Printable View
They exist too, but only in your mind - afawk.
But also, everything you experience only really exists in your mind
because you don't experience things as they really are.
So saying "if you experience it, it exists" isn't really accurate.
What you're experiencing is your interpretation of the thing that exists.
Your interpretation exists, yes. In your head.
But you don't know if the actual thing exists. Mainly because you don't know what the
actual thing really is.
Actually, and please don't start an argument here, it is possible that the universe we perceive is not real. It is possible we are inside a huge computer like the matrix, or even thoughts of a different mind. We may never know, and there is absolutely no possible way to disprove it (though some will say it can (but it can't)). There is no possible way to prove we are NOT computer programs or any of the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirRick101
I know this will bring on ALOT of commotion, but I don't care, what I said is absolutely true.
Well, it is possible, but it would still mean that everything is real, it's just inside a computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT
And no it won't bring a lot of commotion. Chill out, it's not a mind shattering hypothesis.
Pretty mind numbing by this point I'd say
In Hawking Radiation? Where a negatively charged "virtual particle" is ripped away by the extreme forces of a black hole from its positively-charged counterpart? This first particle having "antimass", making the hole get gradually smaller and smaller? Would that qualify as "negative mass"?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Semantics semantics..
BTW: towards a theory for everything..
String Theory: the smallest sub-atomic "particles" do not exist as such.. they are more like tiny vibrating strings.. waves of vibration, by any other word. Ergo, all matter/energy is a conglomeration of waves that meld together, albeit in wildly diverse configurations.
Wave theory; (Mersini-Houghton): the Universe is in itself, a "wave", and can be expressed as such mathematically, including String Theory.
So.. if both theories hold true, the Universe is a wave composed of a myriad of smaller waves. M-Theory? The Brane/Multibrane would also be a collection of "waves" forming a giant one..
.. but what could cause the wave, the initial vibration? It still brings us no closer to actual true "creation", i.e. something from nothing.
..and we may indeed reach a point in the future where we work it all out, how everything works together to create the 3-D "world that we know"..
But will we ever be able to physically create something from true nothing, from an absolute zero of information? I have my doubts..
string theory postulates that the essential stuff of existence (the string) is a sort of dimensional "loop" that creates a void in the fabric of spacetime and forms the appearance of a material whose properties are defined by the loop's vibrational frequency. This would fit with your "existence is nothing" hypothesis but doesn't quite jive with the 1-1=0 bit.
If we understood how something came from nothing, I see no reason why humans couldn't create something from nothing also, given enough time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiro
If everything is nothing, well we could create anything we want. It would be nothing, but it would still exist the same as everything else.
Question: If the universe was created from nothing, doesn't that prove that thermodynamics is wrong? Or at least the "The internal energy of an isolated system is constant." bit?
Or maybe because there was nothing before, there were no things anywhere, so laws didn't exist and anything could have happened.
This shit fucks with my head, how the universe became etc. I think I've done a gigantic post about how much it screws with me before though haha
My theory is "simply" that this universe came out of a black hole, that's what the big bang was. But where everything came from in the beginning, I can't really comprehend. But I don't see any reason why this universe should be where it all began.
I have no idea how the big bang would have occurred. Hawking radiation does describe particles suddenly appearing out of nothing, but I think those particles are created out of energy. In order for the big bang to have happened, the initial energy would have to be created, and a counterpart to our universe wouldn't be a viable explanation since you can't create energy out of nothing. That is, unless the energy we know is the counterpart to something else. I doubt that, but it is a possibility.
Ah, I love it when there are so many opinions, yet it is possible none are anywhere near correct.
It's almost always possible that everyone is nowhere near correct for any given topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT
Who in their right mind would deny it was possible? Virtually anything is possible, so that isn't saying much. What matters is how likely it is, which is not very.Quote:
Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT
EDIT: I'm really sorry tommo. I read it all before and looked up to find the quote again, and thought I saw some of the keywords in yours. I should have reread it through to make sure, I'll make sure to do that from now on. Really sorry, thanks for correcting me.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you responding to my post, or did you just quote it for no reason?
If you're randomly trying to tell me anything is possible, I just said that in my previous post. So it's nothing new to me.
Tommo, according to the concepts expressed in the post you quoted, thermodynamics would still technically be correct; the universe started from nothing, but is still actually nothing, so no thing was created or destroyed.
That's assuming that the universe IS nothing. If it's not nothing, then it kind of breaks that rule. Unless the rule didn't "exist" because nothing existed before the big bang.
Dianeva, read my other post in the other thread. And I see we both disagree with that retarded post so sorry for getting angry lol
Yeah, keep it a bit cooler in future...
This theory basically says everything has its opposite for the Universe to equal zero. So then what are our opposites? Are they people? Are they parts of us spread around? Are they the opposite consciousness of us?
Apparently so. Since everything must have its opposite in some way or another, and under the assumption that the Universe is infinite, we must have infinite copies of ourselves that end up in infinite different equations and possibilities. I feel that this might provide evidence for parallel universe if this theory is correct.
Snowboy, that would hold true if conscious organisms didn't have free will. It is possible that we don't truly have free will. If there was an exact opposite to the starting conditions of the universe, then yes, I agree that technically everything would happen exactly the opposite of how it happens in this universe.
How does this relate to free will? Would you mind explaining this?Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGames
Sure.
If living organisms truly had free will, then that means we don't have a predefined destiny, thus altering the course of the universe and all that we interact with. However, if we don't have free will, then everything truly is predefined and would thus be determined at the time of the universe's creation.
Therefore, in order for there to be a truly parallel universe, true free will cannot exist.
Unless there is a parallel universe for every possible universe. ;V
Seriously Snowboy, why are you so obsessed with the idea that everything must have an opposite? It doesn't have to be, it is only like that in stubborn heads like yours. There doesn't always have to be an opposite, and there doesn't always have to wrong.
I'm not obsessed with it, it's just a belief I hold and I will stand up for it. :P
I actually like the idea myself. If there were a counterpart to the initial energy which caused the big bang, then it's possible that our universe could have been spontaneously created out of nothing, and only exists because of the existence of its counterpart.
It's just wrong. Ok, let's assume everything does have an opposite. ok? Let's ASSUME.
That doesn't mean there has to be an opposite snowboy who doesn't believe in this opposite theory.
You are not a "thing". You are just a conglomeration of atoms and subatomic particles etc. THOSE things have opposites. Not what they make up. Not what you think is you.
E.G Matter and anti-matter as people have been talking about. We know that most particles have anti-particles. We don't know if all of them do. But we know that it is highly highly unlikely that there are anti-conglomerations of particles. It just doesn't make sense.
For that to be true, as soon as your sperm was created, the opposite would have been created somewhere else int he universe or another universe. As you went in to your egg, one of those would need to be created somewhere else, because your opposite sperm wouldn't have gone in to the egg. Do you see where I'm going? It's just not feasible.