Yeah I understand all that.

I'm not the sort of person to reach conclusions, I merely express interest in possibility. I'm not a profesional in any field so I'm not required to have solid ideas and it works better for myself to not have "what is" set in stone.

My understanding of physics is that it is made up of several different sciences that have not yet been unified, therefore either one part of physics has got it wrong or there is another part of physics that is completely missing that we are not aware of, possibly because we can't physically experience it. Obviously if it can't be physically experienced then it can't be tested, therefore can not be called a science.

As for the begining of time thing, I'm quite happy with the nature of infinity when it comes to that one. "It's turtles all the way down"

What I struggle with is the idea that reality can be created, or the classic idea of reality can be subject to a misinterpretation which accordingly comes to be.

yes I dont understand the idea of reality being created either..but then..creation still happens WITHIN reality..so we turn to that analogy..

The universe as infinity makes sense to me..but only to an extent..becasue the only way I can concieve of that is if reality is constantly being re-created..and so then what would the implications of that be?

This infinite universe vs a created or re-created universe makes me think of subjective vs objective, and also dualism..this is what I mean when I say everything seems to be rooted in analogy..on every level..

Then I have also come to the conclusion (while high on mushrooms), that analogy is what really binds everything..it IS the farthest understanding of unification we can grasp..but what the hell does that mean?..made perfect sense while I was tripping and for a few weeks after but..

I belive there will be a "unified field theory"..but only to a point..it might exist for a few years maybe more until someone else figures out that there is more to the equation and the whole search for the unified theory starts all over again..and since we are a part of reality this also makes me think of that same analogy situation where reality keeps recreating it slef over and over through analogy, and the idea of a hologram comes to mind.. ..but even that doesn't make any sense..

Which then makes me think that the whole idea of our concept of making sense, ulumitaly makes no sense!

Interesting concept, but something interesting could happen with an infinite universe.

Let me use a dumbed down version of our current phone number system as an example. Lets say you have 3 digits, a hyphen then 4 more digits (000-0000)

What happens when you've exhausted all possible combinations of numbers? You end up with 999-9999 and then you can't add anymore. Now obviously we would simply add more digits or something but I suppose the metaphor only works so far in this case. If we had an infinite universe, you would eventually run out of combinations for everything. It would take for-bloody-ever but it could happen. You could eventually have some person with the same type of solar system, same type planet, same language, name, biological makeup, thoughts, memories...etc.

I would theorize that an infinite universe must repeat itself at some point. Either that or somehow extend into a world which we cannot comprehend, similar to adding more digits to a phone number.

Yeah it's in the very nature of infinity to repeat itself because a repetition is in itself another occurence. i.e the monkeys on typewriters analogy.

As for infinity reaching it's limits, that could add something to the theory that once the universe reaches full expansion it will then shrink in on itself and start over again.

Yes I agree..I have thought as well about the idea of the universe repeating itself over at some point and then pondered about what could arise out of the relationship between them..interesting stuff.

I bet some math pros would have some interesting things to add to this..

I understand that science does sometimes update and add things, the observations are always correct, the thoery is just the attempt to explain the reality of the observation. The reality is a constant weather your explanation is correct or not, it never changes, there's not one peice of evidence that would ever suggest it, in science the reality is the thing your trying to study and explan. If everyone made there own reality you would have proof of it. Thats how i see it anyway, thats why i don't get the everyone makes there own reality, i think its more like everyone excepts there own beliefs of what reality is while the real reality does not ever change.

Cheeto:

I don't think reality is so static, well it depends on which part of it you wish to look at anyway and how you wish to define reality. The universe is in constant development, constantly complexifying itself, blooming. Just look at the way our biology here on earth have developed, the way our technology have developed and so on. To this analogy it would be wrong to say that reality never changes. I don't know exactly what you mean with saying that reality never changes, maybe you would like to explain so I can see what you're pointing to?

Yes, the universe does change, but the rules that apply don't, objects with mass will always have gravity, light will awalys be a product of photons. Atoms will always be a combination of subatomic particals, positive charges will always attract negitive charges and repeal other positive charges. Electrons will always be able to travel from atom to atom in conducting metals. Reality is a secret, but its not secret that its a constant, if it wern't a constant we couldn't study it, because it would change from time to time, just because a scientist makes a new discovery and updates what we know about reality does not mean reality itself changed, the reality is always the same, weather the things in it evolve or not, subatomic particals and atoms don't evolve, they only get together in different and more complex combinations to create new things.

A person's perception of reality changes, not reality itself, stating that the universe changes only shows that the universe uses its basic building blocks to create different things, i personally believe there are smaller parts than we know of, which to me would explain how a partical can SEEM to pop in out of nowhere, i don't think its logical to jump to ilogical explanations, particle entanglement(To me, there has to be another non magical connection rathan than just saying it just knows because its entanglement), or things borrowing energy from the future, i think thoughs are temporary explanations, until we disover more..if possible. I don't think black holes are magical portals or holes ripped in space, to me there just very dense areas where gravity is so strong that it holds light, and for you to see light it must travel to your eye. Do you know that i have seen experiments where they've figured out how to actually stop light.

