# Reality and the Universe defies logic and meaning



## Ressurection

I have this argument and there is no good answer either way as both defy logic and understanding. 

If the Universe was created by a god, then what created that god and so forth and so forth. Makes absolutely no sense and the existence of a god in itself is paradoxical. If he wasn't created then he was there forever. Forever meaning no start. This again, makes no sense as it's nonsense for a god to create everything after such a long time-length. Eternity has no sense of time so we can only try to imagine. It's illogical. And also, how could a being even exist by nothing creating it? Nonsense.

Now, if there is no creator, then it's random creation. Just an ignition of some sort coming from absolute nothingness. How could this happen as this defies Newton's laws. Out of nothing is something? There are such things as virtual particles but nonetheless must be coming from something, some plane of existence in the universe, perhaps another universe. Either way it's mindboggling. There are paradoxes on both issues here. 

This is where I come to my conclusion. My only answer, or thought on all of this, is that the Universe is really just our perception. It defies all logic. 
Look up the double slit experiment. Physicists are stumped by it.
Whatever the case may be, a god and random creation seem highly unlikely to me. Something else is the cause for our Universe.


----------



## elusivecargo

Welcome to the human condition to think and not know. You touched on all of our thoughts and the greatest of human thinkers. (everyone everywhere wants to know) All I can up with is live, don't hurt people and try to be happy. We have to accept the possibility that we will never have the answers.


----------



## Ressurection

elusivecargo said:


> Welcome to the human condition to think and not know. You touched on all of our thoughts and the greatest of human thinkers. (everyone everywhere wants to know) All I can up with is live, don't hurt people and try to be happy. We have to accept the possibility that we will never have the answers.


Of course living happy is all I care about. But this fundamental problem fuels my need to know. Such a troubling understanding for anyone who thinks the same. I somehow doubt scientists will figure this out. Another problem is how the universe even expanded after being confined to a small point of singularity for so long. That's like god sitting for an eternity and randomly deciding to create everything. How long was this point of singularity there? This whole thing is like the brain-in a vat question.

Another argument I have is how space and time connect. We know they connect. Now time travel is said to be impossible due to the grandfather paradox and another one. Well if we can see back in time when we look at the stars, then who's to say we can't make a spacecraft fast enough to reach those stars as we see them? Hypothetically speaking of course, let's say a billion years or so we should have that technology if we keep the pace we have going. Then, travel back to earth, and we'll be on Earth during it's creation or so. This would rule out any paradox. Let me know what you think of this.


----------



## Brawk Shady

Some things are just incomprehensible by the human mind. For example, lets consider a simple organism, like a bacterium. It's basically an assembly of proteins, that are grouped in such a way, that it's function is just to live and reproduce; it has no idea about the complexity of our universe, because it isn't able to think like we can, because it doesn't have cognitive abilities. Therefore it's possible that the things that appear to be paradoxical, actually make sense, but we just don't have the ability to comprehend it.



Ressurection said:


> Another argument I have is how space and time connect. We know they connect. Now time travel is said to be impossible due to the grandfather paradox and another one. Well if we can see back in time when we look at the stars, then who's to say we can't make a spacecraft fast enough to reach those stars as we see them? Hypothetically speaking of course, let's say a billion years or so we should have that technology if we keep the pace we have going. Then, travel back to earth, and we'll be on Earth during it's creation or so. This would rule out any paradox. Let me know what you think of this.


I actually thought about this before, too. It is commonly thought that nothing can travel past the speed of light, but there are some findings I heard about that say that might not be the case. Anyway, that would be really cool if we could "go back in time" like that, so to speak.


----------



## Ressurection

Brawk Shady said:


> Some things are just incomprehensible by the human mind. For example, lets consider a simple organism, like a bacterium. It's basically an assembly of proteins, that are grouped in such a way, that it's function is just to live and reproduce; it has no idea about the complexity of our universe, because it isn't able to think like we can, because it doesn't have cognitive abilities. Therefore it's possible that the things that appear to be paradoxical, actually make sense, but we just don't have the ability to comprehend it.
> 
> I actually thought about this before, too. It is commonly thought that nothing can travel past the speed of light, but there are some findings I heard about that say that might not be the case. Anyway, that would be really cool if we could "go back in time" like that, so to speak.


Yeah it's amazing how single-celled organisms are just proteins, amino-acids, and water. So tiny, so simple, yet they reproduce, split themselves into daughter cells. They're not too complex, and are similar to eukaryote cells, yet they're living and contain the ability to reproduce. So strange.

I just think it's common sense that it's possible to travel back in time if we travel at the speed of light. The big problem is finding a way for us to physically do so. Creating an energy transportation vehicle that can go that fast.


----------



## Pessoa

Ressurection said:


> This is where I come to my conclusion. My only answer, or thought on all of this, is that the Universe is really just our perception. It defies all logic.


That's pretty much it. What we take as reality is just our perception of reality. What we can understand of reality is limited by our perceptual and cognitive abilities. "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Camus said something about it making no difference whether the sun revolves around the earth or vise versa, which is a slight exaggeration, but still a valid point. The theory of evolution obviously had a huge impact but how would string theory change anyone's life? There's no practical meaning to be found in a discussion of how many dimensions there are. Science removed God from the equation, for some of us, but offered nothing in return but theories and equations and a belief in science. If science ever finds the ultimate answers then even if we can understand them they will probably have no meaning to us. Not that I mean to sound anti-science, it's just that whatever meaning life has it's not to be found in complex mathematical equations. Athiesm relies on scientific theories which show that god is unnecessary to explain the universe. But like Camus implied, such theories are often meaningless when it comes to talking about the human condition. Or something.


