Obligatory Monthly Plug Drug's Philosophical Ramblings Thread

[Plug Drugs]

Isn't it strange to think that we are all alive and thinking, right here, right now?
Time will stretch on forever, and our existence is just just a minuscule momentary blip sandwiched between two never-ending eternities. Yet here we are - experiencing right here, and right now.

It can't help but make you wonder "What are the odds?" After all, it would seem improbable for us to just so happen to exist like this.
However, what I'm about to argue that the odds of our existence may not be so small after all - in fact our existence might be guaranteed.

First, I would like you to imagine this concept:
Welcome to primordial chaos; it is a multi-dimensional mass of everything, and it contains all possibilities. All possible universes, all possible scenarios within those universes, and every conceivable possible universe is contained within it. The primordial chaos sits undisturbed in a state of timelessness. Contained within it, is your existence and my existence. So as you can see, your existence is not the result of mere chance, but was a guarantee.

If we look at the shear probability of it, the existence of this "primordial chaos" is far more likely to be the case than "existing out of mere coincidence". Otherwise our universe and all existence was "one shot" and that's it, after our universe ends, there is nothing after that.

For reasons in the physics of the matter which I'm about to go over, a "primordial chaos" isn't just "more likely sounding", but must be the case.


First, we have to consider the old newtonian truth "Energy can never be created nor destroyed, it can merely change from one form to another", and if by extension we incorporate Einstein's theory that matter and energy are equivalent and can be exchanged with one another, we could go on to say it as "Matter/energy can never be created nor destroyed, but merely change form". Now, let us also consider the old newtonian truth "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" to arrive at a conclusion: The only thing that could have caused the event of our universe's creation (the "Big Bang") is the destruction of a previous universe. Since energy can never be simply "created" as this would just contradict physical causality, the energy of our universe's creation (the big bang) had to have come from somewhere. The most obvious assumption then would that the energy required for the creation of a universe would be equivocal to the energy sustained by the destruction of another universe.

But by what physical mechanism could a universe's destruction lead to the creation of another? Our current physics models show us that our universe is expanding outwards from the point of the big bang, and not only is it expanding, but it is accelerating, which will eventually result in the dispersion of all matter into pure energy once that matter has accelerated to the speed of light and its very fabric breaks down into energy, and that would be it - nothing special or significant would happen after that given our current physics models, there'd just be loose energy propagating outwards in every direction from a point of origin, with no matter in existence left.

I don't think that this could be possibly be right. I think our physics models just aren't developed enough yet to lead to any assumptions about what happens after the contents of our universe has reached the speed of light and annihilated itself.
I propose a new theory to provide an explanation:
Everything is equivalent to each other, and the mechanisms behind all physical phenomenon are in system where they are all dependent on each other and flow with each other. This would imply that All Physical Constants are actually derived from One Physical Constant, and the various physical constants merely result from our different ways of measuring the One Physical Constant for different phenomenon. This one physical constant is, as should be obvious: c , the speed of light. All other physical constants are actually just derived from the speed of light.

For instance, let us look at how this applies to just one of the physical constants: The Planck Unit, the unit for measuring distances at the subatomic level. The Planck Unit must actually be derived from the speed of light, which gives us a new perspective on what 'distance' is: euclidean space is generated by the light which propagates through it, and therefore the unit of distance used to form a visualized 'grid' of space must be dependent on the speed of light, and in some way can be derived from it.


This has some interesting implications: Space and time are equivalent with matter and energy, and both are can be created out of the other. As in the famous Einsteinian theory, time is relative and is only a measurement of change between two objects relative to each other, and is in a continuum with space. Space is created by the very light which propagates through it, and residual "dark energy" holds up the backbone of seemingly empty space. And now we must take a new outlook on space and matter and how they relate to each other: Matter is actually a tangle of space itself, and the various subatomic particles are actually just different variations in how space is able to become tangled.

Now here's how relativity fits into this: without matter occupying space, the very grid of space itself ceases to have dimensions, as time and space are only relative, they are measurements made between one object relative to another. With no matter occupying space, the concept of "distance" erodes, and after all the matter in the universe accelerates to the point of annihilating itself, the remaining light/energy in the universe will be a point of singularity. Remember, all there really is in the universe is just light. Space is just light, and matter being a tangle of space is also light. Distance is a relative measurement being made between two objects and doesn't actually exist, nor does time. There is merely light tangled with itself. Upon reaching a point of singularity after the annihilation of matter, all of that remaining energy starts another big bang.
That is the most counter-intuitive thing to grasp: how could the size of the entire universe, which had been inflating at accelerating speeds since the big bang and was unimaginably massive one moment, be just a minuscule singularity, a mere point of "something", the next moment. It ceases to be counter-intuitive after remembering that all size is relative, and a massive inflated universe with nothing in it is the same size as a universe just beginning.

During this transition, the speed of light (the lone physical constant) effectively inverts itself.
But why does this happen? Why is matter accelerating outwards from the point where the big bang happened? Think of this: Everytime a particle is annihilated, there is one less particle in the universe for other particles to be relative to, and since time and space are relative, this actually destabilizes the grid of space itself and increases the progression of time. So imagine and visualize if you will, the utter chaos occuring during the period toward's the universe's life once all the particles within it have accelerated to the point of annihilating themselves; each particle that annihilates itself is causing the process to occur faster, more sporadically, and more chaotically. As less and less particles remain, the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. The first and most evident is time, which would be highly distorted. The next would be the grid of space itself. Macroscopically, distance between particles and the mass of those particles of themselves would distort and fluctuate chaotically.

