Exploring the Universe: A Journey Through Space, Time and Consciousness

[bola]

Here's something I wrote, comment on whatever portions you'd like, I tried to put everything into one piece.

Imagine the Universe right before the Big Bang. A small perfect sphere of energy. This ball then explodes, sending trillions and trillions of small particles out into nothingness. What did this result in? Our Universe, ourselves, and a hell of a lot more.
We are here on a rotating ball of dust and rock, in the middle of a vacuum, maybe this vacuum is dark energy, maybe it's not.
The scenario is ridiculous in itself.. I mean a large rotating ball? Who would've thought.

I will get right to it. The Universe has a Plank length. This plank length is 10 -30 meters large, which means it's 30 billion times smaller than a centimeter. What happens at Plank length is that Quantum effects start to warp time and space in a way so that we can't measure it.
So far the smallest possible particle we have been able to observe in a laboratory is a sub-atomic particle.
We divide these particles into 2 main categories, matter and forces.
Matter particles has a mass, while force particles have no mass.

Matter particles are made up of negatively charged electrons, opposites push each other away, so when two electrons meet, they push each other away. Your hand is made up of billions of small electrons, and so is the wall you're trying to push your hand through.

Force particles have no mass, so with no mass to hinder them, they travel at the speed of light.
This makes up the light we see around us, electromagnetism, gravity and maybe some undiscovered forces too.
Every atom has a core, made up of protons and neutrons, which are bound together by a force called 'The Strong Force', which we call the 'Nucleus'. Protons and neutrons are composed of even smaller particles called 'Quarks' and 'Leptons'.
Around the core, in an orbit, flies the electrons, which are negatively charged.

At present time scientists have found a little over 200 particles, so I won't go much into that now. I wanted to put down the basis for my philosophy session.
Over this we have atoms. These atom make up the basic building blocks of the universe. By combining atoms together you get molecules.
For example two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom creates one water molecule.

So this is all very intriguing, but how do we put it to good use in the real world? What philosophies comes from this?
Firstly we can set up some few basic questions.

1. Why does the universe exist?
2. Where does all the energy in the universe come from?
3. How does the conscious mind come into play?
4. And what is this consiousness?
5. What is infinity, and how does it come into play regarding the human mind, is it a human concept or something which was conceived the moment the universe was created?
6. What is time? How does it function?

I separate the universe into 3 different 'realms', Subjective, Objective, and Cojective.
Subjective is the human conscious mind. The world a human brain creates, when senses create memories, creates mental filters, and all the other things that the human minds creates of a world.

Objective is the physical world around us, it's science, quantum mechanics, string theory, math and chemistry all rolled into one. It's what we can observe in a laboratory. I will separate the objective world into two worlds later on.

Cojective is a word I made up just now to describe the massive force that is the collection of all subjective human mind realities.
When two conscious minds intercept each other, they create a common world, a world where standards, common sense and such is decided.
When a new baby is born, when they grow up they are automatically introduced to this Cojective.

When these subatomic particles bind to create molecules, they create what I like to call 'patterns'.
Now a pattern is for example, an apple, or a sofa, or a human.
It's at the atomic level only a collection of small particles, but are assigned a sum that is greater than its parts in the subjective level and the objective level.
See that's what the universe is all about.. It's not just a large blob of energy like quantum mechanics assumes, it creates a world which creates patterns that are greater than the sum of its parts.

So I will separate the Objective world into 2 realms, 1. The mechanical world and 2. The collective world.

If you wanted to create an Universe with beautiful sunsets, cars, spaceships and living beings(in other word an exciting universe), you would have to make some basic building blocks that make these possible. Quantum mechanics are these building blocks.
If we were to look at the Universe from a quantum level, it would only be a large ball of moving energy, it would be chaos, it would have no shapes, it would be like the suns core.
But in the Collective world, the energy would form to create things like apples, and wooden tables for the apple to lie on, and in my opinion, consciousness, the universes greatest achievement.

Without consciousness, there would be no observers to explore and live in the world, it would, in essence, be just a moving blob of energy void of any meaning.
It is an observer that assigns value to these forms of energy, that puts them to use and enjoys them.