----------



## Hylar

You mind find this interesting:

_Reality, said Nagarjuna, cannot be realized through conceptual constructions, since concepts are contained inside reality, not vice versa. Consequently, only through the intuitive mind can reality be approached. His name for this "reality" beyond the mind's analysis was sunyata, usually translated as "emptiness" but sometimes as "the Void." (Sunyata is perhaps an unprovable concept, but so too are the ego and the unconscious, both hypothetical constructs useful in explaining reality but impossible to locate on the operating table.) Nagarjuna's most-quoted manifesto has the logic-defying ring of a Zen : "Nothing comes into existence nor does anything disappear. Nothing is eternal, nor has anything any end. Nothing is identical or differentiated. Nothing moves hither and thither."_

Taken from the book 'The Zen Experience', by Thomas Hoover


----------



## Insignificant Other

Ressurection said:


> I have this argument and there is no good answer either way as both defy logic and understanding.
> 
> If the Universe was created by a god, then what created that god and so forth and so forth. Makes absolutely no sense and the existence of a god in itself is paradoxical. If he wasn't created then he was there forever. Forever meaning no start. This again, makes no sense as it's nonsense for a god to create everything after such a long time-length. Eternity has no sense of time so we can only try to imagine. It's illogical. And also, how could a being even exist by nothing creating it? Nonsense.
> 
> Now, if there is no creator, then it's random creation. Just an ignition of some sort coming from absolute nothingness. How could this happen as this defies Newton's laws. Out of nothing is something? There are such things as virtual particles but nonetheless must be coming from something, some plane of existence in the universe, perhaps another universe. Either way it's mindboggling. There are paradoxes on both issues here.
> 
> This is where I come to my conclusion. My only answer, or thought on all of this, is that the Universe is really just our perception. It defies all logic.
> Look up the double slit experiment. Physicists are stumped by it.
> Whatever the case may be, a god and random creation seem highly unlikely to me. Something else is the cause for our Universe.


Victor Stenger has tried to explain how something can arise from nothing due to spontaneous symmetry breaking.


----------



## Ressurection

Hylar said:


> You mind find this interesting:
> 
> _Reality, said Nagarjuna, cannot be realized through conceptual constructions, since concepts are contained inside reality, not vice versa. Consequently, only through the intuitive mind can reality be approached. His name for this "reality" beyond the mind's analysis was sunyata, usually translated as "emptiness" but sometimes as "the Void." (Sunyata is perhaps an unprovable concept, but so too are the ego and the unconscious, both hypothetical constructs useful in explaining reality but impossible to locate on the operating table.) Nagarjuna's most-quoted manifesto has the logic-defying ring of a Zen : "Nothing comes into existence nor does anything disappear. Nothing is eternal, nor has anything any end. Nothing is identical or differentiated. Nothing moves hither and thither."_
> 
> Taken from the book 'The Zen Experience', by Thomas Hoover


Other than supernatural assumptions, how can death of an organism be explained if nothing truly leaves existence or has an end, then what about the death of our minds? This has to be seriously held into account by Hoover and us.


----------



## Ressurection

Insignificant Other said:


> Victor Stenger has tried to explain how something can arise from nothing due to spontaneous symmetry breaking.


Right but the point I'm making is that no matter where something comes from, there must be an ancestor to it, and and ancestor to that, and so on, and so on. Even if something came from spontaneous symmetry breaking, what would cause this to occur, and if so, where did it come from to cause the reaction?
Wherever it comes from, there must be an ancestor to that too, to cause the existence of something which would cause that something to break symmetry.

I think of all of this as reproduction. You don't just have an organism. Something comes from something else. Something is created from something else. Why can't the same be applied to the universe, energy, and matter?
I believe the same rules of Newton (action = Reaction) and Biological reproduction apply to the Universe, just only in a different way, but keeping the same idea.


----------



## ugh1979

Ressurection said:


> Right but the point I'm making is that no matter where something comes from, there must be an ancestor to it, and and ancestor to that, and so on, and so on. Even if something came from spontaneous symmetry breaking, what would cause this to occur, and if so, where did it come from to cause the reaction?
> Wherever it comes from, there must be an ancestor to that too, to cause the existence of something which would cause that something to break symmetry.
> 
> I think of all of this as reproduction. You don't just have an organism. Something comes from something else. Something is created from something else. Why can't the same be applied to the universe, energy, and matter?
> I believe the same rules of Newton (action = Reaction) and Biological reproduction apply to the Universe, just only in a different way, but keeping the same idea.


As I mentioned in our previous discussion on this, concepts of space, time and causality can be redundant when it comes to this topic. Newton's laws are valid for certain things, but not others. You need to invoke quantum theory when talking about the whole universe and universe creation.

The below may help illustrate what i'm talking about when I describe how the universe could come from 'nothing' and may not require an ancestor, and the quantum foam, which is essentially the same thing as the spontaneous symmetry breaking mentioned earlier. Instability on the Planck scale could just be the nature of the universe. Instablility rather than stablilty is probably the far more likely state of fundamental reality which answers the question of why it is the way it is.



















In some ways we could think of everything happening simultaneously with time and causality just being an illusion we experience from our perspective in reality.


----------



## Ressurection

ugh1979 said:


> As I mentioned in our previous discussion on this, concepts of space, time and causality can be redundant when it comes to this topic. Newton's laws are valid for certain things, but not others. You need to invoke quantum theory when talking about the whole universe and universe creation.
> 
> The below may help illustrate what i'm talking about when I describe how the universe could come from 'nothing' and may not require an ancestor, and the quantum foam, which is essentially the same thing as the spontaneous symmetry breaking mentioned earlier. Instability on the Planck scale could just be the nature of the universe. Instablility rather than stablilty is probably the far more likely state of fundamental reality which answers the question of why it is the way it is.
> 
> In some ways we could think of everything happening simultaneously with time and causality just being an illusion we experience from our perspective in reality.


I understand this. I've researched planck time before, and watched a special on it, which pertained to the big bang. Of course this is just speculation. It does make sense, but there's still a flaw. How does unstable energy exist in the first place? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but still seems like energy could have been created, if fundamental laws are unstable in the early planck era. Anything is possible, as many things defy our imagination when it comes to quantum physics. Energy could have been created, especially noting how the pre-universe was so unstable. What if it's not chaotic energy but another force that gave way to energy and the other fundamental laws. A force that could be detected one day, and add on to our current fundamental forces. It just seems odd, that you have this unstable chaotic energy going on, for who knows how long, and then the right circumstances happen, allowing it to set in motion the big bang.


