My theory of everything

[sandorski]

That has certainly occurred to me. Alan Watts said that you could take a leap of faith that what's happened once can happen again. However, he may have said that before the Big Bang theory was hatched. Evidently, scientists don't consider this a problem. There was nothing before the Big Bang, period.

That is not a fact.

 

[Craig234]

Muse, I disagree with that, and it makes no sense. There was something before the big bang, but we don't know what.

 

[moonbogg]

I haven't read your whole post yet because I only got this far before I had to disagree.

A) Time is not an illusion. Time is the fourth dimension of the universe you live in. It will exist whether consciousness does or not.

A) Time may be a spatial dimension, but the traditional idea of time is false. Time is not a river and it does not flow. The universe is perfectly timeless in the most literal sense. A fourth spatial dimension is a spatial dimension. It is not 3D + T.
Time, in the traditional sense, and all it could be, is the measure of change of emergent physical phenomena relative to other emergent physical phenomena.

B) Also I don't see how all things are shaped by proto-consciousness.

B) That is a placeholder term for the most fundamental thing. There is a most fundamental thing, and all things are emergent from it. By definition, and by necessity, that fundamental thing never changes. It can't be less fundamental and it can't be more fundamental. It just is what it is.

C) Furthermore I think it would have been helpful if you had included a definition of proto, or secondary consciousness so your readers don't end up googling it and possibly wind up reading and accepting a definition you might not agree with, or a definition that differs from one you might have in mind. In other words, what you mean by proto-consciousness may differ from what others define it as, and it would be helpful if you'd clear that up.

C) The definition is simply the most fundamental thing and it has certain properties and potential. Consciousness or capacity for self reflective experience would be a fundamental, irreducible property of this fundamental substance.

Just wanted to post that before I go on to read the rest of your post.

See notations above.

Also, regarding something being there before the big bang. Of course there was. But the idea of "before" needs to be thought of a little different. There has always been something, there has never been nothing, and anything like a big bang happening in nature certainly happens a lot more than once.

Interesting note on information integration theory of consciousness. If integrated information forms the right shape or pattern, then that is said to be, all by itself, a conscious experience. This would indicate that there is something intrinsic and fundamental about consciousness and, thus matter itself. It is an irreducible happening that occurs. There seems to be an explanatory gap which separates the physical brain structure from the experience itself, but if the experience itself is fundamental and intrinsic to the matter which experiences it, then there is no gap because they are one and the same. Irreducible and fundamental and the manifestation of a property of itself.
You see, in this case, if true, the explanatory gap itself would be a man made, unnecessary complication and would be illusory. We may be searching for an explanation to an explanatory gap that doesn't even exist. The consciousness forms the matter, the matter arranges itself, it has an experience and it is the experience.

 

[moonbogg]

I steel feel like I am close to the mark on this. I think its a rough sketch of reality that, when viewed side by side to the actual truth, from a moderate distance the two pictures would appear pretty similar.

 

[HeXen]

Pics or Big Bang didn't happen.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-universe-hyper-dimensional-black-hole.html#inlRlv

 

[moonbogg]

Pics or Big Bang didn't happen.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-universe-hyper-dimensional-black-hole.html#inlRlv

The smart people will discover that there are eternal qualities to the universe and that something has always been here. There's just no way around that.

 

[norseamd]

For years now I have thought of time as not existing. Just like Moonbogg. And I also am refusing to think of time as the 4th dimension since it is not any type of spatial dimension.

 

[norseamd]

Time may be a spatial dimension

Possibly exactly what I actually think of as what is possibly some type of reality? To me time might only be the changing state of everything and time is not any more physically real than mathematics.

 

[moonbogg]

Possibly exactly what I actually think of as what is possibly some type of reality? To me time might only be the changing state of everything and time is not any more physically real than mathematics.

The only thing I can say for certain about time is that it confuses me. I also don't believe that its real in the way that people commonly refer to it, or even as real as the smart people have come to understand it. I think it is not fundamental at all. I believe time is an emergent thing, and we simply came up with a word to describe what is observed as being time. Its real enough for me in my every day life, but in my thinking life, I'm not falling for it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I also don't believe that its real in the way that people commonly refer to it, or even as real as the smart people have come to understand it. I think it is not fundamental at all.

I have heard this a number of times from a number of different people, but I have never heard anyone give a good argument on why they believe this. So, what is your reasoning to believe that time is not a fundamental property of space?

 

[norseamd]

I have heard this a number of times from a number of different people, but I have never heard anyone give a good argument on why they believe this. So, what is your reasoning to believe that time is not a fundamental property of space?

word to describe what is observed as being time

I can up with this on my own and so have more than a few thinkers so obviously it is very intuitive. And also possible as far as I can actually understand.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I can up with this on my own and so have more than a few thinkers so obviously it is very intuitive. And also possible as far as I can actually understand.

Physics is far from intuitive. Intuitively the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. To determine the truth we must set aside intuition and use reason.

 

[moonbogg]

I have heard this a number of times from a number of different people, but I have never heard anyone give a good argument on why they believe this. So, what is your reasoning to believe that time is not a fundamental property of space?

I don't think space-time is fundamental. The two phenomenon are one and the same, linked together in a relative way as smart people have demonstrated for us. But I don't think space-time is a fundamental thing. I think reality goes deeper.

Oh yeah, you wanted a reason lol. My reasons are in the OP and I still feel pretty good about them. Its the best I got right now.

