[INTJ] How the Universe Exists. - Page 5

How the Universe Exists.

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 41 to 49 of 49
Thank Tree46Thanks

This is a discussion on How the Universe Exists. within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by desire machine I do believe we should act as if the universe we perceive exists.. because we ...

  1. #41

    Quote Originally Posted by desire machine View Post
    I do believe we should act as if the universe we perceive exists.. because we don't have much an option. However, we should still have skepticism about it and realize that none of our perceptions and beliefs based on perceptions constitute as knowledge and that they may always be false.
    The universe you perceive is the only universe to exist. You have no choice, right. Does having no choice mean it is truly reality? No. Now, if you believe you are living in a virtual reality, then you're choosing to believe something to be true, that this virtual reality that we guess exists inside this virtual reality. What an odd situation that would be, right? Overall, I hope I'm not confusing you too much with my wording but I'm agreeing with you on most of what we are talking about. I understand why you might be confused. I probably should have been clearer. I'm saying what we're talking about here, not truth itself, but what we are discussing... is not 100% accurate. It wasn't a shot against truth. Of course I value skepticism, but I also do value the idea of our universe being the only reality to rely on as we have not been able to clearly observe otherwise but only theorize.
    Quote Originally Posted by desire machine View Post
    The reality we perceive is not necessarily one that truly exists. If for instance it was a computer simulation then, perhaps the physical laws we perceive aren't in anyway accurate. Perhaps in the reality that truly exists Fdoesn't=ma, perhaps gravity and electricity doesn't exist or work in the way we perceive. If the reality we perceive is a simulation perhaps at any point someone outside the simulation can press a button and change the laws of physics or change any other aspect of this universe. ... In more practical terms, all scientific studies are flawed with experimenters biases both in the experimental process as well as what is reported and misinterpretations of results. We're all prone to illusions and delusions and biases. We shouldn't go around expecting gravity to be turned off at any moment... but we should have some skepticism of any and all experimental results and scientific theories. Any belief and any perception can always be wrong. And you never know when you are wrong. If you knew a belief was false you wouldn't believe it, so anytime you have an incorrect false belief you unaware of it. All of your own beliefs should always be treated with some skepticism.
    Sure, then if this is all true, then it may very well be false. Stay skeptic!

  2. #42
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by str00dles View Post
    The universe you perceive is the only universe to exist. You have no choice, right. Does having no choice mean it is truly reality? No. Now, if you believe you are living in a virtual reality, then you're choosing to believe something to be true, that this virtual reality that we guess exists inside this virtual reality. What an odd situation that would be, right? Overall, I hope I'm not confusing you too much with my wording but I'm agreeing with you on most of what we are talking about.
    You are confusing me with the words you are using.

    Quote Originally Posted by str00dles View Post
    The universe you perceive is the only universe to exist. You have no choice, right.
    No, you have no way of knowing if the universe you perceive exists. ... that's what our conversation was all about and the point I was making before.

    What I was saying about having not much an option but to act as if the universe you perceive exists is that you can't really react to and interact with a reality that you don't perceive. Not that the universe you perceive can be known to exist or necessarily does.

    .. from your last post it sounds like maybe you agree somewhat but your wording and things you're saying definitely are confusing me.

    Specifically this has me completely lost:
    Quote Originally Posted by str00dles View Post
    I'm saying what we're talking about here, not truth itself, but what we are discussing... is not 100% accurate.
    We were talking about whether science can be a source of knowledge. In order for something to qualify as knowledge it would have to be true (100% accurate). So our discussion was certainly talking about truth (since knowledge is a subset of truth). If you're not talking about truth, you lost me... I don't understand what you're talking about.

  3. #43

    Quote Originally Posted by desire machine View Post
    We were talking about whether science can be a source of knowledge. In order for something to qualify as knowledge it would have to be true (100% accurate). So our discussion was certainly talking about truth (since knowledge is a subset of truth). If you're not talking about truth, you lost me... I don't understand what you're talking about.
    I'm saying, yes, it's good to have a critical mind and question everything, but it's also important to acknowledge what we already understand in our world. If I test something over and over thousands of times using the scientific method and come to the same exact conclusion every single time... and then others do the same experiment confirming the same results... is it truth? See? The meaning of truth is highly subjective, and as you can see you and I are already confusing each other trying to talk about it. Science, as of now, cannot reveal us 100% utter "accuracy" or "truth", which is what I'm trying get at in the previous posts and what we both seem to agree on. To say science isn't a source of knowledge, however, is not something I agree with. Knowledge and truth (which are both ambiguous terms) are both two different things. You can have knowledge of our natural world. Maybe not "truth", but knowledge.

  4. #44
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by str00dles View Post
    I'm saying, yes, it's good to have a critical mind and question everything, but it's also important to acknowledge what we already understand in our world. If I test something over and over thousands of times using the scientific method and come to the same exact conclusion every single time... and then others do the same experiment confirming the same results... is it truth?
    No it's not. Truth literally means something which is true. For something to be true means it's accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by str00dles View Post
    See? The meaning of truth is highly subjective,
    ?? no it's not. Is English not your first language? I'm trying not to be insulting but you don't seem to understand what words like truth and knowledge mean.

  5. #45
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by danielshole View Post
    Something I've spent a decade putting together and taking apart.

    I'm a scientist. The Big Bang Theory, to me, is the idea that makes the most sense to me when I am feeling existential. Billions of years ago, the Universe burgeoned and created us from nothing; and from that explosion of nothing, we now have everything.

    You and I, and trees--stars and planets--all came from this event; but even the air we breathe, the atoms that compose us, and the fabric of space came from this Big Bang. Now, if you can believe this, then the idea that we are separate from one another becomes more seemingly improbable.

    And I don't just mean from one human to another--I mean, even space,empty space--is as much connected to my skin as it is connected to yours or a distant star. So, as ludicrous as it may sound, distance is an illusory perception we've developed. I think that's why, in part, we feel alone when I think we shouldn't. Kind of romantic for an INTJ, huh?

    That's my idea of birth. For me, that just wasn't enough. If there's birth, then there's death. Now. I don't believe in the ecclesiastical God; Hinduism and Islam are, too, inadequate in explaining how things are. We pray, and tell God what to do--as if he didn't know. We speak to God, when we should be silent. To pray is to not know, I think.

    In the Bible, God himself says, "You search the scriptures daily, for in them you think you have life." You can read the Bible front to back, but that never brings you closer to God. Because words are inept; even the best combinations of words can prove inadequate when matched with pure experience.

    To me, Isaac Newton's Conservation of Energy made the most sense when I was thinking about death and the end of the physical mortal existence.

    When we die, the Earth decays, and the stars all disappear--this energy,heat--will just flow towards wherever it needs to. And I mean, all of our energies will end up in the same place one day. Like how we all originated from the Big Bang. So, my idea that distance is illusory and that we are all connected made sense to me. 19th century hippies popularised the ideas that would boast "we are all connected" from modern 19th century idealists, but they never really told you why. They never made it tangible.

    So there it is, from what I understand of it: Life and Death.

    I was still pretty unsatisfied, I wanted to understand God himself. A few years ago I was a resident at a Buddhist temple in Kyoto. I stayed there for six months to contemplate. The tantric guru, Gauatama Siddhartha once said, "We suffer because we desire, and so, to end our suffering we must, too, end our desires."

    It made me realise that much of what we understand about the Universe works as a paradox. With black there is white, with good there is evil. With soft, there is hard; If the Big Bang and the Universe represents everything then the thing that created everything is nothing.

    It's difficult to accept this for a lot of people, because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Like, only reading the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense. You have to experience it. And so, I tried my best to. As I said, words are inept, but I hope these ideas will be able to help some people. If there's something I'm missing, please reply. I would be happy to change my perspective.
    You are... delving deep into metaphysics.

    You ask how universe exists. Within that "how" there is the question of what underlying mechanism of its existence entails. To understand a mechanism is to understand a consistent framework, and to understand consistency you need to understand its greater shadow, which is the chaos. To further understand the nature of order and chaos, you need to understand the underlying consistent structure that allows such things as "order" and "chaos" to exist. When you deconstruct far enough—at least in that specific perspective—you will see that existence is a mere thread dancing in a sea of infinite and chaotic information, an infinitesimal subset of chaos that is magically consistent and stable enough for beings to emerge and laws to take place.

    However, that is not the core. If you are to take the pure logical approach—albeit with no guarantee that logical approach here is suitable—if nothing exists, nothing can exist to reflect back upon its existence. If only something exists, it is then caged and convoluted by the question "what makes it exist and why only this particular existence?," then, the purest and the cleanest choice (logically-speaking) is to accept the notion:

    In order for anything to exist, everything must exist.
    (and since we exist to reflect back upon reality, thus must everything else exist)

    And the notion of everything is quite literal: granulated in terms logic, it is the infinity that contains all possibilities within. Because it is infinite, one can conjecture that all instances of reality, non-reality, and any meaningful and distinct manifestation/structure will be contained in it, and infinitely many for each. And within that sea of chaotic possibility, can exist instances and frail moments of consistent subsystems, which then give rise to dimensional systems and physical laws within. (Only when this infinite pool is guaranteed, one may proceed to approach to contextualize existence).

    The source of this infinite possibilities (say, "the original pool") is pure and dimensionless; that is to say there is no spacetime associated with this infinite set of information. In terms of pure information, there is no reason any subset must interact with another; that is to say, there is no real reason/restriction for existent subsets to "cohere." But with the brute magnitude of the number of subsets, however unlikely, subsets do cohere and infinitely so. Then, each group of subsets that cohere constitute a structure that can flow, manifest or be given meaningful distinctions to, thus constituting a single pseudo-dimension (more like a structure of information).

    (Now the notion of "nextness" is possible, but only within that group context; also, there is no complexity limit for these "atomic dimension" groups, thus labeling these groups as 1-dimensional is meaningless; higher statistical probability of lower and simpler structure, given the "rarity" of coherence, but some can even be ∞-dimensional and/or of infinite cardinality, thus being able to contain the original pool back into itself; one may think of aleph null+ construction in mathematics, but the notion of power set is meaningless since construction/deconstruction methods fail when set elements are able to contain its parent set back into it—a mathematical paradox; these are not infinities that are artificially constructed; not something arbitrarily constructed, starting from set of natural numbers then be able to deconstructed to lower parts at will; numbers, set element pairing, construction/deconstruction method are human concepts, and in this context, those human concepts do not precede the existence itself).

    These groups also have no reason to cohere, but however unlikely, they do cohere and infinitely so. When these groups cohere there is no reason they should cohere in neat alignment to one another (as humans would naturally think, from 1D to 2D; there is no restriction for atomic dimensions to make them line up nicely to form the next "clean" dimension (which is 2D). Thus one can conclude that 1D->2D->3D->...nD construction is naive and ill-conceived in this context). The resulting structure rather becomes something that can have an infinite number of dimensions (∞-dimensional-structure), which is no different in terms of the capacity of the atomic dimension groups one started with (mathematically expressed: PowerSet(A)=A; n(PowerSet(A))=n(A); n(A)>1; this is the largest infinity there is and the only "natural infinity"—empty among non-existence, homogeneous and meaningless alone, and two mere degrees of freedom exploded into infinity).

    .

    .

    (Unfortunately I'm out of time, I may continue with the derivation of spacetime and forces when I get a chance.)
    Last edited by Nox; 03-15-2017 at 01:02 AM.
    danielshole thanked this post.

  6. #46

    Quote Originally Posted by desire machine View Post
    No it's not. Truth literally means something which is true. For something to be true means it's accurate.



    ?? no it's not. Is English not your first language? I'm trying not to be insulting but you don't seem to understand what words like truth and knowledge mean.
    I know what truth and knowledge mean to me, but I'm telling you that it is different for everyone and what we define as truth is different among everyone. I speak English fluently. I grew up speaking it. Frankly, it's annoying that you can't grasp this idea of words being ambiguous.

  7. #47
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by str00dles View Post
    I know what truth and knowledge mean to me, but I'm telling you that it is different for everyone and what we define as truth is different among everyone. I speak English fluently. I grew up speaking it. Frankly, it's annoying that you can't grasp this idea of words being ambiguous.
    well I think it's obvious that there is ambiguity and multiple meanings to words... but there is also some basic general definitions to words that people share that allow for communication to take place. If you don't agree that truths have to be true, then I don't know how we can any confident that any word we share with each other are commonly understood enough to have a conversation. Words like obvious, communication, ambiguity, definition, etc. I would consider to be more complex than the word truth/true and the fact that truth is just a different form of the word true. So I'm done with this convo.
    stathamspeacoat thanked this post.

  8. #48

    You guys, in general, are speaking nonsense.

    In particular, for the mathematically gifted among you (there should be someone), I wish to point to this sentence: "Everything is connected to everything else."

    If you ever say this aloud, you should pause, so that everyone can absorb the sheer shock of this Deep Wisdom.

    There is a trivial mapping between a graph and its complement. A fully connected graph, with an edge between every two vertices, conveys the same amount of information as a graph with no edges at all.

  9. #49

    Quote Originally Posted by Nox View Post
    You are... delving deep into metaphysics.

    You ask how universe exists. Within that "how" there is the question of what underlying mechanism of its existence entails. To understand a mechanism is to understand a consistent framework, and to understand consistency you need to understand its greater shadow, which is the chaos. To further understand the nature of order and chaos, you need to understand the underlying consistent structure that allows such things as "order" and "chaos" to exist. When you deconstruct far enough—at least in that specific perspective—you will see that existence is a mere thread dancing in a sea of infinite and chaotic information, an infinitesimal subset of chaos that is magically consistent and stable enough for beings to emerge and laws to take place.

    However, that is not the core. If you are to take the pure logical approach—albeit with no guarantee that logical approach here is suitable—if nothing exists, nothing can exist to reflect back upon its existence. If only something exists, it is then caged and convoluted by the question "what makes it exist and why only this particular existence?," then, the purest and the cleanest choice (logically-speaking) is to accept the notion:

    In order for anything to exist, everything must exist.
    (and since we exist to reflect back upon reality, thus must everything else exist)

    And the notion of everything is quite literal: granulated in terms logic, it is the infinity that contains all possibilities within. Because it is infinite, one can conjecture that all instances of reality, non-reality, and any meaningful and distinct manifestation/structure will be contained in it, and infinitely many for each. And within that sea of chaotic possibility, can exist instances and frail moments of consistent subsystems, which then give rise to dimensional systems and physical laws within. (Only when this infinite pool is guaranteed, one may proceed to approach to contextualize existence).

    The source of this infinite possibilities (say, "the original pool") is pure and dimensionless; that is to say there is no spacetime associated with this infinite set of information. In terms of pure information, there is no reason any subset must interact with another; that is to say, there is no real reason/restriction for existent subsets to "cohere." But with the brute magnitude of the number of subsets, however unlikely, subsets do cohere and infinitely so. Then, each group of subsets that cohere constitute a structure that can flow, manifest or be given meaningful distinctions to, thus constituting a single pseudo-dimension (more like a structure of information).

    (Now the notion of "nextness" is possible, but only within that group context; also, there is no complexity limit for these "atomic dimension" groups, thus labeling these groups as 1-dimensional is meaningless; higher statistical probability of lower and simpler structure, given the "rarity" of coherence, but some can even be ∞-dimensional and/or of infinite cardinality, thus being able to contain the original pool back into itself; one may think of aleph null+ construction in mathematics, but the notion of power set is meaningless since construction/deconstruction methods fail when set elements are able to contain its parent set back into it—a mathematical paradox; these are not infinities that are artificially constructed; not something arbitrarily constructed, starting from set of natural numbers then be able to deconstructed to lower parts at will; numbers, set element pairing, construction/deconstruction method are human concepts, and in this context, those human concepts do not precede the existence itself).

    These groups also have no reason to cohere, but however unlikely, they do cohere and infinitely so. When these groups cohere there is no reason they should cohere in neat alignment to one another (as humans would naturally think, from 1D to 2D; there is no restriction for atomic dimensions to make them line up nicely to form the next "clean" dimension (which is 2D). Thus one can conclude that 1D->2D->3D->...nD construction is naive and ill-conceived in this context). The resulting structure rather becomes something that can have an infinite number of dimensions (∞-dimensional-structure), which is no different in terms of the capacity of the atomic dimension groups one started with (mathematically expressed: PowerSet(A)=A; n(PowerSet(A))=n(A); n(A)>1; this is the largest infinity there is and the only "natural infinity"—empty among non-existence, homogeneous and meaningless alone, and two mere degrees of freedom exploded into infinity).

    .

    .

    (Unfortunately I'm out of time, I may continue with the derivation of spacetime and forces when I get a chance.)
    Hm. I understand what you're saying. It's a good thought reflecting on the parity between conscious logic but also of language. I was a little lost when you started to talk about infinites--only because I don't believe infinites to exist in of themselves. When we talk about infinites we're also talking about something that doesn't exist. Throws you for a kind of loop.


     
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5

Similar Threads

  1. Does our universe take refuge inside a black hole of another universe?
    By Kevinaswell in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-16-2017, 11:22 AM
  2. Why do you think we, or anything, exists?
    By How Do You KNOW in forum Critical Thinking & Philosophy
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-18-2011, 03:16 PM
  3. This still exists?!
    By ilphithra in forum General Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-12-2010, 10:07 AM
  4. A new giant clue that helps explain why the universe exists.
    By Kevinaswell in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 11:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0