The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[Turtle]

It is extremely difficult to find predicatble observations at that scale. You see, when we discuss about my hypothesis of "the instability of a thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero",...

 

Let's start with this, as it is a premise of your reply. You have used geometric terms 'scale', 'proportional' and 'proximity', and the algebraic terms 'predictable' and '0' (say zero), and the sensorial term 'observations'. While these general terms may have application to one another -or not-, to have any meaning such relations must be specified. What scale? What proportion or range of proportions and in what terms are they specified? Proximity in relation to how many dimensions and how are they specified? Cubic space? Tetrahedral space? Predictable under what distribution or means? Is it linear? Geometric? Fractal? Observerd how? By sight? By hearing? Reason? Imagination?

The longest journey may begin with but a single step, but unless a single step is taken, there is no journey. One is what counts, not zero.

[Shoushou]

I notice that the discussion has turned into a trial to define some words used to describe simple theories..It'd benefit us more if we try to analyze the core of the main theory (the split of Zero) which is a trial to understand the origin of the universe..

 

Duragotsh, I really appreciate ur continuoues effort to clarify ur theory, Although it's somehow limited that it doesn't depend on the actual observations..anyway it could be generally accepted..

 

I'm sorry Doragotsh, I know u've explained ur theory many times but I really wanna understand precisely how have u deduced the eternity of the universe depending on ur theory???

Another question about which I wanna know ur thoughts: if u can see the insuffecience of ur theory so that objects aren't splitting in our life, so how can we depend on it as a reliable theory describing the origin of the universe??

in other words: aren't there any modifications to ur theory that compensate this contradictory side (that other objects aren't splitting practicaly in our life)?

keep going on, I'm sure oneday u'll reach a good point..

[durgatosh]

Shoushou

I notice that the discussion has turned into a trial to define some words used to describe simple theories..

 

You are right, but such things can't be helped. Any idea which does not conform to widely accepted and taught belief is bound to raise objections. Often, these objections become more of a dispute of words rather than looking at the actual concept.

 

Shoushou

I'm sorry Doragotsh, I know u've explained ur theory many times but I really wanna understand precisely how have u deduced the eternity of the universe depending on ur theory???

Another question about which I wanna know ur thoughts: if u can see the insuffecience of ur theory so that objects aren't splitting in our life, so how can we depend on it as a reliable theory describing the origin of the universe??

in other words: aren't there any modifications to ur theory that compensate this contradictory side (that other objects aren't splitting practicaly in our life)?

 

Long ago, I formulated my theory of the "split of zero" and it seemed to me as a very elegant theory of origin from nothing (and you don't need to explain nothing's origin). Later, it occured to me that this theory has its problems because we do not see objects splitting before us spontaneously (if 0=+x-x, so should 4=+6-2, and so on).

 

This led me to explore the nature of zero. I realized quickly that zero is an impossibility (except in mathematical calculations). You cannot imagine zero (nothing) in real life: no space, no time, no energy, no mass etc. I thought about the paradox of overtaking vehicles (see post 1). I became more and more convinced that all entities (time, space, mass/energy, etc) move in discrete quanta and not continuously. This is also supported by the quantum theory.

 

When I combined the above observations and imaginations, I formulated a hypothesis: "the instability of a thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero". Therefore, zero is infinitely unstable and hence cannot exist on its own. No wonder, one cannot imagine "nothing". Hence, zero/nothing can exist only as a vast multitude of things and phenomena, so long their sum total is zero. This explains the eternity of universe: its sum total is zero but it has always existed as a vast multitude of positives and negatives.

 

Turtle

You have used geometric terms 'scale', 'proportional' and 'proximity', and the algebraic terms 'predictable' and '0' (say zero), and the sensorial term 'observations'. While these general terms may have application to one another -or not-, to have any meaning such relations must be specified. What scale? What proportion or range of proportions and in what terms are they specified? Proximity in relation to how many dimensions and how are they specified? Cubic space? Tetrahedral space? Predictable under what distribution or means? Is it linear? Geometric? Fractal? Observerd how? By sight? By hearing? Reason? Imagination?

 

It seems you are too concerned about the words that I use. When we talk about quantum and sub-quantum magnitudes, does it matter whether the space is cubic or tetrahedral or spherical? And it is not just about space, it applies to time, mass, energy and all things and phenomena.

 

Yes, all these thoughts of mine are by pure reasoning and logic.

 

DP

[HydrogenBond]

The problem of defining the universe as a mathematical split of zero is that it assumes that there is always a mirror image of everything such that substance and anti-substance both exist. For example, life exists without the need of anti-life. It started on the earth from zero life and has progressed in a positive fashion.

 

If one starts at infinity, infinity always remains the same even if some of its umphs spills into finite reality, since finite reality is part of infinity. This allows finite reality to recieve positive input without the requirement of a polarization of phenonena. It can still happen, but it is not essential.

