Maybe the hawking radiation when everything turns into black holes in the far future slowly dives back down to a single point again and starts a new big bang
This is well done. Albeit that it may be simple, this is not an issue since the delivery is consistent. The truth is that our ways of attempting to understand how our universe- and the others coexisting in a parallel but different time - actually came about is still at a very infantile stage. We have thousands of years of continuous mental and emotional evolution before we will even begin to comprehend an infinitesimal amount of the questions posed here. That is if we even last that long. We are in apparent rush to be the masters of our own extinction.😂
We're still at a very infantile stage??? Most of the science discussed in this video could be roughly 50 years old or so. Why would we even need thousands upon thousands of years of mental and emotional evolution as well as research and progress to understand the universe we can perceive? pfff I think 50 or so years is more than enough to understand something we estimate to be of billions years of age. And anyway, we've seen whatever is out there, we pretty much know everything, I think now is the perfect time to start discussing about a theory of everything. We we seen all, know all, there is nothing, I mean there is no possible way there is anything else out there we cannot even perceive. We know all 3-4% of everything, the rest is dark matter and stuff, and that's about it. Theory of everything here we come!!! 😂
Yes, not possible to understand the fundamental truth of nature because of infinity : I believe quarks and strings are not the smallest. There is an infinite number of smaller things than quarks and strings. Just because we cannot have sufficient energy to smash protons does not mean quarks are the smallest particles. Buddhism is the answer
Agreed. Humanity is at the cusp pf some real breakthroughs. Nanotech has the potential to totally redefine the way we interact with materials. Quantum computing has the potential to redefine computing as a whole. Genetics offers the potential that we may learn how to evolve ourselves as opposed to leaving it to chance mutation. Nuclear fusion has the potential to supply civilization with a practically unlimited, totally free energy source for as long as we can maintain a civilization that understands how to use it. But we are clinging to the baser instincts such as the belief that we must kill and subjugate other humans in order to survive, or that making money supersedes all humanist values in life, or simply clinging to Bronze Age, Iron Age, or even Stone Age religious systems, believing that they will somehow liberate us in some other (after?) life that we have absolutely no evidence or experience of. So it does indeed look like we'll cause a mass extinction and have to go through a new, modern dark age before we, and the surface ecosystems of the Earth, can reset themselves for a new phase of evolution. Nevertheless, it may all turn out for the better. Imagine a human species that doesn't have a basic desire to kill and and/or subjugate all other life it finds. Wouldn't that be a nice improvement?
Intelligence could be rated by a bell curve, with human civilization near the top (I know frightening)...consider 'gravity' could be nonexistent at the quantum level and what we measure as a gravity effect actually dissipates into a manifold of electromagnetic layering, at the smallest scales of effect, so at the quantum level it actually doesn't exist.
Big bang, big bang, big bang, parroted relentlessly and perpetually in media and literature, I've had it up to here with the big bang. What I would like to know is all about the mediocre bangs, thank you very much in advance.
As I listen I can't help but feel sorry for all the people that try and formulate theories as to how it all began, but refuse to believe in a creator. The denial of a creator just leads to endless questions, amd eventually to, well, maybe this universe will see to exist like the one before it. How can u know what happened to a previous universe and at the same time have no idea how the current one came to exist..??... Keep denying a creator, and when u die u will find out that not only was and is their a creator, but he expected something from you. Unfortunately, by the time your willing to quit the denial game, it will be too late.
@@dusermiginte4647 doubtless, but nobody was around when the big bang kicked off. I presume they're taking the information they have and developing theories based on the data available. It's not a sure thing. Even the big bang is taking it's hits as a theory. You can't change a fact. Theory is not fact, but is something that stems from the facts available.
@@Dirshauna little sad to throw away the entirety of astro physics, out understanding of the quantum real and the hours of research and mathematical equations being done to calculate and confirm certain events throughout our universe, I don't blame you for understanding, even I wouldn't claim to know enough to educate someone else, but just because You do not understand any of these things, does not mean other people also do not, don't project your ignorance onto everyone else, we might still understand very little relative to how much more we could, but it seems we also understand way more than you think we do about the universe
As fascinating as these theories are, I believe that the simple answer is that we will never know. Of course the realization that our knowledge will never resolve the mystery of our origin will not prevent our continued speculation.
I agree with you. I don't think we'll ever know, because we're not meant to, not until we die anyway. Only then, I think all will be revealed in one way or another.
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . . A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
@@maggam4941nah, facts would make predictions possible, big bang theory is chock full of ad hoc adjustments after the fact. You may have read how the most recently the James Webb telescope is also breaking the age of the universe prediction. Big bang can’t predict anything, well, no better than it’s predecessor theory of epicycles does anyway.
It would be nice if you did videos on David Deutsch's work, the world economy, political system and biology in this format. Your explanations are on point, this format is wonderful. Thank you
well you aren’t wrong imo, in the sense that there is no such thing as a beginning or ending. however, the way we exist is entirely different from that of let’s say a photon. so it’s really much deeper than that
@isaiahgomez1992 "there is no such thing as a beginning or ending" - as far as your understanding can take you. Which is far short of knowing everything, no one does at this point, so why speak in such certain absolutes?
@@tunnocks why can’t I though? I don’t mind being wrong, but why can’t I? I mean, the universe has absolutes and it also doesn’t. what is for sure is that we don’t know. and what we don’t know points to several assumptions. that being said, the absence of such knowledge does limit my ability to speak in absolutes. however, us humans are accustomed to beginnings and endings. action reaction. cause effect. this topic is more of a thought experiment than anything because the beginning and ending of anything throws everything we know out of the window. it doesn’t matter how much we know because there’s always more to know. and yet that in itself is absolute is it not? point is, if there is a beginning, then there has to be an ending. but an ending assumes there has to be a beginning. this pattern doesn’t make sense to me at this level because you can keep going farther and farther back. it doesn’t stop. there’s always more! if there is a beginning, why does the universe make it so hard to make that claim that there is one? I just don’t get why it hasn’t presented itself! unless, there isn’t one. and that’s where this requires us to think outside the box. I’m willing to abandon every piece of knowledge on said topic if it means I will be able to grasp whatever I witness.
