"The 'Q' Paradox"

[Faderbaby]

“The ‘Q’ Paradox”
(Is Extra-Universal Proof Possible?)

“The ‘Q’ Paradox”: The revelation of Extra-Universal information would create an insurmountable obstacle for mankind.

The limitation of human comprehension is based on the computing power of the human brain plus any supplementary systems ever designed that increase the computing power (machines). However, certain observations could begin to suggest that there is *something* beyond the known Universe (the known Universe being the limit of knowledge since it contains all things and all information). This could create a paradox in which information existed that no information processor could ever interpret.

Extra-Universal proof (which is defined as the existence of extra-Universal information) is highly desired by both physicists and religions. It is, in fact, claimed by both to exist. However, it has been presented by neither in a conclusive manner. Either they don’t have it or they choose not to reveal it, which is what much of the public believes.

Lower-level claims of the existence of lesser types of unattainable knowledge abound, such as ‘psychic abilities’, ‘ghosts’, and an endless parade of “mysteries”, most of which have mundane explanations (but not all). Science has its mysteries as well. But, no one has revealed actual proof of extra-Universal information and there is no evidence that any such thing has ever existed. It has been claimed in both ancient and modern times. It is claimed to be true by the authors of The Bible and modern physicists.

The public commonly believes that – if something is being covered up by either the Church or some shadowy government entity – it must be regarding unattainable knowledge. Among many popular examples are space aliens which are, actually, extremely probable. We already know that life is a true condition within the Universe. It’s sort of a false suspense to locate life elsewhere in the cosmos. A far better (so arguably “more realistic”) conspiracy would involve proof of extra-Universal information.

Such proof would likely alter the trajectory of human beliefs for all time. Science would likely be marginalized as a niche specialty to solve specific challenges rather than a complete belief system for humans as it currently attempts to be. Religion would attempt to claim the proof but be unable to convincingly affix any specific doctrine to it. There would end up being no capable belief system that could ever account for the information. This could become an insurmountable obstacle for further human development.

Had the early Christian church (or Jesus) presented any such proof(s) this would have positioned them as the absolute interpreters of physical existence for all time. This would have been indisputable, but it didn’t happen. From a “government conspiracy” angle (representing the modern era of science and technology) such proof would likely (arguably) be recognized as an unsolvable problem for mankind. Of course, this is an unknown, but the idea (in various forms) has generated too much public debate to ignore.

The best argument against proof is that it could not exist within the Universe since it would presumably undergo too much distortion to remain comprehensible. Absolutely incomprehensible information would be literally impossible to interpret in any way. I call this overall problem, perhaps incorrectly, “The 'Q' Paradox” because the letter "Q" bears a relationship to the original biblical (source) material and modern Intelligence (a security clearance), which are the two publicly-popular examples. The existence of impossible information would have extremely unpredictable consequences for the future.

Copyright 2008-2009 by Jack Littleton. All rights reserved.

[altonhare]

Extra-Universal proof (which is defined as the existence of extra-Universal information) is highly desired by both physicists and religions. It is, in fact, claimed by both to exist.

- Faderbaby

This is a trivial pursuit. The universe is either everything that exists (in which case anything "outside" the universe doesn't exist and they are chasing phantoms) or they define the universe as some certain things that exist while discluding the others. In this case they are just looking for something that exists but which they haven't defined (for whatever reason only a mathematical physicist would know) as being encompassed by the term "universe".

So the question is, what exactly is it they're looking for? Again the scientists evade the first step of the scientific method, the hypothesis. They do not state what they're actually doing. They just poke around with instruments and count deer in the forest until they can get a mathematical correlation. *What* are they actually looking for!? What do they mean by "information". They must be specific, what relationship among concrete objects are they referring to as "information"?

I have explained why "supernatural" phenomena may be observed and explained rationally (i.e. without contradiction). The chain hypothesis and the logical extension into the many worlds hypothesis provides plausible rational mechanisms for observations that, at first glance, appear to have no physical cause.

[Faderbaby]

You may be right that it's a trivial pursuit, but it's incredibly popular with the public and has been the focus of science and religion for their entire existences. Now, vast amounts of money are being spent on particle accelerators to attempt to find *something* suggestive of extra physical dimensions, or whatever anyone wants to call it. I would define the Universe as "everything that exists", including all possible information. But man has never been satisfied with that. What about life after death? Does that information exist?

[altonhare]

You may be right that it's a trivial pursuit, but it's incredibly popular with the public and has been the focus of science and religion for their entire existences. Now, vast amounts of money are being spent on particle accelerators to attempt to find *something* suggestive of extra physical dimensions, or whatever anyone wants to call it. I would define the Universe as "everything that exists", including all possible information. But man has never been satisfied with that. What about life after death? Does that information exist?

This is everything that is wrong with modern science. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, they are separate. A religious explanation is one that proposes a contradiction such as something can come from nothing or vice versa. A scientific explanation is one that does not propose contradiction. It's that simple. The fact that "science" and religion are uniting means we are headed back into the dark ages as far as science is concerned. We may have unprecedented technology but modern scientific "explanations" are indiscernible from black magic and religion. In fact, mathematical physics is worse than mainstream religion at formulating explanations.

I don't need a particle accelerator to resolve the issue of physical dimensions. A physical dimension is extent in a direction orthogonal to every other direction. How else can one define it? The scientists are evading step one of the scientific method, hypothesis, which involves defining their terms. If they had to define dimension they would have to define it as I have or define it as the number of coordinates/numbers/parameters assigned to an object to fully specify it. This latter definition has no physical significance, however. Nature does not care how many numbers we model Her with. The scientists stealthily evade this part of the scientific method because it would expose what they are doing as an elaborate mathematical correlation, not physics.

