Theory on the Universe
@2bias, it definitely wasnt my intention to come across as a know it all and I know I can come across as strong, so I’m sorry if that seemed disrespectful.
@sonofsaul, Yeah it’s true that infinite does not come from finite – but that’s not what I was saying – what i was saying was, to put it simple, this: finite x infinite = infinite. This is true! :)
@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.
@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
@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?
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.
@tigerturban, everything can be quantified.
@imhotep, “Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.”…
It means not all things that can be touched and quantified matter (material goods) and that not all things that truly matter can be quantified or measured (love, hope, etc.).
Also, in a more scientific sense, it means that not all of reality is visible to us. There are certain aspects, which are not unimportant, but are not accessible to humans despite any advancements in technology, due to either the nature of the human mind or the design of science itself. It links the importance of the qualitative and the quantitative in science too.
@Gizmodo thanks for the post. This really makes me think…but then again the origin of our existence always seems to rack my brain. I couldn’t help but immediately think of the final scene in the Men in black 2 movie…when it turned out our galaxy was all inside some “entity’s” marble. Interesting theory.
Here’s the link to the MIB2 scene. If you don’t know what I’m referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6aEFFMxjU <- I do not own.
Is nothing a thought? Is that the most simple idea that started all the others? The thought of nothing then the opposing. Or maybe it can be referred to meditation. How you get yourself to clear your mind and think of nothing. That is the purest thing that can be the basis of your entire conscious.
- “In Vipassana you have to be just aware of your breath. A simple rule is that no matter what you do, no matter in whichever action you indulged in – just be aware of your breathing process. Be watchful of breath as it comes inside your body and goes outside. Don’t try to control your breath. Vipassana is not ‘Pranayam ( the yogic exercise in which one control various movements of breath). If your breath is deep let it be, if it is shallow let it be. Just let your breathing in its natural rhythm.
Understand this by this analogy: Just imagine that a river is flowing. Now the flow of the river may be fast or slow. What you have to do is to sit on its bank Just watch the river as it flows. Don’t try to create ripples in it. Don’t do anything that affects its flow. Just be a watcher. This river is your breath. The breathing process is going on. Just be a watcher of this process. Slowly slowly as you watch your breathing, your mind will start calming own. You will see that all thoughts are disappearing on their own. Eventually as you keep practicing, such moment will start coming when you see that everything has come to a standstill. There will be no thoughts, there will be no emotions. However, there will be full awareness. The state of choiceless awareness. In this state you will know the real you.”
I always like to imagine the universe as an organism that follows a pattern of evolution. I suppose it move in a spiral from the macro scale to the micro scale [our bodies are made up of tissues and organs trying to make us what we are, those tissues and organs are made up of cells which are trying to make those organs. Then the cells are made up of chemical elements, etc etc. It works the same way as we are small part of the earth, the earth is apart of the solar system, the solar system is apart of the galaxy and so on. Then you get to the level of the entire universe, and finally the level of atoms. At this point im lost, because although atoms and subatomic particles seem to mimic the macro of the universe, they are the fundamental smallest parts? I dont know enough, but interesting idea because I can see the pattern in leave and trees and humans and stars and all of reality. Like the code of the matrix :P
Am I the only one that noticed he totally misinterpreted the idea of David Hume (Decartes?) on the theory of “Impression and Ideas”?
Hume says our ideas need impressions and the human mind can produce nothing without impressions. As example he mentions an Unicorn as a complex idea: It’s a creature that doesn’t exist and the mind creates based on a horse and a horn. He describes impressions as “all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will”.
This is nothing to do with someone having to think something for this something start to exist… until reaches the most basic of existence, which was the universe and bla bla bla.
I think less shrooms and more books are gonna help misunderstandings.
@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.
@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
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.
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.
This thread deserves a bump.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.