Can We Ever Fully Explain Existence?

[ouchparadoxhurts]

hello I'm new. I'm 27/m/ USA. I'm interested in trying to explain existence. i am hoping to start a thread where we all try. I've been studying and trying for a long time but have never shared my conclusions. so i guess i'll start ...hopefully we can all just keep adding on and reach the explanation of existence! i'll start by making my claims I've reached so far and seeing if you guys agree so we can start on the same page. sorry I'm not good at putting my thoughts into words, just a heads up

1- time is the measurement of energy cycles/progressions
2- infinity is a reality. it just doesn't "make sense" (yet?)
3- the explanation of existence can't "make sense"(yet?)to us, it HAS to be something we just kinda can point at and say see there it is.
4- however long our universe has been around is one rediculously small nth of a percent of how long something else has been around
5- the future is pre-set. everything that happens is what was always going to happen.
6- life forms are a random byproduct of energy. pre-birth and post- death equal each other.
7- humans can "see into the future", since it is set in stone. i can personally verify this claim with all honesty. (had a dream one night, well it wasnt no dream)
8- the "present" is the measurement of how long it takes a life forms brain to process information.

ok i should stop i should probably take an IQ test its probably like 88 lol sometimes i think i have no idea what I'm talking about hope some of ya'll can gimme some responses and start trying to make some progress i probably have a lot to learn

 

[RVBuckeye]

Hello,
Let me be the first to welcome you. I actually just kinda lurk around here presently, usually just to learn from some of the very intelligent people here at PF. (I am not claiming to be one of them). This is actually my first real post in quite a while. You have a very ambitious goal for your first post, so let me try and help you out. Here's my take on what you have presented here.
1- I agree at least that time is a "measurement" and doesn't really have an independant existence.

2- Infinity is a tough thing to get my head around. Can you really have an infinity of something?

3- Why can't existence make sense to us yet? Some people claim it's due to a god. (or pink fairies) Everything is based on assumtions at some point, even scientific theories. Agree?

4- I think this statement is true when talking in terms of our milky way. What if time started at the big bang?

5- Here you're talking about determinism. From my take of most people here, I think a lot of folks agree with this as an accurate discription of our world...

6- But here you say random...what gives?

7- I believe humans have intuition. To me a humans intuition is a process of the sub-conscious, as are dreams. So when we dream in that way, are we seeing the future, or sub-consciously crunching information and remembering the most likely outcome? Kinda like a survival technique.

8- Is there a present then? If it takes time to process the information, that delay means we are actually witnessing the past. Or are you calling that the "present"?

Now look, I'm not trying to answer you questions with more questions to throw you, or discourage you. It's more to help you develop you arguments a little better. Good luck, sir.

 

[arildno]

I find this overly speculative, without definition of terms, substantiation of ideas and so on. Original post reported.

 

[ouchparadoxhurts]

2- yes. you can have an infinite amount of something. you could write a number and just keep adding on for infinity. numbers and commas with no end. but more palpable...you could cut a piece of matter in half an infinite amount of times...always getting half of what you used to have.

3- it can't make sense because i just don't think the brain has enough hard drive space to fit all the information.

4- time is a byproduct of matter and energy so it probly did start at the big bang

6- random meaning it may or may not happen. sometimes it does. only reason being the ingredients happen to be there

7- i think with everything being so small and close together, you can see what's going to happen in the future because its so close. entanglement. i saw about 1 week ahead. 1 week in overall time is soooo small and close together.

8- yes. the "present" is real. its just that it has to have variation. the present is infinitely small, because you could always cut an amount of time in half. about witnessing the past...well yeh. but we are a product of so much evolution, we are so attuned to nature what with the eyes and the ears and whatnot hehe that our present is extremely small. so the lag is a moot point.

ok well I'm glad someone replied , thanks

 

[Bystander]

"Existence?" What is is, and what ain't ain't. This belongs in General Phil..

 

[RVBuckeye]

ok well I'm glad someone replied , thanks

Sorry to dissapoint you

Anyway, what actually caught my eye about your post was the significance you attribute to dreams, which I also find facinating. I was admittedly a little nieve before I actually gave it a little more serious study. I didn't really touch on it much in the first reply because it probably borders on some of the posting guidelines here. (which is actually why I like it here, this place has standards) But this is your thread, so do with it what you like.

The only thing I might challenge you on is your position on infinity. I really try not to think on it too much (kinda reminds me of the joke...how do you keep an idiot in suspense?)
you said:

2- yes. you can have an infinite amount of something. you could write a number and just keep adding on for infinity. numbers and commas with no end. but more palpable...you could cut a piece of matter in half an infinite amount of times...always getting half of what you used to have.

Aren't you assuming this to be true? Have you ever done it? Maybe I'm wrong here (and I wouldn't put money that I'm right) but I feel that eventually if you divided something tangible/physical/real in half, eventually there would be a limit to how small something could get. And if that is the case, that would therefore be finite, and countable. Maybe you're talking theoretically possible and I'm talking what's actually possible. See why I don't think about it much? So if you or anyone else here wants to enlighten me, I would welcome your thoughts.

 

[fedorfan]

I believe in no god because I have no reason to. I see no point for existence or life. I am personally ready to die and see what happens then but I believe it will be just like before I was born because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[ouchparadoxhurts]

ok i got a few minutes. i spend almost all my time helping out with the war. doesn't perpetual motion imply infinity? if not prove it?or how about the observation that for something to exist it has to be created, proving that something had to create the first thing. reverse infinity. or can you get something from nothing? seems like that isn't possible.

 

[RVBuckeye]

doesn't perpetual motion imply infinity? if not prove it?

Perpetual motion? All I can do to persuade you that you're thinking is incorrect is to direct you to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion would violate either of those two laws, and thus the laws of physics. I think that is pretty well established.

 

[ouchparadoxhurts]

but aren't those laws localized? wouldn't there have to be the opposite of those laws to allow them to exist. also isn't it possible those laws are correct observations, but in no way complete. what created the laws of physics? seems like physics are inside the box and the answer is outside.

 

[fedorfan]

Thats what I am wondering, we created laws that govern the universe when really we don't even understand half of the universe.

 

[RVBuckeye]

but aren't those laws localized? wouldn't there have to be the opposite of those laws to allow them to exist. also isn't it possible those laws are correct observations, but in no way complete. what created the laws of physics? seems like physics are inside the box and the answer is outside.

Localized meaning what? They are only true in our region of space and not neccesarily true in others? Or do you mean localized, like having no casual effect on things far enough away from them? Both of those options, as I understand them, are not accurate. QM suggests the inter-connectivity of all things. Even distant things. (and like I said, as I understand it, isn't at odds with classical laws) While it is entirely true that the picture is incomplete.
Now when you say "physics are inside the box and the answer is outside", you also get caught in a double meaning. I could also turn that around and say that physics does think outside the box, it's just the answers are counter-intuitive. Meaning, the trouble lies with the person that thinks the answers should be logical or self-evident. (I know there is probably a better word for that but I'm having a brain fart right now) An example of this is wave-particle duality and such.
As a side note, what's originally counter-intuitive for some, in time, becomes perfectly logical for others, as more supporting evidence is added.
And as another side-note, I am still struggling to comprehend this stuff as much as the next guy. I'm trying not to speak as though I have the answers.

Thats what I'm wondering, we created laws that govern the universe when really we don't even understand half of the universe.

I don't include myself in that "we" because, other than participating in this forum, I have contributed nothing to the discovery of these laws or to science in general. But I know what you mean. I think the people that have done the hard work are owed a little gratitude. They have answered a tremendous amount of the why's and turned them into how's.