durgatosh Posted December 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 The thread has taken a very interesting turn. Thanks Chen for your compliments. ChenAgain, I look forward to someone making a scientific critic of the theory that CONSCIOUSNESS is a basic fundamental property of physical universe. Given what I have provided in my other posts on this thread, I would be curious to see logical well thought out arguements on HOW CONSCIOUSNESS-SPACE-TIME continuum could NOT be a valid model of reality. I believe this theory should rightfully surplant the current scientific communities collective DENIAL of Consciousness as something fundamental just like space and time.[/quote Well, there is no doubt in my mind that consciousness (a poorly understood entity) is a fundamental property just as space, time and energy are. The reason why it is less understod than others is that one needs to look inside to understand consciousness. Exploring the external universe is not an optimal tool to understand consciousness. My theory about the origin of universe is a broad concept through which I have attempted to explain the origin of everything, and that includes entities that are well and not so well understood (including consciousness). I am quite convinced, and others may disagree, about the universe being explained as an eternal and infinite multitude of entities and phenomena with a sum total of zero. I believe that there are two fundamental questions in the quest of truth: one is the origin of universe, and the other is "Who am I" (pertaining to the nature of consciousness. I have made an attempt to answer the first question, which to me is quite convincing. I have my ideas about the nature of consciousness, but I am not as clear about it yet. The ideas of Chen are quite similar to the ancient Indian philosophies of the Upanishads, which claim that only consciousness exists and the external universe is an illusion, a dream-state of the supreme consciousness (Brahman). Although I am a great admirer of the logics put forward by the Upanishads, I am still not very clear. I am still doing mental gymnastics on the topic. We can discuss this endlessly, but I wonder if this thread is a correct forum for discussion on the nature of consciouness. If all agree, I can put my views here. If not, may be we can discuss it in some other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmaust Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 The ideas of Chen are quite similar to the ancient Indian philosophies of the Upanishads, which claim that only consciousness exists and the external universe is an illusion, a dream-state of the supreme consciousness (Brahman). Although I am a great admirer of the logics put forward by the Upanishads, I am still not very clear. I am still doing mental gymnastics on the topic. We can discuss this endlessly, but I wonder if this thread is a correct forum for discussion on the nature of consciouness. If all agree, I can put my views here. If not, may be we can discuss it in some other thread. I have been following this thread off and on since the beginning. I find the topic interesting and very much admire the wonderful thinking that has gone into it. I would like to see the topic kept alive and have further discusssion. It may become a topic better suited to philosophy though. Back on topic. I would like to see this "consciousness" you and Chen are referring to expanded upon in further discussion. In kindness and respect, Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somebody Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 after reading up to page 5, i need to ask... To figure out the origin of the universe, first scientists need to figure out the "universe" that existed before this one, right? if so, then how are they going to get evidence of the previous "universe", if it does not exist in this life time(if big bang is taken into consideration). Please correct my comments, if i am making false comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chen2739 Posted December 22, 2006 Report Share Posted December 22, 2006 The thread has taken a very interesting turn. Thanks Chen for your compliments. ChenAgain, I look forward to someone making a scientific critic of the theory that CONSCIOUSNESS is a basic fundamental property of physical universe. Given what I have provided in my other posts on this thread, I would be curious to see logical well thought out arguements on HOW CONSCIOUSNESS-SPACE-TIME continuum could NOT be a valid model of reality. I believe this theory should rightfully surplant the current scientific communities collective DENIAL of Consciousness as something fundamental just like space and time.