How did the universe come into existence?

[Porky Gorky]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Ok, that makes more sense, however, it's a huge leap.  If we create a universe there's no certainty that this will simultaneously grant us limitless control over everything within its bounds. 

It's not necessarily the case that if we can create a universe that we can design it to facilitate omnipotence within it.  Omnipotence is not necessarily possible, and if it is possible that does not mean it is or ever will be attainable to just any old body who happens to be able to create universes. Just because I can create a cake, does not mean I can create a cake designed to turn into a unicorn at midnight or to hold elf-attended discos inside itself.

In fact it may be the case that we not only would be unable to exert omnipotence within the universe created, but that we might be unable to exert any influence of any kind, or even observe what occurs within that universe.  It may be completely bounded so that we are entirely shut out from transferring information to it or extracting any from it.

Ask any parent whether or not creating something grants one limitless control over it. 

---

 

 

 

There may be rules in place that prevent us from becoming omnipotent, they may even stop us from being able to create an artificial universe.

However if we can create an artificial universe, then we can design it to facilitate our omnipotence. To do so may result in a universe that is vastly different to ours. i.e. Maybe we need to introduce new chemicals and materials and laws of nature to allow us to take control.

Regarding your cake analogy, if there was a recipe clearing describing how to bake a cake that could transform into a unicorn that could  host an elf disco, then it should be possible for anybody to follow the recipe and create their own Unicorn Disco Party Cake given the right tools and ingredients.

nom nom I want cake now.

It may be that we can create a new universe, but never see it or interact with it. That of course would put a spanner in the works in the plan to become omnipotent. I guess if we could not design some sort of network to allow us to take control or even viewing rights over an artificially created universe then it would seriously devalue the purpose of creating our own universes in the first place.

 So I would guess that there are a key factors required for us to become omnipotent. We need absolute understanding over our universe. We need absolute understanding of how to design and create an artificial universe that allows humans to be omnipotent and we need to find a way to oversee and interact with our new universe to fully exploit our omnipotence.

That is quite a to-do list! 

[Sy Beck]

Anybody have any idea of when the universe will end?

I think for my own part it will be co-terminus with this thread when it does.

[Ceka Cianci]

i was scanning through my channels the other day and came past a movie  that i have always loved..

i sat there and watched again..then it hit me..

i remembered that it was what sparked my interest in energy and all this other neat stuff with the universe and atoms and whats smaller than atoms and what smaller that protons and neutrons and how does this work and how is this related to this and that everything..

no matter what classes i was in or how much someone would explain stuff to me..i didn't really pay attention until i had seen this..then i became hooked on these kinds of things and doors just flew open no matter what i decided to try to learn about..it just became easier to learn and fast..

the only thing that remains a mystery to me is why?

when i watched it again..it was just as powerful as the first time i watched it..i don't even really pay attention too much to the other people in it..i just watch him and it is inspiring i guess..

i know this probably sounds corny..but for some reason..i just felt like sharing it..i think it's inspirational..and something is telling me to share it..so i am..hehehehe

sometimes you just have to go with your feelings on things i guess ..anyways here is powder..

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i was scanning through my channels the other day and came past a movie  that i have always loved..

i sat there and watched again..then it hit me..

i remembered that it was what sparked my interest in energy and all this other neat stuff with the universe and atoms and whats smaller than atoms and what smaller that protons and neutrons and how does this work and how is this related to this and that everything..

no matter what classes i was in or how much someone would explain stuff to me..i didn't really pay attention until i had seen this..then i became hooked on these kinds of things and doors just flew open no matter what i decided to try to learn about..it just became easier to learn and fast..

the only thing that remains a mystery to me is why?

when i watched it again..it was just as powerful as the first time i watched it..i don't even really pay attention too much to the other people in it..i just watch him and it is inspiring i guess..

i know this probably sounds corny..but for some reason..i just felt like sharing it..i think it's inspirational..and something is telling me to share it..so i am..hehehehe

sometimes you just have to go with your feelings on things i guess ..anyways here is powder..

 

 

---

 

Ceka, I'm glad that movie got you thinking, but I hope you think much more clearly than the movie does. Jeff Goldblum states at 5:27 in the clip, that Einstein believed in life after death. He most certainly and emphaticaly did not! Goldblum then continues to spout more nonsense attributed to Einstein. Whether that was a lie or remarkable ignorance doesn't matter much to me, I sense an agenda either way and I don't like it.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka, I'm glad that movie got you thinking, but I hope you think much more clearly than the movie does. Jeff Goldblum states at 5:27 in the clip, that Einstein believed in life after death.

He most certainly and emphaticaly did not!

 Goldblum then continues to spout more nonsense attributed to Einstein. Whether that was a lie or remarkable ignorance doesn't matter much to me, I sense an agenda either way and I don't like it.

---

it was the character powder that inspired me..i tend to blank the others out on their input in things like this and focused on him and what he did how he dealt with others around him and how he did what he did and tried to figure out why.. i looked at all the rest as not having a clue..

i just learned that if i am not inspired..i have no interest in learning about it..but when something does inspire me..i have to learn it all right now in depth as quickly as i can..it becomes my whole world until i feel i have such a grasp on it that i can theorize and compare to see how well i do..

jeff goldblum was debunked right away when i researched  not long after seeing it the first time..

einstien was quoted a lot of times the other direction about life after death for the individual..

that fear and ego are why pretty much why that came about at all..and something about if it is fear that has to inspire us to do good..then we are pretty sad..

these are not exact words but pretty much the meaning i got from it..

it's been awhile since i read on it..

i liek tesla better myself anyways hehehehe

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i liek tesla better myself anyways hehehehe

---

If you have the time...

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

They don't actually eat as they move through space. All the giant turtles that carry the worlds on their backs are heading for a particular point in space - an unusual nebula. The nebula consists of space plankton. When they get there, they get it together (the Big Bang) to give birth to the next generation of giant turtles, which feeds on the space plankton, and grows big and strong. Then they pass their worlds on to the new generation, which goes off through space. The old generation stays in the nebula and decomposes to become the space plankton for the new generation's return, eons in the future. It's a self-sustaining system.

---

Wow, that may be the most sensible explanation I have ever read. 

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything.   

---

Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control.  That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design.

 

If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current  understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand

everything

about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent.

 

In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this

First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to  avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development

Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence.

 

---

Awesome, thanks for pointing that out, that if we limit our imaginations based on what we know now, we limit our ability to contemplate new theories. Thanks!

Maybe we are one of the first few dozen or so that aren't quite 100% yet? 

[Charolotte Caxton]

So I watched the powder clip and what I got out if it was, why does he resemble an alien, and, it seems that with his extra knowledge and ability to see the bigger picture, his final act was to reconnect himself to everything, to release himself from his physical limitations, his body.

So, either he realized that he was connected to everything and was pure energy and being a human was akin to being imprisoned, or he was somehow able to surpass what the rest of humanity has to do when they die.

I don't know, just some thoughts.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i liek tesla better myself anyways hehehehe

---

If you have the time...

---

i'm watching this..i really like this guy because he uses a lot of basics or looks at the simplest things and has the grasp and can explain in the way things should be explained by not over complicate things..

i was watching a few minutes and i started to laugh when the guy was talking about the spaghetti and how they spent all this time trying to figure out why it breaks into 3 pieces..

that's the stuff i'm really into..only i would have went and bought more spaghetti it would have bugged me so much LOL

because tiny things like that reveal really big answers  to a lot of bigger question or lead into bigger questions or that never ending chain of events..like a butterfly effect of knowledge just came from the simplest thing that just happened..

i love this stuff..there are so many doors to walk through..

when i came to second life..second life had a grasp on me like this stuff has..the learning curve of certain things just grab ya and take hold.. =)

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

So I watched the powder clip and what I got out if it was, why does he resemble an alien, and, it seems that with his extra knowledge and ability to see the bigger picture, his final act was to reconnect himself to everything, to release himself from his physical limitations, his body.

So, either he realized that he was connected to everything and was pure energy and being a human was akin to being imprisoned, or he was somehow able to surpass what the rest of humanity has to do when they die.

I don't know, just some thoughts.

---

i don't think he liked what he saw in humans and knew he could always leave..he was kept out of sight from everyone and really didn't have contact with anyone but his grandparents..his father disowned him right after he was born..

there is a part in the movie where his mother is pregnant with him..and she is walking to the car ..they are going to the hospital..it's pouring rain and she gets struck by lightning..

the only thing they don't let you know is ..was he always  an attractor like a pole or was it from the accident..you get this feeling that he is being called or hunted by this energy to transform him..that any chance it gets it tries to take him or asks him ..and he really is not ready yet..

he is basically just albino ..he has the red eyes..but he can't grow hair because his body is like having electrolysis hehehe

it's a really good movie..if you get the chance i would watch it..

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

 So I would guess that there are a key factors required for us to become omnipotent. We need absolute understanding over our universe. We need absolute understanding of how to design and create an artificial universe that allows humans to be omnipotent and we need to find a way to oversee and interact with our new universe to fully exploit our omnipotence.

That is quite a to-do list! 

---

Ha ha! I'm still trying to figure out what to wear today! 

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

So I watched the powder clip and what I got out if it was, why does he resemble an alien, and, it seems that with his extra knowledge and ability to see the bigger picture, his final act was to reconnect himself to everything, to release himself from his physical limitations, his body.

So, either he realized that he was connected to everything and was pure energy and being a human was akin to being imprisoned, or he was somehow able to surpass what the rest of humanity has to do when they die.

I don't know, just some thoughts.

---

i don't think he liked what he saw in humans and knew he could always leave..he was kept out of sight from everyone and really didn't have contact with anyone but his grandparents..his father disowned him right after he was born..

there is a part in the movie where his mother is pregnant with him..and she is walking to the car ..they are going to the hospital..it's pouring rain and she gets struck by lightning..

the only thing they don't let you know is ..was he always  an attractor like a pole or was it from the accident..you get this feeling that he is being called or hunted by this energy to transform him..that any chance it gets it tries to take him or asks him ..and he really is not ready yet..

he is basically just albino ..he has the red eyes..but he can't grow hair because his body is like having electrolysis hehehe

it's a really good movie..if you get the chance i would watch it..

---

Cool, thanks. Reminds me of the story of my baby duck. I had a baby duck once, and it swam in a large round pool. It never left the pool or the immediate area. The baby duck grew and went from peeping to quacking. One day, I heard a loud commotion, it was my baby duck quacking very repetitively and loudly. He was the only duck I had. I went to go see what his deal was. Well, when I showed up he began to run. I had never seen him run. He then spread his wings and I remember being surprised as to how large they were. Well, immediately he was in the air and had flown out of sight, quacking loudly the whole time, his sounds becoming fainter and almost disappeared...until they became louder and he reappeared above me in the sky. I think he passed over me a few times, high in the sky, quacking loudly. I don't know if he was saying goodbye, or if he was as shocked as I was, or if he was just quacking because that is what ducks do, but he flew towards the lakes and I never saw him again. That's what I thought of when Powder went into the storm, that he was just going where he was meant to all along, back to where he came from, even though he had never been and had no one to show him how.

[Knowl Paine]

mm

 

Edit: ok, what happened here?

 

[161488303349]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything.   

---

Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control.  That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design.

 

If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current  understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand

everything

about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent.

 

In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this

First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to  avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development

Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence.

 

---

about the little people, sentient beings, that populate our created universe. is a number of theological references. the first is that we (the god) did create them and that we created them to have free will. to choose their own path within our creation. i think that if anyone could create a universe and sentience, then they would more likely build in free will as one of the rules

i can't see any point in having this capability and not doing it. just end up with some kinda mechanical model if not. a purely mechanical model that disallowed free will for sentient beings would demonstrate total omnipotence imo. not sure how useful that would be though if the purpose in creating the universe was to learn stuff

+

ps. should add that i don't believe in God as written in holy scriptures. i don't discount God in the sense of a Creator completely though. so am agnostic in a religious sense. i do like to know as much as i can about this stuff. is too many unanswerable questions though

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

16 wrote:

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything.   

---

Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control.  That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design.

 

If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current  understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand

everything

about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent.

 

In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this

First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to  avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development

Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence.

 

---

about the little people, sentient beings, that populate our created universe. is a number of theological references. the first is that we (the god) did create them and that we created them to have free will. to choose their own path within our creation. i think that if anyone could create a universe and sentience, then they would more likely build in free will as one of the rules

i can't see any point in having this capability and not doing it. just end up with some kinda mechanical model if not. a purely mechanical model that disallowed free will for sentient beings would demonstrate total omnipotence imo. not sure how useful that would be though if the purpose in creating the universe was to learn stuff

+

ps. should add that i don't believe in God as written in holy scriptures. i don't discount God in the sense of a Creator completely though. so am agnostic in a religious sense. i do like to know as much as i can about this stuff though

---

Building in free will as a rule seems self contradictory. It is as if you presume that random creation would somehow favor pre-ordination, which must be guarded against by some intelligent workarounds. A purely mechanical model imbued with inherent uncertainty (as we see so far in our own universe) seems quite sufficient to prevent pre-ordination.

And as for creation having a point, I don't see a need for any. I would argue that having a point unnecessarily narrows the possibilities. Play has value.

[ROB34466IIIa]

/me yells at Maddy :

 "Gott dasn' t zrow dais viz ze Younivehzzz !!" :robotfrustrated:

 

 

:robotvery-happy:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

/me yells at Maddy :

 "Gott dasn' t zrow dais viz ze Younivehzzz !!" :robotfrustrated:

:robotvery-happy:

---

We all have stubborn beliefs. Mine is that God slowly weakens the spring in my bathroom scale.

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

/me yells at Maddy :

 "Gott dasn' t zrow dais viz ze Younivehzzz !!" :robotfrustrated:

:robotvery-happy:

---

We all have stubborn beliefs. Mine is that God slowly weakens the spring in my bathroom scale.

---

I respect your strong faith too. You might need that much harder than I do. :robottongue:

I do understand your point for randomness. Both voices for either constant or variable have merit afaik.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i was watching a few minutes and i started to laugh when the guy was talking about the spaghetti and how they spent all this time trying to figure out why it breaks into 3 pieces...

---

The first book about computer design I ever read (and the last ;-) was Danny Hillis' PHd dissertation on the design of "The Connection Machine" which is shown in that video. When I first heard Hillis' story of breaking spaghetti with Feynman, I broke about a half pound of the stuff in my kitchen. It does indeed usually break into three pieces and I'm thrilled to see I'm in good company in not knowning why, though I expect they got vastly closer to an understanding than I ever will.

Last year, I bought some microwave Kraft macaroni and cheese (it was on sale!!!!). You put everything in a bowl, then microwave, stir, and perhaps eat. I noticed something interesting upon removing the bowl from the microwave, and I present it for your amusement...

 

 

My theory is that, as the water boiled, the rising bubbles tended to align the macaroni bits vertically. Shaking the bowl of dry macaroni produced no change in the orientation of the macaroni on the left. I shall cherish this as my own personal Hillis/Feynman moment. I can hardly match their intellect, but I think I shared their joy over trying to find something out.

So there it is, from Hillis' machine to the shared joy of discovery, we as humans strive for...   connection.

[Charolotte Caxton]

What I find even more amusing is imagining you pedal cranking some contraption in order to produce enough energy to power the microwave.

[161488303349]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

16 wrote:

about the little people, sentient beings, that populate our created universe. is a number of theological references. the first is that we (the god) did create them and that we created them to have free will. to choose their own path within our creation. i think that if anyone could create a universe and sentience, then they would more likely build in free will as one of the rules

i can't see any point in having this capability and not doing it. just end up with some kinda mechanical model if not. a purely mechanical model that disallowed free will for sentient beings would demonstrate total omnipotence imo. not sure how useful that would be though if the purpose in creating the universe was to learn stuff

+

ps. should add that i don't believe in God as written in holy scriptures. i don't discount God in the sense of a Creator completely though. so am agnostic in a religious sense. i do like to know as much as i can about this stuff though

---

Building in free will as a rule seems self contradictory. It is as if you presume that random creation would somehow favor pre-ordination, which must be guarded against by some intelligent workarounds. A purely mechanical model imbued with inherent uncertainty (as we see so far in our own universe) seems quite sufficient to prevent pre-ordination.

And as for creation having a point, I don't see a need for any. I would argue that having a point unnecessarily narrows the possibilities. Play has value.

---

if we did want to create a playground (don't know a better word) to maximise the number of potential outcomes then we would minimalise the number of rules/restrictions as far as possible. the minimal construction rule would seem to be: imbue it with Uncertainty, as you say. so makes sense to me

+

i think that [sentience>conciousness>thinking>free will] however we might describe this grouping and process, is the main dividing point between religious people and others. how did it come about? in the minimal playground Uncertainty Model can see that it could just simply come about. is no question then about How. it just did and we can observe this. makes sense to me this does as well

we are though kinda back to the whole randomness of uncertainty and the survival of self-ordering things. that its probable a self-ordering thing could evolve/mutate [sentience>...]

another thought that flows from this: can [sentience>..] come out of a non-self-ordering thing? is possible but seems unlikely to me

+

the Uncertainty Model is cool to think about. the actual difficulty i have with building one is the randomness component. like how we would build a truly random generator? we can't do this purely by algorithmic means. we need a source of true randomness to get it started. seems to me that the source would have to be infinitely large to begin with for true randomness to occur. without this then it becomes deterministic even if it appears chaotically random in many of its untold permutations

is kinda almost esoteric this when we are talking about the size of a universe and all the possible starting seeds that this would entail. gets even more so when we try to figure out how we would choose one of them. am getting into the whole P vs NP problem now though

[161488303349]

i would just like to say that i don't believe in Turtles or anything as majestic as that for our universe. i think that Turtles have way more sense than to end up with us riding on their backs. i think the Turtles are in another universe of their own way way way away from us

+

i believe that our universe is a highschool student's homework. that when she is not looking then her little brother shakes the box and sometimes pokes it/us with a stick

i offer as proof: when things go wrong then i can hear a faint high-pitched giggling. sometimes i am told that this is in my own head and that i should wear a tinfoil hat. but nah! when i do wear a tinfoil hat then the giggling outside my own head gets louder. jejejejjeje (:

 

 

[Porky Gorky]

I saw a cool article on my newsfeed a couple of days ago about the possibility of there being being more than one type of Dark Matter. HAve a read if you haven't seen it, it's very interesting.

Dark Matter Blob Should Not Exist, But There It Is

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i was watching a few minutes and i started to laugh when the guy was talking about the spaghetti and how they spent all this time trying to figure out why it breaks into 3 pieces...

---

The first book about computer design I ever read (and the last ;-) was Danny Hillis' PHd dissertation on the design of

"The Connection Machine"

which is shown in that video. When I first heard Hillis' story of breaking spaghetti with Feynman, I broke about a half pound of the stuff in my kitchen. It does indeed usually break into three pieces and I'm thrilled to see I'm in good company in not knowning why, though I expect they got vastly closer to an understanding than I ever will.

Last year, I bought some microwave Kraft macaroni and cheese (it was on sale!!!!). You put everything in a bowl, then microwave, stir, and perhaps eat. I noticed something interesting upon removing the bowl from the microwave, and I present it for your amusement...

 

 

My theory is that, as the water boiled, the rising bubbles tended to align the macaroni bits vertically. Shaking the bowl of dry macaroni produced no change in the orientation of the macaroni on the left. I shall cherish this as my own personal Hillis/Feynman moment. I can hardly match their intellect, but I think I shared their joy over trying to find something out.

So there it is, from Hillis' machine to the shared joy of discovery, we as humans strive for...  

connection

.

---

i'll take a stab at it hehehe

my guess is that when the water heats up and starts to soften the macaroni..that inside the tube funnels steam that starts to build into a super heat causing a pressure through the tube..the end of the tub that has absorbed the most moisture becomes the heaviest end ..so superheated pressure shooting out of the other end of the tube pushes the macaroni between the others causing it to stand up..

so each little piece of maracroni becomes a little steam engine and moves to the path of least resistance..

it would be fun to watch in a camera that sped it up to see it in motion to really see what happens hehehe