equations of the universe
#1
We know that we can predict many things with equations, for example if we drop a bowling ball of the top of any building, we can predict when it will hit the ground with a ridiculous amount of certainty and accuracy.

We can fly planes without people; there are drones and other aircraft out there that are completely operated by mechanistic computers, computing algorithms constantly.

We can monitor populations and predict outbreaks of disease, and genetic drifts and genotype traits.

We continually progress in the way of prediction of the universe at an alarmingly fast rate. There is a project out now that is attempting to roughly predict the entire world; ecosystems, economics, weather, etc. It is taking massive amounts of super computers, but it is a project being looked into, nonetheless.

I however, don't believe that the universe can ever fit into a single equation, nor do I believe that it can be foretold. I believe, at best, the universe is an incompressible algorithm, meaning that it is synergistic in the way each law is described. The sum of all the laws of the universe are greater than just the parts (or however that saying goes).

What I mean by that is, is that there are laws dealing with gravity, electromagnetics, nuclear forces, etc. I believe these equations to be completely correct, and fundamental. However, I believe that their additive effects create a complexity that is essentially unsolvable- meaning we cannot predict things with any sort of complexity beyond one force or two body interactions.

therefore, i conclude, the universe is pretty neat.
I'm not here to make someone else rich.
Art shop; Etsy.com/shop/jonhelander
  Répondre
#2
I don't really know enough about physics and alike to really go into deep discussions about this, but I'm going to give a very different perspective on this, in terms of things that I know some more about (and it is also connected a bit with a thread I just made here).

(Before I go on: this is not my "belief", just a thought.. A thought I think has some serious credibility to it, enough to not just dismiss it as nonsense.)

What if the whole universe is a product of the brain. Everything you see around you, everything that is, is some neurons firing in your brain. On the level of experiential reality this is almost undoubtedly true. Everything we experience is in some way correlated to processes in the brain. Though, what I am saying is that there not even is a "real", objective reality out there. At the very most an objective reality that is made of something which can never, ok, probably never be understood in any terms of *whatever*. There is just nothing to.. well it cannot be described.. It is just "nothing", yet still "something", it doesn't have a context to understand it in. Words fail in bringing across what I am trying to say here, due to the property of language always referring to something, always being symbolic of something, but I hope you get the point.
Anyway, back to what I was going to say, I am going to go on with the idea of there not being a knowable objective reality (i.e. knowable universe). Thus there is only the subjective reality. The experiential reality. Now, as I have also stated in the other thread mentioned above, we are starting to understand the human brain, thus the human Mind, in more and more detail at an alarmingly fast pace. We are mapping in extreme detail how the brain functions, and thus to some degree how the Mind functions. Going further along this line of thought, if all there is, is experiential reality, and this reality is in turn a product of our brains, then all we would have to do is to fully understand the human brain in order to be able to predict the state of reality, the universe, right?
Now, of course, in how far this is more tangible than discovering an objective equation for the universe as you mentioned remains to be seen. It surely seems that fully understanding the human brain, and especially the Mind, is in no way "easier" compared to the discovering of an equation for the universe through physics, but I am inclined to say that it is possible. I do not believe it is impossible. Why? Well, because of the incredibly fast rate at which more knowledge about and understanding of the brain is being gained. I don't know if something similar is also the case in physics, but I am guessing that it is. So, also from that point of view, why would it really be impossible to think it possible? I don't think just because we cannot "imagine" it yet we are doomed to fail in that respect. There have been plenty of periods in humanity's history where something could not be imagined, and some tens (or hundreds) of years later it is suddenly there. Maybe it won't happen in our lifetime, but impossible? I do not think so.
  Répondre
#3
don't you see the paradox there?

You are saying that our neurons create our reality, yet we can touch, and function with our neurons... doesn't that make this real?

I've been in that loop before and I really didn't like the experience that came with it :|
I'm not here to make someone else rich.
Art shop; Etsy.com/shop/jonhelander
  Répondre
#4
IJesusChrist a écrit :don't you see the paradox there?

You are saying that our neurons create our reality, yet we can touch, and function with our neurons... doesn't that make this real?

I've been in that loop before and I really didn't like the experience that came with it :|


Finally have some time to answer, so here it goes.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but the paradox that I do see in what I wrote is that how can neurons create reality, thereby creating themselves, i.e. who created the first neuron? I don't read that in what you wrote though, as I don't see a paradox in that at all. Firing neurons are what create the sensations of touch and other sensory modalities, they are the cause of thoughts (or so can be argued) - Yes, agreed. To go into extremes, as I claimed before, you don't even know for sure if there is an outside world as all that you actually experience is the sensations and perceptions that neurons create, by firing. At least that is what neuroscience is really implying. This is also really close to, if not exactly the same as (except for him using older terminology, calling it "thinking" instead of "the firing of neurons"), what Descartes claimed to realize in his "Meditations", leading to his famous "Cogito ergo sum".
Though, if I misinterpreted what you were implying, please elaborate Smile

Anyway, to counter the paradox how the "creator" (being the neurons) can create itself, I have a couple of suggestions (one being more crazy than the other Wink ):

1) Suppose that it is not the physical brain, but a field of energy or information (or anything else that is not of a material nature; it doesn't matter what you call it) that creates the brain (i.e. neurons). This field of energy or information would be supposed to be there and always have been there. When it has a certain concentration (in case of energy), or when it has a certain informational "value", consciousness is manifested. This field of energy or information could be the objective reality which cannot be known in any way (under normal circumstances anyway; I'm not going to go into in how far taking psychedelics for example can make you aware of this objective reality). Well, then we have arrived at a point where there is consciousness, in turn creating all of experiential reality, including neurons. These neurons in turn could be some kind "correlate" to how consciousness is manifested by the field of energy or information.

