G
Guest
Guest
Darren Aronofsky is one of my heroes
*Ok, 1 more then
A Brain Cell is the Same as the Universe
- Auteur de la discussion Brugmansia
- Date de début
Darren Aronofsky is one of my heroes
*Ok, 1 more then
Then what contains the Universe? Something cannot just end, and then be contained in nothing. Something in this whole creation must go on for infinity. It is only logical to believe so. This whole creation is so beautiful, but we humans always have to justify and describe it, why can't we just let it be, let it stay in the beauty it is, and leave it to it's limitless creation. Instead, we have put names to everything and have tried to compare everything to something else, just let it be as is with a non-judgemental view, it tends to be much more beautiful.
PEACE & LOVE
How can they know what the universe looks like? They had a satellite go 1264165497 light years from it to take the photo?
Haven't anyone else noticed how an atom is similar to the solar system? Then, lets say we are living on an electron (the earth), which is part of the solar system, and that every atom in our world is a solar system (or similar structures, depends on the number of protons in the core) and molecules are galaxies. And that the extremely big atom is part of another extremely more extremely big world, etc.
And who knows, maybe there is a mean to switch dimensions
N.B.: I was extremely stoned when I wrote it so it might sound confused, but I'm pretty sure it all makes sense
Haven't anyone else noticed how an atom is similar to the solar system? Then, lets say we are living on an electron (the earth), which is part of the solar system, and that every atom in our world is a solar system (or similar structures, depends on the number of protons in the core) and molecules are galaxies. And that the extremely big atom is part of another extremely more extremely big world, etc.
And who knows, maybe there is a mean to switch dimensions
N.B.: I was extremely stoned when I wrote it so it might sound confused, but I'm pretty sure it all makes sense
I respectfully disagree user... humans are curious creatures who want to learn, savor, understand. The more you learn about the universe, the more mysterious and beautiful it becomes. Learning teaches us how little we actually are capable of knowing, and therein lies the beginning of humility.
I agree with this also, but I think somethings are just better when they are left untouched and just observed rather than judged in a fashion that our human mind can understand.
Exactly. This is the thing that bothers me though, cause I want to know the answers!
But the answers will never come, I'm almost sure of that. I guess I can't be positive, but it seems like the Universe is an area the human mind will never understand the way we are going. (using technology to explore rather than exploring the depths of our mind)PEACE & LOVE
buffachino
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
The answer to the question, is the question itself.
buffachino
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
The purpose is to be the answer.
Klaatu
Neurotransmetteur
user_1919 a dit:
Why do you think it's any more logical to believe the universe is infinite than to believe it is finite?
I can remember how mind-boggingly difficult it was to even try to imagine "endless" when I was a kid. For a child, everything has to have an end, an infinite universe just seems wrong. Now that I have grown, read books and so on, it feels logical that the universe is endless. Yeah, that's logical, infinity. How could it not be infinite? Ha, ha, what a stupid idea!
How do we differ from those 3-year-olds who think that the universe just has to be finite, if we think that the universe just has to be infinite?
Most people get stuck to the question you asked. "Well, if the universe is finite, what contains it? It can't just be an limited piece of existence surrounded by nonexistence." Why not? Why has finity become such an odd idea for people? I think most of us were told at school/at home/somewhere that the universe is infinite. It was the most popular theory at the time, the one that seemed the most logical, but theories change. Some people get stuck to pure semantics: "but if there's nonexistence, the nonexistence has to exist!" I know, I know, it's really hard for people to imagine nothingness, but this does not mean there just couldn't...be. (See? Semantics.)
Telling that the universe may be finite to your run-of-the-mill western human being is like telling her that LSD is actually a great tool for spiritual purposes and that it helps people get rid of useless, cultural thought patterns.
I'm not saying the universe is finite or infinite, I don't know what it is. I don't know nearly enough about physics, neither does humanity. Theories change. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be so damn sure about things. It's ok to think that things just couldn't be any other way, but we shouldn't be too proud to at least admit the fact that yeah, I might be horribly wrong.
^Interesting points, I'd say that the universe is infinite (or as close to as makes little odds) in a different way, even if it's not infinite in a conventional ever expanding space/time way - thinking in the terms of chaos - being a non-linear system, the fact that so many things interact within it making every "moment" (human concept?) branch into (countless?) possibilities, then you have human / animal choice thrown in there as a sort of wildcard. - the butterfly causing the hurricane is the usual example... producing constant movement and being subject to infinite possibilities dependent on the state of whatever is contained and what the movement involved of each thing.
Ofcourse that might lead to an interesting paradox if the universe is of finite space, but infinite in an always moving, non-linear way AND exists "within" nothing, you get infinity existing within nothing.... hehehehe
Although it's possible all this is irrelevant - if you were to think of the universe as something that contains all possibilities of movement...
imagine you've got a camera that can record all of existance, "empty" space is empty black, and the presence of matter is a colour dependant on what form that matter is, set your camera up on "maximum exposure" :lol: after enough time has passed for every conceivable possibility to happen (no chance of anything new happening) develop the photo and you'll get a white mass of every conceivable position of matter. so I suppose after a while everything will start to happen all over again but in a different way, then just keep on repeating itself.
For an ever expanding universe, I suppose you'd just have to imagine it as an expanding envelop of existance, which might eventually repeat itself, but the interaction would perhaps slow / stop as things got so far from eachother that they stopped interacting....
*sigh* ok my heads adequatly fried by that ramble... I probably contadict myself in places, but hey, I suppose its just showing my thought processes.
sorry about the long post, got carried away
Ofcourse that might lead to an interesting paradox if the universe is of finite space, but infinite in an always moving, non-linear way AND exists "within" nothing, you get infinity existing within nothing.... hehehehe
Although it's possible all this is irrelevant - if you were to think of the universe as something that contains all possibilities of movement...
imagine you've got a camera that can record all of existance, "empty" space is empty black, and the presence of matter is a colour dependant on what form that matter is, set your camera up on "maximum exposure" :lol: after enough time has passed for every conceivable possibility to happen (no chance of anything new happening) develop the photo and you'll get a white mass of every conceivable position of matter. so I suppose after a while everything will start to happen all over again but in a different way, then just keep on repeating itself.
For an ever expanding universe, I suppose you'd just have to imagine it as an expanding envelop of existance, which might eventually repeat itself, but the interaction would perhaps slow / stop as things got so far from eachother that they stopped interacting....
*sigh* ok my heads adequatly fried by that ramble... I probably contadict myself in places, but hey, I suppose its just showing my thought processes.
sorry about the long post, got carried away
G
Guest
Guest
if there is nothing outside the universe, it has to be infinite, and shapeless!
there has to be an outside for shape and end to happen.
there has to be an outside for shape and end to happen.
daytripper a dit:
Not necessarily true. Any meta verse proves this wrong, like Second Life which is a reality (due to hardware constraints fairly limited compared to the 'real' thing) which does have nothing outside, is shapeless but certainly limited in space.
It's spawned in cyberspace as you wish.
All the universe does not even have to be here, to exist. For example, as you see in most state-of-the-art computer simulations, the computer does not render (as in making visible, calculate), the things that are not in direct vision. Just as our own internal rendering mechanism, does not have to render the inside of our bodies or the buildings around the corner (since they are not in our field of view), it also doesn't have to render the entire universe to paint us a more or less convincing picture from our perspective.
G
Guest
Guest
interesting point of view, HC.
but let me disagree...it's not the comparison of human life to computer simulations or the rendering = existance that's bothering me.
for me, second life is only virtual, and may be finite, according to hardware limitations, but reality can also be finite by our brain limitations. i don't belive it to be infinite, but i'll belive what you say and take it for granted. in my humble opinion, computers are just tools, a refinated version of a hammer, and not meant to be more important than the work itself.
my point is: here, in the "first life", everything is connected, everything is alive. you don't need to see to know it is there. you feel it through your fingers, through your ears, through your soul. perhaps one day, the "second life" will be as real as david cronenberg's "eXistenZ", where you can die, touch things and even have an orgasm...like "the matrix". i think that binary language misses all the depth of old style analog reality, like CD's miss the warmth and depth of a vinyl read by a nice sound system.
in my opinion, you are making something that was created in the image of reality, another reality, bigger and better of the original that served as it's model.
i am not saying that there is only this single reality. we both know that it is a lie caused by our egos and our auto-filtering brains, choosing (or rendering, like you said) the bits that we are turned to, interested and willing to observe. truth is only "avaliable" in very specific moments in our life.
the problem is: we are products of this universe, born FROM it (and not IN it), so i doubt that a reality we can create will be as infinite as this one. for example, how can you program things that you don't know ? here, i can discover the cure for cancer, or find aliens in saturn with my telescope, and be the first to discover it. in virtual realities, you already know everything that is available to happen as a programmer, no ?
edit: i understand what you said (and forgot to write) about the shapeless form of cyberspace. but, following that line of thought, books are also infinite. music, everything that is abstract thought is as infinite as one wants it to be. with no outside, shapeless amounts of thoughts. even prehistoric monkey's plans to kill a mammoth were infinite. this can only be natural, as we are born from the universe, and as it is infinite, so is our thoughts and "second life", and von Bingen's fire tongues. we are no different from jupiter or andromeda. all elements are born in the same mechanisms. and even this discussion was once inside the primitive solar nebula, and was carried to here by you and me and everyone that joined the thread.
