A Lifeless Universe: Part Two

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum philosophy, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

Continued from Part One…

In a universe without life, it’s probably pretty meaningless to talk about concepts like free will. Then there’s that whole sackful of concepts related to good-and-evil like morals, ethics, sin, badness, righteousness, etc. and as such there’s no need for the concepts of heaven or hell. As such, scratch salvation, redemption, forgiveness, or damnation.

There are no emotions, suffering, pain, sorrow, pleasure, consciousness, or psychology. There’s obviously no disease.

There’s another bagful of concepts like the afterlife, reincarnation or resurrection that can go by the boards. Speaking of the latter, there’s no such thing in a lifeless universe as miracles. There is no such concept required like survival of the fittest; there are no wars, no death, and certainly no taxes! There were no soft science concepts around like society, culture, education (no homework), politics and government (no politicians), no economics (no bills), no religion (no thou shalt nots), no philosophy (who needs angels and pins), history (all those names, dates and places) and no environmental issues that needed addressing. There was no beauty (and no ugly either). In short, that pre-life era – that was what is known as the really good old days!

There’s one other important contrast between a lifeless universe and the universe that, in this case specifically contains and singles out humans and human concepts, and that is probability.  

Probability or uncertainty (two sides; same coin) dominates our existence. What odds my next child will be a female? What odds the next time I fly the plane will crash? What odds I win the lottery this week? What’s the probability I will be promoted this year? What’s the probability that I am normal, being of average height, weight, age, etc.? Even in science as performed by humans, probability or uncertainty dominates. Every measurement has error bars. Every forecast has some degree of uncertainty. Even the Sun rising tomorrow is not absolutely guaranteed (though I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that unlikely event). Every theory can ultimately be found to be wrong or incomplete. And just where is that damn electron anyway?

The fundamental question is, is probability an intrinsic property of Mother Nature like mass and gravity, or is it a human invention; a human concept? IMHO, there are no error bars in Mother Nature’s reality. Mother Nature knows the temperature is this, not around this but within this range. Mother Nature notes it will rain tomorrow, not just a chance of showers. Mother Nature knows that the Sun will rise tomorrow even though it will go nova the day after that. Mother Nature knew that Einstein’s theory of gravity was more precise than Newton’s theory of gravity millennia before Newton or Einstein was conceived of in anyone philosophy. And Mother Nature knows exactly where that damn electron is because the electron is. 

Any observer, via instrumentation or via the five senses, usually has to interpret what that observation actually represents – it’s not always obvious. If it was, science would have concluded its work decades ago, or just be engaged in refining things from the tenth to the twelfth decimal place. Interpretation – the choice between two or more possibilities – well that’s weighing probabilities.

* We’ve all observed a cat rubbing its head along an object. What’s the probability the cat is putting its scent on the object or the probability does it have an itch to scratch?

* We might have observed a boat passing away from us and disappearing over the horizon. Is this because the Earth is probably round or did the boat probably sink?

* In quantum physics, observations suggest a wave-particle duality. But is it more probably a wave or is it more likely a particle? 

* Is that unusual light in the sky probably an alien spaceship or is it probably a weather balloon?

* Does viewing a sunrise suggest t you that the Sun probably goes around the Earth or that the Earth probably is rotating around its axis?

* You spot that tornado on the horizon – maybe it will miss you or maybe it won’t. What are the odds? It certainly can’t both hit you and miss you at the same time and place.

* Is Pluto probably a real planet or isn’t it (and does it even cosmically matter)?

* My friend has a cold. I have a cold. Did I probably catch his or did he probably catch mine or was there probably something contagious in the meal we shared several nights ago?

* That Sasquatch I saw. Was it probably too much to drink or was it probably real and if it was real was it probably a bear or was it probably an unknown primate?

* Did the apple fall to earth because it’s probably seeking its natural place or was it probably due to an external force called gravity?

* Is Schrodinger’s cat probably dead or probably alive? It can’t be both simultaneously despite what quantum physics suggest.

* Why is the night sky dark? Is it probably because the Sun’s not shining in the sky at night or probably because the Universe is expanding or probably because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies giving off light.

* Why did the chicken cross the road this morning? You may not know (though you can probably come up with a half-dozen possibilities) but the chicken probably does.

There’s little doubt in my mind that to all of these probably observations there is but one answer(s). In many cases we’ve sussed out the answer(s). We don’t have the answer(s) in all the cases. I say answer(s) because there can be more than one answer acting jointly, like there really was a Sasquatch and yes, you were also really, really drunk; yes the Earth is round, but yes, the boat sank as well. But its an either/or certainty of an explanation(s), not a bit of both ways by sometimes probably having your cake and sometimes probably eating it too, probability, as in sometimes the apple falls to earth because it is seeking its natural place and sometimes it falls to earth because of gravity; or that Pluto is a planet on odd days or in months containing an “R” and not a planet on even days or non-“R” months; or sometimes the night sky is dark because the Sun isn’t in the sky, but at other times the night sky is dark because the Universe is expanding and at yet even on other occasions its only dark because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies.

The bottom line is that the Universe isn’t governed by probability. Given identical sets of circumstances or conditions, the outcomes remain the same. Observers and observations are irrelevant. That’s made crystal clear during all those millennia the Universe was observer-free.   

A Lifeless Universe: Part One

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life, from the humble bacteria through to plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In terms of sheer numbers of species and total biomass, microbes and insects rule the roost, though humans alone pat themselves on the back. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum metaphysics, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

I think everyone would agree that before they were thought of in anyone’s philosophy, the Universe existed. You’d agree that the Universe existed before humans existed, unless you’re one of those fundamentalists who interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and even then there were a few days for the Universe to enjoy a pre-human existence. If you’re not one of those extreme right wing all-things-literal Christians, then you’d go along with the Universe existing before life, any kind of life, arose on Terra Firma (or anywhere else in the cosmos for that matter). You’d also have to go along with the notion that the Universe existed before the Earth (and therefore the Sun and solar system) existed, since the parent (the Universe) has to exist before the offspring (Earth, Sun and solar system). In fact, to bring this string to its logical conclusion, the Universe existed even before our home parent galaxy, the Milky Way existed.

The origin of our Universe via that Big Bang event was roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Our own galaxy didn’t come into its own until three plus billion years post Big Bang. Planet Earth (plus Sun and solar system) came about some 4.5 billion years ago; the first stirrings of what we’d call life happened on Earth within a half a billion years of Earth’s origin event. If you want to equate life in the Universe with life on Earth (terrestrial biology is the proverbial IT), then the Universe has been lifeless for the first 9.7 billion years of its existence.

Our Universe is bio-friendly otherwise we wouldn’t be here to discuss the issue. That’s often termed the Weak Anthropic Principle. A bio-friendly Universe is a Goldilocks Universe, albeit a dangerous Goldilocks Universe with lots of places that are too hot or too cold or otherwise not quite right and not quite bio-friendly. But, any port in a storm.

But before life was thought of in anyone’s (not that there was anyone) philosophy, we’re certain that:

* Chemistry still happened.

* Stars still shined and photons still did their photon thing.

* Gravity still grabbed; Black Holes still formed.

* Radioactivity decay still proceeded.

* Neutrinos still whizzed their merry way along the cosmic byways and pathways.

