Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory on existence and Life

  1. Jul 16, 2006 #1
    In studying physics and as much literature as I can possibly get my hands on I have come to a theory as to why everything from bosons and quarks up to conscience human beings exists. The simplicity of the concept suprised me but when I tried applying it to every level inbetween I can not find any flaws. This concept is first that energy wants to exist. And secondly not only exist but exist in large quantities. I know this is pushing the possibility of creative design but I'm trying not to look at it this way. Now if you try applying my concept to existence intself, being bosons and other elementary particles. I've come to the understanding that matter itself is in fact energy. The reason matter exists is because the alternative is not existing. So the elementary particles attract and repel each other in such a way as to be able to coexist. In this way all elementary particles are dependent on others to be able to exist. Now take a look at the diffrent elements. An electron can orbit a nucleus and be a hydrogen atom, but by the second part of my concept would dictate that it being the atom would rather exist as a much larger element such as gold or mercury. And again I find in my thought process that if it weren't for the trade of electrons by atoms that they would not become more complex so again atoms of larger complexity are dependent on other atoms to be able to evolve. Now I need to explain my belief on how life started on earth. First you take all the different elements that exist and electrify them with 500 billion volts of electricity for millions possibly billions of years. All the displaced electrons will begin to collect and the diffrent elements, as they want to exist as large beings, will collect them and because they want to exist as large beings will share with one another. When this occurs complexification follows. And once again without the coexistence of a multitude of elements they wouldn't be able to become more complex and still larger beings. Eventually through this million to billion year process the elements that have complexified would complexified to the point that it was capable of two things. One look for more energy to become bigger. And two reproduce. Once you have these two things you have the foundation for life. From here it would mutate and evolve for billions upon billions of years until we humans came to walk the earth. All along this evolutionary process it is known at this stage that coexistence is what makes life possible. All life and matter is bound by the same desire and requirements. Without co-existence nothing not even matter would exist. It is through complexification that matter became what it is today. And as a final thought. I'm not sure the technical term for the principal. But it is this. If A=B and B=C then A=C. A: Energy, everything that makes me up, that is the matter that makes up my body, mind and thoughts. B: Me, a conscience individual human. C: My desire to exist, my desire to live. Are we nothing more than energy with a desire to exist?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 17, 2006 #2
    You might be on to something, but how does a desire equal simplicity? And how would you define energy?
     
  4. Jul 17, 2006 #3
    The implied simplicity is only simple in that it could be defined as the grand unified theory. Im not saying thats what this is but it is a concept that defines all physical properties of everything and is much simpler when compared to quantum mechanics. As for how I would define energy you might look for another of my posts titled "Theory on God and existence". Its in the metaphysics section as well.
     
  5. Jul 17, 2006 #4
    Might it be said that desire is secondary, to the viewpoint that has the desire?

    The (view) point, being energy or matter?
     
  6. Jul 17, 2006 #5
    It would seem so, but then, what more is needed ?
     
  7. Jul 17, 2006 #6
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If desire is in fact secondary then what might the primary be?
     
  8. Jul 17, 2006 #7
    This is exactly my point. We are currently looking for a grand unified theory that describes why all the physical properties were set at exactly what they are set at. Could this be it. I know this is all completely theoretical and is in no way experimental but its still something to think about.
     
  9. Jul 18, 2006 #8
    That which gives, allows, and accepts the desire.

    Mass, space, and time (All) are the "desire" to move from a "still point" at the center of the Absolute. Inside the Absolute (God), the center is the only place, so it is everywhere (the reason is explainable).

    So– although "all", desires (appears) to move off center (leaves), it is also moving towards center (returns).

    This is the "dimensional world" that seems to be real – inside a dimensionless point, that contains another dimensionless point, which all dimensional points "appear" to move in between.

    Science knows of a one dimensional point (a point with no extent, but a position is space) and a dimesionless number (one), but it has yet to discover the reality of the two dimsionless points I am speaking of.

    One has no space (or anything else) outside of it – the other has no space (or anything else) inside of it. These two points are literal (actual). The have no actual distance between them (no distance for actual space, time, or mass).

    All other points are figurative. They all have three figurative dimensions. Until mass, space, and time are thought of "figuratively"– there will always be confusion.

    I will now make a very "bold", but I assure you, humble statement.

    There is no space/time (four-dimensional) continuum that is affected by one to three-dimensional mass.
     
  10. Jul 18, 2006 #9
    Eric

    I understand what you're meaning by this but in my original theory I was attempting to look at everything from the relative standpoint. Not inducing anything beyond the fourth dimension or the concept of a god.
     
  11. Jul 18, 2006 #10
    To look at everything from the relative standpoint, no matter what the theory is – will necessarily, result in a relative ad infinitum.

    Science is looking for what they call "renormalization". This is applied to the attempt to unify relativity with qunatum theory. I can't say if they apply it to the question of the big bang as well, because I haven't yet seen it used in that context, but it should be.

    What is "not normal" is relative. What is "normal" is Absolute.

    I used the word "God" because of your other thread.
     
  12. Jul 18, 2006 #11
    I think the way I worded my previous reply wasn't quite the point I was trying to get across. What I meant is simply that I'm taking everything from the perspective of that which physicaly exists. Im not attempting to account for anything even beyond fundamental physics.
     
  13. Jul 19, 2006 #12
    You seem to be equating energy, with the cause of matter. It may seem like it is more subtle than matter, but why would this be so? It's the same with the question of waves and particles. One might seem more subtle than the other, but this doesn't arrive at a cause. Also, what "physically" exists has not been established by physics yet. The building block, the structure, the source, and the destination, etc. – are still only theories.
     
  14. Jul 19, 2006 #13
    Alright Eric I'm only gonna try this one more time. I'm not talking about physics. In this particular theory I tried to completely ignore the laws of physics as they have nothing to do with what I'm discussing. Yes physics has everything to do with everything I'm discussing but its not what I'm thinking abour right now. In your initial reply you said that desire was secondary. Im saying that desire is primary. So forget physics and then re-read my theory.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2006
  15. Jul 19, 2006 #14
    You also said...

    Alright ChongFire – "I'm only gonna say this one more time."

    Physics or not, to say "are we nothing more than energy with a desire to exist?", implies you know what energy is and that it exists.

    If it does exist and it am us, then why would we have the desire to exist? We already exist!

    Again, what is it that we become because of our desire to exist? Matter?
    What is matter? What is energy? Where did they come from in the first place?

    No comment.
     
  16. Jul 19, 2006 #15
    Eric your a thorn in my paw buddy. A more acurate metaphor would be a block in my brain. I'm not trying to take into account what allows the desire. I fully understand what it is your trying to say, but I'm not talking about the mechanics of what a desire is where it comes from or anything of this sort. I'm merely asking is it possible that matter has the same desire to exist that I do. I don't know the source of my desire to exist. But I do know for a fact that I desire it. I don't know why matter may desire to exist. But does it desire to exist? Can it desire to exist? Thats what I'm trying to ask. And at this I'm not talking about a conscience fear of death or nonexistence. I don't believe energy understands itself on the whole. There are however a few exceptions in which energy does understand itself and that is of course humans.
     
  17. Jul 19, 2006 #16
    I don't desire to be either – seriously.

    Of course, it's possible or maybe it's impossible.

    How now, would you like to discuss possibly loacating an answer, which I gather you are interested in.

    Would you have any interest in talking about the level of "structure" at which fear, hope, dispair, or instinct creep in?

    Would you have any interest in discussing that mankind's desire to exist is not always the case, nor is it's fear of not existing always the case?

    Not exactly sure how this statement relates to the discussion.
     
  18. Jul 21, 2006 #17
    On energy understanding itself all I meant to do was to explain that I believe it possible for matter to desire to exist without understanding what existence is. As for the structure on which fear and desire are built I don't think I can even fathom what that is at this moment. I will think on this a great deal. And in the mean time any thoughts you might have to add on would be grand. And finally your being a thorn in my side is a good thing of sorts. It allows me to attempt to view a particular subject from several angles and viewpoints.
     
  19. Jul 21, 2006 #18
    First of all, I hope we're clear that energy and matter are the same thing, whatever "thing" is.

    I would have to say that it is possible for matter to desire to CONTINUE to exist, but only if it is able to perceive the possibility it won't. How it would understand "existence" is dependent upon how it is "allowed" to perceive it, if at all.

    It certainly doesn't desire to exist initially, whether there's a before matter or not. If there is a beginning to matter, it is the desire and will of something else (not space or time), that causes its existence. If matter is infinitely existent, then there is no desire or will on the part anything whatsoever, for it to exist.

    Change within existence is another story.

    Change?

    Good. That's been my intent.
     
  20. Jul 21, 2006 #19
    Yes this I understand I just use them interchangably. I'll use the term energy from now on.

    It is my belief and for the sake of this particular discussion that I'm going to state that energy has come into existence at some point.

    I percieve life and energy as being connected or linked by the same set of rules, laws or guidlines. So if life came into being and will ultimately end then it is my belief that energy came into being and will ultimately end. At this I'm not thinking in the box but rather looking at the box. I believe it possible for energy to stop existing without an end. Perhaps if time were to end with energy then energy would not have ended merely stopped existing.

    Just a point to make, all languages are limited to the ideas they support. A completely revolutionary idea can not be fully explained with the language currently at hand. If my previous statement makes no sense this is why. I can understand my meaning in my mind but put into words doesn't look all that spectacular.

    All I have to say to this is that you're a good man Eric.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2006
  21. Jul 21, 2006 #20
    Ok.
    Just remember that "at some point", space and time also came into existence. This, of course, is the "big bang" senario. Energy did not come into existence in a pre-existing space at a point of pre-existing time.
    Rephrase this if you would.
    Not necessarily so or not so. It might depend on the idea which then lead to the right words, or the right words that lead to the idea. Some say the English language is vague. In fact, however, the language and the roots it comes from, are so deep and specific, they are mind-boggling.
    Thank you. I really appreciate that compliment and I'm glad you feel that way.
     
  22. Jul 24, 2006 #21
    Forgive me if I am breif but I already wrote this once and my computer froze and I lost it all.

    This I understand but what I am meaning is that if space and time did infact come into existence then they have a beggining therefore are finite. However it just occured to me that numbers are in fact infinite and they have a definite beggining. So if the universe is infinite does that mean that it had a definite beggining too? I can only imagine so.

    The right words may lead to the idea but think if you will about when the first language was first being established. Back when the vocabulary of man was not much more than hungry, food and fire. If a particular caveman were to look at a river and wonder about the currents and eddies and the general flow of it he would considering a concept that he lacks the words to describe. In the same way considering what the foundation of reality is, is beyond our vocabulary to fully explain.

    I percieve life and energy as being connected or linked by the same set of rules, laws or guidlines.

    At this it is my belief that life is nothing more that energy, being as how all matter that makes up life is energy and all that drives life is energy. So I see myself as being the same basic fundamental "stuff" as lightning and rocks and water. Everything is energy therefore everything should follow the same guidlines. But once again I just thought of another basic mathimatical principle. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Perhaps we (squares) are defined by the same laws as energy (rectangles) because we are energy. And just as squares are rectangles guided by more laws than rectangles we too are more than just energy because we are ruled by more than just the laws of energy.

    So if life came into being and will ultimately end then it is my belief that energy came into being and will ultimately end.

    Same rules as my squares and rectangles. It's possible but energy is not necessarily ruled by the laws of life.

    At this I'm not thinking in the box but rather looking at the box. I believe it possible for energy to stop existing without an end. Perhaps if time were to end with energy then energy would not have ended merely stopped existing.

    This pertains to my limitations of language over concepts argument. But to explain a little more of what I can. What if the most basic "stuff" that makes up even energy, possibly something we have no idea what it is yet, can exist without movement. And by movement I mean without being excited into being energy. It can exist on a lower level of existence without existing in reality. This is like trying to describe water as being hungry without fire. The concept is in my mind but I lack the proper words to describe it.
     
  23. Jul 25, 2006 #22
    Brief is good.

    Yes, this is true. Here's what I said...

    This is the "finite" senario. There is also the no big bang "infinite" senario.

    .
    Any infinite set(s) of numbers neither has a beginning nor an end. No different than an infinite universe.

    Your point is well taken.