----------



## lmoh

Ressurection said:


> If the Universe was created by a god, then what created that god and so forth and so forth. Makes absolutely no sense and the existence of a god in itself is paradoxical. If he wasn't created then he was there forever. Forever meaning no start. This again, makes no sense as it's nonsense for a god to create everything after such a long time-length. Eternity has no sense of time so we can only try to imagine. It's illogical. And also, how could a being even exist by nothing creating it? Nonsense.
> 
> Now, if there is no creator, then it's random creation. Just an ignition of some sort coming from absolute nothingness. How could this happen as this defies Newton's laws. Out of nothing is something? There are such things as virtual particles but nonetheless must be coming from something, some plane of existence in the universe, perhaps another universe. Either way it's mindboggling. There are paradoxes on both issues here.


Doesn't this all assume that the universe is "created" in the first place? That there is a beginning? It could very well be that everything has always been and that there is no point where things are created. Now why the universe is like this and not that, well that is another question, however, there isn't anything like "ignition from absolute nothingness", whatever that means.


----------



## lmoh

ugh1979 said:


> As I mentioned in our previous discussion on this, concepts of space, time and causality can be redundant when it comes to this topic. Newton's laws are valid for certain things, but not others. You need to invoke quantum theory when talking about the whole universe and universe creation.
> 
> The below may help illustrate what i'm talking about when I describe how the universe could come from 'nothing' and may not require an ancestor, and the quantum foam, which is essentially the same thing as the spontaneous symmetry breaking mentioned earlier. Instability on the Planck scale could just be the nature of the universe. Instablility rather than stablilty is probably the far more likely state of fundamental reality which answers the question of why it is the way it is.


Though I can see how causality may be an illusion, given quantum effects, I don't see how space and time are no longer real. It still seems like your quantum foam needs to be interpreted in the context of space-time, given that it talks about events that randomly occur in different regions of space. Now, it may well be that it is not the classical space-time that we are familiar with, but these fluctuations still make reference to a sort of space and time.

However, speaking of quantum foam, another reason I wanted to bring this up is because I actually read a very recent article on the idea that seems to challenge the idea:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/searching-for-a-quantum-foam-bubbling-through-the-universe/


----------



## Ressurection

lmoh said:


> Doesn't this all assume that the universe is "created" in the first place? That there is a beginning? It could very well be that everything has always been and that there is no point where things are created. Now why the universe is like this and not that, well that is another question, however, there isn't anything like "ignition from absolute nothingness", whatever that means.


''Doesn't this all assume that the universe is "created" in the first place?''

I'm trying to say that. The Universe began by the big bang. Before the big bang there was nothing. Or at least something very similar. So out of this we have something. Energy fluctuations/extreme chaotic behavior. Ignition from absolute nothingness means starting from nothing, coming out of nothing. The universe must have been created. Not by a god but by some means. Then again it's unfathomable how. Which is what me and him are debating about.


----------



## lmoh

Ressurection said:


> I'm trying to say that. The Universe began by the big bang. Before the big bang there was nothing. Or at least something very similar. So out of this we have something. Energy fluctuations/extreme chaotic behavior. Ignition from absolute nothingness means starting from nothing, coming out of nothing. The universe must have been created. Not by a god but by some means. Then again it's unfathomable how. Which is what me and him are debating about.


I don't think that anybody can say with confidence what happened before the big bang. Well, according to some, there was a singularity, then the big bang, but other than that, we cannot tell what happened before then, but we do not necessarily have to propose creation ex nihilo. It could be that the universe is cyclical, or the universe could have come from something else for all we know.


----------



## ugh1979

Ressurection said:


> I understand this. I've researched planck time before, and watched a special on it, which pertained to the big bang. Of course this is just speculation. It does make sense, but there's still a flaw. How does unstable energy exist in the first place?


Because there being no energy or completely stable energy are extreme improbables. The fuzzy state in between existence and nonexistence appears to be what we have.



> Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but still seems like energy could have been created, if fundamental laws are unstable in the early planck era.


Well, it kind of is, as most physicists think that the net sum of the total energy in the universe is zero, but the quantum fluctuations create negative and positive energy which give rise to everything else. In effect the instability is what creates everything, including the most fundamental energy itself as otherwise it would be zero.



> Anything is possible, as many things defy our imagination when it comes to quantum physics. Energy could have been created, especially noting how the pre-universe was so unstable. What if it's not chaotic energy but another force that gave way to energy and the other fundamental laws. A force that could be detected one day, and add on to our current fundamental forces. It just seems odd, that you have this unstable chaotic energy going on, for who knows how long, and then the right circumstances happen, allowing it to set in motion the big bang.


Indeed there are other hypotheses, especially when talking about universe creation, but i'm talking more about the fundamental nature of the Universe. (i.e. not just our universe as there is probably a multiverse)

Our universe could have emerged out of the quantum foam, it could be the result of the collision of branes, it could be the result of a singularity in another universe, it could be the result of a big bounce, or many other possibilities.

There are so many rival hypotheses, and undoubtedly many more to come, but that's cool, as we just need to keep investigating their potential.


----------



## ugh1979

lmoh said:


> Though I can see how causality may be an illusion, given quantum effects, I don't see how space and time are no longer real. It still seems like your quantum foam needs to be interpreted in the context of space-time, given that it talks about events that randomly occur in different regions of space. Now, it may well be that it is not the classical space-time that we are familiar with, but these fluctuations still make reference to a sort of space and time.


Well it permeates our spacetime, but probably also exists outwith our spacetime, and yes, it could have it's own exotic spacetime which are incomprehensible to us outwith mathematics.



> However, speaking of quantum foam, another reason I wanted to bring this up is because I actually read a very recent article on the idea that seems to challenge the idea:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/searching-for-a-quantum-foam-bubbling-through-the-universe/


Yeah I read that last week, it's interesting, but very contentious in the physics community. It's always good to have challenges to common beliefs.


