The universe disturbs me.
 

Hi, new here. First post. Forgive.

I want to ask real scientist on the forum about the universe. I was reading an article about how thermal entropy and digital entropy are getting closer to each other, and how it may prove the universe may have less dimensions than we think.

Before I read this I assumed I was crazy or alone. I strongly believe that "time" does not exist, and is a delusion induced by the memory process. I do know most motion equations would be wrong or unsolvable if time is eliminated, but nobody has ever proved to me that time exist. I know the basics of Newton and Einstein, but they still treat time like it is real, and not a fluke, or a lie caused by memory.

...

My question is since semiconductors exist in the universe is the universe a semi conducting system?

If so does that mean that it is transporting massive amounts of data in the various guises of energy (matter, photons, etc)?

If so is the data is being processed, and used to change from the "present" to the "future" (I assume you believe time exist so we can use it in context)?

I am not arguing weather things are predestined or not. I am not even bringing a God into it (leave your theological affiliations at home for the sake of discussion I don't want a creation vs. evolution flame). All I wanted to know is are "real" scientist are trying to figure out if the universe has a thinking process, and is it governed by a ROM like element or is it RAM like.

I don't believe the universe is a simulation in a computer, someone's dream, or any thing like that, but scientist always crank out the bucks to further technology, but are they trying to figure out if the "present" is input or output?

I apologies if my first post is too long.

Welcome to ProCooling!

You must be a college student. Either that, or you're just looking to make a lasting first impression!

Your statements include examples of false logic. "If the sky is blue, and a blueberry is blue, then the sky is a blueberry". Look familiar? ;)

There are many unanswered questions about our universe, and a lot of our knowledge is limited to what can be observed. Time is one of them.

If you consider the moon, you do not need to know that it revolves around the earth, it is sufficient for you to know that it is there.

Wether the universe is part of a smart design, is a question that will remain unanswered, for quite some time. It delves into theology, as you pointed out, but what you're advancing, is that the universe itself will "do some things".

While some elements can be predicted (planetary movements and such), many others cannot: it's just beyond our scope. For example, you are unable to predict my own actions, which include this post. Just because some elements of the universe are predictable, does not imply that it is "thinking".

So you are down to "awareness": what do you know? What can you predict? What's certain, and what's not?


Have you ever been struck by a vision of infinity?

Yeah I am a college student.

I was not advocating a smart design. The universe may have "froze" into a more ordered state or built from a box of legos it does not matter. People treat the world like comicbook fanboys; they are always trying to unlock secret origins by interpreting innuendos.

My logic is not totally false "If the sky is blue, and a blueberry is blue, then the sky has a property of a blueberry".

Unless semiconductors don't exist in the universe, and then I am totally wrong any way you slice it, but I think everybody agrees the universe does semi conduct. Look at the sun. The photons have to be absorbed and emitted countless times to break the surface.

Can you explain how you "observe" time?

You are right: there is no time. Think of it this way: each infinitely small moment is just a flash frame of existance and is a reality in and of itself, related to each alternate reality (time) that comes before and after. In reality, the future and the past are both the present, though our consciousness is stuck in a temporal progression through the 4th dimension (d4).

In reality, once the root of events is resolved, everything reacts to everything else in a certain way. This forms a large and looming equation ... or as the media puts it, "THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING". This theory, in my opinion, is the closest thing to GOD that there is. Through this equation's progression and regression you can travel forward and backwards through time to each previous step, and likewise you could accurately predict the future.

Now, there is one sticky point when you get down to the root of all of this, and that is caused by quantum mechanics as described by Heisenberg's theory, IIRC. Since each reaction on the quantum level takes a binary path, and these reactions (parallel manifestations of the equation) are impossibly large, you can imagine that there are near infinite possibilities for each of the time slices I described above, though this number IS finite, started at one point, and eventually must terminate at one point of regression as well.

Since each parallel moment must be accounted for, time and space must be finite, and since the equation was exponentially propogated in the beginning, is must be exponentially reduced in the end back to one thread. The sum total of everything must remain ZERO.

What does this say about predestination, fortune telling, and such? If one was to divine this equation and had the ability to propogate it forward through time taking into account the whole of existance on that parallel thread, they would be able to tell the future perfectly, uncertainty principle be damned, since each possible reality would split at the time of prediction. In other words, once the box that may or may not contain the living cat is opened, then reality is determined and written for that thread, so the one that finds the live cat will be in the live cat reality while another finds a dead cat and his reality is affected as such.

Anyway, as for the comment on infinity, there is no such thing except as a logical structure for our understanding. There is always a terminator in every equation except when you are estimating, such as fining limits and such in early calculus (as an example). The reason is because everything in the universe must balance to ZERO for existance to exist ... you should have learned the rationale in chemistry or physics for that ... thermodynamics demands it. If there were infinite measurements of any reality or dimension, then this would be an impossibility. Similarly, no equation can propogate to infinite threads and magically shrink back to nothing. To assume so would be to deny thermodynamics.

The meaning of our existance can be summed up in one piece of what boils down simply to machine code. In the beginning, there was a hiccup in an existance incomprehensible to us, and this hiccup was the equation: everything else that has or practically could exist bubbled immediately from that and simmered down to nothing. We exist only in the sense that we can't comprehend the the dichotomy that we both do and do not.

Does that make any sense? Everything that you have done and will do is predetermined. You can learn to live with that and accept it, or you can become fatalistic. I hope that doesn't depress you too much.

Wow its been awhile since I have pondered the whole universe thing. Usually I just end up giving up. One question: So what is then beyond the finite universe?

1) don't mix your god and your science; there should be a restraining order

2) lay off the delta 9 tetrahydrocanabinol

3) take quantum mechanics

4) ??

5) profit

It makes sense, though, if you think about it, eh? It just hurts the noggin. IMHO, it is the only real explanation that makes any sense, it explains the beginning, and keeps everything accounted for. What is there not to love?

Oh, yeah, and there is no god in there ... there shouldn't be, since I don't believe in one at all. Strenuously.

4 Layoff the Lysergic Acid Diethylamide as well.

nah he wouldn't turn to the proforums for philosophical advice in that case Since87. His gallon container of calcium enriched california orange juice would provide him with more than enough stimulating conversation.

I suppose you're right.

Oooh ProForums. Blue and orange. That's trippin man. Pass me the orange juice.

I'm not tripping. I just have a different point of view.

Stop razzing me or I'll freak out and start crying like a little biznatch and get thrown in the kiddie corral ... m'kay? WAH!

Seriously, though, it is what I believe. I think I seriously mixed up Heisenberg and Schroedinger in that rant of mine above, however.

I seriously don't believe in God. I seriously don't believe in time, per se. I seriously believe in predetermination and natural law. That's just my spin.

When I first took Calc this came to me while pondering the concept of infinity ... it truly is a crock of crap in every sense of the word. It is a fancy way of fudging numbers ... and is effective in certain mathematical models. When held to reality, however, it is an impossibility.

All I ask is that you guys honestly think about what I said above if you can get through the incoherence ... it is a hard concept to put into words and I know I butchered it pretty bad ... mebbe I'll have to reword it for you guys. I wasn't kidding, and I'm not tripping. That's just what I believe.

I wasn't razzing you in particular airspirit. Just metaphysical pondering in general.

I know far too little to participate meaningfully in such discussions, so please disregard the interruption.

I know, man ... I was poking fun at the general temperment of the forums ... I think the kiddie korral idea is horrendously funny.

XERXA:

Read the dark tower series of books by Stephen King. I actually cotton to the concepts that are described in there.

As described there, imagine going to the smallest possible particle you can imagine. Keep going smaller until you can't go no further. Then go to the bounds of the universe in size. If you broke through the "shell" of finite space, what would you see? What if our universe is nothing more than a base particle residing on a blade of grass in some larger universe? What if the next time you scatter sand by shuffling your feet you are sending countless and infinite universes into free-fall?

In other words, how are we to know what is outside of our universe? How does a fish react when pulled from a pond? What does it see? I have no answer to that, and after my manner of thinking, it doesn't matter as far as our frames of reference go.

I think you seen "Men In Black" to often.
The end scene when galaxys are marbles in a childs game.

dark tower series of books by Stephen King: i can really recommend those too. that SK is a very versatile writer, he can write the standard horror, but also books that will freak the way you think out.

edit, if u liked the dark towers, try this one airspirit: Neverness
by David Zindell

Against my better judgment, I'll take a shot at this.

Zeno's paradox is old news, and most everything it could possibly have implied is wiped clean by Planck. There is no such thing as an infinitely small moment.

You assume the universe is deterministic. I think Heisenburg highly implies (if not proves) that it is not. Dozens of other names float around my head, but I can't remember who did what in quantum mechanics anymore.

It's not enough for you to say that there are only a finite number of paths a particle travels in a situation. Unless these paths are individually predictable (and they are not) the system is not deterministic. Ergo, the universe cannot be deterministic. Predictable on various levels, for certain, but not perfectly so.

Jesus Christ no. But that's alright; it takes a lot of education to be able to understand physics, and only after understanding the body of knowledge that is physics do you have the ability to intelligently criticize that body of knowledge. I certainly don't know enough to pick at but a few of your points.

Of course, by the time you learn and understand advanced physics, you would probably realize how well it worked in explaining the world, and find that the criticisms you had of physics beforehand are simply unintelligible.

You can certainly tell me to leave you alone, that physics has no place in philosophy, and that would be a fair refute.

But if you're going to interpret physics at all into this worldview, you need to take all of it, unless you can give compelling reason to say that Maxwell's equations are correct but the Hamiltonian equations are wrong.

Otherwise it's just so much sound and fury. I can't argue physics with you if I don't understand your terminology and which concepts you agree with and which you do not.

My brain hurts.

Alchemy

I read something in a book (fantasy I'll add), that makes the idea of "time" sit easier in my head, even though it is fundamentally wrong.

"Time is something that stops everything happening all at once".

In reality all this guff is extremely complicated and as soon as we learn a new "level" e.g. quantum theory, we find that all the stuff we thought were facts before is just an illusion, and only react the eway we expect nine times out of ten. The universe obeys its own laws so unless you are seeking the Theory of everything I would ignore the gaps in the theorys, and just find something that sits right with you.

In essence that is how religion came about in the first place, it is an expression of our ignorance, a square peg doesn't normally fit in a square hole so it must be someone with divine power that made it so.

I also find it interesting that religions that offer more questions than answers are on the rise yet Chathosim with its "God made the universe in seven days and here's how he did it" are falling in the more "enlightened" used in the broadest sense of the word) parts of the world.

But enough about religion, what I find relly interesting is things like brownian motion, in that even though things are completly random there is an order to the chaos.

~ Boli

I'm surprised no one has jumped on the chaos theory wagon for this ride. If you want to argue the deterministic nature of the universe then chaos should be your starting point. Makes it nice and simple.


But, arguing the linearity of the universe (or lack thereof) doesn't necessarily force a deterministic path. Simply knowing the initial conditions in full detail does not always mean you will know the outcome.

Of course, the sticking point is that "full detail" disclaimer. Maybe, just maybe, you could define the quantum state of the entire universe and then be able to accurately predict the next step. But I seriously doubt the possibility of that action ever occuring.

My thoughts on chaos and uncertainty are that they just appear that way because we don't understand the reaction deep enough. I am a firm believer in order. I've gone through plenty of physics, though my best education wasn't in an institution of lower living, i.e., a university.

A delusion caused by the memory process? I think under a certain frame of thought all of existence could be thought of as a delusion created by ones own mind. However to jump to saying that "because it cannot be proven otherwise it is." Isn't good science its more of a faith belief. Also if time were a delusion why would the delusion slow down as your physical speed increased?

If time were a delusion, what would it mean to say, "your physical speed increased"?

While I don't know the more complicated views of time; most people think of time as a temporal distance between two events with in a certain point of reference. In reality time is disposable. Your only reference of the past is information written for you to read in the "future". If the information gets destroyed, misplaced, or corrupted you just altered the past better than any time traveler ever could (always back up your system :p ).

Think of this some people get dementia with age, and loose the ability to make new memories predictably. If you don't tell them what time it is they never know. My great aunt is always asking the time to compensate for limited memory, and is usually followed by "Who are you?". I am not using her for proof, but as almost an allegory. The present becomes the perpetual fact.