but let me disagree...it's not the comparison of human life to computer simulations or the rendering = existance that's bothering me.
for me, second life is only virtual, and may be finite, according to hardware limitations, but reality can also be finite by our brain limitations. i don't belive it to be infinite, but i'll belive what you say and take it for granted. in my humble opinion, computers are just tools, a refinated version of a hammer, and not meant to be more important than the work itself.
my point is: here, in the "first life", everything is connected, everything is alive. you don't need to see to know it is there. you feel it through your fingers, through your ears, through your soul. perhaps one day, the "second life" will be as real as david cronenberg's "eXistenZ", where you can die, touch things and even have an orgasm...like "the matrix". i think that binary language misses all the depth of old style analog reality, like CD's miss the warmth and depth of a vinyl read by a nice sound system.
in my opinion, you are making something that was created in the image of reality, another reality, bigger and better of the original that served as it's model.
i am not saying that there is only this single reality. we both know that it is a lie caused by our egos and our auto-filtering brains, choosing (or rendering, like you said) the bits that we are turned to, interested and willing to observe. truth is only "avaliable" in very specific moments in our life.
the problem is: we are products of this universe, born FROM it (and not IN it), so i doubt that a reality we can create will be as infinite as this one. for example, how can you program things that you don't know ? here, i can discover the cure for cancer, or find aliens in saturn with my telescope, and be the first to discover it. in virtual realities, you already know everything that is available to happen as a programmer, no ?
edit: i understand what you said (and forgot to write) about the shapeless form of cyberspace. but, following that line of thought, books are also infinite. music, everything that is abstract thought is as infinite as one wants it to be. with no outside, shapeless amounts of thoughts. even prehistoric monkey's plans to kill a mammoth were infinite. this can only be natural, as we are born from the universe, and as it is infinite, so is our thoughts and "second life", and von Bingen's fire tongues. we are no different from jupiter or andromeda. all elements are born in the same mechanisms. and even this discussion was once inside the primitive solar nebula, and was carried to here by you and me and everyone that joined the thread.
buffachino
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Is there really a division between finiteness and infinity?
Finite articles being subject to infinite interpretations would also make them infinite, correct?
So limits and non limits are both an element of the one body.
For limits are an interpretation subjective to perception, while perception is also subjective to projected limits.
We are a singularity of incarnation.
A being that cannot be explained, cannot be inscribed within terms, for doing so only symbolically reinforces its nature.
An end gives way to endlessness, and endlessness to an end.
You can’t say it’s one way or another, without doing exactly this;
Basically recapitulating the universe in thought, expression and existence.
One can not exclaim absolutes, without conversely creating their opposite;
This is karma.
Boundaries are subjective to objectivism, and objects are subject to their interpretation, including dimensional perspective. So ‘it’ can be whatever you wish it to be, but in characterising it, you give birth to its converse possibility, for that’s all we, and the universe as ourselves are, possibility.
There is no difference between us and subatomic phenomena, or clusters of galactic proportion;
we are all simply a plenum of probabilities, existing within experience of ourselves.
An ever growing element of something undescribed unless by its own existence.
This, I think, is the reality the term infinity attempts to contain, which by doing so, only contradicts its own meaning.
And this is an emphasis of my point.
The explanation of the inexplicable.
Peace.
Finite articles being subject to infinite interpretations would also make them infinite, correct?
So limits and non limits are both an element of the one body.
For limits are an interpretation subjective to perception, while perception is also subjective to projected limits.
We are a singularity of incarnation.
A being that cannot be explained, cannot be inscribed within terms, for doing so only symbolically reinforces its nature.
An end gives way to endlessness, and endlessness to an end.
You can’t say it’s one way or another, without doing exactly this;
Basically recapitulating the universe in thought, expression and existence.
One can not exclaim absolutes, without conversely creating their opposite;
This is karma.
Boundaries are subjective to objectivism, and objects are subject to their interpretation, including dimensional perspective. So ‘it’ can be whatever you wish it to be, but in characterising it, you give birth to its converse possibility, for that’s all we, and the universe as ourselves are, possibility.
There is no difference between us and subatomic phenomena, or clusters of galactic proportion;
we are all simply a plenum of probabilities, existing within experience of ourselves.
An ever growing element of something undescribed unless by its own existence.
This, I think, is the reality the term infinity attempts to contain, which by doing so, only contradicts its own meaning.
And this is an emphasis of my point.
The explanation of the inexplicable.
Peace.