• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

hardest question

DOB

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
2,290
Location
can I have one reply pls?
where did everything come from? everything comes from something,by this you go forever witch indicates infinity witch seems to us imposible

other way is that at some point something came out of nothing,witch is atleast as crazy as infinity


my theory is that outside our universe theres place without time,it dont have begining or end,not becose its infinite,but becose its lacking time,your opinion?

and dont say god or whatever derp magic,I mean some logical theory
 
Last edited:
That "something came from nothing" thing isn't that crazy, at least for some physicist. See for example "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

I think that the nothing they have in mind is something,or the timeless original I mentioned earlier........... nothing can come out of nothing
 
Time only exists in the animated universe, amongst physical matter, because it measures the rate of it's movement, evolution, and erosion.

This also a Spirituality sub forum, and...oh well nevermind that now.
;)
 
where did everything come from? everything comes from something,by this you go forever witch indicates infinity witch seems to us imposible

I think this is where you may be confusing yourself. The laws of thermodynamics are basically silent on where matter/energy 'comes from' - excepting, of course, the rather fascinating conclusion that no matter/energy can ever be 'created' or 'destroyed' in the traditional sense, but rather can only be transferred and/or transformed. This finding is of some philosophical importance in that it reveals a world of matter that is, loosely speaking, free from the commonsensical constraints of birth and death, creation and destruction, &c. There is no binary relation here; matter/energy as we know it did not 'come from' anything. It wasn't built at some finite time (or at least there presently exists no particularly compelling reason to believe such a silly thing), and it will not just vanish at some undisclosed point in the future. 'Beginnings' and 'ends' (as we understand them on an everyday level) are misleading concepts on both the cosmological and the subatomic scales; such intuitive reasoning will only get you so far in these fields.
 
The seemingly inherent impossibility of the example answers you provided only illustrates the limitations of our understanding... Will we ever truly know the answer to life, the universe and everything? Most likely not, due to our limited capacity to perceive. Personally I believe we'll get to a point down the line of causality of the nature of existence that ends with a theory similar to quantum physics, i.e. we'll be able to experimentally confirm the theories correctness but the theory itself won't be able to give us all the answers just like how quantum mechanics states we can't precisely measure the exact location of a particle and its correlative velocity for the act of measuring one will distort the other.
 
The seemingly inherent impossibility of the example answers you provided only illustrates the limitations of our understanding... Will we ever truly know the answer to life, the universe and everything? Most likely not, due to our limited capacity to perceive. Personally I believe we'll get to a point down the line of causality of the nature of existence that ends with a theory similar to quantum physics, i.e. we'll be able to experimentally confirm the theories correctness but the theory itself won't be able to give us all the answers just like how quantum mechanics states we can't precisely measure the exact location of a particle and its correlative velocity for the act of measuring one will distort the other.

Sounds good, plenty of work for humanity which will probably be good? for it/them.
 
to know the answer to that, though, is to know more about ourselves, what we exist amongst, and where it all ends up. that's hardly meaningless.

It's still meaningless as the second part of the question is the negation of the first.

What is X when ~X? Is the form of the question.

By default, "what happened BEFORE everything started happening?" is self-contradictory and meaningless.
 
^ exactly. famously, in the context of earth, what is north of the north pole?
everything comes from something
only if you limit your thinking to the idea that everything comes from something...
other way is that at some point something came out of nothing,witch is atleast as crazy as infinity
again, only if your thinking is limited.

read this: Flatland

alasdair
 
^
Flatlands is a neat work imo. It does a good job of treating of geometry on manifolds. I think you're going towards brane world hypothesis with it?(Or something similar like Given the whole subject of spaces of different numbers of spatial dimensions?
 
^ i only mention it because i think that it would be useful for somebody like the op to read it to help him understand why he might not (yet) be wired to understand some of these concepts.

alasdair
 
Oh, I think it's a great intro to the concepts (I am trying to convince Ms.G to read it.) I was just curious if the reason you where suggesting it was as a gentle intro the concepts needed to make some sense of brane cosmology.
 
(Moderators: I'm posting this here first rather is a separate request in science/technology as it may have some application in working on these hard/complex questions, but just delete my post and message me if I should start a new thread elsewhere)

TLDR: Need software names that has more power than just a standard flowchart.

I am having a great deal of trouble(lack of wiring/education as mentioned by Alasdair?) considering similar specific/abstract attributes of different scientific theories/philosophies at the same time and before I complicate things further by starting to read/grasp a lot of different recommendations/concepts that have been shared by this board and others. I understand that this may be a somewhat futile effort in strict scientific terms as in comparing the reference of one concept to another the other is always changed (as mentioned by Casualuser above) but may function better as a learning map/recording method when looking at philosophical abstracts or flicking back and forwards between levels of hierarchical thinking/focus).

Are there tools/computer program(IT solution is preferred option)known methods of drawing/recording/or thinking that can be used which is a step up from a flow diagram that you have on paper (simple yes/no trail on one process with set answers) which can explore three or more channels/possibilities as a means of more referencing different concepts easier/matching attributes that are abstract.

So I wanted to look at the following three channels/possibilities intitally (more may be added later or different ones used altogether for other projects) as I was getting into a bit of a loop when I was reading about Solipsism again (just revisited the Wikipedia thus far). I might give each of these theories/colours/assignations at different times to try to promote different focused thinking on concepts if I want to ignore or include currently known laws of the universe/philosophies.