The Mechanical world is basically the realm of quantum mechanics, and should it exist, the world of string theory.
If I were a little electron with consciousness, I wouldn't be able to enjoy anything like apples and sunsets, because all I would see around me would be points of electrically charged energies.

So this begs the question, why does the universe exist?
We can confirm that it exists, and we can confirm that the quantum mechanic level has some sort of integrated 'plan', to make the Collective world possible.
Or can we?

I have a good quote here, from my friend isotope777 on isonews, he says 'What's the difference between putting all the component molecules/elements required for life in a jar and shaking them up randomly, as opposed to organizing those molecules into a complex life form?
Is one arrangement of atoms really more "complex" than the other?'
And really, what is the difference?

If we assume that if particles are organized together, with no premade plan to organize into something useful, then any organization of basic particles would make something. Does that tell us that no matter how the universe arranges something in space, it will always make something greater than the sum of its parts?
Is everything in the universe just blobs of energy randomly put together? Is it perhaps a chaos of energy, and that humans are a part of this chaos but interprets it as order because it's an inherent part of it? Is chaos and order the same?

The Universe needs a time dimension to work.
Now to my knowledge, time works like this:
It can only go forward. If I break a cup of tea, the cup is forever broken, the energy will continue moving in space, further transforming, indefinetly, into other forms. The particles won't move back in space to reassemble the cup into what it was.
So this tells me the universe is in constant change, its energy always moving, energy transforming.

So this begs the question, how was the universe made?
If we assume it had a creator of some sort, not a God, but some intelligent being, that is outside the universe, created it as an experiment.
He would not be a part of the energy blob that is the universe, he would not be made up of particles, he would be a completely separate entity.

Or, it could be an infinite universe, if it literally existed forever, it would be an everending cycle where the big bang occurs over and over.
But even in this theory, the question is asked 'where does all this energy come from?' 'trillions upon trillions of particles aren't just created out of thin air you know..'
And I just don't buy the theory that 'well in an infinite universe there was no beginning and has no end', which seems ridiculuous to me.

Or, it ould be another system, with no creator, but is not infinite. Now this is the most difficult section to explain.
If we imagine nothingness, and then imagine somethingness, which is a large blob of energy, it seems weird that something would come from nothing.
The concept of 'existence' seems to me to be independent of the human mind, it seems to me a question that was asked the moment the first 'somethingness' was created.
Why would, in nothingness, something just come? Why would the universe just spring to life, without any kind of cause?

An infinite universe seems to me an universe without an explanation. I mean if it has literally existed forever, how will we ever reach a 'Theory of Everything?'
But this begs the question again, say we have a finite universe, where is this universe located? Is it inside something else?
It seems that the universe can be finite, but existence and non existence is infinite.

So in theory we can have both. This is something I've thought long and hard about, but can't reach a reasonable conclusion.

In a sense, the thought of existence is important. We may never know the answer, but we can at least come up with some ideas and questions to make us think.
I have this idea that the universe is basically just a means to an end.
Because in reality, the universe is much more than just a place to have fun, it asks the fundamental questions 'why does anything exist at all? Why isn't there just nothingness? If nothingness is a reality, then somethingness must also be a reality?
I mean, what if the universe exists simply because it has to. If there was literally nothing, on any dimension, realm, reality or world, then the concept of nothingness wouldn't exist because nothing would exist.

So how come something must exist?
I can't answer that, but if we say that the universe has to exist, simply because it has to, well then things get a little interesting.
It doesn't just tell us something about the universe itself, it tells us about existence.

So for my last word I will summarize. The Universe is a large blob of energy that exists simply because it has to exist, it is on the fundamental level a chaotic place, but in the Collective level it assembles forms that do more than the sum of their parts. Observers assign these forms with value, these seemingly chaotic forms, and then the world becomes alive. The concept of observers is something I will address later on, but I have this theory that just as the universe exists because it has to, the universe is also implementing all possible scenarios into the universe. For example, it has introduced the concept of existence versus nothingness, it has introduced the concept of observers via consciousness, it has introduced the concepts of chaos versus order.
These are concepts that are outside the human brain, and even outside our particle run blob of energy.

