Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Quantum Gravity Research - What Is Reality?

An absolutely fascinating documentary about the nature of our universe. All time is here at once but that doesn't mean our future is predetermined because it is already in place. We know how the past shapes the future, but what if the future also shapes the past, and what if this reaction is occurring all the time? Also, advanced mathematical physics shows us that consciousness plays a role in bringing our universe into existence, so could it be, therefore, that consciousness -  which emerged in the universe only after an extremely long period of time - actually created the past because the future affects the past just as much as the past affects the future? It doesn't explain God, but from this research the universe appears to be consciousness.




What if the very fabric of space and time was a code, or a language? A team of physicists and mathematicians with Los Angeles based Quantum Gravity Research are developing a first-principles unified quantum gravity theory they call emergence theory. Still in the early stage of development, emergence theory attempts to unify, through mathematical and scientific rigor, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics... and consciousness.
This film is presented in layperson terms and explains basics tenets of emergence theory, quantum mechanics and digital physics in ways that are meant to be communicative and fun. However, if you'd like to read any of our scientific and more technical papers visit our website where we update the site with new papers regularly.

33 comments:

Tom Hickey said...

Here's the blog of the founder of Quantum Gravity Research, Klee Irwin. Seems real.

http://kleeirwindeepthoughts.blogspot.com

Kaivey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kaivey said...

Thanks, Tom.

I read a book years ago called, Jung's Myth for Modern Man, where the author said that God was gaining consciousness through man. As God was everything, said the author, he had nothing to be conscious of, he was both light and dark, hot and cold, etc. But life on earth suffered because it was aware of the opposites to be able to survive, hot and cold, hungry and satisfied, etc, and from this process and evolution man had developed self consciousness.

The Christians obviously didn't like this because they believed that God had no limits and certainly did not need man to become conscious. Anyway, from this research it seems that consciousness may be there to start with, although it still needs time to gain consciousness, but both can be there at once affecting each other. It looks like Carl Jung was onto something.

When I was young I asked, but who made God? And as I got older I realised that for God to live in eternity was an impossibility. If God had no beginning, when at what point in time would he decide to create mankind? He would wait for eternity. This research answers a lot of these questions

Tom Hickey said...

Journey of the Soul to the Oversoul
(for meditation through reading)
Meher Baba

Andrew Anderson said...

If God had no beginning,

Where do you get that supposition? Not from the Bible since :

“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. Isaiah 43:10

implying that God Himself formed thus reconciling the theory of Evolution and Creationism.

Before you decide you can't believe in the God of the Bible, shouldn't you read it first? Instead of relying on so-called Christians who are ignorant of the Bible and/or have had it explained away to them?

Kaivey said...

Thank you for that interesting quote from the Bible, Andrew.

Andrew Anderson said...

There are quite a few interesting verses in the Bible from a cosmology perspective such as (our) time had a beginning (not widely believed by scientists before the 1950's) and that the universe is expanding, e.g. "He stretches out the heavens" Psalm 104:2, etc., etc.

jrbarch said...

Link to Quantum Gravity Research

Paul said...

Hey Kaivey. Don't forget that the inventor/discoverer of the big bang theory was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. Einstein told him his physics was abominable, then realized he was right after all.

Kaivey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kaivey said...

Thanks for for the replies, everyone.

I go for mindful walks and sometimes I have no thoughts for short periods of time and it's then that time seems to become endless, like every moment is part of eternity. It's like time has stopped although everything is still changing.

I can be spiritual and I like much of what Buddhism says, especially about our attachments. At the same time when I get very spiritual it's Christianity that tends comes forward, maybe because of my upbringing.

I did once have Christian conversation experience, born again, I think they say, so I know how nice that is.

I quite like the Quakers where I can explore Buddhist and Christian teachings. I'm probably what the Quakers call a Universalist.

Matt Franko said...

“God was gaining consciousness through man.”

Probably more like the universe is gaining consciousness of God thru man...

Paul taught that man (Adam) was created in the image of God... ‘image’ here meaning ‘simulate’ (eikon)...

Noah Way said...

The universal constant is a fudge factor. Nothing is constant, everything is relative.

So why is the speed of light considered to be a constant and absolute? Because the smallest variation would through all theory out the window.

If light is effected by gravity (warping around black holes), how is it possible that gravity would not effect its speed as well as its direction? Experiments have produced slow photons ... as if this can only happen in a lab, and not in the universe (multiverse, LOL)?

