General Discussions

**jamestl2** · 01-06-2008, 02:24 PM

After conducting hours of research, I have come to the only possible, logical conclusion. nothing exists. Just look at some of these points:

This answers the long time chicken-egg debate. Since there never was a beginning for either, the question becomes obsolete.
Consciousness is unexplainable by the physical sciences that we have today. And at the same time, how we perceive and understand the world is apparent to every person on Earth.
This theory explains all the worm holes, black holes, gravitational extremities, etc. Anything is possible in a nonexistent universe.
Subatomic particles can travel at instantaneous speeds under varying circumstances, no matter what the distance between them is (source). The universe is similar to just one big hologram. This allows the universe to only be millimeters wide, while giving the illusion that it is billions of lightyears in diameter.

This theory is different than "We are all just figments of someone else's imagination", in the respect that the so-called "entity" thinking us up doesn't exist either.

Whether you like it or not, we are living in a flawed, phantasmal universe, and the only way these philosophical anomalies can be answered, is if nothing existed anywhere at any time.

Remember the old adage "Why is there something, instead of nothing?" Well perhaps the real answer to the question is, "There *is* nothing".

**OSWebMaster** · 01-06-2008, 02:36 PM

Hello James -

Interesting theory. However, I would be careful not to end up like the blind man, in the dark room, searching for the black cat... that isn't there.

I mean, while I admire the strength of your philosophical enquiry, and your courage in posting it here -- what's the point of posting at all if the universe doesn't exist?

And, on a more serious note, your theory could lead to dangerous consequences. If nothing exists, then there must be no morals, principles and values in this universe. Wouldn't that mean that you could do anything, and get away with it, because it just doesn't matter?

So, I think it all comes down to your use of the word "possible." You said, "Anything is possible in a nonexistent universe." I think you should think about amending that to "Nothing is possible in a nonexistent universe."

And, I believe that things are quite possible in this universe, and that there are consequences for choices made. But then, there are some things you just have to take on faith.

Thanks for posting an intriguing thread.

- Scott

**ForrestCroce** · 01-06-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Consciousness is unexplainable by the physical sciences that we have today. And at the same time, how we perceive and understand the world is apparent to every person on Earth.

A lot of what I've read describes consciousness as being like a movie. We see 30 still frames per second, and because our senses are just slower than that, it gives the impression of real movement. Our senses are stimulated, and we respond either by reflex or after deliberation; the noise you heard and the thing you noticed out of the corner of your eye probably aren't connected, at least most of the time. There's a flood of things coming in and being responded to, and like the moving picture, we experience an illusion of fluid continuousness.

So I've read.

**HostFlex** · 01-06-2008, 02:48 PM

Any argument that anyone comes up with involving space and time, existence and non existence is always going to arouse questions. Believing the answer to everything is nothing seems a bit odd in my opinion on the matter.

Maybe it would be better to see the answers as individual instead of the answer to everything. There are a lot of unexplained events and a lot of crazy theories out there as far as the universe goes. Some would question the possibility of bending time and space and being able to travel from point A to B in a fraction of the time.

But onto what you were saying. If the universe did not exist and everything we believed to be true was just false, then you are saying that we don't exist? That every person alive today is simply non existent. That's very interesting. I guess if we don't exist, the universe doesn't exist and everything we are typing here doesn't exist either, so what exactly are we talking about?

Nothing?

Without the universe, without life, if none of this is real. Then this entire Theory doesn't exist and I guess I am wasting my time trying to understand it. lol

**jamestl2** · 01-06-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

I mean, while I admire the strength of your philosophical enquiry, and your courage in posting it here -- what's the point of posting at all if the universe doesn't exist?

To give people another POV on how the universe may work, exist, etc. because they believe the universe DOES exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

And, on a more serious note, your theory could lead to dangerous consequences. If nothing exists, then there must be no morals, principles and values in this universe. Wouldn't that mean that you could do anything, and get away with it, because it just doesn't matter?

From *humanity's* perspective, we believe that the universe exists because we are a part of it's nonexistence, thus the laws of ethics, morals, etc. still govern our minds and the way we think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSWebMaster

So, I think it all comes down to your use of the word "possible." You said, "Anything is possible in a nonexistent universe." I think you should think about amending that to "Nothing is possible in a nonexistent universe."

Good observation Scott, however, again I was speaking from our point of view concerning those possibilities, so, to us, we still believe it is actually anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

A lot of what I've read describes consciousness as being like a movie. We see 30 still frames per second, and because our senses are just slower than that, it gives the impression of real movement. Our senses are stimulated, and we respond either by reflex or after deliberation; the noise you heard and the thing you noticed out of the corner of your eye probably aren't connected, at least most of the time. There's a flood of things coming in and being responded to, and like the moving picture, we experience an illusion of fluid continuousness.

