Sceince cannot explain how Existence "Exists"...or can it?

lengthy, but please read in full

Mojo4sale i think that you have similar ideas to myself...

posted on 20-4-2006 at 01:09 PM Post Number: 2132892 (post id: 2157928) by mojo4sale
I believe that we are only a part of a much larger being/biosystem, who's birth was the big bang. The multiple universe theory would mean that our universe is only a part also of a larger universal community of architects/engineers/gods.

and this too

posted on 15-4-2006 at 02:13 PM Post Number: 2122233 (post id: 2147269) by mojo4sale
..The universe is actually a living intelligent organism and we are just bacteria within its body, micro organisms if you like.

Could the stars and planets be the blood cells, solar systems and galaxy's be this beings organs, if so what are we, what role do we play. Are we a program thats being run within this entity's brain, are we a virus - maybe the equivalent of the common cold for this massive entity...

Well done Mojo. I take the same pathes when thinking about this WHOLE topic. I've posted something similar, but since i saved it on my pc here it is again-

posted on 18-3-2006 at 09:28 PM Post Number: 2055233 (post id: 2080269) by active7288
what actually 'contains' OUR universe. i know i couldn't begin to seriously comprehend what could possibly contain/create/explain it... but thats how i bet an ant would view the sky....(Antz anyone?)
(let it sink in)
or how/what a cell in a body would imagine outside the body (assuming it could imagine... Osmosis Jones)

so yes, for all we know we're an experiment/test/simulation... it's just that we don't know... other than our observations based on reflected photons and different types of, for lack of a better word... sonar(spell check?), and mathematical equations that we belive to be natural law (not that they aren't our laws), only because they've held up to the tests and observations that we are able to carry out/come up with.
(sink in)

last one i swear..

posted on 7-4-2006 at 06:41 AM Post Number: 2104140 (post id: 2129176) by active7288
soo.. just a quick thought..
just supposin there is some kind of pc type of design in the universe,.. would that make us the ai? or perhaps that's what happened, God made the 'system', and we came from within the system, and now WE have conscious thoughts and are able to questions our own existence.Have you ever wondered what really (aside from the obvious) makes us different from every other living thing we have encountered/haven't yet?

phew!... ok.my thoughts: we could very well be a cell or part of a cell in a body. Us human beings could be contributing by turning oxygen into carbondioxide.. who knows our true place. Us looking out millions of lightyears (which is looking into the past) could be at some point looking inside another 'body' if you will.

i was goin to post this idea soon cuz its still in progress, but if the huge nebulae(spell check),or other enormous objects we detect, im talkin light years huge, are actually the basic elements that stars are formed from (which supposedly is the same as we're made of), then maybe, given the billions of years since their baby pictures were taken, have attained some kind of consciousness that for all we know could be shared by antz or cells.
Granted that this is all my own theorizing/hypothesizing.

i have request or challenge if you will; would the distances for a cell, or say the ribosomes in a cell, to leave their home cell, and travel from head to toe be comparable to the distances for us to travel in space? hmmm...
if that's the case, do you think if the cells built something to see whats outside of their body or 'universe', that they would be able to fathom what they saw? would they see an uncomprehensible vastness with other cells that are, unbeknowingst to them.... US!

Thanks active7288, likewise it is all still a work in progress for me at the moment but the basic theory of it, answers many questions that i have about the true nature of life and the universe and our place in it. Any thoughts or comments that you may have in regard to this theory i would appreciate if you could post them for me on

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its such a huge concept and there are bound to be many things that i have overlooked. I hope to at some stage after reviewing all comments and criticisms post my hypothesis in full. Thanks in advance for anything you may have to offer.

Cheers
M4S

Anybody here a fan of Augustine of Hippo? I heard someone on this thread was asking themselves the exact same question Augustine was to himself (if there is a God, then what was he doing before in the eternity before creation, and if there is no God, what differed in the aeons of nothingness which came before the origin of the universe-what made it so different). The answer he gave was quite interesting, I suggest you read it in chapter XI of the confessions (note- I am not Catholic):

www.leaderu.com...


and a bio so you can get a flavour of his style of argumentation:

www.iep.utm.edu...
www.newadvent.org...

To keep it short, Augustine argued that time was a "property" and non-linear. His view has been corroborated by Quantum Physics.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by Nakash]

I believe that we are only a part of a much larger being/biosystem, who's birth was the big bang. The multiple universe theory would mean that our universe is only a part also of a larger universal community of architects/engineers/gods.

Its not at all outlandish to suggest that the universe itself could have evolved into a living organism.