    At some point, the concept the caveman was considering, became a word(s). We now have the language we have. The question is, when it becomes time to "consider what the foundation of reality is", have we already been given the words to describe it?

    On the surface, that makes some sense. Under the surface, though, the question still remains as to what is energy (matter) and what is its value in regards to the entirity of an infinite or finite universe. Some say 0.

    Now you're talkin'. One thing though. What might exist without movement would be a higher level of existence, not lower.
     
  24. Jul 25, 2006 #23
    This is a bit off topic but something thats been on my mind lately. How many planets do we know of have lightning storms?

    On another topic I've heard somewhere recently that there is in fact a measurable minimum of time. In other words the smallest incriment of time. Does anyone know what this is and how they decided it was so?
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2006
  25. Jul 25, 2006 #24
    Perhaps there is no definite beggining of numbers because before the beggining of positive integers are negative integers. If taken in this pretext then is it possible that before the universe was an anti-universe? Could this anti-universe move on a negative time scale and in theory exists but not exists on the time scale as we measure it? I am taking all my ideas directly from integers so if some of it doesn't make sense well it seems logical in my mind. When compared to integers. The anti-verse (negative numbers) and the universe (positive numbers) would have both began with the big bang (0). But as far as we are concerned our universe (+) begins where the anti-verse (-) ended and equally if someone in the anti-verse (-) were to concieve of our universe (+) we would end where they began. Interesting idea but I feel it lacking something.

    I don't think we have. I think we must as the caveman did create a term that describes what we are thinking. We may be able to explain it in a round about way such as "Water moves with want" might be describing the force of the flow of water but with the primative vocabulary the interpretation of this statment would barely allow the idea to be fully expressed and understood. Therefore we must now find a term that explains what is meant when we say "Energy can exist on a lower or higher level without existing in reality as we know it."

    I understand what you are saying and that is an interesting statment that I would like to come back too, but in my particular statement I was not in fact refering to the larger picture but more of a linear one. Examining that which is in the box without considering the mechanics of the box if you will.

    For one of those terms which we must create to describe a concept. I'm getting tired of writing that which "exists with movement" and that which "exists without movement". So from now on I will be refering to that which "exists with movement" to be Energy and that which "exists without movement" to be Dead Energy.

    I disagree but only due to a matter of interpretation. Dead Energy would in fact be existing on a lower level of existence. Energy would still exist on that lower level but would also exist on the higher level of existence which would be reality as we percieve it. On your statement I'm understanding your interpretation of that lower/higher existence to be beyond what we percieve therefore is higher, more powerful, but if you consider existence as a pyramid and reality to be the tip. Energy would be dependent on the lower levels of Dead Energy. Dead Energy could exist without Energy but without Dead Energy, Energy could not exist.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2006
  26. Jul 25, 2006 #25
    Nope.

    I don't think "we" are saying that. You are. The concept has to be clear to find the word(s) for. Your concepts are wanting, as they should be at this point in your discovery. I honestly think you are coming to too many conclusions, too soon. Study, study, study. Ask, ask, ask.


    The idea of movement and non-movement should only tire you after years of thinking about it? You refer to it how you like. However, if you don't start responding with questions instead of answers that are redundant, then what good is any of this doing.

    You've got what we precieve as the higher level. You've got existence as what we perceive. You're trying to empower the universe, while at the same time, those who have been working these problems for lifetimes are slowly coming to the opposite conclusion. You need to read up on present day theory. I would suggest using Wikipedia. It's not the end all be all, but it's a good way to track down ideas by entering different words.

    Come up with a list of words and I will add to them if necessary, and then look them up and spend a rediculous amount of time reading and interrelating without coming to any conclusions. Someday you will come to a conclusion that will be useful.

    Aw, what the heck.

    Point
    dimensionless number
    One dimensional point
    Absolute
    Relative
    General relativity
    Quantum theory
    Renormalization
    Mass
    Time
    Space
    Philosophy
    Physics
    Mathematics
    Metaphysics
    Cosmology
    Ontology
    Infinite
    Finite
    Just keep on going... any word you can thing of and any any word that is referenced in what you read. Don't try to accomplish anything, just let yourself soak it up.

    I'm pretty much out of gas.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2006
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook