10 Scientific Hints Of Possible Higher Beings

Is another being responsible for our lives or even the entire universe? If you believe in God, you have your answer. However, some mind-boggling studies suggest other possibilities for higher beings who are responsible for our existence.

>10 The Universe Shouldn’t Exist

According to certain studies, the universe should not have survived more than one second. For example, the big bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, canceling each other out. Instead, slightly more matter was produced, creating the entire observable universe. We can’t definitively explain this.

In another theory, the universe is in the Higgs field, which gives particles their mass. A large energy field stops our universe from falling into the valley, a deeper field, where the universe couldn’t exist.

However, if the standard model of physics is correct, a rapid expansion of the universe immediately after the big bang should have moved the universe into the valley. This would have destroyed the universe before it was one second old.

The impossibility of life on Earth is also mind-meltingly high. Galaxies couldn’t exist without the right mixture of matter, dark matter, and dark energy. Then Earth had to be the right distance from the Sun. A Jupiter-sized planet also had to attract more asteroids and comets, or Earth’s surface would be too violent to sustain life.

Did life really keep beating these odds, or was the universe helped in some way?

listverse.com/2016/07/17/10-scientific-hints-of-possible-higher-beings/

>9 The Seed Of Life?

According to Francis Crick’s directed panspermia theory, life originated elsewhere and was sent to Earth by advanced beings. An earlier theory of panspermia suggested that life came here on an asteroid or comet.

In July 2013, astrobiologist Milton Wainwright claimed that he found an actual “seed of life.” After launching a weather balloon over England, he captured a metallic ball about the width of a strand of hair. Inside its shell of titanium and vanadium, the ball contained a gooey biological liquid. Many scientists are skeptical of his claims.

>8 Biological SETI

Humans are made up of about 22,000 genes, or 3 percent of the human genome. The other 97 percent is “junk DNA,” which may contain a coded message or “designer tag” if life originated elsewhere or was created by a higher being.

In 2013, two Kazakhstan researchers claimed that they found an ordered sequence of a symbolic language in our junk DNA that would not have happened naturally. However, many critics dismissed their “biological SETI.”

Alternatively, geneticist Francis Collins argued in his book The Language of God that DNA is God’s alphabet and makes up the book of life.

The probability of intelligent life finding itself in a universe which can support intelligent life is 1

...

>7 Cosmic Rays

In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom postulated that the universe is a computer simulation, a theory accepted by Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson. If true, a higher being or beings had to build the simulation. The universe would also be finite because all computers have limits.

Some researchers believe that we may detect this computer simulation if we can find the limits of the universe. To test this, German researchers built universe simulators on a lattice in a quantum computer.

They focused on cosmic rays, which are atom fragments that come from outside the solar system. Cosmic rays have a finite amount of power and deteriorate over time.

When they reach Earth, they all have similar amounts of energy, which is a maximum of 10 electron volts. This suggests that all cosmic rays have similar starting points—like the edge of the simulation lattice of a quantum computer.

>6 The Spread Of Life

In 2015, a study from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics suggested that life could have spread via panspermia, moving star to star in clusters and “[overlapping] like bubbles in a pot of boiling water.” This simulation also suggests that life could have spread like an epidemic.

Scientists tested two possibilities for bringing life to Earth: by asteroids and by intelligent beings. The result was that both were possible and would have followed the same pattern. If correct, this study also indicates that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

>5 Physical Constants

According to theoretical physicist John D. Barrow, we can tell if the universe is a simulation by looking for mistakes or errors in it. Barrow believes that even advanced civilizations would not have complete knowledge of nature’s laws.

There would be notable glitches in the matrix, such as changes in the physical constants. These are physical properties—like the speed of light—that are the same everywhere throughout time.

In 2001, Australian researchers found evidence that the speed of light has been slowing over the last billion years even though this contradicts general relativity. Astronomer John Webb discovered that light from a quasar had absorbed the wrong type of photons on its 12-billion-year journey to Earth.

This could only happen if there was a change in the speed of light or the charge of an electron, both of which are physical constants. Skeptical researchers disagree.

Regardless, no one is sure why physical constants stay constant. But they are critical to the existence of our universe. Some scientists speculate that physical constants are evidence of the universe being “finely tuned” for life to exist.

...

>4 Godel’s Ontological Proof

In the 1940s, physicist Kurt Godel tried to prove the existence of God with the mathematical proof above. It is based on this argument by Saint Anselm of Canterbury:

1. There is a great being called God, and nothing greater than God can be imagined.

2. God exists as an idea in the mind.

3. With all other things being equal, a being that exists in both the mind and reality is better than a being that only exists in the mind.

4. Therefore, if God only exists in the mind, then it’s possible that we can imagine a being more powerful than God.

5. However, that contradicts argument one because nothing greater than God can be imagined.

6. Therefore, God exists.

Using modal logic and parallel universes, Godel argued that an all-powerful being exists if he exists in at least one parallel universe. As there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities, one universe has a being so powerful that it would be considered an omnipotent God. Therefore, God exists.

In 2013, two mathematicians processed Godel’s equations on a MacBook and found them to be correct. However, the theorem doesn’t prove that God exists, simply that it’s possible that an all-powerful being could exist according to modal logic.

>3 Reality Doesn’t Exist Unless We’re Looking At It

A video game constructs itself when you’re looking at a particular area. Otherwise, it doesn’t exist. Reality is similar because certain aspects only exist if we are looking at them.

This mysterious phenomenon is based in quantum mechanics. Subatomic objects are usually either waves or particle-like solid objects. Rarely, they can be both. Some examples include light and objects that have a mass similar to electrons.

When these objects aren’t being observed, they sit in a dual state. But when they are measured, they “decide” to become either a wave or a solid object. These foundations of our reality lie dormant until we look at them, which isn’t much different than the simulated world of a video game.

>2 Holographic Principle

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed that our universe is a two-dimensional hologram—completely flat—that we perceive in three dimensions. Tiny strings called gravitons vibrate to create this holographic universe. If correct, this would help solve some differences between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of gravity.

Some studies show that a 2-D universe is possible. Japanese researchers computed the internal energy of a black hole, the event horizon position, and other properties in a 3-D world and then computed the same in a 2-D world with no gravity. The calculations matched. Another model showed that the universe is 2-D if space-time is flat.

Researchers at Fermilab are using a giant laser to look for “holographic noise,” which is evidence of “buffering” in the cosmos. If a 3-D holographic universe built on a 2-D system of moving lines (like lines of coding) lags, that strongly indicates that the universe is a simulation.

>1 Coding In The Cosmos

According to theoretical physicist Sylvester James Gates, compelling evidence suggests that we are living in a simulation. While working on superstring equations with adinkras (symbols used in supersymmetry algebra), Gates found coding created by mathematician Richard Hamming called “doubly even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes.” Gates questioned if this basic coding is somehow responsible for controlling the universe.

In the video above, Gates said that “[an] unsuspected connection suggests that these codes may be ubiquitous in nature and could even be embedded in the essence of reality. If [so], we might have something in common with the Matrix science fiction films, which depict a world where every human being’s experience is the product of a virtual reality–generating computer network.”

I wonder what it's like to think science is interesting, but too stupid to understand any of it.

care to help me out OP?

There are things that science cannot understand. Philosophers and scholars throughout the ages were needed to analyze and logically deduct the most plausible solutions to these problems science cannot answer.

Overwhelmingly, these scholars conclude that a higher power is needed to find a constructive solution to the unsolvable mysteries of the universe.

So the inside of your head just sounds like a bunch of white noise all the time, amirite?

>There are things that science cannot understand.
Citation needed

>Godel argued that an all-powerful being exists if he exists in at least one parallel universe

This one is from Leibniz, so that you know.

Almost 70percent of philosophers are atheist, and most hard sciences match that (among significant contributors) with numbers only rising. What the fuck are you talking about.

consciousness

How can someone who's otherwise relatively intelligent be this fucking dumb. Makes me want to reassess my life man

Does not =/= cannot

not an argument. i gave you an example ofa subject science cannot understand/explain

I find it odd that a scientific community can hold a conversation as stupid as one supporting higher power because of a lack of objective viewpoint.

I imagine that people like you must experience the world as if you watching it from underneath the water, where you kind of have an idea of what is going on at the surface but you only have a vague somewhat muddled idea of what is really going on.

No scientific community does. Mainly Christian and Muslim ones

> There are things that science cannot understand.
> Citation needed
> Consciousness
> resorts to adhominems and shifting goalposts

>I'll resort to ad hominem while reprimanding him for ad hominem.
Real classy.

I believe the point of contention here lies with the implied insistence that science will never understand consciousness as opposed to simply being currently incapable of completely explaining it.

not even the person who said citation needed.

your thinking is muddled and unclear. you are addicted to feeling enlightened, it's just sad that it's merely a chemical in your mind and you have nothing to show for it. So you take to online message boards and try to stir up shit because even though you like 'feeling' knowledgable, you have a creeping sense that it's all useless, but it's not a feeling you are able to put into meaningful thought or action so you keep trying to recapture the sense of wonder, but the more you try and the more empty texts you peruse the more you feel like it's all slipping away. So you proselytize some more and so it goes, around and around in an endless circle.

Pathetic

No you didnt. You gave an example of something science DOES NOT understand. Currently lacking understanding does not at all imply we never will understand it

There was literally no ad hominem in that post, nor was there any in the post that guy was replying to.

I swear the most frustrating part of internet arguments is people calling things ad hominems when they arent

But earth had already existed for around a billion years. It would be possible that atoms managed to bind together to create a living being by pure luck

What came before the big bang?

What is the meaning of life?

Why does life exist?

Does God exist?

What is dark matter?

Why didn't the big bang make an equal amount of matter and anti-matter?

Where do souls come from?

> this much damage control
Consciousness always gets the fedora knights buttmad where they literally get BTFO. It's an example which science pathetically failes to understand / explain. Your next post better prove that science understands it or it will be your official surrender and desperation lol.
Get your fedoras ready ;)

>What came before the big bang?
Now this is actually a good contender for a genuinely unanswerable question, the rest is meaningless philosophical babble

you win. you are the master!

congratulations!

What are you on about? Neuroscience is making solid and constant headway into figuring out how the brain works

Oh except for dark matter and the antimatter thing, but there is no reason to assume we will never figure those out

what exactly are you trying to accomplish here, friend?

lol moron

At what point in either of those posts did the poster argue that the person they were responding to was wrong because of some personal quality of theirs?

>because all computers have limits
What if it's an infinite computer?

lol faggot

>What is the meaning of life?
Why would there be one?

What sort of answer are you even expecting to a question like that.

>Neuroscience = science
Lol

Are you actually retarded?

>Dunning-Kruger
>argument from ignorance
>God of the gaps

>hurr u dumb
>hurr u fedora
totally good arguments, you are right

Insults are not the same thing as ad hominems, how do people not understand this?

I swear the most frustrating part of internet arguments is people calling things not ad hominems when they are

>places in a video game don't exist till we see them

?????
But they do, just not visibly. There is still a coherent reality in most video games.

No shit! But sometimes they can be both. How do you not understand this?

Quote me the ad hominem in either of the 2 posts I was originally talking about

Maybe because the laws of physics are logical like computer science???

Its explained by neuroscience. Face it conscience doesn't exist.

...

>Consciousness
Fixed

Pretty much the whole posts were made to discredit the other persons argumentation by attacking the person, wether their argument.

Usually people dont directly say "your argument is bad, because you are an asshole". Thats not how this works

This is typical of atheists who are presented with deductions that point towards a higher being.

People always bitch about /pol/, but you should at least read the sticky over there. Or even better, some actual literature about the topic. Until then, stfu about it. If bait, congrats on making me reply

...

Pseudoscience. Who cares of we live in a simulation. What would change?

If you were an American and got shot, you could have your data reverted to the point before the shooting.

Kek. But I don't give a shit about myself and I wouldn't mind to die. And btw I'm not American therefore living in a simulation doesn't matter to me. Besides what's the difference between a simulation and a universe???

>Macbook
>Holographic principle

Yup, OP is a fag.

Or, this is the most elaborate bait ever to have existed

It gives us a promise of eternal life if we know their is a hard copy backup of our consciousness. It will validate the struggles humanity has had to prove the existence of such an after life.

>struggles

keep struggling, boy