* Electrons still quantum hopped from orbit to orbit giving off and absorbing energy.

* Quarks still carried on their threesome relationships inside protons and neutrons.

Okay, there clearly was a time when the cosmos was lifeless and the above were cosmic truisms. There clearly might come such a time again if Planet Earth is the proverbial IT when it comes to the life part of “life, the Universe and everything”. Humans aren’t immortal; Planet Earth isn’t immortal, and as I said earlier, the Universe can be a dangerous place. Perhaps humans don’t even need assistance from the Universe at large to bring about their extinction and the extinction of all life on Earth. If life on Earth goes kaput, then:

* Hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, floods and droughts will still happen on Terra Firma.

* Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, avalanches, Ice Ages, tsunamis, meteor impacts, erosion, mountain building, and continental drift will still happen on Terra Firma.

* The tides will still ebb and flow; the Moon still waxes and wanes.

Now the $64,000 question is why is a lifeless Universe of any interest whatsoever? The answer is “observers”, or in the case of a lifeless Universe, “no observers”.

Many, especially the religious, think the Universe had a purpose, and that was to be fruitful and produce life, intelligence and consciousness, a way of the Universe being able to contemplate its own navel. That’s often termed the Strong Anthropic Principle. Most scientists give that the thumbs down on the grounds that the Universe just is. The Universe doesn’t have a consciousness, or a deity controlling it, and therefore the cosmos can’t have a purpose to its existence, nor a ways and means that it can consciously direct itself toward such a goal.

However, many quantum physicists suggest that the Universe cannot have achieved a reality until such time as observers (life) appeared to give the Universe reality. That’s often termed the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The idea is that all possible realities exist in a state of superposition and only one becomes reality when someone actually observes and forces the numerous possibilities down to one certainty. All possible realities are grouped together and termed the probability wave-function or wave of probability. When crunch-comes-crunch and someone peeks, Mother Nature is forced to make a decision, the wave-function collapses and one and only one certainty results.

Until life appeared then, the Universe was in a superposition of all possible realities, a wave-function that was a composite of all possibilities. That first observer hence collapsed the wave-function of near infinite possibilities down to one reality. Or is that just so much bovine fertilizer?

Now between the time of the creation, that Big Bang event some 13.7 billion years ago, and the time of that first observer arising, the cosmos expanded and evolved. Stars formed, solar systems formed, galaxies formed, and so on. Now all that suggests that there was one reality, one chain of events, and a causality that was universal – the Universe was not in a composite of all possible states of reality even while no life existed. It’s silly to think that that ever first proto-cell billions of years ago determined the single structure or reality of the Universe we see around us today. For observers to have come into being, the Universe had to have already been in a state of being. Therefore, the Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum is utter nonsense.

So, does the Universe exist even if nobody is looking? Yes! Did the Universe exist even when there was nobody to look? Yes! Are observers relevant? No!

Having settled the observer question, let’s move on to the next phase.

To be continued…

Black Holes & Baby Universes

There are numerous ways of theoretically generating a collection of separate and apart universes, commonly called a Multiverse. One such novel approach uses two accepted entities, a universe and a Black Hole to generate each other in turn in either a linear or a cyclic fashion. While the linear approach runs out of puff, the cyclic version doesn’t, but only if you postulate a form of time travel!

You exist somewhere on Planet Earth, which orbits a rather average star we call the Sun, which in turn orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy which is but one of billions and billions of galaxies within our observable Universe. That’s what you’d include in any description of your reality.

However, perhaps the observable Universe itself exists within a Black Hole. That’s an alternative reality, or at least an extension of your reality. Just what rationale might lead one to suggest that our observable Universe and a Black Hole could be in parallel?

Since you cannot escape from the prison we call the Universe; and since you could not escape from the inside of a Black Hole – another type prison – perhaps they are one and the same sort of prison. Perhaps not only do Black Holes exist inside our Universe but the Universe itself resides inside a Black Hole with perhaps no end of the inside-the-inside-the-inside in either direction. In a manner of speaking, that’s a Multiverse!

Actually you can in theory escape this Universe by hopping down into a Black Hole, but if, and it’s a very big ‘but if’, you survive, you’ve just traded in one maximum security prison for another.

Let’s explore this concept a little further and see where, if anywhere, it leads us.

Our Universe and Black Holes certainly share some things in common.

A Black Hole can expand and surprisingly contract (due to Hawking radiation; the technicalities need not concern us here). Our Universe is expanding, but in theory could also contract if there was enough stuff, matter, hence gravity to slow down the expansion to an eventual halt hence reverse direction and start to shrink.

A Black Hole has temperature (that Hawking radiation); our Universe has a temperature (the cosmic background microwave radiation).

A Black Hole has mass (hence gravity); our Universe has mass (hence gravity).

A Black Hole could have a net charge; our Universe could have an excess of one kind of charge over another, but to the best of our knowledge our Universe is electrically neutral, and we suspect, so might an average Black Hole be too.

A Black Hole may be spinning; our Universe maybe rotating but the only way of knowing if you are rotating is if something else in your line of sight isn’t rotating or rotating at a different rate. If everything in our Universe is rotating together at the same rate, then there’s no way of telling since there isn’t anything else to relate that rotation to. 

Now the question arises was there a prime cause; a first universe inside a Black Hole  that gave birth to millions more Black Holes each of which generated an interior universe each of which spawned million more Black Holes hence interior universes and so on and so on and so on. It’s all very circular in that Black Holes generate universes which generate more Black Holes which generate more universes, etc. But that is something circular in a very linear sort of way for what you end up with is like an ongoing (maybe infinite) series of funnels. Sooner or later all the stuff that existed in the first cause Black Hole universe will funnel down into the first generation of Black Hole universes and all the stuff there eventually finds its way down into the second generation of Black Hole universes, hence funnelled down to the third, and fourth and down unto infinity. Now the point here is that there was only a finite amount of stuff (matter/energy) in that first cause Black Hole universe. All that stuff is constantly being diluted as one passes from one generation to the next generation. The stuff of the prime cause first Black Hole universe is dispersed unto millions and eventually billions of later universes. Eventually every baby universe in some umpteenth generation of universes would be so dilute no further Black Holes could form and that’s then the end of that.

But, what if things were cyclic or really circular? All of these universes do not exist in separate and apart timeframes, just like great grandpa; grandpa; father and son do not of necessity exist in separate and apart timeframes but can co-exist at the same time. When you talk of Black Holes, you can also go the one yard further and talk wormholes, which I guess is really that passageway from a Black Hole to the baby universe it generated. But if that first Black Hole universe generates say a million Black Holes each generating a baby universe, what’s to say that a Black Hole created in that baby universe might not funnel back stuff, not to a newer next generation, but dump their contents back to the original first cause Black Hole universe. Wormholes can, in theory, under the right conditions, serve as time machines. So it’s almost akin as if the son travelled back in time and fathered what would ultimately become his great grandpa. Cyclic! If cyclic, the amount of stuff (matter/energy) is still fixed (that which existed in the original Black Hole universe), but never gets diluted enough to bring things to a halt. Now about those quasars, gamma ray bursts and related ultra-energetic astronomical enigmas – White Holes perhaps; the exit of the Black Hole entrance – impregnations by those baby universe Black Holes?  

