Theory on the Universe
In my philosophy class we were on the subject of logic and I believe it was Descartes who said that humans don’t have an imagination, we can only take different parts of different things and combine them to ‘create’ something new as an idea. I completely agree with this because I have yet to imagine something that isn’t bits and pieces of other things.
I started thinking about this idea a lot. During my shrooms trip I posted earlier I started thinking, ‘Well if our ideas are only ideas made up of other ideas, then those ideas couldn’t have been completely new either and are made up of other ideas…and those ideas are made up of other ideas etc etc until you get to the single simplest idea.
So the idea of lets say an iPod, is made up of the idea of a screen…and all the things beneath the screen. The idea for a screen, and all the things beneath the screen that make an iPod work, come from ideas of simpler things and you can keep getting simpler and simpler ideas that make up the next idea.
It’s made up of thousands of cells and atoms (that are like ‘ideas’) that put in place just right make up the person that you are. (Just another example, but here’s where the mind blowing begins).
If we work backwards…basically rewind time, we just saw the entire creation of technology, the human race, earth, the moon, our universe…that’s built off of ‘ideas’ that came before it until you get to one single idea (like a proton/electron) and if you duplicate that ‘idea’ you get something completely new (add atoms you get a molecule). Those ‘ideas’ slowly started making the universe that we know today one ‘idea’ at a time.
But right before that first ‘idea’ there was nothing and that ‘idea’ just popped into existence…
-That idea is our universe-
Our universe is just an ‘idea’ that somebody thought of. But because nobody can just think of the complexity of the universe as a single idea, it build upon itself and grows into what we call the universe today.
Any idea you think of, is something that now exists in this, or a different, universe. You can think of something that happened at the beginning of that universe, the middle of the universe’s existence, or towards the end. Since time doesn’t matter in the whole ‘idea’ of a universe, the newly created universe creates it’s past and future around the idea you just created. This gives us an infinite amount of universes and helps the multiverse theory.
I just want to know who was the person who thought of our universe…and would this mean that our entire universe is just an idea in somebody’s head?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
@2bias, I sometimes tend to come off as a bit pretentious when I get caught up in an argument. But I get what you are saying. I’m not so sure I want to premise my arguments with “IMO” because I’ve been taught so many times that, if I’m writing something, the assumption should be that this is what I believe, and, therefore, my opinion. As for assuming truth, I’d believe there are objective truths, and it’s hard for me to speak of them as subjective if what I’m trying to prove is a sort of objectivity. Epistemological skepticism aside, of course.
But I will take into consideration coming off less “confrontational,” because I do see how I get that way some times.
Aaand I’d like to make a reply:
“If you have just one number you can make infinite amounts of numbers with it – if you have 1 you can make 11 or 111 etc. so a finite amount of atoms does not mean a finite amount of ideas because even though we have only seen so many things and our minds are limited, we can still combine these ideas with themselves as many times as we like and so we can create anything.”
You said this earlier and I had a similar thought not too long ago. Take a ruler and measure something in your home. Anything would be okay, as long as you get a decent number. Mathematically speaking, you should be able to divide that measurement in half to get two symmetrical lengths. Those, then, should also each be divisible by two. And so should the four resulting measurements. This could go on forever, as infinitely as you’d like, continuously dividing the measurement in half. According to the laws of mathematics, you should ALWAYS be able to divide by 2. There is no point where you should stop.
Physics, on the other hand, would give you a finite measurement where you HAVE to stop. A sort of, “You can’t get any smaller than this,” amount of mass. That is because the physical world as it applies to humans is NOT made up of “infinities.” Our mental capacity is such that we can create ways of getting infinities, like you’re combination of 1′s or my divisibility, but those aren’t infinite on their own, just means that can approach that “end,” for the lack of a better word.
@prittii, I think it’s fair to point out if he miscited a Philosopher’s argument, but it’s not super relevant to the topic at hand. Nobody mentions Descartes at all past the first point, that was just what got him starting on this train of thought.
I like how you stated that there was nothing…and then came the idea. I once went on a thought tangent and I eventually just kept coming down to the same conclusion every time. I would try breaking something down to a source, but every time that source was nothing. I eventually just wanted to stop breaking everything down just because it always came to that same conclusion. its like I already knew it would just break down to nothing. So what was the point of thinking about it? lol its funny how the mind can run sometimes.
I first shine and EVERYTHING else shines afterward. Now who or what is this “I”? Well that’s the real question. EVERYTHING else is equal to the total universe – ideas that begets other ideas, 0′s and 1′s, bridges, sky, birds, stress, space/time etc. etc. If there is no “I” there is no universe! So I submit that “I” is just pure consciousness/awareness which transcends the world of space/time; or, anything contained in space/time is also contained in consciousness. This “I” cannot be objectified. I think your question is a good one by asking – Is our entire universe is just an idea in somebody’s head? I think it is.
@sirensetmefree, I do believe in objective truths – and i get what you are saying – i feel the same, it’s just the only way we can truly think of each other as equals – I mean five hundred years ago everybody KNEW that the earth was flat – it was almost an objective truth. so just imagine what we “know” now right? :D it’s just important to acknowledge your own limitations, but it really is a difficult balance to give yourself enough credit for people to think that you even believe in yourself and at the same time give space for other opinions. anyways I actually agree with you when you say that it’s a given fact that when you say something – that’s the way you see it and others may believe something else, it’s just that not everyone is equally aware of that – it would be very nice if you could simply cut the prefixes like IMO out, but we just need to keep it in mind – especially on the internet where we can’t read the other person like we can in person.
In regards to the latter paragraph I see what you are saying, but I will still argue that even though one person or all humans being finite and all can’t make up infinite ideas – but the array of different outcomes that could potentially be the result of them combining ideas and experiences IS :) but really I was just pointing a fallacy out – it seemed like christian was trying to say that finite doesn’t = infinite which is true, but then again that wasn’t what was being said either – what was being said was: finite x infinite = infinite, which is true.
Either way this stuff is way too abstract to discuss this way haha :D
I agree with Hawkins and his theory that combines the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics. If its true that a black hole (a dip in space due to gravity that causes passing objects to be drawn in) can “suck” things in then the opposite, that it can push things out, must also be true. Thus explaining the big bang theory. The universe was started by a reverse black hole. Is this true? Who knows. You should go on YouTube and type in “Hawkins universe” and watch all 5 parts. Extremely mind blowing. Let me know what you think.
@keriaku, He has not only mentioned the wrong philosopher, but also misinterpreted the idea he mentioned. He is probably going to score really low in his philosophy test if he doesn’t take my advice and read some books instead of taking shroom trips… lol
We are comprised of a system: The human organism. This system exists within the biosphere, a much larger system. This system exists among other systems: The geosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, etc. These systems exist within a much larger system: the The solar system, which exists within a galactic system.
But because we generally think of SIZE as a dominating force, we believe the the atoms exist within the larger systems, such as organisms, mountains, planets. But really, we are a manifestation of the atoms. we exist within the atom’s system. What seems like chaos at a quantum level, gives rise to a complex organized system such as the human race.
Want an example of what this looks like? Next time your driving, pay attention to the complex system that has emerged from us: traffic! It is a measurable system, red lights mean no, green lights mean yes. This is analogous to 1′s and 0′s. Pay attention to technology in general, this is an emerging system from our system. Atoms gave rise to molecules which gave rise to cells, which eventually led to systems such as consciousness, airplane departures, stock markets, and sewage systems.
Back to 1′s and 0′s. We are all variations of pure 1′s and 0′s. A 1 and 0 is obviously just a physical representation of what I’m discussing, but if you imagine mixing the “two” you have 11,00,10,01. Mix 3 and you have 8 variations. 4 and you have 16, and so on. Really We are comprised of these variations at astronomical, UNIMAGINABLE variations.
Soooo what you are discussing is the beginning of these variations, being 1 and 0. That’s what it is! that’s what you are! that’s what consciousness is! that’s what the universe understanding itself is!!!!! IT’s the mix of a 1 and a 0. That’s it folks. really 01 and 10 are the same. To say they are different is just a human perceived illusion because we read from left to right. 10 and 01 have the same information.
The two together CREATE THE UNIVERSE. And we are the result. The two create yin yang, karma, black white, rationality intuition, left brain right brain, right wrong, moral evil, sun black hole, positive electron negative electron. The motion of “the two” breathes life into our souls. If there was just “one” we would not decide or take action, because there would be nothing to “weigh against”. Why do you think the triangle is such a prominent figure? It’s used a scale in the court of law, to “decide” The triangle represents the trinity, it represents the soul.
We are a push and pull of tension, and we are here right now because we’re choosing to be here right now, in this moment, right now. You thought of this, not someone else. This all exists right now because we are slowing down entropy. Entropy is the equilibrium where two sides of the party level out to just one. Take a cold room and a hot room for example. Open the door in between and they meet at a nice even temperature throughout both rooms. This is what’s happening to our universe. Our universe wants to be at an entropic state, of just “one” but instead the universe created systems which stop that from happening.
Think of your life and humanity’s life as a still photograph in time, this moment will pass, but we’ve taken a picture to slow it down. As we slow it down, we begin to recognize all of the complexity and see the clockwork of time itself. We create science and look further into the atom, further into outer space. This photograph is becoming more vibrant more complex, but soon it will fade. Once it fades, once entropy reaches the full state of equilibrium, and the universe is no more, we will be “one”. But after awhile we’ll get bored and create a second, and from there systems will emerge once again.
@sonofsaul, towards the end when I mention ideas that we think off are parts of different universes. If we think about an idea of the beginning of a universe, it creates that universe (even if it is just in your mind.) this creates a chain of infinite universe and ours is just one out of the many. our universe isn’t anything special to any others. even more, since we could just be an idea that somebody came up with, the real question is, was if your mind that came up with this idea, or mine?
@2bias, I really like what you said there about considering consciousness as a factor into what can create. But I was hoping you could elaborate a bit further on what you mean by finite x infinite = infinite. I don’t really understand what it is that is infinite in this equation. Is it the possibility of ideas? The number of configurations of atoms?
