Thermal Mass
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:59 pm



Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, 
Author Message
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

What I’ve written is only a hypothesis, an explanation based on what we know, what we think we know, and what we don’t know, but what I’m having a logical stab at. It may be right, it may be wrong, but then everybody else may be wrong as well. That doesn’t change the fact that there are elephants in the room that need to be addressed if only to explain how reality can possibly exist.

If you take thought out of the equation, and just keep it real, we have to explain how the universe we call home can exist and function. I think my hypothesis on time is logical, it may not be right, but that doesn’t negate the need to explain time and what drives one state of space to the next. That energy source may be in this universe at the quantum level, but it may not be. The universe may be finite, it may not, but you still need to address the elephants one way or the other. If it is finite, then what sits the other side of the boundary, if it’s infinite then explain how such a structure can exist. If anything, I am offering principles and processes which make the universe possible.

The geologist is familiar with the processes that create minerals; the biologist is familiar with the reproduction processes that create life. There is no thought involved in these processes, once they start, they finish, unless the process is disrupted. But what starts the process and why can’t we bring physically functioning stillborn babies to life if they are born without it? Why can’t we kick-start living vegetative state patients back to consciousness?

I’m not saying anything against these sciences, but neither of them address where the stuff comes from that makes up the atoms in the minerals or the RNA in the virus or the DNA in the person. They don’t need to because it is good enough for their purposes to work in the macro and ignore the micro. Knowing where the energy comes from that makes the quarks, that makes the proton, that makes the atom, that makes the genetic material, that makes the DNA that make you and I, can be ignored if it lets doctors get on with the task of failing to find a Covid-19 vaccine before we reach herd immunity, which I suspect we already have in many parts of the UK. The only things that differentiate living matter from unliving matter are the processes; how atoms combine and what is done with them. So for me it is perfectly logical that they should be interchangeable at the quantum level.

As I said earlier in my piano analogy, thought may be the sound coming off the piano strings as they are struck by hammers connected to keys, but it may not be. Thought might equally come from the pianist who is hitting the keys and is expressing the sound he is making through the mechanical processes, in line with his thoughts. Going down the purely physical path leads you to questions like; who made the piano, who made the piano maker, and who made the pianist? Which leads you back to the infinity’s dead end, and you end up saying “God did”, to stop your brain exploding. Who made God? Why no one you reply, God is infinite, has always existed and will always exist. Although no one understands what Infinity is, it is used as a Monopoly ‘get out of jail card’. Physicists use a similar crutch with mathematics and you end up with theories of multiple universes because the maths say so.

I am not knocking mathematics, I even enjoyed the subject once, but it’s one thing to use it to predict the existence of the planet youranus by the gravitational forces it exerts on surrounding planets, it’s quite another to say on a universal scale that the universe must comprise 85% of dark matter or the maths don’t work. It’ more likely the Math’s don’t work because your model of the universe is wrong. I once had a conversation with a physicist at a wine and middle aged spread party many years ago in the days when I behaved myself. I argued that physics was a religion; such was the physicist’s faith in the nonexistence of anything that wasn’t physical, and their unconditional love for mathematics, a mistress that would do their bidding. He didn’t half get angry with me.

As my old band Heavy Goods Vehicle put it back in 1976 in a song from ‘Keeper of the Sands’ called OMOD, a play on the phrase ‘Oh My God’, used to both praise and ridicule;

If we can’t explain it,
the origin of thought,
energy to matter,
to a God down it’s brought,
to children it's taught,
is it OMOD’s fault,
or is it ours? - HGV 1976

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:22 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> What I’ve written is only a hypothesis, an explanation based on what we know, what we think we know, and what we don’t know, but what I’m having a logical stab at. It may be right, it may be wrong, but then everybody else may be wrong as well. That doesn’t change the fact that there are elephants in the room that need to be addressed if only to explain how reality can possibly exist.

Yes, men are made to solve problems (though many of these “philosophical” solutions end up with killing other people).

