Re: Universe = Mind

From: bv_schornak (nowhere_at_schornak.de)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:25:07 +0100

  Russell E. Rierson wrote:

>bv_schornak wrote:
>
>>Russell E. Rierson wrote:
>>
>>
>>< snipped, not forgotten... :) >
>>
>>Let's make a little journey.
>>
>>Just assume there's something like the "speed of thoughts", so we
>>can travel through spacetime without any delay. Let's leave Earth
>>and our solar system, our galaxy, the local cluster and so on. At
>>the end of our journey, we finally reach a point where we can see
>>our entire Universe concentrated to one single dot of light. What
>>can we find at the point where we are now?
>>
>
>The universe could also be finite without boundary, and one could
>find themselves at their initial starting point - analogously to
>walking around the Earth and arriving back where they started.
>

Yes.

A very complex structure of space. What is "behind" that
boundary? And how can this model be developed further if
there _is_ something behind that boundary?

My "model" is the most simple one. No beginning, no end.

Now - use Occam's razor... ;)

BTW - you speak of one unit within the Universe, not the
entire thing. This is a very good test to check how much
our thinking is limited (imagination).

>>Is there "something" or not? Obviously - there can't be anything.
>>The point where we are is outside the radius where any matter has
>>ever been, it will need some more aeones to arrive at this point.
>>The expansion of the "known Universe" has not reached our current
>>position.
>>
>
>By definition, the universe or "multiverse" includes everything that
>exists. Therefore it is impossible to step outside of the universe. Or
>no infinite void, as you seem to imply that the universe's matter and
>energy could be centralized into one small region, it creates
>problems.
>

Why and for whom? This "small region" has a size of some
14 billion lightyears (our "isle"). The definition of my
model isn't contrary to your definition of Universe. I'm
just setting the borders to "nowhere", assuming there is
more "out there" than we can grasp / comprehend. I don't
step outside the borders of the model, the point where I
observe our "isle" is _inside_ - you cannot step outside
of infinity, that's impossible. The model doesn't change
any physical laws, it's just an "extension" of the known
limits.

>>Now the question pops up - does time exist here? The answer might
>>be a "yes and no". As long as we are here, we bring our time with
>>us. If we leave this place, there is absolutely nothing left. The
>>"Nothing" doesn't know a time, nothing is in motion. If we define
>>time as continuous motion in a nuclear range - no time exists out
>>here.
>>
>
>If the laws of physics hold equally for this hypothesized Schornak
>"energy void region" ;) then absolute zero cannot exist.
>Consequently, there must be some sort of minimal energy fluctuations,
>hence time "must" also exist.
>

Okay, it is the most simple version of my "model". But -
who says there must be some kind of energy fluctuations?
We speak about "isles of matter and energy", distributed
in a range of Peta-lightyears. There's probably a "halo"
around each of these "isles", but it is not large enough
to reach the next "isle".

(Except we add some more dimensions, a more complex ver-
sion of my model with infinite higher dimensions.)

[ Seems I like infinite things... ;) ]

>>One step ahead - could it be possible that we would see some more
>>dots of light out here? More Universes "floating" in the Nothing?
>>Is there an end of this Nothing, the point where we smash against
>>a "solid wall", if we move straight forwards further and further?
>>
>
>This would imply that space is open and infinitely extending. An
>infinite space-time metric creates more problems with the infinity
>concept. The goal is to eliminate the infinities.
>

Only if you try to solve everything with mathematics. If
so, your math is not sophisticated enough to handle such
gigantic objects. If you try to develop "thought models"
with mathematical formulae, it is a little bit like dri-
ving with a tightened handbrake. First step is thinking,
second step is math (if we can assume our model is worth
the work)...

>>Now: How could a SPoG or a theory of an universal mind be applied
>>to such a Nothing with an infinite amount of Universes "floating"
>>inside its "borders" (where I would tend to say there are none)?
>>
>
>An infinite space-time metric, or an infinite void is not "nothing".
>There can be no infinite void, because it would consequently contain
>infinite energy and quickly curl up into a singularity.
>

Could you please explain where this "infinite energy" is
coming from? The "space-time metric" suggests you try to
apply mathematics to the model which isn't sophisticated
enough to handle such a thing. Therefore the math _must_
fail.

There's a limited amount of energy (=matter) in the Uni-
verse. The "quantity" is beyond our abilities to measure
it, but it stays limited. And it is - as my model says -
completely distributed in the "isles". There's no energy
left for the "nothing" between them.

>Nothingness is a difficult "non-concept" to grasp eh?
>

Not for real. It depends on what you try to "interprete"
into this "nothing". If you accept it as is - nothing -,
it is quite simple to understand. Blame Einstein, he was
responsible for the abolishment of the "Ether" - I agree
with his courageous step...

>>Isn't _every_ thought about entities with superior qualities just
>>a try to cover our missing knowledge, our limited perception, our
>>limited abilities to comprehend what we perceive? Isn't it a wish
>>of us humans that we're the center of the Universe, our denial to
>>accept that we're not even a single atom in a grain of sand found
>>in the Sahara - compared to the entire Universe?
>>
>
>I understand your concerns. People have abused the God, and "gods",
>concept since the very beginning.
>

True. Don't take things too serious - I'm not claiming I
have found out the only valid truth. It's just a test to
check how far my thoughts are away from reality. Another
way of learning, maybe.

>There is no center of the universe. Everywhere is the center.
>

Or nowhere (equal to everywhere in this case). ;)

The only real existing borders are those in our minds!

Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Universe = Mind
    ... :>>our entire Universe concentrated to one single dot of light. ... :>"energy void region";) then absolute zero cannot exist. ... We speak about "isles of matter and energy", ... sion of my model with infinite higher dimensions.) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... The net energy of the universe is zero. ... Given an infinite amount of computational resources, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... The net energy of the universe is zero. ... Given an infinite amount of computational resources, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: cosmology
    ... >>> depends on the energy involved and not the relative movement. ... >>> there is no center of the universe. ... >The only speed that would require infinite energy is infinite speed. ... > Why "really smart" people think non infinite speeds would require ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... variability to infinite variability. ... We live in a slightly bio-friendly universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast