Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 21:39:57
-
The universe may have thought its self into existence. How let's start here when we have a thought we create electrons that traverse the neurons of our mind the electrons have a mass that means that the brain is creating a negatively charged particle our little brain can only hold so much. Now if we step this up just a little bit and consider the electrons that are a part of all the hydrogen in the universe we can see how the expanse of the universe is a kind to a great neuron filled with the matter of electrons as the universe expands it fills with thought yes thought has mass. We can now safely consider the universe as a growing neuron. Please don't thank me just think about it and create some matter.
-
I can't see any science in your post. It is more of an illogical philosophical after thought.
The universe thought itself into existence?? Wouldn't it have to exist already to have a thought? Why would you want to anthropomorphize the universe anyway?
-
Hi @Just thinking I hope you are well.
Over-all this is a nice enough idea. Presumably you know that a few people will examine what you've said and point out some problems. Here's a few:
1. when we have a thought we create electrons
We don't really create electrons, the electrons were already there. We just move charged particles not create them. When electrical signals move around the brain it's just that charged particles are being made to move across cell membranes so that an electrical signal passes along neurones.
2. The over-all idea is not all that new. Google will find a host of articles suggesting similar ideas. Under ordinary circumstances, it would be worth doing some background research to see what other people have also thought or said about such ideas. However, I've got to urge some caution here. If you type dangerous stuff into Google it will find articles for you. Learning to sift through what is written is a valuable skill. You may get better references looking through Philosophy and Theology articles and including keywords into your search.
-----
Obviously it's easier to criticise than to voice new ideas and opinions. It's an interesting and reasonable idea. This is the New Theories section and you have chosen to place it here so that seems quite reasonable.
Best Wishes.
-
Cogito ergo sum.
The thought implies the existence of a thinker.
What was the thinker which brought the universe into being?
It can't have been the universe, so you are either wrong, or heading into theology.
-
I can't see any science in your post. It is more of an illogical philosophical after thought.
The universe thought itself into existence?? Wouldn't it have to exist already to have a thought? Why would you want to anthropomorphize the universe anyway?
That's funny that big word anthropomorphize the universe did create you after all so putting human traits on the universe the universe that made all. Who would have thought?
-
Best Wishes.
I thank you very much for your kind recognition but when you say that the electrons are already there not so as they are generated at some point and stored so they build up and create more mass in our mind till the neurons can no longer be developed to contain them our neurons run out before the electrons do. Just as a star runs down and dies so do we.
-
Cogito ergo sum.
The thought implies the existence of a thinker.
What was the thinker which brought the universe into being?
It can't have been the universe, so you are either wrong, or heading into theology.
The first thought is created and it develops from there the universe is a miracle after all with or without a creator.
-
The first thought is created
What by?
What is the thinker?
What was the thinker which brought the universe into being?
It can't have been the universe, so you are either wrong, or heading into theology.
-
What was the thinker which brought the universe into being?
It can't have been the universe, so you are either wrong, or heading into theology.
You have lost track of reality first I have never mentioned God and second the universe has happened just in case you missed it. So I'm not wrong we are here after all something started it and this is another possibility. A closed mind will never create we must be open to all possibilities or we will never fly or go faster than 50 miles per hour. Don't get stuck in the dark ages and all that other dark stuff.
-
Now I see the misconception It is implied not by me but by others that the universe had a thinker before it was created a big mistake and not on my part. Now let me explain it goes like this when a child is created at some point in time before it is born or after the child is born it will have its very first thought just think the very first thought and what will happen next bingo the child will have other thought who would have gest WOW. So now we are up to two thoughts getting bigger getting smarter. OK let's get out of first class and look at the big picture the universe had its first thought that is the start that is the creation and all of the following went on to fill the universe all that hydrogen and electrons expanding the big hypothetical neuron. So yes if the universe can think then it thought itself into being and that is remember the baby the first thought.
-
You have lost track of reality first I have never mentioned God and second the universe has happened just in case you missed it.
Nobody has questioned those facts here.
Your implication that they did tells us that you have lost track of reality.
In order for there to be a thought, there must be something which thinks it.
If you think the universe is a thought, you have to be able to tell us about the thinker.
-
Now let me explain it goes like this when a child is created at some point in time before it is born or after the child is born it will have its very first thought just think the very first thought
OK, in that case, it is clear that the thinker is the child.
Now tell us who or what thought the universe into existence.
But try to understand that, if there was no universe then the universe was not there.
And if it was not there, it can not have had any thought.
-
Now tell us who or what thought the universe into existence.
But try to understand that, if there was no universe then the universe was not there.
And if it was not there, it can not have had any thought.
They say that when a person dies there is still activity in the brain so maybe the dead universe thought itself back into existence after a previous life. Ore maybe that mystery figure that was alluded to thought it out.
-
They say that when a person dies there is still activity in the brain so maybe the dead universe thought
OK, if the dead universe is the thinker you still have to answer the question.
Where did the dead universe come from?
-
Where did the dead universe come
I'm glad you have asked this question as so many before you have it came from all the matter in the universe squeezed into a pinhead called a singularity. Billy has his hand up at the back of the class what is your question Billy and don't be silly leave Sally's heir alone.
-
it came from all the matter in the universe squeezed into a pinhead called a singularity.
OK, that's the Universe...
In what way was this "dead"?
-
OK, that's the Universe...
In what way was this "dead"?
I think if I squeezed that hard I would be dead to try having a conversation with a singularity you will be squeezed to get any conversation.
-
I would be dead
You aren't an evolving universe.
OK, that's the Universe...
In what way was this "dead"?
-
OK, that's the Universe...
In what way was this "dead"?
If the universe was alive before then it came to a singularity it died and then came back remember the thinking universe. eg. A man drowned he is dead the medics arrived and he is back on his feet again. Boris Karloff did it with frankenstine. Have you not seen that documentary.
-
If the universe was alive before then
There is no reason to suppose that it was.
-
There is no reason to suppose that it was.
There are many things in science that are supported by wind. I have pointed out many of them.
-
There are many things in science that are supported by wind.
No, there are not
I have pointed out many of them.
You have pointed out that you didn't look for the real support, or that you didn't understand it.
Why not learn the science, rather than broadcasting your ignorance?
-
Why not learn the science, rather than broadcasting your ignorance?
Sounds like you have discovered the one and only correct religion some churches have friendly preachers that know how to listen as well as preach.
-
Sounds like you have discovered the one and only correct religion
Yes, and it is called evidence.
Come and join us.
-
Come and join us.
Yes, I know my ears can join in but keep my mouth shut church.
-
Come and join us.
Yes, I know my ears can join in but keep my mouth shut church.
You don't have to keep your mouth shut in science.
But if you open it, you had better be sure that you have evidence to back up what you say.
And if you say things that are against the evidence you will get laughed at
-
And if you say things that are against the evidence you will get laughed at
We can laugh at what people say and what people do but it's not very productive. If you see an old lady on the side of the road and her car has a punctured tyre and she is checking her oil you will laugh at her and drive off or better still stay there and heckle her reminding her how stupid she is. I knew you would see my point finally. And I'm not even wrong the irony of it.
-
If you see an old lady on the side of the road and her car has a punctured tyre and she is checking her oil you will laugh at her and drive off or better still stay there and heckle her reminding her how stupid she is.
No.
I'd help change the tyre.
Why did you think otherwise?
The point is you wouldn't want me to fix the tyre because you would insist it's an oil level problem.
Even if I replaced the tyre and showed that the car now works, you would still insist that you were right all along, in spite of the actual evidence.
I knew you would see my point finally.
You do not have a point.
A universe which does not exist can not do much.
In particular, it can not think.
And I'm not even wrong
Looks about right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
-
Why did you think otherwise?
I thought that the old lady was stupid and you would let her know just as I am stupid and you let me know. Thanks for asking.
-
Why did you think otherwise?
I thought that the old lady was stupid and you would let her know just as I am stupid and you let me know. Thanks for asking.
And do you plan to announce that you will continue not to learn?
Because that's the point when people start to laugh at you.
For example, have you got to grips with the idea that a thing which does not exist can not think?