You can create analogs of particles, and the same questions would still be asked. You could create totally different universes where time and space were completely different, maybe even where time and space didn't exist, the questions would STILL be asked by the inhabitants.

 

[honestrosewater]

Consider this constructive criticism, not a personal attack, and remember you asked for it.

So this is all very intriguing, but how do we put it to good use in the real world? What philosophies comes from this?

-Everything prior to this point should be replaced with a list of the theories which you are assuming to be true. That is, Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, Special & General Relativity, etc. Your over-simplified explanations do more harm than good. Anyone wanting to understand your theories can familiarize themselves with the appropriate theories.
-The quote above seems to suggest that, of physics and philosophy, the latter is more useful in the real world and based upon the former, which is absurd. Leave out the “real world” part.

Firstly we can set up some few basic questions.

1. Why does the universe exist?
2. Where does all the energy in the universe come from?
3. How does the conscious mind come into play?
4. And what is this consiousness?
5. What is infinity, and how does it come into play regarding the human mind, is it a human concept or something which was conceived the moment the universe was created?
6. What is time? How does it function?

Why don’t you incorporate these questions into the form of your argument?

I separate the universe into 3 different 'realms'... When a new baby is born, when they grow up they are automatically introduced to this Cojective.

What follows is a summary of the above.
I define 3 realms:
1) Objective- the set of all things whose existence is not dependent upon consciousness.
2) Subjective- the set of all things whose existence is dependent upon a single conscious being.
3) Cojective- the intersection of all Subjective sets. (for an easy explanation of intersections of sets see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory))

When these subatomic particles bind to create molecules, they create what I like to call 'patterns'.
Now a pattern is for example, an apple, or a sofa, or a human.
It's at the atomic level only a collection of small particles, but are assigned a sum that is greater than its parts in the subjective level and the objective level.
See that's what the universe is all about.. It's not just a large blob of energy like quantum mechanics assumes, it creates a world which creates patterns that are greater than the sum of its parts.

First, QM deals with a limited range of phenomenon and does not make assumptions about things outside of this range. The things you mention are outside of this range.
The patterns you mention are called “emergent properties.” For example, fluids, collections of interacting molecules, have properties, like viscosity, which individual molecules lack. I don’t know what you mean by assigning sums.

(1*)If you wanted to create an Universe with beautiful sunsets, cars, spaceships and living beings(in other word an exciting universe), you would have to make some basic building blocks that make these possible. Quantum mechanics are these building blocks.
(2*)If we were to look at the Universe from a quantum level, it would only be a large ball of moving energy, it would be chaos, it would have no shapes, it would be like the suns core.
*inserted by me.

1) You need to prove this. Why would you have to make building blocks? Rather, state it as a fact observed in this universe.
2) This is not true. Be very careful when using the term “chaos” in the context of physics. You have already mentioned particles and atoms, both of which display order and follow laws. They are not chaotic. They lack properties which emerge at higher levels of complexity.

(moved begin*)So I will separate the Objective world into 2 realms, 1. The mechanical world and 2. The collective world.(moved end*)
But in the Collective world, the energy would form to create things like apples... all I would see around me would be points of electrically charged energies.

Humans assign “human values” to things. Nonhuman things assign value to each other through their interactions, in another, more mathematical sense. This is a minor point, but helps keep your mind open.
String theory, should it prove to be viable, you mean, right? It already exists. :tongue2:
Additions to the realms:
Objective, mechanical- all physical phenomena below the molecular level, inclusive.
Objective, collective- all physical phenomena above the molecular level, exclusive.

So this begs the question, why does the universe exist?
We can confirm that it exists,

Science assumes the universe exists, it doesn’t confirm it. If you want philosophical confirmation, start another thread. I have yet to see an argument concerning truths about reality and our knowledge of them which didn’t make assumptions. I doubt the other kind is possible.

The Universe needs a time dimension to work.
Now to my knowledge, time works like this:
It can only go forward. If I break a cup of tea, the cup is forever broken, the energy will continue moving in space, further transforming, indefinetly, into other forms. The particles won't move back in space to reassemble the cup into what it was.
So this tells me the universe is in constant change, its energy always moving, energy transforming.