*The answer to the "numerous unanswered questions everywhere" is GOD, God is the answer, now go to bed and stop asking these endless questions and making stupid assumptions.*
@@msloan8273you referenced the biological version of big bang theory. So explain how life evolved from single cells to create your complex body and the diversity of animals and living things. Provide your evidence that your body is a product of blind chance of cells combining without any intelligence that they were creating a body. Mind you evolution hasn’t answered this fundamental question. As for the evidence of God. Science has not provided experimental proof of the origin of the universe. All we hear in this video are assumptions and guesses framed with scientific terminologies. That is not satisfactory to the fundamental question. The reality of God can be seen from the things he has made Romans 1: 19-21.
It is interesting that of all the theories mentioned, why not mention the theory that there is an infinite being that created everything? Is it because no mathematics have been possible to predict this? Is it because the mind that infers mathematics is the only tool to that has promise to solve this problem? I have seen lots of videos describing how the universe began, but none of them talk about an Infinite being that might do this. An Infinite being ,or better called an Infinite Intelligence . Is it because there is no math that can describe such a thing? Or is it that there is no mind that can create the math that can describe such a thing? Yet, there is math that can describe a worm hole, or can describe a Big Bang, or describe a string Theory, or come up with a math that can describe quantum mechanics, or a math that can describe a multiverse. I’m perplexed that of all theories, none have contemplated that this is all planned by a infinite being. Ok, or a Infinite group of beings, Ok, or a being we have now called “God”. What proof do we have of any of this? In the end, are not we faced with the dilemma that something could be created from Nothing? And I mean nothing that does not pulse in and out of existence, but absolute Nothing, like absolute zero degrees? Putting it bluntly, I mean absolute nothing that throughout infinity there is Nothing? Can the mind contemplate that without stumbling upon an Infinite being as the creator of all things? or is it that a equation can’t be applied to it? That is the question…. Can you prove ore disprove via an equation that “The term we use as God, exists?
Ultimately every theory, no matter how sophisticated, confronts the stark reality of the question of existence vs. non-existence. Given this caveat, here's another theory. Inflation is still happening here where we are now. At the most primordial level, particles are coming into existence and almost instantaneously disappearing again. Space-time is being created here and now, but is almost completely offset by gravity, so although there is some freedom of movement, we do not fly apart from one another. More complex particles "hold" more fundamental particles in configurations that prevent their disappearing into nothing. Of course, it's not really particles but fields, nevertheless the concept of particles simplifies the explanation. With space time being created here and now via inflation, winding inflation backwards in time [so to speak] we see uninflated space-time so that the most primordial particles do not experience space-time the same way we do. We observe such particles through the lens of our experience of space-time, so we think we see paired particles interacting with each other at great distances, too far from one another to communicate with one another at the "speed" of light. In fact, thinking of universe beginning with an "explosion" is nonsensical, because the idea of an explosion would occur in pre-existing space and time. But if there is no pre-existing space-time, then there is no explosion. After all, the Big Bang theory is a misnomer. It's space-time that expands. Well, what do you think?
Where do you suppose these particles came from and what caused inflation to begin? It seems like the quantum wave only collapses once it is observed, by an intelligent mind. The implications of this could be the an immaterial mind is fundamental, an all other properties are emergent from this immaterial mind.
I think the ultimate questions about the cosmos can only be answered philosophically, never fully understood in terms of science and the material plane, which is only one aspect of a multitude. We are not in a position to know everything about the universe or to unravel its mysteries, which will (thankfully) always be with us. My best guess is that our universe is fine-tuned for the creation of life, and that intelligent life is the end purpose of the creation, which allows the universe to know itself. Exploration of non-physical and meta-physical planes is just as necessary and revealing as the scientific exploration of the physical world. This is where human understanding is very weak. Perhaps in these alternative modes we'll find some meaningful answers to the ultimate questions.
@@andrewdouglas1963 regarding your first question, I'm inclined to just accept the fact that the universe exists. Cosmologists and quantum physicists are studying how it has evolved but "why" is a mystery, - I think it's pointless even asking. It's all very well to say that God created the universe, but then, where did He come from? We can give Him a name, though - I suggest the "Immanent God". This is where atheists and religionists disagree. I would say that atheists are correct in that the Immanent God did not design the universe, - He didn't have any blueprints. But it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. When we say an act of observation collapses the wave function. it doesn't have to be human intelligence that did it. Your "immaterial mind" is an interesting idea, I like it.
My understanding of the death and creation cycle of the universe is this… first , we cannot possibly understand infinite and what is allways was because we exist in a time loop.. we are born we expand and we die and then are reborn.. so does everything move in these cycles.. My understanding is the black holes pull matter in and in and in, the pressure heats this all back to a “soup” where it is then expelled to again expand and cool only to recreate our understanding of big bang.. although , I believe this happens in many black holes .. so there’s not a singularity amongst the whole picture, this happens over and over in very vast undetectable distances and is separated by so much time that we cannot understand.. I believe it’s probably the rarest event that does happen over and over in timelines and vastness of space that inconceivable, yet since mathematics and properties of our construct follow laws, it pretty much all is the same magnetism, heating , bursting then cooling.. I also believe that dna in ancient and life is seeded somehow in this mixture as well so its constantly reoccurring with different results.. This is a formula only if we are not in a similated universe.. By the Mandela effect and other things in our time lines of history, it’s a very good chance we are in a simulation.. But , even if that is true, we still have consciousness that does not follow the laws of this reality..This stuff is so deep and intriguing, I’m not sure if we are able to understand it all within our limited 5 or 6 senses..also the universe may be torus shaped so yes it’s expanding yet it may be just an illusion to us as it may just be moving as a torus shape would, making it only a cell in a larger being 🤷🏼♀️
No. Imagine the universe full of only atoms... lets say hydrogen. Akin to a kiddies ball pool, Yes. There are No spaces = no vacuum of space. Now, imagine that you can squeeze two atoms together, to start fusing them. As we know, when atoms fuse, the resulting mass is smaller than the previous masses combined. In a universe full of matter, this fusion CREATES SPACES, 'space' itself. The more atoms you squeeze together the more space is created, that other masses you squeezed can move into. Cavities start forming. Smaller objects are being pulled and pushed towards these larger atoms. Some cavities become so large and numerous, the masses break off from the rest. Can you picture this? Space itself isn't expanding. It is the Distances inbetween these objects (galaxies) that are increasing because of a universal fusion throughout the universe and all objects are pulling and pushing on each other, connected like a 3D spider web. Pull parts of a web to stick together and the other distances inbetween neighbouring objects become greater. There is no need for a singularity or expansion. I call it. Uniform web contraction
@@slaterdomain interesting hypothesis. Do you have any observational or experimental evidence for it? I saw another pretty cool explanation for expansion that explained it as just the trajectories of matter being set during the initial conditions. Think of it like this.. if you throw 2 balls in slightly different directions, you'll notice that as they fly, the space between them "expands"
@denissavgir2881 thanks for taking interest. The idea was a eureka moment. I'm a animator, work with 3D particle affects so can imagine these things clearly. This idea really replaces the singularity idea. That the simple merging of galaxies would mean as they are pushed and pulled by gravity and magnetism, joined like a spiders web , in an infinite space there distances would increase. Its just works
@@slaterdomain your artistic abilities give you that. Mine are more autistic. But they sound similar, so whatever 😛 But I know what you mean. It's like running a simulator in your head that vosualizes it
@denissavgir2881 I have dyslexia and am an INTP personality type. Think with my right side of the brain. Think conceptually. We are the ideas people, not the mathematicians.
When we "Peter out," we just simply enter another life form (automatically). Life takes many shapes, sizes, colors, and intelligence. Everything we see and beyond (is) the anatomy of ourselves including (all) life forms. 👽
News Flash !!!! No one actually knows what took place exactly. We don't even know the mysteries of our own solar system or our own galaxy... Trying to explain how the universe itself began ..is nothing more than just guessing.
@@ToddiousMaximous Really, no. Maybe you don’t know any physics or maybe you don’t know what guessing is or both. There’s many ways you could educate yourself before your time is up.
When you're wise enough to recognize others dwarf your intellect and knowledge on the nature of awareness, consciousness, self, reality, and god, you'll see the absurdity of your statement
The Entire Universe Is Intelligent, Our Every Thought Is Connected With Distant Worlds We are the Universe, and the Universe is us. The first law of thermodynamics "energy can not be destroyed or created, it can be converted only from one form to another, ultimate energy is constant" proved the correctness of the spiritualistic concept of the immateriality of the soul as energy. Actually, everything of the universe is made of light [29], even heart and soul, which would be a new direction towards the modern world to understand the whole universe. ... Which means that everything that exists contains the information of everything else that exists. The information of the entire universe is contained holographically and energetically in every single cell. It’s hard to grasp when we’re sitting in traffic or waiting in the doctor’s office to get a flu shot, but science is revealing that our world is more of an energetic idea than anything else. As the famous Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrödinger put it, “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” That essentially everything is energy. I used to lie in bed at night for hours wondering how my hand and my pillow, the parquet tiles on the floor in my bedroom, and the sultry night air wafting over my body could all be nothing but intangible, energetic information. How was it possible? It was crazy! I mean, come on. This stuff is real! But what is real? How do we define it? As physical beings-oops-as apparentlyphysical beings of course we would define reality in physical terms. But given the inescapable scientific proof we have now gathered that everything is energy at the most fundamental levels, it seems this world (and everybody in it) isn’t physical at all. Whether we call it the unfolding implicate/explicate order, “irregularities in the fabric of space,” Planck scale information, or Platonic ideals doesn’t matter. Invisible, intangible and unfathomably powerful energies lie at the foundation of the universe, interconnecting and interpenetrating all life-unfolding as life. And these energies are best understood as information/intelligence/consciousness itself. As Swami Muktananda puts it, “The Self, Shiva, is supremely pure and independent, and you can experience it constantly sparkling within your mind. It cannot be perceived by the senses, because it makes the senses function. It cannot be perceived by the mind, because it makes the mind think. Still, the Self can be known, and to know it we do not need the help of the mind or the senses.” Bottom line, matter and energy, information and consciousness are just different ways of looking at the same thing. And if we include the experience of mystics who have directly grasped and taught that everything is energy and about the unified consciousness of creation for millennia, we can add the word “self” to this interchangeable mix as well. SELF = Intelligence = Information = Energy = Mass = Life = God = Spirit = Consciousness It’s all the same thing. It’s all ONE thing. And everything is energy.
Isn't it more logically revalent and feasible to simply believe that God spoke the universe into existence. With all these theories and something as ridiculous as a big bang would require more faith to believe than to give God the credit he deserves.
Um... no. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Didn't your god give us the capacity to explore our surroundings? Isn't your god 'behind it all?' Well, than you don't have to lobby for god's cause - I assume the all-powerful can carry their own water. Your god supposedly gave humans free will, so let's use it. God came to take away your pain, your 'sins'... not your mind. I truly wish all blessings to you and yours.
It’s like a no place for a physical being. But a normal place for non physical being who need zero dimension to exist or walk on. Assuming if there is existence of some sort out side of dimensions in other words is there existence out side of physics ( a being made of non physics stuff ).
@@paulsymanski489 Maybe i am.not intillegent enought to understand a lot of thing especially if the topic is too complicated but logically there are some ideas discussed which defies simple logic such creation of space. You cannot create an space because it has no.physical attribute because space is actually nothing,it is an absolute term. Time on the other hand will not exist without space because movement from one.place to another can only be posible if there is an space.
I like to think that the multiverse is a bootstrap paradox. That the information lost within blackholes as they evaporate isn’t lost instead it emerges from the theoretical White Holes, the black/white hole a wormhole through Time itself the white holes emerging and expelling its absorbed energy back out into the universe as the Big Bang.
