Programmed Reality

Although shallow oil wells were drilled in China as early as the 4th century, the first commercial oil well was drilled in Canada in 1858 at the height of the industrial revolution.  Since then our use of and reliance upon it has skyrocketed.  Also since then has been a continuous debate on the origin of oil.  In one corner, weighing in at 25 billion barrels a year, we have the biogenic theory, aka dead plants and animals.  In the other corner, weighing in at 900 billion gallons a year, we have the abiotic theory, aka chemical reactions inside the Earth. 

The “fossil fuel” theory was first proposed by Russian scientist Mikhailo Lomonosov in 1757 who suggested that bodies of animals from prehistoric times were buried in sediments and were transformed into hydrocarbons due to extreme pressure and temperature forces over millions of years.  The argument is supported by sound biochemical processes, such as catagenesis.  In addition, the evidence of organic pollen grains in petroleum deposits implies (but does not prove) organic origin.

The abiogenic or abiotic theory actually has its origins the 1800s, when proposed by French chemist Marcellin Berthelot and Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev.  According to their theory, hydrocarbons are primordial in origin and were formed by non-biological processes in the earths crust and mantle.  The theory received a modern boost by Russian geologist Kudryavtsev, studying Canadian oil sources in the 1950s and Ukrainian scientist Chekaliuk, based on thermodynamic calculations in the 1960’s, who both arrived at the same conclusion.  Esteemed and late planetary scientist Thomas Gold from Cornell University (from whom I once took a course in astronomical theories), added to the evidence in his book “The Deep Hot Biosphere.”  The theory has also attained laboratory support via experiments at Gas Resources Corporation in Houston, Texas which produced octane and methane by subjecting marble, iron oxide, and water, to temperature and pressure conditions similar to that 60 miles below the surface of the earth.  Also, deep drilling around the world has discovered oil at depths and in places where there should never have been biological remains.  Referring to natural gas wells drilled by the GHK Company in Oklahoma at 30,000 feet and Japanese wells at 4300 meters, Dr. Jerome Corsi (political scientist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University) noted:

“Even those who might stretch to argue that even if no dinosaurs ever died in sedimentary rock that today lies 30,000 feet below the surface, might still argue that those levels contain some type of biological debris that has transformed into natural gas. That argument, a stretch at 30,000 feet down, is almost impossible to make for basement structure bedrock. Japan's Nagaoka and Niigata fields produce natural gas from bedrock that is volcanic in nature. What dinosaur debris could possibly be trapped in volcanic rock found at deep-earth levels?”

Some oil reserves even seem to have the ability to be automatically refilled, like a drink at a burger joint.  Gulf of Mexico oil field Eugene Island 330, for example, saw its production drop from 15,000 barrels a day in 1973 to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989, and then suddenly spontaneously reversed and was pumping 13,000 barrels of a “different aged” crude in 1999.  In fact, according to Christopher Cooper of the Wall Street Journal, “between 1976 and 1996, estimated global oil reserves grew 72%, to 1.04 trillion barrels.”  Considering the doubling of reserves in the Middle East alone, University of Tulsa professor Norman Hyne noted that “it would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plants to account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil in the region”

The argument is all very interesting and gets quite political as one might imagine.  But my interest revolves more around the basic question of why oil is even there at all.  Both sides propose some fairly complex theories to account for the very existence of petroleum, let alone its uncanny ability to refill known reserves automatically.  Doesn’t it almost seem like it was placed there just for our use? (see much more on Programmed Reality elsewhere on this site)

And now, there is the fact that some hydrocarbons, like methane, are known to occur throughout the solar system on supposedly lifeless planets.  Take, for example, the most recent announcement in "Nature" and "Scientific American" that a Lake Ontario-sized lake has been discovered on Saturn's moon Titan that is composed of hydrocarbons, specifically liquid ethane.  By some estimates, the contents of this lake could be equivalent to as much as 9 trillion barrels of oil.  Even NASA suggests that Titan could have "hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth."

Anybody see anything wrong with this picture?  Were there dinosaurs on Titan? 

Doubtful! 

Therefore, it seems to me, Titan gives the abiotic theory of oil a fairly sizeable boost.