----------



## lmoh

ugh1979 said:


> Well it permeates our spacetime, but probably also exists outwith our spacetime, and yes, it could have it's own exotic spacetime which are incomprehensible to us outwith mathematics.


"Outwith" means "without", I'm assuming? Anyways, as long as it still refers to events and locations, the concept of space and time still seem relevant as far as I am concerned. It could very well be that classical spacetime does not hold however, given that the Newtonian view has largely faded since the early 20th century.



> Yeah I read that last week, it's interesting, but very contentious in the physics community. It's always good to have challenges to common beliefs.


Well, just about everything is contentious, it seems, in the physics community, especially when you are talking about quantum phenomena . It seems like people still can't agree on how to interpret quantum mechanics even after all of these years, which just goes to show. For that reason I always try to take popular physics claims with a grain of salt and not at face value but of course, as a lay person, I am not in a position to judge. Sort of makes me want to learn physics at a technical level so that I can understand what these people are claiming and evaluate it on my own terms. Hopefully, I can do so sometime in the future.


----------



## ugh1979

lmoh said:


> "Outwith" means "without", I'm assuming?


It means outside/beyond. Sorry I forget how colloquial that term is. 



> Anyways, as long as it still refers to events and locations, the concept of space and time still seem relevant as far as I am concerned. It could very well be that classical spacetime does not hold however, given that the Newtonian view has largely faded since the early 20th century.


The thing is though, on unobserved quantum scales there are no set events and locations, and there is growing evidence that time is also fuzzy on that scale, so it's vastly different from classical spacetime.



> Well, just about everything is contentious, it seems, in the physics community, especially when you are talking about quantum phenomena . It seems like people still can't agree on how to interpret quantum mechanics even after all of these years, which just goes to show. For that reason I always try to take popular physics claims with a grain of salt and not at face value but of course, as a lay person, I am not in a position to judge. Sort of makes me want to learn physics at a technical level so that I can understand what these people are claiming and evaluate it on my own terms. Hopefully, I can do so sometime in the future.


Indeed, but it's healthy discussion so all good.


----------



## lmoh

ugh1979 said:


> The thing is though, on unobserved quantum scales there are no set events and locations, and there is growing evidence that time is also fuzzy on that scale, so it's vastly different from classical spacetime.


Indeed, but again, space-time doesn't disappear altogether, which is what I was trying to get across. Given your earlier clarification, there could be an exotic space-time "beyond" our current understanding, sure, but then again, people aren't that sympathetic to the classical view anyways so that wouldn't come as a surprise. If anything they are actually looking to alter it themselves in various ways. It will take time to see whether or not these ideas will bear fruit, but until we have the advanced tools to truly settle the matter empirically, then we can only rely on subtle hints on what is going on.


----------



## ugh1979

lmoh said:


> Indeed, but again, space-time doesn't disappear altogether, which is what I was trying to get across. Given your earlier clarification, there could be an exotic space-time "beyond" our current understanding, sure, but then again, people aren't that sympathetic to the classical view anyways so that wouldn't come as a surprise. If anything they are actually looking to alter it themselves in various ways. It will take time to see whether or not these ideas will bear fruit, but until we have the advanced tools to truly settle the matter empirically, then we can only rely on subtle hints on what is going on.


But it could disappear in that it ceases to be a continuum.

Spacetime as we know it may just not exist outwith our universe, which renders questions of what's outside or what came before the universe redundant.


----------



## Sacrieur

If you reach a paradox it means your reasoning or your assumptions are wrong. That's all.



Ressurection said:


> Look up the double slit experiment. Physicists are stumped by it.


No they're not. Particles have a waveform that collapses when its observed; that's all. It actually makes things a lot more clear than a lot less.


----------



## Ressurection

lmoh said:


> I don't think that anybody can say with confidence what happened before the big bang. Well, according to some, there was a singularity, then the big bang, but other than that, we cannot tell what happened before then, but we do not necessarily have to propose creation ex nihilo. It could be that the universe is cyclical, or the universe could have come from something else for all we know.


That's the thing about curiosity. We don't exactly know, but we can make the best theories and speculations to explain based on logic or evidence. No one is for sure what happened before the big bang, which is why I'm giving out my theory from my own opinion. My theory is grounded in logic, but also a little bit of evidence too. Whether the Universe was created or is cyclic, we don't exactly no, so any guess is worth mentioning.


----------



## Ressurection

Sacrieur said:


> If you reach a paradox it means your reasoning or your assumptions are wrong. That's all.
> 
> No they're not. Particles have a waveform that collapses when its observed; that's all. It actually makes things a lot more clear than a lot less.


How is that more clear, exactly? Based on an entity observing it, the particle's waveform just collapses? There's a reason most quantum physics experiments are the most challenging to deduce.


----------



## Ressurection

ugh1979 said:


> Because there being no energy or completely stable energy are extreme improbables. The fuzzy state in between existence and nonexistence appears to be what we have.
> 
> Well, it kind of is, as most physicists think that the net sum of the total energy in the universe is zero, but the quantum fluctuations create negative and positive energy which give rise to everything else. In effect the instability is what creates everything, including the most fundamental energy itself as otherwise it would be zero.
> 
> Indeed there are other hypotheses, especially when talking about universe creation, but i'm talking more about the fundamental nature of the Universe. (i.e. not just our universe as there is probably a multiverse)
> 
> Our universe could have emerged out of the quantum foam, it could be the result of the collision of branes, it could be the result of a singularity in another universe, it could be the result of a big bounce, or many other possibilities.
> 
> There are so many rival hypotheses, and undoubtedly many more to come, but that's cool, as we just need to keep investigating their potential.


True, investigation is key. I'd rather assume, or theorize instead of not giving a thought at all. Maybe one day, we will have the technology to finally deduce the circumstances before the big bang. It could be possible extremely supermassive black holes keep sucking so much up that eventually nothing is left of one universe, and out the other end of a hypothetical wormhole, shoots out a big bang. And this cycle repeats. Or many what I call, ''Titan Black Holes'' exist but are small right now, and they exist in every universe of the multiverse. These titans suck up every thing and when it collapses from becoming too large, big bangs happen, creating another universe in the multiverse. Just another theory. I Hope I simplified that pretty good. But then again, my next question is, what started this process, was there a first universe to allow this process to begin within a so called quantum foam?