Exactly black holes are worm holes, i like the way you think as i have been thinking this for years. But on further research ( internet) the connection is different each blackhole connect to Suns our Sun is connected to a blackhole in Andromeda galaxy M32 via portals this how the universe works connected like a matrix via portals ( now i can't say on here how i got this info). you can enter the Sun portal but cannot exit a black hole so us going via our sun to Andromeda we would have to exit at M33 you need to come out like half way due to the entrance forces from the blackhole. to enter via a black hole all is needed is for the ship to change to the frequency of a blackhole become one with the blackhole (so to speak) frequency is the way to understand the universe . The universe is more complexed its a WOW factor all over again. the big bang never happened the earth is 13.98 billion years old and that's where they are getting mixed up. As we are still in the primitive stages of understanding space. Sun to sun is also a portal as well. Just like on earth and our solar system all the planets are connected to the sun via a portals and the same goes for all the 200 trillion Galaxies in the universe portals portals the matrix of the universe. The universe is full of life amen.
I think bootstrap is a part of it. JWST recently found galaxies in the early ages of the universe where they found fully formed galaxies that are older that they assumed they would be at the time period in the universe they found them. My thoughts: Is it not possible that those galaxies existed already and that space existed before the big bang? Maybe steady state and the big bang are both right (big bang for our observable universe/ what is considered our universe; steady state for a more macro "universe[the plain for a multiverse]")and we need a revised hybrid theory...🤔 In other words, maybe we're still thinking too small. 😅 So my explanation for these galaxies is that when our observable universe was a singularity it attracted these galaxies, likely drifting in from another "universe". The Big bang is likely from a singularity, I'd say. Likely multiple ones that combine into an unsteady state and started to expand. The singularity of a black hole is so dense it warps spacetime, so the question of "why don't we see naked singularities?" is more "when are naked singularities? Is it possible to detect naked singularities? And what conditions need to be met for them to occur in spacetime?" I think the way it works that once a black hole fizzles out a singularity stabilizes in spacetime somewhen, somewhere. It's infinite density attracts anything around it and vaporizes anything that touches it, adding to its mass, but eventually, it becomes too unstable and expands outward in all directions (Big bang). I think this idea also sort of explains the uneven expansion of the universe. There may be singularities attracting portions of our universe just outside of our ability to observe them. But I'm no scientist, just a nerd who likes science. I call them just "singularities" after the first mention of "naked singularities", due to being detached from a black hole somewhere/when. I think of a "naked sigularity" as a singularity where it's event horizon (clothes) has been forcefully destroyed. But a singularity left behind by its black hole is just a "singularity." Look up Kurzgesagt's video about destroying a black hole. That's where I started developing this idea. The singularity of a black hole is in the future of information that falls into it. The singularity itself is theoretically so dense that physics breaks down in black holes. Space and time flip flop, and the black hole and the event horizon itself is just a barrier between the singularity and the rest of the universe. So, the singularity likely isn't bound by time or space. It exists somewhere outside it until its black hole no longer exists, which is why I believe the question is "when sigularities appear? And what conditions are needed for them to specifically stabilize in the physical realm?" Black holes themselves act like ultramassive particles and don't retain specific information of the things that go in them, just their mass. Which, it presses into an infinitely dense point (at which point I also hypothesize would cause it to heat up. Maybe trillions of degrees.🤔). Two black holes colliding=a bigger black hole. Dark mass entering a black hole=bigger black hole. Banana enters a black hole=banana's mass bigger black hole. The only things that define a black hole are it's mass, spin, and charge. If you overfeeding a black hole it will eventually reject new information. Same goes for spin and charge. So a black hole can only naturally get so big...still incomprehensibly massive, but not too much if any bigger than ones we've already found. Which the biggest one we've found is about 66billion times the mass of our sun. From this information, I think that black holes stabilize their singularities while they "grow" and that it doesn't exist in any one place in spacetime, while the black hole still exists. Once the event horizon Hawking radiates out and dissipates, the singularity stabilizes somewhere/when. Almost like a quirk, but supermassive...or maybe just as small...due to it's hypothetically infinite density...🤔 and attracts things to it. From what I understand, the idea is that the black hole fizzles out from Hawking radiation, but doesn't actually explain what happens to the singularity or all the mass collected by the black hole. In Kurzgesagt's video, he talks about how if we destroyed the event horizon of a black hole to reveal it's singularity, objects would still fall towards the naked sigularity but they would be able to get as close to it as they wanted, and even escape away from it as long as it didn't touch the singularity. Otherwise, things touching the sigularity would become vaporized. Which is why I think it's possible for them to have a form of stability for long periods of time. As it's existence, may explain some inconsistencies in expansion. Once it's collected enough extra density, though, or collides with another or multiple singularities, it eventually destabilizes and expands outward. Big bang. Yes, it'd technically be a "white hole", and the expansion itself would likely only take a couple of microseconds, as the expansion period we'd consider a "white hole" would. But I, personally, want to stay away from that term. As I believe, that singularities probably expand in all directions spherically vs. just a mass ejection from a white hole somewhere in spacetime like is normally imagined when visualizing that particular idea. The idea of the big bang is that all the matter we see was once condensed into a single point (like what we believe the singularity of a black hole to be) in a dense ball so hot (trillions of degrees) that nothing could really form from it. So my idea is that singularities have some stability until something happens that makes them unstable and the information is released. And I think that something needs to happen to destabilize it. Like other singularities collecting together or for the singularity to hit a "mass tipping point" causing it to eject. These are just my ideas.
shiva is that nothingness(pure consciousness) from big bang happened and we are in his brain as an illusion.. its already proved and known to physicist
@@grantandrew619 Well there is some actual theoretical physics to the idea of white holes and that's based on current observations, and mathematics, so... The thing is, you have to hypothesize something, to attempt to look for evidence.
The Cosmic Cycle: Universes within the NAVOMITTO Framework NAVOMITTO's multidimensional perspective offers profound insights into the cyclic nature of our universe and the cosmos as a whole. Within its framework, our observable universe can be seen as a lower Clarion manifestation that emerges from a higher dimension, evolves through an "eonic lifespan", and ultimately returns - giving way to a new Clarion and a new cosmical cycle. The end of the previous eon (universe cycle) represents a gain in clarity but loss of information. This occurs as the universe horizon shrinks and multiplicity simplifies back into Nothingness. We realize the "clarity" that ultimate reality is the dimensionless void of Nothingness. Nothingness, paradoxically, is the "Big Bang" that gives rise to the next eon. From the dimensionless potential of the void, a new lower Clarion universe manifestation emerges. The new universe begins at Clarion 1, representing an undifferentiated state where all perspectives are fused together. As differentiation occurs, the universe horizon expands rapidly. As higher clarions emerge with more specialized perspectives, the rate of change decreases. This corresponds to the observable universe's exponential expansion slowing over time. After Inflectia, clarions begin decreasing in number again. Reintegration and loss of multiplicity set in, mirroring an accelerating expansion and "Big Rip" endpoint for the universe. Ultimately, the horizon shrinks to nothing once more, signaling a return to the dimensionless potential of Nothingness and the beginning of a new eon/universe cycle. NAVOMITTO's multidimensional framework thus insightfully portrays how the evolutionary dynamics of our universe's expansion and contraction map onto NAVOMITTO's framework of clarions differentiating from and returning to an ultimate ground of Nothingness. The "shrinkage of horizon to nothingness" represents both an endpoint and new beginning, as one eon gives way to the next within infinite cosmic potential. NAVOMITTO: A Multi-Systemic Framework for Understanding Reality Nothingness and existence are two sides of the same coin Illusion 1-there is Illusion. Reality originates from and ultimately returns to the static Ground of paradoxical Illusion. Illusion encompasses both unmanifest non-being and manifest being, undifferentiated unity and multiplicity of form. Within Illusion lies both the potentia for all possibilities and the manifested plenitude of existing realities. All that exists emerges from Illusion. Due to the paradoxical nature of illusion, linear causation and acausality coexist. The causal-acausal paradox is beyond conceptualization, arising from illusion encompassing all opposites and paradoxes. So Reality is the Ground of Illusion, which encompasses both everything and nothing in eternal paradoxical unity. Illusion contains Systems. System (Universal/Dimention) 2-there is System. A system is an organized whole that arises from and participates in the Ground of paradoxical Illusion. Systems also includes any concept, property, quality, quantity, relationships, process or emergent properties or etc. Systems embody unique perspectives. interactions of all other systems (each with different influence), leads to manifestation of that Particular system. System exists in different Clarions and different Perspective. one example of a System is Differentiation. Differentiation is a system that works on other systems and create next clarion from previous clarion in that system. Differentiation involves separation of superimposed information (at previous lower clarion) into more clear information (at next higher clarion) that leads to increase in clarity, But losing of information's. Differentiation creates Reciprocal Hierarchy Structure of Systems. (For example: At a lower Clarion , you may have a Perspective that contains information about red and green (Particular red-green). There is no green or red in this lower Clarion Perspective but there is only red-green. Through the System of differentiation, the information in this Perspective (Perspective red-green) can be separated into 2 simpler, more clear Perspectives at next clarion (Perspective red + Perspective green). red Perspective is the parallel Perspective of green and red-green is the parent Perspective at lower Clarion. So if you move from red-green Perspective to red Perspective you will gain clarity but at the same time you lose information of green Perspective. Perspective (Particular) 3-There is perspective. Perspective defines the unique viewpoints, information and experience/qualia contained within a system. A system contains the total set of perspectives arising from all clarions from 0 to Maxima, encompassing an infinite number of potential perspectives within Illusion. The set of perspectives within a given clarion constitutes that system at that Clarion. Each perspective contains information that describes the system at that clarion from a unique vantage point, manifesting its own unique qualia. Clarion 4-there is Clarion. Clarion refers to hierarchical levels of system, each containing a varying number of perspectives. Higher Clarions represent more specialized and differentiated perspectives, while lower Clarions encompass more simplistic and generalized perspectives. Subclarions represent hierarchical levels between two given Clarions. Nothingness 5-there is Clarion 0. Clarion 0, known as nothingness, represents an undifferentiated state devoid of any particular manifestations, systems or perspectives. Containing no perspectives , Clarion 0 is a state of pure potentiality before existents arise at Clarion 1. It encompasses all of Illusion in its unmanifest form, containing the potentia for all possibilities in an undifferentiated state without taking on any particular form. All systems are common in Clarion 0. Clarion 0 represents the superimposition of all Systems since no particular System or perspective has manifested. Clarion 0 is the most simple state. Existence 6-there is Clarion 1. At Clarion 1, the first Perspective of a system emerges after Clarion 0. It contains one undifferentiated perspective blending all Perspectives at Clarion 2. At Clarion 1, The system's information exists undifferentiated, representing its uncertain, unorganized state. Inflectia 7-Between Clarion Zero and Clarion Maxima, there is an intermediate Clarion that has the largest amount of Parallel Perspectives. Perspectives at Inflectia has the most complexity while Perspectives at Clarion 1 and Platonica has the minimum Complexity. Platonica 8-there is Clarion (Maxima-1). In Clarion (Maxima-1), System needs another Differentiation to reach Clarion Maxima. Platonica means System in the most certain state. each perspective at Platonica contains the last bit of information in that System. In Platonica, with One differentiation, existence is destroyed and nothingness remains. Platonica is formed from the superimposition of Nothingness in clarion Maxima. Maxima (Infinity) 9-there is Clarion Maxima. In Clarion Maxima, there is no superimposition, and all causes have already occurred, with no change left to be made. In Clarion Maxima, there can be no further differentiation, and there is nothing left to differentiate. Therefore, paradoxically, Clarion Maxima, represent Clarion 0. Maxima can be any number from zero to infinity. drmora.ir/2023/04/06/navomitto/
What if there always was all energies, all posibilities just as a eternal, boundless sea? Once it feels like as an owner and Master of everything, it’s soul can be created of all possibilities, together with all dimensions. So if it took a charge of everything, it can design and arrange how the structures can be like in it’s imagination, like we can do in our mind. But the foundation where all possibilities stay is in the dark matter, it keeps him grounded, that the creation does not take charge of control, so he can keep it’s structure arranged by him. Also we as a human beings can understand rational things eith our rational state of mind like logic (cause-effect), we can change our emotions with our mind too. But we can not understand emotion, we can only resonate. So if we want to fully understand physically enture universe, it will be only 0,0001 of our knowledge. If we want to understand dark matter, we should at least resonate to that emptyness, then the rest of a possibilities will arrise and pop up. Then we can connect with everything and experience it. Maybe we don’t have a possibilities to change that, but that’s what is kept to us, to experience it. The further away from rational mind we go, the lesss control we have. In my experience we can resonate with that what is and atleast see that with our spiritual eyes. Scientists and physisists can explore things physically, but they can’t create a tools for resonating above physical matter, but soul can. So answer can be experienced internally if a person prepared himself. 😊
Where did material come from? Existence come from? Where did something come from nothing. What your looking for dose not come from the eye or the material world as we see it. It's much greater than that. The day you understand the spirt, the sole, maybe then you will have your answer. In the meantime keep looking..! Because God always knew.