 

Picture this scenario. You are sitting in eternity at a speed of light reference. You reach into your bag of tricks and pull out a microscope and magnify the eternity point into an infintessimal point ("maximum magnification Zulu"). You haven't actually increased the size of the universe, even though the point looks tiny in the vastness of eternity. This is a purely optical affect with you still at the C reference with infinite energy all around but focusing on a point.

 

In the lab, when we try to see thing extremely small, our equiptment needed to observe the phenonena begins to have an impact on the tiny phenomena, creating a level of uncertainty. Let there be light.

[coldcreation]

I realized quickly that zero is an impossibility (except in mathematical calculations). DP

 

 

Hello all.

 

Zero is attainable (zero gravitational force, zero mass, zero entropy, etc. Albeit the tendency is generally away from the zero value, especially in thermodynamical systems.)

 

I became more and more convinced that all entities (time, space, mass/energy, etc) move in discrete quanta and not continuously. This is also supported by the quantum theory. DP

 

What about the continuous transformations of general relativity. After all, GR is what governs the large-scale structures of the universe, and perhaps the evolution of the universe in its entirety.

 

 

When I combined the above observations and imaginations, I formulated a hypothesis: "the instability of a thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero". Therefore, zero is infinitely unstable and hence cannot exist on its own. DP

 

But zero can exist when not on its own right? For example the value of the gravitational field is zero at the inner Lagrange point L1, always.

 

No wonder, one cannot imagine "nothing". Hence, zero/nothing can exist only as a vast multitude of things and phenomena, so long their sum total is zero. This explains the eternity of universe: its sum total is zero but it has always existed as a vast multitude of positives and negatives.DP

 

Correct me if I'm off track (I have not yet read the full thread). Do you beleive in the +1 and -1 concept, or in the +1, 0, -1 concept? Are positives and negatives, according to your thoughts, charge, energy, mass, the cosmological constant etc?

 

It seems to me that is all the positives and negatives cancelled each other out, there would be no thread at all, no toasters, CDs, flower pots, TVs or planets for us to gaze at in the night sky.

 

Yes, all these thoughts of mine are by pure reasoning and logic.DP

 

The fact that lamps, chess boards, chairs, pencils, coffee cups and stars exist leads me doubt the logic behind the free lunch hypothesis, where sum total of positive and negative energy (gravitational or other) is zero.

 

I like your style though durgatosh. You have definite potential, positive.

 

CC is back.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

What is the point of split zero?

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

Zero is attainable (zero gravitational force, zero mass, zero entropy, etc. Albeit the tendency is generally away from the zero value, especially in thermodynamical systems.)

 

You can have zero mass, zero force, zero entropy..., but can't attain an absolue zero (nothingness). It is similar to saying that you have zero apples on the table, but its is not an absolute zero because the table exists, you exist, the time when you observe and make this statement exists. By zero, I mean absolutely nothing: no space. no time, no mass, no energy.... And this zero can'exist on its own right.

 

coldcreation

It seems to me that is all the positives and negatives cancelled each other out, there would be no thread at all, no toasters, CDs, flower pots, TVs or planets for us to gaze at in the night sky.

 

HydrogenBond

The problem of defining the universe as a mathematical split of zero is that it assumes that there is always a mirror image of everything such that substance and anti-substance both exist. For example, life exists without the need of anti-life. It started on the earth from zero life and has progressed in a positive fashion

 

I am glad that the discussion has reached to this question. I have addressed this issue previously, but I think it would be worth repeating it.

 

The universe is zero as a whole (sum total); only then you do not need an explanation of its origin. But as I explained earlier, zero (nothing) cannot exist on its own and hence exists as a vast multitude of positives and negatives, the sum total being zero. So the question as to why the positives and negatives don't annihilate each other is quite expected. We can look into this problem in two ways:

 

1. For all positive entities, there is a negative entity (as the mirror image suggested by HydrogenBond). Hence, we have positive and negative mass, positive and negative time, positive and negative space, and so on. The reason that they do not annihilate is that the positives and negatives are compartmentalized by an unknown dimension. So although the sum total would be zero, positives and negatives would still exist without annihilation.

 

2. Alternatively, all the entities and phenomena (space, time, mass/energy, gravity, consciousness, life etc) are inter-related in such a way that their sum total is zero. One can say that these entities are positives and negatives of one another. They coexist without annihilation because it is the nature of zero to exist as positives and negatives (if they annihilate, it would be zero which by itself is an imposibility).

 

Personally, I favour the second explanation.

 

HydrogenBond

If one starts at infinity, infinity always remains the same even if some of its umphs spills into finite reality, since finite reality is part of infinity. This allows finite reality to recieve positive input without the requirement of a polarization of phenonena. It can still happen, but it is not essential.

 

I am also starting at infinity; that is what I mean when I say that the univese is eternal. But my interpretation of infinity includes the whole spectrum of negative infinity to posiitve infinity. Zero is the sum total, and zero reference is to explain the eternal nature of the universe without falling into the trap of the endless question of "where it came from".

