It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A theory for the possible purpose of existence

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
What if the purpose of sentient life in the universe is to self replicate but not just keep self replicating but to do so in a fashion that was self sustained. Just like an engineers dream is to build a perpetual motion machine that once initial energy is inputted will continue working indefinitely. The universe some believe is in perpetual motion.

Going from big bang to big crunch perpetually, what if like the fractals we see represented all around us as is on the outside is also on the inside. Some may even argue that the soul is perpetual. So then the universe is just (Gods) body that changes with every cycle but the energy that moves it and that is contained within it is its soul.

The idea came to me when I was thinking about life and the point of experience. After all what do u do when u have done it all. If we go by the theory that god lives through us and experiences life through us, then its safe to assume that eventually there will come a time when he will have experienced it all. Now I’m sure that nobody knows exactly what that feels like (some may think they know) but really until we become god and we will never know, anything else is pure speculation. But we can theorize that if we are a small fragment of god consciousness then what ever we feel it he or she feels but magnified a billion fold. I always find it amusing that people just assume that god doesn’t feel all the emotions that we feel. Why would a supreme being be less that us? Anyway I digress, so assuming god feels what we feel upon experiencing all the things an entity can experience over the course of millennia, what does one do when one is bored?

What do u do when u finish that million piece puzzle? Well u can look at it for a while but after a given amount of time it losses its value. All the time and effort means nothing sure u achieved something u created but now that its created now what? create something else? Break the puzzle and start all over again? You could do that, but then u already know what its going to look like, you already know its been done, the mystery is gone the spark of curiosity that drove your to put the pieces back together again is missing. That’s why you can only watch certain movies once or twice.

So then what does god do when everything there is to do is done. Well there are a couple of theories on that going back to the big bang and big crunch theory u have god self replicating making and breaking the puzzle over and over again. Ancient civilizations like to use the O as a symbol of perfection. The symbol of eternity the snake eating its tail, also known as the Ouroboros, the never ending cycle.

So then whats the point of it all then? Well and this is just a theory what if all this is just to create a new god or gods like breakaway fragments of the original that fly off and create new universes. Now I don’t mean this metaphysically although one could refer to that aspect of it. I mean what if humanity as a whole has a destiny not as an individual. We think as individuals but our destiny lies as a whole. There is not person on this planet who can survive on his own indefinitely. He may live but would go insane from the solitude. So maybe as a whole the human race is meant to advance so far scientifically and spiritually that one day we create our own big bang of sorts and create our own universe/god. This will also have to be a self replicating entity, not necessarily in the same mold as the one we were created in, but one that will go on forever and also spawn sentient life that will carry on the original command that was programmed into us and all sentient life.




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Very, very intelligent post. You get a flag and a star for that. BTW, you should read Asimov's short story "The Last Question", he advances some ideas similar to yours.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
You know I've felt that way sometimes myself. I don't really consider myself very religious and I don't know if there is or is not a god. But I have felt sometimes what if god is in all of us and when we are born, 'god' reincarnates into us and programs our mind to believe that we are single entities who have free will in order to experience life through the eyes of each living being. Then when we die, we 'remember' who we really are - god. It's an interesting way of looking at things. Obviously there is no way to prove it, but that's what makes a theory interesting - there's always the possibility it could be wrong.

I know if I were an all powerful being, I would love to see life through the eyes of another.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by curiousbeliever
You know I've felt that way sometimes myself. I don't really consider myself very religious and I don't know if there is or is not a god.


I used to describe myself as an atheist, but I no longer do on a semantic technicality. I do believe the observable, material universe behaves according to decipherable (potentially at least) laws. But the atheist assumes that we can't understand why the universe exists in the first place because we simply don't have enough information. Science is a discipline used to understand physical existence, not its nonexistence. It looks at the question from the inside and therefore can never answer the ultimate "why." The logical mind is stumped.

That's why I think that ultimately existence is nonrational, and I think "god" is as good a word as any to describe it (which is what I mean by "semantic technicality"). As interesting as speculation like the OP's is, I don't think there is an answer that can be articulated. I look at it as kind of a catch-22. In order to articulate an idea, you have to be rational. And being rational about the question of existence makes you...wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
and of course you are right, any answer we garner from withing the construct is bound to be missing some key element that is crucial to explaining the nature of the universe and our purpose here.

as i have always said to people who get into debates about existence, a man can no more understand gods motives or reasoning than a painting can understand the painter. as a painting our role in this universe is set and we can never be right about god. there is however a BUT.

If we were to become god then we would know everything we wanted.

its the age old game when your out you want back in and when your in you want back out. the cycle continues and the game goes on.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Wow..

