So you feel more of that "slow time" you felt when you were a kid?

 

yep.......time is relative in relativity and people seem to forget that.

 

Basically you're saying each of us is our own version of Schrodinger's cat. Hence Thoughts can change your DNA..... EPIC

 

And also that famous demon.

 

Have a look at my twitter handle........what does it say? You're now beginning to understand why I could say it..........The Epi-paleo Rx is designed around our epigenetic mechanisms, and not our cultural or medical beliefs. The foremost reason that happiness is so hard to achieve is that the universe was not designed with the comfort of human beings in mind.

 

More on the scale of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as the scale goes to the quantum level. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-quantum-scales-laws-thermodynamics.html

 

Then who was the universe created for?
(Incoming rabbit holes)

Why have we been evolving and creating complexity by connecting quantum world to the macro human world in this "space time". Why would we evolve thought? Who or what wants us to think.

Rocks don't think, but we evolved to think about them.

Then who is the universe for?

 

It is a philosophically invalid question. The universe simply is. "Purpose" is an attribute that can only exist within the universe.

To speculate a purpose or beneficiary of the entire universe (which is by definition the totality of all that exists) is to apply an abstraction which can only apply to particular entities, instead to the universe as a whole. This is quite simply an epistemological error.

Or to put it even more simply, for the "universe qua universe" to have any purpose at all, there would have to be something/someone outside said universe to refer to. And if there were, then the "universe" would no longer be the "universe." The idea that there may by "multiple parallel universes" also leads to same conclusion ultimately if you carry out the reasoning fully. You have to start somewhere...

Why? Because thermodynamic and quantum flux are built in to the fabric of this "eternal universe." (If you want to call that a purpose or even build a religion around it, go ahead.) Thermodynamics, and random movement of matter and energy eventually organized by physical processes into more and more complex and efficient structures, eventually leading to "life," then to "thought," then to beings that are able to "ponder the purpose of their own existence."

That is a question for physics not philosophy to answer, if it can be even answered. So far, I do not think it has been satisfactorily answered at all, but there are theories and speculations...


Look... I'll put it yet another way...If there were anything, anything-at-all, that "created" our universe of matter and energy, it would have to be non-material and non-energy, otherwise it would be in the universe too. So, it would be so unrecognizable and so unfathomable to all of us, as to be not worth your time in pondering right now. The universe is. It is what it is. Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. -Rand

This is NOT to say that it is impossible that there could be some kind of alien life out there somewhere in our universe that may have some kind of influence over earth and humanity. But that is a completely different question than the one you asked. That would be a scientific, rather than philosophical question. I personally do believe that it is possible, but the burden ultimately lies on us to provide valid credible evidence to support that assertion...otherwise it will just remain arbitrary speculation...

 

I view it differently. I don't think we have the whole picture quite yet. There's so many anomalies it's ridiculous.
You're definitely right for yourself, and that's what matters. Everything is vibrating. Everything.

I just find it incredibly weird how quantum gravity or emergent gravity or where gravity is not a fundamental force and is something derived from other fundamental forces very very very odd. There seems to be a gap in knowledge somewhere along the line. A skew of "mainstream science" away from what they don't know. You can't see something with blinders and especially if you don't know where to look.

I wonder about c^2 , crystals, pyramids, light, and 432 other things.

 

We can never have whole picture. Biggest mistake humans make is putting themselves in some mystical godlike position of assuming we can, now or ever, "know it all." Well we can't. We are products of a universe of matter and energy and we have certain specific abilities. There are things we can do and things we can't do. There are things we can know and things we can't know. That is the nature of identity. To be is to be something...

There are limits to our knowledge and it has to be gained by a certain process. And once you understand that, I mean really understand it, then what you do know has a chance to expand and flourish into certainty. Only then can you escape from speculation into serious knowledge. Few people bother...

 

Science is the art of admitting what we don't know.

 

I'll say that as a software developer this doesn't feel too surprising . We basically "play god" and create our own little mini software worlds all the time, and seeing how those worlds grow via the natural constraints and demands placed on them is probably yet another fractal representation (applicable to the universe as a whole) of how entropy increases over time.

Just like any legacy software system, we can only add more components. Taking out components means that we break the system for everything that depends on those older components.