----------



## Ressurection

Sacrieur said:


> If you reach a paradox it means your reasoning or your assumptions are wrong. That's all.


No, it means a problem within my reasoning has started, which could also apply to reality. So to fix this problem, a logical argument must be explained.
Doesn't mean my theory is wrong. Answers can explain all paradoxes if you find them by looking at the problem in a different light.


----------



## ugh1979

Ressurection said:


> True, investigation is key. I'd rather assume, or theorize instead of not giving a thought at all. Maybe one day, we will have the technology to finally deduce the circumstances before the big bang. It could be possible extremely supermassive black holes keep sucking so much up that eventually nothing is left of one universe, and out the other end of a hypothetical wormhole, shouts out a big bang. And this cycle repeats. Or many what I call, ''Titan Black Holes'' exist but are small right now, and they exist in every universe of the multiverse. These titans suck up every thing and when it collapses from becoming too large, big bangs happen, creating another universe in the multiverse. Just another theory. I Hope I simplified that pretty good.


Yeah I linked to that hypotheses in my post, and yes it would be an element of a multiverse, where universes spawn universes.



> But then again, my next question is, what started this process, was there a first universe to allow this process to begin within a so called quantum foam?


Maybe some universes emerge from the quantum foam that is everywhere and so need no prior cause, and maybe some spawn from existing universes, either from the branes the universes are on colliding in hyperspace, or as a result of massive singularities within universes as we've mentioned?

As I keep saying though, once we leave spacetime as we know it questions of before can become redundant. With no multiversal master clock, the start of one universe has no place on a master timeline in respect to the start of another, even if it spawned from it, as each has its own spacetime and arrow of time.


----------



## lmoh

Ressurection said:


> That's the thing about curiosity. We don't exactly know, but we can make the best theories and speculations to explain based on logic or evidence. No one is for sure what happened before the big bang, which is why I'm giving out my theory from my own opinion. My theory is grounded in logic, but also a little bit of evidence too. Whether the Universe was created or is cyclic, we don't exactly no, so any guess is worth mentioning.


Well, if you think that the concept of creation with/without a creator is paradoxical, then I think that it is worth considering that the universe was eternal, without a beginning. As far as I can tell, you did'nt refer to it in your OP so I felt the need to bring it up.


----------



## lmoh

ugh1979 said:


> But it could disappear in that it ceases to be a continuum.


Personally I wouldn't say that being non-continuous (or discrete) would render space-time nonexistent, but if what you have been saying all along was that the classical notion of space and time is no longer valid, then fine.


----------



## Ressurection

lmoh said:


> Well, if you think that the concept of creation with/without a creator is paradoxical, then I think that it is worth considering that the universe was eternal, without a beginning. As far as I can tell, you did'nt refer to it in your OP so I felt the need to bring it up.


It seems paradoxical from a creation standpoint yes, but I don't believe eternal is the cause. If you read my OP I stated the Universe and reality is just a matter of perception. Not eternal. This is my philosophic idea to the issue. 
Eternal is nonsensical, I believe I stated that in different wording too. 
The Universe will one day have an end. It has different theorized endings but nonetheless will end some way. I would like to believe through a multiverse means but it's uncertain. So if it will have an end, it had a beginning. We know the big bang happened. Going back to my point, it's still paradoxical how the big bang happened. Unless we find a solution/ answer to the paradox.


----------



## lmoh

Code:







Ressurection said:


> Eternal is nonsensical, I believe I stated that in different wording too.


I don't see the problem with an eternal universe. At best, the problems that people seem to have with the idea is that the past is "infinite", or that there is no "definite beginning" but these problems seem to stem more from our own limited understanding, if anything.



> The Universe will one day have an end. It has different theorized endings but nonetheless will end some way.


We don't know if it will have an end either. There are various theories about how the universe will "end", if it will, but of course we don't know if any are true, or really, whether or not they spell the end (of the universe as a whole).


----------



## Sacrieur

Ressurection said:


> No, it means a problem within my reasoning has started, which could also apply to reality. So to fix this problem, a logical argument must be explained.
> Doesn't mean my theory is wrong. Answers can explain all paradoxes if you find them by looking at the problem in a different light.


Explain to me what a paradox is.



Ressurection said:


> How is that more clear, exactly? Based on an entity observing it, the particle's waveform just collapses? There's a reason most quantum physics experiments are the most challenging to deduce.


Yes, the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics was destroyed when it was observed.

Frankly you have a lot of physics to cover yet before you're ready for these topics.


----------



## Ressurection

lmoh said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the problem with an eternal universe. At best, the problems that people seem to have with the idea is that the past is "infinite", or that there is no "definite beginning" but these problems seem to stem more from our own limited understanding, if anything.
> 
> We don't know if it will have an end either. There are various theories about how the universe will "end", if it will, but of course we don't know if any are true, or really, whether or not they spell the end (of the universe as a whole).


Well of course it's because of our limit of understanding. But going by our present knowledge, it only makes sense that the universe being eternal is nonsense due to the fact that the universe had a big bang, so if a big bang happened there must have been a cause of that too, making a cause of that and so on so to speak. It's only reasonable to assume so. It's causation logic.

The big bang is slowly spreading due to what physicists believe is by dark energy. Also, every sun will die out eventually so the only things left essentially will be supermassive black holes. But even these won't last forever.


----------



## Ressurection

Sacrieur said:


> Explain to me what a paradox is.
> 
> Yes, the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics was destroyed when it was observed.
> 
> Frankly you have a lot of physics to cover yet before you're ready for these topics.


Okay smartguy. A paradox in simplest terms, is a statement or idea that seems to be reasonable, but in fact turns into nonsense, or contradiction.