Entropy is probably the concept you’re looking for here.

Or, it could be an infinite universe, if it literally existed forever, it would be an everending cycle where the big bang occurs over and over.

Not necessarily. My knowledge on the subject is sketchy, but I’ll give it a try. I think you should read about the cosmological constant. Depending on the amount of mass in the universe, it could continue to expand forever, eventually stop expanding, eventually reverse expansion & collapse, or cycle back & forth between expansion and collapse. Again, that’s sketchy knowledge, so check it out. I am certain that it could continue expanding forever.
Unless the amount of mass in the universe has been determined, in which case, you may be correct. But I am almost certain that is not the case.

But even in this theory, the question is asked 'where does all this energy come from?'

Everything after this is mainly a list of weakly-connected questions which don’t reach any conclusions, so I’ll skip the corrections. You do raise some great questions, which are still fiercely debated. Browse around the forum to find some of these discussions. You can also search the forums- it’s at the very top.
Football is starting :!) so I have to run, but I hope I have given you some helpful criticism and information. If you have any questions or comments, post away.
Happy thoughts,
Rachel

 

[RAD4921]

The creation of a philosopher

You seem very bright and well aware of the sciences. You ask both of the objective and the subjective realms.

With all the knowledge of the physical science, many and I do mean many, forget to ask as to what consciousness is. Why is the universe alive, thinking and self aware. You seem to be aware of all these. Keep on thinking.
Robert
PS: The below website is a good place for you if you are not aware of it already
http://forums.philosophyforums.com

 

[bola]

Consider this constructive criticism, not a personal attack, and remember you asked for it.


-Everything prior to this point should be replaced with a list of the theories which you are assuming to be true. That is, Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, Special & General Relativity, etc. Your over-simplified explanations do more harm than good. Anyone wanting to understand your theories can familiarize themselves with the appropriate theories.
-The quote above seems to suggest that, of physics and philosophy, the latter is more useful in the real world and based upon the former, which is absurd. Leave out the “real world” part.



Why don’t you incorporate these questions into the form of your argument?



What follows is a summary of the above.
I define 3 realms:
1) Objective- the set of all things whose existence is not dependent upon consciousness.
2) Subjective- the set of all things whose existence is dependent upon a single conscious being.
3) Cojective- the intersection of all Subjective sets. (for an easy explanation of intersections of sets see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory))



First, QM deals with a limited range of phenomenon and does not make assumptions about things outside of this range. The things you mention are outside of this range.
The patterns you mention are called “emergent properties.” For example, fluids, collections of interacting molecules, have properties, like viscosity, which individual molecules lack. I don’t know what you mean by assigning sums.

What I mean is that if you were as small as an electron, you wouldn't see the world for what it was, you wouldn't see a chair or a human, you would see points of electricity all around, like a matrix grid of electricity.
The larger you become, the higher in the levels you become, so, a chair for example, has a use and a function that isn't just 'a set of electrons', it hasa form and function that humans see.
Likewise if I was as large as the universe itself, I wouldn't see a chair as a chair, it would be a speck of 'sand'. So there are levels all around.
But what I mean in the end, is that if string theory or quantum mechanics is the lowest level, then it's quite weird that these parts were created to be able to create a universe like ours, where they have a sum greater than their parts.

I hope that helped.

(1*)If you wanted to create an Universe with beautiful sunsets, cars, spaceships and living beings(in other word an exciting universe), you would have to make some basic building blocks that make these possible. Quantum mechanics are these building blocks.
(2*)If we were to look at the Universe from a quantum level, it would only be a large ball of moving energy, it would be chaos, it would have no shapes, it would be like the suns core.
*inserted by me.

1) You need to prove this. Why would you have to make building blocks? Rather, state it as a fact observed in this universe.
2) This is not true. Be very careful when using the term “chaos” in the context of physics. You have already mentioned particles and atoms, both of which display order and follow laws. They are not chaotic. They lack properties which emerge at higher levels of complexity.

1. Well think about it, if there were no rules to define how the world would function, how could it function?
Either everything would just penetrate, for example if there were no electrons, how could anything push anything away?
Also it seems to me these rules would have to exist anywhere, in any universe, or else the universe would only be a large floating ball of 'energy' or something akin.