Where actually do these new (and improved?) baby universes reside? I doubt that a Black Hole opens up a portal and creates a never-before-in-existence arena of space-time where stuff pouring into a Black Hole, hence exiting this portal, finds a ready made newly constructed house to live and evolve in. Rather, the baby universe IS the interior of a Black Hole. A Black Hole forms, a new baby universe forms inside that Black Hole, and that universe in turn produces new Black Holes that form new baby universes, etc. But everything takes place, generation after generation, inside that first Black Hole (which just might be our Universe). The baby universes spawned inside say Black Hole generation #3 in turn creates Black Hole generation #4 which also exist within the earlier Black Hole generation #3 as do the generation #4 baby universes. So instead of a series of dolls sitting all-in-a-row on a long shelf, it’s more akin to those Russian dolls, one inside the other inside the other inside the other. But, as suggested above, one of the smaller dolls can ultimately funnel stuff back up into one of the larger dolls. 

Aside #1: Now you may feel that any baby universe inside a Black Hole in our Universe is going to be a pretty small universe indeed. Well I’m not aware that the definition of a universe comes attached with a one size fits all clause. Universes might well come is small, medium, large and extra-large sizes. Maybe a baby universe inside a Black Hole is like Dr. Who’s TARDIS – bigger on the inside than on the outside. Truth is, nobody, and I do mean nobody has a clue what’s inside the event horizon of a Black Hole. Once inside the event horizon all the laws, principles and relationships of physics break down. Nobody and no measuring instrument have ever been inside to have a look at what’s what and report back. It’s akin to those maritime charts of the ancient seafarers – here be dragons! It’s the greatest of the great unknowns. If space is the final frontier, the inside of a Black Hole is the Absolutely Final Frontier. Now there’s no reason of necessity why any of these baby universes need be inhabited. Extraterrestrial intelligence isn’t part of the definition of a universe either. A universe is really a self-contained space where matter and energy interact; where things happen; where there is change from moment to moment. The interior of a Black Hole is self-contained. There’s matter and energy but whether there’s activity or not, well IMHO the answer is affirmative since the Black Hole isn’t static. It’s either expanding as matter and energy enters and passes the event horizon or contracting thanks to the abovementioned Hawking radiation. Actually both incoming and outgoing are going on simultaneously.

Aside #2: Something about this entire concept reminds me of the old sci-fi pulp magazine era. It was a staple plot of shrinking down to the atomic level only to discover a civilization on a ‘planetary’ electron orbiting a ‘stellar’ nucleus.

Aside #3: A Black Hole that might spew out another universe might have that universe stillborn in that that universe may not in turn be able to give rise to internally created Black Holes and thus another generation of baby universes. Not all universes will of necessity have the same physics, physics that allow the creation of Black Holes, and so some universes will be eternal bachelors or spinsters.

Aside #4: Yet another interesting question is what happens to the two baby universes when and if their parent Black Holes merge, as most certainly can happen. That would seem to be a rather nasty scenario for inhabitants of either of the baby universes!

Now clearly this is all speculation, but then speculation, that “what if” scenario, is the bread-and-butter staple of science fiction, and how often has science fiction evolved into science fact? It’s an oft quoted saying, attributed to J. B. S. Haldane (1924) that “The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”

Impossible, Improbable & Imaginary Extraterrestrial Geographies

Far away places with strange sounding names. Sometimes they exist; sometimes they exist but not quite in the way at times suspected or expected; sometimes they don’t exist at all. It’s the latter two categories I examine here.

Impossible, improbable or imaginary geographies are often located, as things turned out, off planet. Here are a few examples of those impossible, improbable & imaginary extraterrestrial geographies.

Vulcan: We all know that Mercury is the closest planetary object to the Sun. But that’s not celestial physics set in stone. There could be objects even closer in, though difficult to see in the intense glare of our parent star, just as many of us haven’t ever seen Mercury being too close to the Sun to be seen with the unaided eye unless conditions are absolutely spot-on. So, way back when, when astronomical instrumentation and technology wasn’t as good as today, coupled with expectations and the thrill of the chase, well it’s not too surprising that astronomers ‘found’ that there was a planet even closer to the Sun than Mercury. Such a planet would be hot property indeed, and so when looking for mythological names that were ‘hot’ with which to christen it, well Vulcan fit the bill. And so it came to pass that Vulcan was the planet closest to the Sun; Mercury relegated to next in line. Unfortunately, they were wrong. Wishful thinking trumped less than ideal observations and so Vulcan was created in the mind as opposed to being actually verifiable. Mercury was restored to first rock from the Sun status – Vulcan became imaginary real estate. But, as Star Trek fans all know, the name lives on as the (non-solar) home of Mr. Spock and kin. 

Neith: Venus, the Goddess of Love, should have a lover – a companion. Venus, the planet, should too have a companion. After all, Venus is the near twin of Earth in terms of size and proximity to the Sun (Venus is second rock out), and Earth has a natural satellite so it stood to reason that Venus should have one too. Alas, it was not to be, but not for lack of trying. Take Neith – companion (but in mythology not lover) to Venus the planet. As with the case of Vulcan, wishful thinking, plus perhaps less than ideal telescopes (relative to modern scopes) led to a flurry of sightings of that expected satellite of Venus, named Neith, so confident were the discoverers that this was no illusion but a physical object. Now there’s a slight problem here. Venus isn’t that close in proximity to the Sun that solar glare should have caused problems. It wasn’t just one professional astronomer who sighted Neith, but many. And while the optical equipment of the day wasn’t 2012 state-of-the-art, it was more than adequate, or should have been more than adequate, to see a reasonable sized satellite in orbit around Venus. So, one could argue that Neith was indeed an actual bit of celestial real estate that went walkabout. Natural satellites don’t have a habit of going walkabout and disappearing. Unnatural satellites on the other hand… Now, might our own Moon be such an unnatural satellite?

Spaceship Moon: Once upon a time there was no real scientifically satisfactorily explanation for the Moon, or rather how the Moon came to be our Moon. One idea that the Moon was an independent body in an irregular and rogue orbit that somehow in a just-so kind of way happen to get gravitationally captured by the Earth was really too implausible. The Moon could have formed jointly with the Earth out of the same cosmic interstellar dust cloud that gave rise to the rest of the solar system. Some bits of that cosmic dust clumped together to form the planets around the parent star, the Sun, and in like fashion other bits of that dust came together around the planets to form natural satellites. Alas, post Apollo, chemical analysis of Moon bits compared to Earth bits ruled that out. For a similar reason, as well as problems in celestial physics, the Moon wasn’t born of a rapidly spinning proto-Earth leaving behind the Pacific basin as its scar, in the same way water droplets would be flung off a globe that was rapidly spinning.

Enter stage left the far-out-star-scout alternative idea that the Moon had nothing to do with the proto-Sun and proto-solar system and proto-Earth. The Moon wasn’t a rogue object captured by the Earth’s gravity, but it was a rouge object that was deliberately steered into an Earth orbit. The Moon was actually a hollow artificially constructed spaceship, covered with lots of dust and rock debris as a natural shield against cosmic radiation and other cosmic bits that would now and again slam into this spaceship – hazards of an interstellar voyage. Anomalies like Transient Lunar Phenomena (strange glowing lights seen on an irregular basis on the lunar surface) are explained as artificial. The Moon’s aliens are the source of the UFO phenomenon. The reason for the aliens steering the artificial Moon into Earth orbit in the first place is that Earth provided all the close at hand next door resources the aliens could ever want.