[Faderbaby]

The scientists stealthily evade this part of the scientific method because it would expose what they are doing as an elaborate mathematical correlation, not physics.

Right. It's a "story". Science and religion are competing stories, which is what the public (who pay the bills) demand. My essay was regarding the different levels of storytelling and the reality that factors other than scientific accuracy may carry a great deal of weight. I like to believe that real science is being done "behind the scenes". Up front, hey, you have to sell it on TV.

These vast particle accelerators will need a helluva story to pay the bill. Does anyone here work at one of these facilities? If so, I bet they are not allowed to discuss the work.

The fact that "science" and religion are uniting means we are headed back into the dark ages as far as science is concerned.

They are two different stories that are competing for the same dollars. I suspect that these particle accelerators are viewed as potentially very dangerous to all current scientific stories. What if they discover something that is more supportive of a totally different story or worse -- a total ambiguity? I think that's possible (but I'm not a scientist).

[altonhare]

Right. It's a "story". Science and religion are competing stories, which is what the public (who pay the bills) demand.

-faderbaby

No, they are not competing. A scientific explanation does not contradict itself whereas a religious one does. The reason people think there is no fundamental difference is because modern scientists completely disregard the scientific method these days, so they are actually indistinguishable from religion.

My essay was regarding the different levels of storytelling and the reality that factors other than scientific accuracy may carry a great deal of weight.

-faderbaby

This is not an issue of experimental accuracy or how well we can correlate with our equations. This is an issue of accepting or rejecting paradox and contradiction.

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

Up front, hey, you have to sell it on TV.

-faderbaby

Which is what televangelists and mathematical physicists do instead of doing science.

They are two different stories that are competing for the same dollars.

-faderbaby

Because "scientists" these days have abandoned objectivity in favor of sensationalism and magic. It wasn't always like this.

What if they discover something that is more supportive of a totally different story or worse -- a total ambiguity? I think that's possible (but I'm not a scientist).

-faderbaby

There is no such thing as something that is what it is not. If our experiment is inconsistent with our hypothesis or if we cannot explain a particular phenomenon with our current hypothesis we formulate a new hypothesis! Allowing our hypotheses to accommodate contradiction results in unfalsifiable theories.

[Faderbaby]

I think I will revise the essay along these lines:

A fundamental question is whether scientific methodology is absolutely infallible. Is the degree of certainty in the methodology 100%? Can the human mind even so much as imagine any observation or series of events in which the methodology would fail? Is it unimaginable? Or, maybe I should have suggested that science is only as infallible as what it is observing. In other words, a supernatural occurrence (even if you believe the probabilty is approaching zero) would be the ONLY possible cause for scientific failure. In that case, observed changes in the laws of physics (which scientists always claim will be “no problem”) are accounted for.

[altonhare]

I think I will revise the essay along these lines:

A fundamental question is whether scientific methodology is absolutely infallible. Is the degree of certainty in the methodology 100%? Can the human mind even so much as imagine any observation or series of events in which the methodology would fail? Is it unimaginable? Or, maybe I should have suggested that science is only as infallible as what it is observing. In other words, a supernatural occurrence (even if you believe the probabilty is approaching zero) would be the ONLY possible cause for scientific failure. In that case, observed changes in the laws of physics (which scientists always claim will be “no problem”) are accounted for.

"Supernatural" occurrences tell us that w are wrong and must reformulate our hypotheses. They are opportunities to think outside our previous limitations, they are not opportunities to embrace contradiction and duality.

If observation is inconsistent with the theory developed by scientific methodology to date, a new theory will have to be developed. It's not a question of fallibility, it's a question of being able to explain all observed phenomena without self contradiction. Whether you call it "science" or "meditation" or whatever, what it comes down to is explaining observed phenomena rationally (without fallacy and self-contradiction). I have proposed mechanisms by which some "supernatural" phenomena can be explained without sacrificing rationality, objectivity, or consistency. The chain hypothesis provides mechanisms for objects to interact with us that are invisible (in the sense that they do not transmit light to us or the objects that transmit light to us). Additionally the chain hypothesis proposes that every atom in the universe is physically connected, opening up enormous doorways to physically explain phenomena which appear to be "action at a distance".

Scientific failure is only an opportunity for further scientific success. If old physical "laws" are inconsistent with observation then we must hypothesize new physical "laws".

[Faderbaby]

objects to interact with us that are invisible (in the sense that they do not transmit light to us or the objects that transmit light to us).

Are you talking about plasmas? Why don't these invisible objects transmit or reflect light? Is it a matter of density or frequency? Also, If every atom is physically connected, would this allow for a physical object to move faster than the speed of light? Are you redefining what light is or does? (If this is all covered in another thread, feel free to refer me to it to save effort).

[altonhare]

objects to interact with us that are invisible (in the sense that they do not transmit light to us or the objects that transmit light to us).

Are you talking about plasmas? Why don't these invisible objects transmit or reflect light? Is it a matter of density or frequency? Also, If every atom is physically connected, would this allow for a physical object to move faster than the speed of light? Are you redefining what light is or does? (If this is all covered in another thread, feel free to refer me to it to save effort).

No, I am not talking about plasmas. To avoid derailing this thread you should read this thread where I discuss why some objects may be "electromagnetically" invisible:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1171

The first post is not directly related, but is important. My second long post is where I get into this specifically.

With regards to the theory I alluded to, it is summarized by these videos:

Light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

If you wanna jump into the active discussion visit this topic:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1174