An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:32 pm

commonsense wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:18 pm
:mrgreen:


Where did everything come from? We don’t know. When did everything start? Likewise. Does everything have a purpose? Perhaps.


Perhaps purpose is the wrong starting point.

Instead, shouldn't we search our minds for the fundamental "things" before the universe formed and see how they interacted to create an ever more complex reality?

I say space is fundamental because I define fundamental as something that is not emergent nor dependent on anything other than itself.

That seems to be space. But it is not time, particles nor energy.

I imagine that there are other fundamental "things" but I haven't deduced them yet. The interaction between fundamentals would produce everything else.

Where did the fundamentals come from? The answer is they "always" existed only always is undefined without time which seems to me to have been emergent.

Finally my conclusion is based on the theory that absolute nothing is an impossibility.

Why? Because the universe could not have come from nothing. That means that absolute nothing is an impossibility.

Any comments?

commonsense
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by commonsense » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:26 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:32 pm

...shouldn't we search our minds for the fundamental "things" before the universe formed and see how they interacted to create an ever more complex reality?

I say space is fundamental because I define fundamental as something that is not emergent nor dependent on anything other than itself.

That seems to be space. But it is not time, particles nor energy.

I imagine that there are other fundamental "things" but I haven't deduced them yet. The interaction between fundamentals would produce everything else.

Where did the fundamentals come from? The answer is they "always" existed only always is undefined without time which seems to me to have been emergent.

Finally my conclusion is based on the theory that absolute nothing is an impossibility.

Why? Because the universe could not have come from nothing. That means that absolute nothing is an impossibility.

Any comments?
Let’s suppose that energy, too, is neither emergent nor dependent on anything other than itself. If so, does it seem unlikely that energy and space could interact to form matter/particles? That is to say that matter is made up of 2 fundamentals, energy and space. This is not inconsistent with the impossibility of absolute nothing. Does it satisfy a need to explain why, if the fundamentals were always in existence, then the universe was here always as well?

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:16 am

E=Mc^2 so energy is not dependent on itself and mass is dependent on atoms which are dependent on particles and if a particle is fundamental which particle are all other particles dependent on?

Think about what exists that is not dependent on anything else. That's fundamental.

Space=space and space is not dependent on anything else.

The universe did not always exist, did it?

Time came from plus and minus or ying and yang or something moving which came from tensions in the fundamental pre-universe but until the tensions caused an eruption (the Big Bang?), time did not exist.

Make your own guess but "the universe always existed" is not a good guess.

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:58 pm

The Big Bang Theory is an attempt to explain the creation of the universe but before the universe was created Something must have existed.

My thinking is that absolute nothing is impossible. Something had to exist before the universe. What that was may be close to nothing. Thinking may approach nothing but thinking will never reach nothing.

Whatever existed before the universe must have been something that existed “always” I put “always” in quotes because always is undefined before time. Speculating about the underlying phenomenon leads to more speculation..

Considering the possibility of an underlying phenomenon suggests (to me) that there must have been tensions in it and tensions must have been like gravity which is unaffected by time. Before the universe was formed, the tensions (which I know are only speculation) would have increased until they found a release. Still speculating, matter and energy provided such a release. And thus came the Big Bang, (perhaps).

commonsense
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by commonsense » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:36 pm

To my way of thinking, that energy equals something does not mean it depends on something else than itself. It means that energy is identical to something. Equality in this sense does not imply dependency. That is why I classify energy as a fundamental. Perhaps you would like to argue that my way of thinking is unique and idiosyncratic, but I doubt it.

Still, by way of thinking that equality denotes identity, there is a common ground with dependency, as follows. That a thing exists depends on whether its own existence is in force. In other words (trivially, but not unnecessarily), a thing exists, depending on its own existence.

(Bear with me now.) It can be said that without mass/particles there can be no energy. But since mass is the same thing as energy, that is like saying without energy there can be no energy. It is dependent on itself.

On further inspection, I think that energy satisfies the criteria given for something to be a fundamental. Energy is, then, one of those things that at first blush did not appear to be fundamental but on further consideration turns out to be fundamental after all.