When the universe begins the final moments of the big rip, the very fact that quarks are separated from one another creates enough energy in that moment to explode in to a quark gluon plasma every where. Ultimate heat death and expanded space time is the same as big bang uniform energy with different gradients.
There's no probable behaviors to suggest that there was ever a beginning or will ever be an end. There was no reason for there to be a start and finish to life in our known universe.
That's what I hate about the big bang theory. It's just a theory and you was not born before, so don't speculate how it was created. The Bible simply lets you know, but human stupidity gets in the way. Smfh
It makes sense to me that everything that exists and existence itself came from a monumental and immensely complex set of circumstances that was designed by a super intelligence. If it wasn’t created by a super intelligence, then we simply exist in a cyclical universe that repeats itself in exact sequence over and over again or is expressed in the infinite possibilities of a multi-verse.
Emptiness, by definition, contains the potential for everything. Conversely, all phenomena must eventually return to emptiness. I think that's a good place to start. That may turn out to be simultaneously a philosophical, and scientific concept. Fexl didn't burden us with the math here (fortunately), but as Penrose has shown, emptiness and infinite potential are mathematically equivalent states. A universe that has expanded completely, and therefore dissipated all it's matter, is in a state of pure energy, without mass or time, and thus provides the infinite potential for a completely new universe (including a completely new arrow of time - i.e. entropy - for the mass it generates). This is kind of the crux of Penrose's Cyclic Conformal Cosmology ( at least as I understand it). It is the only theory of cosmology that doesn't violate the the law of entropy in order to arrive at the highly ordered state of pure energy needed to generate a universe such as ours.
by excluding an infinite creator and dismissing the idea of mankind having a spirit, and relying solely upon the mathematics excluding those variables in determining the destiny of the universe, the inevitable conclusion is that the universe will inevitably still exist long after humans and any other living things have ceased to exist. Therefore attempting to establish the origin and destiny of the universe is a futile waste of time and furthermore has no real meaning or reason to have ever existed in the first place. 😏 If there's nobody around to observe the universe, does it even exist? If the answer is yes then, what difference would it even make?
For me, the no beginning thing is impossible to understand. Let's say the universe always was and always will be, no end or no beginning. Well, that's pretty mind numbing first of all to envision a universe with no beginning. It's even beyond the mind boggling concept of infinity to me, because to me everything has to have a start and I have an easier time picturing a never ending space than no beginning whatsoever. In my mind, there would HAVE to be a "first" universe that "started" the whole cycle. How could there never be a first? That is difficult to grasp. I feel there has to be a first even in a never-ending cycle. Universe always was and is, but there surely was a first universe, right?
@@lilmike2710that's a good question. I wonder that myself. If no consciousness ever existed in the entirety of the universe, the universe would exist yet there would be nothing at least living / conscious to observe it's existence. This seems quite sad to think about, oddly. Perhaps due to our own biases, but for what point would an entire universe the size of ours or even bigger be if not a single living soul existed? What is the point now as it is WITH life? At least with life feels like there is slightly more point to the universe than if there had been no life in the universe. So, on the contrary, a universe with no life would almost certainly have no point, while a universe with life, well we could at the least make what we want for our purposes, but a universe without purpose or ability to observe itself sounds quite dull and even more pointless indeed. Just imagine countless universes just like that. With no life forms for it's entire existence. Nobody to ever observe it even existed. It existed in fact, but with nobody to observe that, it is as good as if it had never existed. Us observing it somehow does seem to give extra meaning just by mere observation. Though, that is, meaning to us. The universe itself possibly could care less whether there is consciousness or not. That all being said, some theories do suggest that our consciousness in a way is the universe itself trying to understand itself and our constant curiosity of everything and the universe is reflective of that. The desire to just know how we came, and not just us but the universe. If that is the case, then the entire point of our existence would in fact technically be in finding out the meaning of how we came about and the universe. So, unless you know the meaning of existence yourself, you have no idea whether it is a pointless venture or not. and final point, even if it is entirely and totally pointless, space curiosity and innovation is a good huge reason why we are as technologically advanced today as we are. Space forces us to innovate and come up with new solutions and ideas and think outside the box to solve very complex challenges. These often end up being useful things to most of humanity. The first space race brought about TVs and monitors. You can thank space curiosity for that. Among many other inventions we use today. Technologies already invented are also further refined. Overall, we lose little to nothing in searching for answers, and we gain everything from knowledge to new technology that is useful to everyone. Not really seeing the downside that would make it not worth it. Even if there was no point, if you truly go by that logic, then why do you personally exist and what is the point of you doing anything at all if you know in the end it amounts to nothing? The answer is because perhaps you do value life a bit more than you lead on, and if you value life, you'd value knowing how and why it came about. Life itself has no purpose, and perhaps finding out how the universe came about could even explain our purpose. So perhaps answering that question could finally answer the life long question everyone who has ever lived wonders, what is the purpose of life? And if every life form felt as you did that there was no point - then every life form would not survive long or be technologically advanced, and your assumption life would go on might not hold true if life doesn't make attempts to protect itself from the dangers of nature and space by advancing technology through wonder and curiosity of the universe.
The more I come to understand, the more I know. The more I come to know, the more I come to Believe. My course in life has shown me much about death since no one is getting out of here alive. I’ve met many avowed atheists during the course of my years. Ironically, one of the final utterances of even the most devout atheist seemed to be “Oh, God”. I pray we all find peace in that phrase. 🙏 Joe
Believe in what, though? Understanding the universe can only lead you away from the gods of the various scriptures. If you're suggesting that understanding led you to belief in the god of the Bible, then I would question how much you really understand. in fact, I would question whether you're really taking it in and not just cherry-picking what you can twist to fit your theology and disregarding the rest. And the phrase "devout atheist" is absurd, as is your claim that an atheist's last words are "oh God". How many atheists have you seen die?
@EveAgaindoesgoogle Welcome to the world of Christian disinformation. But, at # 9 out of 10, that pesky lying thing isn't really that big a deal for them.
@@EvieDoesUA-cam Have all the doubts about my beliefs & their foundation that you require to justify whatever you need to justify in your mind. I’m at peace. I’ve held the hand of many devout atheists as they approached death and while they actually died. And you?
I like to think of things by looking at the sheer scale of the universe. With so much space and time, I can totally see our entire universe being a chance outcome. When dealing with infinity, everything that CAN happen, WILL happen eventually.
Wrong, 0 times infinity is still 0. It is inconceivable that we exist out of chance. GOD is the infinite power behind all thought which leads to creation. I would assume you are young, naive, and misguided by secular humanism that is so prominent today. But if you want the real reason why nothing is something, seek God
Theres plenty of things we know. Like we know how elements are created inside hot stars. We know how planets formed from gravity, we know how stars are created. We know what different planets are made of from gas planets, to rocky planets. We can identify almost everything in the visible universe.
While the universe may in some ways appear to be a simulation, this begs the question as to what computer is running this simulation, and what is the power supply for such a computer? It does appear that information processes are part of the answer.
FROM NOW TO INFINITY THE ? --- "WHERE DID THAT COME FROM" ----- ERGO WHERE DID THE COMPUTER COME FROM ---- WHERE DID THE OPERATOR COME FROM -------------------- I STILL ARGUE WTF IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS INSANE SEARCH THAT WILL "ALWAYS" END UP BUT WHERE DID THAT COME FROM ----------------- IN THE MEANTIME OUR UNIQUE PLANET IS BEING FCKNG DESTROYED -- AND I WILL STRONGLY INSIST THAT THE DARK MATTER IS A RUSE OF THOSE WHO CAN NOT FATHOM THAT THE FORCES OF GRAVITY , CENTRIFICAL FORCE , BLACK HOLES CONTROLLING TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS OF SPACE - DARK MATTER MY ASS IT IS JUST THE POWERS OF THE UNIVERSE ------------- BIG BANG OR NOT WHEN ARE WE GOING TO COME "BACK TO EARTH" AND SAVE THIS 1 IN A ZILLION ZILLION BLUE PLANETS AND FCKNG SAVE IT FROM THE IDOACY OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION BEYOND THE NEEDS !
Hard to say, do we really know how big we are? Tiny atoms? Could we fit a universe in the nucleus of a cell? We can simulate a universe on a computer now. Maybe not on a personal individual level as the processing power would be enormous but if our creator/s we’re better technologically it shouldn’t be to big a problem for them
Where is the freezes and who turns the machine off and on, surely that would have discontinuities at some points and everything can be explained better in a real world at present!?!
This issue with Penrose’s theory is it pushes back the original point of the “big bang” but at some point it still needs to start from nothing to something, so a cyclical universe sounds nice and tidy, but what and where did the first cycle start or begin with is still not addressed, only pushed back cycles, but not to the “first cycle”. As several theories have suggested that continue to push a dead string or loop quantum gravity, still fails…
If there is infinity, be glad! I write as the intellectual imposter syndrome shouldn't by definition of there is the 404 or singularity or just like most of what we know +1 shouldn't we by laws that are in place in our observable universe and likely all over and more..I'm super high on bud and am trying my hardest to be on point.. sry shouldn't every thing arrange exactly the same again unless heat death is the end but it cant í refuse to take part in that agreement only if each time would have the same laws which I will belive! its not just a one time thing mustn't be and thensome wink wink know wuh i meen nudge nudge. I'm out shii replay please 😅
It may be that the Universe, or reality that allowed it to come into exist, is eternal and therefore never truly beginning as it always existed and will always exist.
@@gisli12 The problem humans have is that we ground everything in the concept of 'time', but time is an emergent property and doesn't exist for fundamental particles etc, so the concept of a 'first' may be redundant.
I will never forget the words of Stephen hawking when he was asked this question . His reply was , a single molecule mutated and began the entire process of which is still happening today . Mind blown beyond the stars , astronomy has to be the most fascinating subject ever , I mean things that occur on planet earth seem totally insignificant in the context of the universe .
@@roddychristodoulou9111 evolution, which means we came from lower animals? But in larger sense it is what we have been given, and the ability to use it.
