/sci/ - Science & Math

Mankind is constantly wondering: is not are we alone in the universe? Constantly waiting and hope that when or whether they will emerge from the depths of space, and we will not be so lonely: Loneliness is a terrible thing, even in the framework of an entire civilization.
Now, let us assume that decade after decade, century after century, we would not find a single proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life. As to take mankind to overcome feelings of loneliness?
I think it is more logical to assume that the development of synthetic bio-engineering and other disciplines will allow mankind to create a fundamentally new form of life, based on these and on other planets, new civilizations and global ecosystems. So, over thousands of years of "pollination of life" on the thousands of planets will be thousands of completely different civilizations or biospheres, each of which will be developed in a unique way.
Then we will not be alone: we ourselves create the aliens.

I believe in string theory. If you don't know much about it I suggest you take a look it's quite interesting.

In standard modern physics the universe is expanding faster and faster due to dark matter pushing everything away. You would think that because of gravity (or in general relativity 'Space-time warping') that all matter would be drawn together into one single point. If it could implode on itself the universe would be infinite and therefore there would be no single point for it to collapse into.

Multiverses are all really just futurists getting carried away. But never the less it's taken into consideration until proven wrong.

I haven't really explained anything that well because I am quite tired. But if you have any more questions for papers ect.. just email me.

What are Neil Tyson's answers?

>>5784367
>We dont know
>We dont know
>We dont know

>>5784391
This.

>#1

We don't know, but what you're probably thinking of as the universe is in academics called 'the observable universe,' because by virtue of the speed of light limiting the distance we can see, nothing past that has had enough time to get here.

>#2

The many world hypothesis of quantum mechanics suggests that there are an infinite number of worlds where things are subtly different thanks to probability.

White holes might lead to other universes, and outside of the observable universe some scientists muse that there might be other universes made by other big bangs.

>#3

Basically, imagine an infinitely long cord, and then tied a knot in it. Then tie another knot. Then, tie these these two knots together. Slowly but surely, they form larger and larger balls. Eventually, you get balls so large that from the perspective necessary to see them as balls the cord that makes them up is invisible.

Atoms are very large balls, to the point where many, many layers of balls are knotted together to form them.

Entropy is nothing other then the cord being pulled from both directions, and de-tangling the knots. This would predict that matter would fall apart from the bottom up, and I think that's how it happens since atomic decay seems to be an atomic 'knot' that's being cored of it's constituent sub-atomic knots.

I came about this vision in an attempt to explain the universe in a way that didn't cut it up into separate parts, and instead affirmed that it was one single object. Basically, the implication here is that even dimensions are merely the result of the straight line of the cord being forced to bend into the other two dimensions. Time in this case wouldn't exist.

Another reason I was compelled to create this was that I just have trouble believing that consciousness is somehow magically tied to a specific brain, in the same way that I have trouble believing the ancient Egyptians when they claim that it was in the heart.

>>5784503

The reason being of course that it's just another expression of mind-body dualism. We're not just our brain; we're our whole body, and to some extent everything outside of that. Every single particle that makes us up is interacting with every other particle in the universe, at the speed of light.

At the same time, we have to somehow explain why two given people don't share perceptions, or in otherwords why there isn't a single universal mind.

How I explain that is to claim that consciousness is a sort of 'energy' that flows down the length of the cord. Large 'knots' of particles have more length to cover, and thus any 'consciousness energy' that flows down them will take a very long time to get from one end to the next. In essence, the human brain, and all matter it's made of, acts as a sort of 'dam' and allows that energy to be used like electricity in a computer.

Different people perceive different things because it takes a very, very long time for your perceptions to flow down the cord to where the other computer can pick them up, at which point the other computer is likely to have fallen apart.

This explains in an affirmative way why we feel like the same person; we're a flood of consciousness roaring through a computer. The computation is totally separate from consciousness; it's only when consciousness flows through the 'circuitry' that the busy work of the computer is perceived by anyone.

Coincidently, this also produces a philosophical framework where the transfer and preservation of consciousness is possible, which may expose certain biases on my part. All you would need is a computer, and some way of making it and the brain interact cybernetically at the smallest, and thus quickest, level possible. It also suggests that cybernetically linking nervous systems truly does transfer subjective experience, which technically means there is no such thing since it can be objectively perceived.

>>5784503
>>5784505
Science, in a nutshell, for the layman.
Well done!

>>5784503
>>5784505
consciousness pls go

Consciousness, or the appearance thereof, is not a dualistic force. That's been debunked over and over again and has no strong scientific support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc

If there is consciousness, it's probably a result of something like the higher-order theory.

>>5784509
>implying that there's any science there

1. I don't know.

2. Depends on the definition of "multiverse". If quantum mechanics DESCRIBES reality, then a kind of multiverse exists since you'd be left with the Everett interpretation of QM after you get rid of the collapse postulate (which doesn't need to be there). There are also some other hypothesises for a multiverse.

3. I dunno. I think the best way to try and describe the entire universe is to make a theory more accurate than quantum mechanics. I think QM only gives a good approximation of reality and there's a better mathematical framework waiting to be formulated that is more accurate than QM. Also, string theory is a good hypothesis for explaining the universe.

That's just my take on it though. I only know quantum mechanics/particle physics so obviously the way I see the universe is based on small things.

>>5784562

>consciousness pls go

No.

>Consciousness, or the appearance thereof, is not a dualistic force. That's been debunked over and over again and has no strong scientific support

I know that. That's why I'm trying to explain it in a totally monist manner.

>If there is consciousness, it's probably a result of something like the higher-order theory

The notion that the brain alone, or rather the nervous system, is solely responsible for consciousness suggests that it's separate from the universe, and thus demands dualism.

All you've done is replace the soul with the brain. It's a belief that's absolutely the same as that of the ancient Egyptians, and just as ignorant.

>>5784566

I make a firm, easily expressible prediction; that at the heart of matter is a single object, and that said object is stretched and tied around itself to form higher order.

To prove the prediction, you would have to both prove that every particle does in fact effect every other particle, and that beneath some number of layers of sub-atomic particles there exists one single Ur-particle.

Just because you don't like the science or where it might lead doesn't mean it's not science.

Even Twinkees can be subjected to totally legitimate science. Science is a method of logic, not a collection of dogma to thump.

>>5784562
>If there is
>If

That's the problem. It cannot be tested or observed and it has no evidence at all.

>>5784619
>I know that. That's why I'm trying to explain it in a totally monist manner.

Explain what? What phenomenon do you want to explain? What are its observable effects?

>>5784670
Consciousness. Effect: You being an oblivious faggot.
Upvote.

>>5784352
>1. Is the universe infinite? If so, how is it represent? If not, how?
It's not infinite. It's a Poincare sphere.

>2. Is there a multiverse, omnivers and other hypothetical system? If not, then what is?
Yes. See: Tegmark, Bryanton

>3.Est many theories that describe our universe: what kind of supporter are you? If you have your own model, then share it.
There are ten dimensions (Bryanton). Our universe is purely reductionist and relative (Yudkowsky, Mach) and operates with three fundamental forces of electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force; gravity and time are simply side effects of entropy (Verlinde, Barbour). Our universe is a bounded 5d Poincare sphere. Black holes lead to new universes; universes with more black holes have more offspring, so there's natural selection, explaining the entropic principle (Smolin). The fifth dimension is the landscape of these universes. The seventh dimension is the many-worlds/string-theory landscape. The tenth dimension is an absolute infinity of pure mathematics/logic (Tegmark, Cantor, Goedel); this is the computer on which reality runs (Turing). In this set, our universe and landscape and etc is an E8 manifold (Lisi).

>>5784670

>Explain what? What phenomenon do you want to explain? What are its observable effects?

Basically, my train of thought went like this.

Consciousness is produced seemingly by neurochemicals, in some manner or another. But what specific physical action in the universe produces it?

To just say 'the brain as a whole' doesn't solve the problem; it's not reductionist at all. It's as meaningless as saying a car is the total end result of all the parts; it's true, but it doesn't tell us anything about how the car works.

Moreover, to continue the car analogy, there is no such thing as consciousness in the first place. In the same way that a car is an abstraction of the particles that make it up, consciousness is in essence an abstraction of the perceptions that flow through us when our nervous systems work.

Basically, there's no such thing as consciousness. There are only physical acts that are for some strange reason accompanied by perception.

My theory, fundamentally, is an attempt to explain the universe and subsequently consciousness by totally denying the entire layer of abstraction that it's based on. In other words, the notion of separate objects.

The specific observable effects should be that everything in the universe is conscious, that this consciousness should be accessible by cybernetics, and that as I said before below a certain depth of particles we should find a single particle stretched and tied into 'knots'.

>>5784690
>Upvote.
reddit pls go

Btw invoking an unobserved force permeating all of reality and paired up with every brain is not monist. Saying that it's all in your head is. That's the definition.

Unless you mean "dualist" as in "there is both mind and reality", in which case you did a beautiful job uniting them. /sarcasm

>>5784705
>My theory, fundamentally, is an attempt to explain the universe and subsequently consciousness by totally denying the entire layer of abstraction that it's based on. In other words, the notion of separate objects.
And that's where you went wrong.

