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.

 

What is the Universe?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I have a postulate regarding the nature of the universe, which I will deal with using the tools of philosophy. From the postulate I derive the elements required to support the postulate. It seems a very good description of the universe, with no missing nor additional elements (if I have made no logical errors or omissions) - at least none discovered so far by science.

Postulate: THE UNIVERSE IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUILIBRIUM.

The words 'expression', and 'principle' are necessary, and can't be removed without destroying the argument.

Thus, the universe is the embodiment (expression) of the principle of a concept (equilibrium), not that concept itself.

By definition, principle is: a fundamental source or basis of something - in this case equilibrium.

So, now I will derive the elements required to satisfy the postulate, and compare those elements to the known elements of the universe.

A. It must contain the elements required to achieve dis-equilibrium.
B. It must contain the elements required to achieve equilibrium.
C. It must contain some expression of both equilibrium and dis-equilibrium.

To briefly explain why it must contain these elements, it can be seen that if the universe contains only the elements required for equilibrium then it is unchanging, therefore the concept of equilibrium cannot exist (because we have prohibited any other state).

A.
i) To achieve dis-equilibrium there must be ACTION.
ii) To achieve action one thing must act against another thing, therefore separate FORCES must exist.
iii) To achieve action there must be change, therefore TIME must exist.

B.
i) To achieve equilibrium there must be REACTION.
ii) For a reaction to occur in response to an action it must know it exists, therefore OBSERVATION must exist.
iii) To achieve equilibrium reaction must occur PROPORTIONALLY.
iv) To achieve proportional reaction, the reaction must have INFORMATION about the action.
v) To react proportionally, there must be LOGIC applied to the information.
vi) Therefore there must be a logical exchange of information, therefore LANGUAGE must exist.
vii) Because time exists, the action may not exist while the reaction still exists - therefore there is no more information available about the action, but the reaction must continue logically and proportionally - therefore it must have a MEMORY of the action, and of the information about the action.


So, the elements required are as follows;

ACTION - REACTION > OPPOSING FORCES IN ACTION
TIME
OBSERVATION
PROPORTION > MATHEMATICS and GEOMETRY
INFORMATION
LOGIC
LANGUAGE
MEMORY

I can consolidate the following items;
OBSERVATION, INFORMATION, LOGIC, LANGUAGE, MEMORY > CONSCIOUSNESS.

Now we have;

FORCES
TIME
MATHEMATICS
CONSCIOUSNESS

Up to this point I believe I have analyzed the components of the postulate exhaustively and logically, and therefore it contains only truth (if I have made no errors or omissions) - and no speculation. That does not make the postulate true, it is simply a statement about the required elements.

SPECULATION:

Only two forces are required to exist, and to achieve equilibrium it makes the most sense that only two forces do indeed exist.

Two identical forces that act against each other is the simplest possible expression that yields the required results in terms of creating equilibrium and dis-equilibrium.

Given that we have geometry as a fundamental requirement, and that we are looking for the simplest type of force that can both be identical, interactive and in opposition, I am drawn to the conclusion that the HELIX is the simplest expression.

If one force is expressed as a RIGHT HANDED HELIX, and the other force is a LEFT HANDED HELIX - then we have probably the simplest expression that meets all the requirements.

I therefore conclude that these two forces represent the ELECTROSTATIC FORCE, and the MAGNETIC FORCE - as these forces interact with each other - and always at right angles.

The other so called forces therefore DO NOT EXIST - ie gravity and nuclear forces.

These forces I believe are simply a misunderstanding of the interactions between the electrostatic and magnetic vectors. The vibrations of these vectors yields all particles and there is no force present between particles when they are in the nucleus - because the particles are formed by harmonic interactions between the vectors.


FURTHER CONJECTURE:

Our reality is a region of the universe that is slightly more in a state of dis-equilibrium, than equilibrium. In other words, we are in an energetic region of reality - and therefore the electrostatic and magnetic forces are not equal locally.

This region may be spacial, or it may actually relate to the frequencies and distribution of the two forces. In other words, it might be that we live in a particular range of frequencies, or amplitudes of the two forces.

This might explain why protons and electrons have different mass, and also explain the presence of gravity.