Random Example:

This lists primary theories/laws concepts in a circular fashion extending outwards which I give a colour that might signify importance or level of knowledge or degree of linkage or some abstract

MIND (signal)
-Positive disintegration (Green)
-Nirvana/Enlightenment (Blue)
-Ego Loss/Depersonalisation (Orange)
-Death (Yellow)

WORLD(noise)
-Extra dimensions (Green)
-Current Reality(Blue)

MIND & WORLD (ALL/NOTHING/UNIVERSE, i.e no distinction between first two or maybe no distinction between signal/noise per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_theory)
-God (Green)
-Space(blue)


So I can see perhaps up the top half/side of computer screen one, or two or three of the channels side by side as I elect one to all be seen or unseen and the various coloured concepts displayed in full radiating outwards.

At the same time on the other side/bottom half I have a list of concepts grouped into boxes which are sorted by colour, so I can switch between top and bottom to aid in juggling multiple abstract notions at once in the mind. I then perhaps either change the whole sequence/concepts completely or add/remove/change colour of concepts as I wish.

I understand I may be trying to build a spaceship out of instant noodles

Edit: Realised I could do this with a whiteboard and magnets but it is slow and cumbersome compared to a software option.

Second Edit: Realise that if I stopped smoking weed and using psychedelics and did specific training/supplements I may be able to improve memory but at the same time I need a creative and open(somewhat loose?) mind to look at these kind of things. Perhaps it's addiction colouring my thoughts.

Third edit: Realised I need to keep reading and studying whilst I improve this process and my mind is probably doing a lot of this naturally.
Moderators - I apologise for this lengthy post so I have added a TL/DR and perhaps it can serve as example or illogical thinking that some may find amusing(including myself).
 
Last edited:
my theory is that outside our universe theres place without time,it dont have begining or end,not becose its infinite,but becose its lacking time=

What makes you say "outside our universe" ? Why not just say that there is no time, except as a creation of the human mind? Before humans and animals who was keeping track? I don't think the trees had any calendars or watches or even sun dials! Maybe time goes backwards and forwards, or in loops. Maybe time is just the relationship of one thing moving in rhythm to another (e.g. the earth around the sun). Time is funny, a fantastic illusion.

Where did everything come from? I strongly believe in the fractal nature of the universe, and the similarity between macro and micro. So, the essence of this question should be findable in our immediate experience. Where does our immediate experience come from? The answer I get is that it's just kind of there, and supports your original point - that there is no time.
 
What makes you say "outside our universe" ? Why not just say that there is no time, except as a creation of the human mind? Before humans and animals who was keeping track? I don't think the trees had any calendars or watches or even sun dials! Maybe time goes backwards and forwards, or in loops. Maybe time is just the relationship of one thing moving in rhythm to another (e.g. the earth around the sun). Time is funny, a fantastic illusion.

Where did everything come from? I strongly believe in the fractal nature of the universe, and the similarity between macro and micro. So, the essence of this question should be findable in our immediate experience. Where does our immediate experience come from? The answer I get is that it's just kind of there, and supports your original point - that there is no time.

Explain to me how anything "macro"...like larger than peptide, is any sense similar to those things "micro", like atoms and subatomic particles? I wasn't really aware that shooting a paintball gun at a board with two slits in it produced an interference pattern behind it...
 
What makes you say "outside our universe" ? Why not just say that there is no time, except as a creation of the human mind? Before humans and animals who was keeping track? I don't think the trees had any calendars or watches or even sun dials! Maybe time goes backwards and forwards, or in loops. Maybe time is just the relationship of one thing moving in rhythm to another (e.g. the earth around the sun). Time is funny, a fantastic illusion.

Where did everything come from? I strongly believe in the fractal nature of the universe, and the similarity between macro and micro. So, the essence of this question should be findable in our immediate experience. Where does our immediate experience come from? The answer I get is that it's just kind of there, and supports your original point - that there is no time.

1. time can exist without life
2. trees are legit life forms just like humans
 
Explain to me how anything "macro"...like larger than peptide, is any sense similar to those things "micro", like atoms and subatomic particles? I wasn't really aware that shooting a paintball gun at a board with two slits in it produced an interference pattern behind it...

Me neither! Why would it? That is a bizarre analogy. A more appropriate one would be comparing your body as a whole to physiological systems to individual organs all the way down to cells. Or, in my original example, the universe in its entirety ("where did it come from?") to a single human being's field of experience. The difference between my comparisons and yours is that mine emphasizes systems within systems that have fractal natures. Your example is of two disjointed phenomena.
 
Me neither! Why would it? That is a bizarre analogy. A more appropriate one would be comparing your body as a whole to physiological systems to individual organs all the way down to cells. Or, in my original example, the universe in its entirety ("where did it come from?") to a single human being's field of experience. The difference between my comparisons and yours is that mine emphasizes systems within systems that have fractal natures. Your example is of two disjointed phenomena.

My point was that we do indeed see a lot of self similar things in the meso scale, but they end at some point on the small end (The classical limit) and arguably on the big/cosmological scale (weak field limit) and at those points seemingly fractal patterns in nature disappear and a strange new set of things become apparent.
 
Top