Congratulations for posting such a well thought out piece from your own consciousness
I always love listening/reading peoples thoughts, especially when they are so close to what i believe is "the truth".

You have come very close to describing my own philosophy. I believe that "God" is simply the sum of all existence/consciousness, that there is nothing outside of this, and also therefore we are all inherently connected to God/have a part of God within us.. and it is our own challenge to get back to God; God created physical reality for him/itself, to create seperateness in order for individual parts to "Play the game", and see if they can learn enough to return to the source..

"Physical reality is both the playground and the classroom, where one can ascend his own understandings of, and also be at one with, his own creation" - Me


I really want to add a picture to this post, one which shows "Existence", but i can't find it anywhere.. but basically its a 3D doughnut, rainbow coloured, and continually folding/unfolding (by spiraling inwards on itself".. the only shape to visually capture what you are talking about.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
So maybe as a whole the human race is meant to advance so far scientifically and spiritually that one day we create our own big bang of sorts and create our own universe/god.

In basic principle, I agree.


The Divine Plan is that some of us will evolve into becoming Co-Creators and likened to - but less evolved than - the rarefied Ascended Master that used The Light billions of years ago in order to manifest The Big Bang. Who then willfully, totally, and irrevocably divided up the Godhead into basically spiritual souls (i.e., all of us in the beginning) or "yellow energy angels" on the fourth plane.

But "getting there" will not be accomplished by the human race as a whole or through scientific and technological development. It's been tried and it has failed repeatedly. It always will.


The reason why achieving a Creation will not be manifested by the human race as a whole is because most are not on a spiritual path and therefore will not evolve to the point of becoming Co-Creators after they leave their bodies and Ascend into The Light on the Other Side.

The reason why achieving a Creation will not be manifested through technological development is because you cannot build a physical device with physical tools that can actually create matter. The Anunnaki or Zetan-aliens that harvest this world and its peoples, and who are very technically advanced, cannot create matter with their machines. If they could do so, they would not have to subjugate humanoid races selfishly. They could simply create all the raw genetic materials they wish with their machines


Ahh...the inherent limitations of science and technology.


So the path to becoming a Co-Creator is a highly individualistic one and can only be achieved through the arduous pursuit of rarefied spiritual development - through selflessness, through the cultivation of purity, humility, and compassion, by trying to live by The Golden Rule, and through daily Heart Chakra Radiance.




[edit on 11-7-2007 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Paul_Richard
 

It may be true that humans will never reach OUR creator through science and technology but there is nothing stopping us from advancing so far that we cant create our own universe where we are gods. Granted this would only be a shadow reality but only to us. to the inhabitants of the created reality it would be the only thing they know. So from their point of view we would be gods. Virtual reality and Cyberspace is looking like becoming exactly that. Its an intangible dimension that only exists as photons and electrons. With the advent of AI this dimension will also have sentience. Some may argue it already has rudimentary forms of life in the form of viruses and other self replicating software. So i dare say the fractal continues how far and for how long...god only knows



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


Interesting theory, I've never considered that angle of thought before.

I noticed you said "the fractal continues", and some scientists do consider the universe to be a sort of fractal, or have fractal like properties based upon certain observations.

Yet, it's ignored that all these clumps are following specific laws that allow for these clumps. Or that not all galaxies are moving in the same "type" of fractal pattern. Everything appears more to be going off on their own haphazard paths. Some galaxies are solitary without belonging to a cluster, some clusters don't belong to a super cluster and so on. If looked at as a whole, we don't see a fractal pattern at all.

As for the theory, this demands an existence of some form of entity to have existed that would be the initial point of self-replication. For this to be held as true, we need to show some kind of evidence for it. Yet, then again it remains a bit untestable and unable to be proven. As we don't know how a universe is created, nor see any evidence that our own was created by any means, be it a god, a scientist, or natural causation, we can't say if we can create a universe ourselves. We have no information on the formation of a universe.

While we can create a computerized simulation of sentience, any sentience derived from computer code is really no different then sentience derived from biological code. Both only exist due to the atoms it is composed of, without those circuits, either silicon or neurons, there would be no medium for the electrical (and chemical in our case) signals to propagate through.

With those observed issues and others repeated in a separate thread authored by me, I propose that the universe just exists as it has always existed without beginning and without purpose. As purpose indicates a need or requirement of something greater, and there simply is no evidence for such.

The interesting thing is, we also need to take into account that we're possibly not the only life in the universe. Life had three chances to take hold in the habitable zone of our solar system, but for reasons not yet apparent, only took hold on our own planet as far as we know. There is also the possibility of life on at least two moons surrounding other planets in our solar system as well, but we need to develop the technologies to search for it before we can know for sure.