For example: ''The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.'' Seems to be true as logic dictates, but then the logic is backwashed by contradiction.

Frankly you should work on your arrogance, argument, and social skills, before you continue to try to squeeze your way into this debate.


----------



## lmoh

Ressurection said:


> Well of course it's because of our limit of understanding. But going by our present knowledge, it only makes sense that the universe being eternal is nonsense due to the fact that the universe had a big bang, so if a big bang happened there must have been a cause of that too, making a cause of that and so on so to speak. It's only reasonable to assume so. It's causation logic.


If there is an infinite chain of causation, then I don't see that as being anything other than eternal.

The fact is we do not know what happened before the big bang so to say that it is the "beginning" is not correct. We are still not sure what happened during the big bang, which is partly the reason why we have so many different explanations for what happened, all equally speculative.


----------



## Ressurection

lmoh said:


> If there is an infinite chain of causation, then I don't see that as being anything other than eternal.
> 
> The fact is we do not know what happened before the big bang so to say that it is the "beginning" is not correct. We are still not sure what happened during the big bang, which is partly the reason why we have so many different explanations for what happened, all equally speculative.


Which is what I'm saying. That is nonsense. Causation only makes sense, but the way this would play out doesn't make sense, as it leads to a problem. So eternal is out, and creation to a degree makes sense. Then you have an eternal logic problem taking place. So it goes back to my original OP. The universe is not what we think it is. (Philosophy works best for now, until we have evidence).


----------



## Sacrieur

Ressurection said:


> Okay smartguy. A paradox in simplest terms, is a statement or idea that seems to be reasonable, but in fact turns into nonsense, or contradiction.


That's correct: at its core a paradox is just a contradiction. The axiom of non-contradiction applies and so we are left with the conclusion that either our argument is wrong or our assumptions are wrong.



> For example: ''The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.'' Seems to be true as logic dictates, but then the logic is backwashed by contradiction.


Ah the liar's paradox, you can read up on the resolutions here. I'm partial to Prior's solution, personally.


----------



## ugh1979

lmoh said:


> Personally I wouldn't say that being non-continuous (or discrete) would render space-time nonexistent, but if what you have been saying all along was that the classical notion of space and time is no longer valid, then fine.


Yes classical spacetime.  But, if that is absent it really challenges what can be considered to exist.


----------



## lmoh

Ressurection said:


> Which is what I'm saying. That is nonsense. Causation only makes sense, but the way this would play out doesn't make sense, as it leads to a problem. So eternal is out, and creation to a degree makes sense. Then you have an eternal logic problem taking place. So it goes back to my original OP. The universe is not what we think it is. (Philosophy works best for now, until we have evidence).


What problem does it lead too?

The only problem that I can imagine people having is that an infinite chain of causation would lead to an infinite "regress" of causes and effects. But this type of regress is benign IMO, and does not seem to be inconsistent. This is part of the reason why the Kalam Cosmological argument didn't convince many.


----------



## hoddesdon

Ressurection said:


> ... there's still a flaw. How does unstable energy exist in the first place? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but still seems like energy could have been created, if fundamental laws are unstable in the early planck era.


Yes, so the creation of the universe defies one of the fundamental laws of the universe. If energy could be created or destroyed, then everything would be unworkable.

As for how can God have existed forever, or how can it be that nothing created God, that is looking at things from the point of view of the experience of living in the universe (universe-centric?). In another dimension things are different. You could equally ask what created the universe, and how could it just come to exist without a cause.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Yes, so the creation of the universe defies one of the fundamental laws of the universe. If energy could be created or destroyed, then everything would be unworkable.


Just as well no energy is being created or destroyed in scientific hypotheses of universe emergence then.



> As for how can God have existed forever, or how can it be that nothing created God, that is looking at things from the point of view of the experience of living in the universe (universe-centric?). In another dimension things are different. You could equally ask what created the universe, and how could it just come to exist without a cause.


The key difference is that scientific universe creation hypotheses they start from the bottom up, making something out of 'nothing' (i.e. the unstable fundamental latent energy that is everywhere). The idea some omnipotent intelligent agent is fundamental to the universe is a top down idea where everything starts with immense complexity and development. Such a state being fundamental is absurd compared to starting simple and developing complexity. The immense complexity of a deity surely can't spontaneously come from 'nothing'.

The idea that everything needs an intelligent designer is highly anthropocentric. The universe/nature/computer simulations can be shown to create incredibly complex things with no intellilgent design involved.


----------



## Umpalumpa

hoddesdon said:


> Yes, so the creation of the universe defies one of the fundamental laws of the universe. If energy could be created or destroyed, then everything would be unworkable.
> 
> As for how can God have existed forever, or how can it be that nothing created God, that is looking at things from the point of view of the experience of living in the universe (universe-centric?). In another dimension things are different. You could equally ask what created the universe, and how could it just come to exist without a cause.


Hey... So you can switch the word god with energy, or ugh can switch energy with god and the two of you will become best friends, now that is a paradox.


----------



## ugh1979

Umpalumpa said:


> Hey... So you can switch the word god with energy, or ugh can switch energy with god and the two of you will become best friends, now that is a paradox.


It's common ground that can be shared with some deists, but unfortunately Hoddy doesn't beleive in a deistic god. He's very much of the personal sentient god persuasion which I outright reject.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> Some really good brains on this site of 'social outliers'. I wonder if anyone could put some thought and input. I would love to see how your magnificent brains would answer this. Provide evidence if possible please. Thanks in advance
> 
> If one was born and could not see or hear, could they ever connect with the cosmos? Or are they already connected, and don't need to understand it?


Indeed they can and do connect to to the cosmos they are part of.

Sight and hearing are just two of a long list of human senses.

They may have as much desire to understand the universe as anyone else, and their lack of certain senses doesn't stop them from learning and communicating. The most famous example is Helen Keller, who wrote 12 books and was the first deafblind person to earn a bachelor of arts degree.