Of course to spoil that good artificial hollow Moon theory, some bright scientist comes up with yet another natural lunar origin explanation that now fitted all of the facts – a rogue near Mars-sized planet slammed, albeit just a glancing blow, into the proto-Earth, and the resulting mixture of thrown off debris from the proto-Earth and the near totally destroyed smaller rouge planet came together under gravity in near Earth proximity to become, the Moon. So, alas, the artificial hollow Moon proved to be another bit of implausible geography.

Face on Mars: The ‘is there or isn’t there life on Mars’ game was set afoot when the American Viking space probes arrived in the Martian arena in 1976. On the scale of micro-organisms, that question still hasn’t been resolved. There are those who are convinced the Viking craft that landed on the Martian surface hit biological pay dirt. Most others say it was only chemical, not biochemical pay dirt. The fence is being sat on by others to this day. However, the other Viking craft that orbited Mars boldly detected not microbial life, but intelligent life on Mars. One photographed the ‘face on Mars’, and by Jove, that’s exactly what it looked like – one huge monolithic massive stone structure on the Martian surface that resembled down to exacting details, a human face. Well, appearances can be, and often are, deceiving. All of us, at one time or another has seen geometry and recognizable shapes, including faces, in the clouds or in rock formations or on toasted cheese sandwiches. Images of ‘Jesus’ appearing on all manner of things are regular fodder for the tabloids.  Anyway, the whole ‘face on Mars’ issue spawned an entire mini publishing boom, though sceptics were 99 & 44/100’s % convinced that it was all just an illusion. And so it came to pass that NASA went back to Mars post-Viking, and, under pressure, had a new orbiting probe take another look under differing lighting conditions. The score – sceptics one; ‘face on Mars’ advocates zero. It really was all just an illusion, a trick of those lighting conditions that when coupled with some wishful thinking produced another example of imaginary geography.     

Hollow Moons of Mars: But wait, we’re not quite through with Mars yet. Mars has two relatively tiny satellites discovered in 1877 and both named after offspring of Ares/Mars – the god of war - that orbit around it. The one farther out and smaller of the two is called Deimos (about 4 miles radius and over 12,400 miles altitude) and the other larger and closer moon is Phobos (about 7 miles radius; altitude 3700 miles from the Martian surface). Actually it would be more accurate to say that neither is a perfect sphere; potato-shaped is a more spot-on description.

Now it came to pass that some scientists monitoring the relative orbits of Deimos and Phobos noticed that they were shrinking much, much, faster that they should have been. The moons were spiralling in towards the planet, eventually destined to have a close encounter of the Ka-Boom impact kind. The very tenuous Martian atmosphere isn’t much of a drag to what must be solid rock moons. The only alterative explanation is that these satellites were hollow; much less dense than solid rock, and therefore, wait for it, artificial, probably relics of a long extinct Martian civilization. Well actually, there was another alternative explanation – the observations of the shrinking orbits were at the limits of resolution technology and were erroneous. Space probes that have since passed up-close-and-personal to and photographed these satellites, and show exactly what you’d expect – not gleaming metallic hollow space stations or the image of a Star Wars type of Death Star configuration, but irregular, potato-shaped, cratered hunks of rock.

Heaven: If you accept the literal truth of Biblical passages, you can draw no other conclusion other than that Heaven is a physical place not of this Earth since there are lots of passages relating beings ascending and descending twixt the two. Therefore Heaven must be located somewhere up there or out there and as the Bible points out, home to an assorted range of supernatural deities (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) and staff, presumably angels (or extraterrestrial officers and crew depending on point of view). Unfortunately, despite Heaven being physical geography, it ain’t been seen by man, telescope or space probe. Heaven would have to be fairly conspicuous – deities and staff don’t reside on a quarter acre block. Try something more like the Taj Mahal or Buckingham Palace or Angkor Wat all cubed.

Of course perhaps Heaven is located light-years away among the stars, but that would hinder rapid interventions by the Heavenly residents here on Terra Firma. Prayers can’t travel faster than the speed of light, and like radio broadcasts, rapidly fade according to the inverse-square law – twice the distance, one-quarter the strength; thrice the distance, one-ninth the strength, etc. So, Heaven, if it makes any sense at all, should be nearby, in cosmic terms. Maybe Heaven resides and is hidden within the cloud bands of Jupiter, though that’s hardly a tranquil or ideal location as is in fact most of the solar system’s real estate. Of course if Heaven were a spaceship, a large spaceship – think Buckingham Palace cubed again – well perhaps that explains Neith. It just moved from the Venus environs to a less conspicuous location like in the asteroid belt or within the rings of Saturn - hidden in plain sight as it were. The upshot is, until proven otherwise, Heaven must be considered a mythical place.

Perhaps we all should be satisfied with the geography we got for real, keeping in mind that the geography we know is but a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny (repeat several hundred more times) of the geography yet to be discovered and explored – the vast cosmos beckons.

UFOs: The Stellar Rainbow Connection: Part One

It’s pretty much common knowledge that most scientists reject the reality of UFOs, at least in terms of UFOs being something ultimately anomalous, like extraterrestrial spaceships. Eyewitness testimony doesn’t cut their mustard. Photographs don’t hack it. What they demand is something nuts-and-bolts that they can study, put under a microscope, pound with a hammer, pour acid on, etc. No actual body on the lab’s slab equals no actual evidence one can study therefore there is no reality to the nonexistent body and no correspondence will be entered into on the matter. I smell a double-standard rat!

A senior SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) astronomer recently posted an essay on UFOs in the Huffington Post where he first stated:  “Allow me to first note that this is a phenomenon worthy of attention. If aliens are really hanging out in our 'hood, it's hard to imagine any other fact more worthy of study.” Then he concludes with: “The fact is, if you're certain that our planet is hosting alien visitors, the way to gain acceptance for your point of view is to prove it, not insist that the problem lies with third parties. The blame game is a cop-out.”

WTF is this guy saying? UFOs are important but it’s up to others to do all the hard yards and prove that UFOs and aliens are related. You can just about hear the writer scream out WE REQUIRE PROOF as long as the burden is on others to come up with the smoking gun!

WE REQUIRE PROOF! That’s all fine, well and good in theory, an in an ideal world, except the average member of the great unwashed doesn’t have the name-brand, academic bona-fides or resources required. No matter what ‘proof” the great unwashed offer up, the WE REQUIRE PROOF demands of the many (scientists) outweigh the abilities of the few (the great unwashed) to proved the required goods. If I ring up a top scientist at a top university and say I have a piece of an alien spaceship, do you honestly think they will listen to me or slam down the phone uttering “another bloody wacko wasting my time”! So the ‘blame game’ is perhaps more a plea for those with the scientific bona-fides, and the resources and the credibility and respected home institutions to take the great unwashed a tad more seriously when it comes to UFO experiences and get their hands dirty studying the subject.

