How the universe really started

I was born.

No seriously even so called "modern science" proves this. (ie: 2 hole light slits experiments, Schrödinger's cat, etc)

Therefore from my perspective. Nothing existed before I became self aware and nothing will exist after my death. And since I can not percieve the thoughts of others, I can only deduce that they are just fabrications of my perception. Just like everything else I believe I'm interacting with


Which leaves me with only 1 problem.

If the universe and everything in it is only a fabrication of my own conciousness. Then why isn't everyone naked and making love openly on the streets without misogyny? Because that's what I really want to see happen in this world. ie: Abandon everything including jobs, take the locks off all the doors, remove all the borders, turn away from high-tech plastic crap and build giant wooden ships to visit each other all over the world.

((( Sorry for the last bit of rambling in the last paragraph. I always seen to go back to that sort of headspace when I get philisophical)))

 

Let's take this apart one step at a time.

1) The only thing I'm certain of is my own thoughts. Therefore I'm relatively certain I'm real.

2) I have no idea of even when I was born. Sure others tell me the date but I just kind of remember some stuff in kidnergarten and not much prior to that. Therefore following the same logic. Books, museums, films, etc tell me there was a world prior to my birth but I never saw it.

3) Quantum physics shows the effect of perception. IE: Nothing is real until it is perceived. Therefore without me, there is no universe.

 

You're treating theory as law, and you forgot to show your math.

 

It's interesting to ponder about for sure but the conclusion in the end would be that it is false. Lots of things are real without being perceived by you or me, they are perceived by others. Even if no one perceived something it can still be real (the sound of a falling tree when there's nobody there to hear it for instance) although we can argue forever about it that we don't know I myself am convinced the falling tree made a sound.
I am relatively sure about the fact that other people are not a figment of my imagination, also by deduction. In fact:

I don't see why that seems the only conclusion you can deduce from the fact that you just can't perceive other peoples thoughts?

 

jeez, some people are idiots.

first off, Schroedinger's is a thought experiment, not a real one. no-one's ever actually carried out that experiment (not that we even could), so that proves nothing. second, quantum mechanics has never even proposed that things aren't real unless they're perceived. quantum mechanics has only argued for the perception to affect the result of the experiment (Copenhagen, wavefunction collapse). It still requires actual reality in which to take place. And, moreover, it explicitly implies a reality existing outside perception (so you're kind of disproving your own theory by the examples you brought out). third, try going without the essential amino acids for a while and see how long you'll still be around doing the thinking. if the outside world isn't real the need for intake of essential nutrients is nothing but a figment of your imagination either.

 

I've always loved that idea myself! Interesting to see someone else has thought nearly an identical idea. I even contemplated with a friend before: Even if your life is real, how am I know to know you are experiencing the same universe?

 

The interesting thing about that thought is that even if we assume we are all experiencing the same universe...we all percieve it in a different way. I think that's what makes art so amazing, because it gives us a chance to see how others percieve the universe.

 

Yeah I love that! have you ever heard the theory that impressionism was started by artists that had bad eyesight. The idea goes that they thought they were drawing perfectly, but it was actually kind of "messy" for lack of a better term, and the scene took on.

But this same idea of perception, who is to say our color is the same, we associate the same word green for a hue we were told was green. Maybe my green is your blue!

 

Because there's only one person inside your little thought bubble.

Are you sure you are using the term misogyny properly here?

 

Ha, I never heard that before, but it's definitely an interesting theory. Thanks for sharing.

You raise a good point and it makes me think of people who are color blind. Also when you say green or blue what shade of those colors do you see? I would venture to guess they are different shades than I think of.

 

my universe you don't exist

 

not in any significant way that matters. otherwise there would be no validity to the scientific method. but since we do have huge scientific consensus between different countries and different scientists of different backgrounds, it actually goes to show how much we see it all the same way.

 

yeah i thought of this when i was in high school. however, i think the logic behind evolution makes it less likely that this is actually true. it is a fancy thought though.

 

Because it's all the figment of one being's immagination ???

Or if I'm wrong it's because science is now a religion. Anyone questioning the popular dogma today is labeled as a heretic by the scientific priests.

 

Actually, scientifically, people's eyes are as distinct from each other as the finger print. True, we see the same spectrum, but our perception of the spectrum could be distinctly our own, and there would be no way to tell. We already associate colors to a word, so it doesn't matter if I see a bright orange block and call it purple, and you see a bright green block and know it as purple, we associate the color purple with the word purple.

 

what're you basing that off of the fact that retinal scan provides each person with a unique identifying tag like the fingerprint? that's true, but it has nothing to do with color perception. retinal patterns are unique in each person, as are blood vessel patterns at the back of the eye used in iris recognition. none of which have any association with color vision.

humans (and other species) owe their color perception to cone cells in the retina. there are 3 different types of cone cells in normal human color vision, each with a different peak wavelength which do not overlap with one another. these peaks occur at reddish, greenish and bluish color. there is variation in peak wavelength between individuals, but not as drastic as to push e.g. the 'green' cone all the way into the 'red' area, for example. ergo, apart from slight differences, that could affect the overall 'tint' of one person's vision, the colors would appear to be the same for all.

color vision is due to cone cells and cone cells only, and all of our cone cells are the same in different individuals. the only thing that can be different is the number of different cone cell types. most people (and the primates, our closer relatives in the animal kingdom) have 3. color blind individuals have 2 or 1. there have been reports of some people having 4 different types, but those reports have not been verified. birds have 4 different types of cone cells, the extra type peaking at ultraviolet wavelength, making the birds capable of UV vision.

that's the gist of it. since we all share a common ancestor human cone cells are identical, invalidating the 'my blue could be your green' hypothesis (on the eye side at least; the brain side might have more argumentative value). it's an interesting idea, but scientifically not too viable.

there's an exact way to tell. go to the doctor, have some cone cells pulled from your retina and have them analyzed for their peak wavelengths. then have someone else do the same thing and see if your blue really is in a different area than theirs.

all of this has already been done and differences have not been found as drastic as to allow for color dissociation between different individuals.

yeah i know this. this is just the language, not the physics behind it. you can talk about Einstein's special relativity in Italian or in English, doesn't make a difference. it's still special relativity.

 

Maybe it's not in anyway that is significant, but still everyone's perception isn't the same. I was just trying to have some imagination and fun with the idea. Maybe not the best place in the science and technology section. Anyways thanks for killing the fun.:2thumbsup:

 

You're treating your vessel, your body as the primary "you".

Your current body is only your current experience

 

It is also most likely that it is your only experience as 'you'.

 

Only if you define "you" as this specific ego.

Have you not yet had an ego-free experience?

I've seen where we go and yes we retain our individuality in the whole.

Separate yet wholly connected / integrated.

Our spirits are eternal, timeless... time is an important facet of this game of life.

Experience without time is an interesting concept to get your head around, though.

 

I love this! As an artist, this is a lot of times what I'm trying to achieve. Give a glimpse into my world, my perspective, my thoughts, my dreams.