[quote
Humans assign “human values” to things. Nonhuman things assign value to each other through their interactions, in another, more mathematical sense. This is a minor point, but helps keep your mind open.
String theory, should it prove to be viable, you mean, right? It already exists. :tongue2:
Additions to the realms:
Objective, mechanical- all physical phenomena below the molecular level, inclusive.
Objective, collective- all physical phenomena above the molecular level, exclusive.

Yep that was well said, that's what I meant.

Science assumes the universe exists, it doesn’t confirm it. If you want philosophical confirmation, start another thread. I have yet to see an argument concerning truths about reality and our knowledge of them which didn’t make assumptions. I doubt the other kind is possible.

Really? Then what is all this 'stuff' we see around us then?
We can never confirm 100% that the outside world actually exists(seeing as we all only experience what is in our heads, we're not actually confirming the world) but that's more crackpot than saying the world actually exists.
There's a 99% chance I'd say, that the world exists.


Entropy is probably the concept you’re looking for here.


Not necessarily. My knowledge on the subject is sketchy, but I’ll give it a try. I think you should read about the cosmological constant. Depending on the amount of mass in the universe, it could continue to expand forever, eventually stop expanding, eventually reverse expansion & collapse, or cycle back & forth between expansion and collapse. Again, that’s sketchy knowledge, so check it out. I am certain that it could continue expanding forever.
Unless the amount of mass in the universe has been determined, in which case, you may be correct. But I am almost certain that is not the case.

Everything after this is mainly a list of weakly-connected questions which don’t reach any conclusions, so I’ll skip the corrections. You do raise some great questions, which are still fiercely debated. Browse around the forum to find some of these discussions. You can also search the forums- it’s at the very top.
Football is starting :!) so I have to run, but I hope I have given you some helpful criticism and information. If you have any questions or comments, post away.
Happy thoughts,
Rachel

Yeah.. I was just trying to put everything down on paper, all of my thoughts, for one coherent essay you could say.
It came out pretty good so I thought I'd post it.

 

[bola]

You seem very bright and well aware of the sciences. You ask both of the objective and the subjective realms.

With all the knowledge of the physical science, many and I do mean many, forget to ask as to what consciousness is. Why is the universe alive, thinking and self aware. You seem to be aware of all these. Keep on thinking.
Robert
PS: The below website is a good place for you if you are not aware of it already
http://forums.philosophyforums.com

Thanks :)

I'll check out the forums.

 

[honestrosewater]

I agree; Your ideas are insightful, you are obviously motivated, etc. - you have lots of things going for you, and I hope you don't lose them. Your biggest weakness right now is a lack of clarity. The good news is that you can learn. If I ever seem like I'm nit-picking, let me know because I'm trying not to.

The larger you become, the higher in the levels you become,

What is the largest object in the solar system? Is it more complex than a living cell? The human brain is arguably the most complex object in the known universe, and it's about the size of a grapefruit. Size and complexity are not the same.

so, a chair for example, has a use and a function that isn't just 'a set of electrons', it hasa form and function that humans see.

Sure, because humans invented chairs.

Likewise if I was as large as the universe itself, I wouldn't see a chair as a chair, it would be a speck of 'sand'. So there are levels all around.

"Relative to the size of the universe, a chair would be a speck of sand." Is this what you mean? The scale is certainly isn't correct, but I get your point. As long as you keep in mind that scale (relative size) is different from hierarchy (relative complexity), you should be fine in this area.

But what I mean in the end, is that if string theory or quantum mechanics is the lowest level, then it's quite weird that these parts were created to be able to create a universe like ours, where they have a sum greater than their parts.

How is it weird? Complexity arises from physical interactions following the laws of physics. So why are the laws of physics what they are, and how did they get that way? That's another hotly debated issue.

There's a 99% chance I'd say, that the world exists.

Less than 100% isn't certain. So you have to assume. Of course, you can still distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable assumptions.

It came out pretty good so I thought I'd post it.

It came out pretty well. Okay now I'm nit-picking. Yes, it did come out pretty well.
Happy thoughts,
Rachel