I play the blame game. I put blame on those who could, but won’t get their hands dirty. It’s intellectual cowardice pure and simple. The fairly obvious if unstated message is I’m interested in ET, I’m a SETI scientist by profession, but I’m not interested in UFOs unless someone else provides the proof that there is an actual alien connection. I’m not interested in UFOs because I won’t get external funding to study them. That’s because I’ve got too much on my plate already. That’s because I’d rather sit on my ass and let the great unwashed do the dirty work. That’s because someone might make fun of me, like my professional colleagues. The sociology (office politics) of the science community usually runs something along the lines of don’t stray beyond the mainstream; don’t think out of the box; don’t rock the boat or you’ll end up like Jonah and tossed overboard without a whale in sight.

So holier than thou essays like that posted by ‘Mr. SETI’ aren’t really helpful; relevant scientists need to put up some legit science or shut up since if they are clearly not part of the solution, they are part of the problem standing in the way of a solution!

Let’s forget the great unwashed for the moment; let’s talk nerdy talk and deal with evidence, not proof, just evidence, that something strange is afoot via observations from astronomers,  professional colleagues of SETI scientists, and their reported anomalous observations that are in the scientific literature. Now albeit it’s ‘colleagues’ from several generations ago and way before modern SETI times, but that doesn’t alter their academic bona-fides nor what they reported in the professional literature.

I refer to the numerous historical sightings of Neith (reported satellite of Venus) and the intra-Mercurial planet Vulcan along with numerous other sightings of alleged planets inside the orbit of Mercury. Not one, or two but multi-dozens of reports are in the scientific literature for both. That’s in addition to those multi-dozens of sightings of unpredicted by uncharted and unknown objects that made unexpected transits of the Sun and Moon. So, professional astronomers are on record as having seen, for all practical purposes, unidentified ‘aerial’ phenomena. Now we know there is no Neith and there is no Vulcan, etc. so exactly what did scientists in the astronomical profession observe? A UFO by any other name is still a UFO. Okay, that’s just evidence, not proof. Still, UFO observations are not exclusively the property of the great unwashed.   

WE REQUIRE PROOF! Okay, even if scientists don’t want to actively participate, their demand WE REQUIRE PROOF (lay it on the slab in my lab) sounds reasonable, until you realise that those same scientists accept the reality of many other things that they equally can’t study on a slab in the lab, things that only can be seen or photographed.

An obvious case in point is those stars in the night sky. You see them; you can photograph them, but to date you can’t study the physical object in the laboratory! You can’t put a star on the slab. So, if stars are acceptable, why not UFOs? Well, stars can be therefore they are; UFOs can’t be therefore they aren’t*.

Scientists have a readymade excuse for not being able to verify the bona-fides of stars as laboratory specimens; they are out of reach – way too distant to grab hold of. But they still argue that stars aren’t illusions or misidentifications or all-in-the-mind or hoaxes because astrophysical theory supports stars being what scientists believe they are. Of course in a manner of speaking starlight can be ‘captured’ and analysed in the lab, and at least stars have the decency of making their appearance on schedule. Still, you cannot examine up close and personal the physical star itself.

So as a generality, in defence to an anti-UFO stance, scientists will say there are theoretical reasons for accepting the reality of things they can’t put their mitts on, implying that there are no theoretical reasons supporting the UFO ETH (ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis). Alas and alack, as an additional counterattack, as stars (and rainbows - see below) are supported by astrophysics’ theory, there is also an actual theoretical scenario that nearly demands that there be UFOs and that UFOs be extraterrestrial spacecraft – it’s known as the Fermi Paradox. That just basically says that even if there is only one advanced technological civilization ‘out there’ with the ability to “boldly go”, then the time it would take to explore (even at low sub light velocities – say 1% to 10% the speed of light) and colonize end-to-end our galaxy is but a tiny, tiny fraction of the age of our galaxy. So where is everybody? They should, if they exist at all, by rights be here. Why would they pay special attention to the third rock from the Sun? While stars and planets are dimes-a-dozen, abodes with biospheres are probably as rare as hen’s teeth – that’s why. Planet Earth is a hen’s tooth! Alas, while astrophysical theory passes their muster, the Fermi Paradox doesn’t cut their mustard apparently.

Okay, for terrestrial scientists, physical star-stuff can’t be placed on the lab’s slab. But there are parallels much closer to home where that excuse of extreme distance falls far short. Now here’s a parallel. The rainbow is the case in point. If scientists can play UFO skeptic, I can play the role of rainbow skeptic.

To be continued…

If God Isn’t God, Then Who or What is God? Part One

In my opinion, all this Biblical nonsense boils down to a collection of myths and fairy tales for grownups. For those who really have the faith, I’m easy. But I think the concept of the Biblical God (and associated baggage) is the greatest con job ever fostered on the great unwashed. Unless, assuming that God or the gods (i.e. – Zeus, etc.) weren’t totally fabricated out of whole cloth, then maybe, just maybe, the gods, including God, are extraterrestrials.

I have argued that the concept of a supernatural, creator, all-knowing, all-powerful, God is philosophically flawed. But, there remains the question, if God isn’t really God, who is God? Well, IMHO, God isn’t God, since God is a flesh-and-blood extraterrestrial (ET)!

There are two variations to that possibility.

Here’s one of those variations. What if God were in reality a very ‘flesh-and-blood’ extraterrestrial computer programmer, a computer programmer who has written a software package called, say “Planet Earth”? Maybe it’s a computer or interactive video game – maybe a homework assignment for a smart extraterrestrial student.

Anyway, computer software easily explains all the Biblical miracles (virgin births; the resurrection, etc.); or anomalies (like where did all the rain come from vis-à-vis the Biblical Flood, and where did all that water eventually go; how did Jonah survive inside a large fish, etc.) or inconsistencies (like Cain’s wife; the discrepancies between Biblical time and geological time). Regarding the Biblical flood, no humans actually died; no animals suffered and drowned, and so on, because the humans and animals were never real to start with, just as you and I aren’t real, just part of – for want of a better analogy – a computer game simulation.

The logic goes something like this. Within the observable universe, the probability is high that other extraterrestrial civilizations, with a technology equal to or greater than our own exist. By parallel with our civilization, we can assume that other intelligent technological beings would have invented something akin to our computers, laptops, PCs, etc. The number of possible computer software programs is no doubt vastly greater than the number of actual technological civilizations in the observational universe. I mean Earthlings have one such civilization, yet we have tens of thousands of interactive computer software programs, much of it entertainment or educationally driven.  That’s a lot of virtual reality, with a lot more technological advances probably to come – think of those holodeck programs featured in Star Trek.  In any event, the ratio of actual realities to virtual realities is lopsided in the extreme and in favour of the virtual. So, the odds are equally as great that you, me, the entirety of our so-called reality, Planet Earth (and neighbourhood), is of the virtual kind. Thus, we have a creator (our extraterrestrial computer programmer), and I guess the word ‘God’ is as good as any for ‘our extraterrestrial father who art our simulator’. Perhaps our concept of ‘God’ is nothing more than a mythological version of some advanced, but hardly supernatural, extraterrestrial computer programmer! Now as long as ET doesn’t hit the delete key!

Again, to drive the point home, let’s suppose, for argument’s sake that in the real physical Universe, there exists some tens of thousands of extraterrestrial civilizations which have evolved technology our equal or better (even more advanced).  The odds are high that most would have invented computers – hardware and software.  Any one civilization, such as our own, have (to date) produced multi-thousands of computer programs, many of which simulate life forms – think of the hundreds, indeed thousands of computer/video games. No doubt these programs will grow, over time, ever more complex and lifelike.

