Absolute stillness = Illusion of nothingness

Post Reply New Topic

I think I figured out how the universe really cycles. We humans have some preoccupation with the idea of nothingness, but I think what could be more relevant is something like "absolute stillness". Think of animals that can't see something if it is not moving.

So, I'd like to see a discussion by physicists on this idea. It could be that what really happens between universes is some "momentary" "absolute stillness". This could be what charges the big bang.

Just an idea I came up in an altered state.

Discuss....

I’m not a physicist, so my opinion is invalid. My personal impression is the universe exists outside of space and time, so just always was.

Humans, living in a 4 dimensional universe, we do our best with the workings within the 4 dimensions, but I doubt we will ever really understand. I don’t know if our brains would be capable.

We are trying to answer everything with what our perception perceives, but it only really answers some of what is inside the bubble.

I don’t think we will be able to answer it all in a small 4d bubble.

Hope I'm not being rude by interjecting this but that Michael Silberstein interview I posted deals with somewhat similar ideas and who knows, it may help you flesh out your own more. The concept that he and the physicist he wrote his recent book with were trying to push was the idea of the 'block universe', not growing block but the past/present/future static block. It reminds me a lot of what I used to think maybe ten or twelve years ago, that if things were deterministic you could look at the universe as a static 4D sculpture that we're traveling along vectors within. That said I don't know how they handle quantum quantum indeterminacy, I have heard Brian Greene drive that point home a few times and I'm still not sure whether that's something they're certain of or just that his own preferred theories support.

Also on absolute stillness, in that interview I think Michael actually gave the best description of neutral monism that I've heard and now the idea is making a lot more sense to me than when he was just talking about William James and 'thinking of Tigers in India'. The point seems to come from the outlook that Baryonic matter really isn't 'stuff', it's a set of localized effects between fields, and the idea of neutral monism is that consciousness and 'matter' both arise from a set that's exclusively neither material nor conscious but can branch off in both directions. The back half of the interview was a bit tough to listen to because he and his interviewer (apparently another author with a more emergentist take on consciousness) were stuck talking past each other when it came to this but the portion where they talked physics was quite listenable.

I also offer that as a non-physicist but at least the physics portion of the interview was on the philosophy of science level.