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:26 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> The geologist is familiar with the processes that create minerals; the biologist is familiar with the reproduction processes that create life. There is no thought involved in these processes, once they start, they finish, unless the process is disrupted. But what starts the process

A natural scientist would say “Who cares? They start, and that´s it.” – as long as he/she is no theoretical physicist.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:27 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> why can’t we bring physically functioning stillborn babies to life if they are born without it? Why can’t we kick-start living vegetative state patients back to consciousness?

Consciousness is a very complex neuronal function, maybe that is the reason. If only one card in this huge house of cards is not in the right place the whole thing does not work.

>> I’m not saying anything against these sciences, but neither of them address where the stuff comes from that makes up the atoms in the minerals or the RNA in the virus or the DNA in the person. They don’t need to because it is good enough for their purposes to work in the macro and ignore the micro.

This probably is not really ignoring it, but it´s just the job of these scientists to care about other things. On the other hand it´s the job of the physicians to care about the really small things, ignoring the macro. A fisherman does not need to know about the evolution of fish, he is just supposed to do his job.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:28 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> The only things that differentiate living matter from unliving matter are the processes; how atoms combine and what is done with them.

I do not think that there is a real difference between living and unliving things. Viruses for example are showing that this border is chosen randomly, based on ordinary meanings (like the “border” between the plant-like mushrooms and animals). Instead of a strict border there are just twilight zones where between light and dark there is no wall.

>> As I said earlier in my piano analogy, thought may be the sound coming off the piano strings as they are struck by hammers connected to keys, but it may not be. Thought might equally come from the pianist who is hitting the keys and is expressing the sound he is making through the mechanical processes, in line with his thoughts.

Thoughts are just energy phenomenons of neuronal cells, nothing more. Maybe we suppose thoughts to be more than they are.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:30 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> Going down the purely physical path leads you to questions like; who made the piano, who made the piano maker, and who made the pianist? Which leads you back to the infinity’s dead end, and you end up saying “God did”, to stop your brain exploding. Who made God? Why no one you reply, God is infinite, has always existed and will always exist.

Thoughts just are the “waste” of a complex nervous system, especially religious ones. Nevertheless they are interesting, but I fear the answer (if there was one) would be shockingly simple.

>> Although no one understands what Infinity is

Maybe some people do, in their limits. The subjects I deal with contain very huge amounts of time, but many other people cannot imagine anything lasts long. To me it is no question that things can take place if they have time enough, but to others it seems like magic that these things took place because long times are beyond their imagination as they are not used to it. The same thing can be with infinity, we are just not used to it.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:31 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> (…) it is used as a Monopoly ‘get out of jail card’. Physicists use a similar crutch with mathematics and you end up with theories of multiple universes because the maths say so.

Why should such a card only be used by the religions? Physics are too difficult to be the new “opium for the people”, so such a pretty simple way-out is needed.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:33 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> I am not knocking mathematics, I even enjoyed the subject once, but it’s one thing to use it to predict the existence of the planet youranus by the gravitational forces it exerts on surrounding planets, it’s quite another to say on a universal scale that the universe must comprise 85% of dark matter or the maths don’t work. It’ more likely the Math’s don’t work because your model of the universe is wrong.

The whole history of science is an endless line of errors replaced by new errors.
It can be depressing, but some errors prove to deal very well with this world, so who cares?

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:35 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> I argued that physics was a religion

As said it is not suitable for that because it´s too difficult. For physics you need your brain, for religion you need your heart.

>> such was the physicist’s faith in the nonexistence of anything that wasn’t physical, and their unconditional love for mathematics, a mistress that would do their bidding.

Everybody will have strong passion for his/her subject, that´s not really religious.

>> As my old band Heavy Goods Vehicle put it back in 1976 in a song from ‘Keeper of the Sands’ called OMOD, a play on the phrase ‘Oh My God’, used to both praise and ridicule (…)

Art is the best way to tell things in a simple way though they are not simple.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:36 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

This text was supposed to be just one post but my computer did not want so.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:39 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

The story so far

I think I have come up with a creditable argument for an afterlife based on some known quantum phenomena and some quantum theory. I have only really focused on the really big and really small and not much in between, because that’s where you start with a theory like this, at either end and work your way inwards. But before taking this forward, let’s have a condensed summary of my ramblings; 5 bullet points that would have made no sense had I gone straight to them without explanation:

1. A dimensionless dimension of thought and energy surrounds our X,Y,Z dimension of space we call the universe.

2. Space is made up of indivisible pixels, time is one of many parameters of a space pixel, and is a pixel itself.

3. Energy flows from the thought and energy dimension into our universe, creating matter from the bottom up, and driving physical processes like making planets, animals, vegetables and minerals, bodies and brains.