 

DP

[Turtle]

Zero is the sum total, and zero reference is to explain the eternal nature of the universe without falling into the trap of the endless question of "where it came from".

 

DP

 

Such a trap is quicksand and you are in over your eyebrows. Where what came from‽ :cup:

[durgatosh]

Turtle

Such a trap is quicksand and you are in over your eyebrows. Where what came from‽

 

The trap of this endless question has been explained several times in the thread. I believe we can avoid this trap by understanding the nature of zero and infinity.

 

All of us are in the trap and are trying to find solutions to the problems about which no definite answers exist. In that sense, all of us are here to teach as well as learn. If you think you are out of the trap, you would indeed be an enlightened one; good luck to you.

 

DP

[Turtle]

The trap of this endless question has been explained several times in the thread. I believe we can avoid this trap by understanding the nature of zero and infinity.

 

All of us are in the trap and are trying to find solutions to the problems about which no definite answers exist. In that sense, all of us are here to teach as well as learn. If you think you are out of the trap, you would indeed be an enlightened one; good luck to you.

 

DP

 

First to the boldened: You make my point exactly, and yet you presume to give such answers.

One must know the extent of the box before thinking outside of it, and one needn't know what is right to say what is wrong. :cup:

[Turtle]

2. Alternatively, all the entities and phenomena (space, time, mass/energy, gravity, consciousness, life etc) are inter-related in such a way that their sum total is zero. One can say that these entities are positives and negatives of one another. They coexist without annihilation because it is the nature of zero to exist as positives and negatives (if they annihilate, it would be zero which by itself is an imposibility).

 

Personally, I favour the second explanation.

 

DP

 

How do you think your views compare to these of Buckminster Fuller in Synergetics?

 

 

440.01 Equilibrium between positive and negative is zero. The vector equilibrium is the true zero reference of the energetic mathematics. Zero pulsation in the vector equilibrium is the nearest approach we will ever know to eternity and god: the zerophase of conceptual integrity inherent in the positive and negative asymmetries that propagate the differentials of consciousness.

440.02 The vector equilibrium is of the greatest importance to all of us because all the nuclear tendencies to implosion and explosion are reversible and are always in exact balance. The radials and the circumferentials are in balance. But the important thing is that the radials, which would tend to explode since they are outwardly pushing, are always frustrated by the tensile finiteness of the circumferential vectors, which close together in an orderly manner to cohere the disorderly asundering. When the radial vectors are tensilely contractive and separately implosive, they are always prevented from doing so by the finitely closing pushers or compressors of the circumferential set of vectors. The integrity of Universe is implicit in the external finiteness of the circumferential set and its surface-layer, close-packing, radius-contracting proclivity which always encloses the otherwise divisive internal radial set of omnidirectional vectors.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/p4000.html

[coldcreation]

1....The reason that they do not annihilate is that the positives and negatives are compartmentalized by an unknown dimension.

DP

 

The unknown dimension sounds spooky. This is the part that should be cut out of the theory and replaced with some solid empirical evidence.

 

When you do this, I think you will find still the importance of zero and infinity.

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

The unknown dimension sounds spooky. This is the part that should be cut out of the theory and replaced with some solid empirical evidence.

 

When you do this, I think you will find still the importance of zero and infinity.

 

It is for this reason that I said that I would personally favour my 2nd explanation wherein I explained that all the entities and phenomena in the universe are inter-related in a way that they are positives and negatives of each other, so that the sum total is zero.

 

Actually, it is extremely difficult to find solid evidence for either of the 2 explanations because it would involve the quantum and sub-quantum magnitudes wherein the instability factor would preclude all reasonable observations.

 

Turtle

How do you think your views compare to these of Buckminster Fuller in Synergetics?

 

Thanks Turtle. The part you have quoted from Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics echoes the ideas expressed by me regarding zero and infinity; it also says that zero is the vector equilibrium of all positives and negatives. He agrees to the impossibility of zero, when he says that the tendency of explosion prevents an entity to become zero. What he says in addition is that there is a tendency of implosion at magnitudes close to infinity and the balance between these two tendency defines our universe. Very reasonable.

Either way, the universe can be defined as a vast multitude of positives and negatives, the sum total being zero.

 

Turtle

First to the boldened: You make my point exactly, and yet you presume to give such answers.

One must know the extent of the box before thinking outside of it, and one needn't know what is right to say what is wrong.

 

It seems strange to me that some people could be "qualified" to search for answers and others cannot. Science and free-thinking is nobody's fiefdom. And who in this whole wide world knows the full extent of the box!

 

DP

[Turtle]

Thanks Turtle. The part you have quoted from Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics echoes the ideas expressed by me regarding zero and infinity; it also says that zero is the vector equilibrium of all positives and negatives. He agrees to the impossibility of zero, when he says that the tendency of explosion prevents an entity to become zero. What he says in addition is that there is a tendency of implosion at magnitudes close to infinity and the balance between these two tendency defines our universe. Very reasonable.

