AbnormallyHonest

I suppose that would be why the mention of Life Support would be important.

If a person were born with no attachment to any of their senses... basically completely without an ability to interpret the physical world, but alive and conscious, even if only in their own mind. How would that person's reality unfold to them. Would it be connected to this reality? If suddenly, after growing to adulthood connected to life support, they were somehow given their senses for the first time, how do you think their reality would compare to the one they've existed in and has been the whole of their understanding? As a free consciousness, do you think the inception of physical experience would be a delusion, or a sudden reality?

I'm simply being practical by visualizing the Big Bang from within, as it does not make sense to be an outside observer. At the moment of the Big Bang, the Universe was already infinite, as in my original post, and everything would have been within view at that instantaneous bright inception of everything we can see and everything we can infer, plus a whole lot we cannot. There would have been no distinction between what we see up close or at a distance. Once the Universe expanded enough, and everything calmed down and left only the energy and baryon matter we see today, that infinite view would've become finite. From what distance I cannot speculate. As far as the luminosity, do we see the horizon at a point that is our actual potential horizon, or just the horizon where luminosity becomes to faint to be detected as the energy is stretched from the wave. The distance paired with the expansion would suggest that we would not be able to see the actual limit, but our likely horizon would be slightly before the actual termination. So our limit wouldn't be at the inflection of the rate, but rather "at distance less the rate of expansion is less than c." Also, I do not speculate about our view of the Universe as being recessive or increasing, only that our perception of it is narrowing. The boundary could be static for all I know, just allowing matter to slide into the observable bubble at the same rate as light would allow our awareness of new matter, but I have no proof of that. What I do have supporting evidence of, is the expansion of space, the probability that it is infinite, and the limit of our perception cannot be increasing. Logic would tell you that a 3 dimensional fractal expansion in an infinite volume would imply that no matter how slow the rate was, at some displacement, that rate will exceed "c". Well I can always appreciate scientific objective criticism, especially one which utilized such compelling arguments supported by actual research and data that can easily be agreed upon.

Actually, I retract my first description and modify the inception of this oscillation. If you think about it, The Big Bang was an instant awareness of everything in the Universe, including light. Since there was so much "stuff" we theorize that light did not have enough room to move freely through space, so technically, if we could exist in that moment we would see the infinite light of the Universe. Now, if I were to slow expansion down to the slowest possible rate... right at the moment before it becomes static... if the Universe is infinite, if you travel far enough away, at some point, not matter what, space will be expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light--from your perception. We start with an infinite view of space and from that moment on, our view becomes finite and our view become ever decreasing until all our perception of the Universe converges into one moment of infinite light once again. The Universe is shrinking, and for how long? No one probably has any idea.

The person in a coma is in the same Universe as you, but you are not in the same Universe as that person's awareness. It is possible that some types of "rocks" are consciously aware, but their acute perception of the present would be drastically different than ours. It could take a lifetime of your awareness of the "rock" before you become a brief memory for it.

I do not understand why I should receive a negative reputation score for a relevant argument. "Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation." Does no one else that see the irony in the suggestion that my argument lacks this type of evidence?

They move out of it? Or do we lose perception of it? Our view of the Universe is shrinking, so yes, you are correct.

Because the light is actually just the potential of the photon to to be anywhere it could be. The probability of this is equal for all possibilities. Measurement creates an imbalance in the probability that it has traveled along one specific possibility. In order for it to be perceived at that point, it would stand to reason that it must've also had to travel along every point to get there... specifically. So measurement effects the distribution of probability to create a specific possibility more probable. (Actually, it's the act of recording the information somewhere else, because if you measure it, but do not record any information, it does collapse the waveform.)

Basically, if we cannot be aware of the same Universe, then we cannot exist in the same Universe. If our awareness is too nearsighted to be able to encompass an awareness that is incompatible with ours, we will not perceive it.

I would say you might be looking at it in the wrong way. The relative "velocities" may all be different in relation to one another, but what can you say about their change in momentum?