 

[norseamd]

Physics is far from intuitive. Intuitively the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. To determine the truth we must set aside intuition and use reason.

Logic is often hard but it is not natural science. Natural scientists are not the de facto authority on logic or critical thinking. That is the problem when it comes to the fact that STEM like to throw all their mass around proclaiming authority on everything in civilization and the universe.

 

[norseamd]

Read the introduction and first chapter of this book. It plainly talks about the factional problems that have infected science for years but are dismissed and possibly even suppressed by mainstream natural scientists. And keep in mind I actually love natural science.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5...AA#v=onepage&q=world systems analysis&f=false

 

[moonbogg]

If I had to sum up all of my strange thinking on all of this, the best I could say is that I feel like I'm on to something. I just feel like I'm noticing a glimpse of the eternal nature of reality and I think there are some really interesting surprises in store for people to discover. Really unexpected stuff from the mainstream points of view.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It is eternal and never changes.

Okay, lets start from this premise and see where it takes us.

All things are shaped by it.

Shaped is a discrimption of change. This can't be true if your first statement is true.

Time is an illusion. Time = change and proto-consciousness never changes. Change is also illusory since time doesn't exist.

Okay, these are in line with you first premise.

Monism is true - there is only the most fundamental,

Fine.

and all things are built from it,

Oh, no. Without change things can't be built.

like a sand castle being illusory and combined of individual grains. You can destroy the castle, but the grains never changed at all, only their apparent location and relationship to themselves changed.

Minor quibble, but grains of sand do change.

Proto-consciousness has no boundaries or inherent limits,

Okay, that is convenient. That also means it has no definition.

nor does the things that it binds up with itself to form, such as a multiverse or reality in general.

With out change we can't have bind or form.

The universe is infinite and eternal because it is derived from, and literally is an emergent form of the necessarily eternal, fundamental proto-substance.

If there is no time we can't have infinite or eternal either, both are part of time.
Nor can we have something be emergent if there is no change.

Consciousness happens when proto-consciousness is structured in the right way. Its a fundamental property of itself and is self reflective.

Things can't get structured if they can't change. All things are a fundamental property of what it is since it can be nothing else.

I cut the rest of the argument off, since at this point we can't really have anything but the fundamental. There can be no higher order, no emergent properties since nothing can change.

The fact is for something to happen, somewhere there must be movement, and if there is movement the must be time for it to occur in.

 

[moonbogg]

Obviously we can have change, but its illusory change. Its rearrangement. This is like saying if you raise your arms up in the air, you have changed into a taller creature. You didn't change at all. You just raised your arms up to appear different. I'm sure you'll say, "well raising your arms is change". Go ahead and say it. That's not the kind of change I'm talking about.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Obviously we can have change, but its illusory change. Its rearrangement. This is like saying if you raise your arms up in the air, you have changed into a taller creature. You didn't change at all. You just raised your arms up to appear different. I'm sure you'll say, "well raising your arms is change". Go ahead and say it. That's not the kind of change I'm talking about.

Raising your arms is change. By doing so I am now a person with his arms above his head when I was not before.
So, what sort of change are you talking about? What sort of change happens without movement, without time for it to happen in?

 

[norseamd]

Raising your arms is change. By doing so I am now a person with his arms above his head when I was not before.

Maybe he is thinking more in terms of physical vs chemical changes. (like the difference between physical and chemical food processing)

 

[SMOGZINN]

Maybe he is thinking more in terms of physical vs chemical changes. (like the difference between physical and chemical food processing)

Even that is the same sort of change just on a different scale. Things have moved from one place to another place, it hardly matters if this is my arms or the atomic bonds of a burrito that is being masticated and then digested.

 

[norseamd]

Even that is the same sort of change just on a different scale. Things have moved from one place to another place, it hardly matters if this is my arms or the atomic bonds of a burrito that is being masticated and then digested.

Oh I know and I was originally mention that all of that technically is still physical. I was thinking of what might be his viewpoint. Even thought I used the word physical in "physical changes" the changes there would actually be less than chemical changes.

 

[moonbogg]

Its a similar concept to energy not being created nor destroyed. The rearrangement of the fundamental is an area I don't pretend to grasp. The illusion of time and space I don't grasp either, but none the less, I believe these are emergent phenomenon and I believe the fundamental remains intact, despite serving as the foundation to form emergent reality. Again, the best I can do is redirect you back to the OP. I don't expect to win anyone over with any of this so I won't feel bad if you don't agree or like it or whatever.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Its a similar concept to energy not being created nor destroyed. The rearrangement of the fundamental is an area I don't pretend to grasp. The illusion of time and space I don't grasp either, but none the less, I believe these are emergent phenomenon and I believe the fundamental remains intact, despite serving as the foundation to form emergent reality. Again, the best I can do is redirect you back to the OP. I don't expect to win anyone over with any of this so I won't feel bad if you don't agree or like it or whatever.

You don't seem to have an argument at all. You are just saying that something does magic, therefore everything, and then deciding that means that well established laws of the universe are not true. You point to no observations that point to this, you have no reason to think it might be true. You are in fact telling me that you just feel this.
Emotions are very poor tools for gaining understanding. They are notorious liars.

 

[norseamd]

Emotions are very poor tools for gaining understanding. They are notorious liars.

Ala personal experiences with hostile socializing or trolling in a game environment compared to understanding the politics from any side in the gamergate quagmire?