Is the macro "crazy" related to the micro "crazy"?

We are always attempting to look out further and further into space in search of answers to the big questions of life. But isn't it more practical to be looking right under our noses?

I know some people are going to bring into this thread pictures of brain and the universe, but those are bunk because we dont know what the universe looks like.

So, I believe that a truly infinite universe is not possible. By truly infinite I mean a pac man situation where one goes in one side comes out the other is not truly infinite, 100+1+1...+1 is not truly infinite but simply growing, and a universe that is simply incomprehensible is not truly infinite. Truly infinite means right now at this point the universe goes on forever, its that simple and that complex, but after much contemplation I dont believe it to be possible.

So now we can begin the cliche but mindblowing questions of what comes after the universe, or how does it end, what is outside the universe, and it truly is mindblowing. The only logical (i dont assume these questions are answered "logically") is at some point something "crazy" happens.

Now lets look inward. Everything is made of something. And when we get down to the smallest theorized products, quarks, some assume these build everything. But it must be a fact that these are also made of something and so on and so on. But at some point something "crazy" must happen and something must come from nothing.

Now my question or theory is that both the large "crazy" and the small "crazy" are related in some way and it is much harder to know the large "crazy" than the small "crazy"

Am I crazy?

Are you a new sociology student? Yes I believe people on both to be crazy imo.

reply to post by AllUrChips


I'm 2nd year in law school. Thanks for reply, no thanks for it being completely meaningless. Sociology really has nothing to do with anything I posted.

Originally posted by soldita
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

I'm 2nd year in law school. Thanks for reply, no thanks for it being completely meaningless. Sociology really has nothing to do with anything I posted.

WOW! Why so defensive man? I asked a simple question? Also it has EVERYTHING to do with sociology. If you were in law school surely you have taken soc 101. Where you would learn that. Also, My 2nd line had my response to your question. Did you fail to read that?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by AllUrChips


I apologize I took your reply the wrong way. And I feel somewhat neglected.

Anyway, I really dont understand what the substance of your reply conveyed, can you rephrase it please?

Click here for more information.

Hey dude, I really like your OP and the ideas you are bringing up. Your analogy of the infinite being truly incomprehensible makes sense with the attitude of 'growth' (100+1+1+...). Simillarly time expressed 'eternally' is not a multitude of single moments in a continuous line to... wherever. So I theorize that the infinte is better expressed as potential. I am talking more in line with some version of the multiverse theory, that all possible experiences are existing simultaneously, and they are called into being by the subjective experience of an observer. The observer seems to be the limiting factor on whether there can be perceptible proof of this so called infinite reality (omniscience and omnipresence). All of the infinite universe, space and time, are the other to pure consciousness which is the energy that forms space and time out of its infinte potential into the finite, to serve the observer with experience.

I think because of this issue of consciousness the only way to experience the infinite is by working towards the simplest state of awareness. The clearest form of observing is by moving deeper in the psyche beyond the layers of memory, sense faculty, and imaginary thoughts, by using the power of willed concentration. Meditation.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by el1jah


Thanks for the reply. I dont really subscribe to the multiverse but I am leaning toward our universe being more than meets than eye.

reply to post by soldita


yeah I figured I would contrast what you meant by micro, I understand you mean by extending the sense with a microscope or other divice, not actually turning the senses on themselves.

I agree that the universe cannot be infinite. It just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I don't believe that anything can actually be infinite (meaning no beginning, no end). I do wonder quite often about the universe and those questions, personally I think the answer lies exactly in what's "outside" of our known universe. I think it has to do with other dimensions. But when you look on the micro level, everything is very similar. Even our solar system is micro compared to the rest of the universe and I wonder if we'll ever find out what's on the deepest levels on the micro or macro. I hope we do understand it one day. I don't think it means that something ever came out of nothing, though. I personally feel that it came from somewhere (ie another dimension, another universe, something we cannot wrap our minds around just yet). Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change its form. If all life and matter is energy then we would be eternal, but not in the way that we live forever, just in the way that our energy will always be there in one form or another, in the physical realm.

reply to post by soldita

To answer these questions, or even to ask them, we have to make an enormous assumption: namely, that the way humans have evolved to perceive their environment is a true and accurate representation of reality.

But we already know this assumption is false. Humans cannot perceive objects in quantum superposition or make intuitive sense of relativistic effects. We experience time as unidirectional, which it probably isn’t; and somehow we all seem to experience the same moment in time simultaneously, which is a strange and weird coincidence for which there is no explanation. Our senses and brains are simply unable to process information about such phenomena in any way except intellectually – and that, of course, is no use at all.

There is also a great deal going on in the universe that we cannot perceive at all because we lack the sensory equipment. We are blind to radio waves and most of the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum; we have no specifically electric or magnetic senses either, as far as we know; nor can we perceive the products of radioactive decay until they start killing us. That’s scarcely a comprehensive list, but it will do to be going on with.

Given these obvious shortcomings of our perceptual and conceptual capabilities, the questions in your OP may not be useful for an understanding of reality. Most probably, they exist because our perceptions and concepts of reality are just models, and bear as much relation to the real world as Plato’s shadows to the world outside his Cave. To insist on answers, and to condemn either science or religion for not being able to provide them, may be to miss the point altogether.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask the questions. However, they really are rather tired and threadbare, especially in this forum, where someone or other – usually someone with religious doubts he is trying to quell by projecting them onto others such as atheists and evolutionists – is forever asking them.

The correct answer to all the questions you ask in your OP is We Don’t Know. That doesn’t mean that the answers supplied by religion are true. In fact, it suggests strongly that they are false – answers that have been fabricated purely because the question exists and needs, or seems to need, answering.

Originally posted by soldita
I know some people are going to bring into this thread pictures of brain and the universe, but those are bunk because we dont know what the universe looks like.

Huh? We don't know what the universe looks like? Look up, on a clear night.

Originally posted by soldita
So, I believe that a truly infinite universe is not possible. By truly infinite I mean a pac man situation where one goes in one side comes out the other is not truly infinite, 100+1+1...+1 is not truly infinite but simply growing, and a universe that is simply incomprehensible is not truly infinite. Truly infinite means right now at this point the universe goes on forever, its that simple and that complex, but after much contemplation I dont believe it to be possible.

The "pac man universe" you describe is technically known as finite, unbounded space. Our best measurements to date suggest that the universe is not bounded.

Originally posted by soldita
Now lets look inward. Everything is made of something. And when we get down to the smallest theorized products, quarks, some assume these build everything. But it must be a fact that these are also made of something and so on and so on.

I don't think that it "must be a fact" that structure continues indefinitely to smaller scales. There are a lot of problems with that model, first realized by Democritus around 300 BC, which led him to postulate the existence of atoms. This was long, long before anything close to modern chemistry.
en.wikipedia.org...