-
For example, have you got to grips with the idea that a thing which does not exist can not think?
I thought that I already explained that it's coming into existence was its first thought.
-
For example, have you got to grips with the idea that a thing which does not exist can not think?
I thought that I already explained that it's coming into existence was its first thought.
You keep ignoring the problem.
You say that was "its first thought".
What was the "It" that did the thinking?
-
What was the "It" that did the thinking?
The {It} is the very first thing to happen not living not dead but just a beginning like when an embryo or a sperm becomes. I think the universe is like a birth I have no idea who is the parents or any idea of its origin only that what I see now is. This is only a possibility and I know that it is one in a million of being the truth but there it is.
-
The universe may have thought its self into existence. How let's start here when we have a thought we create electrons that traverse the neurons of our mind the electrons have a mass that means that the brain is creating a negatively charged particle our little brain can only hold so much. Now if we step this up just a little bit and consider the electrons that are a part of all the hydrogen in the universe we can see how the expanse of the universe is a kind to a great neuron filled with the matter of electrons as the universe expands it fills with thought yes thought has mass. We can now safely consider the universe as a growing neuron. Please don't thank me just think about it and create some matter.
There's at least two viable ways to think about a speculation.
1. The transactional interpretation, that observations now shape our past
2. That the universe exists in a state designed as a fine tuning that allows life to exist
Consciousness may be cosmic allowing it to prevail even in the most profoundly dark and distances of spacetime, and in a sense, we are subsystems of the holistic universe, we are conscious beings made from the same stuff around us, but to say the universe is holistically a system that thinks, borderlines on philosophy of God.
-
Consciousness may be cosmic allowing it to prevail even in the most profoundly dark and distances of spacetime, and in a sense, we are subsystems of the holistic universe, we are conscious beings made from the same stuff around us, byt ti say the universe is holistically a system that think, borderlines on philosophy of God.
I think that all we see and all we know and all that there is ' is incredible and hard to believe but yet it is. So what if there is a God and he/she created all and this God is less than what we already know something simple creating something more complicated it is food for thought and we need thought to feed and we do and we eat.
-
not living not dead but just a beginning like when an embryo or a sperm becomes.
Embryos and sperm are clearly alive.
I think the universe is like a birth I have no idea who is the parents or any idea of its origin only that what I see now is.
This page is about science...
The {It} is the very first thing to happen not living not dead
Where did it come from?
That's what you keep not answering.
-
Consciousness may be cosmic allowing it to prevail even in the most profoundly dark and distances of spacetime, and in a sense, we are subsystems of the holistic universe, we are conscious beings made from the same stuff around us, but to say the universe is holistically a system that think, borderlines on philosophy of God.
I think that all we see and all we know and all that there is ' is incredible and hard to believe but yet it is. So what if there is a God and he/she created all and this God is less than what we already know something simple creating something more complicated it is food for thought and we need thought to feed and we do and we eat.
I'm not saying there isn't a God. In fact, there's over 120 fine tuning parameters agreed by cosmologists that if it had been any different, life as we know it, the universe itself would not exist.
What I am saying, is that if God is real, does he encompass consciousness in us all, or are we emergent subsystems of the universe and the ideology of a Cosmic Superintelligence exists because of us?
In a conversation with my local preacher, I explained we are so reliant on the need for God, but without us, God could not exist. He agreed, perhaps reluctantly.
-
Quote from: Just thinking on Yesterday at 23:45:43
not living not dead but just a beginning like when an embryo or a sperm becomes.
Embryos and sperm are clearly alive.
Quote from: Just thinking on Yesterday at 23:45:43
I think the universe is like a birth I have no idea who is the parents or any idea of its origin only that what I see now is.
This page is about science...
Quote from: Just thinking on Yesterday at 23:45:43
The {It} is the very first thing to happen not living not dead
Where did it come from?
That's what you keep not answering.
I think it is the equivalent of the big bang it started but we have no knowledge of what it was before. It is not living until it is living it starts when it starts and we have no say in it. Many scientists like yourself have pointed out many truths and I believe you do not intend to deceive but strive to educate. I believe we are not Board chemist and Just thinking but drunk and yet to wake up to what is real and yet to be discovered.