4. Thought enters into the brain structure created by matter to create a mind limited by the capacity of the brain structure. In animals, a human brain can host more mind than a cat. In the case of vegetables it’s the maximum sentience their nervous system will allow if any; in the case of minerals it’s none.

5. When we are born, processes have already prepared the body and brain, and thought enters the brain like turning up a dimmer switch. When we die the opposite happens, the lights go down and we return to our afterlife of thought and energy, leaving our decaying bodies to feed vegetable processes with nutrients and mineral processes with material.

On to the bit between the big and small, from you and I, to the ant you just trod on, to the road that leads to the pub and the weeds that grow there; how everyone and everything interacts. If you need inspiration or demonstrate an idea to someone, you can do worse than resurrect Schrodinger's Cat. Here’s my interpretation of it.

Schrodinger's Cat

Schrodinger imagined putting a cat in a box with a cyanide capsule and a device that had a 50:50 chance of releasing the deadly gas and killing the cat. Einstein wasn’t convinced by quantum mechanics and held the traditional Newtonian view of the universe, albeit modified by his theories of relativity, and believed that the universe and all that was in it, big and small, followed the same laws of physics, and Schrodinger aimed to show he was wrong. Einstein used a variation of Schrodinger's model to think about this. Instead of a box and a cylinder of poisonous gas, Einstein imagined locking the cat in a cellar with a keg of gunpowder and an ignition device that had a 50:50 chance of igniting the explosive. He probably did this to come at the problem from a different angle from Schrodinger, and I’m going to do the same. The experiment ends when the observer open’s Schrodinger's box, or Einstein’s cellar door, to see if the cat is alive or dead.

I’m going to modify Einstein’s model by replacing the gunpowder with a couple of pounds of Centex that is going to bring the building down as well as killing the cat. That way we further complicate the action of observing the cat indirectly and hence bring cause and effect into play. The accepted cause and effect scenario in the macro world is; the timer reaches zero, the bomb either goes off or it doesn’t. If it does, the cellar blows up, the cat dies, and the building above collapses, and an observer across the road observes the house come tumbling down. The cat has no influence on any of this, neither does the observer; it’s all down to whether the bomb goes off. So, let’s put the cat in a cellar with a bomb, set the timer for say 20 minutes, and retire to observe what happens at a safe distance across the street from the house.

Copenhagen Interpretation

The Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum mechanics going on here is; the cat becomes alive and dead at the same time at the moment of the explosion. Behind this statement is a whole load of mathematics to do with collapsing probability waves that turn probability into reality, but there’s no need to go into that. Far cleverer people than me have already done that, so let’s just say it has been peer reviewed and no one agrees on anything.

At the moment the bomb goes off the cat is in a dead and alive state of quantum superposition where all the combinations of atoms and particles that make the cat up, all the EM fields, every parameter value possible for every particle of matter in the cat, exist in all possible configurations at the same time. The outcome is finally determined by observation, this is called collapsing the probably wave.

Multiverses

The Copenhagen Interpretation assumes the collapse of the probability wave resulting in a single outcome. But there is another interpretation based on the wave not collapsing. All possibilities continue to exist, but in different timelines, which have to be hosted in different universes because time has been chained to space as a 4th dimension, and I said it would end in tears. Now the cat is alive in one universe and dead in another, the house didn’t collapse in one universe and did in another etc. This is the theory of multiple universes and suggests that for every event/interaction, decision, time lines divide and a new universe is created to carry the new timeline forward. These universes are not the same as those featured in string theory; those are determined by the combination of 20 or so parameters that define the universe. There were only 10 to the power of 500 of them; these theoretical universes contain copies of everything including the cat, the observer, the guy down the chip shop who can’t decide to have cod or plaice, and the EM emission from the sun earlier that day. There are an estimated 10 to the power of 79 atoms in our universe, 85% more if you include dark matter. Can you imagine if every single event that takes place in one time unit impacted even half of them? A universe would be created to house the atom if it interacted with another, and another universe created to house the atom if it did. I don’t know how many universes we are talking about but it must be in the Googolplexes and would keep growing exponentially until they grew cold and died. Mind you, if universes end, then there’d be a finite number of universes them, and although there'd be a lot of them, they’d be tiny in comparison with infinity. So, when the superposition resolves itself, every cat particle, not just the cat will have its own universe with some cats more damaged than others, some more traumatised.