When classifying what life is, its really hard to define it. You see, a few amino acids combined, can create a basic life form... but it doesnt eat, breathe, or even reproduce most of the time... so is it life? Or just a complex chemical?

The same could be said for solar systems forming complex organisations in our universe... what defines whats alive and what isnt?

I still argue against the concept of a god, in the sense that it created everything. But being part of a larger organism, is not all that far fetched.

Our own immune system and cells do their job for their own gain. They are provided energy, and they go about doing what they feel is natural. White cells feed on bacteria, skin cells feed off our nutrients... and so forth.
If they were self aware, I doubt they'd catch on that they are part of a larger organism... they would probably see themselves as part of a community.

So what are we as humans? A life form? Or a community of smaller life forms?

Originally posted by johnsky
Our own immune system and cells do their job for their own gain. They are provided energy, and they go about doing what they feel is natural. White cells feed on bacteria, skin cells feed off our nutrients... and so forth.
If they were self aware, I doubt they'd catch on that they are part of a larger organism... they would probably see themselves as part of a community.
So what are we as humans? A life form? Or a community of smaller life forms?

Exactly as i envision Johnsky, even as bacterium we would be fulfilling a role within a larger bio-system. We would still have purpose, in fact more than we currently have!! Imo its not that hard to imagine.

Originally posted by johnsky

Nope.
You can get something from nothing.
Youre just not thinking mathematically.

We can safely assume that at one point during the infinite length of time, there was nothingness. A total void. 0.
We can safely assume that we are in fact interacting with a positive amount of matter as we speak. (We'll call it 1... cause boolean is simple).

Now, we started with 0, we now have 1 (WITHIN our universe)... therefore, to complete the equation, there must be a -1 also within our universe.
1 + (-1) = 0.
There exists an equal amount of negative matter and energy within our universe as there is positive matter and energy.

0 -> 1 and -1
Hence you have created something, from nothing.

The real brain masher is the fact that if you ADD EVERYTHING in the universe together, the sum is NOTHING!
Therefore, the universe itself is actually nothing at all!
Think of that next time youre smoking a joint!

If all that were true and the sum of the universe is nothing, than time itself would be infinace and standing still...which would mean that we are frozen in time. Or another way of looking at it would be to say that time is a circle with no begining or end.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by The Collective]

[QUOTE]If all that were true and the sum of the universe is nothing, than time itself would be infinace and standing still...which would mean that we are frozen in time. Or another way of looking at it would be to say that time is a circle with no begining or end.[/QUOTE]

No, I've previously stated that you can actually traverse an infinite. The claim that you cannot is completley bogus.

Yes, compared to the infinite, any movement within it could be compared as neglegable... however, its still there. Compared to its own movement, its a standard 1 to 1 ratio.

Why? For one reason... space is infinite. Every dimension within it (X, Y, and Z) are infinite in all directions. Yet we are fully capable of moving within it. Compared to the infinite size of the universe, it would seem that a trip to the moon isnt a movement at all... but the fact remains that it is. Only when you sit back and try to graph your movement on the scale of infinity does it seem you havent moved. In reality, you have.

Its all relative to what you compare it to. But in the end, yes you can move within an infinite space. Otherwise you would be stuck where you are right now, and the universe would have never expanded in the first place.

But it still stands, yes, the sum of everything in the universe is 0... and yes, you can traverse a distance within infinite space.

Originally posted by johnsky
No, I've previously stated that you can actually traverse an infinite. The claim that you cannot is completley bogus.

Yes, compared to the infinite, any movement within it could be compared as neglegable... however, its still there. Compared to its own movement, its a standard 1 to 1 ratio.

Why? For one reason... space is infinite. Every dimension within it (X, Y, and Z) are infinite in all directions. Yet we are fully capable of moving within it. Compared to the infinite size of the universe, it would seem that a trip to the moon isnt a movement at all... but the fact remains that it is. Only when you sit back and try to graph your movement on the scale of infinity does it seem you havent moved. In reality, you have.

Its all relative to what you compare it to. But in the end, yes you can move within an infinite space. Otherwise you would be stuck where you are right now, and the universe would have never expanded in the first place.

But it still stands, yes, the sum of everything in the universe is 0... and yes, you can traverse a distance within infinite space.

You seem very knowledgable on the subject johnsky, where did you learn all of this? or is it your own? I like the idea that we are ultra micro-bacteria like in a much larger organism...all playing a part like bacteria do. At the moment, earth could easily be mistaken for a virus...

Oh, dont give me too much credit there... I'm just assembling the pieces of the puzzle as I get them like everyone else... maybe I've seen more pieces than most... but I didnt come up with all that myself... lol. Nobody can come up with everything on their own... everyone is handed a little bit of the puzzle.

Originally posted by johnsky
Nope.
You can get something from nothing.
Youre just not thinking mathematically.

...

Now, we started with 0, we now have 1 (WITHIN our universe)... therefore, to complete the equation, there must be a -1 also within our universe.
1 + (-1) = 0.
There exists an equal amount of negative matter and energy within our universe as there is positive matter and energy.

0 -> 1 and -1
Hence you have created something, from nothing.

The real brain masher is the fact that if you ADD EVERYTHING in the universe together, the sum is NOTHING!
Therefore, the universe itself is actually nothing at all!
Think of that next time youre smoking a joint!


Its all very basic math. Stuff we immediately overlook when thinking of something as complex as the universe.


Now that the religious have posed a question as such, and I have given you your answer...

If some GOD created EVERYTHING... what created god?
And the creator of god...
And its creator...
THAT I know you CANT answer.

Flawed, very flawed... I don't quite understand why these guys think they know something that philosophers of over 2 millenia didn't think of/know.

His claim that infinities can be applied to our universe is absurd. They simply are not applicable to the real world. For example. We have the Library of Infinity! Cool, let's go check out this new library. I heard they have an infinate amount of red books. I also heard they have an infinate amount of blue books. Well, if I go check out a blue book, how many are left..? Hmm... If I check out 2 red books, then does that mean there are more blue books left..? Well, if you got a mathematical error, as I did, then you'll slowly realize that infinities can't be applied to the physical world as we know it.

He has a really, really, really horrible example trying to claim how something came from nothing. He's simply wrong, and streching it. Here's a little joke my philosophy teacher told us to get our minds wrapped around creation. "God challenges an engineer to a building contest. Whoever makes the greatest and largest building wins. The engineer happily takes up the challenge to go head to head with God. The engineer picks up his shovel, sticks in in the dirt, and God says, "Get your own dirt." " I think this puts a face on the problem that's easier for everyone to understand. The fallacy in his argument is equivocation. He refers to zero as nothing. There's 2 problems there. Zero is a mathematical representation of that which is NOT. So, it's something. Mathematics is a system of working theoretical numbers. It is also something, althought it's not tangible.

As far as the point you brought up about who created God... I'll have to get into that later. I have some homework to do. But, trust me, you aren't the first person to think of that in Philosophy's multi-thousand year history. Science offers nothing but a new kind of faith. They haven't proven anything. It's simply less reasonable to believe in a universe, bound by constraints, that has no creator.

P.S. The original quote was from me on www.tech-forums.net

Ryan

[edit on 24-4-2006 by FghtinIrshNvrDie]

Mod Edit - Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24/4/2006 by Umbrax]

But it still stands, yes, the sum of everything in the universe is 0... and yes, you can traverse a distance within infinite space.

The sum of 'everything' in the universe isn't zero. The sum off all charges in atomic state equals zero. That's just plum wrong.

Before you assume space is infinate, you have to explain to us how it can be infinate. As I said in my post a few minutes ago, you can't apply infinity to this level of reality.

What you guys seem to have a problem getting your head around is this:
We are restricted by time in this universe. When talking about God, why would time be a constraint?

No one, from an atheistic standpoint can answer the question, "How did some thing come from nothing?" Even though I'm asking the question, I know it's a stupid one. There's no way, in any shape or form, that something can come from absolute nothingness, as far as we are concerned. Attempt to apply the second law of thermodynamics to any scientific attempt at the creation of the universe. Impossibility. It's a contradiction.

Ryan

[edit on 24-4-2006 by FghtinIrshNvrDie]

The first responder noted that no other philosophers have stated that the universe when added together equals 0. This is not so. Many philosophers have noted this, amongst which is Einstein himself. Einstein also "proved" mathematically that the dimensions of the universe are infinite. If you want to argue wth him... well, that will be a little hard. He's, in your understandig, with god now.

The sum of 'everything' in the universe isn't zero. The sum off all charges in atomic state equals zero. That's just plum wrong.

Woah there. I never claimed that the sum off all charges in atomic state equals zero. Dont place words in my mouth there. Atomic structures are on the positive side of the equation. As I stated, we interact with the positive half of the Universe.


To my interpretation your response arguments so far can all be summed down to "He cant be right because he doesnt believe in god".

In an attempt to be reasonable, I must request that you state some facts and data from your end of the argument to back your side up.

If you cannot, then I have no option but to dismiss your end of the argument.

I understand you may be passionate about your religion, however, passion is not something to bring into an argument with someone who analyzes everything, before making a decision.

Lets keep this civil. I await your response.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by johnsky]

Sir, it was kept civil. Calling me passionate about my religion is a little silly though. I've brought forth philisophical ideas, not theology. I'm a little confused as to how your response fits into anything really. You've nit-picked my ideas, of which I could slightly redefine to suit your critism.

I don't believe mathematics are suited to describe the universe as we know it. I believe it's a tool that can help us learn, but again cannot be directly attributed. The nature of math is not physical. It's not even a thing. It's ideas in the minds of people that are passed down. I don't think we can 'prove' anything about the universe, especially it's dimentions, with math.

You seem uncomfortable or unsure of how to deal with philisophic ideas as opposed to scientific ones. That does not mean that you should dismiss my ideas. In fact, they hold more water than anything you've put forward. As much as I hate to toot my own horn, you're not adding anything new or debunking any vital claims I've put forward.

If you have something new to put out there that may discredit what I've said, I'd be more than happy to hear it. As far as wanting to hear my response here... I'm not sure what you're waiting fore. You didn't add anything, or remove crediblity from my arguments.

Ryan

What the Bleep do We Know ?

For those of you who have not heard of this movie, rent it. It's a pretty thought provoking work. It's talks about all kind of things related to this discussion.

I don't believe mathematics are suited to describe the universe as we know it. I believe it's a tool that can help us learn, but again cannot be directly attributed. The nature of math is not physical. It's not even a thing. It's ideas in the minds of people that are passed down. I don't think we can 'prove' anything about the universe, especially it's dimentions, with math.

That may be your view. However, math, in combination with physics and other sciences is the tool we have developed that best addresses the physical world with little to no error. The error comes when we jump to conclusions. Typically when someone who has little to no knowlege of math attempts to use it.

What method do you use to analyze your environment if I may ask? You dont seem to trust math to be a solid system. So I'm curious to how you analyze everything.

When two,each in their own gender gather together they form one.With Love and a caring will there is establishment and form.By powers of a giving will even from out of nothing is drawn out something.In complete and absolute darkness there exists already many forms.Out of all that has been given not one peice is missing in the character of the Almighty who by Ones image formed all things and it was Good.Out of destroying abilities there is no forming powers but only the hunger to consume that which has been formed within the infinite darkness.

... in an attempt to avoid being arrogant... would anyone like to fill me in on what he said? Is that a passage from a text? Or is he stating a point of some form?

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
Everything we know is has a cause and effect, but if this is so, how is existence possible, we tend to believe that nothingness must come before something. But nothing can come from nothingness, therefore something must have somehow always existed.

It might be helpful to stop thinking of time like it was a road, extending into the future and past while you ride along in the present. Try to imagine it more like a bubble, with both "inward" and "outward" potentialities.

Okay, I'm willing to give that a shot.

So youre referring to time as a bubble instead of a dimension. Can you elaborate on this? I'm always interested in different ways to view our reality.

Originally posted by johnsky
Okay, I'm willing to give that a shot.
So youre referring to time as a bubble instead of a dimension. Can you elaborate on this? I'm always interested in different ways to view our reality.

Much of the problem starts with children being taught a very odd kind of geometry. Euclidian geometry starts with a "point" in "space." Certain attributes are given to the point that make no logical sense in any construction of reality. For instance, you're taught to assume that the point hypothetically exists, and that it is singular and has no length. And you build on those odd assmptions.

But there are a few things very important to real geometry that you never consider, so after a few permutations, the entire system falls apart and leads you to some strange ways of looking at things.

For instance, when you imagine a point in space, how is it possible for it to be singular? Simply by the act of definition, you automatically create two points. The point, and you. Your "point-of-view," as it were.

So now we have two points in space, "here" and "there." And while one may say that the point is "dimensionless," again, simply by defining the point, you've created at least two dimensions, which you might understand as "toward" the point, and "away" from the point. Do you see what I'm setting up?

Using this geometrical framework, "reality" or "existence" becomes more like a bubble, with multiple dimensions, including inside, outside, toward, and away. So your standard, linear notion of cause and effect are somewhat translated into seemingly more ephemeral but more representative notions of observation and "intention," which might be best defined as "movement without motion," since the intentional object is essentially trapped between two infinities, and motion is only relative to another observation pair.

So, rather than "God" creating the Universe, you might want to consider the Universe creating God via an existential quasi-duality.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Daneel Olivaw]