Cosmological science has moved beyond the empirical to theories that are unprovable. In Hawking's last book he found the answer - doG did it. Makes about as much sense as everything else.

SDB said...

Far more likely than God created Man in God's image is that Man created God in Man's image.

jrbarch said...

My thoughts are, as explained by Patanjali over 10,000 years ago, the path to ‘consciousness’ is steeper than most would prefer. Whether or not it is achievable by physicists scrawling maths on their electronic chalkboards is still a matter of debate (as depicted in the video.

The path Patanjali and esotercism describe winds its way up through mastery of the physical forces in the physio-etheric body, the emotional currents in the astral body, and the mind-stuff (chitta) itself. Complete subjugation of the personality to that partial aspect or ray of the ‘consciousness’ within that anchors itself in the human being is required; the full ‘consciousness’ as far above the personality awareness as the stars the street lamps. And that, says Patanjali is the starting point, where true ‘meditation’ begins.

By going within the ‘light in matter’ (light in the head) begins to blend itself with this downcast ray, and the consciousness is lifted out of, escapes, the personality prison. Then it is the work of the soul on its own plane, to link to the essence that created it. The universe at that point is pure Being. Always was. Always is. Always will be. Spirit strikes Matter, and Consciousness is born – and yet all are One. The first contact with the light within, this downcast ray, is always the feeling of Peace; Tranquillity, Clarity, Joy. A reverence for Life.

Imagine the mind of a human being something like the mind of an ant, caught up in its own nature, busy busy busy - it pictures the path in my thoughts. Who will strive to be free AND responsible?

Clint Ballinger said...

How quantum irregularities at t0 shaped the future is a key concept I deal with here, all the way to modern economic development, if anyone interested :) https://www.academia.edu/450987/Initial_Conditions_as_Exogenous_Factors_in_Spatial_Explanation

Clint Ballinger said...

better link Initial Conditions as Exogenous Factors in Spatial Explanation

Matt Franko said...

Nice to see someone take a big hacking swing at Stochasticism Clint....

Matt Franko said...

“Far more likely than God created Man in God's image is that Man created God in Man's image.”

That’s what we used to do when we deified our human ancestors... we’ve been given knowledge and truth these days to be able to see we used to have it backwards...

John said...

I gave up as soon as I heard the presenter start talking about extra dimensions. And this from a programme about reality? This is the biggest wild goose chase in the history of science, and there is no goose. Apparently reality doesn't exist. Neither do those three dimensions you live in. Rather than work on a theory that tries to predict these somewhat obvious phenomena, it is the fashion to create "theories" that predict nothing but make fanciful claims about extra dimensions and multiverses. Other than the useful applications it has had to various areas of topology and the like, it has been thirty-year waste of time, energy and resources.

jrbarch: "So why is the speed of light considered to be a constant and absolute? Because the smallest variation would through all theory out the window."

It doesn't have to be a constant. The unfortunately titled and oxymoronic "varying constants" are quite possible. A varying speed of light solves a lot of cosmological problems. It has it's problems, but certainly no more than other cosmological theories, so I don't dismiss it out of hand.

jrbarch: "If light is effected by gravity (warping around black holes), how is it possible that gravity would not effect its speed as well as its direction?"

Any large gravitational field will influence the direction. It doesn't effect the speed because the light is travelling in a vacuum, and in the case of a black hole has not passed through the event horizon. The issue is the geometry of what are known as "light cones". So inside a black hole the "light cones" are distorted in such a way that even light cannot escape. Outside the event horizon the light cone geometry is different.

jrbarch: "Experiments have produced slow photons ... "

That's a prediction of the theory. The speed of light that we commonly think of is only for light in a vacuum. Outside a vacuum, you can slow light down to almost a snail's crawl, and theoretically to almost nothing, but of course not nothing.

Noah Way said...

That's a prediction of the theory that you gave up on as soon as you heard them talking about extra dimensions? LOL

Matt Franko said...

John isn’t the time in space – time an additional dimension?

John said...

Noah Way, I meant that that's a prediction of relativity, not all the silliness about extra dimensions. The theories built on extra dimensions have never provided an experimentally testable prediction. Well, that isn't quite true. The ONE prediction that has come out of thirty years of research into string theories is to do with the cosmological constant. This prediction is absolutely central to string theory, and it is so phenomenally bad that it makes you question the sanity of the enterprise: the prediction is somewhat like claiming that the mass of an atom is many orders GREATER than the mass of the universe.

Call me a conservative, but I'd like a theory that looks and sounds like physics, not some extremely abstruse area of pure mathematics, mixed in with some unscientific gibberish about how the universe doesn't exist unless we observe it (so how did it evolve for about 14 billions of years when humans weren't around?), and topped up with some theology about an infinity of universes right next to us but we can't see or experimentally test for. I'm sorry, but this isn't science. This is Lewis Carroll on acid.

John said...

"Isn’t the time in space – time an additional dimension?"

But time is is a physical thing. You know what it is, you can test it etc. It's there. Making it a fourth dimension makes the theory more intelligible, and, yes, more beutiful.

Saying that there are another four, five, eleven or whatever space dimensions but are curled up at the Planck length and can never be tested, isn't the same thing at all. The old theory deals with reality, for lack of a better world. The newer more fashionable theories deal with things that can't be tested, have led nowhere and, when they have finally allowed for a prediction, have given absurd predictions.

Almost everyone agrees time exists, although there are a few who claim that time doesn't exist. Why there is a vogue for rejecting three physical dimensions in favour of whatever makes the mathematics easier for some theory, is beyond me. So what if the mathematics is easier with many more dimensions or infinite universes? Let's try and figure out a theory that explains the dimensions we have an the universe we have. The universe (or Lord) is subtle but not malicious, to quote Einstein.

Matt Franko said...

“Saying that there are another four, five, eleven or whatever space dimensions”

Maybe this is the same thing going on with all the new genders? These physicists seem to be doing the same thing as the Gender Studies people... it’s similar...

Calgacus said...

The universe (or Lord) is subtle but not malicious, to quote Einstein.

Einstein didn't like that translation too much, too "refined". His own translation was "God is sneaky, but he ain't mean." :-)

John said...

Calgacus, not quite. He said both, so it's not a question of translation.

The one you quote came later, after his more refined statement about subtlety and malice, though apparently he did prefer the one about sneakiness and meanness. Heaven knows why. Perhaps it has a nicer ring in German.

Calgacus said...

Don't think that's right. He explicitly commented on the subtlety malice translation of "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht", and presented the other one as a better translation.

jrbarch said...

@John Jan11, 2018 at 10:29am

Hi John – just wanted to point out you were quoting Noah Way Jan10, 2018 at 6:25pm rather than jr.

For me, thinking outside of the box is OK as long as you say so. In one way, we are a mind; and we are minds communicating with minds. But we also have a heart and it is very difficult for mind to understand, imagine, what ‘light’ the heart can bring to our most fundamental questions. History teaches us that humanity progresses from revelation to revelation: - something is ‘dropped’ from somewhere above into the mind and the consciousness begins to grapple with it. Left to itself, mind can go around and around and develop wilder and wilder theory. Ego can expand into dangerous territory where the value of selflessness is lost to a vacuum of selfishness. Knowledge of the true self has always been the goal. It brings the world and your existence into focus, and gives meaning to those seventy laps around the sun we all are privileged with. When the heart knows the self, it puts mind (and matter) into perspective. I think the creative, progressive process needs more recognition. Peace too, is possible.

From the comments on youtube, I think the presenter captured way more attention than the reality theory! LoL

jrbarch said...

Time occurs for ‘consciousness’ anchored in the human brain. Ever seen a kangaroo pull a time piece out of his pouch?

I think they will arrive at the same conclusion as the Ageless Wisdom eventually: Space is an Entity emerged from some Boundless Principle, beyond the ken and imagination of human reach. The consciousness of that Entity is the sumtotal of the consciousnesses of its parts – atoms, cells, organic hierarchies and angels no doubt. Cue the seven o’clock news ...! The human heart holds the key.

Matt Franko said...

"God is sneaky, but he ain't mean."

LOL, tell that to all the Hell Doctrine people... which btw I saw a recent poll it’s like 82% of US people that believe in Hell....and that even included some atheists! We’re f-ed...

Kaivey said...

The Creation of Consciousness, Jung's Myth for Modern Man, by Edward Edinger. Another good book is, Individuation and the Absolute, Hegel, Jung, and the Path Towards Wholeness, by Sean Kelly.

John said...

Calgacus, thanks for that. I'll certainly look it up. You may be right. Biographers and others have been known to be wrong, sometimes badly wrong.