But back to the point, If people created there own reality, science would not exist. Nothing could be scientific, because for things to be studied they must be constant(Never changing), thats what science is built on. Anyone who wishes can conduct the same experiment and get the same results. If everyone made there own reality this would not be possible, because one person could conduct the same experiment yet get a different result, but thats not the case, science does exist and reality is a constant. You could take us humans completely out of the picture and reality would still be the same, our attempts to explain reality does not create the reality where trying to explain, it only changes our perception of reality.

^^Its possible that there are other universes beyond our universe where the laws of nature are different. Therefore the only reason life like ours exists is because it CAN exist in such a universe. There may be universes where another kind of life could exist or universes where no life could exist.



Quantum mechanics doesn't need to be logical in a way that humans understand. Our humans brains did not evolve to comprehend quantum logic. That's why we need math. No one can really intuitively understand it. Einstein couldn't stand it but he was wrong about it.



Well actually things need to change otherwise there wouldn't be anything to observe. But I think you mean the laws of nature. If so then well yes if those change then things would get very complicated indeed. Unless we could understand why and how they were changing I guess maybe...?

Cheeto:

Thanks for clearing it up, I catch your drift now. But as I stated above, reality may or may not change according to how you wish to define it. If reality for you is the whole goddamn universe then sure it changes, because the universe is in constant movement. If you wish to define reality as the laws of nature however, the answer to this is of course very different. One perspective does not exclude the other. But then again, how can we be so damn sure?

Aah, it's lovely to discuss matters like this, trying to figure out what we're a part of here. It almost makes me laugh over the absurdity of it all. We come straight out of this stuff and have no clue what the fuck is really going on

And yes, back to the point: I have not said anything regarding this "create your own" reality stuff in this thread yet, but the way I see it this can be right in the simple sense that you make your own reality WITHIN your own head. You create your own "reality" according to perspectives, knowledge, experiences, cultural framework, religios beliefs, personal desires and everything else that makes up the totality of your experience of reality. Sure, the laws of nature don't change no matter how hard you wish them to, but I guess you see my point? That is just one way to interpret it tho, it would be interesting to hear other perspectives on this matter as well. Anyone care to share thoughts about this?

"The reality is a constant weather your explanation is correct or not, it never changes, there's not one peice of evidence that would ever suggest it, in science the reality is the thing your trying to study and explan."

And vice versa...you are assuming that what you know about science runs as deep as "it" goes..noone cansay weather or not reality is truely static and I think if they do they are lying..all we can do is make informed asumptions.

"Yes, the universe does change, but the rules that apply don't, objects with mass will always have gravity, light will awalys be a product of photons. Atoms will always be a combination of subatomic particals, positive charges will always attract negitive charges and repeal other positive charges. Electrons will always be able to travel from atom to atom in conducting metals."


I agree but in the end all that stuff is just details..all says absolutily nothing about the actaul foundations of reality or the universe..where it came from, when in began..if things like "origin" and "beginning" are even relevant in the larger scheme of things..these concepts themselves may be nothing more than products of a limited, human brain.

This is why, when science broke off from it's philisophical foundations,philosophy did not simply die out..it's just as strong and relevant as it ever was..and science as helpful and relevant as it is, doesnt seem to be making philosophy any less relevant...and why in the beginning most scientists were philosophers..

I can second that fractal. Science is as I have stated somewhere earlier just a tool in the toolbox, not the whole box. By holding on to science and science only you're basically just copying the discoveries made by others in your own mind (unless of course you go out and find out plausible stuff on your own within the framework of science). With that said, science is a fucking great discipline and I support the honest parts of it with my whole heart! =)

Burnt: Its possible that there are other universes beyond our universe where the laws of nature are different. Therefore the only reason life like ours exists is because it CAN exist in such a universe. There may be universes where another kind of life could exist or universes where no life could exist"

---

I do agree that there are more than likely other universes, just like there are other stars. But in my view, the same rules would apply, the conditions don't have to be the same, but there would still be a set of rules that you have to follow in those condictions, if the condictions where the same as ours, then the same reactions would occur.

---

Burnt: Quantum mechanics doesn't need to be logical in a way that humans understand. Our humans brains did not evolve to comprehend quantum logic. That's why we need math. No one can really intuitively understand it. Einstein couldn't stand it but he was wrong about it.

