One of Ian M Banks' recent novels (forget which one exactly) basically took place in a 'shell world' (think hollow with shells all the way down), that was artificially constructed.
Conspiracy theories, scientific issues, life, the universe, and everything
- Thread starter primem0ver
- Start date
One of Ian M Banks' recent novels (forget which one exactly) basically took place in a 'shell world' (think hollow with shells all the way down), that was artificially constructed.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ok, first of all, I hate to see ya get riled up over the suggestion that something that seems completely implausible to you could be possible. There's simply no cause to get heated here.
Second, I'm not here to go searching back through all the old information I once had on the subject, most of which apparently the links are dead on anyhow. I HAD read some really good propositions on addressing the wave proofs discussed there, but that was a number of years ago and I admit I never read any counterarguments so never did have the 'full picture'. Some of those arguments I read then seemed to suggest that all the data we have supported Hollow Earth theory better than the Solid Earth model. Sadly, with what little time I'm willing to look into this again for the sake of fun debate, I could not find any of those sources again.
Third, I would never refute or ignore the observations, just point out that the conclusions may be flawed on the basis of previous foundational assumptions as to how these waves operate on a scale of this magnitude... That very mention of refraction could explain a vast potential for misleading conclusions.
Fourth, I'm NOT saying I KNOW anything here, just supporting the concept of vast possibilities that may deny what we THINK we DO know. Absolutely nothing is proven on any subject.
I simply find it fun to go through what-if processes. You make good arguments but fail to recognize that I'm never going to be fully convinced of any particular theory on this subject, including the one you think I'm arguing for because I believe, deeply, that the human mind is capable of a huge degree of misinterpretation and once we start communally misinterpreting, we're stuck there in that fixed paradigm until it becomes painfully obvious we've been wrong.
Faith is powerful. Faith based on scientific conclusion is even moreso. What seems the 'best fit' conclusion, even by a massive consensus, is still subject to potentially new data that can find the whole basis untrue.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Thunderbrd
Science has nothing to do with faith. All science is having testable explanations and predictions. If your theory was true then we should be able to test it. And when I say "true" I mean that there is supporting evidence. If you provided evidence to counter the current repeatable tests and the evidence could be tested and repeated then we could thus conclude that yours was "true". You do not have to have faith that your idea is right. In fact its good to question it. All good scientists are skeptical and there is no conspiracy or coverup. You could if you wanted to go out and test if the world was hollow or not. You would probably have to have expensive equipment but you could do it. Likewise you could always travel to the poles and see if there was at opening at the top. It would be dangerous and expensive but you could do it.
In short I do not have "faith" in the scientific community because they by their nature are skeptical of each other and scrutinize each others evidence. So much so that things that seemed to be true are constantly being revised, tested and repeated. In other words your not "wrong" its just the evidence show that its very unlikely that the Earth (or moon) is hollow.
Science has nothing to do with faith. All science is having testable explanations and predictions. If your theory was true then we should be able to test it. And when I say "true" I mean that there is supporting evidence. If you provided evidence to counter the current repeatable tests and the evidence could be tested and repeated then we could thus conclude that yours was "true". You do not have to have faith that your idea is right. In fact its good to question it. All good scientists are skeptical and there is no conspiracy or coverup. You could if you wanted to go out and test if the world was hollow or not. You would probably have to have expensive equipment but you could do it. Likewise you could always travel to the poles and see if there was at opening at the top. It would be dangerous and expensive but you could do it.
In short I do not have "faith" in the scientific community because they by their nature are skeptical of each other and scrutinize each others evidence. So much so that things that seemed to be true are constantly being revised, tested and repeated. In other words your not "wrong" its just the evidence show that its very unlikely that the Earth (or moon) is hollow.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
And that I agree with.
Oh, I am not heated at all, just discussing.
Hydro has expressed it well. We had 2 fundamental changes in Physics in the last century, relativity and quantum theory. They were found out and accepted based on data, not faith.
If you had a good model for a hollow earth, then you could go and prove it and would certainly get a Nobel price.
A model that fits the current data state would already be enough for serious consideration, but until then, I stay with the simplest model that explains the data (Occam's Razor at work) and that is the standard one in this case.
And there is never absolute certainty about anything. You might actually be a Boltzmann brain that came into existance in just this moment with a lot of imagined memories and in the next moment you will cease to exist.
primem0ver
Emperor
This statement is not true. Plenty of things are proven as false. It is much harder to prove something true but that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. If an Earthquake wave can be proven to be incapable of traveling through gases (or empty space) because it is physically impossible, then the lack of P wave shadows proves that the inside of the earth is not made of gas or empty space ("hollow").
In addition, Plate tectonics would not work as it does if the inside of the earth was hollow. Subducting plates, faults, magma chambers, etc... have all been observed using earthquake waves and other forms of technology by turning them into a picture (much like sound waves produce sonograms).
I don't think that science is the answer to everything. I never have. However, it does provide answers to some things.
Nothing can be proven except within the confines of an accepted framework of reasoning, which usually includes some axioms (accepted statements of truth that are not going to be contended and which cannot be independently proven within the framework).