2) A second explanation, which is a really crazy sci-fi idea, is that there exists some kind of extremely advanced "alien" species, which created us. This might sound really "way out there", but I really think it is plausible. Imagine this species was messing around with creating "humans", or were experimenting with "humans", just as we are experimenting with Artificial Intelligence. Now they might have either consciously, or completely unaware of it, brought about what we call consciousness or awareness. Making us "alive". Note that in this sense all that we experience as reality might actually be a virtual reality. This would furthermore explain why we do not "see" that alien species all around us, as we live in a virtual reality; everything that we do in our reality might be completely different actions in their reality. This is very much similar to what is illustrated in The Matrix (more so in the anime "prequels" than in the blockbuster movies themselves). Now, in my opinion this is actually backed up by people reporting alien "abductions", and the contact with alien entities especially during DMT experiences, but also by ingestion of large amounts of other psychedelic drugs. That would further imply that taking psychedelics might somehow short-circuit our brains, commonly referred to as expanding our consciousness (which is really a very appropriate way of putting it in this context), and thereby making us for at least a short period of time aware of this alien species. Also, from what I've read, these entities "operate" on us, implant weird alien devices, and want us to "upload" information about humanity. This all perfectly fits with the view that we are some kind of robot to them. Imagine us having this extremely advanced AI around us, but which we thought was unconscious. Then all of a sudden out of the blue it actually seems to be aware of our presence! What would you do? I guess you would approach it and ask it huge amounts of questions about its experience of reality, as you have just witnessed "life" in a mechanical device.. That would surely come across as a miracle. Them "operating" on us would not be so strange either, as, if we had advanced AI, we would probably "work" on them as well from time to time, updating its software or adding some new hardware or something.

I had a third plausible solution for this paradox, but I forgot it :/ Maybe I'll remember later.

Anyway, for scenario one, in case we want to predict the state of the universe, we would have to figure out how this field of energy or information creates this experiential world of ours. That, I agree, might be impossible, for as I mentioned before, this field would be the objective world which cannot be known (except maybe by the use of psychedelics, which would imply if we want to figure out such an "equation" we would have to research the nature of the universe by using those substances).
In case of scenario two, we would have to figure out how a machine would become conscious, or how to create a complete virtual reality with consciousness. That would also explain how this reality is created. Alternatively to us researching this on our own, we could try contacting those aliens, once again through use of psychedelics, and simply ask them. This does seem to be more possible than in case of the first scenario.


Lastly, I have to know, why does nobody respond to this and the thread I made, except you IJC? Don't you other people have an opinion on this matter? I'm really curious as to what other people think of this, and the thread I made. I would like to see these thoughts challenged, proved wrong, expanded upon, and new ideas brought up of course.. it doesn't matter what. I would just like to know what you people are thinking while reading this.
  Répondre
#5
im here! :ninja:

i have to say, my mind mimes much of the ideas going on in here. so, as it were at the moment, i dont have much to elaborate on regarding this (without parroting)... maybe some time to digest these ideas will do some good
cannabis is an entheogen too!

other places i visit:
natmedtalk
youtopia
shroomery
mycotopia
entheogen-network
  Répondre
#6
Aah, still in ninja-mode I see Wink

That's as good as any elaborate reply though, as it indicates there's something to those ideas.
But, fair enough. I will wait patiently then Smile
  Répondre
#7
Oh! I remember my third solution. Although it is really not that convincing. Tongue That's probably why I forgot it.
The third solution to the paradox is introducing something like a God, which created everything. It is simply the religious solution to the problem.
However, I cannot identify with this, as to me this just seems to be avoiding the problem, and not solving it at all. Saying there is a God that created everything, just poses the question of who created God. The answer you get from religious folks is that God is by definition "the creator that is itself uncreated". Well... yeah... This doesn't add anything in our understanding of reality.

Also, I just realized that this goes for the alien solution as well. The aliens kind of (quite literally actually) being gods. It does avoid the problem of what our reality is, but it doesn't answer what all of reality is. However, I would not claim that these aliens themselves were not created by something. They might be yet another "robot" species of yet another even more advanced species. And who says this cannot go on into infinity? It is just hard (impossible) to fully imagine, as we as humans are incapable of imagining infinity, under normal circumstances of course, as psychedelic experiences can make this possible in my opinion, and this would actually just support this point of view.
I realize now, the same line of reasoning can actually be applied to a non-alien concept of God and also the field of energy or information theory. So this solution might be not as unconvincing as I first implied, it just being a more spiritual alternative to the "sci-fi" and "psychological" solution.

So, when I think about it, all three solutions I brought up are pretty much the same in nature. Just filling in "the blanks" (or "variables") with different concepts. The field of energy or information theory being the psychological/spiritual solution, the God theory being religious/spiritual and the alien theory being kind of "sci-fi".

So it all comes down to it going on into infinity. I guess I have to take back, or at least rephrase, what I claimed about the universe being possibly understood in terms of an equation. As I said before, we might be able to understand our reality, but that still would not explain all of reality. And due to the nature of infinity, it is simply impossible to understand all of it. We might be able to grasp an understanding of (the concept or experience of) infinity itself, but this is not the same as understanding something that goes on into infinity, and in turn trying to put it into a finite "equation" of reality. Although... maybe (very advanced forms of) fractal equations? I don't have a good understanding of how fractal equations work, so I don't know in how far this idea can actually be plausible (btw, Allusion, your avatar sums it all up quite nicely Smile ).
  Répondre
#8
Big Grin

always in ninja mode

:ninja:
cannabis is an entheogen too!

other places i visit:
natmedtalk
youtopia
shroomery
mycotopia
entheogen-network
  Répondre
#9
i have something to add. i tell you the reason why god was never created. that's because god is eternal. god just is...
if you ask me reality itself is like a psychedelic experience. maybe you can better relate to that, if you try to remember how you experienced reality when you were a child. also the idea that god could be a person changes a lot... at least it did that to me.
look, we are here to learn... if you already know everything, then what else would there be to learn??
in a certain way, you can see everything as symbollic. that means everything is just a representation for something else.
probably like a holographic nature of reality. you know?? it's the underlying concept that rules the world. we all project our own ego on something or someone else all the time. and time is very psychological as you might well be aware of. sometimes a minute may seem like an hour or an hour like a minute, know what i mean??? the world/life is just like a dream, literally!!! Confusedhock: Smile alright thanks for reading. 8)

peace 8)
i'm so disgusted by the world of today.. Sad
  Répondre
#10
Just a fews words first :
In my dictionnary, here is the definition of the real : "Anything that truly exist or existed"
Reality : "Charasteristic of what is real, what exists actually, opposed to what is imagined"

Mescaline a écrit :reality, thereby creating themselves, i.e. who created the first neuron?

