MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Existence: does it even? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I often think about existence and how the universe can actually even be here. Every time I come to the same conclusion, which is that nothing exists. Or rather, that everything both exists and anti-exists. Here's why.

Even back in high school science classes we are taught that everything has to balance and that equal sign is the most powerful character around. In chemistry you balance your reactions. In physics you conserve energy. In math you need to solve by giving both sides of = the same value. In short there is a universal law of conservation, that all things need to be balanced. However when we look at a statement like x = 5, we also know that we can write this as 0 = x - 5. This holds for any equation, move everything to one side and you get it is equivalent to 0. I feel like this needs to hold for our universe as well. Sure forces and attributes within the universe have values, but when you look at the entire universe as one thing, you're effectively placing all of those values on one side of the equation, so it has to be 0.

I haven't kept up on what we know about anti-matter but it seems all too obvious to me that there must be anti-matter. Otherwise we went from some kind of singularity, though I propose it did real start at 0, to a large amount of shit in the universe. which is like writing 1 = 10, it's just wrong. But if there really is an anti-everything then its 1 = 10 - 10, still wrong. But if we assume that the universe did really start with nothing we get 0 = 10 - 10 and then it all works out. The more I think about it, no matter the angle, I come to the realization that everything must equal 0. 0 is the only point at which everything is actually conserved because it doesn't have to equal anything. But as soon as you accept that anything exists, without a counterpart you've effectively said forget Laws of Conservation altogether, because that thing had to come from somewhere, so if it coming to be is to be conserved, it must also anti-be.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Or the universe = 1. There's one universe and everything in it is just a fraction of the whole.

Although your version is much more elegant.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

..the answers to maths questions on University Challenge are nearly always 1 or 0.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nifegun wrote:
I often think about existence and how the universe can actually even be here. Every time I come to the same conclusion, which is that nothing exists. Or rather, that everything both exists and anti-exists. Here's why.


What a goddamn brilliant post.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yeah, but what you are saying is that in the beginning were the laws of mathematics. But where did they come from?
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Technically the laws of mathematics are just the rules we use for changing our own symbols that we made up while analysing stuff.

I think you meant the laws of physics. While it's true that I'm assuming my Universal Law of Conservation has always been, I'm actually not assuming that any other natural law has. You see, aside from the Universal Law of Conservation, we don't need any other natural laws or forces, because those will be created by the Universal Law of Conservation. When matter comes into being, for everything to be conserved it must not only have matching anti-matter, but also matching anti-energy. I believe that the natural laws of physics that we know of today are just the actions of the anti-energy used to keep the universe at 0.

A specific example, perhaps all matter has Gravity because that matter was scattered and Gravity is just the energy stored in all matter to bring it all back together. As such, if you were to tally up all the Gravity in the universe it has enough potential and or kinetic energy to counter all of the spreading that has taken place within the universe. Of course that's not entirely accurate, since in this example I'm ignoring the fact that electro-magnetism also played a key role in scattering everything. But, in a hypothetical universe, if all the scattering were done by strictly applying forces to matter, with no other forms of energy interfering, I do believe gravity would be the sole thing needed to undo all that scattering.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Continuing that last thought. Where the laws of physics are actually just the balancing conditions that need to exist to counteract everything that took place when the universe formed.

This is a very important aspect to my theory of the existence of the universe. Not only because it finally answers the question of why natural laws exist rather than just how they work, but because it destroys the absurd notion that the universe was "finely tuned" by some outside force. I spend much of my time loathing modern religions for poisoning minds with false answers and this seems to be the most common answer from people who seem too smart to hold such silly beliefs.

Because when someone says the universe was "finely tuned" or when they say "if the constants we use in our physics equations were off by just a tiny bit, the universe couldn't have formed the way it did", it bothers me. Because to me it seems inherently obvious that they weren't tuned by an outside force, rather that they, like everything else we ever observe, is trying to attain some form of balance, because energy needs to be conserved.

So while I have to admit that it's amazing, that things like the constants we use, the speed of light, and the phenomenal forces like gravity are definitely amazing. Doesn't it make far more sense that their values were set by a Law of Universal Conservation and simply counteract the universe that was formed? Because if you accept that premise, which is based on a fairly simple induction of concepts we already witness in every observation, it is 100% logical that everything was "finely tuned". It also means that a universe where "those values were off by just a tiny bit" is impossible. The universe formed those values by the way it came to be. A different universe would be governed by different laws and different values, but still be just as "perfect" because it has to be.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is great stuff!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nifegun wrote:
...my Universal Law of Conservation has always been...