Think about it. We are saying the same thing about energy to begin with (I.e. E = mc2), but our conclusions are/were different.

commonsense
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by commonsense » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:56 pm

Your thoughts about time and about what is always are conventional but antiquated. Newer thinking follows.

Time is a concept but it is not a thing other than just that. It is a concept created by humans to help to understand the world around them.

The past existed while it was in the present, but at this moment the past is memories.

The future is imagination. It cannot become real until it occurs in the present (if it comes to be at all).

The present is all we have left. It is always the present.

Intuitively this makes no sense. We all know what we mean by past, present, future and time.

But what we mean is simply concepts that help us to understand what is so difficult to understand otherwise.

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:55 pm

I think keeping it simple is a good goal.

I am not Leibniz nor am I Newton so I cannot claim to be the father of calculus.

But I cannot even claim to be father of my own insights. Someone else will make that claim. And how will I know? They may have thought my thoughts by themselves.

Yet I will be satisfied that the insights (whoever has them) stimulates thinking even if he is not recognized.

Please keep thinking.

commonsense
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by commonsense » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:05 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:55 pm
I think keeping it simple is a good goal.

I am not Leibniz nor am I Newton so I cannot claim to be the father of calculus.

But I cannot even claim to be father of my own insights. Someone else will make that claim. And how will I know? They may have thought my thoughts by themselves.

Yet I will be satisfied that the insights (whoever has them) stimulates thinking even if he is not recognized.

Please keep thinking.
So, I was thinking about absolute nothing being an impossibility. I agree with this, but I’ve lost my train of thought. I’m so lost that I don’t know where to search. Please explain the idea for me.
Last edited by commonsense on Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:26 am

"I'm nobody! Who are you?' by Emily Dickenson.

Be nobody but do it with a passion.

Don't ask me to explain. Think without me.

Are you stuck in "an admiring blog"?

commonsense
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by commonsense » Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:18 pm

Please notice my edit above. There was a typo.

I meant an IMPOSSIBILITY.

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:25 pm

That is just the premise.

commonsense
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by commonsense » Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:03 pm

If the universe exists, absolute nothingness is impossible. The universe always exists, per previous discussion on time.

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:06 pm

commonsense wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:03 pm
If the universe exists, absolute nothingness is impossible. The universe always exists, per previous discussion on time.
When I get an answer to my posts, I can't say "Nobody's home."

Nick_A
Posts: 4926
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Nick_A » Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:25 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:06 pm
commonsense wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:03 pm
If the universe exists, absolute nothingness is impossible. The universe always exists, per previous discussion on time.
When I get an answer to my posts, I can't say "Nobody's home."

Jay, we have a perfectly logical question which must be avoided. Consequesntly everything that follows must be built on a faulty foundation. The logical question is what the universe is for and Man's purpose within it

We look out upon this enormous living machine and soon forget about it as we become enchanted with some petty details within it Some say its purpose is to serve us but if that is true there is far too much waste. We are just a tiny speck within it Plato called the shadows on the wall. But this great question still remains: what does this enormous living machine do. What is its purpose? Without this foundation can we really become open to man's purpose within it? When we do become open to it, how many new doors will open including what will make the essence of religion and the goal of science become complimentary?

We need a method like the scientific method by which we can begin to ponder this essential question. But there is something about it that denies it and prefers to argue over "parts? We deny our potential for a method this doesn't insult the scientific mind yet appeals to the heart of man to feel meaning beyond what the earth offers. Have you ever thought about the conscious purpose of our universe and what Man's place within a conscious purpose may be?

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:46 pm

Thank you for responding.

God, I suggest, was emergent and we need to consider what He emerged from (I think).

I'm trying but I only have one simple premise: Nothing is an impossibility.

What I am thinking is that before God emerged there was no purpose.

On the other hand something basic about God may have been fundamental.

But this doesn't mean that the fundamental part was purposeful but instead purpose may have evolved from the fundamental part.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest