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 I've considered

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Okay, I'm going to try to explain this in the most simple way I can. I'm not sure if a similar scientific theory exists, and I'm no scientist. Think about the scientific idea of energy pertaining towards atoms. Atoms are made of energy, molecules of made of atoms. This chain continues to build as cells are comprised of molecules. This chain can be continued, but how large? My theory is loosely based on the idea that maybe even our planet, our galaxies are involved in this chain. Perhaps our universe is just a very large representation of a cell or a molecule! I'm sure I'm not the first person to think about this, and if a similar theory exists, someone please point this out to me. Our solar system and the universe could possibly be a part of an infinite representation of this chain. Please share your thoughts about this to me, if anybody understands the concept that I'm trying to explain. It's kind of complicated, and my mind goes in circles every time that I think about it!




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
It is simular to a thought I have had too complex for me to attempt to type but a term comes to mind, infinite regression.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Thank you! It's very intense and hard to even explain in the words, but I tried in the best way I can explain. If anyone has any questions about this theory, feel free to ask!

edit: If anyone feels like taking part in developing this theory, please help!

[edit on 13-4-2009 by lemuria]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Interesting theory. All of nature is a Divine (not implying God here)structure, so the idea that our cosmos makes up a larger "cell" wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. Thanks for the post. I, too, would be interested if this theory has been thrown out there before--and a name for it. Sort of fits with the idea of sacred geometry..



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Also.....

Münchhausen Trilemma
The Münchhausen-Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma (after the eponymous Greek Skeptic), is a philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility to prove any certain truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. It is the name of an argument in the theory of knowledge going back to the German philosopher Hans Albert, and, more traditionally, to the skeptic Agrippa.
The term is ironically named after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly pulled himself out of a swamp by his own hair.
Agrippa's Trilemma
These tropes are given by Sextus Empiricus, in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism. According to Sextus, they are attributed only "to the more recent skeptics" and it is by Diogenes Laertius that we attribute them to Agrippa.[1] The tropes are:
Dissent - The uncertainty of the rules of common life, and of the opinions of philosophers.
Progress ad infinitum - All proof requires some further proof, and so on to infinity.
Relation - All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
Assumption - The truth asserted is merely an hypothesis.
Circularity - The truth asserted involves a vicious circle (see regress argument, known in scholasticism as diallelus)
According to the mode deriving from dispute, we find that undecidable dissension about the matter proposed has come about both in ordinary life and among philosophers. Because of this we are not able to choose or to rule out anything, and we end up with suspension of judgement. In the mode deriving from infinite regress, we say that what is brought forward as a source of conviction for the matter proposed itself needs another such source, which itself needs another, and so ad infinitum, so that we have no point from which to begin to establish anything, and suspension of judgement follows. In the mode deriving from relativity, as we said above, the existing object appears to be such-and-such relative to the subject judging and to the things observed together with it, but we suspend judgement on what it is like in its nature. We have the mode from hypothesis when the Dogmatists, being thrown back ad infinitum, begin from something which they do not establish but claim to assume simply and without proof in virtue of a concession. The reciprocal mode occurs when what ought to be confirmatory of the object under investigation needs to be made convincing by the object under investigation; then, being unable to take either in order to establish the other, we suspend judgement about both.

With reference to these five tropes, the first and third are a short summary of the ten original grounds of doubt which were the basis of the earlier scepticism.[1] The three additional ones show a progress in the sceptical system, and a transition from the common objections derived from the fallibility of sense and opinion, to more abstract and metaphysical grounds of doubt.

According to Victor Brochard "the five tropes can be regarded as the most radical and most precise formulation of skepticism that has ever been given. In a sense, they are still irresistible today." [3]


[edit] Albert's formulation
This argument runs as follows: All of the only three ("tri"-lemma) possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail:

All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.
One can justify with a circular argument, but this sacrifices its validity.
One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.
An English translation of a quote from the original German text by Albert is as follows:
Here, one has a mere choice between:
an infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but isn’t practically feasible and doesn’t, therefore, provide a certain foundation;
a logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either; and finally:
a break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
--Albert, H., Traktat über kritische Vernunft, p. 15 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991).)
Albert stressed repeatedly that there is no limitation of the Münchhausen-Trilemma to deductive conclusions. The verdict concerns also inductive, causal, transcendental, and all otherwise structured justifications. They all will be in vain.
Therefore certain justification is impossible to attain. Once having given up the classical idea of certain knowledge one can stop the process of justification where one wants to stop, presupposed one is ready to start critical thinking at this point always anew if necessary.
This trilemma rounds off the classical problem of justification in the theory of knowledge.
The failure of proving exactly any truth as expressed by the Münchhausen-Trilemma does not have to lead to dismissal of objectivity, as with relativism. One example of an alternative is the fallibilism of Karl Popper and Hans Albert, accepting that certainty is impossible, but that it's best to get as close as we can, while remembering our uncertainty.
In Albert's view the impossibility to prove any certain truth is not in itself a certain truth. After all, you need to assume some basic rules of logical inference in order to derive his result, and in doing so must either abandon the pursuit of "certain" justification, as above, or attempt to justify these rules, etc. He suggests that it has to be taken as true as long as nobody has come forward with a truth which is scrupulously justified as a certain truth. Several philosophers defied Albert's challenge; his responses to such criticisms can be found in his long addendum to his Treatise on Critical Reason (see below) and later articles (see publication list).

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I see your thinking.

Like the end of MIB were galaxies are just simply marbles to gifreakinnormous aliens apparently.

And research, if you haven't, string theory.

Your not the first, but the fact that your creativity is guiding you along speaks volumes. Remember, just because your not the first, its the fact you came upon the end by your own means!

GJ



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I have thought the same, and it is certainly possible.

"Men in Black" movies play on this idea at the conclusion of each film.

I think you're saying that our universe or galaxy is part of a larger being/organism/object. Perhaps each galaxy that we can see is another "cell," and so forth.

I always thought of myself as a "quark."


...Or perhaps that's just me being submissive? Or perhaps I realize how small I really am, and others don't? Whew
Open a can of worms, why don't you?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Haha, I've actually watched the first MIB movie, and I never thought of the "galaxy on Orion's belt" in that sense until just now! Thank you all, but I do hope to further develop this theory. I would love to make it professional eventually.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by lemuria]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
We are all energy that is at the moment manifesting itself as substance.

As individuals we may not seem like much but collectively we are a huge movement towards the divine.

By itself a grain of sand is nothing more than an annoyance. (As are most human beings.) but the shifting sands as a whole can change the face of the world.

With the help of the ocean.

Imagine for a moment that mankind is the shifting sands and the creator of all things is the ocean.

Together we can bring forth both beauty and disaster.

No drop of rain blames itself for the flood, just as no piece of sand blames itself for the crumbling of the foundation.

Though I am but a drop in the ocean, I am still the ocean. As are you.

Though I am but a piece of sand, I am still a piece of the beauty of the landscape,

Or the horror of the tsunami.

As are you.


Edit for spelling.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by mrwupy]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
The Münchhausen-Trilemma does help to support my theory, but of course, with philosophy is the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support or deny my (or this) theory. This isn't something I want to develop by myself, so please people, I'm not asking you to star/flag this yet, I would just appreciate input from all users! If you think this is nothing but blabber or if you believe that we're onto something, please share your thoughts! dragonking76, I know what you're saying, and its with that idea that I support my theory on! I think we are much smaller than we believe us to be! Perhaps our earth is just a proton (or even smaller!) of what exists! Our planets revolving around a sun is the representation of protons and neutrons revolving around a nucleus!

[edit on 13-4-2009 by lemuria]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lemuria
 


Please share your thoughts about this to me

Okay. When we look at the universe, we do tend to see similar patterns and structures in it, at every level from the quantum to the cosmic.

For example, we see fractal structures, often identical ones, on every scale.

When we first notice and consider these correspondences, they seem to hint at some great truth - a physical truth about the universe, or a metaphysical one about 'reality'.

But perhaps these similarities are really in the eye of the beholder, not inherent in reality itself (no need for quotation marks this time). I don't mean that they are a matter of individual perception, far less individual choice. No, what I mean is that we see these correspondences, not necessarily because they exist or don't exist in the world around us, but because they exist in our brains.

It is universally understood that human beings are limited in the range of their senses. We can't see radio waves or x-rays, for example, nor can we hear sounds above a certain frequency. Less clear, but increasingly evident from studies in psychology and neuroscience, is the probability that our thinking, too, follows somewhat predetermined patterns and schema. It is these patterns and schema that are behind the correspondences we see. They are created by the brain's conceptual software.

This doesn't mean the correspondences aren't 'real'. The brain abstracts its view of reality from reality itself, so it is not a false view. As far as human beings are concerned it is the truest possible view. But it is only one view. I'm sure it is possible to apprehend reality in a multitude of different ways, of which human consciousness (in all its variety) is only one.

Watcher-In-The-Shadows, you may remember a long and at times bristly debate I had with Indigo Child in another thread about idealism vs. realism in quantum mechanics. Although from a different premise, Indigo Child would probably sympathize with Münchausen's Trilemna. Its refutation (and our salvation) lies in the consistency of phenomena; pigs don't suddenly take wing. We may doubt the existence of empirical reality but, reassuringly, it never ceases to keep faith with us.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
There are different types of quarks. Up, down, sideways. Perhaps our differences are what makes the whole thing work? If we all moved together in the same direction, I think maybe it would all collapse. I guess I like the atom analogy better than any I have seen.

A grain of sand can make you take off your shoe, and take notice, while a mountain of sand might kill you.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I remember and I will say this, just because something has always happened a certain way as far back as human memory does not mean it will always happen thusly, and while it may stand that you are correct it doesn't mean you are in fact correct. It's all about possibilities to varying degrees of probability, but no matter how improbable something maybe it is never impossible. It's just easier to assume it's otherwise, and more comforting.
The only way you can get around the trilemma is by optimism in otherwords.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
It sounds similar to the theory that I have about the universe. I believe that our solar system operates under the same anomalies as quantum physics. An Atom has protons and electrons orbiting around a nucleus, Like the planets orbiting around the sun.

An electron can exist many times at the same time the same exact electron because gravity has very little effect on it. I believe the planets operate under the same rules for the same reason.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
mrwupy I agree in your reply. Maybe this is a mixture of scientific principles based on a heavily based philosophical concept. I will post on this further depending on your replies. I'm gracious enough that mods have posted on this topic, and that people other than myself think about his concept. We could very much be a small part of something much larger! Think about a supernova! This could even be event of static electricity, or heaven forbid, an atomic bomb. However, that is dependent on how large the beholder contrives this to be. One fact I want to propose is that once this idea is presented to someone, the more they are open enough to perceive it and recognize it, which gets even deeper. This concept to could lead to many things, and I honestly believe that this idea is not delved into enough. Perhaps it is because of the philosophical knowledge that we as humans know very little of our lives. If only Plato, Socrates, Descartes, Immanuel Kant, and Einstein were alive today. I am sure that each person's knowledge and views would be skewed by scientific theories to some extent, with each person varying on philosophy be skewed less and less. Thoughts?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
"Mars is Earth a billion years in the future after it is destroyed in 2012, and Venus is Earth a billion years in the past before the dawn of man."

Wow The Real Antichrist, that is a very interesting concept, and it is honestly very feasible according to myself. Unfortunately ignorance has taken a large part of the majority of human science, which is why theoretical science (as proposed by humans) cannot exist without the possibilities of something more. This will lead to my next post based challenging how much humans actually know. I suppose I base most of my thoughts off of scientific theories mixed with philosophical thoughts. That's the first time I've assessed myself that way, does everyone agree that from the theory I've proposed that I'm that open?

[edit on 14-4-2009 by lemuria]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I just think that regardless the consensus we will be no closer to answering the question in any sort of way that we could truly prove. This is not me saying this speculation shouldn't be done or that it's a waste of time because it is fun and really makes one think. I do plan on interjecting my thoughts when I don't see them already added. But we really must be honest with ourselves in the end.
*Please note the stupid respond to post thing seems to be busted. This is a response.*

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
This theory can actually be proven or dis-proven. All we have to do is build a pyramid(man-made Mountain)and see if it appears on mars. Kinda like the movie Back to the future when Marty's parents kissed and he and his siblings magically appeared in the photo of the future. Mars is a photo of Earths future!

;[>



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Great post. I always thought about this ever since I looked through a microscope for the first time. How far does it go out and how far does it go in. According to Nassim Haramein's latest interview on The Veritas Show, he thoroughly discusses this. The interview is from last Friday.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join