This is a great thread. Very interesting. I’m really enjoying the replies…
Although, I find it a bit unnerving that no one here seems to think the laws of causality are of any importance, or at least no one seems to be mentioning them. The idea that something that exists now caused something that exists in the past is a bit more ridiculous the more you think about it. Backwards causality makes no sense in a forward-moving time “worm.” And even if you accept that time is relative, that doesn’t change the property of time as being forward-moving. Time, even relative to those stuck in a black hole, is forward moving, even if it is infinitely slow. And in hyperspace, time relative to our space-time is still forward-moving.
I find it extremely difficult to accept this sort of epistemic idealism because it requires a priori ideas of objects for objects to exist, but we can so obviously measure the reverse: our ideas are based on experiences, not the other way around.
As for the argument presented earlier about 1′s and 0′s, there couldn’t be a more obvious use of the fallacy of composition propped out in front of me. Reducing them to such integers only shows a false sense of understanding. The equivalent would be looking at a computer’s motherboard, knowing what chemicals went into creating it, and then saying, “I KNOW HOW IT WORKS! MWUAHAHA!”
No. That doesn’t cut it. It is not a very deep understanding of the universe to know that everything is reducible to mathematical speculations. It’s actually very high-school fundamental knowledge kind of thing. http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png
And knowing the basic functions of those mathematical speculations doesn’t make you any more an astronomer or physicist or chemist or biologist or psychiatrist or psychologist or philosopher.
This is a very simplistic version of the idea. which is good to explain because that is how humans slowly understand things. by taking steps to more complicated ideas! the idea of all other idea’s just adding up on and splitting off from an original idea couldn’t work because if every possible outcome came from a computer idea of trillions of 1′s and 0′s than the first possible idea or equation would have to be so complex. except the fact that are world works the opposite to the whole beginning were we actually only had hydrogen and helium. than after branching off from that it made heavier elements. so the only possible main idea that humans could relate to was the big bang theory of just an insane amount of compressed hydrogen. which i guess everything is based off that but it seems to get more complicated than splitting off to an easier understanding of it.
than that idea had to big enough to fill in everything we know today. Right? similar to a very complicated expansive tree the base of the trunk is the largest area to support the whole idea! but to hold up the tree their are roots that we don’t see holding up all the support! so even if this tree had no roots the idea of all our ideas splitting off by the millions would mean the main idea of everything would have to be so big to fit everything!
So the idea of everything being based off one thing helps us understand are minds but what happens when we look past that! what made this first idea we base everything off? would it be the opposite effect where everything leads back into the base idea. the roots idea?
that would make more sense because the whole universe wants a equilibrium state so by billions of years later maybe all our ideas come back together to from back this main idea. and by compressing so many ideas together it almost expands like a very slow (compared to us) expansions of ideas.
( i wrote this all very quickly and most of it probably has terrible grammar and vocabulary choosing. just try to understand my idea and ignore the horrible explanation)
@spiralout1, so awesome…thank you for that!! If you have some free time, would you mind going into a little more depth about the trinity? More specifically, about the “soul” and what part it plays in the motion of the positive and negative forces of the universe.
It is an effort to express that which cannot be expressed by a mountain of scholarly scriptures. No name can stick, and no philosophy can ring perfectly true, because you cannot paste a bumper sticker on a tidal wave. You cannot condense a supernova into a library.
In time, all evidence that human animals existed on this earth will be washed away, and new civilizations will be born on other worlds to take our place. Those new conscious beings will discover Unity, which they will call by another name in a language never spoken by any human being. The meaning, however, will be exactly the same.
This kind of post is why I am a HEthen! What if it wasn’t a person that thought up this “idea”. What if it was consciousness itself? What if we are just points of consciousness in one greater mind, this Mind could be called “God”?
@sirensetmefree In regard to causality, when something that exists now causes something that exists in the past, who’s to say the past is really the past? We experience time as “forward” moving, an increase in entropy if you will, but maybe time itself is beyond past, present, and future, or really has no bearing whatsoever! In a self-excited circuit, it’s practically an endless loop. If that makes any sense haha.
However, in regards to my previous post about humans observing the universe and signs of the Big Bang, and therefore creating it, it’s not necessarily that we “created” it, and perhaps I should have used different semantics, as much as we caused it to be real. A collapse of Schroedinger’s wave function, as it were, gave a tangible quality to our reality.
Here’s my idea that developed from this post: Purpose implies intention of a single entity. The lack of purpose creates a no-sided possibility reality. The origin of our existence (universal organic magnetism life form based) was birthed as a trial of the origins own existence.
If we can agree that time itself exists, then maybe our origin of existence has phases in which it continuously grows and learns, maybe it can adapt as well, maybe it forms better realities over time, like an analyst or artist trying to perfect a technique. I think life as we know it is a stepping stone for some entity that we can’t identify.
Our ideas are like clouds of knowledge composed of what we can remember fit into something we can use. What if our origin thinks, and creates universes as we create ideas? It’s components would be molecule types and electron proton shit.