Either way, the universe can be defined as a vast multitude of positives and negatives, the sum total being zero. DP

 

You are welcome. One note: The 'vector equilibrium' is a specific geometric construction in Synergetics, and not to be confused to mean a general 'balance of parts'. Overall, it reassures me that we have an agreement in at least one regard, as otherwise we would diasagree about nothing. :cup:

[durgatosh]

Turtle

You are welcome. One note: The 'vector equilibrium' is a specific geometric construction in Synergetics, and not to be confused to mean a general 'balance of parts'. Overall, it reassures me that we have an agreement in at least one regard, as otherwise we would diasagree about nothing.

 

I understand the difference between vector equilibrium and sum total or balance of parts. But zero as a vector equilibrium of all negative and positive entities is just one step away from the concept of zero being the sum total of all positives and negatives. It is by interpreting zero and infinity in this way that we can explain the eternity of the universe without the need of an origin.

 

You see, Turtle, that despite all our differences, one thing we have in common is curiosity and the our quest for truth. We may follow different paths, but our goal is the same. If you think deeply, you will find that your concept of "one" is not very different from my concept of "zero and infinity".

 

DP

[Turtle]

You see, Turtle, that despite all our differences, one thing we have in common is curiosity and the our quest for truth. We may follow different paths, but our goal is the same. If you think deeply, you will find that your concept of "one" is not very different from my concept of "zero and infinity".

 

DP

 

A :( by any other name...I like. :)

[Guest chen2739]

The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[long repeat of the initial post in this thread deleted (again: note it is extremely impolite to repeat entire posts) for brevity by Buffy.

 

Wow! What an elegant and fun to read theory of the Origin of the Universe!

 

Zero, one, i (imaginary number), e, and INFINITY are the mysterious and transcendental values/numbers in mathematics, physics, nature, reality and the totality of all existence.

If we are to ever understand and grasp the TRUE nature and beginning of the omnium multiverse and totality of all existence, then we must figure out ZERO and INFINITY, and deepest secret mysteries of these two 'entities'. ZERO and INFINITY are like twinsouls and soulmates, they are basically one and the same thing, two sides of the same one coin.

One cannot exists without the other, they are non-dualistic, much like space-time continuum.

 

You are obviously an extremely intelligent and inspired individual. One thing I'd like you to take into consideration in your

quest for the Origin of the Existence is not to forget to include the explanations for CONSCIOUSNESS and AWARENESS.

 

What do I mean by this?

 

Qouted/editted from " [won't let me the new user link ] Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness " :

 

Most scientists trained in the current paradigm believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of material evolution. They argue that the universe evolved for billions of years before life and consciousness began to appear. This view of consciousness, like any other scientific theory, has its a priori assumptions, and the first step in the formal presentation of a scientific theory is to enumerate the a priori assumptions upon which the theory is based. Surprisingly, there is one assumption, perhaps the most basic assumption of all in the current scientific paradigm, that is rarely ever articulated. This is because it seems to be so obviously true that most scientists see no need to include it explicitly in the written accounts of their work. This rarely-mentioned assumption is the assumption that physical reality is independent of consciousness.

 

In the formulation of the theory of relativity, for example, Albert Einstein spelled out the assumptions of constant light speed and no preferred reference frame, but saw no need to mention mind-matter independence. Einstein was certainly aware of this underlying assumption, but to find his acknowledgement of it, we have to turn to his more general writings. In James Clerke Maxwell: A Commemorative Volume, he said: "The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science."

 

Those who believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter usually consider the identification and understanding of the physical structures and electro-chemical processes that are associated with perception and thought to be the only "explanation" of consciousness possible. While this approach seems reasonable, it is based upon the a priori assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of a material reality that existed prior to, and independent of consciousness. What if this assumption is wrong? Quantum mechanics has produced strong evidence that it is wrong. It may even be that consciousness is a more basic aspect of reality than matter and energy or space and time. If so, we are more likely to be able to successfully explain the material universe in terms of consciousness, rather than the other way round as most scientists have been trying to do.

 

"It would seem that knowledge of the physical processes associated with consciousness, from the firing of neurons down to the last quantum interaction, should bring us literally to the "bottom" line. But does the identification of micro-structures and quantum processes related to conscious mental activities really explain consciousness? Identifying the connection between quantum processes and brain functions may yield valuable practical applications in biology, medicine and psychology, but does it bring us any closer to understanding what consciousness is? Or are we, in fact, still where Leibnitz was three hundred years ago when he said that even if we could magnify a human being to the point that we could walk inside and observe every moving part, we still would not find anything called consciousness? Can consciousness be explained in terms of matter and energy, or is there another way to approach the problem that may lead to a deeper understanding of the relationship between mind and matter?"

 

"The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox was a thought experiment designed to demonstrate failure of the uncertainty principle in the case of the creation of a pair of twin particles and the subsequent determination of certain physical characteristics of the particles at some distance from the point of their creation. The logic of the situation described by Einstein, et al, was inescapable. If the particles were actual physical entities, like tiny baseballs traveling through space at less than light speed, the uncertainty principle failed. Bohr's response was that it is incorrect to think of quanta as localized phenomena with paths through space. They only exhibit such effects when they impinge upon physical obstacles or receptors, irreversibly making their presence known in a way that could be observed and recorded in the mind of an observer. Einstein found this explanation totally unacceptable on the grounds that it violated the theory of relativity and the common sense assumption that sub-atomic paricles are localized bits of matter with definite physical characteristics, even if we cannot observe them directly. If Bohr's explanation was wrong, the uncertainty principle was wrong, and the whole fabric of quantum theory would fall apart. But quantum theory, with the uncertainty principle as an integral part continued to predict experimental results with great accuracy. This was indeed a paradox.

 

If elementary particles travel through space as localized phenomena, as EPR (and common sense) insist, then it is easy to show that the correlation between a pair of particles in an EPR-type experiment cannot exceed a specific numerical value. John Bell was able to show mathematically that if Bohr was right, that value would be exceeded. Experiments carried out by Clauser and Freedman, Aspect, and others, have proved that Einstein was wrong; Bohr was correct. As John Wheeler has said: "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon." This startling conclusion has been born out by a number of experiments, including the so-called 'delayed-choice' experiment.

 

In the classical two-slit experiment, light is shown to have both particle and wave characteristics. A barrier with two slits in it is placed between a light source and a blank screen. When both slits are open, interference patterns are observed on the screen, demonstrating the wave nature of light. By closing one of the slits, the experimenter can cause the light to behave as particles, striking the screen one at a time, creating a single patch of light, scattered around a point directly behind the open slit. In the delayed-choice experiment, the solid screen is replaced by a venetian-blind screen that can be opened or closed after an emitted photon has had time to pass the slits, but before it reaches the screen. Two particle collectors are placed behind the screen, one in line with the light source and the left slit, the other in line with the source and the right slit. If a photon is emitted and the venetian-blind screen is left open, the photon registers in one collector or the other, indicating a linear path through one of the slits. If the venetian-blind screen is closed after the photon, traveling as a particle, would have passed through one of the slits, the photon strikes the screen, contributing to an interference pattern developing there. In this way, the photon is induced to act as a wave or a particle by a choice made after it has passed the slitted barrier. Thus we can decide, after the fact, whether a photon behaved as a wave or as a particle. This demonstrates the fact that elementary phenomena like photons do not exist as localized particles or waves until they register by impacting upon a receptor."

 

"Verification of Bohr's view, known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, raises an even more interesting question: How do we know that quanta, the building blocks of physical reality, exist before registering in the consciousness of an observer? Common sense, i.e., our normal, every-day experience of things, prompts us to think that they must, but this is the same common-sense idea that led to the EPR paradox. The famous Schrödinger's cat conundrum illustrates the difficulty of this question. The cat's state (dead or alive) depends upon the collapse of a wave function to form a physical quantum from a decaying radioactive source in a box containing the cat and a vial of poison that will be released when the quantum registers. If the cat, poison and radioactive source are all part of a quantum mechanical system, what constitutes registration? Does the registration of the quantum triggering the release have to wait for a conscious observer? Is the cat a conscious observer?

 

Schrödinger did not believe that the Copenhagen interpretation could possibly be correct, and the purpose of this thought experiment was to show just how ridiculous it was. Now, however, we know that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct! The problem of when and how the quantum wave collapse occurs is even more critical if we accept John Von Neumann's conclusion in his classic work, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, that no logical physical separation is possible between quantum systems and classical physical objects. If quanta do not exist until they register as effects on a receptor, and we have no way of knowing of them until evidence of their effects is received in our consciousness via a chain of quanta and receptors, how are we to know whether they exist or not, without the presence of consciousness?

 

Belief in the independent existence of physical phenomena is a basic assumption of the current scientific paradigm. Is there any way to determine whether or not we should abandon this belief? Fortunately, we don't have to base our decision on belief. We can use the scientific method to testing our hypothesis and determine whether it is true or false. We can form a hypothesis from the belief in an external world independent of consciousness by noting that if this belief is true, the material world would exist pretty much as we perceive it, with or without the existence of consciousness. But now we have a problem: This is not a scientific hypothesis — It cannot be verified or falsified because we can't observe a universe without an observer.

 

Current observations suggest that billions of years of physical evolution passed before conditions favorable for organic life arose, and therefore, perhaps the universe did exist without consciousness, and still does, in distant galaxies and lifeless planets in our own solar system. This argument, however, is spurious because it assumes that the only possible form of consciousness is that associated with life as we know it.

