Where do you think we came from? - Page 97

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Here's what is really important to consider and I hope all interested are paying attention:

1000 years back, the noun iPad or the verb Google would have meant nothing to anybody. Today, those words mean something to some of us, if not all of us. We know what they are, we know what they represent, we know who is behind their creation, we know their functionality. We can say we have knowledge of iPad and Google.

So, a question like "what is an iPad?" or "how does Google work?" could have still produced an answer, even back then, as a combination of the English alphabet. But it takes knowledge to weed out the correct answer, from a random collection of letters.

1000 years back the same question ("what is an iPad?") would have gone unanswered because they didn't have the requisite knowledge then. You could have presented them the combinations of letters but they wouldn't have been able to pick the right combination. Now we can.

Point I am making here is simply this: do we now have the knowledge to identify what is the right answer to the question "where do we think we came from?" or do we need to wait more?

Over to you people.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

IMO, it would be incorrect to assume (based on what we know as of today) that the universe itself is superpositioned. We know that the particles are superpositioned but we don't have particles for everything that is in the universe. We don't have a particle for gravity, dark matter, dark energy. We also don't know if space-time itself can be quantized.

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

The basic understanding of creation is that "everything was created; that, is, made out of nothing and before anything else was, there was God". So I question who created God?

Going in circles about creations vs evolution...

Originally posted by: _twilight_

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

yes, we have more terminology and greater knowledge. Like we now talk so comfortably about things like energy. But as Richard Feynman would say: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount". Note that it's still a concept, a quantity, that most people cant relate to in their classical experience. But that doesn't stop it from being 'real' in a sense.

ditto for particles. Do we really know what they are, even the so-called elementary particles? Just being able to wrap them around a terminology like wave-packets does not really mean we know what they really are. Yes, we have some understanding of how they relate in terms of their interactions with other particles, and of the 'uncertainty principle' that drives them. We can solve more problems assuming that duality, but again they dont fit in with our classical view.

and we've talked previously about light. My contention here is that while terminology does lead to greater precision of thought, in the context of what we are discussing here, it seems we plugging in our gaps of understanding 'reality' by using terminology. Things like light, wave packets, energy just fill in the gaps in our understanding but they still dont answer the 'why'. They are like fudge factors we find convenient to use... And we have been using them liberally.

now just because we havent come up with a fudge factor to explain consciousness, or our sense of self, does not mean it's not as 'real' as all the other 'physical' quantities that we have good terminology for. So while i get your point, it's not the whole story.😊

Originally posted by: _twilight_

If the basic understanding happens to be that before anything there was God, does it not imply that there was nothing before God? On that premise the question does not hold.

@ Vintage Wine- how do you think the authors of the scriptures gained the knowledge that they did to be able to write the scriptures/sacred texts ? Deduction or something else?

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Hey ! ..But did we all not subscribe to a superposed Universe at some point in time? You too did it . Reference : Your final post in the last thread. K ..


[K] dang! i was counting on people not reading posts. that was the underlying assumption. or so i thought. that everybody comes on to the forum, opens the thread, says what they have to say instead of actually reading others' posts and responding 😆

Just kidding! Very impressed that you are keeping track of who is saying what. I am not doing a good job there. I need to read more and talk less.


I guess we need to first decide on what level we wanna continue searching. Macro or Micro. According to me we must first determine the Universe's scope on the Macro level. So like me if you too believe in the Holographic principal we can think of a Black Hole as our own matrix.


[K] I would prefer micro because the macro is made of micro and not vice-versa. Big is always made of small. Is that a safe assumption?

As for belief, I don't know what to believe and what not to believe, I seem to be swinging between ideas every day with no consistency whatsoever. One day the idea of consciosuness is very appealing, another day God, and yet another day the holographic universe.

^^^ I guess all we have to do to ascertain it is to look at the outer reaches of the Universe. It's expanding and the objects that are inside of it follow the principles of thermodynamics.Also the entropy reduces at the locales inside it and almost diminishes at the individual observer level. i say so because the Singularity is the thing of the past and its far gone. And this one ultra massive black hole mighta transpired from it. Cause black holes are singularities. The only thing that's different here are the distinct forces of nature.

So we just have to have a careful look at it's geodesics. And watch out for collisions ( And I bet you know that collision is the cosmic theme. All galaxies would collide and become elliptical <<< That's their final structure ) So at the point where the entropy is maximum, we find that the collision happens only to make the geodesics move away from each other, we can explain this occult expansion. Then the quest to find the outer matrix should begin. 😛

And this is why I like the MW theory. We talk of Gravity particles and Dark matter and other such stuff. We have nebulous material and abundant emission. We just don't know the dimension in which it might be expanding thus having a limited, illusive view of the cosmos. For instance if we believe in the Brane - Bulk theory, there has to be a locale where Universe might exist in Infinite directions ..And if by a God damn chance ...<<<<😆 ..we fall in that position, the superposing can very well be a possibility. Think of it ..


[K] This is all very heavy-duty and I need to wrap my mind around it before making any knee-jerk comments. Heck, if this problem is that important to me to solve, may be I will come down to meet with you and discuss :)

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I was wondering what it means to "know" something. Is it just putting what you "know" in more words?

Going back to our apple analogy, while we understand it's "properties", does understanding the properties translate to "knowing" the apple?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

[K] dang! i was counting on people not reading posts. that was the underlying assumption. or so i thought. that everybody comes on to the forum, opens the thread, says what they have to say instead of actually reading others' posts and responding 😆

Just kidding! Very impressed that you are keeping track of who is saying what. I am not doing a good job there. I need to read more and talk less.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

[K] dang! i was counting on people not reading posts. that was the underlying assumption. or so i thought. that everybody comes on to the forum, opens the thread, says what they have to say instead of actually reading others' posts and responding 😆

Just kidding! Very impressed that you are keeping track of who is saying what. I am not doing a good job there. I need to read more and talk less.