Why are we "IT"?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If we concede that in the micro-world, teenie tiny quarks formed atoms, and atoms formed molecules, and molecules formed us and everything we see in the universe, why does this chain of building things stop at our dimension?

We once learned we revolved around the sun, not the sun around us. Then we learned that we are not the center of our galaxy, swallowing the fact that we are way WAY out in the boondocks of the Milky Way. Then we learned that our galaxy isn't the only one.

Will we ever reach a point in our awareness that maybe this whole universe wasn't made for us, but that we are merely another step (a building block) for something bigger than ourselves? Bigger than our universe?

Why would the process of quarks to atoms to molecules suddenly stop with us? Wouldn't this be breaking the chain of logic? If A makes B, and B makes C, and C makes D, then surely D makes something else. Right?




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Relax and take a Breath

If we were to know it all we would. We are here to learn what we can and make what we can out of it. Thinking tooo much about all of it at once will make you insane. Or at least act like the President. (Just Kidding) but not really, J/K. What?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
That thought has gone through my mind a bunch of times.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has pondered that.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
So it's turtles all the way down (or rather, up)? I guess it depends on whether you think our reality is infinitely complex or not. If it is then yeah there's definately something "above" us that uses our universe as a building block (multi-verse?), and something above that, and that, and that ad infinitum. BUT, if reality is finite, then there must be a point where you reach the "top" of the building blocks and there's nothing else to see.

Problem is, we've got no way of knowing with 100% certainty that we're at the top so it all boils down to individual opinion and pretty exotic theoretical physics.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The answer is Aliens....It is always Aliens like the guy with the cool hair always says.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I read a science fiction story once about a man who was somehow shrunk and as he got smaller and smaller he 'fell" out of this world and into another universe that was within the universe he originally inhabited. He wound up on another planet but as he was still shrinking he disappeared from that planet and eventually that universe too. I wonder if it goes the other way too. We are components of an even larger entity. Fun to think about .



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The answer is Aliens....It is always Aliens like the guy with the cool hair always says.


You think his hair is cool??? I've heard epic but never cool. Oh well, his tan is hot....or sprayed on I cant tell.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
It is said in the Bible several times, "We are the body of Christ". I think they meant that literally.

Personally, I believe we ARE parts of a higher body. That concept is the basis of all my actions. The difference between cells of single celled organisms and cells of multi celled organisms is that cells of multi celled organisms actions are based on the well being of the whole. Anatomically, they are not much different. Service to others is the way forward to higher truth and a higher being.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The answer is Aliens....It is always Aliens like the guy with the cool hair always says.


You think his hair is cool??? I've heard epic but never cool. Oh well, his tan is hot....or sprayed on I cant tell.


I can't fathom even one person in his life not saying, "PFFF! No, man, that mop has got to go!"
We're talking Georgio Tsumalakalasumthinsumthin, right?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
like this?

www.youtube.com...

Always liked that end sequence :-)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
If we concede that in the micro-world, teenie tiny quarks formed atoms, and atoms formed molecules, and molecules formed us and everything we see in the universe, why does this chain of building things stop at our dimension?


It doesnt. The distance between our dimension and the above one is the difference of observing the universe from the size of an atom, actually, living on a planet that revolves around the atom. You will not see it.

This whole universe can just be one little chain in a DNA molecule inside something. Science will tell you this some day.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
As long as we don't get wiped out by some natural or man-made catastrophe, we will very soon lose our place at the top of the intellectual chain of Earth. Intelligent robots that are essentially immortal, can instantly modify themselves to adapt to rapidly changing environments on Earth and throughout the universe, and can experience the universe in ways we can't imagine will take over for us as our offspring. We're a transitional species. It was a good run, though. All that fighting was a lot of fun.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by jiggerj
If we concede that in the micro-world, teenie tiny quarks formed atoms, and atoms formed molecules, and molecules formed us and everything we see in the universe, why does this chain of building things stop at our dimension?


It doesnt. The distance between our dimension and the above one is the difference of observing the universe from the size of an atom, actually, living on a planet that revolves around the atom. You will not see it.

This whole universe can just be one little chain in a DNA molecule inside something. Science will tell you this some day.


Why isn't science telling us this today (even as just a theory as we accepted as the Big Bang)? If science is all about repeatable and verifiable experiments, then quarks make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make more and more mass.... Why so shy about making the next logical conclusion?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj . Why so shy about making the next logical conclusion?


Next time you see an ant, capture him and bring him inside your house, sit him down and explain to him how your computer works, who built it and why, then demonstrate to the ant how it works.

Let me know how it goes.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


Alright you got me...His hair is not cool at all and epic is a better word to describe that nonsense.

