Are We Creating Our Past, Laws of Physics, and Expanding the Universe?

I'm not completely clued up on my science, and quantum physics here
but isn't it known that particles will change when observed?
and pop out of nowhere?

now what if it was possible that these particles are just blank canvas's
and our collective thoughts had enough power to manifest them into something real?

or, we created these particles completely?

if so, that would theoretically negate the idea of god?
as creation would come from ourselves?


i'm sorry if this makes no sense at all, i wrote this as i thought it up.

Whats rather odd about our understanding of our world is many ideas go from a theory to reality. So whatever the mind conjures becomes real. That is, real in yesterday was a thought, and today here it is.

Here's another strange reality check. Scientist searching the Antarctic for meteorite frags and suddenly come across a meteor frag from mars laying on top of the snow. Funny thing, this is all to hauntingly similar to bones found sticking out of the ground. What is the chance of this happening since the objects get dated as millions of years old laying right there for some one to stumble across and announce to the world.

Now either this stuff is planted or our minds are creating it on the fly.

Than, we have atomic structure. We never see it but know of it, have illustrations of it, show it working and yet never seen it. Same with molecules, light, quantum particles, dimensions, parallel worlds, distant planets and other thoughts.

You almost have to suspect you are in a quantum projection decoded by your intelligence connection to an infinitely collective knowledge base where what we believe is real builds upon itself from its collective sophistication.

reply to post by WorldShadow


"You almost have to suspect you are in a quantum projection decoded by your intelligence connection to an infinitely collective knowledge base where what we believe is real builds upon itself from its collective sophistication."

The collective mind. Rupert Sheldrake called a similar theory the Morphogenetic Field. A kind of collective or directing intelligence nudging a species into evolving and spreading "new behaviours" throughout a species regardless of geographic boundaries. Perhaps multiple levels of intelligence above that leading up to the "Uber Intellect"?

Was this universe "mathematical" before mathematics was created by man? I find it very unsettling that mathematics has become the blueprint for the universe, yet, at the same time, it is quite beautiful as far as it goes.

Thought, however, can never be reduced to mathematics, or chemistry, or electrical sparks. It takes all of this to make a thought in the physical realm, but a thought is so much more than the sum of it's parts. One cannot combine a pinch of this chemical, gram of that chemical in some mathematical recipe, add a spark of electricity and come up with a thought in a test tube.

Our thoughts have changed not only the human world, but the world as a whole. Not always for the better either. So why would a universe create life, and then life with intelligence? To me, at least, it seems more reasonable, more logical, that thought created the universe as a means to some end... or that the universe is much more than just the material it is comprised of.

Perhaps the universe created life to evolve to an intelligent state as a means of self discovery, self awareness through us and those that come from us. Our function is to create the past as well as to create the future and to grow the universe. Maybe we are the evolving DNA of the universe. Not just "us" but all life throughout the universe at all levels of awareness.

Do science and mathematics as well as religion/spirituality combine to give "personality" to the universe? If so, i would guess the universe to be in its infancy, especially if we are the "super intellect" of the universe.

Hopup

reply to post by WorldShadow


"Here's another strange reality check. Scientist searching the Antarctic for meteorite frags and suddenly come across a meteor frag from mars laying on top of the snow. Funny thing, this is all to hauntingly similar to bones found sticking out of the ground. What is the chance of this happening since the objects get dated as millions of years old laying right there for some one to stumble across and announce to the world.

Now either this stuff is planted or our minds are creating it on the fly."

And that's the meat of the theory! Will we fianally discover life on other planets because we subconsciously manifest it? We seem to need (in a very collective sense) to find life out there. If the need and desire of the collective is strong enough, perhaps we will make what we find.

Hopup

Originally posted by bmiasma
I'm not completely clued up on my science, and quantum physics here
but isn't it known that particles will change when observed?
and pop out of nowhere?

Two different things. In an inaccurate thumbnail:

One thing is that no particle's position can be accurately measured without the measurement affecting the position, so rather than think of an electron being in a specific place in the orbit of a nucleus, it's best to think of it as a cloud of probabilities, where it could be in any of those places. Einstein had a real problem with that idea, although he could never prove it false.

The other thing is that until the position is measured and determined, it could exist in all of the other "virtual" positions. That essentially means that its reality is defined by the observation. If it was unobserved, it could be in any position, or none.

Philosophically, this is basically the same as saying that if a tree falls in a forest but no one is around to hear it, there's a sound and no sound, a tree and no tree. Consciousness of some kind is a necessary part of the equation. And since consciousness (not self-awareness, necessarily) is generally considered to be only found in living things, doesn't matter how big or small, then it kind of follows that the universe exists primarily because there are living things in it. If there was no life in the universe, you couldn't prove that anything exists, or ever did. Because you and the person you're trying to prove it to wouldn't even be here.

Fortunately for us, there are apparently enough living things in the universe, defining it forwards and backwards and sideways in time, to make it real. And even though consciousnesses fade in and out as things live and die, there are enough of them overlapping to bring some stability to existence.



[edit on 14-3-2008 by Nohup]

reply to post by Hopup Dave


I see it as a collective knowledge base by an intelligence that monitors the emotion levels of the working components within the projection. It appears to me as though emotional suffering and love simultaneously exist
For the intelligence to amuse itself with 6.8 billion points of emotional highs.

Duality certainly exist and love/hate are our strongest emotions running the world. There is a hidden power running the show and that show is not for our benefit.

reply to post by WorldShadow


"There is a hidden power running the show and that show is not for our benefit."

I guess you would call that the Ultimate Conspiracy?

I'm not so sure it is so bleak as that. We are, if my theory is correct, creating our own essence. In the process, we are evolving. Perhaps I am a diehard optimist, but I think the future course of human development and what the ultimate result will be is in our hands. If we create a noble past perhaps the future we create will be noble. Don't get me wrong, I am not a "humanist", I think we are co-creating with a higher consciousness, a morpho-genetic field that contains our possible future, if we respond to the nudges it provides us.

I have found that to be the case in my own life. The nudges, the gut feelings, are not wrong in the long term, even if they may seem contradictory to my "plans" in the near term. Those that are driven by material gain are never happy with what they have today, because, I think, they have resisted the subtle nudges and have taken an alternate, less satisfying path.

Hopup