(apologies to those who have read my book, "The Universe-Solved", as much of the background on this topic come verbatim therefrom) 

 

Tags: abiotic oil, titan, programmed reality
Categories: Cosmology | Programmed Reality

One of the sections of "The Universe - Solved!" that generated a bit of controversy was my assertion that there is really nothing that we can know with conviction to be true.  An exerpt:

"2+2=4?  Not in Base 3, where 2+2=11.  In Base 10 (or any base >4), 2+2=4 by convention, but only in an abstract way, and not necessarily always true in the real world.  If you add 2 puddles of water to 2 puddles of water, you still have 2 (albeit larger) puddles of water.  For a more conventional example, a 2-mile straight line laid end-to-end with another 2-mile straight line will not add up to exactly 4 miles in length due to relativity and the curvature of space-time in all locales.  Therefore, 2+2=4 can not be universally true."  

In addition, You have no way of knowing whether the convention that 2+2=4 is only true in the false reality that we think we are in, but not in the real one.  Again, from the book: "So, maybe all we can know for sure is what is happening to us at this exact instant.  Then again, how do we know that we aren’t in a dream right now???  So, the set of things that are 100% true is simply the null set!"

Some readers have argued with these assertions.  

So, imagine my pleasure when I read the following quote in the July 26 - August 1 issue of New Scientist magazine by esteemed mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose: ""Do we know for certain that 2 plus 2 equals 4?  Of course we don't.  Maybe every time everybody in the whole world has ever done that calculation and reasoned it through, they've made a mistake.  Maybe it isn't 4, it's really 5.  There is a very, very small chance that this has happened."  His argument is based on the logic of reason, which was different than my argument, but the result was the same nonetheless.

Thank you, Roger, for your enlightened point of view.  I would gladly send you a free autographed book.  Please send me your address. 

 

Tags: philosophy, reason, logic, programmed reality
Categories: Programmed Reality | Philosophy

A team of physicists in Vienna has conducted a set of "reality" experiments that prove to a level of 80 orders of magnitude that reality doesn't exist unless you observe it.  In other words, in case you ever doubted the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, doubt no longer.  It seems that experimental evidence has confirmed that we create our own reality by looking at it, measuring it, or observing it.  The detail are here.

The results of many of recent experiments twist our perceptions of reality even more.  Studies by Helmut Schmidt, Elmar Gruber, Brenda Dunne, Robert Jahn, and others have shown, for example, that humans are actually able to influence past events (aka retropsychokinesis, or RPK), such as pre-recorded (and previously unobserved) random number sequences.  No huge surprise to me, who questions everything about our conventional views of reality.  But I still think the evidence is fascinating and probably a bit unnerving to say the least, to the majority of those out there who don't typically consider such things.  Cause and effect, and reality are certainly not what they seem.  

What could be the explanation?  Certainly, more experiments to probe the depths of reality are needed.  But that doesn't stop us from speculating.  Once again, Programmed Reality offers a perfect explanation.  Assuming that the programmed construct can detect "observation" (which, in principle, does not appear to be that difficult of a process), all the program has to do is the following:  

if(observed)
select result from a subset of coherent results
else, randomize result

For example, in the classic reality experiment, pairs of photons are generated which are "entangled" by virtue of the fact that they were generated from the same reaction.  Those photons can be separated by large distances and then a property of one of them is measured.  The act of measuring the property of one photon immediately determines the property of the other photon, even if it is so far away that it precludes "knowing" about what is happening to its twin photon because of the limitations of exceeding the speed of light.  However, in the Programmed Reality model, the properties of the two photons can be related programmatically.  Once an experiment determines one property, the program sets the other photons property accordingly.  The program is aware of the observation and could be in full control of the properties of the paired particles.

For the RPK effect...

when(observed)
set result from archive to a subset of coherent results

For an example of this effect, imagine a set of random numbers generated programmatically and stored in some sort of archive.  The archive, of course, being a product of Programmed Reality, is under full control of the program.  The archive is not observed prior to the experiment and the subjects perform mass consciousness experiments on the data.  The program measures the level of "coherence" of the consciousness in the experiment and then sets the correlation of the stored numbers according to some algorithm, formula, or table.  When the experimenters unveil the data, lo and behold, they are not truly random, but rather, appear to be affected by the consciousness experiment.  A simple software algorithm can make this work!

The interesting question, though, is "What is the motivation behind the program?"  Why would it have such an effect?  Perhaps the answer lies in the idea that sentient beings do truly create their reality.  Much like "Sim City," where the players create their reality, perhaps our reality is created accordingly to a complex set of rules and algorithms, which include such attributes as intent and observation.

This doesn't prove the validity of Programmed Reality, but I have to wonder, how many anomalies does the theory have to solve, for it to be seriously considered? 

 

Tags: reality, programmed reality, quantum mechanics, observer effect, retropsychokinesis, rpk
Categories: Programmed Reality | Quantum Mechanics

Nick Bostrom wrote an interesting article for the MIT Technology Review about how he hopes that the search for life on Mars finds nothing. In it, he reasons that inasmuch as we haven't come across any signs of intelligent life in the universe yet, advanced life must be rare. But since conditions for life aren't particularly stringent, there must be a "great filter" that prevents life from evolving beyond a certain point. If we are indeed alone, that probably means that we have made it through the filter. But if life is found nearby, like in our solar system, then the filter is probably ahead of us, or at least ahead of the evolutionary stage of the life that we find. And the more advanced the life form that we find, the more likely that we have yet to hit the filter, which implies ultimate doom for us.

But I wonder about some of the assumptions in this argument. He argues that intelligent ETs must not exist because they most certainly should have colonized the galaxy via von Neumann probes but apparently have not done so because we do not observe them. It seems to me, however, that it is certainly plausible that a sufficiently advanced civilization can be effectively cloaked from a far less advanced one. Mastery of some of those other 6 or 7 spatial dimensions that string theory predicts comes to mind. Or invisibility via some form of electromagnetic cloaking. And those are only early 21st century ideas. Imagine the possibilities of being invisible in a couple hundred years.

Then there is the programmed reality model. If the programmers placed multiple species in the galaxy for "players" to inhabit, it would certainly not be hard to keep some from interacting with each other, e.g. until the lesser civilization proves its ability to play nicely. Think about how some virtual reality games allow the players to walk through walls. It is a simple matter to maintain multiple domains of existence in a single programmed construct!  More support for the programmed reality model?...

(what do you think about the possibilities of life elsewhere? take our polls!)

Tags: bostrom, filter, life, mars, extraterrestrial, reality, programmed
Categories: AI | Cosmology | Future Tech | Life | Programmed Reality

OK, I know, this has nothing to do with programmed reality, nanotech, transhumanism, AI, philsophy, and the rest of the topics we discuss on this site.  But nobody else is saying it and it has to be said.  Mathematically, HILLARY CAN'T WIN!

But somehow, all the pompous political pundits are pontificating that the tide is turning in the Democratic race. 

Check out this one from CNN: Analysis: Did Clinton's latest victory come in time?

Or this one:  Why can’t Barack Obama close the deal?

I just don't get it.

It was predicted that Hillary would beat Obama in Pennsylvania by 10%.  She beat him by 10%.  Exactly.  No upset, no big win.  Let's do the math...

Disregarding the Florida and Michigan mess and the flip-flop potential of superdelegates (which can go either way), of the remaining primaries and caucuses, there are 408 delegates left.

Barack is currently beating Hillary by 133 delegates.

That means, for her to win, she has to pull 271 of the remaining delegates to his 137 - almost twice the number.  What are the odds that with Obama being 9 percentage points ahead in the national poll, that Hillary will instead beat him 2 to 1 in the rest of the races?  Mathematically, it has to be near zero.  Someone, please tell me where I did my math wrong and I will gladly pull this post off the blog.

Then again, mathematically, Al Gore won the 2000 election, so I guess anything is possible. 

Tags:
Categories:

A recent article on popularmechanics.com got me thinking about military robotics and the future of war.  Although the story remains vague, these iRobot SWORDS units were apparently taken off the battlefield due to unanticipated actions.  “The gun started moving when it was not intended to move,” according to the Army’s Program Executive Officer for Ground Forces, Kevin Fahey.

War is an unfortunate consequence of having humanity's social evolution severely outstripped by our technological evolution.  And the idea of having robots fight our battles certainly has its pros and cons.  On the one hand, fewer lives would be lost on the side of the deployers of the robots.  On the other hand, how fair is it to throw flesh and blood humans in the ring with terminators?  I would not be surprised to see an amendment to the Geneva convention regarding robotic warfare at some point in the near future.

Of course, robots are only the next stage in the application of technology to warfare.  Mines, predator drones, WMDs, laser-targeting bombs, and "Star Wars"-like anti-missile defenses have all been steps taken to remove the human risk progressively further from the battlefield.  Have nations can simply beat up on Have-not nations at will. 

Then, of course, will come the day, when all combatants are fighting remotely.  In the future, will wars be run by teens (because their contract rate is less than adults) trained on "Missile Command" type video games, where the side with the best technology, best gamers, and biggest budget wins by wearing down the opponent's arsenal of robots and munitions.  I guess the Haves will always have the edge.

Tags: robotics, warfare, irobot
Categories: Future Tech | Robotics