Theory of Everything and Nothing by a 5 Sense Synesthete

[Syn5]

Ok guys pardon any religious vocabulary, I was brought up Catholic and I guess it's the easiest way for my mind to grasp/understand my own concept.

a cycle, closed loop, circle pi, one point extends solar systems everything is a cycle

imagine…. a beginning… an end… a start a finish.

now close the cycle. a circle. a circle has no start or finish. it all comes from a single point from an infinite number (pi) 3.infinity

theres a reason we have the concept of whole numbers and fractions, the concept that a fraction can add up to a whole. even numbers are just symbols for concepts. they are in cycled order to help our limited perception understand infiniternal. even our life is a cycle the only way our limited perception can understand infiniternal. the truth is all is one, one is all. Only reason its hard to grasp? Our limited perception. everything and nothing must exit and not exist < this is both literal and figurative. the same and not the same. and you can’t have one without the other. Schrödinger's cat

in order to truly understand the concept of eternity, you have to forget the concept of beginning and end… and the concept of start and finsih for space… it is all one and the same. The absolute truth.

Time-space time and space one in the same are relative, complete construct of energy. Theory of relativity

we are all different observers with different spectrums of perception, yet we are all one and the same really since everything we observe spawns from a single point. reality is just a circle. and we know time space is relative. so really there is nothing but energy yet everything all at the same time. there cannot be a real time or space, they must exist only in concept, a figment of perception.

what is perception? i believe its eternity’s self awareness.

in order to be complete to be eternal to be in eternal balance we have to take in enough energy to add up. if the balance is not struck we run out of time and space. but time and space are only relative so truly the balance is not sway able, its infinite and eternal <— which are also one thing. actually everything is just one thing. energy. yet one thing can mathematically be many things. this is fact. observable even by 5 sense science. if you truly thing, everything can be broken down to ONE or NOTHING. those are the only true concept, energy or no, yes or no, good or evil, everything must have a polar opposite to be in balance, everything must be nothing and nothing must be everything in order to truly understand.

the world as we know it… is fiction yet not. It’s beautiful. nothing and everything has a concept or doesn’t have a concept. the reason for the weirdness in all oveservable science. aka FREE WILL. which comes from self awareness. self awareness at any level. an atom being observed by another atom. the smallest obersving the biggest is one in the same with the largest observing the smallest. us observing god he observing us, yet that just a concept because god is us and we are god. Infiniternity. Existance can only exist without existence. ting yang balance karma good evil yes or no, binary, fractal

[fiveworlds]

Is there a question here?

 

The same and not the same, you can’t have one without the other. Schrödinger's cat

 

 

You may be able to use weak measurement.

Edited September 26, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Strange]

Is there a question here?

 

I think it might be: WTF?

[Syn5]

Experiment (similar to double-slit experiment):

a wave

a wall with 5 slits

Imagine at each slit is a detector detecting one of the classic physical senses

on the side opposite the wave a group of 100 people in wall formation parallel to the wall with slits

We know the wave will go through all slits and hit each sense detector

Once the wave hit the sense detector it starts a new wave which interacts with the other waves measured by the other detectors

each person will then be hit by each wave differently thus causing a different perception of a single wave of senses.

Only way to prove this is by proving that senses come from a single point, like a wave.

I believe we have proof.

Tests have been made were large groups of people have been played sounds then asked to choose a color from a large palette. What they are finding is that certain sounds consistently affect the persons choice. Seems as though sound and color are somewhat linked.

Further proof.

As a synesthete it has always been obvious and logical to think in this way. All of the tests being made relating to how we perceive the world just keep proving my theory right. And this is in all fields of study. Maybe I'm just linking things in my mind.

Please help me find holes in my theory. Thanks.

[Strange]

 

Experiment (similar to double-slit experiment):

a wave.

 

A wave of what?

 

Imagine at each slit is a detector detecting one of the classic physical senses

What sort of wave can be detected by all these different senses? And why just five sense?

Once the wave hit the sense detector it starts a new wave

 

Why? How can you say this when it isn't clear what the wave is or what the sensors are?

Tests have been made were large groups of people have been played sounds then asked to choose a color from a large palette. What they are finding is that certain sounds consistently affect the persons choice. Seems as though sound and color are somewhat linked.

They are probably linked in their brain. It does not prove (or even imply) that "senses come from a single point, like a wave".

Further proof.

By the way, note that science doesn't deal in "proof".

All of the tests being made relating to how we perceive the world just keep proving my theory right.

Rather than looking for things that you believe confirm your idea, you should be looking for things that disprove it. That is how science works.

Maybe I'm just linking things in my mind.

Now I think you might be on to something there.

Please help me find holes in my theory. Thanks

 

You're welcome.

[Syn5]

I am a high school drop out. I have always been told that I am smart and wasting my talents. So pardon if I don't yet know how to speak and think in science terms. I will try my best.

 

I mean energy. The wave as in the double-slit experiment about probability, or Schrodinger's cat.

 

What I am saying is that maybe,

 

Everything comes from a single point and everything is an awareness of that point from a unique perspective limited by the scope of their self awareness. Awareness would originate from the same point. Holographic principle in string theory? Remember I don't have much education but I'm working to change that.

 

As to how one point can be perceived many different ways? I guess theory of relativity or maybe the double-slit experiment.

 

By the way I have found a big BIG BIG problem with Google! It's making us narrow minded! I tried to take your advice Strange but Google's algorithm keeps returning results similar to searches based on my old perspective.

 

By the way Strange, I appreciate how you formatted your reply similar to a conversation.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Syn5

[andrewcellini]

what do you mean by energy?

[Syn5]

The double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanicalphenomena.

 

The holographic principle is a property of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.

I'm saying that emotions are energy. The same as everything else. And thus are directly related to all our other senses.

 

I'm saying that the universe is a fractal. When zoomed out to the max it may as well be a dot, nothing. But the more you zoom in the more complex. Complex yet simple depending on the perception of the observer. So to fit this theory even the intangibles like emotions must come from the same point. Maybe people like me, synesthetes, can show the link using MRI's?

 

As far as what is the point? I think its the point of birth for our universe, the big bang.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Syn5

[andrewcellini]

okay, emotions are energy, then what do you mean by energy? it's obvious you're using it in an unconventional sense.

[Strange]

I'm saying that the universe is a fractal.

 

This is very clearly not true. The universe looks very different at different scales. At the largest scale it is roughly homogeneous. At smaller scales there are clusters of galaxies (not homogeneous). At still smaller sacles, there are galaxies; nothing like clusters. At smaller scales there are planets: solid balls nothing like galaxies. At smaller scales still ... well, you get the picture. It ain't fractal.

[Syn5]

I don't know strange. Seems to me everything in this universe can be the size of a single point if you make the observers perspective large enough. The measure of space-time is relative. At the smallest the universe is a collection of single points called particles. At it's largest maybe the universe itself is just a single particle. And as you keep zooming in or out you notice a pattern that repeats. And this pattern is an infinite and eternal loop, cycle of space-time.

 

Seems pretty fractal to me.

To create the physical world as we know it all we need is energy, or lack thereof, at different frequencies. It's very possible everything is an awareness arranged around a single point which is releasing bits of information on an infinite loop. Level of awareness depends on orbit and perspective on position within that orbit. Now with this theory it's very easy to explain how everything is nothing, entangled, if we just forget about the concepts of time and space and the physical and think about infinite and eternal.

 

I don't see anything that would make this logically impossible.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Syn5

[ajb]

Image by Andrew Pontzen and Fabio Governato

 

The above computer generated image presents a possible large-scale distribution of light sources in the Universe. It does indeed resemble a fractal, but only at certain scales, we do not have a proper fractal. This situation is quite common in nature, we have things that closely resemble fractals.

[Strange]

 

Seems pretty fractal to me.

 

Fractals are a branch of mathematics. Perhaps you could calculate the fractal dimension of the universe at various scales and confirm your claim.

 

 

I don't see anything that would make this logically impossible.

 

I don;t see anything that would make it possible. It is your claim, the "burden of proof" is on you. It isn't true by default.

[Bignose]

I don't see anything that would make this logically impossible.

That's not the metric for scientific discussions, however.

 

The main metric in science is how well do predictions agree with measurements. So, really, what prediction does your 'fractal universe' make? "And as you keep zooming in or out you notice a pattern that repeats." Yes, ok, superficially, things look similar. I will agree that a planet orbiting a sun does indeed look very similar to the exceptionally flawed Bohr model of an electron orbiting a nucleus.

 

Now, let's look at this in more detail.

1) we know that electrons don't actually orbit nuclei on a given path. Electrons around a nucleus don't seem to have any kind of fixed trajectory. Hence our best models are probabilistic.

2) we know that the force holding the electron to a nuclei is not gravity

3) there is no analog for moons that orbit planets that orbit a sun in the atom 'fractal' model

4) the distribution of matter is completely wrong (as Strange pointed out above)

5) and so on...

 

I get why this has appeal to you. You're not the first one to think of this, (I think there have been at least 2 other threads on this exact topic in the last few months), and I'm sure you won't be the last.

 

But when you use the tools of science and start to ask what predictions this model makes, it really breaks down. Aesthetic appeal aside, and it is quite aesthetically pleasing, its downright rotten scientifically.

 

When predictions don't agree with observations, then a model is rejected, not matter how not "logically impossible" or aesthetically pleasing it is. Science is about accurate predictions.

[Syn5]

Well then at least it's worth pursuing.

I mean how do you achieve infinity? Make space-time a cycle, a hertz that is both infinite and non existent and everything in between at the same time.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Syn5

[Bignose]

Well then at least it's worth pursuing.

if you think so, then the onus is on you to demonstrate how your idea can be turned into accurate predictions. No one else's. And don't expect anyone in the scientific world to be interested until you do.

[Syn5]

Here's an experiment showing a link which might be relevant:

 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/universal-emotional-palette-moods-link-music-colors-even-without-synesthesia-250819

 

I can make it more relevant by linking the colors subjects chose to the light frequency of that color. And further more I'll try to link everything. If my theory is right and everything is bits being read on a loop, energy observing energy on a cycle then it should be possible.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Syn5

[Strange]

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with the structure of the universe. It is about how the human mind/brain works.

[Syn5]

Well then maybe I'm not incorrect completely just wrong field ahahaha

I will say my theory makes more sense if you look at awareness itself as being more real than time/space. Reason I believe probability exists. If your awareness is unaware of another awareness then your awareness's rules do not apply. Well not that they don't apply you are just on a different level of awareness so that the effects are not completely observed.

And I don't know of anything that doesn't follow that rule.

[Bignose]

And I don't know of anything that doesn't follow that rule.

... which makes it almost useless scientifically. If you can't falsify a statement, then you can't even test to see if it is true or not.

 

Syn5, it is obvious you have a creative mind. But if you wish to channel that creativity to scientific pursuits, you're going to have to put some of your energy into learning what it means to actually do science.

 

Right now, all you're doing is telling stories. Stories are useful, powerful, interesting, and can be very pleasing overall. But, they are rarely scientific. On this forum -- a forum devoted to talking about science -- you need to learn what is actually scientifically meaningful. Specifically, you making predictions and then seeing how closely those predictions agree with what is actually observed.

[Syn5]

Ok. If an awareness (particle) is not being observed (acted upon by another particle) then the rules of the shared awareness (observable reality, not all reality) do not apply. The particle is then free to do everything and nothing until it's observed and the rules of the shared observable reality apply again, a choice that then complies is chosen.

 

Is this not observable?

The sentence is the formula, change the object to whatever input you want. Example:

 

Ok. If an awareness (person, collection of particles) is not being observed (acted upon by another particle, even it's own) then the rules of the shared awareness (we can dream, see colors that dont exist etc.) do not apply. The Person is then free to do everything and nothing until it's observed and the rules apply again, a choice that then complies is chosen.

It can be applied at any scale, is completely observable, and applies to anything including the intangibles like emotion.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Syn5

[andrewcellini]

how does this explain everything? or anything at all? for example this doesn't have the explanatory power to account for what is conventionally known as "awareness" or "particles" and certainly is more of a really bad analogy for what is actually concerned with in quantum mechanics and physics in general.

 

you need to be clear on your vocabulary because, as i've pointed out before, you're using it in a wild unconventional way which makes this seem like a completely meaningless jumble.

Edited September 28, 2014 by andrewcellini

[Syn5]

Is not all matter made up of particles acting like waves? With entropy regarding space/time? The Holographic principle in String theory and the double-slit experiment.

 

When I say particle I mean it literally. When I say awareness I also mean it literally. Only after a particle is observed does it's speed and direction become tangible, before that it's just entropy.

 

Only when an awareness small enough to observe does the particle become a real output in the shared reality, anything beyond that will be unknown to those not on that level of awareness.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Syn5

[andrewcellini]

Is not all matter made up of particles acting like waves? With entropy regarding space/time? The Holographic principle in String theory and the double-slit experiment.

 

When I say particle I mean it literally. When I say awareness I also mean it literally. Only after a particle is observed does it's speed and direction become tangible, before that it's just entropy.

 

Only when an awareness small enough to observe does the particle become a real output in the shared reality, anything beyond that will be unknown to those not on that level of awareness.

you are just making conjectures and further demonstrating you don't have that good of a grasp of what you're talking about. just saying "double slit experiment" doesn't say what that has to do with your "theory."

 

what do you mean by entropy? you are again using words unconventionally.

 

stop using these words and give me their definition, saying " I mean it literally" means nothing because you obviously don't know what they mean in a scientific context.

[Syn5]

Entropy is just information hidden to the observer due to a limited perspective or awareness. In my theory think of everything making up physical reality as bits of information. And the fact is reality is just that, bits of information with hidden information. Elemental particles with entropy.