If one advanced civilization produces multi-thousands of individual computer programs that simulate an actual, or imagined, reality, what are the odds that we aren’t one of those thousands vis-à-vis being that advanced civilization that actually exists? How could you know if you were real, or imaginary? I maintain there’s probably no obvious way of you knowing.

Even if there’s only a relatively few actual extraterrestrial civilizations, but untold number of created false realities – what odds we are one of the real ones and not one of the imaginary/simulated many?

Is the idea really so way out in left field that there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that it could be right? We have to look to advances in our own terrestrial computing power to determine that. Computer generated simulations are already realistic enough that they are used to train astronauts, pilots and MDs and other humans in professional activities where mistakes in training, if done in real situations, could be disastrous.  Our cinema industry has already produced computer generated virtual reality films, bypassing real actors and real scenery. It’s entirely possible (legal issues aside) to bring back in a sense dead actors to star again in new productions. We’ve all been awed by computer generated special effects in films that are so realistic that if you didn’t actually know better, you’d swear were real.

Walk into any DVD store and you’ll find thousands of video (computer) games and/or simulations that you can run on your PC.  Most have ‘humans’ in various role-playing guises that are software generated and which you interact with. The reality factor is increasing by leaps and bounds. At what point will the software become complex enough that these simulated ‘beings’ are advanced enough to have self awareness? What happens when the software programming these virtual ‘humans’ becomes equal to the software (brains) that program us? What happens when the computer software complexity exceeds that of the human brain? Is this far-fetched? Methinks not. Now just replace our virtual ‘humans’ with ourselves, and maybe, just maybe, we’re the virtual reality in somebody (something) else’s actual reality.

If we, Planet Earth, and our observable universe are nothing but a simulation, that can explain (or at least rationally account for) any and all anomalies (miracles?) that you care to bring up. Software (be it of the wet-ware [brains] or of the computer variety) can create any sort of simulated reality – it doesn’t even have to be logical or explainable. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Astronomy One: When considering things cosmological, it’s become apparent that astronomers only observe about 4% of the matter that should be present. That is, about 96% of the matter that should be present and detectable to account for the observed behaviour of our observable universe is missing! Now 1% might be understandable givens measurement uncertainty (error bars), but hardly 96%! So, cosmologists have postulated concepts which they have termed ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to make up the deficit. However, nobody has the foggiest idea what exactly ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ actually is. Neither has actually been detected – obviously. Of course in an artificial simulated universe, one needs no correlation between cause (amount of matter) and effect (behaviour of the observable universe). In fact, it makes the programming that much simpler. By human analogy, I’m sure a detailed study of our video/computer games would show gross violations of the laws of physics. 

Astronomy Two: No astronomer can explain how galaxies form and stay formed, at least without incorporating ‘dark matter’. Yet we see them in lots of shapes and sizes. Maybe it’s as if our hypothetical simulator thought that these were sort of pretty and thus threw several billions of them into the background as decorative wallpaper.

Astronomy Three: Since the Big Bang was first documented by measuring the velocity of far away galaxies, there’s been reoccurring problems with the discovery that parts of the Universe have appeared to be older than the Universe itself (as implied by the Big Bang as documented by the velocities of galaxies) – which is a nonsense. Recalibrations have always rectified this situation, but there are still current unresolved issues here. Further, some distant objects appear to have a physical connection, yet separately each is moving at drastically different velocities. 

Physics One: Then we have the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics – both are accurate to a high degree of experimental precision, but they aren’t compatible with each other. Apparently, one (or both) of these theories must be wrong, or at best incomplete. That’s why the unification of the two (a theory of quantum gravity) is physics’ Holy Grail. However, that Holy Grail is proving as difficult to find as the Grail itself! But for the moment, it’s like the universe has two independent sets of laws, or software – one governing the very large; one the very small. This makes no natural or scientific sense. It’s beyond me how that can be if our reality is really reality, but easily explained if our reality is just someone’s simulation.

Physics Two: Within quantum physics there’s something called the wave-particle duality. That is, something can exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle at the same time. There really is no entirely rational explanation for this, it just is.

Physics Three: Within General Relativity Theory, if there is anything unintuitive it is the fact that in the entire Universe, it is the speed of light that is absolute or fixed, not something like space or time. It’s unintuitive that all other bits and pieces in motion can be added or subtracted. So, if you are in a train that is moving at say 100 km/hour and you throw a ball at 10 km/hour in the direction at which the train is moving, to an observer outside the train, your ball is travelling at 110 km/hour. If you throw the ball towards the rear of the train, an outside observer will measure the ball as moving at 90 km/hour. If on the other hand, you shine a flashlight in the train, an outside observer will see the velocity of the resulting light beam moving at the speed of light – not the speed of plight PLUS the velocity of the train, or the speed of light MINUS the velocity of the train if you shine the flashlight towards the rear, but at the speed of light! That’s nuts, but it’s scientifically nuts and been proven again and again in any experiment you care to devise. I suggest here that a really natural universe wouldn’t have that property, and that this weird absolute in physics has been imposed on us by someone (something) else. 

Physics Four: In our Universe, there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but there’s not. Our antimatter has gone walkabout. While there is one viable physics explanation for this, when considering a simulated universe, it would be easy to program out the antimatter quota which makes for a less complex universe; less complex software that one needs for the simulation. Or, perhaps our simulator hadn’t realized the simulation of physical laws would have predicted antimatter hence never bothered to program it in from the get-go. 

To be continued...

Pick a Verse, Any Uni-Verse: Part Two

VERSES: Well, there’s Adverse; Averse; Diverse; Inverse; Perverse; Reverse; and Universe. That’s the one we want – Universe.

PICK A UNIVERSE, ANY UNIVERSE: Well, they seem to come in a number of possible flavours.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

SUPERNATURAL UNIVERSES: These also come is a number of flavours – assuming they exist at all – like the spirit world universe where ghosts go bump in the night, the eternal afterlife in Heaven where you spend eternity plucking a harp, or the Hell universe where you don’t have to worry about the heating bills. Then there is Asgard and Valhalla too where true Norse heroes go and drink mead and prepare for Ragnarok. Then there’s the New Age and related concept of ‘higher planes of existence/reality’ theme, whatever that actually means – it’s pretty nebulous. There’s probably plenty of potential others depending on whom you ask and what mythologies you research, but you get the general gist of possibilities. I personally consign these potential supernatural universes to the rubbish bin. However, many intellects equal to and greater than mine don’t. One possible can of worms here is that a simulated universe (be it a software/computer or wetware/brain/mind variety) might use might use a supernatural universe as a role model. You might dream of Valhalla; a video game might simulate Armageddon with you caught in the middle perhaps. Therefore, a simulated universe and a supernatural universe are not mutually exclusive, since you can have a simulated supernatural universe. 

DIMENSIONALITY: Unless we actually work and play; live, breathe and eventually snuff-it in the ever so obvious 3-D Universe that we all think we do, then all bets are off. If reality is the holographic universe, then you’re 2-D and the third dimension is illusionary, no more solid than wisps of smoke, dust and gas (which actually are ‘solid’ but you know what I mean). Likewise, that third dimension is an illusion if you’re a mental construct or if you star in your very own computer game. If all there is is your mind, then I guess ‘reality’ outside of that is dimensionless! And if you reside in a supernatural universe, then it’s a case of God, or gods, only knows – you may have no reality or geometry as we know it at all.

