Theory of existence

[Cybersabre]

Hello everyone. I fugured speculation was the right place for this.

 

I want to talk about the nature of existence.

 

My principal argument will be that our universe is a self contained entity/ structure. Hawking proposed a closed system universe; a globe-like model that has a north and a south pole representing the big bang/ crunch. I was inspired to think about such a universe that did not rely on a creator nor on having any amount of parallel universes in order for it to exist.

 

I will start by addressing the nature of time and space.

 

For time to exist as a dimension there must be the movement of space. Interestingly, Einstein said that time will move at different rates depending on the energy states of two observers. From this, it seems apparent that at the singularity of the big bang time would have stood still.

 

From this initial state I will use the analogy of a painting to show how/ why things managed to get started. In the painting we can see every detail laid out before us and that there is an unbroken chain of brush strokes from start to finish. I will call this the topological view of the universe and in it we can see an unbroken connection between past and future states. The singularity is a point of infinite potential energy and is represented by an artist's conception of his work plotted against a blank canvas.

 

Next I will talk about the subjective nature of reality. All perceptions are based on the mechanical input of objective stimuli into the brain. Subjective interpretations of reality include: Colour, temperature, spatial awareness, time, emotion, musicality, creativity and mathematics.

 

Math is subjective in the way it is applied to objects and abstract concepts. Objectively, math exists because the entire universe, or the whole, symbolises the number 1. It is from the number 1 that we can then derive all other numbers as well as addition, multiplication and the mathematical functions.

 

Time is subjective. I propose that the reason we view time moving from past, to present, to future is because of evolution. The nature of entropy/ disorder in the universe shows a tendency to increase as space stretches out, acted on by forces from future and distant states. The body has adapted in order to collect energy from more readily available states in order to survive the future states. A simple example is being able to predict the future to avoid danger. Perception of time is simply a matter of practicality. If we lived in a world where we perceived time moving backwards then we would starve. The conclusion is that although we may very well be travelling backwards in time just as much as we are travelling forwards in time and that time has no preference as far as objective reality is concerned; we must perceive time as moving forwards if we are to exist.

 

In closing, the current paradoxes posed by quantum mechanics might possibly be better explained if we forgot about the probabilistic nature of reality and instead supposed that the universe already existed in its entirety. Dark energy might just be an attractional force exerted from future/ far distant states. String theory might be correct in assuming that matter was connected by string-like bodies which spanned the entire universe. The witnessed faster than light action-at-a-distance may be seen as a consequence of time having no objective preference when it came to future and past states. Finally, I think that the confounding results shown by the double slit experiment could be better understood if we indeed did live in a prebuilt universe.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Cybersabre

[sheever]

i think there is no time nor space if you take your own observation as reference frame.your position is zero dimensional and always the same.that means everything moving but not you....and moving as you observe anything..the deeper you observe the more you get close to what you observe.

Edited July 28, 2013 by sheever

[hyperion1is]

 

Next I will talk about the subjective nature of reality. All perceptions are based on the mechanical input of objective stimuli into the brain. Subjective interpretations of reality include: Colour, temperature, spatial awareness, time, emotion, musicality, creativity and mathematics.

 

 

This topic of this discussion may be too much for me. I'm interested of you definitions for Subjective and Objective.

Colour is subjective, correct. In physic White not being a color, from what I know, that doesn't fall under Subjective, but to Objective. Red, green and blue combined makes White (short version). White being a Whole related to spectrum is Objective. In other words we can "construct" it in our mind and deconstruct it into it's spectrum. On any "side" you position yourself on White you "see" the same thing. The coincidence is that we can perceive something that is already objective. I guess it's a thing of a "partial" and a "whole". I'm I correct?

 

Also I would point out that all communications from humans to humans are subjective. (on your impulses to the brain approach). Even if you want to see it as: Subjective message emitted (from human) through Objective media (air) to subjective interpreter (human).

[Cybersabre]

Colour is a way for the brain to breakdown electromagnetic radiation in order to easier distinguish between objects in the surrounding area.

 

Human eyes respond to wavelengths of ER in the 390-700nm range. We are classified as trichromats because we have 3 cone cells that pick up about 100 different gradations of colour each from the red, green and blue spectrum, for a total of about 1 million different hues of colour.

 

Butterflies, reindeer, bees and birds can detect ultra violet light in the 300-400nm band. There have been a few cases of UV vision in humans although it has been extremely rare at only about 2 cases.

 

Your point about communication being a subjective experience is entirely correct. That's why some people will never see another person's point of view.

[hyperion1is]

Thanks for that. I didn't understood what do you mean by Objective though. Something that is outside (a human) and exists regardless of the human interpretations?. If that is true, it can be said that if a object is not related to me I can't observe it, I can't understand it. It can only understand itself.

[Cybersabre]

Objective reality is the truest form that the universe takes on. A tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound- It creates a disturbance of energy that could be interpreted as sound.

 

The concept is a profound one because it means that the standard model may be missing a more fundamental, objective string-like particle that spans the entire width of the universe.

[sheever]

Objective reality is the truest form that the universe takes on. A tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound- It creates a disturbance of energy that could be interpreted as sound.

 

The concept is a profound one because it means that the standard model may be missing a more fundamental, objective string-like particle that spans the entire width of the universe.

 

that does the falling tree make a sound if no one see it my favourite of all time.many doesnt recognize that they were the observer ....(.if there is no observer this question wouldnt been asked) now, there is another stage to realize that to actually look there you had to know where to look before that.every sense observing the same way in depth the more you look the deeper you look.moving in space is the exact same observation in my oppinion no difference at all.since the source and the observer is you in one you self validate yourself in your entire life.basically all your life is nothing but this self validation many different ways.even just to talk here is a self validation.just a tought...

Edited July 30, 2013 by sheever