Prosaically I can prove '2+2=4' with basic number theory IF I accept Piano's axiom (more or less that each integer has a unique successor), but not without it.
In more real-world terms I cannot prove anything unless I accept at least the physical reality of the (apparent) universe. For example, a non-disprovable counter position is that the universe has no physical existence and we're all running in a cosmic simulation on some logical computing framework. At the meta-level (the program running on said cosmic meta-computer) ANY state change can be created (so for instance any data the 'programmer' sees fit can be returned to any conceivable detector running within the 'universe' [e.g. - seismic sensors] - maybe as an optimization the world doesn't exist at all below the level you dig to and directly perceive [why bother simulating it at an atomic level if you can just return appropriate results to surface interactions more cheaply] - of course that model can go much further and not bother 'creating' anything at all - just provide appropriate inputs to simulated conciousnesses [aka us]).
The above can all be restated without perceptually significant changes, replacing 'cosmic meta-computer' with 'God' also.
That is how math works, but math is not a natural science. The advantage of math is that given some Axioms you set up frameworks in which you can actually prove things for good (a valid proof in math will never turn out to be false or incomplete after some time).
Natural sciences on the other hand don't have any axioms. In Natural Science, the universe speaks for itself and you study it with the scientific method. You make observations, set up a hypothesis, make predictions and then design experiments to see if your predictions are correct. If there is more than one hypothesis (there are actually infinite) that fits to the observed data, you take the easiest (that is Occam's Razor), the one that makes the fewest assumptions and provides the largest amount of predictability.
So this is eliminated by Occam's Razor (such a computing framework makes a lot of assumptions and does not allow any predictions), not by any axiom:
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Relying on Occum's Razor can lead to drastic innacuracies though. Nothing shows that it would always come up with the truth, just be reliable MOST of the time. There are going to be times when the Razor fails to lead us to the correct conclusion.
IRT Hollow Earth, my question to you is this:
As unlikely as it is based on our current observations of data, how would scientists re-interpret their data if they were to be shown by direct observation (say... travel there for example) that the theory was true?
BTW, Koshling... LOVE your example(s).
I've often wondered if math itself even COULD operate differently in a different frame of existence and so far I can't find a way to make it logically possible. So it very well may be that if there IS a God, He himself would be bound by the pre-existing reality of Mathematics and unable to redifine that structure in any way.
And the concept of God as a computer (basically) is IMO pretty spot on. The more we understand about the nature of Math and Reality and how Computing can emulate so much of it in 'virtual' terms, the more I think it becomes possible we may recognize God to be something like a computer and all of reality to be something like a processing system. Everything can be explained in mathematical terms, so how long will it be before we have a computer that takes in almost all the variables and 'synchs' with the God program? This was the core plot around which many other sub-plots orbited in my writings.
IRT Hollow Earth, my question to you is this:
As unlikely as it is based on our current observations of data, how would scientists re-interpret their data if they were to be shown by direct observation (say... travel there for example) that the theory was true?
BTW, Koshling... LOVE your example(s).
I've often wondered if math itself even COULD operate differently in a different frame of existence and so far I can't find a way to make it logically possible. So it very well may be that if there IS a God, He himself would be bound by the pre-existing reality of Mathematics and unable to redifine that structure in any way.
And the concept of God as a computer (basically) is IMO pretty spot on. The more we understand about the nature of Math and Reality and how Computing can emulate so much of it in 'virtual' terms, the more I think it becomes possible we may recognize God to be something like a computer and all of reality to be something like a processing system. Everything can be explained in mathematical terms, so how long will it be before we have a computer that takes in almost all the variables and 'synchs' with the God program? This was the core plot around which many other sub-plots orbited in my writings.
Natural science is an always ongoing process. When new data eliminates the previously easiest hypothesis, then another takes its place. It has happened before, with quantum physics and relativity as major examples.
But the scientific method including Occam's Razor has led to remarkable discoveries and technology that works very well.
Then a major amount of natural science would need to be discarded and a lot of new theories would need to be found. A hollow earth is incompatible with a huge amount of scientific theories in several areas.
Math does not depend on any reality or frame of existence. Neither does math influence reality. It is a thought construct that simplifies qualitative and especially quantitative reasoning.
If the universe is deterministic and hence alike a computer, then why do you need another name for it?
Besides, to simulate the universe in every detail, you need a computer the size of a universe.
Galacticat42
Drifting through space, lost
Oh, you mean like a Dyson Sphere
Yea... I tried to remedy that with having Dyson Spheres require attometer engineering. Justification is that it's so thin and massless at any one spot that its own rigid body can hold itself up in a weightless state above the star's surface. Due to this it would be suicide (not to mention expensive in damages) to land on the surface of a Dyson Sphere.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Math may well be the only reality. All things have dimensions. What the definition is of the units of measurement that defines those dimensions may be subjective but any definition suffices to allow those measurements to be subject to mathematical equation. Via these equations, which have no variable results - always leading to absolutely true or false conclusions, we find reality somewhat definable. All that is then missing is the ability for any perception of dimension or behavior to be completely confirmable, thus the math cannot be completely reliable. Nevertheless, the MATH ITSELF is a constant structure of processes that cannot be incorrect. Its about all that can't be. Whether it is thought of or not does not negate the fact that it guides processes to stay consistent. If I have one apple, that's what I have, whether or not I define the number one in thought. The math exists independently of any recognition (mental constructs).