He does have some pretty white chicklet teeth as well.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
How does one fathom the unknowable? It's the scientific version of the God question - are we the apex or is the journey still ongoing? I think that what is being explored here is a philosophical question molded into a scientific framework. Which is great. We all get there somehow. I just operate on the opposite spectrum of you good gentlemen. But I wouldn't change your way of understanding for anything, even though you might consider it anti-thesis to mine. Science is the next step in understanding and seeking our greater purpose. So long as we can gain a hold on responsibility. (I know...ha ha ha....)

Regardless, the OP reminded me of a quote I have written thoughts about. Rufus Jones of the 20th century in "The Testimony of the Soul", said - "Unless we are to assume that God is an observable object, we need not look for Him with the instruments and methods of any empirical science, though all sciences present clues which point toward a great Reality. The God we should "find" by that sort of search would be a finite god - a god in space an time - not an eternal being." (Thus, aliens maybe?)

It has taken mankind thousands upon thousands of years to acquire self-consciousness - that sets us apart from all other known life. Is that because of where we sit on the ladder? Does our perception have everything to do with our actual importance? Perhaps if I was an aspen interconnected with a forest network of roots, I'd have an even more advantageous look upon the world and the universe itself. If it took millenia to get just to where we are now, think of the millions of years it will take science (humans) to acquire a smitten of understanding of the cosmic consciousness. Science, after all, is just an extension of the mind acting upon the observable physicality of our condition...

It boggles the mind. I try to stay away from these threads even though they fascinate me. I walk away even more confused than where I began with my ideas....lol.

PS - Star and Flag. It's refreshing when someone lures me out of my spiritual cocoon of thought...which never much includes the importance of science in our existence.

~ Serra
edit on 11-7-2012 by Serraphina because: afterthought to op
edit on 11-7-2012 by Serraphina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Next time you see an ant, capture him and bring him inside your house, sit him down and explain to him how your computer works, who built it and why, then demonstrate to the ant how it works.

Let me know how it goes.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Christ, you have perfectly captured what it's like to try to explain science on this forum.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Firstly, you should know by now that calling a scientific theory "just a theory" only exposes your own ignorance. However, I am not following your OP:


Why would the process of quarks to atoms to molecules suddenly stop with us? Wouldn't this be breaking the chain of logic? If A makes B, and B makes C, and C makes D, then surely D makes something else. Right?

What do you mean "suddenly stops with us"? We are made of matter, we are not some end destination. A chair is made of matter, why doesn't the link "stop" there? Because your "chain" is a completely arbitrary set of tenuously related nouns, just like how I could go from atoms->water->pizza->oven->fire->galaxy.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


You forgot to specify that the ants, even if they were capable of understanding the world beyond their comprehension, wilfully choose to indulge in ignorance rather than accept the facts for what they are



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Why would the process of quarks to atoms to molecules suddenly stop with us? Wouldn't this be breaking the chain of logic? If A makes B, and B makes C, and C makes D, then surely D makes something else. Right?


Nothing says the process is over.

Further, in an interesting sort of way, D could make A.

It's an "out there" theory - but it's not impossible under the known laws of quantum mechanics.

Simply put - think of the universe like you would a chess board. Each piece represents certain particles, forces, or whatever (it's not an exact analogy - but it conveys the idea). Each turn represents something known as Planck Time (or a Planck Second). Looking at the board, regardless of how the pieces are arranged - you can perform two operations knowing the rules: State what possible moves in the last turn led to the current state of the board - and state what moves can be made this turn (what the board can look like in the next turn).

The operation is recursive. For each possible state (past or future) another set of possible futures/origins stem from it. This can proceed indefinitely.

Presume you walk upon a chess board. Much like us becoming aware of this universe. Did the board start this way? Or was there a game going before we got here? The distinction is moot within quantum mechanics. A past and future can always be inferred from the state of the board. Presuming the past to exist - you know that only one 'path' through the possible list of past turns and states could have been taken by one game.... but you cannot be certain of which one. Your degree of certainty will fall off rapidly (not quite at the inverse square due to 'junctions' along the way - when the same state arises at the same time across multiple paths) as you go farther into the past (or the future).

But - suppose you have a room. You can't see in the room - but you know there to be a chess board and its pieces in the room. That chess board exists in a quantum superposition of all its possible states (presuming we are working with a standard set of pieces and not getting overly creative) before you open the door and look at the board (we're dealing with an analogy, here; not making the argument that things are actually in a superposition when not directly observing them... although that is an intriguing bit of food for thought). Basically - before you opened the door, you knew that board could exist in a finite number of possible states (not sure what the number is - presuming we can break the standard rules and place pieces randomly wherever across the board) - but it did not actually take one of those states until you opened the door.

Since it existed in a superposition - you couldn't identify the board having a past, future, or even present. However, once it assumes one defined state, you can infer a past and a future from that board.

In a similar manner - if you were to just happen upon this universe - you could infer a past and a future for it based on information about its current state and the rules by which it functions. Whether or not that past actually existed is irrelevant to the current state and the fact that it can be inferred.

It's not exactly supposed to be a provable theory - but it's an interesting one just the same.






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join