FREE WILL: Presumably if you live in any sort of 3-D universe, even the 2-D holographic universe, including any and all manner of parallel universes, then you apparently have free will. I say apparently as you can’t actually distinguish real free will from illusionary free will. You just might be following that 100% deterministic clockwork Universe that was set into motion at the time and point of origin; you wouldn’t know. In any sort of simulated reality, if you’re an entity in same, then someone (something) else is dictating the terms, so no free will there. Presumably in a supernatural universe you’d have forfeited your free will. I mean, could you of your own free will commit a sin in heaven?

BIRTH: In any standard universe, you (the ‘I think, therefore I am’ you) were born or hatched or some such. In any simulated universe, if you exist in that simulated universe, then you must have been born into it, although that birth does not have to of necessity reflect a standard biological baby birth. In a simulation, the creator could just snap fingers, and, well there you are, fully grown, developed and functional. Of course you could be born again and again and again – and yet again. In a supernatural universe, well, assuming causality that birth must precede death, and that a supernatural universe contains only dead entities, then it’s unlikely in the extreme that you could be born into a supernatural universe!

DEATH: In any standard universe, you are born; you will die. In any simulated universe, if you are in it, then you may or may not die. There’s nothing preventing you having simulated immortality! But, assuming you die, in your dreams, in someone else’s dreams, in a computer game, then of course you can be resurrected! Or not, depending on who is doing the simulation and what their motives are. In a supernatural universe, assuming you are in one and it’s accepted that so being is akin to an afterlife, then it’s taken as given that you have passed on or passed away. However, it’s possible to be in a supernatural universe but not the afterlife part, as in that Armageddon video game referenced above.

INTERACTIONS: Interactions are the name of your game in your reality – whatever that might turn out to be. You interact with your partner, your family, your relatives, your neighbours, your pets; all manner of other people from all manner of walks of life. You in fact interact with yourself, not to mention your environment. Life, the Universe and everything interacts with you; you interact with life, the Universe and everything. Well, nearly everything. Truth be told, there are lots of things that are passive in your reality, or translated, things you don’t normally interact with. There are things that don’t affect you; things you don’t affect. In terms of this essay, you don’t interact with a painting or sculpture or a play on stage or theme park ride or film or TV episode or for that matter 99.999999% of the cosmos. Your interaction with the Andromeda Galaxy is negligible and vice versa. If you don’t interact with something, then it’s pretty irrelevant to your reality. It may as well not exist – perhaps it doesn’t. Apart from those bits and pieces I’ve noted that you do interact with, and vice versa, everything else is of no concern. For all the impact they have on your existence, they may as well not exist.

There are however some other things I’ve noted that you do interact with, or perhaps interact with you. There are those pesky wetware dreams – you interact with the characters in your dreams (and in your ‘I’m awake’ imaginations). You can interact with the characters in software generated scenarios. The question then arises, is someone (something) interacting with you in turn, you being a character in their wetware dream simulation? Is someone (something) interacting with you, you being a character in their software simulation? What ultimately is the reality of your Universe, or the Universe of your reality? Perhaps it is something not yet envisioned, thought of, or dreamt of in anyone’s philosophy or cosmology.

STAKE YOUR REALITY ODDS:  Your reality might well be existence in one universe – our Universe. Even if there is a Multiverse, or parallel universes, there still only one of you, more likely as not, in any single one of them. So, one Universe contains one you. Now that one Universe contains one Planet Earth – your home reality. Unfortunately, one Earth has generated one technological intelligence which has created thousands, even tens of thousands (or more) software simulations. So, is your reality one Universe, one Earth, or one of the thousands-plus video (software simulation) games?  Unfortunately, one Earth has also spawned all those intelligent beings, each of which dream multi-dreams per sleep interval, all of which amounts to trillions upon trillions of dream scenarios, each one of which is a simulated ‘reality’ in its own right. Even if you are one of the billions of intelligent beings, the odds are pretty good that you have also featured as a character in not only your own dreams, but in those of other people as well. Someone doesn’t of necessity have to dream of someone they know of. They can invent in their dream(s) a total stranger – that stranger could just be you! Given trillions upon trillions of dreaming ‘realities’ you can’t really be sure whether or not you are the dreamer or the dreamed (or maybe both). Similarly, are you the video game creator/player or the character within (again, maybe both)?

Now there are probably lots of terrestrial-like planets, some of which are abodes to other technologically advanced (alien) intelligences, which presumably also have given rise to their versions of wetware and software simulations.

The bottom line is that while there is one Universe, lots of civilizations, and uncountable numbers of individuals, the sum total of software simulations are probably uncountable squared; the wetware simulations uncountable cubed! Therefore, the odds favour your reality being contained within one Universe, on one abode, but ultimately therein being but a simulated entity in wetware or software.   

THE ANSWER TO YOUR REALITY & YOUR UNIVERSE: The answer is, does it ultimately really matter? Does it matter in your day-to-day existence whether you are just a simulated character in someone else’s dream fantasy universe or a simulated character in someone’s video game universe or a physical character in a really real 3-D Big Bang-Expanding-Heat Death Universe? Firstly, there’s nothing you can do about it regardless of the ultimate answer. Even if you knew for an absolute fact that you were just a character in someone’s dream, how would that change you and what you are? Secondly, regardless of the answer, it doesn’t reduce your cost of living and tax burden or having to struggle out of bed in the morning! Perhaps all possible universes are equally real and co-exist in some sort of harmony. Perhaps you should just be thankful that you have any kind of existence at all – that existence was never some absolute before-the-fact inevitability (parallel universes aside where your existence probably is inevitable in at least on of them). And as long as you firmly believe you have free will, what does it ultimately matter if, in the bigger picture of things, you don’t? It’s a case of what you don’t know won’t hurt you. Unfortunately, its human nature to want to know THE ANSWER even if it doesn’t matter or you can’t alter your fate. So, you’ve got to think the matter through for and on behalf of yourself and come up with your own ANSWER.

If I’m in near total control of my own destiny, as one having an existence in a 3-D Universe that contains a liberal dose of free will, then to be honest, tomorrow is boring! Tomorrow is pretty predictable. So as far as I’m concerned, there’s a far greater element of the unexpected if I’m being controlled by the mind set of others, since I have no idea what their game plan is – which of course they might not know themselves. That’s exciting. Who knows then what tomorrow might bring! To be, or not to be, a puppet - that is the question! The answer – well actually belief - to whether or not that’s true is up to you.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Regardless of what universe you believe to be the correct one, the one that represents actual reality, do you really have the smarts to actually analyse what Mother Nature is telling you and wrap your mind around that analysis to come to that belief? I mean, intellectually we’re good; we’re very, very, very good. But are we good enough? I further mean, we are but one species of currently multi-millions of species on Planet earth. Further, some 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone kaput! So, ultimately we (human beings; Homo sapiens) are but one of a massive number of living and extinct species. The question is, since none of the other non-human species can, or has, come to terms with ultimate questions about life, the universe and everything, what makes us think we are any the more able? I mean, could a virus or bacteria figure out what type of universe they live in and what sorts of physics dictates their existence? What about an earthworm, ant, starfish, goldfish, frog, snake, or owl? My companion feline animals haven’t a clue; ditto I’m sure their canine counterparts. Whales and dolphins ditto. Ditto likewise our closest biological relatives – apes and monkeys. What universe, and the operating forces and principles behind it, is ultimately THE universe, just might yet be beyond our comprehension. Perhaps we’ve some evolution yet to achieve before we really figure things out.