 

To assure the proper application of the scientific method, we must guard against closing our minds to possibilities other than those implied by the assumptions of our current paradigm. If we insist on staying within the current paradigm of scientific materialism, we are stuck. The belief in the independence of the material world remains just that -- a belief. But what about the converse? Can the belief that the material world IS NOT independent of consciousness be turned into a scientific hypothesis and tested? Is it possible that the physical universe and consciousness are interdependent?

 

Suppose, for a moment, that consciousness is the organizing agent that creates all structure in the universe. Without it, the second law of thermodynamics, known to operate in closed physical systems, would soon bring the universe to maximum entropy. There would be no structure or order distinguishing any part of the universe from any other part. If consciousness is the organizing agent behind all structure, then trying to understand consciousness by analyzing the physical structure of the brain is like trying to determine the meaning of a symbol such as the letter 'A', a word, or a mathematical symbol by analyzing the physical properties of the ink and the paper upon which the symbol is printed."

 

Nearly all physicists now accept Bohr's interpretation as the correct understanding of quantum mechanics. Most, however, are not ready to admit that acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation necessitates acknowledging involvement of consciousness in quantum processes. The logical ramifications of the Copenhagen interpretation, however, force us to consider the possibility that reality is not consciousness independent.

 

Consider the psychoparallelism described by Von Neumann: The act of observation divides the world into two parts: the observer and the observed. The flow of information is traced, through the mechanism of reflected elementary particles (photons), from the object to the receptive structures of the eye of the observer, and then, through the optic nerve and brain, a series of elementary particles (electrons) carry the information to the consciousness of the observer. Finally, the observer's conscious perception involves the creation of mental images that 'parallel' features existing in the external world.

 

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Is it composed of energy? If so, there is a minimum volume within which the image of an object can appear and be stored, since energy can only occur in quanta, or discrete, finite packets. What is the consciousness that perceives this image? Is it also made up of quanta of matter and energy? If so, then the elementary particles of which it is composed also had no local physical form until they registered on a prior receptor. And that prior receptor, if it was composed of quanta of matter and energy, also had to have had a prior receptor, and so on. Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the final receptor and the images it perceives are not composed of quanta of matter and energy.

 

This is the same logical contradiction discovered by the inner research of mystics as they seek to discover the nature and location of the self. See, for instance, the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. The mystic asks: Who am I? and where does this "I" reside? Attempting to locate the perceiving self, one soon realizes that any part of the physical body, the head, heart, brain, etc., identified as the location of the self, immediately becomes an object perceived by the self, and the perceiving subject is therefore something other than the structure. The conclusion, again, is that consciousness is something beyond matter and energy.

 

Given this conclusion, we can no longer maintain the assumption of scientific materialism, i.e., that reality consists of nothing but matter and energy interacting in time and space. No one can deny the fact that consciousness exists; we all experience it directly. But the separation of reality into the observer and the observed and the logic of infinite descent forces us to conclude that consciousness cannot be composed of quanta of matter or energy. In order to continue in an objective, scientific manner, we must therefore abandon the limiting assumption of materialism and allow non-quantum consciousness to take its place as real, right along with matter and energy.

 

What is the nature of this conscious non-quantum receptor? The great difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that it is, by definition, the very essence of awareness, the principle that allows sentient beings to exist in such a way as to be able to ask this question in the first place. We can begin, however, by identifying the basic functions of consciousness: The primary function of drawing distinctions, first between self and other, and then in what it perceives to be other than itself. The secondary function of consciousness is to organize those distinctions into logical structure and order.

 

Some of the innate features of consciousness that we can identify include:

 

* Continuity - Consciousness exhibits infinite divisibility, or continuity, distinguishing it from the discreet quanta of matter and energy.

* Nonlocality - Because of its inherent continuity, consciousness is able to perceive phenomena ranging from a single quantum to objects composed of many distinct parts. This awareness suggests that the form of consciousness in which images are formed is connected, comprising a unified whole.

* Complementarity - Consciousness and the physical universe are complementary aspects of the reality we experience, since they are both necessary for that experience to occur.

* Uncertainty - The identification of consciousness with a structure of matter and energy, e.g., the body through which it perceives the physical universe, gives rise to uncertainty because of the limitations of knowledge imposed by the boundaries of that which is perceived to encompass the self.

 

With Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment, quantum physics has revealed that the quantum level of reality exhibits the last three of these features.

 

At first it may seem curious that some of the features of consciousness are necessary features of the physical universe at the quantum level. On the other hand, if consciousness is actually the ground of all phenomena, rather than an abstract epiphenomenon of matter, then this finding is perfectly natural and would have been expected, if we had not assumed mind and matter, consciousness and energy, to be separate in the first place. If we accept the similarity of the features of quantum reality and consciousness revealed by empirical evidence and the logic of infinite descent to be more than coincidence, we begin to see reality as a unified whole, something that includes both subject and object, something that manifests as a spectrum ranging from non-quantum consciousness to quantized energy and matter. This "something" is the root of all phenomena, the ineffable potential from which all forms are selected by the drawing of distinctions.

 

 

Instead of trying to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy, perhaps we should be trying to explain matter and energy in terms of consciousness. By approaching the problem in this way, we will be able to obtain information complementary to the information from research into parallel physical processes and structures. Attacking the problem from both sides will lead to a better understanding of the interaction of mind and matter and produce a more meaningful explanation of consciousness.

 

I propose to make CONSCIOUSNESS another fundamental aspect of physical reality. I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take 'experience/quilia/awareness' as fundamental.A nonreductive theory of experience will add new principles to the furniture of the basic laws of nature.

 

I have specifically refering to the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS & AWARENESS. SO before you biology majors jump on me, let it be known that I am quite aware of the physical biochemical process of the brain and the explaination of the EASY problem/aspect of Consciousness.

 

The epiphenomenon feeling of 'what it is like' to experience love, lust, happiness, the raw sensation of beauty, to be affected with a special,

unique, impression of pleasure, etc is (for a reason not yet known) simply a side-effect by-product correlation that runs parallel and correspondingly to our physical and biological counterpart. Again, this is a 'miracle' if there ever was one, and WHY this is so, I still haven't the slightest clue. Perhaps it has something to do with the non-reductive nature of the universe, perhaps qualia is another fundamental property of the universe much like space, energy, matter and time; these are initial base axioms that 'just are' without need for further analysis and explanation.

 

Of course, by taking experience as fundamental, there is a sense in which this approach does not tell us why there is experience in the first place. But this is the same for any fundamental theory. Nothing in physics tells us why there is matter in the first place, but we do not count this against theories of matter. Certain features of the world need to be taken as fundamental by any scientific theory. A theory of matter can still explain all sorts of facts about matter, by showing how they are consequences of the basic laws. The same goes for a theory of experience and quilia.

 

This is the exact same problem as with asking what is the elementary nature of reality (ie for example: what is the building block of matter?)? I am flesh, but what is flesh? It is carbon based life form made of cells which are made of all different combinations of molecules and atoms, which are further made of individual protons, electrons, neutrons. what is an electron? No one can give you an precise definition of what is an electron....Furthermore, electrons are made of 'quarks' and quarks are speculated to be consisting of 1-D elementary 'strings'. But what the heck is a 'string'?

 

So see this thing can either go on forever in recursive loops (meaning you will never get an answer of WHAT it is) or it can end somewhere at a base case in which the answer MUST be:

 

IT JUST IS. Because by definition something that is irreducible has no further properties that can be broken down with. The method of reduction ends when the things being considered can no longer be broken apart; that is, when we have reached things that are irreducible. Identifying these irreducible things is one of the primary goals of science. By definition, if a thing is perceived as irreducible, its underlying structure is totally unknown. IT JUST IS...

 

To combine this with your theory that the Universe is simply the sum total of everything which is ZERO, then we can go on to say that there is nothing in this universe but 'consciousness'. Indeed, CONSCIOUSNESS IS EVERYTHING, and it is the so called PHYSICAL UNIVERSE that is the facade, and illusion.

 

Zero and Infinity cannot exists alone by itself, they are like soulmates and can never be seperated. Consciousness IS ZEROINFINITY!!!!!

 

Everything in this universe is just information anyway, and Information is just patterns. Without the '1' And '0', without the 'zero' and 'infinity', without the 'on and off', 'black and white' 'light and dark' and 'crest and trough' without the 'something and nothing' without the 'matter and space' etcetc there is NOTHING.

 

Take a black and white drawing for example, it is the CONTRAST between the 'black' and the 'white' that makes the 'image'.

Neither the white nor the black by itself contain anything information. It is the imaginary border between these two polar

opposites that information, pattern, visual image, and existence can occur and be conveyed.

 

A blank CD can contain a lot of things. It can be for a new Operating System, contain a whole lot of porn, or it can be

the latest flight simulator 2006, but what makes the Disc what it is is the patterns of '1''s and '0's . A CD with ALL

'1's or ALL '0's across the disc contain no information whatsoever, it is absolutely BLANK in either configuration.

Only Cd's with '1's AND '0's alternating in meaningful combinations can contain 'information' that can be useful to man.

Yet herein lies a paradox, if none of the individual '1's and none of the individual '0's contain any information at all, then why should the

illusionary 'border' between the two 'nothings' contain an entity that is simultaneously not 'nothing' (otherwise there would be no 'information') and yet surprisingly it is obvious that it is not any particular 'thing'!

 

After all it is only between each of the individual '0' and '1' CONTRASTS that any information can reside, yet this boundary or border does not exists on the CD itself, and obviously is not a part of the physical world; one can search in vain and never find the location of this abstract platonic 'existence' of this information.