[/quote Well, there is no doubt in my mind that consciousness (a poorly understood entity) is a fundamental property just as space, time and energy are. The reason why it is less understod than others is that one needs to look inside to understand consciousness. Exploring the external universe is not an optimal tool to understand consciousness. My theory about the origin of universe is a broad concept through which I have attempted to explain the origin of everything, and that includes entities that are well and not so well understood (including consciousness). I am quite convinced, and others may disagree, about the universe being explained as an eternal and infinite multitude of entities and phenomena with a sum total of zero. I believe that there are two fundamental questions in the quest of truth: one is the origin of universe, and the other is "Who am I" (pertaining to the nature of consciousness. I have made an attempt to answer the first question, which to me is quite convincing. I have my ideas about the nature of consciousness, but I am not as clear about it yet. The ideas of Chen are quite similar to the ancient Indian philosophies of the Upanishads, which claim that only consciousness exists and the external universe is an illusion, a dream-state of the supreme consciousness (Brahman). Although I am a great admirer of the logics put forward by the Upanishads, I am still not very clear. I am still doing mental gymnastics on the topic. We can discuss this endlessly, but I wonder if this thread is a correct forum for discussion on the nature of consciouness. If all agree, I can put my views here. If not, may be we can discuss it in some other thread. Have you taken a good look at this site yet? It will surprise you, because this sites theory of everything is also basedon the conviction that zero is at the center of all things. Learning to See the Timeless Infinite Universe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted December 24, 2006 Report Share Posted December 24, 2006 Any such copy/paste in my above post is simply my original work that I previously posted at other sites online. That is NOT copy and pasting if I am the owner of those thoughts/words. Can you tell us what the other sites are online? PM me with the info if need be. I'd like to check it out. My own view on the subject of consciousness is that it is possible to explain consciousness using known physics. Not the other way around. Thanks CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 24, 2006 Report Share Posted December 24, 2006 Hello durgatosh, Wow dear u've got a good explaination.... i noted that u said in your post ,"y dont we see things spontaneosly split infront of our eys"... in split 0 theory , a set of positive and negative things emerged from the 0 , such thatthe total sum of those things is 0 , and to prevent them from cancelling each other out , they were somehow compartmentalized ... so why not assume that the +ve compartment stand for +ve universe consisting of all that matter and energy and -ve compartment stand for -ve universe consisting of all that antimatter and antienergy....... and things in the +ve universe has exactly the opposite property of things in the -ve universe... coz , In the theory of relativity , Albert Einstein had hypothesised about the existence of WHITE HOLE( in which no thing can never enter , exactly the opposite of black holes)... my point is that , since the 0 has already split into +ve and -ve universes, there is no possibility of furthur subdivision. ie , +ve and -ve substances cannot subdivide , so actually , in split 0 theory the question " why dont we see things spontaneosly splitting up? is irrelevant". if u agree or disgree with my idea , please mail to me at [email protected] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted December 24, 2006 Report Share Posted December 24, 2006 Hello durgatosh, Wow dear u've got a good explaination.... snip... and things in the +ve universe has exactly the opposite property of things in the -ve universe... coz , In the theory of relativity , Albert Einstein had hypothesised about the existence of WHITE HOLE( in which no thing can never enter , exactly the opposite of black holes)... snip...] Tell me where in GR is it mentioned a white hole?I don't recall anything about BHs either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmaust Posted December 25, 2006 Report Share Posted December 25, 2006 Tell me where in GR is it mentioned a white hole?I don't recall anything about BHs either. I'm curious about this as well. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 In your article about split zero theory .....you explained how split 0 concept works.... but you mentioned 2 contradictions about that concept, to which you didn't give explanation.... i have thought about possible explanations for those 2 contradictions ..... the 2 contradictions are (1) if 0=+X -X then why not 2= +4 -2 and like that... ans: you said that +ve and -ve things were compartmentalisedso that they wouldn't react and cancel each other out... then why not consider that they were compartmentalised such thatall +ve matter and +ve energy and time were in one compartment and all -ve matter(antimatter) and -ve energy and time - "in reverse direction " were in another compartment. then we can think that "the +ve compartment represents the +ve universe and -ve compartment represents -ve universe........ +ve universe contains matter , energy and time .. -ve universe contains anti-matter , anti-energy , time- in the reverse direction...... the things in the -ve universe has the exact opposite properties of things in the +ve universe... the sum total of all things in the universe =0.or perhaps this statement can be rephrased as the sum total of things in the positive and negative universes =0. ie, [+X ]+ [-X]=0 the contradiction why other magnitudes can't also seperate is irrelevantcoz, a +ve magnitude x can't split into "x+n" +ve magnitude where n=1,2,...,k and "x-n" negative magnitude ,n=1,2,....,k. how can a +ve thing split into a +ve quantity more or less than it's own magnitude and a -ve magnitude .... only 0 or "nothing" is so much unstable that it can't exist by itself and needs to split into equal no of +ve and -ve things , to exist... a magnitude other than zero is not very unstable as zero ,as any magnitude other than 0 or "nothing" is "something" , so it's stable and can exist by itself without splitting....so the 1st contradiction is irrelavant... contradiction (2) why dont we see things spontaneously splitting up? ans: the peculiarity of "nothing" is that it's neither +ve nor -ve and infinitely unstable .so inorder to exist it has to split into n +ve and -ve things..similarlythe peculiarity of 0 is that it can represent "nothing" and it's a whole number, ie, it can represent equal amounts of both +ve and -ve things such that their sum total is nothing(0). 0 = [+ X ][- X] the answer is that , as everthing is compartmentalized as i said above, +ve things are in +ve universe and -ve things are in -ve universe.... so +ve and -ve things in the +ve and -ve universes cant split up further....coz , a +ve magnitude is "something".and this property also applies to -ve magnitude also.so they are stable. and stable things can't subdivide as they can exist in the form they are in. I remember reading about "white holes" which runs backward in time, being derived from theory of relativity.. so that should support my modifications to this theory......... reference to white holes , alternate universe and worm holes available at this URL http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/EinsteinRosenBridge.pdf i'm looking forward to read what you have to say.... i did not intent to take credit of anyone else's work.i just added some possible modifications.i have expressed my modifications without stealing anything .....and i have specified that original split 0 concept is from durgatosh..... there is also another possible explanation , which will again deviate from the original theory.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 one question,,,, how can i delete my other 2 threads..... i searched for the option "delete thread" but couldn't find it.... little help with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Go to the post, click "Edit," then enter a reason for deletion and delete it. Also, please edit your post above to remove that VERY VERY VERY long quote... it's not necessary to put the whole thing again, and I'm requesting you "prune it." Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery Durgatosh Pandey...In other words, it is from nothing that everything sprang up. Mathematically,...snip...Zero is the singularity. Before the beginning, there was nothing; no mass, no energy, no time, no space. We can mathematically represent this nothing as zero. The origin of universe was the split of zero. From zero, several positive and negative things sprung up. This was the beginning of time, space, mass and energy. The universe will always obey the law of conservation, that is, the sum total of all existing things and phenomena should be zero..... The problem I see is a standard one. The big bang had the same problem for many years. For decades, the concept was swept under the carpet, i.e., cut out of the theory. Then physicists, instead of ignoring it, to varying degrees thwarted the problem, in a variety of ways. There is a boundary of spacetime, before which nothing existed, not even spacetime. That in itself is untenable. Why? The laws of nature, before t = 0 are not applicable. The laws of nature are not affected by theory, they are universal, and always operational. see Physical law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Then there is the actual boundary condition where multiple paradoxes arise, the recoiling of time around itself etc. Then, after the begining (how ever that transpired), the laws of nature become operational. I would hope that any theory potentially aimed at making a realistic propostion for the evolution of the universe would not have it sprouting from a metaphysical void. Metaphysical, becaue no natural law is effectively operational. What that means is that no physical explanation can be made to explain from what would burst into existence matter, spacetime, energy, gravity, entropy, etc. There simply is no physics before t = 0 to contemplate. This nonphysical factor, for me, is major obstacle, if a theory is supposed to represent the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 The problem I see is a standard one. The big bang had the same problem for many years. For decades, the concept was swept under the carpet, i.e., cut out of the theory. Then physicists, instead of ignoring it, to varying degrees thwarted the problem, in a variety of ways. There is a boundary of spacetime, before which nothing existed, not even spacetime. That in itself is untenable. Why? The laws of nature, before t = 0 are not applicable. The laws of nature are not affected by theory, they are universal, and always operational. see Physical law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Then there is the actual boundary condition where multiple paradoxes arise, the recoiling of time around itself etc. Then, after the begining (how ever that transpired), the laws of nature become operational. I would hope that any theory potentially aimed at making a realistic propostion for the evolution of the universe would not have it sprouting from a metaphysical void. Metaphysical, becaue no natural law is effectively operational. What that means is that no physical explanation can be made to explain from what would burst into existence matter, spacetime, energy, gravity, entropy, etc. There simply is no physics before t = 0 to contemplate. This nonphysical factor, for me, is major obstacle, if a theory is supposed to represent the real world.dear coldcreation, you do have a point there....it is correct that before the starting of time , the laws of nature(which became operational after time started) doesn't apply...even big bang can't account for this...but if you thinklike that , an explanation about the origin of matter,energy , time and spacewould be almost impossible....because , before these 4 factors i mentionedcame into being , there was nothing--can you even imagine such a condition. our universe is a four dimensional universe ie, three dimensions of space and one of time.... i dont know if the assumption i am going to make is right or not , but i think, without time there wouldn't be any change in anything ie, no change in state.... we really wont know what it is like to live without time ,since we live in a universe that has time...if my assumption is true , then a question like " what happened before time started ?" would be highly irrelevant as there was static condition before time.. so if my assumption is right , to explain how all matter and energy came into being , it's necessary to assume that space-time already existed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted December 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 kailas_knightIn your article about split zero theory .....you explained how split 0 concept works.... but you mentioned 2 contradictions about that concept, to which you didn't give explanation.... i have thought about possible explanations for those 2 contradictions ..... the 2 contradictions are (1) if0=+X -Xthen why not 2= +4 -2 and like that... contradiction (2) why dont we see things spontaneously splitting up? The "split of zero" explains the origin without falling into the trap of the endless question of "where did it come from". However, it has its limitations because if zero can split, so can any other thing/number, but we can't see things splitting spontaneously. Hence, I proposed the hypothesis, "the stability of an entity is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero". Therefore, gross entities are quite stable and hence do not split spontaneously. Zero (mathematical representation of nothing) is infinitely unstable, and hence cannot exist by itself. However, if we have to explain the origin of universe without falling into the endless trap I mentioned, we have to start from zero (nothing). How do we explain both the seemingly contradictory statements? Simple! Since zero cannot exist on its own, it exists as a vast multitude of things and phenomena, a vast array of positives and negatives so long as their sum total is zero. Therefore, my view of the universe is that it is infinite and eternal, a vast collection of positive and negative entities and phenomena with a sum total of zero. The next question is where is the evidence of negative entities (negative mass, negative energy, negative space, negative time ... and so on). It is a very relevant question to which I proposed 2 possibilities:1. The positive and negative things are compartmentalized so that they do not annihilate one another. 2. The entities and phenomena in the universe (space, time, matter/energy, gravity, consciousness ...) may not be very different things; they may be related in such a way that the sum total of them remains zero. You seem to support the 1st possibility and support it by the idea of whiteholes and wormholes, which may be the connections/routes to the negative universe. It is heartening to know that a great mind like Einstein also thought in the lines of negative universe, but I have some differences. It still does not explain why the negatives and positives compartmentalized immediately after zero split. Personally, I support the 2nd possibility. Equivalence of all entities and phenomena in the universe (matter/energy, time, space, etc) is a bold concept, but it is quite intuitive. Indeed, people would have laughed at the idea of equivalence of matter and energy before E=mc2? Think of it this way: with the passage of time, all which was past is gone forever and future unfolds. In a way, time eats up all in the past and opens up everything in the future. This equivalence of all entities and phenomena is difficult to explain and requires a lot of imagination, but it seems the most rational explanation to me. Remember, we still do not know anything about the nature of consciousness scientifically. If we add this consciousness to the fundamental entities of space, time, and matter/energy, it would be very very interesting. It connects science and metaphysics. Equivalence of all entities so that the sum total is zero is certainly a very attractive possibility. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 The next question is where is the evidence of negative entities (negative mass, negative energy, negative space, negative time ... and so on). i can provide you with a solution .this solution has to work to describe the mathematical possibility of the -ve universe ...... r=(2GM)/c2 -this equation is the original one Karl Schwarzschild derived from relativity..... explanation is ,if a mass, M, were compressed inside a critical radius, r, nowadays called the Schwarzschild radius (thefarthest visible point), and then its gravity would become so strong that not even light could escape. /////*****c2-means c square*****///// r*c2=2GM so c2=(2GM)/r so c has two different solutions..ie c= +(2GM)/r and c= -(2GM)/r. in the +ve square root solution c represents the velocity needed for a substance to escape a black hole at the Schwarzschild radius.ie, the velocity of light. The +ve solution represents a +ve universe... however the -ve square root solution represents a -ve universe. and in this case i think c represents the velocity needed by a substanceto enter a white hole(since white hole's repelling power is equal to black hole's force of attraction.)at the Schwarzschild radius of the white hole...since it's already proved that white holes run back wards in time , that accounts for evidence for -ve time,,,. and there is evidence that -ve energy can be produced in lab using a principle known as Casimir effect... you can mathematically prove that -ve mass exists by solving the -ve square root solution c= -(2GM)/r.. the result you get represents the mathematical evidence required for -ve mass and it also represents what the -ve mass and radius must be required to form a white hole..i am sticking to my assumption that -ve universe exists.... "the stability of an entity is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero".. one question first : did you formulate this statement , because , i thought that you might have got it from some book or website ......if it's your's you are a really brilliant person.... coming to the topic : However, it has its limitations because if zero can split, so can any other thing/number, but we can't see things splitting spontaneously. . this question can be mathematically answered that , since the positive and negative things are compartmentalised to prevent from total annihilation, +ve and -ve things in the respective universes can't split further as it is not mathematically possible and also because as you said , only 0 or nothing is infinitly unstable so that, inorder to exist it has to split...wheras +ve and -ve things are not "nothing" coz they have a non zero magnitude and cause they are "something" ...so they dont have to split and can exist by itself.... my view of the universe is that it is infinite and eternal, a vast collection of positive and negative entities and phenomena with a sum total of zero. according to your concept , 0 is split into n +ve and -ve elements and compartmentalized to prevent total annihilation... according to this concept , 0 can only be the sum total of ,both the universes... ie if the sum total of our universe is say "+m" , then the sum total of the -ve universe would be "-m"... such that +m + -m=0. also i dont think it can be infinity because +infinity + -infinity=infinity. It still does not explain why the negatives and positives compartmentalized immediately after zero split. according to your concept ,the +ve and -ve things sprung up from nothing ie"the singularity" or 0. In your concept if they are not compartentalizedat the moment of their creation , they will react and cancel each other and again become "nothing" ,,and it will split again and again destroyed and this process will continue upto infinity..... I am a believer of the first concept. the thing i am going to say is a little farfetched i think, but , theoretically , just assume the situation..ie , the passage from universe to universe is a one way trip.....as a white hole never allowes anything to enter it....although this trip is absolutely imaginary.