A young post grad student came up with a little add-on to this theory called Quantum Immortality in his PHD thesis, although Quantum Invincibility would have been a more appropriate title. “Upstart” muttered the physics establishment. Yep, the same guys who supported the Multiverse theory were calling this student’s theory nonsense and untestable. Basically what he said was; replace the trigger that has a 50% chance of releasing the poisonous gas with one that is almost certain to go off and kill the occupant, then kick the cat out of the box and jump in yourself. Set the timer and there will be one universe created for the surviving occupant. You will climb out the box and everyone in that universe would know the Multiverse theory was correct. The good news from this is you can live every day like Ollie Reed and always wake up in the morning none the wiser that you had died in millions of other universes. You’re not immortal, you wake up one day older and one day closer to death, but you get to live like Ollie Reed until you die of old age. As long as death isn’t 100% certain, like living to 140 years old, you will survive in at least one universe. This is equally bad news for the suicidal; you just keep waking up in the morning somewhere.

God

Theologians and religious physicist and philosophers, never one to miss an opportunity, used Schrodinger's Cat to prove the existence of God. If I may use my piano analogy, they claimed that God made the piano (the universe), the piano maker (nature), and the piano player (thought). They were less forthcoming as to who made God but that didn’t stop them heading straight down Infinity Street to the cul-de-sac at the end where God lives.



I hope to show that the act of observation does determine reality and the cat is both dead and alive.

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Last edited by Beerman on Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:44 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

I tend to think the observer is not important. Things happen no matter if they are looked at or not. We can only determine our view upon the universe, not the universe itself. In our personal view Schroedingers cat may be dead, but in another point of view she may be alive.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:17 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Well, let’s see if I can’t change your mind on that Firebird, or at least inject a little doubt after I explain how I think you could kill the cat just by looking at the building.

Modifying the Copenhagen Interpretation to the Modified Schrodinger Experiment

I’m not a fan of multi universes; actually I think this theory is a direct consequence of calling time a dimension and using math’s with the wrong assumptions to give wrong answers. I don’t really want to talk about God because he never talks about me, plus I don’t think infinity exists, which is a prerequisite for the existence of God. So, I am going to stick with and develop the Copenhagen Interpretation to take this theory of the afterlife forward.

By introducing cause and effect, I resolve the superposition by observing when the house collapses rather than observing if the cat is dead or alive. I suggest that not only is the cat in a state of superposition but so is the matter in the bomb, cellar and house, street and observer.

For the observer to collapse the superposition of the observer, street, house, cellar, bomb and cat, there must be a connection between them; a communication channel between the living matter of the cat and the observer, with all the non-living matter affected by the explosion in between. I suggest this connection is created by quantum entanglement. Entanglement is when particle in matter takes on the state of other particles around it by being entangled and entangling others next to it. Their properties align, which connects observer to cat.

I’m talking about effect and cause where the observer resolving the superposition of the house, which resolves the superposition of the cellar, which resolves the superposition of the bomb and the cat. For the briefest of moments, maybe for only a single tick of the universe’s clock, superposition blurs out all matter connected with the event as reality turns to probability. The observer is connected to the cat via the house and collapses the quantum house of cards by thinking it collapsed. I’m not saying the observer kills the cat, just resoles the superposition, the house may collapse or not, the cat might survive the bomb blast, but it happens one way or the other because of the observer, not the bomb.

I keep saying “observer” because that what all the physicists say, but what do I mean by observer? I mean passive not intrusive observation, not measuring but looking. The sensors in our eyes detects the reflected radiation off the house, turns it into electricity, processes it in the brain, and gives meaning to it in the mind. So observation for me is thought and what I’m saying is the thought in the observer’s mind determines if the building collapses, or to put it another way, thought creates reality. Thought destroys the building which destroys the cellar, which sets the bomb off, which kills the cat. I’m not talking about cause and effect, I’m talking about effect and cause.

For this communication to happen at a particle level I think we are talking about the entanglement of charm quarks, but if this happens at the energy level below that then the particle probability wave is actually an energy probability field, and if a unit of space is a field created by energy, then when the observer, house, cellar and cat enter the superposition state, they momentarily become space. Either way, the cat goes into a state of superposition which spreads out across space and matter to the observer who is sent into a state of superposition. If thought is involved in collapsing the probability field then maybe the observer decides to kill the cat because they can, or not because their granny is in the house.

If we had eyes that reacted so quickly that they could detect everybody and everything around us popping in and out and in and out of existence all the time as they interact in events, we’d feel a lot differently about this universe we live in, and if I had scales, tank tracks for legs and canons for arms I’d be a Tarkus.


Image




I don't agree with the God bit at the end, I mean, talk about never missing an opportunity to bring God into this. Superdeterminism doesn't address infinity and from a theological angle, why would God create a universe without choice, unless he wanted to watch a good movie.

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:30 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

The Space Pixel

Charges particles in a quantum energy well can only have specific values. Physicists believe they move between energy layers instantaneously without travelling across space to get their new energy orbit. They say they seem to disappear and reappear somewhere else. A possible reason for this is a pixel of space is like a bubble, but instead of soap around the outside we have space, and instead of air on the inside we have something else. Put loads of space pixels together and space becomes a foam. The stuff running through space could be the energy dimension providing energy storage for that unit of space, or they might be tunnels that form part of a superhighway made up of space in a state of superposition that allows entangled particles to communicate or vast distances without having to cross space. I read somewhere that the energy contained within one cubic centimetre of empty space would be enough to boil the Earth's oceans.

So, a pixel of space is a little stranger that one might expect, it’s hollow, and there seems to be two modes of travel between two points in space, over its surface and through it. If things like cats, cellars, houses, streets and people enter into a state of superposition, then these tunnels in space could connect them to allow the observer to kill the cat, or for people to enter a state of superposition and teleport down them, if we ever get the technology right.

Why do I keep calling the smallest unit of space a pixel instead of a plank? Because I can.


_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:51 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Sorting out the Elephants

You may have noticed a few nonsenses as I’ve laid out my explanation on how there could be an afterlife, which is not surprising as we are taking on so much to understand and we understand so little, despite what physicists may tell you. I’ve called these nonsenses ‘elephants in the room’ because everyone knows they are there but no one wants to talk about them; they are so big and so difficult to get your head around and they rain on your parade.

Here are some questions I am going to try and answer to the best of my thinking on the subject, grouped together under 3 themes. The answers are the foundation of all that I have said up to now. I might be giving an insight into how all this life and afterlife is possible, or telling a complete fairy tale, such are the unsubstantiated depths we need to go. Either way, I hope to keep logic, not faith, at the heart of it, and if you think that Jesus saves, get back in line.

Theme 1 – Questions on dimensions

How can a universe as big as ours sit inside a dimensionless place of energy and thought that I have called the afterlife? Can things really be bigger on the inside than on the outside? What does a dimensionless dimension look like?

As soon as I ask myself questions about dimensions I find myself falling over the dual meaning of the term, so let me define what I mean for the purpose of this conversation. By dimension I refer to a boundary that constrains that which is in it to stay there, like a balloon constrains the air inside it. I’m not referring to the official definition of dimensions, which is the X,Y,Z coordinates along with time, needed to define the shape and position of energy and matter in space. Indeed, I’ve referred to these as parameters of a space pixel. I see space as the dimension. The X,Y,Z coordinates and time only apply to space, not to dimensions constraining stuff other than space. The dimensions I refer to form an architecture, with our dimension of space in there somewhere.

Theme 2 – Questions on the Big Bang

Many believe the Big Bang created the universe, I light heartedly said “one day nothing exploded”, but seriously, either it did, or something that wasn’t nothing exploded. If it was nothing, then how can nothing explode? If it was something, then what on earth would have the power to create a universe and what set it off?

Theme 3 – Questions on the infuriatingly recursive ‘...and what made that then?’

What made the Afterlife, and what made that; and I said ‘what’ not ‘who’, so no one is allowed to say God, goddamnit; and what made the thing that set off the Big Bang and what made that? Is infinity a prerequisite for the dimensional structure of everything including a dimensionless dimension, or does surrounding a dimension of ‘space’ with a dimensionless dimension make infinity go away?


_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:32 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

I think an observer always effects the observation of an observed object (see Heisenberg), and the question „What happens to an observed object when it is not observed“ is meaningless because an observed object which gets not observed is just an object. The cat leaves the experiment the moment she gets no further observation. We just cannot know what happens then because the scenery now takes place without us and it can’t even be predicted by experience.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:46 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Hi Firebird. The picture I have painted is a universe of real objects, made of real energy and force fields. Their solidity may be an illusion, but the objects are not an illusion, so they continue to exist and the processes that created them carry on when they are not observed.

However, if the processes that grow objects run virtually in the afterlife and take form in our universe only when observed, then when you leave the room, the room no longer exist until it is observed again by someone. If you plant a tree and come back 50 years later, the processes to grow the tree still take place, and the interactions with the tree over the years still happen, but as thought, so that the virtual tree is now fully grown when you observe it again, or was chopped down by someone 20 years ago. In this model, I am typing this post as a physical representation of thought; everything from me to the chair I’m sitting on, to the words on the screen I see through my eyes has been downloaded from the thought dimension, time pixel by time pixel. This is the world of the Matrix except that instead of reality creating virtual reality, thought is creating virtual reality in the afterlife, then representing it in space as a physical reality, but only when it’s observed, because why waste energy if it’s not.

‘If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?’ is a good question.

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:24 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

The tree does make a sound because of the natural laws. Not-observed objects do of course follow these laws. I make a big difference between our experienceable reality and the objective reality. Biologists call it „experienceableworld“ (or so), and we simply cannot escape the borders of our senses which only show us the parts of the world that are useful for us to stay alive. This may also include our thinking. It obviously is useful to imagine an afterlife. To deal most proper with the problems of life it was necessary to have a big brain. Now this increasing brain begins to think about death and invents an afterlife because living beings cannot really deal with the concept of non-living. Additionally human beings are furthermore made to solve problems and cannot deal with something happening beyond their control. We are made to think we know everything but of course this does not mean we REALLY know everything.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:08 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

The tree makes a sound if the procesess and events happen in the universe. The tree is always in the universe from the day it is born to the day it dies and as it turns to dust. It doesn't make a sound if it all happens in the afterlife as the tree has no reason to be made physical in the universe by thought if there is no one there to observe it.

Big Bang – The Prologue

There is going to be a problem with language now because over the next few posts I am going to be talking about nothing. If I say nothing, assume I mean the concept of absence of something, not the indefinite pronoun. I will try and avoid the pronoun if possible and the same goes for something.

Many believe the Big Bang created the universe, I light heartedly said “one day nothing exploded”, but seriously, either it did, or something that wasn’t nothing exploded. If it was nothing, then how can nothing explode? If it was something, then what on earth would have the power to create a universe and what set it off? There are a number of issues I have with the big bang and some of them arise from sciences approach to matters that potentially involve the non-physical. Physics is about the physical universe, the clue is in the name. It’s based on observation of the physical world, either directly by observing the universe at work, or through experimentation where specific universe processes are examined on a manageable scale. Theories are formulated and tested, predictions are made of outcomes based on the laws of physics known and speculated. But you have to keep in mind that an observation may confirm many theories and I think some physicists forget that and become obsessive in making observations fit their theory, or the one they support. This can result in observation being used, not to discount theories, but to look for missing links that must be there, because the theory they support cannot, must not be wrong. I think this slippery slope started when Bohr and Einstein went at it, creating two theories and two camps of supporters, and in recent times both camps seem to have come together to join the two theories together, the world of the small and the big, to prove they were both right, or at least their team was. Let me give you two examples, one relating to the General Theory of Relativity, and one to String Theory.

General Relativity Example

The general theory of relativity must be one on the greatest steps forward in humanity’s understanding of the universe, so was Bohr’s theory of the atom but let’s not get distracted. The visual model used to show Einstein’s theory was to put snooker balls on a sheet of Clingfilm and show the Moon going round the well created by the Earth, and the Earth going round the well created by the mass of the sun and so on; which is great to get the concept across, but is not a physical representation of what is happening. It’s a 3d model showing a 3d process, abstractly in 2d. I haven’t put that very well, but if I explain it longhand it might make sense. A snooker ball sitting on a single sheet of Clingfilm, prompts the question; where is the observer watching the balls go round standing? According to the model the observer is looking down on the Clingfilm on a different plain and outside space. If you add a sheet of Clingfilm on top of the snooker ball, and a sheets each side of it to form a cube, this begins to hint at what it might actually look like in 3d space. Now place the Earth in a solid cube of Clingfilm and it’s obvious that this single sheet Clingfilm model is a conceptual, not a physical representation of space. Taking the model too literally leads you to ways the mass of a planet can bend space. The Bohr camp came up with a quantum solution called a graviton particle or wave capable of warping space. So they all go looking for a graviton particle through experimentation and observation. But the observations that confirm the general theory of relativity also confirm other theories such as the one I put forward here. If a 3d representation of a 3d process was presented in 3d, the snooker balls would not be sitting in Clingfilm wells created by their mass, but in denser space, where energy balances the universal constant locally around planets and galaxies by making additional space pixels. Because the observation has been taken to confirm one theory instead of many, all efforts are now focused on finding dark matter because the universal constant doesn’t add up, instead of exploring the nature and density of space proposed by other theories.

String Theory Example

The theory of multiple universes is going to be tested using the CERN Large Hadron Collider. They are going to bang two particles together and see if the energy released is less than expected. This will absolutely, categorically, show that the missing energy has been forced into another universe and prove other universes exist (I'm being sarcastic). No doubt the string theory and Multiverse followers will form camps and each goes looking for why they are right. If such an energy loss is observed, it also support what I’m suggesting, if the energy is forced somewhere else that doesn’t have to be another universe, it could just as easily be force back down the pipe to the afterlife, into a non-physical dimension.

I am now going to talk about nothing, energy, and where the afterlife came from.

Nothing

Infinity may not apply to the universe due to physical paradoxes, but it can apply to nothing. Maybe it is the only thing it can apply to, for an infinity of nothing is nothing, nobody is needed to create nothing. Nothing parks infinity whether it exists or not, so nothing is a really good place to start. If nothing can create something then it can create the afterlife, and the universe directly or indirectly and it can do so calmly or explosively. Nothing has no properties, size, form, time, laws of physics, nothing. Anything can be something except nothing, but the one thing nothing must have is a dimension to keep it in, otherwise there’d be nothing all over the place; and maybe there is, but I’ll come to that later.

I suggest nothing is energy and antienergy coexisting in a state of superposition, cancelling each other out to be nothing. Matter and antimatter are only constructs of energy and antienergy, so they’ can be expected to behave in the same way. If you brought them together as physical matter and physical antimatter you would have the mother of all explosions as they produced nothing. In a 0-dimension they’d stay in state of non-existence as long as the probability wave is not collapsed. If it were, these two halves of nothing would come together to create energy. This explanation kind of defines what energy is. I know the official definition is the work energy can do, but that what it does, not what it is. If we define energy as nothing switched on, then it says energy and nothing are the same thing but in different states. Turn nothing on and it becomes energy; all the lights come on and all its properties like polarisation and angular momentum, spin into life and then it’s ready to do some work.

With regards how infinity would see a dimension of nothing, from the outside I think it would see nothing. Even if the 0-dimension had something inside, the contents of the 0-dimension would not be affected by the infinity outside. I don’t think infinity can exist inside a 0-dimension; apply infinity to a 0-dimension like the afterlife and energy would be so diluted it wouldn’t form into thought, unless grains of thought get drawn together to form planets of thought copying our universe's process of accretion. Infinity inside a 0-dimension is a weird concept; if it ever ignited you’d have an infinite, never-ending release of energy. I can’t see how it would ever settle down for energy to form into thought. What a nightmare of an image to picture; infinity in a dimensionless balloon, expanding without increasing in physical size, like falling recursively into itself, down a bottomless pit.

Now picture multiple 0-dimensions of nothing, each finite, so if one converts to energy, the others stay as nothing, at least for a bit. Conversion to energy is contained, controlled. Rather than explosive like a nuclear explosion, nothing converts to energy in a controlled manner like a nuclear reactor. Once converted, if enough energy has been converted to pierce its dimensional skin and the skin of the next dimension of nothing as well, then the first balloon acts as the observer to the next, converting that into energy and so on. The dimension’s skin acts as a control rod and eventually stops the conversion when insufficient energy is generated to penetrate the next balloon of nothing. Maybe as each dimension of energy converts the next dimension of nothing to energy, they join together to form a single 0-dimension of energy, and this is how an embryonic afterlife formed.

How does chain reaction start? There is only one thing that can turn nothing on, it can’t be nothing because by definition it has nothing to do it with. It has to be the only something around and that is the skin of the 0-dimension it is held in. My guess is an event happened in the skin that collapsed the energy-antienergy superposition inside, instantly converting the contents from nothing into energy and starting the chain reaction.

So that’s one way creation may have started, in the form of an afterlife, without the help of infinity or God, but we are not out the woods yet, and that doesn’t mean the Big Bang happened in the same way, if it happened at all.

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:25 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 634
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Bigger on the Inside

I still haven’t said how to get a 93 billion light-year across universe inside a 0 across afterlife, and it’s not just about the size either, it’s also about the contents.

The space dimension we call our universe can have objects in it because it supports spatial and temporal properties, whereas a 0-dimension cannot, as spatial and temporal properties have no meaning in such a place. The contents are incompatible, so there has to be a skin to keep what is inside safe and apart from what is outside. Life can exist in space if you have an object to put it in, like a space pixel or a brain, but you can’t expose the contents of space to the contents of the afterlife, the afterlife couldn’t support its existence.

Getting something big inside something small is only going to work if the skin of the dimension hides its contents and appears 0-dimensional to other dimensions, and it could do this by taking its contents out of relative existence. By that I mean it exists relative to itself, but does not exist relative to other dimensions. This brings to mind Schrodinger’s Cat; inside the box the cat doesn’t see itself in a state of superposition; if it could see the universe outside the box without collapsing the probability field, it would see the universe in that state of flux. Outside the box the observers don’t see themselves in a state of superposition; if they could see the cat inside the box without collapsing the superposition, they’d see the cat in a state of flux.

If the skin of a dimension is made of something that has the ability to send its contents into a state of non-existence relative to other dimensions, then it probably has the same affect on its contents. The skin of the universe will appear as non-existence to the space within, which explains the movement of mass from the epicentre of the universe to its skin without the need for a big bang. It also explains why mass if speeding up as it approaches the universe outer edge; non-existence is pulling it. The skin probably pulls this non-existence trick off by putting the universe into a state of superposition.

But we now have a new something, the skin of the dimension, so we must force ourselves to ask the elephant in the room question again, what created it (and don’t say God)? The need for a dimension skin necessitates the need to create it outside the skin, but there isn’t any something, all there is nothing. If nothing creates it, then this nothing cannot have a skin, because that is the thing being created. This proves, if only by conjecture, that infinity does exist, but only when applied to nothing, and it puts in place the final piece of architecture, an infinite dimension of nothing supporting all else.

There must be a property of energy and antienergy existing in a state of superposition that can generate dimensional skins, capturing finite quantities of nothing inside them as they form. I suggest that there are three outcomes to nothing in a state of superposition, energy, antienergy and further superposition. In an infinite dimension of nothing the first two would be catastrophic and destroy everything. The third outcome would produce a dimension skin which is the start of all creation.



_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:35 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.