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

In the standard model of particle physics, every particle has an antiparticle, a particle which has opposite properties, such as charge (e.g. a positron is the antiparticle of the electron).  Currently, it takes a fairly high energy particle accelerator to generate antiparticles artificially and actual antimolecules were created only recently (at CERN in the 1990s).  When an particle encounters its antiparticle, they annihilate each other and release a burst of energy equivalent to e=mc^^2.  As this is the most efficient conversion of fuel possible, it was a source of fascination for endless science fiction writers, especially with respect to the anti-matter drive, which is based on the idea of generating energy via the annihilation of matter and antimatter.

My idea, however, was sort of the reverse idea - that once somebody figured out a good energy source and a reverse reaction that would produce a steady stream of matter and antimatter, there was a great opportunity for a clean and efficient engine for a flying car.  It starts with the generator of nitrogen and antinitrogen.  Since air is 78% nitrogen, if you shoot your stream of antinitrogen out the front of the vehicle, it will annihilate the nitrogen in the air, creating a vacuum that sucks the car into it, propelling the car forward.  At the same time, the other byproduct of the reaction, nitrogen, can be shot out of the back of the car creating additional propulsion in the same direction.  Since the same amount of nitrogen would be created as destroyed, there would be no harm to the environment (ignoring for the moment all of the high energy gamma rays emanating from around the car).  Through a network of plumbing, the stream of antinitrogen could be squirted out of the bottom of the car (for lift), top of the car (descent), sides of the car (parallel parking), simultaneously from a front bumper to the side and the opposite rear to the other side (banking), and any other kind of maneuver that you could desire.  The possibilities would be endless.

Limitless fuel, high efficiency, ultimate maneuverability, and eco-friendly (again, except for the gamma rays).

So where are we in relation to this technology?  CERN has their antiproton decelerator, perhaps the closest system to trapping antiprotons for study.   But it is still a few hundred meters in diameter, barely controls enough antiprotons to be useful, and only generates one kind of antiparticle.  We area a long way from the Anti-Nitrogen Cruiser.  I predict seeing one in the showrooms around...

2050

Tags: antimatter, matter, drive, antiparticles
Categories: Future Tech | Particle Physics

This one felt really important during the height of the cold war.

All H-Bombs have an A-Bomb at their core.  The A-Bomb is needed to generated the million of degree temperature to begin the fusion reaction in the H-Bomb fuel.  So, all nukes, therefore, have at their core, a hunk of fissionable material, generally Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239.  U-235, for example, works well as a nuclear fission fuel because when the nucleus absorbs a neutron, it becomes unstable and splits into two smaller nuclei (e.g. Barium and Krypton), releasing more neutrons which then generate more reactions.  A critical mass of fissionable material will explode because the number of neutrons needed to maintain the reaction is exceeded by the number generated.  But, U-235 can also safely absorb a neutron and not undergo fission, transmuting in non-fissionable U-236 before further decay.  But if some process (for example, creating the perfect neutron energy) were to be discovered that caused absorption rather than fission, the core of the nuke could be neutralized.

So, my thought was to blanket the earth with a "rain" of the right particles to neutralize all nuke cores, regardless of where they are buried or hidden, thereby ending all fear of nuclear strikes.

My naivete may have been to think that we could generate enough particles at high enough density to neutralize a nuke core at any given point on the earth without having that particle beam have an adverse effect on plant and animal life.

So where are we today?  Actually, there are a number of nuclear remediation technologies (for example see Gary Vesperman's "Comparison of My List of 27 Methods of Neutralizing or Disposing of Radioactive Waste with PACE’s 9 Methods") that can clean up cores of nukes or fissionable material in general.  None can be accomplished on the "earth blanketing" scale that I envisioned.  However, maybe nanotech can come to the rescue.  Imagine a healthy swarm of nanobots, all carrying the materials needed for a nuclear remediation technique, such as RIPPLE Fission, and instructed to seek out all U-235 and P-239 and unleash the neutralization technique.  

Time frame?  I'm thinking...

2040

Tags: nuclear remediation, nukes, nanotech, fission
Categories: Future Tech | General | Nanotech

When I was a geeky teenager, I remember dreaming up these wild inventions that I though could revolutionize the world in some way.  Since that was 30 years ago, I thought it might be kind of fun to take stock of the likelihood of these ideas it today's time.  Please try not to laugh.  Here was idea #1 - The Invisible Cloaking Device...

My thought was this - how cool would it be to be somewhere and put on a jacket and just become invisible.  Of course, the back pages of Popular Mechanics always had see-through glasses but of course, they were a gaff.  But I wondered if the cloaking concept could really work.  I didn't see why not.  The way I figured it, if they could make transistors that were pretty much microscopic, and LED's that were based on transistors, why not little cameras that were just as small?  All you had to do is put zillions of these cameras all over your cloak as well as zillions of LEDs.  But the LEDs had to be able to generate any color of light.  And each point of the cloak would have many cameras pointing in each direction, the signals of which were collected at a central computer.  The computer would figure out what part of the cloak was at the exact opposite position for each camera and each direction of view.  And so, that signal would get routed to the LED so as to generate the image that was the same as if you were looking through the cloak.  An engineering nightmare to be sure, especially in determining the position of every point of the coat. 

 

So imagine how excited I was in 2006 when I first heard of experiments being done with cloaking devices.  Unfortunately, however, the technology is still woefully weak.  As shown in the figure below, you have to put a camera directly behind the subject and a combiner device between the viewer and the subject and it only works in one direction.  So, nobody is going to get fooled any time soon.

But still, the resulting effect is kind of cool.  See below...

So when will we have true invisibility?  I have seen projections of 10-20 years for single color with a cloak of a well-defined shape.  "Sometime this century" for a Harry Potter type invisible cloak.  I think that nanotech will facilitate the process by enabling microscopic devices that can image in all directions and are self aware of their position.  So, I say...

2030

Tags: invisible, cloaking, invisibility
Categories: Future Tech | General

I was reading an article the other day about a new theory on the reason that we sleep.  A UCLA researcher suggests that rather than provide some vital biological function, it appears that sleep evolved to conserve energy and "keep us out of trouble."  So it got me thinking about all of the other theories that I have read over the years - it helps restore energy levels, it strengthens the immune system, it repairs tissues and cells, it was an evolutionary development to avoid noctural predators.  And the list goes on, with no end of confusion and no apparent scientific consensus.

I wondered, what would be the purpose of sleep in a programmed reality?

And I thought of a possibility.  In multiplayer online games, a great deal of the logic behind the game resides in the client that sits on your PC.  The storage of the overall architecture of the game, each players attributes (to avoid hacking), etc., are on the server.  So what if our brain is analgous to such a client?  Doesn't the client need to be upgraded periodically?  Ever notice how most PCs and Macs do automatic upgrades to various client programs upon reset, or when you attempt to open the program after it has been closed?  Notice that these upgrades aren't done while you are playing or running the program?  The reason for that is to avoid any kind of software conflict.  It is far safer, and in most cases, essential, to do upgrades while the program is not running.  And then the next time you fire it up - presto, there are the changes.

Maybe the purpose of sleep is to allow the programmers the opportunity to upgrade our memories, processing capabilities, or whatever, during a down time.  It might explain why sleep deprivation causes us to act a little strangely.  It's kind of like trying to run an ancient version of Word on your new Vista laptop.  

(thanks to my nutty cat, Simba, for the sleeping pose) 

Tags: sleep, programmed reality
Categories: General | Programmed Reality