Want better visual perception? Add more spectral sensitivity to eyes. Want a fast way to transfer information across massive distances? Hey, we've got electromagnetism already, why not arrange particles so that they can be distorted by the EM force to create gravity

New components introduce emergent phenomena that create new demands on the system, which lead to more emergent innovation. The keyword there is "emergent", and the only way to figure out how something new will behave is to actually create it. In that sense, there is fundamental uncertainty.

What we can reason with certainty about is constraints. This is "negative knowledge".

eg: We can't transmit photons faster than the speed we humans denote as Celeritas, which also implies transmission limits to all the components that depend on photon transmission. We can therefore reason about how things break.

eg: We can't build Artificial Intelligence using silicon transistors because General Intelligence is about interpretation of incoming signals (not about predictive / computative capacity).

The best information gatherer is water, so any "Artificial Intelligence" will have to use water (back to the point @NeilBB made before about everything man-made having been already designed by nature). "Best" here is defined by how much information we can pack per unit matter of the material (not mass!), and nothing will beat water given the constraints of the Universe.

Again, we can say that Artificial Intelligence is not possible given existing technologies. Will new technologies be invented? No clue. It took more than a billion years for DHA to be invented (appeared 600 million years ago), under specific constraints, a specific set of resources, and a specific demand for more energy transduction capabilities. We cannot claim as Humans that something like AI is around the corner .... until we see the contingent innovations that make it possible (like control over water crystals to gather information, or maybe the invention of an even smaller crystalline compound that has all the behaviours of water and more).​

----

The Thunderbolts Project posted a video yesterday about asking 'What if' questions.



I do this on a daily basis as part of being a software developer, and you can see that sort of thinking in some of my posts.

Notable:

• Obsessed with efficiency -- http://forum.jackkruse.com/index.ph...elcome-comments-here.12199/page-7#post-148113
• If I were god, why would I create a signalling molecule like Superoxide? -- http://forum.jackkruse.com/index.php?threads/reverse-electron-flow.12744/#post-154292

EDIT: wrong dates for DHA creation
....

 

I love when people use the term " critical mass" to make a point when in reality sub-critical mass is the key point for biochemistry and the redox...............LOL

 

Critical condensation? Not to be confused with critical condescension.
Love that 39 degrees F.

 

One has a fundamental choice when dealing with man-man-made frustrations and irrational dogmatists. You can be honest and allow yourself to feel angry about it, or you can let it beat you down and accept the feelings of guilt they will surely throw at you for who you are or want to be. Guilt is the favorite weapon of all dogmatists, and they are experts at wielding it. Accepting their imposed guilt is a mental cop-out and a form of elevating a need for "social comfort" over personal integrity.

Personally, I haven't felt a shred of unearned guilt in 20 years. (I had to learn how to be that way, and I did.) But I still feel plenty of anger and lots of frustration, regularly. But that hasn't aged me a bit. In my opinion, that's the most important anti-aging strategy that there is. Never feel guilty if you haven't done anything wrong. Carrying chronic feelings of guilt is the fastest ticket to chronic disease and death that I know of.

(If one feels guilt over a genuine transgression, that's different. That's "earned guilt" and needs to be remedied in some way. It's important to know the difference, so as not to be an asshole.)

Contrary to popular belief, anger alone won't age you. But guilt will. Anger can be very productive. Guilt is always self-destructive. Anger is outwardly-directed and solution-oriented. Guilt is inner self-condemnation and universally paralyzing. Feeling honest anger is a form of embracing the "thermodynamics of discomfort" in my opinion and is often a necessary catalyst to difficult action. Battles must be picked strategically, of course, but anger itself is not a bad thing. It is simply a passionate and honest acknowledgement of some external threat or injustice.

I think many of us are benevolent people and want to avoid conflict, but in today's world, to systematically avoid conflict will eventually lead to the acceptance of unearned guilt. Book it. This is the deepest reason why no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, we must all learn to embrace a certain amount of respectful conflict, in order to "return the entropy" back to the dogmatists that so deserve it.

I choose to always fully acknowledge, feel, and embrace my anger so that I may have a chance to use it to achieve and to grow. I will always choose anger over guilt.

 

Bradshaw(not a personal favorite) did make a wonderful distinction between shame and guilt. Quilt comes from a "genuine transgression" as you mentioned. Shame is where all the problems come from. Superb answer Neil!

 

To be fundamental.......it has to exists everywhere. Why does xylem in a tree easily break the law? Why does a capillary tube in water? An apple on a tree? Because it is emergent from other things in nature...........very much like time.