Well, according to the fact we are kinda talking about the origine of life on earth, please let me explain 2-3 stuffs about this.
The cellular theory says : each organism is composed of at least one cell, and and every cell comes from an other cell.
(1838, Matthias Shleiden & Theodore Schwartz).
Here is a scheme that summs up the life on earth.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5183[/ATTACH]

But, there's still a question : what did happened for life appeared 3,5Billions years ago ?
Well, an experience has been lead in 1953 by Miller and Urey. They recreated the primitive earth conditions in a 1m diameter glass ball. In this ball they put all the compounds that were ine the earth in this age. There was mostly water, carbon dioxyde, dihydrogene, sulfur dioxyde, dinitrogen, carbon monoxyde and they shocked the whole (like thunder did).
Within a few days, simple organic compounds synthesized by themselve (aspartate, alanine, acetate).
These compounds are the basics of life ! And the experience didn't stop there, a few weeks/months (I don't remember exactly) they combined into macromolecules. It was a kind of very very etc little RNA -RiboNucleic Acid- !!!
Now we are so close from LUCA (last universal common ancester).

-The next is theory : scientists suppose tht the first cell would have appeared when a macromolecule got trapped into a phospholipidic membrane. Cell changed its RNA into DNA (DesoxyRiboNucleic) cause it's a natural chemical reaction, that allowed to her to stock its genetic material.Then the reactions inside this really primitive cell "naturally" looked for a way to get some energy. (if this theory is true) they dindn't must live long, cause their genetic material was really basic. The divided an divided, th'at's all they could do. But, they started creating a way to produce its own energy : glycolyse.

And I stop here, I'll be back tomorrow.


Maybe I'm totally out of the subject, but as I noticed you guys were talking about creation and everything.
=>Not For Human<=

On ne peut être fier que de ce qu'on a choisi

  Répondre
#11
well my original topic is just saying that I believe, currently, (and finally) that the universe is not a single equation, except itself.

Meaning it cannot be simplified down to anything smaller than itself... That makes sense to most of us, but mathematically that is extremely important, and philosophically even more so.

I.e. you can have an equation with every known variable in the universe, and you could attempt to solve it (it isn't possible right now, of course) and then play with this equation to peer into the past and future. You could try to simplify the equation down to the basic components, getting a simple thing - you are alluding to this when you say "a very complex fractal equation", for fractals are actually just very simple expressions with an infinite amount of complexity.

I don't know if the universe is a fractal, I don't think it is - unless it never repeats, and a fractal that never repeats? Perhaps...

Anyways. I don't know. Big Grin
I'm not here to make someone else rich.
Art shop; Etsy.com/shop/jonhelander
  Répondre
#12
Haha, BrainEater, you're all over the place with your post xD. Not that I don't appreciate it, on the contrary, I very much do.
I'll try answer it as accurately as I possibly can.

BrainEater a écrit :i tell you the reason why god was never created. that's because god is eternal. god just is...


Saying that God is eternal and as a consequence was never created is a tautology. Wink Being eternal implies never having been created, just as never having been created implies being eternal (ok, I admit, never having been created might still be open to the possibility that this thing will cease to exist at some point, or that it never existed in the first place, but this doesn't really matter in this context).
However, I do not deny the possibility of there being an eternal God (personified or not is not the issue) which has never been created. It cannot be falsified, nor proved (objectively). It just doesn't convince me Tongue. I find it more convincing that there is something that created God which in turn was created by something else, which in turn was created by something else, which in turn... etc etc etc (and this infinite nature of reality is what I would refer to as God; also note that I can say the same thing about this "God" as you did: the infinite nature of reality was never created, is eternal, and has always been.). This stance cannot be falisfied nor proved either.
So, both are equally plausible, as far as I can tell, yet I prefer the second.

BrainEater a écrit :if you ask me reality itself is like a psychedelic experience. maybe you can better relate to that, if you try to remember how you experienced reality when you were a child.


I agree, life is very much like a psychedelic experience. But, what are you trying to point out here?

BrainEater a écrit :also the idea that god could be a person changes a lot... at least it did that to me.


Hmm ok, but it really doesn't matter, in my opinion, whether you see God as a person or not. In my opinion it is more important what role or function you give it or him (or her Wink).

BrainEater a écrit :look, we are here to learn... if you already know everything, then what else would there be to learn??


Agreed, if we would know everything, we would most likely become utterly depressed and commit mass suicide, assuming we would still have "common" human qualities. On the other hand, I have had the thought that being omniscient might actually bring about an extreme sense of peace. Additionally, omniscience being an aspect of God speaks in favor of this second interpretation. However, in my opinion, it is impossible for the human mind to be omniscient.

BrainEater a écrit :in a certain way, you can see everything as symbollic. that means everything is just a representation for something else.
probably like a holographic nature of reality. you know?? it's the underlying concept that rules the world.


Funny you mention this, as this has been the subject of yesterday's lecture on philosophy of mind Smile (bit off topic, but there it is again: coincidence! :lolSmile.
In the article I had to read the very issue was to find something that is not representational of something else. It concluded with mental states (do not make the same mistake I made and confuse mental states with states of consciousness Tongue) being not representational of something else, and thereby being the fundamental building blocks that all representations eventually refer to. This is in no way some "ultimate truth" and I'll not go into detail about this, but what do you think of this idea?
Also, you have to keep in mind that whether something is representational often depends very much, if not exclusively, on the observer. Take for example the following video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk
Do you believe the elephant knows what it is actually representing in the painting?

BrainEater a écrit :we all project our own ego on something or someone else all the time.


I understand what this means on itself but could you elaborate how this relates to the above?

BrainEater a écrit :and time is very psychological as you might well be aware of. sometimes a minute may seem like an hour or an hour like a minute, know what i mean???


Absolutely. Time is the modality in which the Mind exists (or the psychological, as you put it), just as Space is the modality of the Body (or the material). However, same question as above, how does this relate to the above? Wink

BrainEater a écrit :the world/life is just like a dream, literally!!! Confusedhock: Smile


Just as a dream is like a psychedelic experience, which is like life itself. Idea

BrainEater a écrit :alright thanks for reading. 8)


No problem, you're welcome Smile
  Répondre
#13
5tr4t0 a écrit :Just a fews words first :
In my dictionnary, here is the definition of the real : "Anything that truly exist or existed"
Reality : "Charasteristic of what is real, what exists actually, opposed to what is imagined"


What is your interpretation of "Anything that truly exists or has existed"? As providing this as a definiton of saying that something is real is yet another tautology, in my opinion. Wink
Secondly, we might already be parting ways in our opinions regarding your definition of reality. What is imagined I consider to be just as real as anything else, except that it is not of a physical nature.
However, I will take your definition for granted while reading your post.

5tr4t0 a écrit :Well, according to the fact we are kinda talking about the origine of life on earth, please let me explain 2-3 stuffs about this.
The cellular theory says : each organism is composed of at least one cell, and and every cell comes from an other cell.
(1838, Matthias Shleiden & Theodore Schwartz).
Here is a scheme that summs up the life on earth.
[picture]

But, there's still a question : what did happened for life appeared 3,5Billions years ago ?
Well, an experience has been lead in 1953 by Miller and Urey. They recreated the primitive earth conditions in a 1m diameter glass ball. In this ball they put all the compounds that were ine the earth in this age. There was mostly water, carbon dioxyde, dihydrogene, sulfur dioxyde, dinitrogen, carbon monoxyde and they shocked the whole (like thunder did).
Within a few days, simple organic compounds synthesized by themselve (aspartate, alanine, acetate).
These compounds are the basics of life ! And the experience didn't stop there, a few weeks/months (I don't remember exactly) they combined into macromolecules. It was a kind of very very etc little RNA -RiboNucleic Acid- !!!
Now we are so close from LUCA (last universal common ancester).


In that case let me rephrase the paradox of who or what created the first neuron into: who or what created the first water, carbon dioxide, dihydrogen, sulfur dioxyde, dinitrogen, carbon monoxyde, and finally the electric shock?
You see? It doesn't matter what you say or how many causes you bring forward, one will always be able to ask the question of "who or what created the first X, Y or Z?". The only solution to this is either introducing a God or something similar, that is eternal and has never been created, or by claiming that everything has a cause or creator, which has a cause or creator, which has a cause or creator, which has... etc etc etc.

5tr4t0 a écrit :-The next is theory : scientists suppose that the first cell would have appeared when a macromolecule got trapped into a phospholipidic membrane. Cell changed its RNA into DNA (DesoxyRiboNucleic) cause it's a natural chemical reaction, that allowed to her to stock its genetic material.Then the reactions inside this really primitive cell "naturally" looked for a way to get some energy. (if this theory is true) they dindn't must live long, cause their genetic material was really basic. The divided an divided, th'at's all they could do. But, they started creating a way to produce its own energy : glycolyse.


Same answer as above: Who or what created the first macromolecule and phospholipidic membrane?
I'll not repeat the rest of it. Tongue

5tr4t0 a écrit :Maybe I'm totally out of the subject, but as I noticed you guys were talking about creation and everything.


No you are not completely off topic, but maybe a bit Wink That's primarily my fault though, haha. I started about all of the creation of everything. However, if you want to talk about an equation of the universe I think it is important to first know how the universe was created, and thereby figuring out what the universe actually is. How else would you know what to base your equation on, and what it actually represents? "Well, the universe of course" - "But, what is the universe?"
  Répondre
#14
IJesusChrist a écrit :well my original topic is just saying that I believe, currently, (and finally) that the universe is not a single equation, except itself.

Meaning it cannot be simplified down to anything smaller than itself...


I tend to agree now, after thinking and writing about it some (a lot) more, as I mentioned before. The exception being (perhaps) a very advanced fractal equation.

IJesusChrist a écrit :That makes sense to most of us, but mathematically that is extremely important, and philosophically even more so.


It sure is. :!:

IJesusChrist a écrit :I.e. you can have an equation with every known variable in the universe, and you could attempt to solve it (it isn't possible right now, of course) and then play with this equation to peer into the past and future. You could try to simplify the equation down to the basic components, getting a simple thing - you are alluding to this when you say "a very complex fractal equation", for fractals are actually just very simple expressions with an infinite amount of complexity.

I don't know if the universe is a fractal, I don't think it is - unless it never repeats, and a fractal that never repeats? Perhaps...


Yes, perhaps. Wink

IJesusChrist a écrit :Anyways. I don't know. Big Grin


Neither do I. :lol:
However, it's fun to talk about, at least in my opinion. Big Grin Tongue
  Répondre
#15
I've just thought about it so much that sometimes I get tired of it... I tend to say ah fuck it, it doesn't matter - I'll never know...

but then, of course, I become curiouser and curiouser and I'm back to square one.

However I believe this insight of "incompressibility" is astounding to me. I very much like that concept. It finally fuses reductionist scientists with holistic ideologies. There are many equations compounding one another, until eventually, in reality, you come to the universe itself - which cannot be fully explained in parts, but must be looked at as a whole, or something will always be missing.

