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 ...
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:
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.
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.