For Gustav - Metaphysics of Consciousness and Universe

Sorry Gus... But i need to involve quantum mechanics when talking about the delicate nature of the universe. It turns out that consciousness and the world we see is the only reality at large.

As much as i find this a philosophical/metaphysical interpretation, (possibly even an anthropic based assumption ), i find also that these things should not be tackled without a scientific/physical veiw... Without science, it holds no real truth.

Why did the universe begin?
Why did the universe chose the conditions we see today?
Why did the universe create life?

These three questions cover exactly one empiracle veiwpoint concerning the origins of matter. At this moment, i will not talk of a God... Let these workings be due to the mysterious ether (for now).

Why did the universe begin?

1. Because the universe had nothing better to do?
Or
2. So that life could exist?

I lean towards no.2. I don't like the standard model of big bang. It says that the universe had nothing better to do than instantaneously ''pop'' into existence without any prior cause, and of course, the complications do not end there...

How did the universe chose the conditions we see today?

1. Because of chance?
Or
2. Because to create a final condition for an ultimate goal?

This question is an integrated complication of why and how the universe first came to be. According to Quantum Physics, the universe had an infinite amount of start-up conditions due to the quantum wave function of all possibilities... But somehow, out of the infinite number of possible start-up conditions, it chose this very reality we see today.
For this question, i am in the tent of no.2. There was a final goal needing to be transpired. This goal was why the universe first began, and why it chose the conditions we see today. One slight quantum change, and life as we know it would vanish, along with everything that constitutes this universe. Thus, it leads us to the final hypothesis:

Why did the universe create life?

1. Because of very fine tuning on earth, and lots of time?
Or
2. That the universe intentionally created these conditions so that the universe could become real?

And again, i am for no.2. Quantum Mechanics, as we discover in the above thread, requires the observer. Without the observer, then who would be here to say the universe exists? Who would be here to collapse the wave function and reduce superpositioning down to a single value? Ultimately, who would be here to define the universe as a universe?
We are the universe. This is our goal. We are to observe ourself, and allow the universe to observe herself. Self-Reflection is the key to existence...
Self-Reflection...

And because of this, if God is to exist, He/She must also self-reflect... He/She must be able to measure His/Hers own energy, so the He/She can have an energy... But this begs the question of the universe... How can the universe have an energy? God must be outside the universe to measure its energy... But we are informed by relativity that there is no outside to the universe...

I'll continue more on the discussion, when i have more time. i need to go out soon...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nice!
i shall ponder and question
as for "time," my standard rejoinder....sci aint no fast food forum.
post at your convenience

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and for starters...

semantics should be your primary concern in here. for instance, "no real" could imply unreal or a degree of. perhaps...no real utility?

if not, what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From any perception of a true defined reality, one MUST resort to science. This is a daily job for some of us, but isn't so much important for those who hold true just to spirituality.

 

There is more.

Those who understand God, are those who understand how to resort to live life accordingly without the aid of science. It is unforunate sobs like me who need science also in their lives....


... It just gives me great pleasure to know, that even my Father In Heaven is a scientist too.

 

sure
unlike most i can indulge as this belief is of no real import to the op. it can be replaced without impacting the propositions being offered

ja?
nein?

 

Ya... yayayayaya....

 

i say
i cannot believe you would deign to consort with the likes of me
i feel special and whatnot

 

This made me think again if we could substitute pulls from the future rather than causes pushing from the past?

Can we translate Newton - two whole systems have lopped down since, but still... - into a coherent system where future states are pulling on the past - in the exact same formulas - rather than in terms of causes propelling toward.

 

i must establish my quantum credentials
excuse me

 

Gus

I'm certainy not a relic my friend... Your views on reality are just as important as mine. I'm open in the mind that way.

Grant

''This made me think again if we could substitute pulls from the future rather than causes pushing from the past?''

Can i just ask why you said this? It's just that recently i've been showing evidence that the future shapes up what we call the past, and the past affects the future in a statistical sense... Because of this, I must assume that the future universe containing the life it did, actually caused big bang itself...