Idea God I'm so glad this finally hit me. Big Grin
I'm not here to make someone else rich.
Art shop; Etsy.com/shop/jonhelander
  Répondre
#16
IJesusChrist a écrit :However I believe this insight of "incompressibility" is astounding to me. I very much like that concept. It finally fuses reductionist scientists with holistic ideologies. There are many equations compounding one another, until eventually, in reality, you come to the universe itself - which cannot be fully explained in parts, but must be looked at as a whole, or something will always be missing.


I'm agreeing more and more, haha Big Grin
What do you think of this: A fractal equation that does not simplify reality/the universe?

EDIT: In other words, if one would try to build/create such an equation, one would end up with creating reality itself, in every aspect thinkable. Thus to see the equation, one would just have to look around; it's all around you. [/edit]

This would actually make some sense to me, as when you are having a psychedelic experience or similar, everything you see all around you is pretty much fractal in nature.
Or am I making assumptions about fractal equations that stop it from being a fractal equation? Rolleyes

EDIT2: Oh, I just realized this is probably the same as what you meant by a fractal equation that never repeats :lol:
  Répondre
#17
Just had a good talk with a friend about this subject, and got to some pretty neat conclusions.

First thing that came up is that when you claim that only a non-repeating fractal equation would be a good representation of the universe, this actually implies that you claim that the universe is inherently non-repeating. In other words, you are claiming that the universe is genuinely creative (creative here meaning that the universe has aspects to it that are in and of itself absolutely, 100%, independent of all that has preceded it up to that moment).
One could however take a different point of view and claim that the universe is not genuinely creative. Put differently, that everything ultimately refers to something else or is dependent on something else.

Explained schematically, by example of sequences of numbers (extremely simplified of course):

1) The uncreative universe or repetitive infinity is:
From infinity ~... 123 132 213 231 213 123 312 ... ~ into infinity.

2) The creative universe or non-repetitive infinity:
From infinity ~ ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... ~ into infinity.

If you believe in an uncreative universe, then fractal equations would be able represent the universe. And that would be all there is to it, as far as I can tell. Maybe this is the case..

However, the creative universe feels more correct, and has some interesting consequences:

So, if the universe is genuinely creative, it cannot be simplified, as we concluded earlier, I believe (except for the imaginary non-repeating fractal, but this is not important now).
One thing to be noted about the example, before I go on, is that the creative universe sequence does not necessarily have to be that exact sequence of numbers. It could also be "from infinity ~ ... 1 4 2 6 3 9 5 8 7 0 ... ~ into infinity", just as long as it doesn't repeat itself.

Now, as we can see above with the sequences of numbers, a new number is "created" out of the "realm" of infinity, or out of nothing, depending on how you see it. Before we arrive at any given number this number did actually not exist (yet).
As the "into infinity" part is in and of itself infinite, this means that it contains all possibilities. It contains all possible numbers that exist. In terms of the universe, it contains all possible states of the universe, all possible events; simply everything. Which number comes next in the sequence is made up out of an infinite number of possibilities. In other words, the next number in the sequence contains an infinite amount of potentiality.
So, in a sense, the future sequence of those numbers is "nothing" and "something" at the same time. It is nothing because it has not manifested yet as something concrete. However, it is "something" as it is an infinite amount of potentiality.
Now lets translate this into terms of human experience, and the universe. Every future second, milisecond, microsecond, nano(?)-second (etc.) will contain an infinite amount of potentiality. As time passes, as we humans pass through time into the (infinite) future, all the time this infinite amount of potentiality is realized into something concrete, thereby becoming reality. One could say, thereby creating reality.

Well then, as the observer (i.e. us) moves through time into the future the infinite amount of potentiality is realized into the experience of reality. If the observer ceases to exist, or simply ceases to be present, this infinite amount of potentiality is never realized into becoming reality, thereby staying an infinite amount of potentiality.

The "Nowhere man"-scene in the movie Yellow Submarine illustrates this beautifully, and I have only through this conversation just now realized that this is what is being alluded to in that scene (or so I believe). Here is the clip (the relevant part I am talking about starts at 3:00min (although the song starts at 2:50 Wink): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9JbVAAwMGI.

As you can see, as the cartoon Beatles move along the white scene, something is created and left behind as a trail. Before they arrive at any given spot however, the white space is made up out of an infinite amount of potentiality. One will never know what will come next, as it could by literally anything.
Thus the white space is "nothing", yet something, namely an infinite amount of potentiality.
EDIT: Just realized the part of the clip before 3minutes is relevant as well. As they peek outside the Yellow Submarine into "nowhere land" they say:

"What do you think it is?"
"Nothing"
"Yea, it looks like nothing"
"[Look], a local inhabitant"
"He's probably one of the nothings"
"At least that's something"

This is pretty much what I'm trying to explain, haha. Just told symbolically, as part of a storyline. :o

Or to quote the Holy Bible, slightly more abstract (mind you I'm absolutely not into Christianity):
"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."


As such we have moved from fractal equations to Quantum Theory :lol: (If I'm not misinterpreting Quantum Theory that is).
I find it very interesting though, that without consciously aiming for Quantum Theory, we have arrived at just that, Quantum Theory.
Every part of the universe contains an infinite amount of potentiality, which becomes manifest upon the presence of an observer.

So.. Do quantum theorists have an equation for their theory?
  Répondre
#18
I think you're going too fast

Lets take a look at fractals;
Citation :Random fractals – Generated by stochastic rather than deterministic processes, for example, trajectories of the Brownian motion, Lévy flight, percolation clusters, self avoiding walks, fractal landscapes and the Brownian tree. The latter yields so-called mass- or dendritic fractals, for example, diffusion-limited aggregation or reaction-limited aggregation clusters.


From wikipedia. So I suppose that yes fractals can be random.

However - a fractal is the exact opposite of what I was alluding to when I Said equations of the universe! Fractals, by their very definition, are equations (or in the case of random, probabilities) that are very simple, but give rise to extremely complex images, if given space and whatever else they need to be manifested.

That is the exact opposite of incompressibility. A fractal, if the universe followed such a thing, would indeed be very compressible. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any useful fractal probably fits on a single page of paper.

In my opinion, I don't think that the universe could ever be compressed to a single page!

And quantum theory - depends what equation you are looking for. Probably the schrodinger equation. This is not solvable for anything beyond the hydrogen atom, but we can make very accurate predictions for most things with it, but only the hydrogen atom is exact.
I'm not here to make someone else rich.
Art shop; Etsy.com/shop/jonhelander
  Répondre
#19
IJesusChrist a écrit :I think you're going too fast


Haha, I might be. Just stop me where I take a wrong turn in my reasoning. It's one of the main reasons I'm posting here; to have my ideas changed and challenged (and I have to say, you're doing a good job at that Big Grin).

IJesusChrist a écrit :
Citation :Random fractals – Generated by stochastic rather than deterministic processes, for example, trajectories of the Brownian motion, Lévy flight, percolation clusters, self avoiding walks, fractal landscapes and the Brownian tree. The latter yields so-called mass- or dendritic fractals, for example, diffusion-limited aggregation or reaction-limited aggregation clusters.

From wikipedia. So I suppose that yes fractals can be random.


So, does this mean that fractal equations can be genuinely creative, as in creating a 'next' fractal that is completely independent of all fractals that preceeded it?

IJesusChrist a écrit :However - a fractal is the exact opposite of what I was alluding to when I Said equations of the universe! Fractals, by their very definition, are equations (or in the case of random, probabilities) that are very simple, but give rise to extremely complex images, if given space and whatever else they need to be manifested.

That is the exact opposite of incompressibility. A fractal, if the universe followed such a thing, would indeed be very compressible. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any useful fractal probably fits on a single page of paper.

In my opinion, I don't think that the universe could ever be compressed to a single page!


Yes, it wasn't my intention denying this. I only mentioned the fractal equations as being potentially representational of a repeating or uncreative universe. I have dismissed this idea of an uncreative universe myself, and thereby have dismissed the idea of a fractal equation being representational of this universe, in favor of a creative universe. I just mentioned it again for the sake of it. Tongue
However, I don't see any flaws in reasoning in my previous post, except if the question I asked above ought to be answered with a "yes". In that case, I admit, the fractal equation would not be a good representation of an uncreative or repeating universe, but would become an alternative for the creative universe.
So, if this is the case, then I would like to know why you believe the universe could not be compressed to a single page? I tend to agree with you on this, and I have my own answer to this, but I would like to know why you think so first. Wink
If there are any other flaws you see in it, please point them out to me. Smile

IJesusChrist a écrit :And quantum theory - depends what equation you are looking for. Probably the schrodinger equation. This is not solvable for anything beyond the hydrogen atom, but we can make very accurate predictions for most things with it, but only the hydrogen atom is exact.


Well, might that be an equation of the nature you are looking for? It is pretty straightforward that it is not solvable in most cases, for how can you exactly predict the state of something that has an infinite amount of potentiality contained within it? Yet, it would still be the equation that would come closest to the equation in question.
  Répondre
#20
Here are a few points I want to make.

1. Random fractals are completely random. Here is one:
Given point N, give a random direction, Theta.
From point N with angle Theta, give a random magnitude for the vector.
[Now we have a line from N at angle theta to a random point - this point is N+1]
Given point N+1, give a random direction, Theta+1.
From point N+1, with angle Theta+1, give a random magnitude for the vector.
[Etc]
THIS is the definition of "the random walk" which is relevant in chaotic systems (i.e. atoms bouncing around) and can be looked at as a completely random fractal.

This particular example of a random fractal was very simple, only two real properties gave rise to it; a direction and a magnitude, but I'm sure you can imagine that a random fractal can become infinitely complex.

That is all fine and dandy, and we could assume that the universe is actually a complex random fractal:
Given point N, if, then, else, if, then [if you know logic statements] we could input all the equations of the universe and have some kind of equation. Of course, parts of the equation would have to be random, or at the very least, probabilities, due to heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

So yes - in this way, the universe could be written down on a page, composed of all the equations within a logical system. However, something has to carry out that logic. In our case, it is a computer. In reality's case... ? What is the "operator"?

Although it is not clear, nor did I intend it to be, from the above that the universe CAN'T be a random fractal. I just don't believe it is...

Damnit I have to give this some more thought now.
I'm not here to make someone else rich.
Art shop; Etsy.com/shop/jonhelander
  Répondre
#21
IJesusChrist a écrit :Damnit I have to give this some more thought now.


Haha Tongue

IJesusChrist a écrit :Here are a few points I want to make.

1. Random fractals are completely random. Here is one:
Given point N, give a random direction, Theta.
From point N with angle Theta, give a random magnitude for the vector.
[Now we have a line from N at angle theta to a random point - this point is N+1]
Given point N+1, give a random direction, Theta+1.
From point N+1, with angle Theta+1, give a random magnitude for the vector.
[Etc]
THIS is the definition of "the random walk" which is relevant in chaotic systems (i.e. atoms bouncing around) and can be looked at as a completely random fractal.


But this means that the next point in the fractal equation is not completely independent of the preceding point in the equation. As it is dependent on, for example, "N+1". This in turn means that fractal equations are not genuinely creative in the sense that I was explaining. So as I understand it, it can still only be representational of an uncreative or repetitive universe.
  Répondre
#22
Well, then you wouldn't have a fractal if it wasn't based on anything previously.

That is the definition of a fractal; a geometry (random or not) that is based on a previous point in time [or any other dimension].

So - we can conclude that no, there is no fractal that fits your definition of "creative".
I'm not here to make someone else rich.
Art shop; Etsy.com/shop/jonhelander
  Répondre
#23
IJesusChrist a écrit :Well, then you wouldn't have a fractal if it wasn't based on anything previously.

That is the definition of a fractal; a geometry (random or not) that is based on a previous point in time [or any other dimension].

So - we can conclude that no, there is no fractal that fits your definition of "creative".


Ok, haha, that's what I was getting at with the following:
Mescaline a écrit :Or am I making assumptions about fractal equations that stop it from being a fractal equation?


Well, then I do understand fractal equations correctly now, I suppose.
You evoked some doubt there for a while by stating that fractals are random, because in the true sense of the word "random" they are certainly not random. It's the same thing as with these so called "random variable generators" which you can find in various statistical software. These "random" variable generators are not truly random; they just pretend to be random; they try to be as random as possible. They are all based on some algorithm, and thereby can impossibly be truly random.

So, then I guess we're back at where we were before. We have to a make decision whether we either believe the universe, in and of itself, is uncreative, repetitive and non-random or whether you believe the universe, in and of itself, is creative, non-repetitive and random. (All three of these key-words used in the sense that I explained them before, and not in the common sense of their meaning)
I said earlier that I am in favor of the creative universe, but I think I will take that back, as I have absolutely no reason to believe this as of now. I would prefer it to be creative though; I want it to be creative.
Either way, this is what I end up with, up to now:

1) Fractal equations would be a potentially good representation of an uncreative, repetitive, non-random universe.

2) Quantum Theory would be a potentially good representation of a creative, non-repetitive, random universe.

Then, in case of Quantum Theory, the Schrödinger equation would be as close as you could get to an equation of the universe. Of course in case of Quantum Theory it is logically impossible to create a "real" equation of the universe (unless you make it infinitely long Wink), as every moment in the future contains an infinite amount of potentiality, the future state of which can in most cases simply not be calculated.
I am interested however, how it does seem to be possible for a hydrogen atom... Do you know, in detail, how this works? Could you explain?

And to answer my own question of why it would not be possible to write down the equation for the universe on a piece of paper:

It can only not be written on a piece of paper in case Quantum Theory is correct, as, in order to account for an infinite amount of potentiality, one would need an equation that is infinite and never-ending in nature, which in turn would require an infinite amount of pieces of paper. Wink
In case a fractal equation is a good representation of the universe, it does seem to be possible to put it on a piece of paper, as you explained yourself.

And just like you, I think it unbelievable, as in not believable, that the universe can be written on a piece of paper. It just feels wrong... This makes me believe Quantum Theory is (more) correct, and that the universe is creative, random and non-repetitive in nature.

On the other hand, theories like Time Wave zero (the equation used in this theory would actually be another example of an equation that would fit the uncreative universe, if I understand it correctly), and the mayan prophecy about 2012, do seem to suggest that throughout history "timeperiods" repeat themselves, that we are going through the same "events" (or whatever you want to call them) over and over again, although at a faster rate every time. So this is actually in favor of an uncreative, repetitive, non-random universe. However, I will not base my reasoning on prophecies and alike, so I still prefer the creative universe, although I have to admit that this is mostly because an uncreative universe seems, well, kind of boring... Too "simple". :lol:

EDIT: Oh, man... Now I'm starting to develop some serious doubt that the universe is creative in nature. Rolleyes

EDIT2: Just noticed you asked another question I haven't answered:
IJesusChrist a écrit :So yes - in this way, the universe could be written down on a page, composed of all the equations within a logical system. However, something has to carry out that logic. In our case, it is a computer. In reality's case... ? What is the "operator"?


The operator.. Yes.. Well this brings us back to our previous discussion, and this is exactly why I thought it was important to talk about it.
Either there is something like a God, or any other creator (/operator), that itself is not created by something, thereby being eternal in nature or the operator could be us, thus us being the computer, and this again is intimitely connected with this alien theory, and the notion that we are a very advanced kind of robot, which has been created by these "aliens", which were in turn created by other aliens, etc. ad infinitum. And, of course, you can replace aliens/robots by anything plausible you like, and the theory would still work.
However, unless you have something more to say about this, lets refrain from having the same discussion over again. Wink
  Répondre
#24
hmm so after all your assumptions and speculations... what if the universe is still more complex and strange or so than you can imagine?? i mean it could possibly be both of the distinctions at once you brought up like creative or random.
after all for example randomness is at least in my opinion only an attribute that we use to describe/"define" something that we don't comprehend enough in its context or the thing/context itself.
and if you ask me, it's all more a matter of perspective than you may think. regarding creativeness and repetetitiveness... how could you for sure ever tell whether for example small details would repeat or not etc etc?? hmm well anyway... i think terrence mc kenna stil had kind of a similar theory... he said the universe is there to produce and conserve novelty = to create...
but then again if you ask me that's maybe only one part of the equation, because obviously the universe is based a lot on duality... i think duality is based on cycles. so possibly creation works together with destruction.. lol.. but i guess you could also see it like they work against each other while "in reality" working together... lol... something like that...
the point is probably, that we inhabit the world of forms, which is based on the concept of energy. and as you may already know, energy is supposed to never possibly to be destroyed, but can only change form.
the more adequate question to be asked is whether/what of the world is illusion and what is real... or better: what you perceive the world to be.
don't we each have a quantum computer for that as our own logical tool?? i think a quantum computer means that it can have several states of computation at once and it uses light for these states of computation... it's fascinating lol....
and maybe we shouldn't try to reduce everythign so much... like we also reduce people to their (supposed) functions, you know?
i dunno lol... hope any of this makes some sense... Tongue


peace 8)
i'm so disgusted by the world of today.. Sad
  Répondre
#25
BrainEater a écrit :i dunno lol... hope any of this makes some sense... Tongue


Oh, it very much does, and I'm happy you brought this up Big Grin

BrainEater a écrit :hmm so after all your assumptions and speculations... what if the universe is still more complex and strange or so than you can imagine?? i mean it could possibly be both of the distinctions at once you brought up like creative or random.
after all for example randomness is at least in my opinion only an attribute that we use to describe/"define" something that we don't comprehend enough in its context or the thing/context itself.
and if you ask me, it's all more a matter of perspective than you may think. regarding creativeness and repetetitiveness... how could you for sure ever tell whether for example small details would repeat or not etc etc??


Yes, I think you are absolutely right, and I have had similar thoughts as well. I was thinking lately that it is the state of mind one is in, or as you put it the perspective you take, that determines whether the universe comes across as repetitive or creative.
Think about this, another way of putting the repetitive or creative nature of the universe: A repetitive universe implies the acceptance of the existance of a Past. As everything is dependent on something else that has preceeded it in that world view, there must be a past. On the other hand, in a random, creative universe, where every new moment is completely independent of anything else, there is no need for a past. All you need in a random universe is the Now, all you need is the present. This must certainly seem very familiar, right? Living in the now versus living in the past, and I'm guessing most of us are trying to live in the now, thereby looking to have the state of mind that involves a creative universe.

I very much like this way of seeing things, and I'm very happy you brought it up. Big Grin This certainly seems a lot more plausible than the either repetitive, or creative universe line of thought.
But.. I'll keep an open mind; don't want to restrict myself to any specific line of thought (because I think you thought I was, but this was never my intention Tongue )

I have to run now. I'll read the rest of your post later, just thought this was most important right now ^^
  Répondre
#26
yeah man... but i think what i meant was more something like that the universe could possibly also be or contain both of the implications of dualistic words at the same time.
for example if you say creative, you imply that there is also the opposite of it, which in this case is at least in my opinion somewhat ambiguous. the opposite could be simply non-creative or destructive...
so what i'm probably getting at is that the universe could possibly not exclusively be only one or the other, but rather one, the other and both together.
the same you could apply to the other possible characteristics you attributed to the universe.
hmm maybe don't rely too much on words if you can... they are just symbols and point towards a meaning. now obviously meanings of the same words can be totally different for different people. Smile


peace
i'm so disgusted by the world of today.. Sad
  Répondre
#27
BrainEater a écrit :yeah man... but i think what i meant was more something like that the universe could possibly also be or contain both of the implications of dualistic words at the same time.
for example if you say creative, you imply that there is also the opposite of it, which in this case is at least in my opinion somewhat ambiguous. the opposite could be simply non-creative or destructive...
so what i'm probably getting at is that the universe could possibly not exclusively be only one or the other, but rather one, the other and both together.
the same you could apply to the other possible characteristics you attributed to the universe.


Agreed, there's no light without darkness, nor darkness without light. However, don't confuse creativity and creation. Tongue I agree they are very closely related, but the opposite of creativity is repetition, while the opposite of creation is destruction.
Anyway, I agree with your main point, that one cannot exist without the other, therefor they both have to exist at the same time. So, this also explains why both exist at the same time.

BrainEater a écrit :hmm maybe don't rely too much on words if you can... they are just symbols and point towards a meaning. now obviously meanings of the same words can be totally different for different people. Smile


Very true, but without words it becomes impossible to transfer ideas and talk about it all. Tongue Different people giving the same words different meanings is certainly one of the biggest problems in talking about topics like this, and that's also why I explicitly mentioned my definitions of creativity and repetition. As you said, words are just symbols, and I just used those words to symbolize what I was referring to.
Agreement in these kinds of discussions is probably much harder to achieve due to different notions of words amongst different people than due to there being an actual disagreement. If there were an easy way to telepathically transfer ideas as a whole without the use of symbols that would be much better, of course, and agreement would probably be achieved much easier. However, as things are I'd rather take these "problems" brought about by words for granted and try to minimize these, than to just stop discussing any deep philosophical problems in general, just because words are unreliable Tongue
Of course this does not mean that the universe can only be of such a nature that it can be described in words. But, we can at least try to get as close to it as possible with words, and leave the indescribable to experience itself. Smile
  Répondre
#28
It's only a model...

[Image: nb84xv0295207.jpg]
  Répondre
#29
what a bitch lol :lol: :o :lol: :lol: :lol:

oh and maybe something on topic too... i think time is a factor of synchronisation.... does that make sense? 8) Big Grin Smile

[Image: bitch-n-beauty6.jpg]
i'm so disgusted by the world of today.. Sad
  Répondre
#30
hahaha

fractals are very short equations. z=z(squared)+c (with "z the output" becoming "z the input" **)is the mandelbrot set. which is neither truely ordered nor chaotic. it is also therefore never repeating (as are all fractals)

**the equals should actually be this sign, but to my knowledge i cannot type it.[ATTACH=CONFIG]5316[/ATTACH]
cannabis is an entheogen too!

other places i visit:
natmedtalk
youtopia
shroomery
mycotopia
entheogen-network
  Répondre


Sujets apparemment similaires...
Sujet Auteur Réponses Affichages Dernier message
  Is the universe intelligent? Finarfin 32 5,050 27/05/2015 06:29
Dernier message: Demahdi
  hitchhikers guide to the universe bliksem 6 2,847 18/05/2015 22:59
Dernier message: theflu
  The universe is the experiment of a single being. Apeiron 28 6,101 04/04/2011 05:41
Dernier message: Apeiron
  life through out the universe evolved from the same being Iersuko 3 1,874 15/02/2011 20:30
Dernier message: Iersuko
  Viruses are as old as the universe itself  Iersuko 2 1,513 08/02/2011 21:12
Dernier message: Iersuko
  gently mooves the universe 112 2 1,451 25/11/2010 18:49
Dernier message: 112
  equations waygie 47 5,106 29/09/2010 07:28
Dernier message: EndlessEntity
  parallel dimensions, universe of the mind, time travelling sapato 31 12,936 20/12/2006 11:53
Dernier message: Siq

Atteindre :


Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce sujet : 1 visiteur(s)