the fist fork, then coming to another fork in the road and deciding again.
and so on and so on.

Each of these extra dimensions exist in theory, and every decision that is made creates new possibilities and thus new dimensions
"branches" as you put it is a very good way to think about it and we are travelling down one branch of a (very) large tree.
as far as visiting these other "parallel universes" goes, absolutely impossibe because you are already on a branch moving forwards, you would need to travel backwards along the "tree" to go back to where the first decision was made. the tree i’m talking about here of is time.

i’d love it at the end of our lives if we were able to go back to anypoint on our timeline and change one thing and see how it would affect the outcome years in the future. I’d like to change one tiny thing and see how drastic this change was in the future, e.g. having a bacon sandwich instead of having toast.

Posted in Notions From Science Fiction | 8 Comments »