Does the origin of our universe have implications for us? (# 17)

The mathematical origin of reality discussed in previous articles is consistent with our universe having a purpose. One of the meta-rules that may emerge as part of the mathematical reality that created our universe is: ‘What can happen, does happen. As a consequence of this rule, trillions of universes could have been created. The purpose of our universe may be deduced from features in our universe, in particular, two of the more puzzling features: (i) why do we not know the origin of our universe; and (ii) assuming the powerful emotion of unconditional love exists, why do we not all experience it all the time? This article will focus mainly on the first feature. The next article focuses on unconditional love.

Why is the origin of our universe hidden?

Previous articles have discussed how the reality that created our universe could have created a process that automatically facilitates increasing complexity. The space-time fabric of that reality has negative curvature i.e. Anti-de Sitter (AdS). A universe in a space-time fabric with positive curvature i.e. De-Sitter (DS), cannot be fully described by mathematics. Kurt Gödel’s Impossibility Theorems imply that any mathematical description of a universe in DS space-time is only a special case of a universe in a larger DS space-time. In other words, any DS universe must be a subset of a more complex DS universe, ad infinitum.

By creating universes in DS space-time, our underlying reality sets up a process for automatically increasing complexity. One existential risk is that entities with free will in a DS universe could disagree with each other where those disagreements lead to their extermination and a failure to discover universes with more complexity. This risk may be reduced by careful selection of entities chosen to inhabit a DS universe.

Philosophers have debated for centuries whether there is one ultimate truth. The existence of a single ultimate truth, however, may depend on whether all qualia, such as happiness, are measurable. When there is no way of aggregating happiness across individuals, outcomes of events that lead to some individuals being happy and others less happy cannot be objectively measured as being better or worse. In such circumstances, making an objective decision about which is the better outcome is not possible. Populating a universe with entities that have similar tastes and morals, however, could address this problem.

One explanation for why we do not know the origin of our universe is that our universe is a ‘field test’ for assessing how each of us may make decisions in a DS universe. Our universe gathers information on how we respond to different circumstances. Only, people with compatible responses are then selected to inhabit an actual DS universe where its future is determined by the decisions of its inhabitants. Our universe has been created with features that match as closely as possible an actual DS universe where the future is unknown.

How an actual DS universe is created and populated with selected entities is discussed in research carried out by Professor Susskind of Stanford University. This research is discussed in a later article.

Collection of personal information

Professor Gerard t’Hooft, Nobel Prize winner for physics, has proposed that in a digital universe there could be a law of conservation of ontology. The beginning and end of such a universe are predetermined but the pathway from beginning to end needs to be discovered. There are various decision points along a pathway, only decisions that permit the final endpoint to be achieved are allowed.

Our universe is like a dream where each of us witnesses the activities of our avatar. We feel we have free will to make decisions but only decisions consistent with reaching a predetermined endpoint in the dream are ontologically possible. In other words, if we wish to do something that would not be consistent with our avatar’s role in the world, that outcome will not eventuate.

The selection process for participation in a future universe depends on whether we exercise our free will in a manner consistent with a potential role in that universe. We do not know what the feasible options are. Our emotional responses to actual events influence how we become aware of our options i.e. we are being ‘trained’ in how to use our free will through feedback involving our emotional responses; only feasible pathways materialize as future events.

Our actual emotional responses which may not be the same as the emotions of our avatar are compared to expected responses (based on the emotional responses of thousands of people who have previously witnessed the same avatar in the same dream). The results of this comparison determine the next sequence of events in the ‘movie’ we are witnessing.

Memories are not immutable

Even if the foregoing description of our universe were accurate, there would also be the question of why is knowledge of our origin being discovered now? While the flow of ideas presented in these articles may be new, individual concepts are not new and the discussion is based on published research. Philosophers have debated similar ideas for thousands of years. There are at least two possible answers to the question ‘Why now?’ First, we are facing global existential crises such as climate change. We are being tested to see how we might respond to similar situations in a genuine DS universe. Effective responses may require us to have a better understanding of our world.

Second, it may not be true that this is the first time we have become aware of the origin of our world. The past is described in part by our memories. The past can be rewritten by changing the content of our memories. Physical evidence about our past may remain but we either ignore that evidence or interpret it in other ways.

Many archaeological artifacts do not have satisfactory scientific explanations e.g. the Great Pyramid at Giza in Egypt, stone walls in South America, the Antikythera mechanism. These artifacts may be remnants of very ancient civilizations.

An idea that will be discussed in later articles is the possibility that an ancient civilization became aware that a comet or large asteroid was on course to collide with Earth; a collision that could have a similar catastrophic impact as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. That civilization may have built the Great Pyramid with the power to break up the asteroid. Nevertheless, pieces of the asteroid collided with the Earth causing the Younger Dryas climate change catastrophe about 12,900 years ago. Anticipating a disastrous impact, the ancient civilization left behind knowledge to help rebuild civilization e.g. the ancient archaeological site at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey.

The question for this article is:

Could an ancient civilization have used the Great Pyramid at Giza to destroy an asteroid?

To view the headings of all the articles to be published in this series please click on https://readmedium.com/orbiting-stars-and-origin-of-our-universe-338906930f51

To obtain a copy of the book ‘Orbiting Stars’ which contains the first drafts of all these articles, please visit https://www.amazon.com