Imagine now if you could reduce all forms of memory and record keeping to zero. Time would cease to exist. In fact only creatures based on simple cause and effect reactions could survive. Maybe that's the sole reason the first creatures were so simple and limited. Not because they are more primitive, but because the concept of memory had not manifested yet on the biological levels. Further questions do impart more "blueskyberry thinking" if you ask; does the universe have a cosmic memory? I think astronomers would say yes. Since most things they look at are older than any human record keeping system and/or biological recording system.

Im starting to laugh now. I have seen not a single person attempt to interject religion positively or in its defense into this thread. The 1st post stated that they wanted to keep it out. However, the opponents to including it in with science find that they interject it by attempting to discredit it. And soon this thread included religion or belief bashing without a single word in its favor. This seems to show internal conflict moreso than external. Im not saying anything either way.

Time is just a dimension that we take part or easily can fathom. Change can only be measured by time. We are wired this way. Find a way to measure change without time, and you have to stand outside that dimension. Currently, I know of no way to do that. Until someone finds a way to do this, directly or indirectly , I feel it would be unprovable but a long interjection of opinion.

As far as chaos goes, pieces have been shown to be disproven. The orginal idea behind that theory is that the universe is based on chaos thereofore is in fact chaotic. In mapping out our chaotic universe, we are finding order. Kind of stareing at a newspaper up close and looking at the dots that make up a photo. To the observer there is chaos. To the person with a different perspective, there is order. To me it sounds like a cop out of science. Saying since I can't predict it with X level of understanding now, therefore in itself must not predictable. Just my thoughts.

CopyCat. just a thought. Even if time ceases to be relevant to a person or understanding doesn't exclude it in reality or dimension.

Here's something to bust your noodle, hehe. Time is nothing more than a further extension (dimension) of reality.

In my previous statement, I theorized that all time at any given moment is just a snapshot of that instant of existance. What about time dialation, you ask? If time as a reference can be changer for one segment and locked into matter (such as a human travelling at near the speed of light), then it would appear to throw my theory into the dust, correct?

This is absolutely false. As movement speed increases, the pinpoint dot of matter or energy is extended from a dot to a line. Imagine the difference between the zero (point) and first dimensions (line). This reaction is similar to the reaction between the third and fourth (time). In essense, dot stays constant and whole on the 3d vector while blurring into a line on the 4d vector. As your speed increases, this slight blurring turns into a line. After this manner of thinking, with all other considerations aside, if one breached the speed of light and kept increasing velocity, that line could stretch from one point of 4d space to the far boundary in one fell shot, allowing that capsule of our 3d space to travel until the termination of both time and existance, which of course is the null termination of the originating equation.

Visualize d5 (fifth dimension) as a bell curve mirrored at the X axis. Your path through time is a shorter bell (d4) somewhere in between the external lines. As the equation propogates, the bell gets wider until the point of termination at which point it collapses upon itself. With each flip/flop or binary possibility in each uncertainty related switch in the equation, the timeline doubles FOR THAT POINT. On a massive scale, the bell curve described above grows impossibly large and impossibly fast, and collapses in the same way.

As for the equation I theorized earlier, think of it as a fractal ... as it progresses, it increases itself and replicates itself repeatedly and infinitely if it is continuously progressed. The uniqueness of the one I theorize, however, is one in which the terminating points of the fractal eventually all end up in the starting point. It is possible, due to this, that the equation would once again propogate itself after this, causing all that we are and have experienced to happen over and over again in echos.

Lets take a religious look at this ... could it be possible that an "afterlife", so to speak, is nothing more than having to repeat our lives in a seemingly endless loop without ever being able to see our future events that have happened countless times before? Wouldn't that just be a bastard?

Lets take a manipulative look at this: this would allow for time travel. While I can't envision a way to make it go BACKWARDS from our frame of reference (well, maybe ... ), I can certainly visualize the way to make it go FORWARDS, and if done correctly, it can be done with NO d3 movement, such as taking advantage of the time warping properties of intense gravity and such. I can also envision ways to travel to other d4 threads via d5 travel ... though going through space-time tears (such as those theorized in black hole research) would not be very comfortable ... and perhaps these structures are nothing more than balance valves between alternate d4 lines. This would be the method that time travel could resolve paradoxes, though it may result in destruction of part of that thread of existance to counterbalance the change depending on the weight of the paradox's consequences.

Anywho, there is some more stuff to bake your noodle with.