-
Quote from: Just thinking on Yesterday at 23:45:43
not living not dead but just a beginning like when an embryo or a sperm becomes.
Embryos and sperm are clearly alive.
Quote from: Just thinking on Yesterday at 23:45:43
I think the universe is like a birth I have no idea who is the parents or any idea of its origin only that what I see now is.
This page is about science...
Quote from: Just thinking on Yesterday at 23:45:43
The {It} is the very first thing to happen not living not dead
Where did it come from?
That's what you keep not answering.
I think it is the equivalent of the big bang it started but we have no knowledge of what it was before. It is not living until it is living it starts when it starts and we have no say in it. Many scientists like yourself have pointed out many truths and I believe you do not intend to deceive but strive to educate. I believe we are not Board chemist and Just thinking but drunk and yet to wake up to what is real and yet to be discovered.
Yes, well, I don't know if you have looked at my pre big bang model, but it still cannot explain where it came from. The cold big bang model under new theories here was an attempt for a more realistic beginning so that it didn't violate the thermodynamic laws like the hot big bang does. I don't think we can extrapolate the variables in such a way that we can explain the universe outside of the more exotic theories outside our own scope of the mainstream.
There was one idea, possibly originating from Tipler but I could be wrong since it's been a while since I entertained any of it, that the beginning was inextricably looped with the end of the universe in what physics call an Alpha state and an Omega state, connected by a timelike loop not too different to a wormhole. The problem is that with wormholes, without negative energy or enough spin causing centrifugal repulsion, it is highly unstable. But maybe this is not a problem as it evolved, since maybe this past and future of the universe we see is a direct seperation of a more timelike loop that existed in the past. We call such universes as being self-consistent.
-
There was one idea, possibly originating from Tipler but I could be wrong since it's been a while since I entertained any of it, that the beginning was inextricably looped with the end of the universe in what physics call an Alpha state and an Omega state,
Yes, my idea is a bit difficult to explain as Bored chemist has asked how can the dead think its self into existence and how can a universe even think at all. If my idea is wrong and it most probably is then that makes the whole thing rather silly but I will continue to look for answers. Anyway thanks for your post.
-
Yes, my idea is a bit difficult to explain as Bored chemist has asked how can the dead think its self into existence and how can a universe even think at all.
No, the problem is much worse than that.
Hypothetically, a dead thing which thinks is possible.
The problem is that, according to you, a non existent thing thinks.
That's clearly impossible.
The impossibility was recognised a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation
-
The problem is that, according to you, a non existent thing thinks.
That's clearly impossible.
The impossibility was recognised a long time ago.
Now I see the problem the coming into existence at the very start is as the big bang theory so this is matter that is not living and therefore it is dead. Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being so the dead but existing universe began to develop into a conscious entity. I don't know if this is true but if it is this explanation may resolve the confusion or may not either way I failed to describe this theory in this way before.
-
Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being
Where did the previous stage(s) come from?
-
Where did the previous stage(s) come from?
This is the biggest question and mystery the best to date explanation is the TBB and goes a long way but is still not complete So that leaves room for other theories. Well, what about this we have heard about the possibility of a virtual universe like we are a simulation in some computer what if the conscious universe is like the computer and we are like a thought or a dream in the mind of this thinking entity the real universe may be only a form of electrical activity that is the mind and all we see and experience is a production of this mind. When we dream it seems real at the time but what if the activities that take place in themselves are real we only see our dreams from the outside the dream is a production to its self. The universe may be a long lasting dream our dreams are only little fleeting replicas of the big dream. If this is true the only question is where did the electrical energy come from?
-
Now I see the problem the coming into existence at the very start is as the big bang theory so this is matter that is not living and therefore it is dead. Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being so the dead but existing universe began to develop into a conscious entity.
Why is this in new theories? This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best. This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.
-
So that leaves room for other theories.
Yes, but, outside of theology, it doesn't leave room for things that are logically impossible.
-
Why is this in new theories? This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best. This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.
How can one conduct any research on the beginning or before the big bang the whole concept of the universe's beginning is a hypothesis at best no matter what the possibilities are. There is electrical activity in the universe we do exist we have a mind we consider does this make it a theory call it what you like.