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 dear coldcreation, you do have a point there....it is correct that before the starting of time , the laws of nature(which became operational after time started) doesn't apply...even big bang can't account for this...but if you thinklike that , an explanation about the origin of matter,energy , time and spacewould be almost impossible....because , before these 4 factors i mentionedcame into being , there was nothing--can you even imagine such a condition. our universe is a four dimensional universe ie, three dimensions of space and one of time.... i dont know if the assumption i am going to make is right or not , but i think, without time there wouldn't be any change in anything ie, no change in state.... we really wont know what it is like to live without time ,since we live in a universe that has time...if my assumption is true , then a question like " what happened before time started ?" would be highly irrelevant as there was static condition before time.. so if my assumption is right , to explain how all matter and energy came into being , it's necessary to assume that space-time already existed... The latter assumption sounds correct (...space-time already existed). However, the assumption that somehow energy "came into being" is unsound. Energy is not a property that is created, i.e., it does not therefor 'come into being.' (See second law of thermodynamics) That would appear to violate rather definitively the precept held by the SZ idea. One now needs to assume space, time and energy already existed.Three down one to go: Matter. But now it sounds like the entire theory has changed.The SZ is no longer required, because there is no more t = 0, where space, time and energy emerged from the void. CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted December 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 As I mentioned in my earlier posts, my interpretation of zero is that it is a composite of all possible numbers, from negative infinity to positive infinity. 0 = (+1-1) + (+2-2) + (+3-3) + (+4-4) .......... you can continue this indefinitely, but the sum would be zero. This reinterpretation of zero helps us understand the true nature of nothingness (i.e. it is a composite of all entities and phenomena, positives and negatives). If you combine this with the hypothesis "the stability of an entity is indirectly proportional to its proximity to zero", zero (nothing) becomes an impossibility and therefore can only exist as a vast multitude of positives and negatives, with a sum total of zero. Since zero cannot exist on its own, there is no event of the split of zero, i.e. there is no origin. Therefore, universe has always been there; without origin or annihilation: a composite of all negative and positive entities and phenomena so long as the sum is zero. "Split of zero" is an intermediate explanation, a tool to understand the nature of nothingness or zero. But my final conclusion is the eternity of universe because of the infinite instability (impossibility) of zero. kailas_knighti can provide you with a solution .this solution has to work to describe the mathematical possibility of the -ve universe ...... r=(2GM)/c2 -this equation is the original one Karl Schwarzschild derived from relativity..... explanation is ,if a mass, M, were compressed inside a critical radius, r, nowadays called the Schwarzschild radius (thefarthest visible point), and then its gravity would become so strong that not even light could escape. /////*****c2-means c square*****///// r*c2=2GM so c2=(2GM)/r so c has two different solutions..ie c= +(2GM)/r and c= -(2GM)/r. in the +ve square root solution c represents the velocity needed for a substance to escape a black hole at the Schwarzschild radius.ie, the velocity of light. The +ve solution represents a +ve universe... however the -ve square root solution represents a -ve universe. and in this case i think c represents the velocity needed by a substanceto enter a white hole(since white hole's repelling power is equal to black hole's force of attraction.)at the Schwarzschild radius of the white hole...since it's already proved that white holes run back wards in time , that accounts for evidence for -ve time,,,. and there is evidence that -ve energy can be produced in lab using a principle known as Casimir effect... you can mathematically prove that -ve mass exists by solving the -ve square root solution c= -(2GM)/r.. the result you get represents the mathematical evidence required for -ve mass and it also represents what the -ve mass and radius must be required to form a white hole..i am sticking to my assumption that -ve universe exists.... Whether the negative and positive universes are compartmentalized or the fundamental entities of the universe (space. time, matter/energy, consciousness...) are inter-related in a way that their sum is zero: these are two possibilities to explain about negatives and positives in the universe. To me, the fundamental truth is the eternity of universe based on the mathematical explanation of the impossibility of zero. The rest are just details. kailas_knightone question first : did you formulate this statement , because , i thought that you might have got it from some book or website ......if it's your's you are a really brilliant person.... Thanks Kailas. This hypothesis was formulated by me when I was contemplating about the limitations of "split of zero" (If zero can split, so can any other number). It is curiosity, not brilliance. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.