Gravity is the electrostatic force pushing us down onto the surface. This force exists everywhere, but as it passes through the earth, it is deflected and diminished by the presence of matter. This means there are more vectors above us pushing us down, than coming through the earth - therefore a slight downward force is experienced.

This state of dis-equilibrium might also explains why human beings tend towards order, that is we like to build and order things - because we are expressions of the universal principle, but we are faced with disorder, so we tend to try and bring it into equilibrium.

Conscious beings originating from places of higher than mean equilibrium would have the reverse dynamic, they would be destructive, desire disorder, and be parasitic. Because social organization would be very difficult for them, they would have to be individually powerful and self sufficient, and likely reproduce asexually.

It is also interesting to note that consciousness through the analysis of this postulate is distributed through the forces, not independent to them - in other words consciousness exists everywhere, so perhaps the universe is the mind of god as some propose.

The definition of time as presented by this analysis is also interesting, time is simply the method through which change is propagated - nothing else. So its relationship to physical things, and its relationship to information and thought can be completely different, so long as it functions as a medium to propagate change. It must however, comply with the elements of a logical and proportional expression.
edit on 23-1-2014 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I really enjoyed reading your post. It is true that we as humans strive for order and control in this reality because it is comforting however I believe in chaos because in chaos there is Hope.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Tindalos2013
 


I like what you said Tindalos2013.
I believe in chaos, there is a potential for organization and beauty. However, chaos and the opposite of chaos are intrinsically inseparable, since one implies the other - just like hot implies cold, they are implicitly the same (ying and yang).
And for the thread question: I think the universe is coded information; our perspectives assign meaning to what we see and everything is energy and vibrations.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Postulate: THE UNIVERSE IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUILIBRIUM.

I agree with this statement, but isn't that just another way of saying we live in a zero-energy universe because the negative energy balances out the positive energy?


it can be seen that if the universe contains only the elements required for equilibrium then it is unchanging

This is true in some sense, the universe is always in a zero-energy state. But -1+1=0 as does -2+2=0. Things can change in a zero-energy universe, but the equilibrium between positive and negative energy must remain constant.
edit on 23/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 




Postulate: THE UNIVERSE IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUILIBRIUM.


I don't think so at best the universe today and at present seems to be the result of the principle of equilibrium. But the universe existence itself is not an expression of equilibrium, to the best of our experience its existence fulfills a function in a larger system.

Then there is the problem of system entropy and expenditure of energy. Every system needs to match the input to the output+processing.



Only two forces


Also seems a very limitative view especially considering the vastnesses/complexity of the system. Equilibrium does not require simplicity (even if the system's norm seems to point to it) nor parity only a balance of strength from opining sides/faces/planes/dimensions this of course also implies a barrier an area of contact.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Ok this post actually blew my mind.
Firstly, thank you for sharing this information. It is a lot to process and understand but I think you have put that together well.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Panic2k11
reply to post by Amagnon
 




Postulate: THE UNIVERSE IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUILIBRIUM.


I don't think so at best the universe today and at present seems to be the result of the principle of equilibrium. But the universe existence itself is not an expression of equilibrium, to the best of our experience its existence fulfills a function in a larger system.

I think this is just a problem arising from definition. My definition of 'Universe' is probably your definition of 'Multiverse'. When I say universe, I mean everything - without limit, not just the observable universe. You might note that I raised the idea in my speculation that our entire reality exists as some fractional range of possible reality, implying our observable universe is simply a slice of something much larger.



Then there is the problem of system entropy and expenditure of energy. Every system needs to match the input to the output+processing.


Entropy is explainable as a function of equilibrium - if our reality is higher energy, then energy flows out.



Only two forces

Also seems a very limitative view especially considering the vastnesses/complexity of the system. Equilibrium does not require simplicity (even if the system's norm seems to point to it) nor parity only a balance of strength from opining sides/faces/planes/dimensions this of course also implies a barrier an area of contact.


Fractals also tend to lead us toward an understanding of how simple principles create vast complexity. While its probably somewhat subjective, I do think the universe would be of the most economical construction - as this implies equilibrium. So if only two forces are needed, then I lean towards only two forces being present.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   

ChaoticOrder

Postulate: THE UNIVERSE IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUILIBRIUM.

I agree with this statement, but isn't that just another way of saying we live in a zero-energy universe because the negative energy balances out the positive energy?


it can be seen that if the universe contains only the elements required for equilibrium then it is unchanging

This is true in some sense, the universe is always in a zero-energy state. But -1+1=0 as does -2+2=0. Things can change in a zero-energy universe, but the equilibrium between positive and negative energy must remain constant.
edit on 23/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


In a word, yes - I agree with you, however this description explains where the mathematics comes from - why it is a required element.

Additionally, this explanation does not imply that we live at any particular level of energy or state - where the zero-energy universe perhaps implies that we exist at the median.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Monsterenergy791
reply to post by Tindalos2013
 


And for the thread question: I think the universe is coded information; our perspectives assign meaning to what we see and everything is energy and vibrations.


Then I think we are in almost complete agreement



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


How did you come up with this?

Who do you pray to?

I think your terminology and understanding of this could use a lot of work, no offense, but the essence of what you are trying to say, is closer than what you realize.

Swap equal with just or true or fair for starters. Equal only gives a sentiment of making things correlative or balanced but just and true gives the sentiment of perfection or good and pleasing.

It is about creating a concept that is just...

It is "good" concept (re)production.

When you see something you think is bad, you want to make it good or just. When you come upon any new awareness, you want to make a good concept for it - something which is true and just - "good" concept (re)production. All of the actions that life makes is in the pursuit of just and true for pleasure... not making things balanced for pleasure.

I think that it is God making church for the Son. I think the principle of just creating is what church is.

But yeah... WOW at how close you are.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Amagnon
 


How did you come up with this?

Who do you pray to?

I think your terminology and understanding of this could use a lot of work, no offense, but the essence of what you are trying to say, is closer than what you realize.

Swap equal with just or true or fair for starters. Equal only gives a sentiment of making things correlative or balanced but just and true gives the sentiment of perfection or good and pleasing.

It is about creating a concept that is just...

It is "good" concept (re)production.

When you see something you think is bad, you want to make it good or just. When you come upon any new awareness, you want to make a good concept for it - something which is true and just - "good" concept (re)production. All of the actions that life makes is in the pursuit of just and true for pleasure... not making things balanced for pleasure.

I think that it is God making church for the Son. I think the principle of just creating is what church is.

But yeah... WOW at how close you are.


I'm not 'trying' to say anything - this is just analysis, I added some speculation for entertainment purposes only.

Regarding your idea's about good and just - good is a subjective evaluation, but 'just' is a principle derived from equilibrium.

A human being is comprised of many properties, body, mind, public persona, labor and products of labor, emotional being or state, speech and so on.

When any of these properties is infringed by another human being, without consent - then that human being suffers a change of property - and an infringement defines that it must be a loss.

This moves the infringed individual into a state of dis-equilibrium, he has been acted upon by an external force and is disturbed. Because the other human being infringed him, and is capable of restoring the loss - then we have a system devised called law, so that equilibrium can be re-established by compensating the infringed person for their loss.

This is purely the human application of the law of equilibrium to society - in other words (just) laws are the embodiment of the principle of equilibrium as it applies to human action.

Obviously if natural forces act on a person, and they suffer disequilibrium - there is no way to directly force nature to restore our loss. We do however have a systems to restore equilibrium in these matters as well, one of the best known is insurance - although family, charity and community also act to restore the balance.

Oh, I should add - I certainly dont pray to anyone or anything - I am agnostic and do not believe in any personal gods - although as presented in my postulate of the universe, I do not rule out the existence of an infinite intelligence - but I dismiss the idea of any god creating the earth directly, or having any special interest in it (and by extension human beings).
edit on 23-1-2014 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Helix is meant to be a sphere but has become lost or lost energy. It has become undone. All the whole / just things are spheres. I think it represents wholeness or perfection.

And that is something I think you misinterpret. The light is to make the will visible or manifests the will of consciousness. It is a trinity, not a duality - observer / awareness / thinker / creator, will / force / energy /spirit, image / light / embodiment / body / thought / concept.

Check what Jesus' role is in Abrahamic religions... Revelation 19:11 for Christianity. Kalki of Hinduism as another example, and practically all the religions with a messiah or bringer of justness. The creation is meant to be perfect and just but it became corrupt.