-
that are logically impossible.
That just means you don't understand if something seems not logical that doesn't mean it is.
-
Why is this in new theories? This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best. This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.
How can one conduct any research on the beginning or before the big bang the whole concept of the universe's beginning is a hypothesis at best no matter what the possibilities are. There is electrical activity in the universe we do exist we have a mind we consider does this make it a theory call it what you like.
Did not parse.
-
that are logically impossible.
That just means you don't understand if something seems not logical that doesn't mean it is.
No
It is logically impossible for a thing, which does not exist, to think.
-
No
It is logically impossible for a thing, which does not exist, to think.
The start of the universe was not the universe it started with the ability to think/dream and became the universe from that point on.
-
No
It is logically impossible for a thing, which does not exist, to think.
The start of the universe was not the universe it started with the ability to think/dream and became the universe from that point on.
I'm sure we are all waiting for you to provide your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
However, even if it was true then it would contradict the thread's title.
It would mean that [whatever it was which possessed] "the ability to think/dream "
"may have thought" the Universe "into existence".
Which is an entirely separate idea; an idea which is theology rather than science.
-
I'm sure we are all waiting for you to provide your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
The world has been waiting for 101 years for proof of the big bang still waiting I will come up with my evidence tomorrow.
-
However, even if it was true then it would contradict the thread's title.
It would mean that [whatever it was which possessed] "the ability to think/dream "
"may have thought" the Universe "into existence".
Not really as I have said that it started with electrical activity that is not the universe the electrical activity is the mind that started the universe. So the universe is not the first thing to happen. First the electrical activity then the mind then the universe. See we must have an order.
-
This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.
There you go you can write your very first article in that can't be true on how my thread is wrong. You can do it I know you have it in you give it a go.
-
I'm sure we are all waiting for you to provide your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
The world has been waiting for 101 years for proof of the big bang still waiting I will come up with my evidence tomorrow.
Wrong in every material regard.
-
Wrong in every material regard.
a Belgium priest came up with the theory 101 years ago and destroyed his first belief and all without evidence.
-
The world has been waiting for 101 years for proof of the big bang
Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence and theories.
Not really as I have said that it started with electrical activity that is not the universe the electrical activity is the mind that started the universe.
That is not science, that is theology.
-
Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence and theories.
I'm glad you pointed that out as you say evidence and theories can be very wrong I would prefer to cut the chase and go for the proof. ps, a little bit of feedback on that can't be true would be nice you can spread a little bit of unreliable evidence and theory.
-
say evidence and theories can be very wrong
Evidence is not wrong.
-
Evidence is not wrong.
Then if the evidence is is not wrong it is proof I was told that proof is not what science was about I would say that theory needs evidence and evidence is proof if it is not wrong. What is wrong with proof?
-
Then if the evidence is is not wrong it is proof I was told that proof is not what science was about I would say that theory needs evidence and evidence is proof if it is not wrong. What is wrong with proof?
A theory cannot be proven to be correct. A theory is the best explanation for observations and experimental results. Evidence that supports the theory does not prove the theory it only supports it. Evidence or experimentation that is counter to the theory can prove that the theory is not correct.
It is along the lines that it is not possible to prove a negative.
-
A theory cannot be proven to be correct. A theory is the best explanation for observations and experimental results. Evidence that supports the theory does not prove the theory it only supports it. Evidence or experimentation that is counter to the theory can prove that the theory is not correct.
It is along the lines that it is not possible to prove a negative.
The whole thing sounds like a dog chasing its tail and I am getting dizzy. We are all kids playing in the sandpit lets see what we can make.
-
The whole thing sounds like a dog chasing its tail and I am getting dizzy
I suppose it is a little bit nuanced.We are all kids playing in the sandpit lets see what we can make.
Speak for yourself.
-
We are all kids playing in the sandpit lets see what we can make.
Speak for yourself.
I play with many toys life is too short. I think I would have to live for a thousand years to consider myself knowledgeable and even then I would know very little about all. It is better to know a little bit about everything but I know all about nothing.