Universal Theoretics

General discussion about the two books by Michel Desmarquet. Please ONLY post questions that do not fit in any of the available specialized forums.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Matt
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Universal Theoretics

Post: # 9851Post Matt »

Paper I wrote for a philosophy class final. You might notice that it follows a similar progression as Tom's essay, but in another sense it is quite different as it explores different topics that Tom oddly enough decided to ignore. Some of these points are fundamental to his theory but are left out. Hopefully you can spot them. Thoughts?
Universal Theoretics wrote: One of the biggest questions in life is the question of life itself. It seems that our knowledge of the universe can only be explained by the scientific method up until the moment of the “Big Bang.” What happened before this, we can only imagine. However, using logic we can accurately deduce the purpose of life itself. This paper proposes an experimental theory containing a possible blueprint to the beginning of life and the unfolding of it's purpose.

Science itself does not claim to describe the objective truth of the universe, rather than the probability of a certain event happening given a specific situation. So, let's imagine a tree. The trunk of this tree can be likened to General Relativity. The trunk branches out into branches and leaves, which represent all the theories that rely on the formulas and calculations of the trunk. So, if General Relativity is incorrect in any slight way, the branching theories will also be fundamentally incorrect. The further back in time and space you travel to plant your theories, however, there is less probability of any flaws as you are juggling more variables. For example, if you only test the force of Earth's gravity on a 1lb. wooden cube compared to a feather, you might proclaim that the speed of falling is directly correlated to it's mass. But if you add a third variable – a 16 pound bowling ball – you will soon find out that the ball and the cube fall at the same pace. The more information you input, the less assumptions you make and therefor less errors are possible.

One of the biggest problems of physics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that we can only predict the probability of an electron being at a certain place at a specific time, or it's momentum – you cannot predict both at the same time... which gives rise to the Wave-Particle Duality where an electron can act as either a wave, or a particle under specific circumstances.

Let us visualize an electron as both a wave and a particle at the same time. Imagine a sound wave, and bend it around into a circle; now visualize that two-dimensional circle as a three-dimensional sphere. What you have is a vibrational point in space:

Image

Now, let us imagine the beginning of time. Everything natural has a beginning and an end, correct? If you have your doubts, imagine an infinitely long bookcase with an infinite amount of red and green books shelved on it. You take out all the red books, how many green ones do you have left? What are you are essentially doing is dividing infinity by two. Therefor, you cannot have an infinite amount of numbers contained within a finite mathematical set. On the other hand, you can potentially add an infinite amount of numbers to a finite set.

If you cannot have an actual infinity, we can conclude that eventually back in time there was an absolute nothing. You can only have one nothing, because if you had two nothings you would have two distinct "things." So how could something exist within nothing? Take the following equation for instance: “1+(-1)=0”.

1 and -1 (something) can coexist to produce a net result of 0 (nothing). Notice how everything in our universe seems to have a polar opposite: Positive and negative electricity, magnetism, electrons and protons, up and down quarks. So here you have an absolute nothing that is constantly being randomly disturbed with different random "equations." Which begs the question, which would logically, and probably, form first out of chaos: A simple intelligence, or an entirely stable and logical universe(or evolution of universes)?

As you might have noticed, if our universe was not as stable as it appears, science itself could not exist. Because it is stable, we can precisely predict the forces of gravity, atmosphere, temperature, and any other sort of effect when launching a satellite into space. With the math model above (1+(-1)=0), it seems that there is an infinitesimally small chance that the remarkably stable universe of ours would exist for as long as it has (13.7 billion years).

So what is the essence of consciousness? What are the mathematics required to produce intelligence? When you strip all the pseudo-theory from the subject, it seems as though thought is merely a computational process. Like flipping bits on a hard-drive, the only requirement for intelligence and consciousness is a simple cause-and-effect relationship. This can be directly related to exactly how electrons are shared between atoms. Our brains, consciousness, and intelligence are of the exact same construction and evolution (natural selection of the most productive output). Therefor, we should use them as a reference to determine the actions and development of intelligence within an absolute nothing.

Now, consider the fact that when you were born you were barely even aware of your surroundings, much less how they worked. And yet, you have since learned and become something exponentially more intelligent within an extremely, extremely short time-frame compared to the age of the universe.

It seems that an extremely simple intelligence would arise and begin to understand itself enough to sustain it's state is much more likely to occur first than our remarkably stable universe - even if our universe is a product of a much simpler one. So you now have this intelligence that is slowly becoming more complex... eventually it learns to create what we call "matter" (even still - vibrations of nothing).

Have you ever known anyone extremely intelligent to create something for absolutely no reason at all - not for fun, out of spite, experimentation, not even "just because I can" (because you would then be doing it to prove your abilities to yourself)? For absolutely NO reason at all? With that in mind, there has to be a purpose...

At a certain point in it's evolution, this intellect imagines the highest possible feeling – love. Love is the cleanest form of communication as it represents the unbridled desire to understand something else. To experience love in it's fullest sense, however, you need something to love (if you disagree, try taking one end of the equation out). But this intelligence is alone in the Nothing! How can it solve this problem?

Obviously, when creating another separate being, the freedom of choice is one of the greatest rules not to break. Imagine if the being you created learned about these rules - wouldn't his love for you be replaced with feelings of deceit, or anger? Wouldn't those feelings disturb you? Would you create something that would only disturb you?

Another thing to consider is whether or not you gain the same feelings of love from say, a dog, as compared to another human being. Does the dog even have the capacity to understand you? Isn't understanding one another what brings two people ever closer together?

So this intelligence creates the best possible conditions in a material reality to facilitate feelings of happiness, love, and understanding. With the freedom of choice, however, comes the freedom to disregard that message. Also, any intrusive means to say "I am here," would violate that freedom of choice to disregard. So what would be the best means to communicate that message while staying out of everyone's way?

Have you ever met someone who doesn't admire nature? Isn't admiration one of the first steps towards loving someone...?
User avatar
shezmear
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:48 pm

Post: # 9854Post shezmear »

nice, mate, when I`m feeling up for the challenge I will give it a read...
By their deeds shall you know them.
J.C
Post Reply