Further reading:

Woolley, Benjamin; Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyperreality; Penguin Books, London; 1993:

The Holographic Universe and You: Part One

INTRODUCTION: If the Universe is actually a hologram (a 3-D image residing on a 2-D surface), and we’re part of the Universe, then we too are but part of a holographic 3-D image on a 2-D surface! If you are a 3-D hologram, then your brain too is a hologram. Perhaps some of the properties of holograms might be relevant in explaining some of the neurological mysteries of that wetware brain thingy of yours – like memory.  You might think it intuitive that a volume could contain more bits of information than the area that surrounds that volume. But a 2-D (area) can store all the information of the 3-D (volume) it represents. Think of it this way, the contents of your immediate 3-D surroundings can not fit into your brain. That 3-D image is being viewed instead on a little 2-D TV screen inside your head. That’s a considerable savings – a compression of information from a large volume to a small area. Our human brain can store lots and lots and lots of bits and pieces (like perceptions and memories) in a relatively little space. It has been scientifically guesstimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information all inputted during the average human lifetime – that’s a lot of bits. Similarly, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage. It’s been shown that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. So, our amazing ability to rapidly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles.

So if 2-D is reality and 3-D is illusion then that has various implications for life, the Universe and everything. So climb aboard this magical carpet ride; this magical mystery tour into the holographic Universe and the holographic you. Let the game begin.

OPENING REMARKS: For starters, you are not inside the Universe, be it a really 3-D or just a holographic 3-D Universe. The Universe is inside you. The Universe is inside you since the ‘reality’ of everything external to you (i.e. – the Universe), is ultimately transmitted to you (to your mind) via your five senses. The Universe or your Universe is therefore only perceived and interpreted by and within your mind – via your brain’s biochemistry. But that brain thingy of yours isn’t big enough to house anything larger than it is – as noted above. Since your mind doesn’t have the room to incorporate the reality of the entire Universe within it, the apparent and alleged 3-D aspect of it is reduced (compressed) to 2-D by your brain projecting it onto an internal mental screen as it were, a screen that exists solely within your mind. Any 3-D image (that’s what you see) that resides on a 2-D surface (the screen within your mind) is just a hologram by any other name.  

But wait; in addition to the Universe existing within you, you must also exist within the Universe! That’s because the Universe provides you with all those essentials you need to keep that brain thingy alive and ticking and perceiving. These essentials include such things as food and water and oxygen and gravity and a reasonable temperature range, etc. This is no chicken and egg puzzle since in order for you to house the Universe within your mind; the Universe had to exist to give you existence.

So, we have a real duality going here!

Actually one might argue that one doesn’t need a real Universe, 2-D, 3-D or otherwise at all – you in it and/or it in you. You’re mind can by itself provide all the rich, if imaginary, details needed to keep you occupied and amused. You don’t need any input from your five senses, from the outside world, to conjure up some sort of picture(s) on that 2-D silver screen within your brain. It’s what’s known as an active imagination which operates awake or asleep. Trouble is, the odds are good that imaginary food, water, oxygen, room temperatures, etc. won’t sustain your be-all-and-end-all mind for very long. But then again, if your mind is the be-all-and-end-all of all things, maybe it doesn’t need anything else since there isn’t anything else! Let’s assume that’s not a viable option.

So we have to have a real Universe. The question is, is it actually 3-D or an illusionary 3-D?

DIMENSIONALITY: We go through our entire lives absolutely convinced we exist in a 4-D Universe. 4-D is also known collectively as ‘space-time’ after Einstein merged the concepts of 1-D time and 3-D space with his theories of relativity (general and special). You need a total of four space-time dimensions to specify where you are. There’s the 3-D of space (longitude, latitude and altitude), plus the 1-D of what time is it? It makes a great big difference to your plans whether it’s 10 am or 10 pm; the 13^th or the 14^th; March or April; 2010 or 2011. But is it really so? With respect to the 3-D of space, there’s left – right; up – down; and forward – back. Time however is only one way and therefore time is somehow different, but that’s another topic entirely*.

Leaving time out of the picture, it’s relatively easy to imagine less than the 3-D of space. 0-D is a point; 1-D is a line (length); 2-D is a square (area); and our familiar 3-D is a cube (volume).

It’s harder to imagine more than 3-D (again, leaving time out of the matrix) although the maths is straight forward enough. The highly theoretical ‘string theory’ or ‘superstring theory’ or ‘M-Theory’ has to invoke a 9-D to 10-D Universe (plus the extra 1-D for time) in order for it to make any sense. Needless to say, it’s remained theoretical-only for decades now! There’s zip, zero, zilch evidence for a more than a tri-dimensional (3-D) Universe (plus the extra 1-D for time).

Rather than invoke more than 3-D; can we postulate our existence in fewer dimensions? Well 0-D is absolutely ridiculous; 1-D isn’t any better. Can we contemplate a 2-D existence - in a 2-D Universe? We’re of course familiar with many 2-D facets in our world.

To be continued...

Exobiology: Terrestrial Life: Do We Exist?

Exobiology was the original term given to the sciences central to the question of life-in-the-Universe. It’s now been largely replaced by Astrobiology, but I’ll stick with the original. The possibility that extraterrestrial life exists but only as a virtual reality in a simulated universe is well, possible. Of course that suggests that we too are just a virtual reality existing in that same simulated universe. But the entity that created that simulated universe in the first place might be extraterrestrial!

Do you exist? I mean really, really exist and have a physical reality? That’s a pretty dumb question you’ll probably ask! The answer is an obvious ’yes’. But, what if I were to suggest that the odds are very high that you have no actual physical reality, and that I have no actual physical reality, and that in fact all terrestrial life, Planet Earth, perhaps the entire observable universe has no actual physical reality! In other words, what if we are a computer simulation!

Let’s suppose, for argument’s sake, that in the real physical universe, there exists some tens of thousands of extraterrestrial civilizations which have evolved technology our equal or better (even more advanced).  The odds are high that most would have invented computers – hardware and software.  Any one civilization, such as our own, have (to date) produced multi-thousands of computer programs, many of which simulate life forms – think of the hundreds, indeed thousands of computer/video games. No doubt these programs will grow, over time, ever more complex and lifelike until virtual reality is indistinguishable from actual reality.

If even one advanced civilization produces multi-thousands of individual computer programs that simulate an actual, or imagined, reality, what are the odds that we aren’t one of those thousands vis-à-vis being that one advanced civilization that actually exists? How could you know if you were real (hardware), or imaginary (software)? I maintain there’s no way of you knowing.

There’s only a relative few actual civilizations, but untold number of created false realities – again, what odds we are one of the real ones and not one of the imaginary/simulated many?

Perhaps our concept of ‘God’ is nothing more than a mythological version of some advanced, but hardly supernatural, extraterrestrial computer programmer! Now as long as nobody hits the delete key!