Their experience of the universe while of course different than ours in certain ways is the same in many others.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> Yes I have heard of Helen Keller and another named Olga Skorokodova, but they had vision/hearing at birth. It seems they had some impressions imbedded into their subconscious mind allowing for the connections to be made (object and representation. It seems not one individual born completely bereft of sight and sound has acquired formal language. I could be wrong. If there is one, maybe I have missed him/her. Just wondering if they can understand the "I" concept.


Helen Keller was only 19 months old when she became deafblind, which is prior to when many children become self aware, so i'd say yes, deafblind people can understand the concept of "I". I'm sure if I researched this more I could further cite evidence for this.

The concept of self can be grounded in the sense of touch. You can know what is and isn't you with that sense alone which is a basis for becoming self aware.



> That is why I am curious and wondering if some sort of senational (vibrational) language can be developed.


Here are some methods deafblind people use to communicate.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> Cool. Thanks bud. Lots to think about.
> 
> And yes, if you still have interest and follow up on this or have any of your own theories/ideas on vibrational language, I'm all ears.
> 
> I have some thoughts about the way tribes and the way they bang drums and dance might be a gateway for some sort of vibrational language for an individual who has no images or sounds ever impressed into their minds.


On a related note there are deaf musicians who utilise sonic vibrations to be able to 'hear' and play.


----------



## Jerusalem96

I agree with your view that a past eternity is illogical; if the past had no beginning for space and time then by the rules of logic we should have not come to this moment of time, and so there is no other alternative but to accept that space-time came into being out of its own accord or by a cause and effect that defies all our known "laws" of the universe. The latter is easily for me to accept as the absence of time and space could only mean a very different realm; something that is truly "nothingness". 

According to Genesis, which is taken as literal or figurative truth by millions of people all over the globe, God did create the heavens meaning space or volume and God did create earth meaning matter in the "beginning" that is at the beginning of time itself. In other words God was before time was and before the creation of space and energy. This for me is perfectly logical and acceptable, that God lived as perfect existence in a timeless and spaceless being would mean no infinite regression or past eternity. As to the question of what caused God - we should be satisfied with the answer that causality cannot exist by its own self; it is necessary for space-time to exist for the laws of causality to apply. 

It is easier for me to accept God even a deistic God that to accept that the universe came into being without an intelligent agent as a cause.


----------



## ugh1979

Jerusalem96 said:


> I agree with your view that a past eternity is illogical; if the past had no beginning for space and time then by the rules of logic we should have not come to this moment of time, and so there is no other alternative but to accept that space-time came into being out of its own accord or by a cause and effect that defies all our known "laws" of the universe. The latter is easily for me to accept as the absence of time and space could only mean a very different realm; something that is truly "nothingness".
> 
> According to Genesis, which is taken as literal or figurative truth by millions of people all over the globe, God did create the heavens meaning space or volume and God did create earth meaning matter in the "beginning" that is at the beginning of time itself. In other words God was before time was and before the creation of space and energy. This for me is perfectly logical and acceptable, that God lived as perfect existence in a timeless and spaceless being would mean no infinite regression or past eternity. As to the question of what caused God - we should be satisfied with the answer that causality cannot exist by its own self; it is necessary for space-time to exist for the laws of causality to apply.
> 
> It is easier for me to accept God even a deistic God that to accept that the universe came into being without an intelligent agent as a cause.


I don't see how you can say an intelligent entity exists in the "nothingness" that pre-dates spacetime. How can intelligence exist without causality/time? A deity has no domain or time to exist in thus the concept is rendered redundant.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> Thanks again buddy. It means a lot. My interest is in interpersonal communication and all forms of communicative methods used, so this is valuable.
> 
> I, like all of you, spend countless numbers of hours trying to understand space/time (more from a specific human interaction pov though) as the mathematical models are beyond my reach, so I try to comprehend the semantics moreso.
> 
> It seems all the opposing views in the scientific community can create great confusion, but let's not also forget the ancient views of space/time according to many of the scientists from thousands of years ago.
> 
> Mainly because they had less time to watch Youtube,TV, radio etc. lol


Glad I could help. 



> I have another question for anyone brave enough to attempt to answer.
> 
> Certain mystics (with great credibility) have stated the mind and body can exist in multiple places simultaneously. Do you think it is possible? Now, what is, is. The conclusion up to date is NO, one cannot. But, what do you think?


Indeed there is no evidence that complex arrangements of matter can exist in two places at once. Sub-atomic particles can kind of exist in two places at once (actually far more than two), since they have a wave-particle duality, but that doesn't mean they are existing in multiple places at once in any classical sense.

I can't say I deem any mystic credible. Which mystics do you deem credible?


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> I'll give one example as he is somewhat "well known and credible"
> 
> Paramahansa Yogananda. Author of Autobiography of a Yogi. I think Steve Jobs loved this book. And I believe he initiated Mahatama Ghandi, so if you have Ghandi as a pal, that's pretty impressive haha
> 
> Also another would be a 70 yr old man who comes to New York sometime ago. I think his name was Srila Prabhupada or something like that.
> 
> Both organizations they started have had controversies (after wrong individuals hijacked them), but the individuals mentioned themselves are credible to some degree.
> 
> They both stated something along those lines. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I don't know myself, but it's interesting to see how people think with the mass amount of information flowing about.
> 
> Since there are no answers, anyone could be right. So, I keep open to new and crazy ideas. The crazier the better. lol


I wouldn't call them credible in any scientific way, so thus unable to demonstrate the mind/body can exist in two places at once. Any claims need to be backed up with evidence, and making claims without such evidence reduces credibility and suggests bias and suspect agendas.

While there are no definitive answers, not all proposals are equally possible or credible. The probability of certain propositions being true based on what we do know is possible varies greatly.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Yes I apologize I was referring credibility moreso on character as opposed to scientific credibility, though many scientists had their backs as well.


OK fair enough, they can be credible scholars within the scope of their philosophy, but i'd be interested to hear of scientists who backed up their claim about body/mind being able to exist in two places at once. Considering both of them died circa mid-twentieth century as well any related supporting science would now be quite out of date.



