h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

the universe is quite clever at letting us know what it wants us to and that is one of the major mysteries of the world as we know it

Quite a funny thought really when you come to think of it. it would eventually come to if we weren't here then the universe wouldn't exist which is a totally self centered ridiculous thought. i think the people who came up with that were only trying to make a point(at least i hope so).

Sorry i don't like people who act like they are the most important thing in the world

the thing about the universe is people think they've got it figured out and then something happens that makes everyone change their views of what is true and what was thought.
A slightly depressing thought - the only thing i can be sure of is that i on some level exist everything else i know is assumed from the things i sense.

i think you'll find it is cupcake annoying everyone i know calls them fairycakes



unbelieveably sad
but where would we be without

Wow, interesting conversation in my absence! I've had to take a few minutes on each post to follow all that!

I think the whole universe created to contain observers theory really depends on whether you beleive the universe was created with any purpose (ie by god or other power) or was simply random. if it was random and nothing can happen without observers who observed that? which brings us back to god again, but doesn't prove god's existance. it does prove either that god (or something like him/her/it) exists OR that things do not need to be observed. i choose to beleive the second option but i know many who wouldn't.

If you got through all that have some and you deserve it.

A Random Person


p.s in reply to the lying australians comment no i do not beleive you. if you take liers to mean they allways lie then the comment proves that there must be at least one australien who doesn't lie but not you. (however if you take liers to mean someone who sometimes lies but not allways then it may or may not be true.)

Welcome back!!

just been reading about quantum theory/schrodinger's cat (reminded/prompted by FG...thanks) which talks about subatomic particles acting like waves until you try to measure them like particles when they start acting like particles...its where the "everything is indeterminate until observed" statement comes from they temper this by replacing "observed" with "recorded"...that being so at what point is the universe observed/recorded?

obviously a sentient species like humans "observe" but what about say dolphins or a step down to dogs and the logic leads all the way back to single-celled animals but why stop...DNA? Complex proteins? any molecule? which makes me think perhaps the universe exists because it "observes" itself and does not need humans!!!!

(this is like the how many grains in a heap of rice? 1, 2, 3...only backwards )

i think you are both right the universe does not "need" us to exist, but how bright is the universe? molecule or omniscient?

i think we deserve a feast

p.s. interesting...the paradox disappears if you treat liar as a generalism and not an absolute....and also the paradox is hyperthetical anyway because an honest aussie could never say such a thing and neither could a lying aussie

before we try to work out what can observe the universe we have to know what we mean by observe. does it mean simply sense something (eg use sight, smell, or whatever it is bacteria use to sense the world to know what is there), does it mean sense it and then react to it (eg. an animal running from a preditor), does it mean sense it and think about it or remember it? and so on. the list of meanings can go on and on.

if you assume that observe means sense then presumably this has to be something living because non-living things have no way to observe things.(of course then you have the problem of defining living but lets not get into that)

so this includes bacteria etc because they are definately alive and have some way of sensing the universe (what little they see of it)
however, DNA does not sense anything so can you really say it is observing anything? probably not.

but is you define observe any other way it is much, much harder to say what can and can't observe the universe because we don't know what animals think about the world so we don't know whether they fall into whatever definition you have decided on. technichly though it would still be possible to say what does ot doesn't observe the universe (if we knew much more about how animals think)

so it really depends on the definition of observe.

also, can you really say the universe has any knowledge or intellegence? is 'the universe' actually a thing? because all it is really is a big collection of smaller things made up of even smaller things and so on, so is it actually something itself or just lots of things? (thats quite hard to follow but i know what i mean. honest i do...)

wow, long post. if you got through all that you deserve all or any of the following
and definately some and too.

A Random Person


ps have you seen A471449

hmm ok but if you take it to the level of molecules observing the universe (ignoring the difinition of observation thing for a minute)then we only exist because the molecules in us observe ourselves. ok so the next step is would god/s exist because technically by that argument he/she/it/they could by observing themselves but if as some people think they are not made of molecules then what can whatever they are made of observe themselves.

define observe thing ok you say observe is to use the 5 senses lets say but what say is an eye made from - molecules. does the fact they are made into something for seeing make them any different from any other molecules or is the use of the brain, another collection of molecules, what makes these molecules able to observe?

Another thing if there was only 1 molecule (you can't say in the universe because it would be the universe) then would it observe itself and so in existing allow itsel to exist. he whole what came first the chicken or the egg thing again.
The same thing could be applied to the whole God created the universe thing if god made the universe then what was there to observe god before unless of course Gods are excluded from that.

im thinking 42 here

anything i've missed?



ps i'm not into the God arguments but i had to put those in
pps im ignoring the vicious circle australians thing it tried to bite my head off when i merely looked at it. ahh well

Just on the point of the universe being a big collection of smaller things...I'm a big collection of smaller things and I'm guessing you both are too!! even if you are part of virtual reality created by AI to give me a warm fuzzy feeling I'm not alone here however if you are part of an illusion of life...anyway there are so many interactions we as humans are yet to understand who to say the universe isn't alive or conscious in the same way proposed in the Earth/Gaia theory.

Hmmm...micro-universe might be an acid test...a single particle/wave thingie universe can do what it likes with nothing to observe it...I don't know about you but I think it is arrogant to say that something doesn't exist just because humans aren't around, it is not very subjective I know but I don't feel it's right.

