human

Now that will give you dark circles under the eyes. Thanks for taking the time to compile all those links. I can see this is going to take a while...haha.

Awesome reply. Thank you. That's exactly what I needed to hear. I doubt i will ever be able to master the math in order to understand it all on that level. I'm too far gone on that front. Hopefully it won't take mathematics to dispell me of any of my incorrect philosophical musings on the origin of the Universe. What could I read or watch that would be the quickest way to determine if my guess is wrong because it's just a guess or because it really is a wrong guess? Does the accumulation of science say anything definitively that would put my guess either to rest or beyond the realm of proof? Is what is wrong with my guess is that it is provably wrong or just no way to know? I mean, I have read some of Hawking, watch physics lectures and docs on YouTube, - Lawrence Krauss, Briane Greene, Brian Cox, etc - consumed all that I could... why can't I find the information that will allow me not to fall into guessing? Thanks.

More importantly, thank you and the moderator for having patience for my very sloppy and unscientific speculating. I know full well you guys get given a tough time. And it's equally tough to have to tell people they are wrong - the scene in Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World with the cab driver comes to mind - but I'm less interested in preserving my ideas than with catching up to where science is in this area. I'd be far more interested in knowing why, for instance, why someone knows I'm wrong. That's just as good.

Please no need to feign disappointment. I get it and I'm with you on that one. You're absolutely right. My purpose in posting was in the notion that "what if's" sometimes go somewhere. But thanks to your response, I can see I have a little more digging to do in this area before I can make informal proposals. So this thread was helpful in that respect. I just heard a reference to Bell a few hours ago in a documentary I was watching. They didn't mention that part of his experimentation, which would have been helpful to me to know. After your reply? Clearly, ignorance. I wish I could gain enough of a grasp of this topic to at least know what not to ask or propose. I'm never going to understand the math but it would be good to know the already established dead ends. This was obviously a purely philosophical attempt to explain the Universe. A scientist like Lawrence Krauss clearly has a mathematical basis going for his explanation. But I do wonder if math could be applied to this based on what we already know to determine any validity for it.

Thanks for your response. Feel free to delete this thread if I've got the wrong forum for this kind of speculation. As for can it be tested...I don't know. Maybe. As a secondary consequence, it implies that the fuzziness of quantum physics and the various weird results, such as the interference pattern and entanglement, could stem from the limits of our senses and technology, and not necessarily anything seemingly inherently nutty in quantum physics. If, for a second, we assume these oddly behaving particles are perhaps interacting with other particles beyond our detection, perhaps we can develop tests that can infer these other particles with more reliability and accuracy than just settling on the conclusion that quantum physics is inexplicable to the human mind just because the reach of our senses and technology are stymied. For instance, a particle producing a wave is like a boat producing a wave without any water. Well, given the elusive nature of quantum particles, perhaps the "water" is there but we don't see it manifested until we know the particle is moving. And how do we know quantum entanglement doesn't only appear instantaneous because of the limits of our means of detection? We don't seem to be factoring in the limits of our means of detection to explain the weirdness of quantum behavior. Instead we assume we are capable of seeing everything and just conclude quantum physics is inherently weird. How do those drawing the conclusion that quantum physics is inherently weird, know they are seeing everything? Have they done tests to determine the range of detection of our senses and technology? I'm not saying because there are limits to our senses and technology that we can just make up pink elephants to explain quantum behavior. But let's not rule out that behavior at that level of reality could be influenced by interactions beyond our ability to immediately detect.

What these series of diagrams are speculating is that the existence of something is dependent on the observer. In other words, Einstein's Theory of Relativity can be applied to Existence itself. One of the diagrams goes on to introduce and advance the very radical and seemingly contradictory speculation that any entity that possesses consciousness is actually not fully conscious and full consciousness is actually the absence of consciousness in the traditionally accepted sense. Note: At maybe one or two points in the below images I use the description "spectrum of existence" when I meant to use "span of existence". Both actually refer to two different things: "Spectrum of Existence" refers to the entire Universe, both seen and unseen, and includes all the multiple "spans of existence" that comprise a whole universe. "Span of existence" refers to the segment or frequency spectrum a particular entity exists within, observes and can interact with and it is much smaller than the true and complete Spectrum of Existence. I freely admit the presentation is rather sloppy and haphazard (for instance , the cube in one of the diagrams is missing a Z axis.) I'm not advancing this as a "theory" or even a "hypothesis". I'm just leisurely speculating here so criticize, laugh, ignore, detract, reinforce, have fun with it. note: i use the word "frequency" as an analogical term. in other words, our senses are "tuned" to this one small span on the entire "spectrum of existence". that is our "frequency"...but there are other "frequencies" we are not "tuned" to which lay outside our "frequency span".....that is why we can "hear" "signals" made over our "frequency span". ...because our senses are limited by our own characteristicsOur "frequency" is just another way of saying what is within our observation, interaction and detection. It's not meant in a pseudo-scientific, supernatural consciousness that is somehow magically attuned to the Universe, blah, blah. Just including some text from the graphics to make it easier to respond. This text is repetitive to the images so you really need not read further. It is only provided should you wish to respond to some text.: On Consciousness Keep in mind, this hypothesis is advancing that the Universe can both exist and not exist at the same time so it's supposed to be contradictory. Everything is relative. Not only, Time, as Einstein proposed, but existence, space, matter, consciousness, everything. Looking at our sensory perception scale, we can see that to be fully conscious in a Universe that is Nothing is to lose conscious. We can see our Universe because we are NOT fully conscious. We are not seeing the full spectrum of existence, which is nothing. We are only seeing and interacting with parts of nothingness and that makes us believe different things exist. But separate things do not exist. Everything is fused into nothingness. So the ability to contemplate a universe and separate entities as existing represents a loss or subtraction of sensory perception and therefore consciousness. Different entities perceive and interact with the Universe differently much in the same way different colors are perceptible to different species. Were we able to detect all the colors of the Universe, we would see there is no universe. Or a painting done in part visible colors and part undetectable ultraviolet colors. Since we only see the colors detectable to the human eye, we get a picture of say, a turtle. But if we could detect all the colors, maybe we would see no picture. maybe it would be perceived as blank? This relativity of existence extends also to motion. A rock can tumble down a hill because it can only interact with so much of the true Universe. If it could interact with all of the true Universe, it would be unable to move because the true Universe is Nothing. In this regard a rock is more "conscious" of the true nature of the universe than us because, if not physically, a rock "knows" there's nothing to "perceive" in the Universe with which to mentally interact..A rock, at least, "knows" that much, (which is more than us) even if it doesn't "know" enough to stay still too.. On Existence Matter/Space density threshold: The threshold where the known universe appears to us as either all matter or all empty space that both are states of nothlngness or non-existence from our conscious perspective. Existence Span The existence frequency or wave length an existent or set of existents exist within and beyond which the existence of other existents becomes sketchy and imperceptible. Because matter can exist at different frequencies on the the existence spectrum, it follows that what qualifies as a "universe" for one existent, may qualify as anti- existence to another existent. Thus, what qualies as a "universe" or "non-existence is relative to what you are. The Big Bang (or why the Big Bang both happened and didn't happen at the same time) The grey triangle in the figure above represents the Big Bang as detected by humans senses, including our technology. The yellow area represents the rest of the undetectible Universe, the part of the Universe we cannot see or interact with. From our perspective, and because our senses can only detect a small fraction of the existing Universe, it appears to us that the Big Bang happened. And for all intents and purposes it did, for us. But on the scale of the Universe as a whole, the scale of full consciousness of the complete Universe represented by the entire figure above, both grey and yellow areas, nothing happened at all because nothing exists. This corresponds to certain well known experiments at the quantum level where an outcome is dependent on whether we are observing it or not. Whether the Big Bang happened or not is dependent on the capabilities of the perceptions and characteristics of the observer. Competing Forms of Nothingness Completely Empty Space Completely Occupied Space The two blocks above represent two concepts of ("Pre)Universe and Nothingness. They attempt to show how Nothingness can be perceived by either empty space completely void of solid objects or "Matter" or by a state of total occupation completely void of space. The rst is self explanatory. The second can be visualized by imagining a solid "block of matter with no separation between atoms or particles; in fact, no atoms, no elementary particles, a state of total non separation. If there is no separation, just like with empty space, nothing can exist. Since both satisfy our traditional denitions of Nothingness, the distinction of both states breaks down, and we can postulate that either or both states can individually or simultaneously represent our concept of a "pre-Universe." The multi-colored block above represents a mixed universe of both empty space and mass. Since, as demonstrated in the rst two gures, both states alone are states of Nothingness, this third model shows a universe comprised of two competing forms of nothingness. All the differentiation we can see can be reduced down to a 1 and a O. Since both space and mass are just two competing forms of nothingness that existed prior to our own existence and awareness of them, we can postulate that the Universe has both always existed and doesnt actually "exist" (in the traditionally regarded sense) at all. It's all nothing. And so we can surmise that the reason the Universe doesn't have to be created is because it doesn't exist and never did. What we can postulate is that something seems to be "existing" within the nothingness of the universe that is and once was itself nothing but is able to blur the lines between being a non-existent whole and separate ephemeral existent identities through the manufacturing of entities that first can interact and then observe. Almost as if the nothingness of space itself was "existing" and undulating like an electric air bubble inside the equal nothingness of a block of a totally filled void, like an electron through a wire or a field through a magnet, in which random fluctuations occasionally give rise to entities that only appear to themselves to exist but in the grand scheme of things, do not.