---

In my view if science dosen't seem logical, than something about it is misunderstood either by science or the person having the problem understanding. I don't really understand how you would not know the rules you apply to math, math is not an explanation, it only caculates to confirm a mathamatical prediction based on a theory. The theory may prove to hold up, but it is the theory attempting to explain reality, not the math. I don't think Einstein was wrong, i don't think that an atom cannot be seen, only thought of as numbers, that to me that is a leap of faith. The math does work out, but it also works out for manythings that can be seen. I would like to see how in math you can borrow one as long as you subtract it in your next equation, when to start with you have zero

I never said science held all the answers to reality, i'm just saying reality dosen't change based on anything, or if you want to call it the laws of reality, laws that can't be broken. Reality to me is this: In these set conditions, this is allowed and this is not.

I know that no one can say this is how it is, but i also know that the stonger evidence that we have points to it being correct, we do not have evidence of any place that has the same things but with different laws, we don't have people that can fly because they don't understand gravity, other than quantum mechanics we know of nothing else that pops into existence from nothing. To me, there is something the partical gets its energy from, and its not the future. To me reality is very much like math, and math is logical, weather its to complex to take it all in or not, its still hardcore logic, you will not end up with 3 by adding 1 to 1, you will not get 1 by adding 0 to 0. To me the laws of reality are the set formulas of reality.

Burnt: Well actually things need to change otherwise there wouldn't be anything to observe. But I think you mean the laws of nature. If so then well yes if those change then things would get very complicated indeed. Unless we could understand why and how they were changing I guess maybe...?

But if there where set conditions that cause the change, then reality wouldn't be changing, the conditions within the reality would be changing, like here on earth you will never find 80 degree ice, but in the right conditions of pressure you can have warm ice. Conditions are also part of reality, everything that is reality is reality. I wounder why theres such difficulty understanding how i deffine reality, i thought thats what the word meant. The one thing that is true, as we study and theorize to explain it, we can't say the theory is true, its only the best logical answer we can give it.

I know none of this can be proved, but i lean towards the more logical answer to me, and this is how i see it, if i ever see reality start to change, i'll accept it, but so far theres nothing to suggest that reality(Laws) changes.

I think more people who study science actually do tend to not believe in gods. Not all, but it seems the most part to me.

This topic about rules is an interesting one..on one level I completely agree that rules will still apply no matter what the circumstance..

But then there is this other part ofme that acknowledges that rules must be SET...you know?..so where do these origional rules comes from?..it's sort of a paradox..I can't get my damn head around it..everything it seems abviousily plays out according specific sets of equations..or presets you can call them..but why?..where does it begin and where does it end?..boggles my mind.

I also think about it this way..for something to exist it's opposite must exist as well..otherwise it couldnt contrast with anything and sort of "crystalise" out of some bigger picture as an individual thing..like light vs dark..hot vs cold etc..

So anything that we can prove exists..must have an opposite as well..somewhere..even our set laws of physics..whatever the opposite of those may be they must exist somewhere..

Which then makes me think that everything and anything must exist somewhere so where do these universal laws really end or begin..or do they at all..

This stuff is so perplexing..

Thats why i like to just focus on our universe, because theory with no evidence which is basicaly just guessing, is all your going to get out of that. It dosen't seem like everything or anything could pop in from nowhere, but some how its here. Think about the very first something, if it had an existence of nothing then its future would be nothing, so what future would it borrow energy from? If it was a creation of god, where did god come from? If you can say that god just existed forever, then you could apply the same rule to space and the energy in it, but neither sound logical, and we can't prove either, yet it is still here. How did these rules get applied? I have absolutly no idea, its really like a miracle, but again who would create the miracle maker?

And i'm sure we will never know all the answers, all we can do is learn things we can do.

Not necessarily. For example. Why is the nuclear force the strength that it is? If the nuclear force was 10,000 times weaker there would be no atoms. The nuclear force does not need to have the strength that it has it just does. If all fundamental forces are unified under very hot dense conditions (like the early universe) and as some theories predict when the universe expands why do the forces split up and take on the properties they do? These are interesting questions and people are trying to figure them out not just with theory but experimental evidence. The LHC will help shed light on this.

But uh perhaps something like the laws of thermodynamics can never be different. I dunno enough physics to know that though. Maybe the laws of thermodrynamics would be different in a universe with different values for the fundamental forces?



Your missing the point. Quantum logic does not have to be logical to human brains. Its not. But that does not make it not real. Quantum mechanics is real its been proven many times. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Even if something like string theory is real that doesn't change quantum mechanics it still holds that the universe is random and indeterministic at the quantum level. We can see atoms. Quantum tunneling microscopes can do this which use principles of quantum mechanics in this case quantum tunneling to work.

What I meant when I said we can only understand quantum logic via math I meant that math is a tool by which the human mind can work out these kinds of problems that are completely counterintuitive to our everyday understanding of our world.


Cheeto you might find this video very interesting. This guy often talks about the kinds of things I am mentioning.

http://fora.tv/2007/01/24/Cosmic_Landscape


Wow we've gone completely off topic again

oh yea and if you like the first lecture you'll like this one too.

http://fora.tv/2008/07/2...usskind_-_Black_Hole_War