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

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. :)

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.

bG2aU.jpg


QwPfT.jpg


qgTxr.jpg


nkudJ.jpg


DsmVP.jpg
 
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.
 
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.

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:
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...

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

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.
 
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.
 
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,
everything.


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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
which makes one wonder why they haven't brought anything remotely close to a logical explanation of the Universe to the table.

What do you mean by that?

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?

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...

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.
It seems to me that you are misunderstanding professional physicist and extending this misunderstanding to an illogical conclusion.
 
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.
 
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.

Choke my chicken? You're flaming me? LOL. Where is this incivility coming from? This is a discussion board not a wrestling ring.
 
Choke my chicken? You're flaming me? LOL. Where is this incivility coming from? This is a discussion board not a wrestling ring.

It was an irreverent allusion to David Carradine the star of the old TV show Kung Fu.
 
Back
Top