My hunches and conclusions to Life, The Universe and Everything

In my quest to figure out existence, I felt it liberating to sum up my conclusions and hunches this far in the most concise form possible. Although none of my conclusions are permanent, they serve as stepping stones for further research. My hunches are mere pointers to research directions.

Question Hunch Conclusion
Is space and time discrete? Yes – and this is supported by what I consider to be the most promising cosmological theory to date, “Loop Quantum Gravity”.
What is gravity? It is the force mediated by the spin 2 boson “Graviton”. Einstein’s “space curvature” is in reality gravitons acting on matter and time.
What is dark matter? Gravitons have tiny mass and may even be self-interacting. This cater for the lacking gravitation pull needed to explain why galaxies can rotate faster than the visible matter would allow for.
What is dark energy? Dark energy is a name to describe why the universe seems to accelerate over time. This may be explained by the combination of vacuum energy with a graviton of non-zero mass.
Do black holes really exist? Perhaps, but without any singularity. Quantum laws such as the Pauli Exclusion Principle stops gravity from collapsing fermions into a singularity. An event horizon may still exist, though.
Will we ever devise a Theory of Everything? No. A ToE is described as “a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe”… which was proven impossible by Kurt Gödel and his Incompleteness Theorems.
Is the universe infinite? No. But there is no end to it – as long as consciousness creates more, there is more universe to be observed.
Is the universe real? No, it is created every discrete moment by consciousness. We see what we see because we create it. The universe is the sum of a massive co-creation of all consciousnesses involved.
Is there free will? Yes. Potential free will, when exercised is consciousness which in turn observe its own creations. Existence is not pre-determined or deterministic.
What happens when I die? I get a reboot – out of and into the game of life. I arrive back at a higher understanding and get to participate in the game of life with a different identity in a different body. Much like ending a computer game only to start another.
Higher level of understanding? Are there many such “levels”? It’s not “levels” per se, but rather many plateaus or layers like an onion. The movie “Matrix” is an excellent metaphor for my fractal view of existence.
Which world view is ultimately the correct one? All of them

… To be revised and revised and re…

hcg87_gmoss_960

52 thoughts on “My hunches and conclusions to Life, The Universe and Everything

  1. I predict a lot of replies 🙂

    Some comments when our opinions differ. If I say nothing about something, it’s because I have nothing to add.

    Dark energy: I see this one as much like Einstein’s Cosmological Constant – a fudge factor introduced by physicists (not physics) to make the equations balance, or to make theory agree with observations of reality. Basically, we have no idea what it is or if there even is such a thing.

    Theory of Everything: Of course there is one! Creationists use it all time: GOD DID IT. And I’ll stop being facetious now.

    Is the universe infinite: I read a book recently (Stenger perhaps?) that laid this one out nicely wrt time. The universe is eternal, but not inifinite. And those two things are not the same.

    Is the universe real: I can’t agree with you here. We have machines that can detect parts of the universe thus far unseen by human eyes, and one telescope gives identical results to another telescope. So which consciousness(es) did the creating? It’s either none of them, or the creating is done so thoroughly that the creation immediately becomes real and observable to every observer in every frame of reference. In terms of descriptive and predictive power, both methods are equivalent and we cannot differentiate between them. For all practical purposes, the universe is as if some{one,thing} else created it and the system has been running ever since (even if that someone turns out to be me).

    Free Will: Ugh. I hate this one 🙂 I’ve yet to find a way to tell if the answer is yes or no.

    What happens when I die: Consciousness is an emergent phenomena of what happens in my brain. When my brain ceases to function, I cease to exist. There is no need to invoke any other mechanism. Oh, and the universe does not care one iota about me at all. Or about you.

    Higher levels of understanding? Well yes, in the same way that a university degree is more understanding than a high school diploma. Or that I know more today than I did yesterday. I do not think there are distinct “levels” as such as these things are not events, they are processes. And any apparent “level” observed is just a human construct made to fit how our brains perceive the world. Case in point: Newtonian vs Einsteinian vs Quantum Physics. None of these things really exist, they are our inventions which yield useful equations which make useful predictions and are consistent as long as you stay within their design limits. We invented these differences to aid our own understanding, the differences probably do not even exist outside our brains.

    Which world view is ultimately the correct one? Hmmmm. I can think of quite a few bat-shit crazy worldviews that are just hopelessly wrong. Especially the post-modernists.

        1. I got that – but if you had meant your own post, it would have been just as funny!

          Btw, as a scientific bloke, you should keep up with the research findings of Dean Radin, for one. A lot of it says the brain can’t possibly explain everything about the mind.

          1. I’m still waiting for someone to define “mind” properly.

            “The mind” is a lot like porn, or Microsoft Windows, in that I recognise it when I see it, but can’t define it….

    1. Free will is easy. The paradox is based in a bait-and-switch fraud. Ordinary freedom (from a specific restraint) is replaced by absolute freedom (an imaginary and impossible construct where you are free from causation, yourself, and reality).

      For example, if we free a bird from its cage do we say that it is not free, because it is still subject to causation? No. And, suppose it actually was free from causation, what would happen when it flapped its wings? (Nothing it could rely on!).

      Ordinary free will is nothing more and nothing less than us deciding for ourselves what to do next. As long as no one is forcing us to choose or act against our will (unfree will), we are said to be choosing or acting of our own free will.

      It is a deterministic process, of course. We make a choice based upon our reasons and feelings, our beliefs and values, our genetic dispositions and our life experiences, and any of the other things that make us uniquely us.

      But it is us, specifically our own mental process, that actually determines what happens next.

      We may also say that every decision we make of our own free will is also inevitable. The two facts are both simultaneously true in every decision we make.

        1. We require a deterministic universe if we are to have medicine, physics, chemistry, psychology, sociology, and all the other useful sciences. And we require autonomy and free will if we are to choose a better option from a lot of worse ones. (About that “butterfly effect”, we’ve also landed people on the moon and raised the temperature of a planet).

          All appearances suggest that we already have both determinism and free will. So the real illusion must be the “versus”.

          Ordinary determinism and ordinary free will go hand in hand together skipping through the park.

            1. Defense against what? Do you disagree with what I’ve said about free will? Or do you agree and just prefer a longer more roundabout way of getting there?

            2. I disagree. And my answer is that article. If you don’t care to read my answer, then that is perfectly fine. But that would also and this discussion.

    2. Dark energy seems to be a bit more than just a fudge factor, though. We do need an explanation for the observation that galaxies further away accelerates faster from us.

      1. BTW, when you see some really weird answers from me, it’s probably me answering from my phone – it has the nasty habit of autocorrecting essential words in my sentences

      2. I really wonder at space. Galaxies seem to fly away from one another, while atoms andsolar systems do not.
        If space in the universe is expanding I cannot understand that it is not expanding at the atomic level.

        1. Electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces hold atoms together. These forces operate over very short distances but are bazillion times stronger than gravity. So, atoms do not fly apart but persist as a stable unit.

          These same forces are effectively zero in all other cases leaving galaxies free to move apart according to their momentum.

          1. I see what you mean. Don’t we usually think of momentum as the product of an object’s mass x its velocity through space? Counter-intuitively, do you think that a galaxy could possibly be residing “at rest” with respect to space? Could galaxies be flying away from one another but at rest within the space in which they reside?

  2. “Is the Universe real? No, it is created every discrete moment by consciousness. We see what we see because we create it…”

    Who does “we” include besides humans: Life forms on other planets? All other life forms on this planet?

    And why aren’t “we” (humans) aware of this creation?

    1. All consciousness create it’s own experience. If it was aware of the creations, the illusion would be gone and the game would be no more. Hush,don’t tell anyone.

      1. “Hush,don’t tell anyone.”

        Too late – Tom Campbell has already spread the word. 🙂

        Seriously, though, I’d really like to know what you base that hypothesis on. I doubt you would have fabricated it out of nothing but imagination, as that doesn’t sound like you. So it must be based on personal experience – and that would be very interesting to hear about.

        1. It is partly based on logic and partly personal experience. I realized as my dreams got more vividly real (during OT4) that I do in fact create all my reality while I am asleep – vast realities, very real and instant creation. I managed to break down my instantaneous creations into slow motion to really get to see what happens, and it struck me that this is a lower fractal of what is happening on the grander scale of co-creation of the universe. Etc.

  3. Great talk on the subject.

    JIM HOLT: “Oh, Professor Morgenbesser, why is there something rather than nothing?”

    SIDNEY MORGENBESSER: “Oh, even if there WAS nothing, you still wouldn’t be satisfied!”

    1. “SIDNEY MORGENBESSER: “Oh, even if there WAS nothing, you still wouldn’t be satisfied!”

      Beautiful! I wasn’t able to view the video (Windows 10 arrrgh), but I get the issue. There is a strong intuition that everything must have come from somewhere.

      But if there never really was a state of nothingness to begin with then “stuff in motion” must be eternal. “Stuff” would be any form from subatomic particles to galaxies. “Motion” would include transformations, like the consolidation of matter into super-dense black holes until it reaches a tipping point and becomes a universe again. And, given infinity to work with, there are probably black holes becoming universes all over the place, like popping corn.

  4. Geir, the practical issue at hand that I see regarding your view that if ANY view is valid, is that one MUST exist and survive in any other’s viewpoint. And with such vast infinities of viewpoints out there, your OWN viewpoint is virtually impossible to assume, as the vast infinitude of viewpoints of “you” that serve OTHER viewpoints is infinite and the true “viewpoint” is singular.

    Tough odds huh?

    And if one doesn’t know WHICH viewpoint one is living within (their own or under the viewpoint of another) then what does one do to be ones best self in any said universe? Why? Because the vast infinity would indicate that, more than likely, you didn’t win the lottery this time around.

    The forced viewpoint that: “There is no soul and you are only meat.”
    The forced viewpoint that: “I am god and you are my little bitch.”
    The forced viewpoint that: “Lord Xenu is your homeboy.”
    The forced viewpoint that: “Stoic Philosopher Zeno is your homeboy.”
    The forced viewpoint that: “The Zeus is loose!”
    The forced viewpoint that: “You are the center of the Universe.”
    The forced viewpoint that: “Your identity was created by someone else not by you.”

    Many Stoic Mind hacks fit well in any of these arrangements and parallel the religious practices held here by Independent Scientologists. There is a LOT of Stoicism parallels in Scientology, but it lacks all the promised abilities promised in Scientology.

    It only promises one to be master over what one directly controls at any given time.

    Here is a short parallel comparison between Stoicism and Scientology:

    STOIC VIEW: The driving force of the Universe is Pneuma.
    SCIO VIEW: The driving force of the Universe is Theta.

    STOIC VIEW: The theory of “oikeiosis” dictates that the ethics drive for life be self-preservation.
    SCIO VIEW: The dynamic principle of existence is survive.

    STOIC VIEW: The ability to face anything and experience anything outside of your control as “indifferent” and to create Arete (transcendent excellence) while you act under your control IS the greatest skill in the universe.
    SCIO VIEW: Be able to confront anything and to don’t force another to confront anything they cannot is the greatest skill in the Universe.

    STOIC VIEW: Practice imagining horrific events and even happy events in one’s imagination over and over to flatten them and thus “pre-grieve” them indifferently while creating the emotions of either Joy, Caution or Wishing in their place.
    SCIO VIEW: Practice “past life” events and practice them until one can do so completely at the top of the tone scale.

    STOIC MYTHOS: Zeno.
    SCIO MYTHOS: Xenu.

    ORTHODOX STOIC VIEW: There is an enlightened being called a “Stoic Sage” who can transcend any difficulty, but doesn’t have super powers other than that over his/her own actions under their direct control.
    ORTHODOX SCIO VIEW: There is an enlightened being called an “Operating Thetan” who can transcend any difficulty and control matter, energy, space and time at will.

    NOTE: Like “OTs” there are no “Stoic Sages” that can demonstrate their abilities as described.

    ***

    REGARDLESS THIS IS THE BIG QUESTION: “How do I live in any universe of which I am uncertain as to my role and genesis?”

    I think the crippled slave philosopher Epictetus actually solved for X long, long ago.

    EPICTISTUS: “Say to any appearance, ‘you are but an appearance and not at all what you appear to be’!”

    And then say to that which you cannot control “You are NOTHING to me.”

    ***

    Philosophy for the most part ignores the question: “How do we deal with our uncertainties with certainty?” More often than not, they try to find what is certain rather than the certainty one may choose while facing uncertainties.

    1. I haven’t said that all views are literally true, only that they are true from a certain perspective and to a certain extent and that those are worth exploring for the sake of unification and for discovering deeper truths. And this more worthwhile than the all too common “that must surely be Wrong!”. Re-read the linked blog post 🙂

      1. It reads to me you are posting a shared solipsism which is what Scientology teaches.

        ***

        GEIR: “Instead of starting with “that viewpoint must be wrong”, perhaps truth is better uncovered by “how can that viewpoint be right”?

        GEIR: “Perhaps all viewpoints are correct. Perhaps they represent their own unique view of truth.

        Of course it would be hard to fully reconcile two diametrical different viewpoints of “God exists” and “God does not exist”. Or perhaps not.

        While each ideology or world view tend to hold their own as the Only Truth, it would be interesting to see if a more universal view could be uncovered by treating each view as looking at truth from but one angle.”

        ***

        This reads to me as a Shared Solipsism, but I can see you are taking a viewpoint rather than a fact point approach.

        Regardless, my post isn’t about attacking or endorsing your article, as it is about how to deal with the fact that no matter how smart someone is, they cannot tell if they are in the Matrix, or are a Brain in a Box or the dream of a 15 year old, or a Piano Tuner in Paris, Texas.

        With an unsolvable problem like the egocentric predicament, what does a person DO with such a certain uncertainty?

          1. Oh no! Instead, I will redefine “Sage,” “Atman” and “OT” with delightful smugness, a dash of sophistry and spiced with arrogance with a touch of tacky!

            FREE WILL: “The ability to create and design one’s own self that can face any reality the way one wants to face it.”

    2. Good post, Kat. Pretty accurate on the Scientology parts.

      “SCIO MYTHOS: Xenu.”

      Xenu may very well be mythology. When Hubbard discovered the phenomenon of “body thetans,” he may have intentionally described it in a way that could be interpreted literally or figuratively as a myth, depending on the proclivity of the individual. Don’t forget, Hubbard tried to build a Bridge that anyone could walk.

      But regardless of Hubbard’s own interpretation of this formidable barrier to OT (at least for many people) he discovered, the concept either way – literal or figurative – allows pcs to see into an actual aspect of their existence that limits their ability, and to handle that aspect with the tech developed for it. There are even OT III’s who state that they got great gains from the level – even though they did not accept Hubbard’s narrative as literal and real.

      “NOTE: Like ‘OTs’ there are no ‘Stoic Sages’ that can demonstrate their abilities as described.”

      Yes, and Hubbard never claimed that any of the OT levels took a person to full OT. IMO, that’s just rhetoric from critics who want to paint him as black as possible. “Full OT” was simply his postulate (as in the scientific meaning) that a Bridge would eventually be developed that would achieve it.

      Btw, dear Kat – your post tells me that you understand Scientology better than most Scientologists, current or former. 😉

        1. Forgot to mention the funny, witty, and inimitable Kat-style of this part of your post:

          The forced viewpoint that: “There is no soul and you are only meat.”
          The forced viewpoint that: “I am god and you are my little bitch.”
          The forced viewpoint that: “Lord Xenu is your homeboy.”
          The forced viewpoint that: “Stoic Philosopher Zeno is your homeboy.”
          The forced viewpoint that: “The Zeus is loose!”
          The forced viewpoint that: “You are the center of the Universe.”
          The forced viewpoint that: “Your identity was created by someone else not by you.”

          Hug back. 🙂

      1. The whole Body Thetan mythos has a recursion problem akin to the famous Wooden Russian Dolls.

        You never get to the bottom of them.

        Hindus believe that rocks are “souls” and if so … then what is the lowest denominator for a soul?

        Rock, molecule, atom, electron, quark, bozon ….

        So, the way I see it, if this mythos is as it says and that souls can be ANYTHING in the MEST Universe, then the number of BTs on a person could be infinite. And clearing them one at a time is a great idea if one wants to make infinite amounts of money.

        So what would a person do, to instead of liberating attached beings from herself, merely … free herself from them all?

    3. Other Comparisons:

      STOICISM: “We consider us philosophers as physicians of the soul.”- Seneca
      SCIENTOLOGY: Auditors are the physicians of the soul.

      STOICISM: Philosophy that is not applied to life is not Philosophy.
      SCIENTOLOGY: Scientology is an applied Philosophy.

      STOCISM: Staunch materialists with an openness to the soul existing outside reality.
      SCIENTOLOGY: Staunch spiritualists who believe with certainty that the soul creates reality.

      STOICISM: Has a form of the Dynamics familiar to Scientology.
      SCIENTOLOGY: Has the 8 dynamics.

      STOICISM: Asks people to become Cosmopolitan, or Citizens of the Universe.
      SCIENTOLOGY: Asks people to become OT.

      STOICISM: Has an emotional model for dealing with stress. It is way different than the tone scale. It is more of an algorithm of dealing with emotional reactions to bring people into a chosen emotion of either Joy, Caution or Wishing.
      SCIENTOLOGY: Has a tone scale that one goes up and down depending on spiritual condition and circumstance.

      STOICISM: More and more Psychologists are using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, a technique based on Stoicism. And Stoicism is being modernized and applied by more professional psychologists every day.
      SCIENTOLOGY: Is a war with the mental health profession.

      STOICISM: A philosophy.
      SCIENTOLOGY: A religion.

      Anyway, for people just leaving the church, Stoicism may be a nice place to stop for awhile and get some bearings. It’s safe. It’s free. And dissent is required. People that just duplicate and replicate need not apply. One must pick and choose what one wants and be able to defend it.

      Many practicing Stoics are believing Plutonists, but they like the “Stoic Tech.” And here that is..

      http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2012/11/13/example-stoic-therapeutic-regime/

  5. For that line “as long as consciousness creates more, there is more universe to be observed”, a +1. I’d give it +10, but we Booleans can’t count past 1.

    The universe is real, in the sense of virtual reality. And looking for anything that’s more real than virtual reality might always lead to disappointment. We experience sensations of sight and sound, or of mass and solidity we when we try to interact with objects. But all we can know about the physical universe is our sensations; the mind constructs objects like hypotheses to explain sensations in a way that is, for the moment, consistent.

    I think posts like this and your recent one about What If Everyone Was Right are very valuable in pointing towards a consensus that might eventually crystallise among people who have studied Hubbard, Godel, Polanyi, Boole, etc etc etc …

    My own draft conclusions are still messier and less concise than yours; I start with a Nothing (alias the static, pleroma, or void) which can create and experience by making choices (postulates, samskara, decisions). The virtually real universe would be the consequence of all these choices, as conflicting choices produce boundaries at which sensations occur. Hence the layers or levels of reality, and the apparently finite objects.

  6. 1) Someone once said, “If everything is an illusion, then nothing is an illusion.” The pragmatic question is what practical difference does one idea have versus the other. For example, if all of “reality” were merely a dream I was having, but I couldn’t wake up, then I would behave precisely as if it were all real. So, we might as well assert that it is real (and, by George, we do!).

    2) Despite the fact that our senses may be limited, they are the only experience we have of the real world. We can extend them with hearing aids, telescopes and microscopes, and even hire a dog to smell things for us. We can also double-check our experience by having others confirm our observations. We can also recognize the many ways in which our senses or sense processing may be deceived. But we cannot say that the thing which we feel, taste, see, hear, smell, or detect through other means is not “real” (unless you’re in the “brain in a vat” paradox, in which case see (1) above).

    Richard Carrier once suggested to me that a table was merely an “illusion” because it is actually made up mostly of empty space and atoms. But if I trip over it, it is real. If I can walk through it, then it is an illusion.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s