"The same was in the beginning"
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think you meant the laws of physics


No, I mean the laws of mathematics. You are saying 1 plus minus 1 = 0. But to get to that point you have accepted the laws of mathematics. I repeat - where did they come from?

As for your comments about gravity, it is now quite widely accepted that gravity can be thought of as minus energy, exactly counter-balancing the positive energy contained in matter. The whole thing adds to zero. So in the beginning was the maths - but where did the maths come from?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
As for your comments about gravity, it is now quite widely accepted that gravity can be thought of as minus energy, exactly counter-balancing the positive energy contained in matter.


Nifegun. Pay this no mind. The first stage of winning the argument is dismissal. The second stage is, "this is nothing new." Third stage is, "yes but....." You've cleared stage two and entered stage three in a single post.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

No, it really is an idea which is commonplace in modern physics - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

So in the beginning there was nothing and we are still just a form of nothing. But for this to work there must still be logic - or you could call it mathematics - in the beginning.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:

So in the beginning there was nothing and we are still just a form of nothing. But for this to work there must still be logic - or you could call it mathematics - in the beginning.


I still disagree with you there. First off thank you for showing me that my hypothesis is actually already accepted in scientific communities. Kinda cool that the hunches and thoughts of a random computer programmer can be the same as people who actually think about this for a living.

Second, to say there was mathematics is incorrect. Mathematics isn't the same as Physics. Mathematics was invented by human beings for human beings. We use mathematics while analysing the data we gather about the world we live in to learn more about it. Mathematics is a man made tool we use to explore and master the sciences. Physics however is not the same. Physics is one of the aspects of the universe that we are using math to learn about. Furthermore within each field of science one of the first things you learn is a Law of Conservation. Whether you're balancing energy in a physics problem or elements in a chemistry problem, it comes down to conservation. To state that my unified version of the varying conservation rules are Math, is like saying "gravity exists because of math". Which is clearly illogical.

I stated all things must be conserved and used mathematics to explain the concept. Just as all scientists use math to explore, study, or demonstrate their field of study. But the thing that I claim existed forever is the Universal Law of Conservation not math. I hope I have made the distinction between the two clear.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Though, I believe you are trying to ask, "if the universe started as nothing, but was still governed by the Universal Law of Conservation, is that law itself not something that would have to come to be as well?"

To which I reply no. Although each version of conservation law we experience within our universe could be different in another, that is because of the Universal Law of Conservation. But how can I claim this law has always existed? First we look at everything we know about the modern sciences, and how heavily they rely on things being conserved. Then we make the assumption, "for any physical law to exist something must be being conserved" Then we test that. Now as a computer scientists, AKA Programmer, I don't have a full understanding of a lot of things outside physics. But I did at least continue physics while I was in university. So it is my understanding that the root of everything I ever learned within physics was related to the law of conservation of energy. Whether I was calculating something as simple as the direction and speed a ball would go when certain forces were applied, or calculating how a vessel could theoretically sail through space by reflecting photons, all energy needed to be conserved. So it seems obvious that physical reactions are governed by laws of physics that could simply stem from the universal law of conservation. Likewise with laws like gravity, you just admitted other scientists agree it could just be a form of conservation. Which I would claim stems from the Universal Law of Conservation. In fact every scientific concept I've ever heard of can be explained by assuming it stems from the Universal Law of Conservation. Electromagnetism is governed by its laws because of the energy within protons and electrons and the energy used to create them needing to be balanced.

So when I assume the universal law of conservation has always been, it's not just a wack idea. It's a conclusion of logical induction that can explain why nearly every natural law exists. Though, technically, the Universal Law of Conservation also doesn't exist until it has things to conserve now does it? We all agree gravity can't exist without matter. So the Universal Law of Conservation also didn't need to exist when the universe didn't. Although the fun part about the Universal Law of Conservation is that it lacks any specific requirements. You need to have energy to conserve energy. You need to have matter to conserve matter. But when speaking about conservation as a universal concept, the value of 0 is already at a point of conservation. So really, whether we state "The universal law of conservation has always existed" or "the universal law of conservation came to be at the same time and in the same manner as everything else" really makes no difference.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
No, it really is an idea which is commonplace in modern physics - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe


I'm not convinced this is the same concept. The proposition that there is zero energy in the universe, as a proposition of physics, is merely a testable hypothesis: We hypothesize that the amount of energy sums to a given value---in this case zero---then go about measuring it to find out if we're right.

Nifegun is proposing something more fundamental, having to do with the nature of existence itself: That everything exists and does not, at once.

I might put it this way: Creation is the corollary of the void. Both are one and the same.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group