>>5784710
>"there is both mind and reality"
There is only reality. Apply Occam's razor.

>>5784705
>The specific observable effects should be that everything in the universe is conscious

Can you please back up this statement with evidence? You haven't even named one testable or observable effect of a soul/consciousness yet. All you did was asserting its existence without explaining what you're talking about.

>>5784710

>Btw invoking an unobserved force permeating all of reality and paired up with every brain is not monist

Atoms were once unobserved, but theorized. Sub-atomic particles were the same way.

This 'one fundamental particle' is theorized, and unobserved. This qualifies as a theory, which is exactly what the OP asked for and exactly what I presented it as.

>Saying that it's all in your head is

Monism is defined by the notion that there is only one single substance to reality. In other words, mind and physical reality are one, which is exactly what I'm claiming.

>Unless you mean "dualist" as in "there is both mind and reality"

Dualism implies that physical reality and mind are two totally separate things, such as the belief that the soul exists, is made of something fundamentally different from matter, and is the sole seat of consciousness.

I'm also equating the notion that consciousness is the net result of the entire brain to the soul, since it falls pray to the same faulty logic, namely giving reality to an abstraction.

>And that's where you went wrong

Well, according to your theory, which is that there's an infinite number of ever smaller particles to make up the particles we know about.

You're seriously saying that it's turtles all the way down, which apparently is only a fallacy when people other then those you agree with use it.

Your arrogance is totally unfounded, and is indicative of a major flaw in your ability for unbiased reason. You need to learn to apply the same level of critical thought to your dogma that you apply to the dogma and theories of others.

>>5784744
>Well, according to your theory, which is that there's an infinite number of ever smaller particles to make up the particles we know about.

Woah woah woah, I never said that. Who do you think I am? I just randomly stumbled into this thread.

>Btw invoking an unobserved force permeating all of reality and paired up with every brain is not monist

Atoms were once unobserved, but theorized. Sub-atomic particles were the same way.

This 'one fundamental particle' is theorized, and unobserved. This qualifies as a theory, which is exactly what the OP asked for and exactly what I presented it as.

>Saying that it's all in your head is

Monism is defined by the notion that there is only one single substance to reality. In other words, mind and physical reality are one, which is exactly what I'm claiming.

>Unless you mean "dualist" as in "there is both mind and reality"

Dualism implies that physical reality and mind are two totally separate things, such as the belief that the soul exists, is made of something fundamentally different from matter, and is the sole seat of consciousness.

I'm also equating the notion that consciousness is the net result of the entire brain to the soul, since it falls pray to the same faulty logic, namely giving reality to an abstraction.

>>5784712

>And that's where you went wrong

Well, according to your theory, which is that there's an infinite number of ever smaller particles to make up the particles we know about.

You're seriously saying that it's turtles all the way down, which apparently is only a fallacy when people other then those you agree with use it.

Your arrogance is totally unfounded, and is indicative of a major flaw in your ability for unbiased reason. You need to learn to apply the same level of critical thought to your dogma that you apply to the dogma and theories of others.

>>5784352
1. We don't know.
2. We don't know.
3. I'm leaning towards string theory but for the time being it has only been able to fit with current models and observations, it hasn't made any new, testable predictions that allow it to be experimentally verified. I'll wait until there's more evidence to make up my mind one way or the other.

>>5784716

>Can you please back up this statement with evidence?

That's the trick; you can't. At current, there's no way of proving that other people are conscious. If we take only the evidence, we're left with solipsism.

My evidence is largely in the form of a theory to explain the facts. Namely, that consciousness, like the brain itself, is an abstraction. If we attempt to reduce the brain's function to it's most basic level, we'll eventually find the physical act that produces perception.

It stands to reason that if there was only one particle at the core of reality, then it must be responsible for perception. If that one particle is all there is, and it's conscious, then by definition everything is conscious.

This doesn't mean that everything thinks and feels like you and me, but that everything perceives something.

The evidence for this would be to find a single particle at the core of reality.

Again, I must insist that this is just a theory, which is exactly what the OP asked for. Whether or not I can produce evidence for it is immaterial for it to qualify.

>>5784748

>Woah woah woah, I never said that

You said I was wrong about the universe being composed of one particle. This means implicitly that you support the notion that it's composed of multiple particles, which would resign you to finding an infinite number of ever-smaller particles.

So yes, you did.

i believe that everything is infinite in itself because even size is relative
so when you zoom in really really far you get to another universe
if you zoom out really really far youll end up in a new universe again

1 is difficult to answer
2 is subjective
3: I support the multiverse model