I was thinking of this pan-cosmos quantum-archaeologist who has the technology to "dig up" evidence of long forgotten universes and their states so anything, even a single molecule, can record whether a particle/wave thingie was playing at waves or particlesand therefore be in a determinated state.

Actually I guess this is all arrogance...the universe is full of thingies in indeterminate states and humans at present are too ignorant to know an iota of what is going on.

How about universes exist and contain infinite probablities of thingie states and also the possibility of being a niche for life?...so how improbable?

Back to favourites

Merry Christmas...see you in the New Year(about the Ides of January )

Happy New Year every one

i realized about 2 seconds after pressing post on my last message that i was in fact talking complete rubbish about whether the universe is actually a thing because almost everything is just made up of lots of other things so yes of course it is a thing.

i agree that it is arrogance to say that the universe wouldn't exist without us (i may already have said that i'm not sure sorry if i have) but would it exist with nothing to observe it at all. or is that impossible because it would be impossible if even the simplest molecules can observe themselves.

it's very true that we don't really know much about what's going on in the universe. in the future we might have totally different ideas about how the universe works and they will look back on how we think today and say how did they ever think that! i think it is quite arrogant to beleive that everything we think we know about the universe it totally correct.

but i could be wrong, i don't know much about how the universe works either.

anyway if it's back to favourites i'll have and . yum

A Random Person

I agree it is arrogant but where would we be if we didn't theories and come up with ideas - we would still be thinking the sun revolved around the earth (i know we wouldn't i am just proving a point so don't comment) it is also why we are advancing so fast technically speaking because people come up with random ideas try them out then try to figure out why they don't work.

I'm trying to remember if i have said about a cat thing or not hmm i will find out

don't move

i'll be back next post folks

Hello and welcome back to another thrilling post

Yes i have ( the the cat and buttered toast one)

anyway it is theoretically possible in a universe where the amount of gravity produced on an object is not affected by its mass.

I think you can probably think of other things like that using things like If you say nothing will happen something always will and something thats precious will always break easier than something thats not. (i'm making these up on the spot by the way so just ignore the example and get the idea please)

Another thing is the universe could well be sentient as you said it certainly didn't want you to find out about the toast. There is notring to stop anything from being sentient - this planet could be (but either dormant like a volcano or dead) I am using this example because of a book by anne mccaffrey which uses it (should read it -it's called powers that be) there is nothing we know at present that means it could not be - we just don't have anything to prove it is either.

There is a quote somewhere and when i can find it i will put it on here it says something like there are 3 typres of truth absolute truth e.g. i think therefore i am assumed which is the majority of truth e.g. the sky is blue and another type which i can't remember
but anyway
for me i think
I know its late but
a merry christmas to all and to all a good night
i love that quote happy christmas and a merry new year for last week sometime

I think the only absolute truth is "I think, therefore I am" everything else is either a personal perception of reality, an approximation of reality, like E = m c squared, or illusion (if you subscibe to that philosophy...I know some who hate it ).

I like the idea that a sentient universe may not want us to prove or disprove the butttered toast theory and others...it would explain A LOT!!! P.S. I love Anne McCaffrey, I have all the Pern novels! Try David Brin's The Practice Effect!!!!!!

An interesting thing from the "Cat" book is that because photons travel at the speed of light they don't "experience" any duration of time. In fact a whole lot of quantum physics is dependent on the idea that a photon created at event A travelling to absorption at event B is the identical to it travelling from event B to A.

Happy new Year

interesting that is if you are saying what i think you are saying

are you saying for the photon there is no difference in it travelling between two points and it travelling between them and being created and absorbed by them because That sounds to me as if the creating of a photon and they absorbtion of it take no time at all

or that time changes around alot which i don't believe it does but i don't know. Its not an absolute truth only an assumption.

Have you read Powers that be by Anne McCaffrey by the way. A great book and quite relevant. And if you haven't already I suggest reading any books by Raymond Feist especially the Magician trilogy and the conclave of shadows books as they are brilliant

I have an unbelievable amount of coursework. A thought do all teachers have this thing where they just get this urge to give everyone coursework all at once so you end up with ten pieces in for next week? some research necessary i think.

Yeah I guess my post was a little brief (as opposed to a little underwear )

photons travel at light speed and as lightspeed is the constant (per Einstein) and time is relative, they experience no duration while travelling...sooo...a photon emitted by thing A, travels "forward in time", and is absorbed by thing B, this chain of events can also be considered to be the photon being emitted by thing B, travelling "backward in time", and being absorbed by thing A...as the photon experiences no duration the events ARE simultaneous...if a family of photons take a trip and the kids yell "Are we there yet?" the parents answer "Yes!" which also means that we are waiting for the photons to get on with it while the photons are the links between most of the events in the universe but don't really exist because everything is simultaneous

I will try to get hold of the Powers series, I have a considerable collection of Feist and especially like the Magician series, have you read Orson Scott Card?...try Ender's Game

Mostly I found different faculties or teachers/lecturers dont coordinate assigments to spread the load, school or uni...sounds like just bad luck, a bunch of conscientious teachers either wanting to make a good start or trying to alert you to the expected workload...just content yourself with the fact that you should be able to out-live them