Nevin_III

I am bored, so I am going to share a to the current ridiculous theory that I believe is in forms the reality of existence. It starts with a seemingly simple question, "what is time?". Which leads to a second question "what is space". Which leads to the question "what is the universe" which leads to the answer "what is conciseness?". Humans have created a reality where they feel comfortable with size relevance, they feel comfortable with time relevance and they feel comfortable with their grasp on the concept of a universe, humanity tends to be ignorant like that. I have heard the argument of if the universe is infinite be made by people I am supposed to think are smart. How can a human have any grasp of size relevance beyond the concepts of the earth. We have no idea how our size is relevant to the universe, no scientific instruments can measure size beyond its relevance to humans. If I ask how big the sun is, I will be told its radius, and its mass as related to human distance, universally small picture information. If asked how far away the sun was I would be told in spacetime how far away the sun is from the earth in miles, if I asked how long it would take to get to the sun I would be told based on a calculation of spacetime how long it would take in human time perception to travel that many miles, all universally small picture concepts. What is human time perception, are we hardcoded and existing in the "time of the change of the universe", or do we perceive the time relevant to distance travel to live and survive on earth. I just experienced the most extreme case of deja vu, I am not going to finish this post. Follow this pattern to find conciseness, see the infinity of time conciseness possibilitys. The reality we are alone in our Universe, but the possibility of simultaneous existences of concisenesses that could never perceive one an other and the multiverse this creates. If all life on earth dies the universe ends. All the things of the Universe would still exist but not in the form, size, or time we perceive it.

The human ability to fluently switch between thought translation opens the door to a profound reality. If we think in our concepts of communication what is stopping us from creating a individualized power language of large concept groupings. We could reason faster and more efficiently, we could tie together patterns with concepts. Example, history has made great play to point out the social awkwardness of the great geniuses. Could these men have spent so much time working on calculus for reasoning that they started to think in it, and dream in it. In understanding that concept, could it be honed, could humans think in rapid sound succession if they tied concepts and these sounds together. It is my opinion that we mostly think in sound communication because sound is the sense most tied to time or timing, and thought is the translation of electrical timings or frequencies. Example of the time hierarchy of the sense of sound, echolocation of bats. Also, could language be the main difference in the intelligence levels of people in similar societies. Does accent, vague concept slang, or misunderstanding of word concepts effect the timing of thought. If this is so, society should put more effort into keeping individual language and the concepts of words clear. Something I know I can work on, as could everyone. I love this comment, really good John. That's something to really think about, but perhaps both can be answered by patterns. Patterns picked up by the language translation of your peers. I don't think the concept of a Rubik's Cube exists without the building blocks of thought translation through language, so solving it could mean anything to an individual. Nor do the concepts of your first language exist without thought translation through language, yet the fact you don't use known language for either can be kind of mind bending. The first language you know from birth is emotion for communication, perhaps pattern problem solving lies in the timing translation of emotion. This could make a little sense out of the first progression of early man, perhaps language progression was caused by the attempt to better communicate emotion feeling, thus causing a chain reaction of growing sound memory concepts shared from individual to individual and built upon. Or maybe pattern problem solving is an entirely different process. I don't think anyone has done research on it to this extent, so it is currently all speculation.

Thanks for the reply Markus, So as an individual your dominant language isn't your first learned but the one that applies as current communication dominant, but you have the ability to change your thought translation with the concept of thought that the application of a different translation better applies or can be easier communicated. That is pretty awesome, I have one more question, before you switch your language of thought translation do you first think in your current dominant language to switch for reason, or can you just fluently in sequence switch between them? Fair enough sensei what you stated is fact, although that fact is completely irrelevant to the post. A question of individual thought translation can be answered by an individual.

This post is more a question than an informal text. Have you ever thought about thinking, or how your thought is translated for individual reason? Do you translate your thought in the language you know? For example, someone born in Russia will think in Russian, while someone born in Japan will think in Japanese. Is this just a coincidence with no meaning beyond communication form, or are we limited to the concepts of individual thought in relation? I also would like to know if anyone multilingual thinks in multiple languages or if they only use their non-dominant language when the concept to apply it is thought in their native language. I find the thought of the time before humans had a devolved language fascinating because before any developed language what language did humans think in, and how could they have reason thinking purely as an individual. Beyond that what language do animals think in, the sounds they understand and make? Or is it with the timing before translation? Does anyone know anything about this?

Well I enjoyed it but I'm done lol. And I do get your view, its the view that actually gets advancements in science. I share a similar view, this is more just scientific boredom or more overall boredom of the universe . You know though in perception is mordern science not just the art of fools? Mankind has all it needs and more just from the knowledge of our peers. The pursuit for more leads to what gravitational waves? Truth about a potential start an end? More fancy electronics to numb our mind? Better medicine and medical science intill the worlds natural population control can't keep up? The depletion of the things we do need as research? What are we really succeeding in besides an occupation of our time.

Yeah well strange your the one that seems to show a interest you've commented atleast a dozen times on the subject lol Why in your brilliance are you clicking the infinite state of nothing and spending nearly two days in the fourm, while actually considering your self scientifically inclined?

Yeah I wasn't really doing this for you, I'm more just deepthinking with criticism from science which is fun. But I got you, I'll try to figure out a way to express this idea scientifically before sharing it. Or I'll atleast go to a different audience this isn't science I agree.

Alright I've been thinking and have a new speculation. Could this spacetime be a result of perception itself. Bear with me, and please help with the physics in support or denial. Think about the concept, say there was an explosion from unknown phyics and time. Even though this explosion is just a big bang, fast in the time of the physics at play one of the results of the explosion is the chemical process of quantum perception. Because of this chemical process we have a time where the explosion is in a like still perceivable state. Example, Gravitational waves could be the corresponding energy frequency from the explosion. Could first life be connected to the beginning of spacetime. I have an example equation for this one. Now I warn you I am self taught and my day to day math is in more the style of a programming language but I'll try to throw this together with known symbolism and standard calculus . It will probably take me a while.

Thanks for all the comments strange, was a good "time as perceived" talking to you. Lol

Thank you.

I have just one more question. What is time and why did it exist before the first motion or change, before there was a hot dence state?

Can the early effects of cmb be replicated? If so do you know any references to it? Because I think we might have different views of the same things. I don't really question the knowledge of the people who believe in the big bang or believe in some conspiracy of its introduction lol. im just trying to learn more about the subject through its argument.

Lambda

When was space very hot and very dense? What is the science behind that explanation? The science is called sociology. The act of deeming acceptance to the higher iq individuals of the major nations to accept faith or religious views as general logic.

Im not trying to sound like a genius, I'm just a big thinker that had an idea and had some success trying to explain it. The formula I was relating to is a formula used in intelligent systems, something I found in a book about abstract fractional calculus. I can't properly reference it. Just throw this thread in the trash please.

Quantum perception of light is how you have your 5 senses. The uncertainty principal relates to it because the most likely reason the chemical processes that relate to act in seemingly random sequences is because our perception of it is within a biological system with millions of points of possible interference. Processing h is as close as we can get to a 0 in science. Packets of bio data in a similar way to a bit only the data all comes from the periodic table. The next two questions are already answered within those three. You seem to think you have the high ground because you didn't grasp my poor explanation of potential time perception or the true 0 available in our known universe. I have a question for you, what field of science are you in or most intrested in?

The uncertainty principal relates to quantum perception of light when processes of h are broke down into biosystem understandable packets of physical data. Quantum reduction is the probably of error from classical physics mathematical equations to bio data or atleast thats how its used in bioelectronic perception science. Its a new field but im not the only one using it. I'm not sure how I offended you but thanks for the comments.

This post was a concept of thought. I needed help with some equations and was looking for someone interested in the concept. I should not have been so foward about time perception I got off topic. I treated it more like a social media conversation. In quote 1 you stated my exact point to Swanson. Modern physics gives you "uncertainty principals" and "spooky connections" when you deal with bioelectronics in quantum deduction.

There are no physics in play in the complex bioelectrical system of neruology let me tell you. But no matter I was just bored. I wont be posting anymore although I have thousands of tests and proven predictions in the quantum electrical system of the human mind. And unlike classical physics I can support it with undeniable evidence.

lol, sense. I'm not stating a fact or personal belief just a concept to explain something else. I do think that nothing is more than a hole in your doughnut in its quantum relevance. But I also get the concept of the general view of this forum. It's just not the proper place for this, I'll figure it out myself.

Being moved to the speculations forum was fair enough, but at one time a round earth was only a speculation. My next post is a concept I've been working on called "Complete Quantum Existence, The Perception of Freechoice". If not other sciences, Where do you want it posted. Also, will the science of perception with more references be respected as a scientific possibility on this site if it challenges your general view of science or should I go to a different site?

Energy as a vector, I agree my wording of the concept was not great. Although I'm from an electrical background so my explanation was more a vector in the grouping sence then a physicists view of the definition of a vector. Vague example [ { Cp ( 0^ { ( (T^) } ) { (hT^) ) Tp^ } } ] I'll have to get back to that when im on a computer my limited symbolism is going to make the concept inperceivable. In this concept energy has a time position more so than the "substances, particles" we perceive in our perception of time . To say energy does not have a position is to say the perceived substances and particles are in their current perceivable positions from magic. An individual particle is in its current position because of the position of all the effecting perceived "substances and particles" or atleast the force of the energy which relates them . If the instrument can't dectect the change of then perhaps yes in relavince to its current effect of the current perception its infulence in relavince is small. But as for its relavince to the time of our perception it could not only infulence much but cause it completely. Ill get back to this, good questions. I'm sorry I attempted to answer your question in my reply to the other comments, i'm typing on a ps4 and am moving slow. I'll get back to you in a minute. By in the beginning, I am trying to rationalize the concept of a time in which our perception is perceived. In terms of the universe in human perception the beginning is the process of time which the current perceivable time is perceived. I am trying to rationalize the possibility that we are in say a moment of another processes time and perceive the time, or changes of this other processes time, or changes at a rate of a different process of time and effect relation. That process of time is our perception of a universe not its cause or the physical we perceive of it. The real question im asking is do we perceive time or a time perception of a process from another time. But im getting a different concept of your post. Im glad you share the concept of nothing, and I understand the concept of what is the beginning. I guess I was going for the beginning of the perceivable energy or the beginning of human perception, but to your point either probably have much to do with actual beginnings only beginning in relation. But the consistent time of infinity and nothing will be in existence regardless the time process applied so in the beginning in time there was infinity and nothing is something that cant be proven invalid. Im working on another concept check it out after I post it i'll try to make more sence.

In this concept is a possible concept that there could be a time of "in the beginning of human time perception" and that is what we can potentially learn. The potential reality that the time of in the beginning of human time perception or the start of our time of perceivable energy has little to do with the early structure or time of our perceived universe but this and the known physics are just a concept of the applied active mathematical possibilitys of the universe through our perception of time. In this concept the simultaneous vector grouping of energy in time is the reason we perceive the time of the position of perceivable energy or the positions of subatomic structure causing our perception of a universe. In this concept to understand the potential of inescapable time bias even in calibrated and tested instruments with the intent of removing bias, one would first have to understand the concept that the instruments are created to perceive energy in our perception of time.

The concept im getting at is exactly that. This is super tough to explain to other people thats why im on here. But in that truth I guess I challenged your concept of the universe. The nothing that would be beyond your perception of potentially infinite spaces' space is also a part of the universe.

I challenge the human concept of time, all things change in time. Or the change of energy causes a change of perceivable energy to be perceived through our perception of time. An example of the concept, a meteor collides with a distant moon that is under our perception destroying it. Did the meteor destroy the moon? In human perception yes, but in reality the first time energy caused the perceivable energy and the ensuing force that came to be, caused it. From the cause of that time the moon had already been destroyed. From the first energy that caused all other energys that caused this motion. Just because a human can perceive the in human time perception energy humans perceive as the meteor contacting the moon does not make the change a result of the time of the meteor or the moon. To Strange, As to if space is infinite i failed to get the concept out correctly. In the universe of your perception in terms of nothing and infinite both must be true. If your perceived space ended beyond it would be in your perception nothing, if nothing was present beyond, then no matter distance in relation to anything that nothing would be infinite. Also energy as perceived could not always exist, to state something as always is to state it in our time. To speak in litteral has to be, a time of energy other than perceivable energy must exist. Because the impossibility of existence beyond infinity and nothing cant be denied in our perception of time. There is no always in human time perception time, for time itself is relevant to change. Nothing was always there, infinity and nothing were always there.