Is the universe a giant mind?

Post Reply New Topic

I think that perhaps everything in existence physical and non physical could be added up together in one complete form which would actually be an omnipotent consciousness and if everything has its equal it would also cancel itself out and appear as before the big bang. Perhaps we were like this but the big bang was the whole splitting and the individual pieces changing into what they are now whether it's a table or a human. It is more confusing to think about this not being limited to one temporal dimension though.

The laws and symmetry of nature/the universe I think perhaps come from us being infinitely limited. 1+1=3 is not wrong it is incomprehensible, we are infinitely limited in understanding and perception and since we are so simple we notice the patterns and laws. The reason for our limitations I don't know but going back to the first point perhaps it's because we are a fragment of the whole.

This all falls down because I use my own logic to come up with this and if it's infinitely limited how can I know anything beyond this bubble of reality where 1+1 only equals 2, but for some reason I do have this logic and I do think of what's outside the bubble so who knows.

Everything that exists can be detected in one way or another, so everything's physical. 1 + 1 = 3 makes sense, if you change to definition of the + operator, or the symbols involved. There might be areas of math in which the classic laws of thought don't apply. Multiple temporal dimensions isn't so hard to picture, definitely more easy to visualise than extra spatials; just picture an equation whos properties vary as a variable t, and t2 varies

Logic is limited, and I'm sure other "logics" could be possible in another world, but there are alternate logics that maths describe.

"Real", is our recent best guess. Even with the known laws there is wiggle room. I for one hold that the speed of light is true, as measured on Earth. The same goes for time. As one is measured by the other, the results could vary in the vast space between stars.

We observe from one point, and do not live long. This limits our view.

The Big Bang could describe how the Sun and Earth were formed, but what about Black Holes that were unknown at the time? They are too massive to be made by the process.

We do not create what our eyes see, Could our thought also be from outside? We do not invent, only discover something that was always there. Thought is hard to describe, mind, self, so I go Tibetan.

"Oh benovolent gift waves of reality,
grant me the ability to know all things,
by seeing, hearing, and reflecting."

The Big Bang describes the formation of the universe, modern cosmology how it unfolded. The mechanisms by which Black Holes come in to existence are well understood.



Those words sound like they were spoken by an empiricist, not Tibetan Buddhists :p

The Big Bang does not explain how our solar system formed at all.

Our solar system is maybe 5 billion years old and it was formed out of gas and dust produced by the explosion of early generation stars. Our own sun is probably a third generation star.

ruveyn

Just because the laws of this universe state that it's impossible for something to come from nothing doesn't mean the same laws applied before this universe was created. For all we know there might have been different laws or no laws at all. If you think even deeper you can see our universe as a part of a much bigger thing (albeit not in size perhaps). Something (our universe) could have been created out of nothing, with a set of rules of it's own. Why? It just did. Our rules require a Why question, the act of creating our universe did not.

Ofc this is theory

It is humans who make up the rule that all observed effects must have a prior cause. We have no way to know if there was a Before or not. All we can ever observe are effects of causes. The Beginning is currently hidden from our sight and is likely to remain that way.

ruveyn

The argument from "necessity of causality" always stuck as a fallacious; there's no way to infer that causality is a necessary component of every class of events, even in exotic conditions. I've even heard a sophist Muslim apologist claim that causality is known "A Priori", in order to support his "first cause = Allah" argument.

i do not understand how there can be any other "laws" that could be cogent to me other than the the "laws" that exist now (and always existed("laws" are not bound into any material relationship with the universe, and so they are not associated with time. ie: "all laws are timeless because they are true in any manifestation of reality"))

the universe unfolds in time in an "evolution" of "inevitability".

but looking from the bottom up, "evolution" seems to be "survival of the fittest" (not constricted to biological realities).

looking from the bottom up, it seems that those (organisms or processes) who have very handy mutations that enhance their ability to absorb energy from their environment, will be those that prevail and provide a basis for further evolution that will inevitably build on a development of the original platform.

the universe unfolds this way too (in my private and uneducated assessment).

thinking from the top down, it is readily detectible that it is easily possible that given that all energy in the universe, and all the "laws" of energetic distribution were contained "within" a singularity that was at the "ground zero" of the "infinite collapse" to "infinite expansion" boundary, then it was also theoretically possible to calculate the entire history of all aspects of the universe, and predict beforehand, the manifestation of reality all the way to the end of it's cycle, and in that mindset, "evolution" is just a word that people use to mean "the universe is unfolding along the tributaries of inevitability".


of course there can me no measure of intelligence (terrestrial or otherwise) in the universe that could pre-calculate every aspect of universal reality down to all it's (what i call) "proto-particular yocto- second drama's".
the scale of the thought blows my bubble head, so i only think about it while i am on standby.




nothing can happen without some mechanism of realization.

My point was, prior to the big bang, when our universe was 'created' there might have been different or no laws at all. The creation of our universe, and with it, every law we put to it, even the one you just stated might not have existed prior to the big bang, thus allowing nothing to spawn something (our universe). Who's to say there might be many more. It's a really difficult thing to actually explain. Ofc, all theory until data can prove otherwise.


Edit, by rereading your post I seem to have confused myself, let me get back soon

oh ok that proves everything. no questions from me.i want to play a song i thought of now.

Oh I didn't mean it in a bad way though, my comment that is

It's just a theory I have that for me, makes most sense. I was just clarifying a bit. I tend to ramble on and write stuff more complicated and chaotic then is necessary.

It is very possible that the universe is actually conscious and thinking entity. We don't yet have a theory of everything which explains all of reality. Parallel universes is a possibility too.

So whatever reality turns out to be in the end, I am very open to the every possibility.

the whole argument is probably really semantics. one could look at the universe as something that has a bunch of things going on in it, or they could look at it as something that has a bunch of things going on in it that lead to some sort of productive expression. this would be similar to how a mind functions. a bunch of things go on in a mind and the purpose of those things is to create some productive expression for all interested parties. the universe is obviously similar to a mind in this way. also, i should note that for something to exist it must communicate with something other than itself. take a particle for example. if it does not interact with ANY other particles, it for all effects and purposes does not exist. when it does interact with other particles, it does exist. this interaction in turn forms a system ordered by the ways in which these particles/entities act upon each other. ergo everything must happen for a reason, although that reason may not be particularly profound or of preference to anyone, and will lead to some "productive" outcome. whether or not you actually like that outcome, or whether or not it's profound enough for you is moot. an outcome is a result of some form of productivity by definition.

ergo, since the universe is a series of interactions with a productive outcome just like the human mind, it could be considered a mind by some.


perhaps the real confusion lies in calling a mind a mind. perhaps we should label it as a productive system whose parts do not all directly interact with the rest of existence and whose parts have come together for a common purpose.

is the universe capable of being such a thing by default? i think so.

does that default give the parts of the universe a common purpose. i think so.

so, technically it is a mind, it's just not in the same league as a human mind.

Absurd, yet interesting idea....

It is certainly an interesting perspective but there is nothing to suggest the Universe as a whole is just a mind or even has a will.

The Universe is an interconnectivity and interaction of its parts. If one takes a snapshot of the Universe, one will find that it changes in a systematic fashion.

This seems like it would belong more in the religion/metaphysics/political forum than here.