> I'm more interested in the fact that so many have said "it is possible", and so many have said "it is not possible"
> 
> One has to be right, and be sure of it.
> 
> And as a former student I can appreciate the idea of citing information and providing pieces from credible academicians with tenure, but science is a funny business too and the academic circles sort of carry gang flags and fight for turf.


The fact certain people say yes is because many people are happy to believe in ideas they like the sound of rather than if they are true or not. Many people care little for grounded rationale based answers and follow or fall for whatever fantastical ideas they hear.

The quest for the truth does necessarily involve rival theories to "fight it out" and show that they are the most credible approximations of reality. I have no issue that there are many questions we can probably never have an absolute answer on, but there are proposed answers which have much higher credibility and probability than others which i'm happy to agree with as the best candidates.



> In a way I was curious how members with SA view the strange logic of being able to teleport one's self. Almost like asking if one believes in aliens. The answer is NO, yet many people say YES i have seen it.


You don't believe aliens exist? While we of course don't yet know, most people, including people who are best qualified to make the prediction, do believe they exist. There are good enough cases for it being so, and it's probably just a matter of time before we discover life on other celestial bodies.

Being able to teleport is completely outlandish though and not supported in academia. It's akin to belief in fairies and goblins.



> The fact so many have said YES, makes me go hmmm.. Just curious moreso on individual thought as opposed to scientific evidence, as there is none lol


As I say, many people are perfectly happy to believe in the fantastical over the rational. They are often happy to just ignore contrary evidence to maintain their favoured worldview.



> Sorry if I confused you. I'm in a bit of a blurred world right now (you know how it is) with bizarre thinking.:clap
> 
> Just food for thought.


No it's fine you didn't confuse me. These types of discussions are perfectly normal and frequent here and they are valid questions to ponder.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> Upon a second glance I can see my thoughts are scattered, and very nice of you to take the time to sort the randomness of it and answer.


No problem. 



> I may have been influenced a little bit by watching Lucy (2014) for the first time, and maybe that's what triggered it.:|


The plot for _Lucy_ is nonsensical, and is based on the common myth that we only use 10% of our brains, which simply isn't true. We use all our brains, but often only use 10% at a time depending on what we are doing, which is a significantly different fact.

Don't be misled by such works of fiction.



> I'm a great ponderer of the dream states, and have explored this area by using myself as a test subject.
> 
> Desiring them, drinking coffee, and having background noises of various sources have provided strange experiences.
> 
> In a way when one is dreaming, do we leave our bodies? If consciousness is outside of the brain, then is this possible to travel to other dimensions where all possibilities (according to the multiverse theory) can exist?
> 
> Or if it's in the brain, then are they meaningless and our minds living out/ working out complex subconscious puzzles?
> 
> Dreams meaning something sort of go against logic ( I think, I don't know I'm confused right now).
> 
> I once dreamt I was in another body. Meaning whatever makes me "me" dissolved in that one and only dream. Past life? Teleportation to another dimension?


There's no scientific/rational reason to think consciousness is or can exist outside of a brain, just as there is no reason to think software can run outside of hardware.

Cognitive science favours dreams being the brains way of data sorting, which manifests itself in often surreal ways which need not be logical, as they are purely within the mind. I often have lucid dreams where I can fly out of my bedroom and around my local area, or experience vast epic stories akin to movies. In no way do I think there is a reality where i'm actually doing that though. I fully appreciate the power of the mind to hallucinate/dream wonderful but purely subjective realities. I've done plenty experimenting with psychedelics and dissociatives which can provide incredible experiences which undoubtedly can be a basis for spiritual concepts, but nothing i've learned with my analytical mind and scientific education infers that the first hand experience I had of these alternative realities were objective.

We should always be cautious of taking personal experience as an indicator of truth, as we are naturally pretty bad sorting fact from fiction based on it. Our minds evolved to seek purpose and patterns everywhere, as it was safer to see something that wasn't there than it was to not see it at all. That's why the development of the scientific method was so important as it is the best way to remove personal cognitive biases and logical fallacies which humans naturally typically make.

Don't get confused with what multiverse theories say about all other possibilities existing. Even if that is the case, and there are countless other individuals in those universes who are just like you, they aren't you, and you surely don't share any aspect of your mind with then. If they exist in that particular multiverse hypothesis (there are many different multiverse hypotheses), then they are more like clones.



> I wonder if anyone has had any bizarre dreams, and they found it to be clues to something that took place shortly after.


As I say, our minds evolved to seek purpose and patterns everywhere, so ideas that the future can be revealed in dreams are a fallacious by product of that. No such claim has ever stood up to scrutiny.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> I certainly have lots to sort out.
> Firstly, because when I stay indoors too long, I start getting all sorts of incoherent thoughts, and like you say, we can believe things we like and want to believe.
> 
> Maybe subconsciously, I want it to be true so I can "escape," religious matters aside.


Indeed the allure of the escapism and comfort that many fantastical concepts provide is strong, so it's no wonder people are keen to believe them.

I know some people struggle with the idea that the universe is indifferent to their existence.



> The lucid dreaming you speak of is fascinating. I have yet to reach such powers. Were you always a lucid dreamer? Did it occur naturally or did you seek to reach such a state? Please do share a tale regarding that. I'm ever so curious.


It started for me in my late teens, and at first was a subsequent effect of sleep paralysis, which was triggered by MDMA use. It would happen a night or two after i'd used MDMA.

In time I learned how to transform the sleep paralysis experience into a lucid dream experience. I don't get sleep paralysis anymore, but still do get some lucid dreams.

Phenibut (a very good legal drug for SA if used responsibly), is great for giving me immense epic dreams, which are sometimes of the lucid variety.


----------



## ugh1979

killahwail said:


> Interesting story with the drugs and all.
> 
> I'll have to read more on the subject matter.
> 
> I would love to have a few lucid dreams before I die.
> 
> Never heard of Phenibut. Off too google I will go (later anyway)
> 
> this brain needs rest aka sleep. Peace


Here's the big SAS thread on Phenibut which is full of useful and important info.


----------

