The Universe

[Amphictyonis]

Which theory do you subscribe to? Do you have your own? I've always thought, since I was a child, we were living in a sort of matryoshka doll. Where the first doll (our visible universe) cannot see the exterior of the last doll in the chain and therefore has no way of knowing it's a doll (if it were capable of thought).

This basically means, if we could step far enough away from earth, out of the milky way, trillions of light years away, a different picture of the universe would manifest. There are different 'levels' we can perceive depending on our position. If you look at an object (an orange) with the most powerful microscope in the world it would look nothing like an orange- think of that being the way we always see the universe. Up close. But if we were just looking at an orange from afar it would look like an orange. A solid thing.

If the universe was an atom inside a human hand would we be able to see the whole human body or even the hand from the inside point of view? Basically my theory is we are a small part of a larger structure.

Then I think of the quantum world. Could it go on forever exponentially getting smaller and smaller? Is there a last particle? A be all end all of matter? Quarks and neutrinos is where we are now correct?

The word dimension may confuse many people. When I think of a dimension I think of a point of view. The fish in the water couldn't imagine what it's like to fly in an airplane. The fish is confined to the water just as we are confined "inside the orange" so to speak.


I guess one question I have, if I'm making any sense to you, would be- do you think, in time, we could cross a dimensional plane, meaning, could we travel far enough into space and end up seeing a bigger structure....the structure that is our universe?

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm an existiential Nihilist so nuh nuh

I have a thoery that the missing 90& of the universe is the horse, and we're the saddle. (highbrow joke!)

[bcbm]

our reality is but one layer within many

[ContrarianLemming]

These thoughts are ntohing more then faith, can you prove it or be rational about it though?

[Amphictyonis]

I'm an existiential Nihilist so nuh nuh

I have a thoery that the missing 90& of the universe is the horse, and we're the saddle. (highbrow joke!)

Nothing I said contradicts existential nihilism. I'm not arguing for a bigger meaning I'm arguing for a bigger pointless structure. Just because the universe made up some structure wouldn't give that structure any more meaning than the structure here we call earth.

If we could travel far enough to see the structure that is our universe we could probably find other structures (universes) out there. Just a thought. EDIT- They've also recently found that galaxies form in an almost a web like formation. Almost like blood vessels or a nervous system.

[bcbm]

http://www.grg.org/charter/Universe.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If there was something "outside the universe", how would we know about it?

[Magón]

I just figure that the Universe is so vast, that it's impossible for anyone in their life time to truly understand the Universe and where it's going or what it's doing. I rather like this because I think if we learned everything there was to know about the Universe, it would cease to be such a fascinating matter, just like everything else that we've learned everything about and get tired of. That's not to say we should learn all we can about the Universe, but whatever it maybe doing or going, none of us or the Human Race will entirely understand to the full extent of the Universe.

[EvilRedGuy]

Its just a theory, nobody is saying they know anything about it.

[bcbm]

If there was something "outside the universe", how would we know about it?

dmt.

but seriously, i guess it depends on what is meant by "outside the universe." string theory suggests the existence of things outside our universe, but its really just math so not "known" like observing through a telescope or something.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

dmt.

but seriously, i guess it depends on what is meant by "outside the universe." string theory suggests the existence of things outside our universe, but its really just math so not "known" like observing through a telescope or something.

What you say reminds me of an intriguing thought I sometimes have about so-called "theories of everything" - that they might allow us to mathematically infer the existence of other universes without observing them directly.

Although it does seem that one can endlessly argue about the interpetation of the mathematics and what they actually mean in physical terms.

[Amphictyonis]

What you say reminds me of an intriguing thought I sometimes have about so-called "theories of everything" - that they might allow us to mathematically infer the existence of other universes without observing them directly.

Although it does seem that one can endlessly argue about the interpetation of the mathematics and what they actually mean in physical terms.

M Theory. Strangely I had my silly matryoshka doll theory before I even knew what string theory was.

rcsWJ8NywSk

They're almost saying the same thing. Luck on my part no doubt (I'm no genius). It just seems....right.

[Tatarin]

Anyone saw "Inception"? It's all a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within... That's why the working day always feels so long.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anyone saw "Inception"? It's all a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within... That's why the working day always feels so long.
In which case I suppose that 'Inception' was just a nightmare.

[black magick hustla]

remain disturbed, the universe does not care

nor it cares about old men on amphetamines crunching numbers

man dies and the universe will be there

so

slide

[black magick hustla]

by the power of truth i have conquered the universe

[Tatarin]

In which case I suppose that 'Inception' was just a nightmare.

Well, I'd say it was both ways. As Morpheus put it a decade ago: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what it is."

[Decolonize The Left]

Which theory do you subscribe to? Do you have your own? I've always thought, since I was a child, we were living in a sort of matryoshka doll. Where the first doll (our visible universe) cannot see the exterior of the last doll in the chain and therefore has no way of knowing it's a doll (if it were capable of thought).

This basically means, if we could step far enough away from earth, out of the milky way, trillions of light years away, a different picture of the universe would manifest. There are different 'levels' we can perceive depending on our position. If you look at an object (an orange) with the most powerful microscope in the world it would look nothing like an orange- think of that being the way we always see the universe. Up close. But if we were just looking at an orange from afar it would look like an orange. A solid thing.

If the universe was an atom inside a human hand would we be able to see the whole human body or even the hand from the inside point of view? Basically my theory is we are a small part of a larger structure.

Then I think of the quantum world. Could it go on forever exponentially getting smaller and smaller? Is there a last particle? A be all end all of matter? Quarks and neutrinos is where we are now correct?

The word dimension may confuse many people. When I think of a dimension I think of a point of view. The fish in the water couldn't imagine what it's like to fly in an airplane. The fish is confined to the water just as we are confined "inside the orange" so to speak.


I guess one question I have, if I'm making any sense to you, would be- do you think, in time, we could cross a dimensional plane, meaning, could we travel far enough into space and end up seeing a bigger structure....the structure that is our universe?

In regards to the last point, given that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, the parts farthest away from us are moving faster than those closer to us - I believe the current stream of physics indicates that even if we could travel at the speed of light, we couldn't reach the 'end' of the universe as it would be too far away and moving too quickly.
So, in short, no.

In abstract, I believe that the human mind is conditioned by our material reality (our perceiving in three dimensions, having five distinct sensations, existing through time) and hence our mental phenomena (concepts, ideas, theories) are necessarily bound within this framework. This framework is naturally not the sole, correct, nor absolute framework for understanding/perceiving anything - let alone the entire universe.

Hence I don't think that wondering about the 'reality' of the universe can end with a definitive answer of any sort. Each human being will necessarily occupy a certain perspective within time and space and this perspective will differ from all others. So no matter the convergence of opinion or perspective, we are each necessarily bound by ourselves - and yet, this statement is in itself at fault for the fact. I will leave out the polemic on the self for some other time.

- August

[Amphictyonis]

In abstract, I believe that the human mind is conditioned by our material reality (our perceiving in three dimensions, having five distinct sensations, existing through time) and hence our mental phenomena (concepts, ideas, theories) are necessarily bound within this framework. This framework is naturally not the sole, correct, nor absolute framework for understanding/perceiving anything - let alone the entire universe.

Hence I don't think that wondering about the 'reality' of the universe can end with a definitive answer of any sort.

Well, actually, string theory is anything but 3 dimensional :) and ya, I don't think humanity has the capability to completely understand the universe. Maybe there's nothing to even understand? We're not as smart as we think we are, all we can do is theorize.