 

Since the 'nothing' by itself does not exist, and the pure 'something' by itself also does not and cannot exist, then the only

't-ing' (non-thing And not-nothing) that exists is the illusionary and imaginary 'intermediate' 'i' that is simultaneously 'everything' and 'nothing', 1 and 0, on and off, and yet both not any particular thing and yet not exactly nothing. It is like a superposition of all possible and maybe even impossible combinations or permutations. 0 i 1 or 0i1

 

In Penrose's The Road to Reality he talks about the Mandelbrot set and its extraordinarily elaborate structure. This structure as infinite complexity yet it is not of any human design. Remarkably, this structure is defined by a mathematical rule of extreme elegant simplicity.

The set if just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set's unlimited complication. Nor can its existence lie within physical world or reside within your Pentium computer. At best software such as Fractal eXtreme can only provide a shadow of an approximation to the set itself.

 

What is the difference between reality and illusion? Is 'illusion' encompassed by, and a part of the larger underlying theme we call reality? What if what we think we know as reality is but a larger illusion? Can we by definition know more than the sum of all our aggregate 'inputs'? Where do we start, what is the first final a priori assumption? Is there a true initial starting point axiom in which we can base everything else from? I think, therefore I am. But how does one know one actually 'thinks'? Is it safe to say that anything that is done can only be done through the means and inputs that are already in existence? So it is through this 'input' that 'I' am taught to believe there are distinctions, is it not? And again, through this 'input' that 'I' believe that from this distinction there is magical things called perception, and reality, self and others, internal and external, inner subjective realm and outer objective physical reality OUT THERE. And so I believe that through my perception I encounter a model of reality, and it is in this actual reality that my perception can exists.

 

1) If I am to assume that there are no silly distinctions and all is one, then everything simply just is. I have reached the bottom, the base case, the initial and the final. Perhaps in this case I realize that I am asking question so I can entertain myself with an endless hide and seek of losing and finding myself again through eternity?

 

2) If I am to assume that there are in fact these distinctions such as perception and reality, mentality and physicality, illusion and reals, physical and pyschological, then I can either further assume that physical reality is an elaborate illusion that exists solely in mentality, OR I can assume that consciousness, and 'qualia' are an epiphenomenon of the physical universe and its existence dependent on an external reality OUT THERE. If I were to go with the latter assumption, then I must rightfully concede that I can never exceed the realm of perception and mentality. Everything I see and touch and smell is but a model and sub-reality and not the genuine thing that is out there somewhere beyond my capacity. So again I ask, Can we by definition know more than the sum of all our aggregate 'inputs'? Doesn't this second assumption, the assumption that 'qualia' is an epiphenomenon of the physical universe, simply become reduced to the former assumption that physical reality is an elaborate illusion that exists solely in mentality? In this case, isn't mentality really all there is?

 

So between #1 and #2, which is the greater assumption? The first would solve all problems by stating 'all is one' and there are no problems, and indeed this thread of mine is a post of ignorance and illusion. The second assumption eventually reduces itself to be very much similar to the first. If 'mentality' is all there is, then the definition of 'mentality' becomes absurd and redundant. Without a 'physical' existence to contrast something 'other than physical', the word 'mental' ceases to have any meaning and its connotation becomes invalid. SO in essence, #2 reduces back into #1!!

 

So this, 'stuff', this 'just is' has been 'just – is-ing' for how long? It just is. Why is there a 'totality of all existence' at all in the first place instead of an 'other –than –existence-nothinglessness'? It just is. And why is it just is? It just is. Does think really actually answer anything? Why is the illusion of self not satisfied with the simplest answer in the universe?

 

Occam's razor, which states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory, and that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity CLEARLY is in support of NONDUALITY of existence rather than the duality that is too often taught in Christianty.

 

Awareness is the essence of reality. YOU me and everyone all boils down to PURE AWARENESS. That is our true essence and nature.

 

 

[won't let me the new user link ]Everything and Nothing in One Breath - Andrew Cohen Quote of the Week - andrewcohen DOT organization

 

Consciousness is not an object, so you cannot say it is something. And yet it is not nothing. Nothing is void; it has no attributes, no qualities. Consciousness is empty of any thing, and yet there is something endlessly compelling in that emptiness. When you contemplate consciousness, you discover a mysterious sense of knowing that is both knowing nothing and knowing everything at once. Whatever you are becoming cognizant of, its nature seems to be everything—fullness, completeness. The emptiness is full. That's why the emptiness is compelling, because it is full of the knowing of some mysterious everything that is not a thing. It's everything; it's nothing—you can go on forever: everything, nothing, nothing, everything, always meaning the same thing. If you could say everything and nothing in one breath, perhaps you could capture the paradoxical nature of consciousness.

 

It is now time to recognize that all the paradoxes of quantum physics can be solved if we accept consciousness as the ground of being.

 

The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.

 

However, in the end, and even in between, consciousness is actually 'nothing'. 'Nothing' is also consciousness, so in this nondualistic moment, I can say at the same time that,

 

Therefore, the deepest secret of all is this,

CONSCIOUSNESS & AWARENESS IS EVERYTHING

 

*AND*

 

THERE IS REALLY NOTHING AT ALL!

 

QED, ENDL;