So I've read.

Another interesting theory, perhaps our perceptions of the world are simply like a computer program, perhaps it ties into the universe's holographic state

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HostFlex

Maybe it would be better to see the answers as individual instead of the answer to everything. There are a lot of unexplained events and a lot of crazy theories out there as far as the universe goes. Some would question the possibility of bending time and space and being able to travel from point A to B in a fraction of the time.

That is of course, if you buy into Einstein's theory of General Relativity and the whole "space-time continuum" nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HostFlex

But onto what you were saying. If the universe did not exist and everything we believed to be true was just false, then you are saying that we don't exist? That every person alive today is simply non existent. That's very interesting.

From that perspective, everything that is True to us is True. However yes, in this context, I'm also saying we don't exist. Nothing in the universe, or the universe itself, exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HostFlex

I guess if we don't exist, the universe doesn't exist and everything we are typing here doesn't exist either, so what exactly are we talking about?

Nothing?

Without the universe, without life, if none of this is real. Then this entire Theory doesn't exist and I guess I am wasting my time trying to understand it. lol

Another way of looking at it

**OSWebMaster** · 01-06-2008, 03:34 PM

Hi -

You know James, if you ever got into the "concept" behind the Seinfeld show, then you know it was "a show about nothing."

It was a very funny show, however. But then... if there is nothing existing at all -- why would we be able to laugh at sitcoms, comedians, and humorous situations in general?

And what about Mr. Descartes, the French Philosopher who popularized Cogito Ergo Sum (I Think, Therefore I Am). Was he mistaken?

I guess in this context, the update might be "I laugh, therefore I must exist."

- Scott

**cbwm** · 01-06-2008, 05:11 PM

Who coined, "I think, therefore I drink". That is a philosophy I have subscribed to for some time.

**serandfae** · 01-06-2008, 07:44 PM

James, first you have to define what it means to exist or to be real. Rene Descartes sure didn't do it: "I think, therefore I am" begs the question. But it does raise an interesting question: Is thought a component in the universe, similar to matter/energy, space/time? If, according to Heisenberg, observing affects that which is observed, if paired particles "communicate" over great distances, is there an informational component (and I'm not talking about sentient per se) to the universe? Can that component determine whether the universe is "real"?

**BJock** · 01-07-2008, 04:13 AM

After experiencing a close death experience myself I must disagree with the statement; The Universe does NOT exist. The feeling of almost leaving would not have been so intense if there was nothing to leave from.
" I Think I Thought A Thought, But The Thought I Thought I Thought, I Did Not Think At All "

The above simplistic statement insinuates I am 'something', and no matter what I do I cannot stay in present time. Like us all, even if we think we are not, we experience the same problem. From this I assume we are stuck in a time field that is linear. I am sure enough evidence exists to cancel time travel ( except in the mind ), as a viable eventuality due to, oh such a paradox. Therefore I think I am something, I am in a time stream that is linear and am unable to stop myself on it, reverse it or speed it up.

What a cool trap.

I think if we might take the viewpoint of being external to this trap, for want of a better word, we could simply see that, assuming at some distant point in the past we were in darkness with nothing, zilch, nada, possessed no matter, time nor space but only an ability to create energy from thought then we could easily visualize that the moment, (presuming we are able to), that we created more than one object we would have had no other choice but to bring "into being" distance and thus space, time and oops a three dimensional universe which from then and until now does exist.

I know it sound like something God might have done if she was not so busy force feeding me energy for breakfast. lol

**jamestl2** · 01-07-2008, 04:00 PM

What people perceive as "thinking", is actually just the brain's manipulation of information, an organic process that can be explained by biological cognition. Sorry to disappoint everyone who believes that humans are somehow "enlightened" due to the fact that we can think and problem solve mentally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

James, first you have to define what it means to exist or to be real. Rene Descartes sure didn't do it: "I think, therefore I am" begs the question. But it does raise an interesting question: Is thought a component in the universe, similar to matter/energy, space/time?

Is it possible to define what is "real" and what isn't? "Real" as we understand it (matter, energy, space, etc. Is what I'm saying doesn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

If, according to Heisenberg, observing affects that which is observed, if paired particles "communicate" over great distances, is there an informational component (and I'm not talking about sentient per se) to the universe? Can that component determine whether the universe is "real"?

Those particles don't exist either

(But it does raise an interesting side-point, whether there is an "informational component" to the universe or not)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJock

The feeling of almost leaving would not have been so intense if there was nothing to leave from.

Those feelings you're experiencing don't exist either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJock

The above simplistic statement insinuates I am 'something', and no matter what I do I cannot stay in present time. Like us all, even if we think we are not, we experience the same problem.

Of course *you* think that you are something, you are connected to this nullistic void we call the universe.

**serandfae** · 01-07-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamestl2

What people perceive as "thinking", is actually just the brain's manipulation of information, an organic process that can be explained by biological cognition. Sorry to disappoint everyone who believes that humans are somehow "enlightened" due to the fact that we can think and problem solve mentally.

Consider the research of Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz of UCLA, who has actually measured by functional MRI the adult human brain rewiring. This was not previously thought to be possible. He posits that the rewiring that is taking place does not seem to occur on its own, but appears to be governed by a separate will of the patient, what he calls "mental force".

My synopsis does not do justice to the theory, but if thought is a force distinguishable from but connected with the neurons' firing, is it a force found in the universe in general? Hence the question about the "informational component": Does the universe speak binary? Is there a force that is transcendant of space/time, matter/energy by which paired particles "communicate" over great distances, yet is a factor of them, perhaps the same force by which Dr. Schwartz's patients can alter their brains (Note that I'm not trying to argue for or against a soul or God or anything).

If such a force exists, is it a universal thought (again, not necessarily sentient), a universal logic (pun intended) that thinks, therefore the universe is? BTW, my use of Dr. Schwartz's studies aren't just off the cuff, he has a longstanding dialogue with quantum physicist Henry Stapp by which he's devised a quantum theory for these neural changes. Fascinating stuff.

**BJock** · 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Those feelings you're experiencing don't exist either.

I can only live my life through my interpretations of either this reality or a holographic paradigm reality that has been proposed by some as the "I" perceive myself to be a part of it. So subjectively my feelings do exist and to prove a point that yours also exist try a small experiment: Hit your thumb with a hammer then report back the non existent effect from the none existing universe. ( Do not do this, it really hurts.lol) If you do not see my point and did the experiment regardless then who is screaming like a baby? lol.

Quote:

Of course *you* think that you are something, you are connected to this nullistic void we call the universe.

An admission that I am connected to something thus disproving your thread, " The Universe does NOT exist " all on your own.

Great thread all over now, I really enjoyed it.

**jamestl2** · 01-07-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJock

An admission that I am connected to something thus disproving your thread, " The Universe does NOT exist " all on your own.

Ummmm.......

I never stated you were connected to something, I was stating that you *believe* you are connected to something.

**serandfae** · 01-07-2008, 08:04 PM

Brian, how exactly does it disprove the universe's existence by saying you are connected to it? That which is connected to something nonexistent is nonexistent, no?

James, I'm still waiting for your criteria for existence.

**jamestl2** · 01-07-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

I'm still waiting for your criteria for existence.

My personal definition is close to the actual definition of the word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exist

ex·ist
–verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

Having substance, being real, etc. would fit under my criteria, in this instance.

**serandfae** · 01-07-2008, 08:42 PM

Ah, the problem with language: You can't define something without a synonym. But if having substance is the criterion (and I guess that would be matter and energy) -- and do you equate this with being real? -- then are space and time not real, nonexistent? I hate to keep bringing Descartes into this, but he equates thought with reality. What do you think about that? Are you real if you do?

**joder** · 01-07-2008, 10:24 PM

That rock that stubbed my toe is real. But it doesn't think.

**serandfae** · 01-07-2008, 10:27 PM

Your toe doesn't think either, but I'll bet it smarts.

**fastreplies** · 01-07-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Those feelings you're experiencing don't exist either.

Hmmm… Lets try something.
Put you hand in door jam and then slam the door. If your theory is holding water then you won’t feel any pain immediately after or ever. But if you scream in agony and one week from now your fingernails still look blue and black and you stil can’t lift cup of coffee to your mouth, then we and everything that surround us and everything we can see and analyze is for real and we are not just imagining that we’re exist only in our minds.

fastreplies

**ForrestCroce** · 01-08-2008, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

But it does raise an interesting question: Is thought a component in the universe, similar to matter/energy, space/time?

One of these things doesn't belong. Matter, energy, space, and time are nouns; so is thought, but thinking is a verb, and the reverse isn't true of the others. I think thinking* is a process, evaluating information as it becomes available ... like there's a rock where I'm about to put my toe -> ouch!

Matter, energy, space, and time are like trees falling in the woods: they exist whether there's somebody to experience them or not. Thought doesn't seem to be immutable. If a virus took over like in all the apocalyptic sci-fi, the internet would run at least for a while as servers go on with the power that's left ... there would be Google, but no googling.