All things can boil down to binary definitions.
Because if the universe is subject to reprogramming, then its possible for elements of the universe itself to self adjust the program, thus 'Godhood' becomes possible. If it is possible, then its entirely likely that as deterministic as it may be, most regions of Reality would be subject to a 'test' or 'mod' driven by a being with such reprogramming capacities. This makes the Divine important to consider and seek to understand by even a scientifically minded individual.
Now that is a truly narrow view from a computer scientist! Whatever happened to data compression? Additionally, how are we to say that the data is held purely in matter? Or in any kind of method we could possibly understand from the perspective of one inside the system? And perhaps the universe itself IS that computer...
Galacticat42
Drifting through space, lost
Woahohoo, not exactly bubba. Math is the construct in which subjectivity is based to imitate objectivity. There are bugs in the system but the majority is reliable. For example the fraction system cannot relate to the decimal system perfectly. This is where the subjective can never be equivalent to the objective. Most famously 1/3 does not equal .333 infidecimally as there will always be the third of infinity that is missing that is represented in 1/3. And of course the .999 = 1 dilemma where the mathematical system itself is subject to failure due to loopholes.
People must realize that math is not solid nor objective. It is an imaginary system derived from the subjective to act objective and of course fails to do so in specific occasions.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Gaps in our own understandings of mathematics does not deny that mathematical process exists whether we define it or not.
You just showed that infinity cannot be treated as a number and no real mathematician nowadays does that. The properties of infinity are counter-intuitive. Just take Hilbert's Hotel as an example.
Math is a construct based on axioms. So in itself it is objective but when you model reality with it, then you leave the area of absolute truth.
TB might say he has one apple, I might say he has a fraction of an apple tree but a huge amount of molecules. Neither is one.
and your point is?
In this hypothetical state of tiered realities (let's assume the computer has to be founded in some meta-reality of its own), the relative size (or order even if we're talking infinities) is not constrained. By definition, the size of the emulated universe has to be smaller than the one the emulator is embedded in, but they aren't the same one, so it's not a meaningful constraint.More generally (to this whole discussion), what we're discussing here is not the nature of reality, or of science, it's the philosophy of your reasoning framework. The scientific method is founded on the principle of observe, theorise, test. Occam's razor makes absolute sense in that framework (indeed it is necessary, because for any simple hypothesis there will be many [probably infinitely many] complex hypotheses that make the same predictions). As such you have to accept the scientific method (or probably a more general class of frameworks that includes it, in fact) before it follows that Occam's razor is terribly useful/meaningful. For example, in a purely faith-based framework where certain beliefs are unassailable (effectively axiomatic), then simpler explanations have no value and Occam's razor does not apply.
I happen to be in the scientific method camp, but ultimately its just a philosophical way of viewing the world.
/cough
You do realize, don't you, that it's provable for any mathematical system that it cannot be both consistent and complete (that is that for any consistent system, there are statements expressible in that system that are not provable by it, but which are true). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_completeness_theorem
My statement was not directed as your model of external simulation (which is entirely valid) but at TB's "syncing into the god program" which would mean simulating the entire universe including the simulator itself. In a way, science tries to model as much as possible of course.and your point is?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Refreshing to agree with you here. All three of your statements regarding the apple would be true nevertheless. But if one were to ask someone who has an apple, how many apples do you have? One would be the only possible answer.
A man spends a day digging a hole. How long does it take 3 men to dig half a hole provided that the effort and time-based results remain constant?
Wow... couldn't have said all that even half as well as you just did but you did well cutting directly to the point there.
Sadly can't look at the link right now (I only have access to THIS site at work thanks to an agreed to exception in the filters.) But all in all, doesn't this just speak to our basic inability to correctly process the math based on the constructive models we employ?
BTW, the comment on infinity... is it not possible for infinity to = 0? Consider the implications...
Consciousness itself could be an interfacing node that limits its own understanding so as to be capable of processing its own limited framework (viewpoint). Nevertheless, at the root of consciousness itself, in any given form, may well be that capacity to synch into the god program to modify the behavior of reality. I doubt it would be easily processable from a point of view of logical dissemination, but via emotions guiding through the system intuitively?
My point is that I have observed evidence lending to the possibility that we are all capable of manipulating the 'program' itself and are likely influencing elements of reality with little more than our feelings and maintained paradigms. Further evidence has shown there are potentially beings in the universe far more consciously aware of how to go about making changes to 'the program' willfully.
How it actually takes place is a matter up to much speculation, but it would seem logical to presume that all of reality is little more than processed data and we somehow interface with that data in a similar, if not subconscious manner as a modder interfaces with Civ4. As to WHERE the data is all stored? Not only in the physics of reality itself, perhaps, but there may be an alternative dimensional region of underlying code somehow as well, which may or may not require mass or space to process and store information.
CivDad
King of Garama
This discussion is offtopic. ![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
Similar threads