We develop theories and ideas from a point of view of how we perceive thing's on our planet. We never take into account that life on a larger world with greater gravity would find our planet not perfect for life as they know it. Nor do we take into account that there may be other maths out there with different systems of counting and measuring and would hold different views of physics. We base our math on our fingers, perhaps we're wrong and the universe doesn't give a lick about math based on how many fingers a human has.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

This is my favorite idea for existence.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Given the infinite possible variations of choice since the first thought existed, i dare say there exists a possible scenario where the Universe is endless. i base this hypothesis on the logic that since we exist now and we think, something thought us into existence or else we wouldnt exist. now i say thought because everything that exists has to first be conceived. you can argue semantics but let be honest here if a tree falls in the forest and there is nothing to observe it then that means there is no tree and no Forrest, and then of course something that doesnt exist cannot make a sound or fall for that matter. for all intents and purpose light is invisible its only visible when it reflects off something. so all we see are echoes of matter not the actual substance.

Digest that for a minute.

so lets say thought is what began creation. who or what thought it into existence? what thought IT into existence? if the universe is fractal and in a manner that is not only self replicating but also evolving and not only in 4 or 9 dimensions but in every dimension in every way. granted this all pure speculation but as a thought exercise lets just run with it for a minute. so we are talking about a figure of magnification that is so beyond any human understanding its boggles the mind (mine anyway). i say magnification because as the possible realities grow they spawn even more infinite realities and so forth.

let me just state that i think most of our physical understanding of the universe might be wrong. simply put, any theories that have that many paradoxes and contradictions has to have some flaws if not completely. i say this beacuse according to predicted models the universe should be slowing down instead its speeding up. that means an influx of energy. where is this new energy coming from? i thought science agreed that energy cant be created it can only change form. seems like the universe doesnt care too much for human science


Anyway my point is we know nothing and to simply say oh look its 2009 and we know everything there is to know so if our predicted models dont match the observations there must be something wrong with the observation. now THAT is bad science. so back to the fractal universe why do i think its eternal? because im at my computer typing this post. if it wasnt, the moment the universe ended everything would end not just now but eternally. time is a construct of this universe and mainly of our observable reality. some say its a figment our minds. so if the universe ever ended it means there is no universe to observe with no universe there is no time if there is no time and no universe then who or what is typing this post? so based on that hypothesis i surmise that once it was brought into existence it has always exited, and thus eternal. Now comes the hard part to explain. if you buy into the fractal nature of the universe going forward and backwards in time and space eternally, given all the possible permutations and combination's i would say every possible action and thought would play itself out to a point where at some stage of the game something or someone loops back in time or our limited human understanding of it anyway and starts the cycle all over again.

well thats the theory anyway



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 



Given the infinite possible variations of choice since the first thought existed, i dare say there exists a possible scenario where the Universe is endless. i base this hypothesis on the logic that since we exist now and we think, something thought us into existence or else we wouldnt exist. now i say thought because everything that exists has to first be conceived. you can argue semantics but let be honest here if a tree falls in the forest and there is nothing to observe it then that means there is no tree and no Forrest, and then of course something that doesnt exist cannot make a sound or fall for that matter. for all intents and purpose light is invisible its only visible when it reflects off something. so all we see are echoes of matter not the actual substance.


Not quiet so. If matter was not an actual substance, then what is the light reflecting off of? What your arguing is a misunderstanding of QM, the observer effect doesn't state that an 'intelligent thinking' observer is required for anything, I would reread the theory a couple more times if I were you, it is a bit hard to understand.

I was thinking about the famous quote, "I think therefore I am.", I find it interesting because it implies at first glance that if one didn't think, then one wouldn't exist. Yet regardless of one not being born yet in order to think we still have a world that exists in which to be born into. I propose we exist because we don't not exist. What is non-existence, we've never "lived" through it nor experienced it. It's just a concept, like a universe with a beginning, or a passage of time. We don't see any of those thing's as actualities or properties of the universe.

An intelligent thinking species living a finite linear life will think in a finite linear manner as it knows no different.

If a tree falls it will still fall and displace the air surrounding it causing the vibrations that if something were around with the proper sensory organs would hear a 'sound'. The universe just doesn't have human emotions, there is no special place in it for humans. We are one species out of possibly an unimaginable number of intelligent species.


so lets say thought is what began creation. who or what thought it into existence? what thought IT into existence? if the universe is fractal and in a manner that is not only self replicating but also evolving and not only in 4 or 9 dimensions but in every dimension in every way. granted this all pure speculation but as a thought exercise lets just run with it for a minute. so we are talking about a figure of magnification that is so beyond any human understanding its boggles the mind (mine anyway). i say magnification because as the possible realities grow they spawn even more infinite realities and so forth.


Well, now that your claiming something has to think something into existence from a state of non-existence, your going to need to show your work. First you'll need to prepare a state of non-existence large enough for at least one person to enter and then run a few experiments in that non-existent state. I would start with something simple, like conjuring a ball out of a state of non-existence.

The universe is far from a fractal. The distribution of matter through out the universe follows no discernible fractal pattern, we don't see the same voids, clumps, and movements at the same rate through out. Everything is in a chaotic haphazard motion of it's own accord.


let me just state that i think most of our physical understanding of the universe might be wrong. simply put, any theories that have that many paradoxes and contradictions has to have some flaws if not completely. i say this beacuse according to predicted models the universe should be slowing down instead its speeding up. that means an influx of energy. where is this new energy coming from? i thought science agreed that energy cant be created it can only change form. seems like the universe doesnt care too much for human science


Then you should look towards your own with skepticism. You've given a few paradoxes and flaws in your own theory. Your assuming X is true and so Y must mean ... First you have to observe that X is true and then formulate your idea based upon that observation.


Anyway my point is we know nothing and to simply say oh look its 2009 and we know everything there is to know so if our predicted models dont match the observations there must be something wrong with the observation. now THAT is bad science. so back to the fractal universe why do i think its eternal? because im at my computer typing this post. if it wasnt, the moment the universe ended everything would end not just now but eternally. time is a construct of this universe and mainly of our observable reality. some say its a figment our minds. so if the universe ever ended it means there is no universe to observe with no universe there is no time if there is no time and no universe then who or what is typing this post? so based on that hypothesis i surmise that once it was brought into existence it has always exited, and thus eternal. Now comes the hard part to explain. if you buy into the fractal nature of the universe going forward and backwards in time and space eternally, given all the possible permutations and combination's i would say every possible action and thought would play itself out to a point where at some stage of the game something or someone loops back in time or our limited human understanding of it anyway and starts the cycle all over again.


I agree, all our theories on the origins of the universe are certainly wrong. They assume the universe requires a beginning (including your theory) by some unknown means. They invent untestable instances of invisible products in order to make those theories work (including your theory). Yet, when one looks at the data without bias we don't see a universe begotten from a beginning. We see old galaxies where the beginning should be and young galaxies intermingling with the geriatric crowd where they shouldn't be. We see everything going which ever way they want, not following any discernible pattern. The more powerful telescopes we develop, the older the universe has gotten and the more mature galaxies we find at the beginning.

One has to think without bias.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I agree with so much of what you said...its just baffling me right now.

And what if there is no real point...what if the point is to just exist, somehow, to just be.

I think that idea seems to scare us....that we are to just be, just exist, and cycle through.

To be...is not to be?

Isnt it better to be ABLE to 'be'...then to not be anything at all?

So this, what we are, what we are becoming, what we have been....is being. I think I read this thread way to early in the day. My brain is starting to squint.

I believe the Universe is eternal...always existing, without beginning nor end. Always cycling itself.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by LeoVirgo]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
But the atheist assumes that we can't understand why the universe exists in the first place because we simply don't have enough information.

Incorrect. Atheism is simply a stance that there's no deity (a personal God of any kind) behind existence (or that such thing exists).

I personally don't assume that we can't understand why the Universe exists. I assume that there is no "higher" reason for its existence. I assume the Universe is because stuff went down and that happened because it could not have happened any other way. Something like you can't have nothingness for ever because eventually something just goes wrong (because nothing is perfect, not even nothingness). I think we see hints of this today (because we happen to exist). Had the big bang been perfect (in symmetry) there would be nothing because matter and anti-matter would have cancelled each other out.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Also what OP proposes is not a theory nor a hypothesis. Since it can't be tested it's just wishful speculation. It's a nice idea thou, even if not an original one. It most definitely falls under pantheism or taoism.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Actually, the OP skirts dangerously close to the true reason why humanity exists, and for a moment there, I thought he was going to surprise me with being the only person I've ever run into with the truth behind this whole adventure. It continues to amaze me that no one has stumbled over the real reason why humanity exists - at least no one that's been published to date with this information. Then again, with all this money being made off magical thinking and my-god-is-better-than-your-god wrestling matches, I suppose that if someone were to open the blinds and let in the sunlight, there'd be no fun left in this toon-town nightmare.

There's probably a guy with the truth who's tied up somewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join