Well, entanglement could be a form of "labeling". Our awareness is the "meaningful" because it is only aware of one probability over infinite possibility. Uncertainty allows for this, but not for coexistence for extended periods of time. That's why you and I must agree on the state of things... the joint waveform. The only thing I could even imagine as being impossible, would be to take an object, and be able to move it outside of our perception. e.g. Outside of the observable Universe. Unfortunately, my mind only sees a gap in mathematical predictability, not possibility. Outside that boundary, everything is evenly distributed probability, and anything again becomes possible. Even the coexistence of the same "piece" of matter for an extended period of time, because it is not subject to our awareness.

Well, if Helen Keller was born in another part of space, that possibly had a different flow of time, and that doesn't use light to translate the physical world into perception, that could pose a problem. No, I believe that matter can be in two places at once, and that is precisely the problem. If it can not be made aware in the same way that it is for us, than it could potentially be perceived somewhere else in relation to how we perceive it. Therefore our perceptions of existence are not cohesive with each other. e.g. If I'm holding a stone, they could be holding the same stone... and therefore we would not exist in the same reality otherwise I'd have them come down and start being aware of my bank account. The light is actually a wave, and it is potentially a lot of photons, the photons we perceive may have been emanating from the same source, but they are actually independent photons. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

This idea doesn't use angular momentum as an explanation for the Moon's rotation. I'm suggesting that the tidal lock was the friction needed to transfer the Moon's angular momentum to linear momentum, which would have been the "push" to start the acceleration of it. This is an attempt to show that the rotation of the Moon is actually maintained by the tidal force which would transfer other forces due to conservation Once set in an unstable orbit for it's period, resonance is actually what absorbs momentum from the Earth to maintain it's orbital period from and ever increasing altitude.

I am not, I understand how light works. The same idea is true in thermodynamics, you cannot add "cold" to something, only diffuse energy. The sound analogy is only ineffective that the experience of the lightening is not circumstantial, it might be more appropriate to say that we hear the thunder, but we do not see any light. I would also dispute that it is not my "fuss" about the definition of a word, it is others' focus... on "empirical evidence". Perhaps that phrase should be defined.

Isn't actually all logic? So if I view a light wave at any point in its existence, it behaves as a particle throughout it's entire existence. This same is true for matter. If I see something right in front of me, and everyone else sees it somewhere else, is it in front of me or somewhere else? Logic would suggest that it was somewhere else and I am delusional. So why can't a light wave behave as a wave while perceived? Is it not logical to deduce that it can not be perceived at two places simultaneously, otherwise how would we be able to tell where it really was... our realities would be purely subjective, and we would both be delusional. If another life form was able to experience the Universe in way that is not compatible with the way we experience it, would it be possible to exist together? Suppose there were a race of beings that had no sense of sight, in any form. If there were two of them standing next to a light wave, do you think it would matter if it was in two places at once? So how does that perception of reality interact with ours? Do you believe that we would even be able to see them, if their entire race, throughout their entire existence, has never been able to reduce light to the behavior of a particle? So would we see them where they believe they are in space according to their senses? If these interpretations are not compatible, could the awareness of one another actually be more comparable to a delusion than a reality?

Artificial forces are forces that could be created without utilizing the typical means we are aware for creating such manipulations of space. If you believe that a machine might someday be able to produce some type of gravitational or electromagnetic force that exists with the apparent absence of the massive objects that are associated with those kinds of distortion seems like a viable explanation, because it is the lack of those massive objects that sparks ALL of the speculation, for which there is no mathematical grounds for. I am simply attempting to provide a speculative explanation that at least has probability and the evidence of our existence to support an unconventional theory. For inflation, this is purely speculative as well, but not without logic. If there were some relationship between the structure of space and the energy within, it might be able to explain a few things simultaneously. For instance, if the dissolution of energy from space somehow made the space "expand" and as energy is released from this binding force, this expansion has an increase in rate. Since there was so much more energy available just after the Big Bang, it could have been the energy for the binding force of space, which would have set the expansion rate to almost infinite, until the energy was able to be reduced and forged back into the structure of space, slowing down the rate of expansion. "Dark" energy would be the release of that energy and thereby increasing the rate of expansion... e.g. entropy. My understanding of zero point energy is that, if you were to take all the energy out of a quantity of space, if there is matter present in that space, it can never be completely static. Therefore the energy that is represented by the movement of the subatomic particles is abundant and unpreventable. This seems like a chaotic state of disorder, a preservation of energy, only due to the state of it being uncertain. Is the preservation of energy in anything certain? If it were, wouldn't it be true that our streets and highways would never need to be repaved? Due to entropy, we know that is not the case.

Isn't the "lack of evidence" being used to as a theory to support itself seem like a heavily "unsupported" claim. Yes, absence of data can be used to deduce a truth, but without a control, or anything else at all, even a speculation that has more statistical potential, would make the original explanation nothing but a description of what we want to explain. e.g. It is "dark" because there is not light". If I were to discover lightening that made absolutely no sound, and explained by simply saying, "we do not hear thunder because there is no sound", how do you think that theory would be regarded? Yet I'm the speculative one? Because zero chance is not the same as 1 in Infinity. They are completely different ideas.

I find that all of these explanations use the lack of empirical evidence, (the ability to see) as a way to substantiate circumstantial evidence. I would say the fact that we exist, and are capable of manipulating energy and forces, and the sheer probability paired with an extensive amount of time that to Universe has had to realize those probabilities would be more substantial that using the problem to explain the problem (seems paradoxical to me).

Well, if the Universe is infinite in space, that would stand to reason that every possible outcome for every piece of matter is also possible. So why do we perceive it at only one place... because our awareness increases the probability, even if only very slightly, that it is there. So essentially, since your consciousness is the very thing that reduces an object from infinite possibility to finite probability, it is also the thing that can manipulate that perception thereby shifting the distribution of probability. I think of everything being everywhere all the time, and when I move it I'm just shifting my perception of it's location. I don't think of it as a sliding analog motion, but more of a shifting digital one. I'm just perceiving it through all it's potential locations, and the further away I alter it from it's most probable location in my perception, the more energy that is required because I'm perceptually creating the matter with only my awareness of it. The further I move it, the less probable that it is there, so I need to put more energy into doing it.

I kind of always thought of it as a distribution of probability. For instance, I am holding a ball in my hand, that ball can exist everywhere in space that it is possible for it to exist, but the circumstances of probability of the reality that it exists somehow made it more likely that it is there in my hand. Think of the ball in my hand as a fractal pattern radiating out in every perceivable space that it could exist. As you look further from where the ball actually is, it become less likely that it is there because it would require more energy in order to displace it from its current probable position. e.g. It would take a enormous amount of energy to place that ball in orbit, because it is far less probable for it to be there than where it sits. As I move the ball with my hand, I'm affecting the distribution of probability to shift and create a new position that is more probable. This can be said about my hand as well, in fact, my whole body including my head and brain. It's consciousness that has the ability to manipulate this distribution, because it is consciousness that creates a reality that is more probable than another. Otherwise, without it's awareness, energy and matter always interfere with themselves through the double slit. If you were to ask me to speculate, I would theorize that shifting the probability doesn't "slide" the matter through space, but it actually destroys and creates the matter along an infinite limit from one point to another. Think of one of those novelty sliding needle things you can imprint your face on. I believe matter moves through space kind of like moving an image across one of those. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would not only allow for this, but actually make it mathematically more probable.

The lack of "empirical" data was meant to be a paradox... "to describe what we see." Anyway, wouldn't it save a lot of time and energy spent on dead end's if it's true? Is that not the goal of all theories?

I have our view of the Universe, which is shared by anyone who is willing to look. As I understand, this forum is for people who want to discuss topics related to science, and an interest in it. It is a public forum and designed to accumulate ideas and spark discussions, or is my interpretation fundamentally flawed? Is a science forum not a good place to introduce a new idea to those who have an interest, and perhaps and ability to take an idea and pursue the truth, or at the very least make a point out of it rather than a point of it. If you would like a deeper, more specific mathematical understanding, I do not believe this forum to be the venue to present those ideas, and at that level. Although, here is one: The observable universe contains 100,000,000,000 galaxies, each one on average contains about 80-100,000,000,000 stars, and about 80-90% (probably more) of those stars have not just a planet, but planetary systems. In truth, the Universe is probably infinite, it's just that an expanding view of space inevitably outruns light at far enough distances, no matter how slow the expansion is. We just can't see past where the speed of light is able to move toward us. So, assuming that we're the only living intelligence in the Universe, is 1 in a very large number and actually probably 1 in Infinity. I don't know how you would mathematically describe impossible, but 1 in Infinity takes a pretty good stab at it. I'd say those odds are pretty solid compared to invisible light... or missing photons. I'd say one idea creates a lot more disparity with Universal laws of physics than the other, and it's not the one that needs to create some new form of physics or an imbalance of conservation in order to explain it. The second paragraph is just the union of entropy and uncertainty, which are basically explained in very similar ways. The first thought inspired the second. I apologize if you find that offensive. Is it not possible, that people on a "science" forum, know what "science" is or at least have a pretty good idea of it. So you can think you sound intelligent by pointing out that you know what science is too, or you could present some yourself. Just a thought. Is it not better to bash using the very thing you mean to defend?