I know you see how close our interpretations are at the start, but like the helix to the sphere, or the big bang to the singularity, they become undone.

Helix, no. Sphere, yes. It is not meant to be equal.

I'll look again through your post to see if I can make more spheres out of your helixes - your tree of knowledge of good and evil...

Do you see? Bad helix! Bad! I'm teasing you but you get the point.

Sphere for base not helix. Trinity not duality.

Who wants you to seek helixes? Seek faith not knowledge, right? This stuff is not new, it has just been hidden from us.



Edit: I looked again at your OP and I think you're sort of right by trying to reduce the forces. Instead of forces, I think we should call them principles for this thread, maybe not in other threads. That is, yes, remove gravity and such but lets leave thermoelectric convection or the motion of spheres and helixes as force or the principle behind force. The other stuff you said that I haven't commented on, I do not see anything to nitpick or comment on.
edit on 1/23/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 




I think this is just a problem arising from definition. My definition of 'Universe' is probably your definition of 'Multiverse'. When I say universe, I mean everything - without limit, not just the observable universe


Ho! I thought that you were referring to the real and known. I guess that if you include theoretical things imagination is the limit. I like unicorns too...



Entropy is explainable as a function of equilibrium - if our reality is higher energy, then energy flows out.


Entropy is a function of complexity, in the consumption of energy. In imaginary terms saying that energy flows out breaks your overreaching definition of universe (all there possibly can be) as it does not support an out.



Fractals also tend to lead us toward an understanding of how simple principles create vast complexity. While its probably somewhat subjective, I do think the universe would be of the most economical construction - as this implies equilibrium. So if only two forces are needed, then I lean towards only two forces being present.


Fractals are mathematical entities that have no real existence in the real world that has (seems to) have a limits of scale (more like definition/resolution). I agree that most of it is a fractal like lattice and we are in agreement around the issue of equilibrium (in or existing space/time) just disagree that equilibrium is permanent characteristic of the universe (and we can even speculate that the seemingly equilibrium we perceive is just a lack of better information or modeling error).



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 



Enough said.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Thank you ,Amagnon.Your post-step to the discovery of consciousness, and I think walter-russell.com...would be pleased with you.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Helix is meant to be a sphere but has become lost or lost energy. It has become undone. All the whole / just things are spheres. I think it represents wholeness or perfection.


When the opposing helixes interact, they create an axis and a disk - the geometry of the axis and disk represents the strongest concentration of vectors - but the distribution of their forces then creates a sphere around this basic structure.

This is the base structure that we see in the universe, the spiral galaxy, the star and planets - a clear example is Saturn - the axis, sphere and disk are very clear and obvious. For large objects like galaxies, the sphere is hard to make out as it is composed of very diffuse plasma - but in a star for example the corona is quite spherical.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Panic2k11
reply to post by Amagnon
 




Entropy is explainable as a function of equilibrium - if our reality is higher energy, then energy flows out.


Entropy is a function of complexity, in the consumption of energy. In imaginary terms saying that energy flows out breaks your overreaching definition of universe (all there possibly can be) as it does not support an out.


In the latter part of my post I speculate that our reality is in slightly more dis-equilibrium than the mean - that our reality is more energetic than average. So entropy could be energy flowing from our relatively energetic region, to some other less energetic region.

Whether our reality comprises a spacial location, or some range of vibrational frequencies or amplitudes I have no theory on that.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


My thought is that you start with a perfectly stable sphere, and then it is disrupted by another sphere, or helix, or form. The original, perfectly stable sphere, will then change its state / come undone at the point of disruption, and produce from it, or within it, a helix. However, that helix will only last until it becomes stabilized, at which point it goes back into a sphere.

How it becomes stabilized is probably close to how you are imagining it, but that model of stabilization, is not base -- it is instead, the reverting back to the base model, which is sphere.

And again, you are calling stabilized equalized, which is fair if only viewed in a materialistic frame work -- that is, when it is removed from moral implications / spirituality, principles, and expressions, but with spirituality, it should be viewed as just, not equal. We are not meant to be equal, only just.

I am calling stabilized just, in sight of right and wrong, and saying the sphere is base, or first born expression / principle.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The universe is a combination of your observations and the stuff you observe. If you weren't around to observe the universe and interact with it, there's a good chance it wouldn't exist.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join