How the Universe Works (under Grand Scheme context)
22 replies, posted
Today I was on BART (Bay Area Subway) and thought this up. Not sure if this has been thought up by any of you lot before, but I'd at least like to post my perspective on it:
[U]A Personally Revelating Epiphanial Understanding Derived from the Combination of Fractured Knowledge [/U][SUB](I'm a Lazy/Disturbed/Unmotivated/Irrational Fuck)[/SUB][U] about:[/U]
[B]How the Universe Works (under Grand Scheme Context)[/B]
In the beginning, there was irrationality. A pulse of irrationality sparked the creation of the Universe. As it turns out, everything that can ever exist already has the potential to exist at any point in time, lying in wait through universal scientific constants. There exists esoteric groups aware of this fact that dedicate their existance to creating 'grand works' to mimic the complexity of the universe in a microcosmic sense.
If we were to imagine it in a programmer's perspective: think of an infinite single-dimensional array (like system RAM, except actually infinite) of constant variables that contain all possibilities of any value (except values don't have to be numerical whose values depend on on/off switches). Then, given that there exists constants for everything, it is no longer necessary to compute values for anything, given that the values already exist somewhere. In a sense: "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
Rather, all that is required is a 'pulse' of 'existance' (or irrationality/randomness) to cause universal constants to relate to each other in a way to engulf and fit the needs of the existance (and keep in mind that existance is based on perspective/awareness [think conscious entities in the universe, like Humans]). This original 'pulse' shifts the arrangement of activated (or 'manifested') constants to depict one instance of the Universe at a given point in time (well, maybe not time, but at least elapsation). As existance is pulse-based, it is constantly changing (or at least its frequency of pulsation) which changes which constants are activated or 'manifested', which means that this Universe favors irrationality/dynamicness over principled or 'formulated' Dogma of any sort--scientific, political, or otherwise.
tl;dr - Stop being dogmatic! Also, stop being a Lazy/Disturbed/Unmotivated fuck and start reading and taking information in of all sorts (even if you disagree with it)!
P.S. Feel free to expand on any concepts or ask questions (can be expanded in detail in many ways, and I'm too lazy a fuck to do it all in one post).
There exists a double-edged sword: because anything is possible; sometimes we may encounter truths that we can not 'unsee' or 'unlearn'. The result of which is very traumatic (especially with dogma because it slows down how we can transition out of a negative possibility and into a positive one). Given an infinite amount of time, everything that is possible will happen at least once. Thus, every possibly 'good' outcome will happen and every possible 'bad' outcome will happen. If we lived forever (currently looking like such a possibility will be made soon), we'd experience both. I live a disturbed life myself (one entirely backed by dogma over trying to rationalize the irrational), and it only irks me that it is possible for my life to happen again, let alone an even worse life. If trauma is long, painful, and agonizing with dogma, imagine if dogma itself could vary with pulse. What if we had total (or near-total) dogma where nothing ever changed (practically) and there existed a universe full of negativity (a philosophical Hell)? I wouldn't want to live (exist) through that. I'd only maybe tolerate the intolerable if variation of manifested possibilities was quick and easily countered. At this point, it becomes a glass half-full scenario, but sheesh.
wtf are you smoking and where can I get some
so basically you are saying that we in a infinite computer, and randomness creates stuff
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;35909079]so basically you are saying that we in a infinite computer, and randomness creates stuff[/QUOTE]
Well, given that everything that can ever be computed is; the 'Grand Architectural Design', as is known in Free-masonic circles, is in place. All that matters is the relations that happen between those existing design principles. The relation is existence itself. To exist is to relate. If we don't relate (we stay isolated) we become suicidal and kill ourselves off.
Though I guess it's fair to say that the computation is the relation itself.
that's just plain wrong
everyone knows god did everything
This thread is what happens when someone majors in CompSci and minors in Philosophy
[QUOTE=Zerohe;35916089]This thread is what happens when someone majors in CompSci and minors in Philosophy[/QUOTE]
Well I know what Im destined for... :/
[QUOTE=Scytone;35917060]Well I know what Im destined for... :/[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, CompSci majors are allowed to make threads on Facepunch while stoned due to their usefulness and employability in the 21st century. Besides, a philosophy minor only adds to the wacky shenanigans you will all inevitability get caught up in when A.I. makes us their bitch
[QUOTE=NielsGade;35917206]What is gravity?[/QUOTE]
irrationality
Also OP I appreciate your views on the universe but I honestly do not understand them
If your answer to life, the universe and everything necessitates a direct reference to Assassin's Creed, perhaps you aren't qualified enough to be answering that.
schemists: 1
athiests: 0
[QUOTE=Lankist;35917300]If your answer to life, the universe and everything necessitates a direct reference to Assassin's Creed, perhaps you aren't qualified enough to be answering that.[/QUOTE]
I haven't played that game can you highlight it?
If I understood this, you're saying the laws of physics didn't need to come up the way we did it but they were randomized into all fitting in to make this universe. You're also saying the universe updated itself through time. Yeah, for every point in time, there's a certain way the Universe exists. Nothing new.
How the fuck that related to "dogmatism and dynamics", I have no clue. Simply because the universe has a characteristic A, that doesn't mean you should base morals on an equivalent for something completely different. You say because the world changes, thoughts must also change but obviously they do, thoughts also vary with time, due to the very (physical) nature of the brain, so that invalidates a "but every part of the universe changes and the mind is inside it" argument. But that isn't even morals, that's just physics. You already know thoughts vary with time, why are you saying that, in addition to the natural, inescapable variance, you need to add even more variance?
Part of the universe has no matter, should it be correct to also remove the matter from a part of myself?
I thought this thread would be one of two things- A hilarious image by CollegeHumour or a deep insightful documentary. It was neither of those.
It was a recount of some shit you smoked while going on a subway to work.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;35919785]
It was a recount of some shit you smoked while going on a subway to work.[/QUOTE]
In the immortal words of Paul Simon, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls" :v:
[QUOTE=Lankist;35917300]If your answer to life, the universe and everything necessitates a direct reference to Assassin's Creed, perhaps you aren't qualified enough to be answering that.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that AC didn't make up that phrase, right?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35917300]If your answer to life, the universe and everything necessitates a direct reference to Assassin's Creed, perhaps you aren't qualified enough to be answering that.[/QUOTE]
he says, as he quotes a popular book
[editline]12th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;35919567]If I understood this, you're saying the laws of physics didn't need to come up the way we did it but they were randomized into all fitting in to make this universe. You're also saying the universe updated itself through time. Yeah, for every point in time, there's a certain way the Universe exists. Nothing new.
How the fuck that related to "dogmatism and dynamics", I have no clue. Simply because the universe has a characteristic A, that doesn't mean you should base morals on an equivalent for something completely different. You say because the world changes, thoughts must also change but obviously they do, thoughts also vary with time, due to the very (physical) nature of the brain, so that invalidates a "but every part of the universe changes and the mind is inside it" argument. But that isn't even morals, that's just physics. You already know thoughts vary with time, why are you saying that, in addition to the natural, inescapable variance, you need to add even more variance?
Part of the universe has no matter, should it be correct to also remove the matter from a part of myself?[/QUOTE]
to be dogmatic is to make other people unhappy. dogmatism wouldnt exist if people could relate well enough to one another
i'm pretty sure thats why everyone remembers certain shit with rose tinted glasses, because more often than not they lived in a small bubble of influence where they didnt have to see dark skinned people or long haired freaky people or buddhists or anything
[QUOTE=Sputn!k;35930650]he says, as he quotes a popular book[/QUOTE]
Yes I'm sure he was quoting the fictionalized Hassan-i Sabbah in Alamut and not Assassin's Creed. Because people here totally read pre-WWII Slovene literature.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;35919567]If I understood this, you're saying the laws of physics didn't need to come up the way we did it but they were randomized into all fitting in to make this universe. You're also saying the universe updated itself through time. Yeah, for every point in time, there's a certain way the Universe exists. Nothing new.
How the fuck that related to "dogmatism and dynamics", I have no clue. Simply because the universe has a characteristic A, that doesn't mean you should base morals on an equivalent for something completely different. You say because the world changes, thoughts must also change but obviously they do, thoughts also vary with time, due to the very (physical) nature of the brain, so that invalidates a "but every part of the universe changes and the mind is inside it" argument. But that isn't even morals, that's just physics. You already know thoughts vary with time, why are you saying that, in addition to the natural, inescapable variance, you need to add even more variance?
Part of the universe has no matter, should it be correct to also remove the matter from a part of myself?[/QUOTE]
You know that time itself is a product of manifestation, as time at one point in the universe can be traversing differently than another point in the universe. You have a point in the ridiculous nature of me asking all of you to add variance to variance that already exists anyways, but I'm just pointing that out to those that needed a deeper understanding of [B]why[/B] they benefit when they vary thoughts and not stick to consistent principles, which I sure know that I would've wanted to know about a lot sooner.
-snip-
I admit there's still a lot to expand upon, and I'm still half-assing my philosophy, but it's getting there...
P.S. All I led up to was an explanation of how the Universe Works (unfolds). Nothing less, nothing more. You can decipher and pick apart how this philosophy affects your ideas of natural laws if you want to. I may get to that if I feel like it... :downs:
[QUOTE=Lankist;35917300]If your answer to life, the universe and everything necessitates a direct reference to Assassin's Creed, perhaps you aren't qualified enough to be answering that.[/QUOTE]
I was already coming up with the philosophy on my own rite, I just happened to remember what was said in Assassin's Creed and figure I'd throw it in as a highly recognized example to let most people know what I'm talking about. One thing I don't like about highly formalized science and philosophy is its failure to connect and 'relate' to a wider audience due to the lack of understanding of the technical jargon. But yes, I know that an idea with such complex nature in its very essence [B]can't[/B] be summarized or related to, but even the original assessment of the idea was [B]itself[/B] a summary if the idea is of the root of irrationality and rationality, so I don't feel compelled to attempt enforcement of consistency.
You didn't tell people why they benefit with change. You just said the universe changed therefore so should they, that's what I'm challenging. You say we need to be in favor of change, and you need to be in favor of it forever, without changing that opinion.
Alright, I have no idea what your talking about. Define irrationality, manifestation, elapsation, pulses and feedback loops.
What I think you're saying is that before there is time, there is states of existence in which time is contained but does not influence. Yet, you say it's updated with frequencies, which is a concept that depends on time.
Irrationality is unobtainable, every thought is a logical connection (or implies one). Whatever we think of, the mind wants to think of (because thoughts are a product of the mind, and only the mind), so hen we want to think of A, we think of A and not B, therefore, we necessarily imply that A's characteristics are equal to those of A. That A is A.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;35961457]You didn't tell people why they benefit with change. You just said the universe changed therefore so should they, that's what I'm challenging. You say we need to be in favor of change, and you need to be in favor of it forever, without changing that opinion.
Alright, I have no idea what your talking about. Define irrationality, manifestation, elapsation, pulses and feedback loops.
What I think you're saying is that before there is time, there is states of existence in which time is contained but does not influence. Yet, you say it's updated with frequencies, which is a concept that depends on time.
Irrationality is unobtainable, every thought is a logical connection (or implies one). Whatever we think of, the mind wants to think of (because thoughts are a product of the mind, and only the mind), so hen we want to think of A, we think of A and not B, therefore, we necessarily imply that A's characteristics are equal to those of A. That A is A.[/QUOTE]
People would benefit with variance if the universe intrinsically supports it. I recall hearing on a TED video or something about how your statistical chances of winning the lottery are better by varying your numbers each week over sticking to the same ones over and over again until that fateful day comes.
Irrationality is undefinable; it's literal chaos, and not chaos from chaos theory where eveything is elegantly pre-determined in the same fashion depicted with the 'butterfly effect'. Irrationality allows two contradictory principles to exist at the same time in the universe. I think it may be that awareness itself is irrational. What awareness 'thinks' might be rational, but it itself is not, nor what it manifests.
Manifestation is just what exists at a point. I guess in the infinite void of allowable constants, it's just which constants are being related to in the current universe; which ones are 'active' that awareness is accessing. Manifestation can be irrational because two contradictory things can exist at the same 'time'.
I guess I tripped over myself on elapsation, because it's the change of the manifested universe (all of the active constants) from one point to another (which is time). I guess I just spun my wheel around on that one... :downs:
Still, consciousness 'activates' time and its variance, and thus allows localization (empty space is the universe without conscious activation of constants [including time]). To re-word: empty space is itself nothing, but it is the potential for everything. Introducing consciousness acts upon that potential to manifest something.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35938124]Yes I'm sure he was quoting the fictionalized Hassan-i Sabbah in Alamut and not Assassin's Creed. Because people here totally read pre-WWII Slovene literature.[/QUOTE]
If you don't like the general population of this forum perhaps you should relocate to a forum that reads the fictionalized Hassan-i Sabbah in Alamut and not Assassin's Creed.
[QUOTE=RaptillaMajor;35962158]People would benefit with variance if the universe intrinsically supports it. I recall hearing on a TED video or something about how your statistical chances of winning the lottery are better by varying your numbers each week over sticking to the same ones over and over again until that fateful day comes.
Irrationality is undefinable; it's literal chaos, and not chaos from chaos theory where eveything is elegantly pre-determined in the same fashion depicted with the 'butterfly effect'. Irrationality allows two contradictory principles to exist at the same time in the universe. I think it may be that awareness itself is irrational. What awareness 'thinks' might be rational, but it itself is not, nor what it manifests.
Manifestation is just what exists at a point. I guess in the infinite void of allowable constants, it's just which constants are being related to in the current universe; which ones are 'active' that awareness is accessing. Manifestation can be irrational because two contradictory things can exist at the same 'time'.
I guess I tripped over myself on elapsation, because it's the change of the manifested universe (all of the active constants) from one point to another (which is time). I guess I just spun my wheel around on that one... :downs:
Still, consciousness 'activates' time and its variance, and thus allows localization (empty space is the universe without conscious activation of constants [including time]). To re-word: empty space is itself nothing, but it is the potential for everything. Introducing consciousness acts upon that potential to manifest something.[/QUOTE]
Most of the universe is empty space, should I chop my arm off because the universe supports it? Everything that happens, happens because the Universe allows for it, because it's the only thing that rules over you. And once again, simply because the universe does something, that does not mean it's okay to mimic that, in a completely different context. And once again, I state that your stance on variance doesn't change, which makes you accept a constant moral system.
If irrationality does not have definition, it can not be talked about or identified. Define rationality, then.
For consciousness to have been created, it needed to be created by something. that means the Universe already existed before you did. That means that its natural laws are not dependable on consciousness. In fact, for you to have been created implies someone made an action before it. A cause that had an effect, that implies the existence of time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.