reply to post by Daemonicon
How is it an assumption when we are witnessing everything expanding?
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
What we witness is red-shifting of light in just about every galaxy we look at. This shift is proportional to the theorized
distance to the
'Direct' measurement via triangulation is almost impossible - so all ranges on the galactic scale should be taken with a grain of salt.
We presume that this red-shift is due to motion of galaxies (or the expansion of space - two sides of the same coin depending upon how you want to
look at it). If all of the galaxies display red-shift, then that implies they are all moving away from us according to this theory (or the space
between us is growing... red-shift observation is incapable of distinguishing between the two phenomena).
Of course - this assumes light behaves the same across thousands of light years' distance as it does within the fraction-of-a-light-second distances
we can directly observe on our planet.
Which, as history shows, can be a dangerous assumption.
It also takes a hell of a lot more 'faith' to believe some omnipotent being burst everything into existance.
Quantum Theory is consistent with Observer Created Reality. If you don't know what I'm talking about - google it. You could also invest in a book
entitled "The Quantum Enigma" (don't have it on hand to give the author). It breaks down the philosophical interpretations of quantum
Einstein had a huge problem with the concept of observer created reality - the idea that reality did not exist until it was 'observed' (interacted
with the larger system... though this is a blurry line as you'll find if you decide to research the topic). Schrodinger did, as well - and created
his famous "Cat in a box" analogy to illustrate the issue.
Suppose you put a cat in a box. The box is connected to a machine that splits the wave function of a single photon and places it in both boxes (this
is possible - experimentally verifiable). In the box with the cat is a device that detects the presence of a photon. Both boxes are isolated from
the macroscopic environment (also possible - but currently limited by project budgets). If the box with the cat has the photon (remember, half of the
wave function is in each box - equal probability of finding the photon in the box) - the cat will be killed.
When you open the box, you will find a cat that has been dead for eight hours, or that is alive and has not been fed for eight hours.
The 'past' becomes what satisfies the currently observed quantum state.
As such - one could make the argument that we are the appropriate 'past' of a yet to be encountered absolution - or that we are the future of such
an event in the past.
If you think of particles (and their larger macroscopic constructs) as chess pieces on a board - each piece has rules it must follow and can exist
only in pre-defined locations each turn (each turn is a planck-second). Placing the pieces in any fashion across the board results in a finite number
of past states for the board, and a finite number of future states.
Any chess board can, thus, be said to have a past given the arrangement of its pieces (and also a future). This throws the entire concept of time for
a loop - as we generally see the progression of time as linear (whereas this is a nonlinear function with overlapping nodes: two different actions at
Turn 2 can still lead to the same state at Turn 6).
Of course... the debate has raged on (and likely will for a considerable time) as to what actually constitutes an observer (from a philosophical
standpoint - if we did not exist in this universe then it is isolated from our perspective and effectively non-observed... arguably - this means the
time before and/or after our life is isolated from our perception and therefor not observed ... since we don't interact with it - it's irrelevant -
an interpretation consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation in a round-about way). Macroscopic objects often qualify as observers... but as I
just demonstrated - the mind
can be considered an observer in certain circumstances.
Perhaps you are your own God - a somewhat Buddhist twist. Because the universe you observe before you exists (to you) - a past and potential futures
appropriate for the state you were born into was created.
It's actually sophism with a twist - interpreting consciousness as a sort of superposition. I just like to have fun entertaining different