Why the existence of the Universe does not need to be solved (a series of diagrams on the relativity of existence)

[finster]

Some of you will recognize one of these diagrams from a thread on nothingness in the speculations forum. Here are the rest of the diagrams in the series for the forum's review and discussion (in no particular order). Let's have fun.

Edited September 30, 2012 by finster

[imatfaal]

I think the poor perishers on dial-up will be able to cope with those diagrams - hint: none of the diagrams are showing up!

[finster]

I think the poor perishers on dial-up will be able to cope with those diagrams - hint: none of the diagrams are showing up!

 

 

 

edit: reuploaded from a different image host. maybe this will work now.

Edited September 30, 2012 by finster

[md65536]

I didn't read all of it but

 

I don't think this addresses the consistency with which different observers see the universe. A given event either happens or it doesn't, and all observers agree (though not generally agreeing on the timing). You may theorize the existence of observers who measure a universe inconsistent with what we measure, but there is no experimental evidence of such (nor should there possibly be, in any way that is consistent with our reality).

 

Or does that fit your point? -- That if there is some existence beyond what we can theoretically detect, it doesn't matter because it makes no difference in anything we will ever measure.

[finster]

I didn't read all of it but

 

I don't think this addresses the consistency with which different observers see the universe. A given event either happens or it doesn't, and all observers agree (though not generally agreeing on the timing). You may theorize the existence of observers who measure a universe inconsistent with what we measure, but there is no experimental evidence of such (nor should there possibly be, in any way that is consistent with our reality).

 

Or does that fit your point? -- That if there is some existence beyond what we can theoretically detect, it doesn't matter because it makes no difference in anything we will ever measure.

 

 

 

Exactly -- that fits my point. Furthermore, it is your conscious-centric perception that concludes "an event either happens or it doesn't'...it may happen for you not only because you can see it but because your specific entity characteristics allow you to interact with that occurrence. Take a neutrino...a particle that we suspect interacts with little in our span of existence. So if it's not interacting with most of the elements and entities in our universe, does most of our span exist for a neutrino? And if most of our span does not exist for a neutrino, don't most of the things that occur in it not happen for it?

 

But the consistency is maintained once you understand that we live in a cornucopia of existence where things can happen and both not happen relative to what you are. Entities within the same span of existence can expect to observe and interact with relatively the same forces and materials. Entities existing outside each others span of existence, should not expect their realities to match and so both can be correct when diverging on the reality of a particular occurrence provided they are not taking into account other spans of existence. The point of my hypothesis is to finally take into account other spans of existence.

 

Note: At maybe one or two points in the above 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, observe and can interact with and it is much smaller than the true and complete Spectrum of Existence.

Edited September 30, 2012 by finster

[md65536]

Entities existing outside each others span of existence, should not expect their realities to match and so both can be correct when diverging on the reality of a particular occurrence provided they are not taking into account other spans of existence.

 

But they do match. All existing evidence is in favor of consistent realities agreed upon by any set of observers.

 

Using some multi-world or alternate existences interpretation, a pair of entities who do not expect their realities to match should also never expect to meet and be able to compare notes (or have any other measurement of each other's existence). Equivalently, if they expect to be able to meet, they should expect their realities to match.

 

It sounds like you're defining existence by a single observer's experience, as in your neutrino example. So anything that I don't know about doesn't exist. That's not the common definition of existence. The point of consistency is that if any two observers compared notes on what events they knew happened (or for that matter what they know didn't happen), then those lists would match be mutually consistent. No observer can say that one event certainly happened while another (who is "meeting and comparing notes" with the first, meaning that they're at the same place and time) says that it certainly didn't happen. There would likely be a lot of events that one observer knows about and the other doesn't, but let all pairs of observers meet and they'll all be consistent.

 

If what I say isn't true, there's no known evidence of it. There has never been evidence of an inconsistent universe. Its consistency implies that existence is empirically agreed upon by all observers. If there are theoretical alternate realities, they should not be measurable from our reality.

Edited September 30, 2012 by md65536

[finster]

But they do match. All existing evidence is in favor of consistent realities agreed upon by any set of observers.

 

Using some multi-world or alternate existences interpretation, a pair of entities who do not expect their realities to match should also never expect to meet and be able to compare notes (or have any other measurement of each other's existence). Equivalently, if they expect to be able to meet, they should expect their realities to match.

 

It sounds like you're defining existence by a single observer's experience, as in your neutrino example. So anything that I don't know about doesn't exist. That's not the common definition of existence. The point of consistency is that if any two observers compared notes on what events they knew happened (or for that matter what they know didn't happen), then those lists would match be mutually consistent. No observer can say that one event certainly happened while another (who is "meeting and comparing notes" with the first, meaning that they're at the same place and time) says that it certainly didn't happen. There would likely be a lot of events that one observer knows about and the other doesn't, but let all pairs of observers meet and they'll all be consistent.

 

If what I say isn't true, there's no known evidence of it.

 

 

 

I'll give you a very simple example of it. Certain birds and insects can see certain ultraviolet colors that humans can't see. If they were able to compare notes their descriptions would not be the same. That's a very basic example.

 

But, as explained in my diagrams, since the true universe encompasses all possibilities, all contingencies are possible. When I say something that actually happened "didn't happen" for some other entity, that doesn't mean I'm saying "it didn't happen". I'm saying "it might as well have not happened" for an entity OUTSIDE that occurrences span of existence while I am simultaneously saying, ultimately, "nothing happens" in a universe where an entity is fully conscious of everything because there is no "everything"...it's all nothing.

 

It's very contradictory but there is consistency in the contradiction. It all depends on your level of consciousness.

Edited September 30, 2012 by finster