Why the existence of the Universe does not need to be solved (image heavy)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by cosmictotem, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    What these series of diagrams are hypothesizing is that the existence of something is dependent on the observer. In other words, Einstein's Theory of Relativity can be applied not only to Time but of Existence itself. One of the diagrams goes on to introduce and advance the very radical and seemingly contradictory hypotheses that any entity that possesses consciousness is actually not fully conscious and full consciousness is actually the absence of consciousness in the traditionally accepted sense. I welcome any thorough challenges and reinforcements that materialize on these forums.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Note: At maybe one or two points in the below images I use the description "spectrum of existence" when I meant to use "span of existence".

    Both actually refer to two different things:

    "Spectrum of Existence" refers to the entire Universe, both seen and unseen, and includes all the multiple "spans of existence" that comprise a whole universe.

    "Span of existence" refers to the segment or frequency spectrum a particular entity exists within, observe and can interact with and it is much smaller than the true and complete Spectrum of Existence.

    I freely admit the presentation is rather sloppy and haphazard but I wanted to get these thoughts out there for feedback. It all can be refined and sharpened later.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    The forum has a six images per post rule. The series includes 7 images. Here is the seventh:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    This is just conjecture with nice pictures. You need to think of a way to find some evidence to support your ideas. I saw nothing that would support your idea. You also seem to have your own definition for common terms such as frequency. It would help decrease confusion if you used the accepted definition or at least defined the terms as you understand them.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    i agree it's all raw conjecture because the idea is still fresh. i'm just presenting a way of thinking about the universe, of picturing how to explain where it came from that might do away with the infinite regress we encounter when we think about how the Universe came into being. certainly, there needs to be supporting evidence, just as there needs to be supporting evidence for string theory...

    i find your response "i saw nothing that would support your idea" ironic since my whole hypotheses is trying to flesh out why you (we) can't see the whole Universe because of our observational limitations...we are stuck in our little span of existence where we can only observe directly what falls within its boundaries and, therefore, we must speculate to a degree to formulate a picture of the real Universe. Quantum physicists are always speculating on what is going on beyond our observational access to try and form an idea why quantum particles are behaving the way they do...

    as for definitions, i could have done a better job...i was eager to present the idea so it was a rush job drawing up the images and choosing my wording...

    so yes, i know, my scientific presentations leave a lot to be desired but i hope the general direction of the idea is understood by the more organized minds here...

    i am just postulating the possibility for more educated minds...just presenting a path for further exploration...

    p.s. i was using "frequency" as an analogical term. in other words, our senses are "tuned" to this one small span on the entire "spectrum of existence". that is our "frequency"...but there are other "frequencies" we are not "tuned" to which lay outside our "frequency span".....that is why we can "hear" "signals" made over our "frequency span". ...because our senses are limited by our own characteristics...

    returning to evidence, i do agree evidence is crucial...in a way, the quantum world was (and still is, in many respects) an example (evidence) of those other "frequency spans" beyond our own...if we have the right instruments, we can extend our reach into those other "frequency span" but (and this is a mere hypotheses) because the quantum world doesn't lay quite solidly within our own "frequency span" it can only appear as "leakage" into our macro-world, a murky mist on the edge of our senses. But at one point, the quantum world was totally beyond the scope of our perceptions. still the greeks speculated it existed and were right.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Well, good luck with that! I fear the more educated and orginanized the mind the more they may object to the conjecture.
  9. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    which makes one wonder why they haven't brought anything remotely close to a logical explanation of the Universe to the table. they can postulate multiuniverses and dark matter that are both supposed to be beyond our senses so where do they think these things exist if not on the different "frequencies" i am postulating? i'm not doing any speculating in this thread professional physicists and theorists aren't already doing. i'm just extending their hypotheses' to their logical conclusion.
  10. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    I would like to get more feedback on my hypothesis presented here. Except for the one reply (which I greatly appreciate and do not dismiss its reservations) it seems people here have been rather quiet on it. Usually, when someone is blatantly wrong on something there are a number of members who will endeavor to correct, be critical and even laugh at said proposal. As people have been rather quiet on mine, I'm guessing many just didn't know what to make of it. I don't think I could ever make the mistake of ever presenting something too complex so I'm hoping maybe, at first glance, it was too simple for most to grasp its idea, which is essentially about how to observe the Universe.

    In that spirit I am bumping the thread to give it another go. Of course, I'm fully open to any criticism and fun anyone wants to have with it.

    Note: Regarding figure 4, although it has no effect on the overall hypothesis other than seeming amateurish, I am aware I could have included a "Z" axis in the depicted block. I just forgot. Feel free to mentally insert the dimensions of your choice.

    P.S. If the word "frequency" is used in a manner unacceptable to you, please feel free to substitute a designation more appropriately scientific. I apologize for not correcting that as of yet.
  11. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Just including some text from the graphics to make it easier to respond:

    On Consciousness

    Keep in mind, this hypothesis is advancing that the
    Universe can both exist and not exist
    at the same time so it's supposed to be
    contradictory. Everything is relative. Not only, Time, as Einstein proposed,
    but existence, space, matter, consciousness,

    Looking at our sensory perception scale,
    we can see that to be fully conscious
    in a Universe that is Nothing is to lose
    conscious. We can see our Universe
    because we are NOT fully conscious.
    We are not seeing the full spectrum
    of existence, which is nothing. We
    are only seeing and interacting with
    parts of nothingness and that makes
    us believe different things exist. But
    separate things do not exist.
    Everything is fused into nothingness.
    So the ability to contemplate a universe and separate entities
    as existing represents
    a loss or subtraction of sensory perception
    and therefore consciousness.

    Different entities perceive and interact
    with the Universe differently much in the
    same way different colors are perceptible
    to different species. Were we able to detect
    all the colors of the Universe, we would see
    there is no universe. Or a painting done in part visible colors
    and part undetectable ultraviolet colors. Since we only see
    the colors detectable to the human eye, we get a picture of say, a turtle.
    But if we could detect all the colors, maybe we would see no picture. maybe it would be
    perceived as blank?

    This relativity of existence extends also
    to motion. A rock can tumble down a hill
    because it can only interact with so much
    of the true Universe. If it could interact
    with all of the true Universe, it would be
    unable to move because the true Universe
    is Nothing. In this regard a rock is more
    "conscious" of the true nature of the universe
    than us because, if not physically, a rock "knows"
    there's nothing to "perceive" in the Universe
    with which to mentally interact..A rock, at least,
    "knows" that much, (which is more than us) even
    if it doesn't "know" enough to stay still too..
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  12. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    On Existence

    Matter/Space density threshold:
    The threshold where the known universe
    appears to us as either all matter or all
    empty space that both are states of
    nothlngness or non-existence from
    our conscious perspective.

    Existence Span
    The existence frequency or wave length an
    existent or set of existents exist within and
    beyond which the existence of other
    existents becomes sketchy
    and imperceptible.

    Because matter can exist at different frequencies on the
    the existence spectrum, it follows that what qualifies
    as a "universe" for one existent, may qualify as anti-
    existence to another existent. Thus, what qualifies as
    a "universe" or "non-existence‘ is relative to what you are.
  13. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    The Big Bang
    (or why the Big Bang both happened and didn't happen at the same time)

    The grey triangle in the figure above represents the Big Bang
    as detected by humans senses, including our technology.
    The yellow area represents the rest of the undetectible Universe,
    the part of the Universe we cannot see or interact with. From our
    perspective, and because our senses can only detect a small fraction
    of the existing Universe, it appears to us that the Big Bang happened.
    And for all intents and purposes it did, for us. But on the scale of the
    Universe as a whole, the scale of full consciousness of the complete
    Universe represented by the entire figure above, both grey and yellow
    areas, nothing happened at all because nothing exists.
    This corresponds to certain well known experiments
    at the quantum level where an outcome is dependent
    on whether we are observing it or not. Whether the
    Big Bang happened or not is dependent on the
    capabilities of the perceptions and characteristics
    of the observer.
  14. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    On Nothingness

    Competing Forms of Nothingness
    Completely Empty Space Completely Occupied Space
    The two blocks above represent two concepts of ("Pre”)Universe and Nothingness.
    They attempt to show how Nothingness can be perceived by either empty space completely
    void of “solid” objects or "Matter" or by a state of total occupation completely void of space.
    The first is self explanatory. The second can be visualized by imagining a solid "block of matter‘
    with no separation between atoms or particles; in fact, no atoms, no elementary particles, a state
    of total non separation. If there is no separation, just like with empty space, nothing can exist.
    Since both satisfy our traditional definitions of Nothingness, the distinction of both states breaks
    down, and we can postulate that either or both states can individually or simultaneously represent
    our concept of a "pre-Universe."

    The multi-colored block above represents a mixed universe of both empty space and mass.
    Since, as demonstrated in the first two figures, both states alone are states of Nothingness,
    this third model shows a universe comprised of two competing forms of nothingness. All
    the differentiation we can see can be reduced down to a 1 and a O. Since both space and
    mass are just two competing forms of nothingness that existed prior to our own existence
    and awareness of them, we can postulate that the Universe has both always existed and doesn‘t
    actually "exist" (in the traditionally regarded sense) at all. It's all nothing.

    And so we can surmise that the reason the Universe doesn't have to be created is because it doesn't
    exist and never did.

    What we can postulate is that something seems to be "existing" within the nothingness
    of the universe that is and once was itself nothing but is able to blur the lines between being a non-existent whole
    and separate ephemeral existent identities through the manufacturing of entities that first can interact and then observe. Almost as if the nothingness of space itself was "existing" and undulating like an electric air bubble inside the equal nothingness of a block of a totally filled void, like an electron through a wire or a field through a magnet, in which random fluctuations occasionally give rise to entities that only appear to themselves to exist but in the grand scheme of things, do not .
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    What do you mean by that?

    Multiuniverse implies universes outside of our own - so by definiton we cannot percieve them (I'm not a fan of that particular hypothesis). Dark matter is simply matter that does not interact with light or normal matter, so we cannot see it. It is not that much different than neutrinos of which millions are 'whizzing' through your body with effectively no affect on you. It has nothing to do with 'frequencies' or some strange thing...

    It seems to me that you are misunderstanding professional physicist and extending this misunderstanding to an illogical conclusion.
  16. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    The last 4 post seem like pop new agey double speak. To be one with the universe you must fully percieve all of the multilayers of existence to understand the true existence is the void. You have learned well grasshopper! Now go choke your chicken and yourself to become one with the universe.
  17. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Choke my chicken? You're flaming me? LOL. Where is this incivility coming from? This is a discussion board not a wrestling ring.
  18. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    It was an irreverent allusion to David Carradine the star of the old TV show Kung Fu.
  19. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Apology accepted. Wish I watched more of that show.

Share This Page