Finally, at the very final stage, the resulting mass (and space) defying Higg's bosons invert the universe and trigger another bigbang.

[Plug Drugs]

continuing off of the above; our universe could be thought of not as expanding, but staying the same size while it's contents are shrinking; the "knots of space itself", which is what all particles of matter actually are, are constantly trying to untangle themselves; the energy released from the untangling is added to the universe's background radiation, and the particle would seemingly be "shrinking" (as are all other particles at the same time, since they are undergoing the same process). Think of it like a balloon you've blown but not tied, and you let go of it and let it slowly release its air and sputter across the room. It travels through the air, releasing more air as it goes causing it to get smaller and faster as it goes.

[juji]

You used a lot of drugs

[Plug Drugs]

"Gravity", then could be thought of as an effect from "space being tangled".. As a particle travels, there would be "more space" in the direction of other matter, since they are a tangle of space. The tangling up of space warps the surrounding grid, causing other tangles of space to be more inclined to slide in the direction of the other tangles.

The exact entropy of the tangle determines which subatomic particle it is; with some tangles having various tiers of entropy, and others just being a different kind of tangle altogether. The interactions which occur between different kinds of tangles coming within proximity of each other, or when a tangle 'decays' or becomes untangled, make up all of the fundamental forces besides gravity. This is why gravity has no force carrying boson, but is merely a result of the innate geometry of space.

The varying complexities of certain tangles and how they differ from others is such that certain attributes of theirs can only be described using terms like "spin", "charge", and "flavor".

[Plug Drugs]

Now, the arduous task that needs undertaking is for someone to actually draw/visualize these tangles; what the grid of space looks like tangled up into a particle; and the exact process of it getting tangled. Can't be drawn on paper, it would need to be done on a computer

[macpro]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1203...dercolor=white

is that the link he is pasting this from

wow, your signature is too good for you. i think you should give it to me.

[sex with dead people]

Fuck you plug drugs you insane bastard

[maks]

[Plug Drugs]

^^

v v

[Plug Drugs]

is that the link he is pasting this from

i didnt paste anything from anything; this is one of my hobbies - to take speed and try solve the mysteries of the universe without the equipment or the education to even begin to do so. Because its fun

*my prescribed dose of speed, i might add, ahem

[Plug Drugs]

Anyways, continuing where I left off earlier, the very initial stages of the "big bang" probably did not resemble an explosion, but rather it resembled this:

[Plug Drugs]

And that same process in that picture I made above is also the beginning of the formation for "Solomon's Key", which is not a coincidence.

[Plug Drugs]

wait i cant remember if its solomon's key or solomon's lily or something else; its some geometric pattern in Sacred Geometry which explains the creation of everything out of nothing, step by step.

[Plug Drugs]

Have you read about this and tried to follow it along all the way up to the other 11 ( or however many it is, I forget) dimensions?

yeah, but there's something else that starts out just like that which builds up to explaining space and time forming out of a simple geometrical progression. It ends up forming a symbol though, it doesn't go through the 10/11 dimensions, but I know what you're talking about. It's basically an attempt to explain how the universe could form out of absolutely nothing at all:
the nothingness/void would have an absolute value of 1, thereby turning the nothingness into somethingness. Then, this somethingness having a value of 1 causes the alternative (a value of 0) to appear alongside it; this forms two points, which then form a line: the first dimension.
I always struggle imagining any more after that. It's not like the similar progression which shows the 10/11 dimensions, which is what I think you're referring to; the progression I'm talking about ends up forming a certain symbol in Sacred Geometry, and those believing in SG think of the symbol as "what God used to create the universe".

[juji]

First Off:

1- You aren't a math thinker.

2- You don't believe the math is an universe as the requirement to the origin of life.

3- You forgot about the instances of dots are cloned from others and recreate them like a microbe.

[rubycalaber]

deep and independant [sic] thinking

[rubycalaber]

First Off:

1- You aren't a math thinker.

2- You don't believe the math is an universe as the requirement to the origin of life.

3- You forgot about the instances of dots are cloned from others and recreate them like a microbe.

now THATS independant thinking, good work

[Plug Drugs]

here just dug up this video i saw a few years back; this guy is talking about something similar, when you get more data give it a look

[juji]

There goes again.
You are discovering the math.

[Plug Drugs]

First Off:

1- You aren't a math thinker.

2- You don't believe the math is an universe as the requirement to the origin of life.

3- You forgot about the instances of dots are cloned from others and recreate them like a microbe.

who are you talking to

[Plug Drugs]

People used to accuse me of copying and pasting stuff

It's actually a compliment, it comes from dimwits incapable of deep and independant thinking. Besides there is way too many inacuracies for that to be a previously published essay. You need to back up many of the statements with references.

I didn't read it all but read a little bit of it, there was a lot I would contest with some of your claims. Are you familiar with the theory of "The big freeze"?

yeah lol i noticed those inaccuracies and grammar errors but can only edit a thread for like 5 minutes after you make it

and no, tell me about the big freeze

[Plug Drugs]

i'm guessing its something to do with the heat death of the universe?
i think ive heard about it now that i think about it

[Plug Drugs]

woah i just got a great idea