''Can we translate Newton - two whole systems have lopped down since, but still... - into a coherent system where future states are pulling on the past - in the exact same formulas - rather than in terms of causes propelling toward.''

Yes... This would be a fair analogy indeed.

 

Its an idea I have considered from time to time. I can't be sure I didn't hear it a long time ago from someone else. I don't know. It is a natural tendency to view things in terms of narrative and live our lives in terms of causing this or that future. But maybe, I sometimes wondered if cause was different. (I have to say some of the implications are not so pleasant, like those around free will). In a sense there would be gradients - wink, wink, Gustav - and things would glide toward a future in the groove made by all the times in between.

Another thought I have had is that there is a multiverse and that free will is moving one's consciousness from world to world. (not that this isn't also somehow unpleasant also, but it might slip a hole in between free will and determinism).

I have had my hand well slapped for speculating along certain lines given my limited knowledge of physics. But I humble place these thoughts out as having been inspired by things I have read about in physics and make no claims to how well I read the physics I read.

 

Ii have learned, that what we call ''cause and effect,'' actually breaks down at the subatomic level. Things can easily reverse for a particle, and have the effect before the cause. If this is true, and quantum mechanics ran the show at t=0 (big bang)< then we must assume possible phenomena of backwards through time causality, creating what we call ''the beginning.'' Indeed, if this is correct, then what we call ''beginning,'' isn't really any true beginning at all, but merely a point for us to designate through our own ignorance.

 

In the present, we have:

1. Results from past actions.
2. Present narrative of past actions.
3. Memory of the narrative of actions at the time in the past.
4. Present narrative of present actions.
5. Present narative of future actions.
6. Results from present actions.

All narratives and memories of narratives function as additional causes for our present and future actions, including the new narratives.

This is how notions of time and causality can easily get mixed up.

 

Sure - just get your narratives straight.
Although that is not easy at all.

 

So what is the Beginning?
This is an interesting question.
So far, we conclude two sides to all of this stuff we call ‘’reality…’’ It is either a product of chance or something provident arises from the deep. Is there an order to existence, so that there can be nothing by chance? Is there a backward logicality to what we call ‘’the beginning?’’
In physics, for years now, physicists have been aware of the phenomena of backward through time traveling waves, telling systems how to form and materialize. This view is directly associated to Dr. Cramers Transactional Interpretation, and it states that the universe as we know it, is really just made up of information moving throughout the galaxy, throughout time itself at superluminal speeds. If this is true, then when big bang happened, there was a sufficient amount of information present from the future that helped form the manifestation of big bang. In this sense, everything was somehow predetermined.
The beginning is no longer the beginning… In fact, the beginning is just a focal and temporal point for our ignorance and lesser understanding of how things have an order at the level of human understanding. In other words, we know a directionality to the universe, but this might just be there to keep us sane from the bombardment of too much information. The information we disregard, is something like a fixed constant, and we never concern the psyche with anything other than processes that move forward. The really weird thing is though, is that theory is predicting that consciousness itself is a product of retrocausal events – tiny quantum objects that give rise to a particular order in macroscopic evolution.
So when big bang happened, we where already existing at a future time, and our observations of today are shaping up how big bang manifested… indeed, gives big bang itself a reason to why it even began at all.

 

I guess I approach the disentangling from bad narratives intuitively. I encounter them so to speak when exploring - in meditation, in expressive self-exploration, in interactions with others, as or at blocks, areas of pain, limits, tensions, and then follow the thread of the narrative, see if the story can go.

I say this in response to 'just get your narratives straight' which sounded like getting them organized and I just don't do that. Laziness or perhaps trusting intuition to get to the priority problem areas.

Not that I assume you meant something organized.

 

I liked reading this. It a nice overview of possible pathological regions. You help me with overviews sometimes and that is good.

 

Are you (also) saying that the past is a validly looked at in terms of possilibity as the future often is? In other words are you (also) saying the past is not only indeterminate for us, but is actually indeterminate?

 

Yes it was good... I should have gave credit were it was due...

It shows, as you eliquently put it, a complete pathological set of narratives which shows how things are.