The Universe exists at every possible juncture, both imaginable and unimaginable. Its potential is infinite and evenly distributed. There is nothing that exists as a part of it that is not infinitely distributed among its possibilities with the exception of consciousness. Consciousness is a conduit for the Universe to exist with perceptual clusters of probability. In order for consciousness to exist, it must find the distribution of probability that allows it to exist. In a sense, the reality we perceive and our consciousness must unify at their most common intersection. They seek the greatest possibility of their interaction, or the lowest level of paradox. Humans’ minds are entangled with one another so therefore we are able to share a common experience of reality. If other forms of consciousness exist, they also seek their lowest level of paradox, and therefore greatest probable form of the Universe that they can exist in. There are other forms of consciousness that exist within the same Universe, but require a completely alternate distribution of probability for the intersection of their form of reality and consciousness to be realized. It is likely that most forms of consciousness will exist entirely independently from one another because their experiences are not compatible—the Universe exists as a waveform, and consciousness is a waveform, and if they intersect in a way that is destructive, they collapse to create an awareness of a singular probability—e.g. the most probable distribution for one type of experience may be a less probable version of the Universe for other types of experience, and therefore, their realities are not “common”. Yet, they are still a part of the same Universe of distributed infinite probability. It is possible that similar forms of life, that use similar methods to interpret reality, would also intersect similar probable realities. In order to unify their existence in create a “common” reality that they can share, their perspective interpretations of the Universe must first have a similar understanding, and also an awareness of one another. Otherwise the wave forms of their conscious will not collapse the probability distribution of reality in harmony. It seems likely that disclosure will be unilateral for a more advanced species, and an achievement of understanding of a less mature species to bring their level of awareness to a compatible level that is able interact with a higher level of consciousness. The disclosure of the first migrations from a more aware civilization to isolated aboriginal tribes, and the realities were at first only the awareness of the travelers. It doesn't seem like a myth, but scientifically probable.

I agree, there is a deeper philosophical argument about the limits of our experience, but isn't that what makes "infinity" so paradoxical to us? Because we are finite, it's like imagining the Universe without life... and hence, without an imagination. Also, I don't necessarily agree that any of the counter examples implicitly prove anything wrong. Although, the "infinite" may not be superficially included in those examples, I believe it is embedded at the fundamental level of all paradox. I believe it's my first statement in this response as an explanation of "paradox" abstraction as an idea. "Being able" vs. "Not being able". I believe you may be creating your own paradox. Perhaps you misread.

Although this may be met with some skeptic dismissal or active rejection... isn't it possible all of the "dark" we perceive in the Universe be a result of life? Say, harnessing something like zero point energy and bringing huge amounts of excess energy into this Universe and using that to manipulate forces artificially? I would say, that's a more reasonable explanation than nothing at all. If you think about it, this could also explain the expansion of space. If by harnessing zero point energy somehow accelerates the entropy of the space, it would also explain inflation. At the inception of the Universe, all that energy would've been pulled into space and then returned leaving only the fraction of what originally existed as the energy and baryon matter we see today. Inflation would've only been temporary, and the matter and energy that receded back into the structure of space would explain zero point energy and uncertainty, (which are basically the same thing but I'm simply separating the energy and matter by specifically using uncertainty as the creation and deletion of matter). I apologize, I guess there's a couple different topics there, and none of them are discretely supported by empirical data, but it is a nice way to describe what we see.