The four-fold imagination William Blake saw angels and ghosts and the Hallelujah sunrise, even on the darkest day. William Blake’s childhood vision on Peckham Rye is well known. Sauntering along, he looks up and, according to an early biographer, ‘sees a tree filled with angels, bright angelic wings bespangling every bough like stars’. On another occasion, he ran indoors declaring he had seen the prophet Ezekiel under a tree. His wife, Catherine, later reported that Blake first saw God at the age of four. I love that ‘first’. The Bible’s vivid prophetic and visceral apocalyptic imagery stirred him as well. It ‘overawed his imagination’ so that ‘he saw it materialising around him,’ Peter Ackroyd reports in his biography Blake (1995). When as an adult he became an engraver, artist and poet, Blake was driven to enable others to apprehend such sights. In one of his epic poems, ‘Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion’ (1804-20), he declared: … I rest not from my great task! To open the Eternal Worlds, to open the immortal Eyes Of man … At the time, there were few with the eyes to see and ears to hear him. The industrial age was booming, manifesting the insights of the scientific revolution. It was a tangibly, visibly changing society, fostering an almost irresistible focus on the physical aspects of reality. The narrowing of outlook is captured in one of Blake’s best-known images, entitled ‘Newton’ (1795-1805). It depicts the natural philosopher on the seabed, leaning over a scroll, compass in hand. He draws a circle. It’s an imaginative act. Only, it’s imagination rapt in the material world alone, devoted to studying what’s measurable. For Blake, Isaac Newton represents a mentality trapped within epicycles of thought. While claiming to study reality, it isolates itself from reality, and so induces, as he wrote in a letter to his patron Thomas Butts, ‘Single vision and Newton’s sleep’. Newton (1795-c.1805) by William Blake. Courtesy the Tate Gallery, London. Many of Blake’s contemporaries regarded him as eccentric or mad. But a different mood prevails today. Busts are as evident as booms. Civilisation itself can feel as if it teeters on the brink. Blake’s critique of ‘dark Satanic Mills’ now appears prophetic; his advocacy of the need for ‘Mental Fight’ to liberate the imagination sounds like a calling. When, on a damp Sunday in 2018, a substantial slab of handsomely engraved Portland stone was unveiled to mark his burial place at Bunhill Fields in London, hundreds gathered, having heard about the occasion by word of mouth. They were addressed by Bruce Dickinson, the lead singer of the heavy metal band Iron Maiden, who described Blake as one of the greatest living English poets. And he meant ‘living’. Blake never really dies, the rock star insisted. This sense of his immortality arises with a recognition of the conviction upon which Blake bet his life: the human imagination is not only capable of entertaining fantasy. When coupled to creative skill and penetrating thought, it reveals the truths of existence and life. It converts everyday incidents into rich perceptions that might amount to a revolution in experience. It underpinned Blake’s vocation as a visionary and a thinker, as Northrop Frye stressed in his study of the man, Fearful Symmetry (1947). And it promised the gift of what Blake called ‘fourfold vision’, a taste of which can be gained by considering what it allowed him to perceive when observing the sunrise. ‘When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea?’ he has an interlocutor ask him in an imagined exchange. ‘O no, no! I see an innumerable company of the heavenly host crying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty!”,’ he replies. The appearance of divine intelligences as dawn breaks - Frye called it ‘the Hallelujah-Chorus perception of the sun’ - will look like an ecstatic product of a fanciful mind to those expecting the Sun to look like a golden disk in the sky. But Blake could see more because he had realised that he saw the sunrise (and everything else) not with his eyes, but through them. Blake’s promise, therefore, is that the imagination, carefully embraced, frees you not to see more in the Sun, as if he were projecting jubilant angels onto its blazing orb, but to see more with and through the Sun. He understands that it is not the physical eye that enables what we see, but the mind’s eye: the retina, optic nerve and brain are the servants, not masters, of perception. We are all in exactly the same predicament; it’s just that the individual who detects only the guinea-sun has opted to see the guinea-sun alone, perhaps believing that they’ve side-stepped the part that imagination plays in what they perceive to arrive at an imagination-independent image of our stellar neighbour. This is to close ourselves up, to paraphrase Blake’s remark from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790-93). It is to see all things through the narrow chinks of our caverns, because we take as gospel truth the doctrine of scientific materialism that nature is purely physical. That starts to unravel once we realise that our conscious impressions can’t be divided from objective viewing, as if the former were a deluded epiphenomenon. Rather, the issue is how accurate and inclusive any take on the world is - a take that can diversify and expand as the imagination deepens and grows. ‘A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees,’ Blake wrote, and then he tempts us further: ‘If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite.’ This is no psychedelic hope or dreamy aspiration. Blake is a philosopher and artist. He understands how perception works, theoretically and practically. And there are ways to open ourselves up and escape the cavern.
That's a very interesting post, thank you. I must investigate this William Blake. Everything you wrote about what he said hit home for me, like reading something I already knew, but couldn't put it into words. Thanks again.
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. 47 surah Adh-Dhariyat 😍 And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating. Verse 33 from surah Al-Anbiya
Not to mention Mike leaving physicist geneticists State why are there not fishman walking out of the water why don't we have tadpole people running around because it's not true. DNA in the human body is far too miraculous tab come from primordial ooze figure it out there's no way you came from rocks. Unless you are all thinking with rocks
Ummm...if some supreme force made the universe..what made the the supreme force and how did it make the supreme force...and who made the thing that made the supreme force... and if the supreme force made all of the physical things in the universe including the universe...where did all of the things required to make the physical things come from.
In my opinion the description for theory 4 stopped short of one major factor, the simulation apparatus appears to be biological in its structure. The computers components, its hardware, its bios etc - these are all "natural' and it was our reverse engineering our 'real-world' reality that motivated the design of the computer.
You can use same metaphors for any technological object: the universe looks like how we design a chair.... how we design a house... how we design a bridge... how we design a toilet... how we design an airplane, car, boat, etc. How we design radios. Using a computer is just using the latest and greatest technology.
@@jmitterii2 Whilst I'm open to new ideas and willing to abandon preconceived beliefs wherever necessary, but this is unlikely to happen in this instance my friend. Thanks for sharing all the same.
I am a very simple human being and do not want to dwell into why and how the universe came into being. But I have reservations about the probabilistic notion. This view stems from the fact that we have not been able to explain the behavior of quantum particles. Just because we have not been able to explain quantum particles seemingly random behavior, today, with our current limited knowledge of quantum particles, it is preposterous to assume that they act randomly. A case in point is the quantum entanglement. There, definitely, is a communication between the entangled photons which we are still to discover. It could be anything from another dimension or medium of bonding/particles. I am hopeful, that discovery will point to a deterministic physical relationship.
An infinitely existing universe is also hard to imagine: where does energy come from? How come it never fades? It is never used up? How come it never becomes inert? I mean, if it indeed keeps going forever.
In probably less than 10 years I'm sure artificial intelligence will completely understand the universe but may not be able to explain it where even the smartest humans would be able to understand since it would be so complicated.
AI in itself has to be programmed .. it can enhance its programming by finding other information that will work with the programming it already has .. it can search out information about anything and everything you want because it is already available .. it can just do it at a speed that we can not comprehend .. if the AI is linked quantum computers we may see something that could be found to be very close to being able to write its own code .. as with the coding of the human DNA .. it is but we don’t understand how .. yet ..
Even if simplified this documentary maintains consistency and correctness, something that many TV documentaries are unable to do. In brief, way more interesting and well done than every Kaku/De Grasse Tyson's show.
Fantastic video. There is still so much to learn. Perhaps science and mathematics is insufficient to give us a "THEORY OF EVERYTHING ". I suppose that only TIME will tell !!! 🤔🤔🤔
*GOD created everything has been known since man has been alive, think, speak and hear. All these endless theories are never going to answer anything but only lead to more questions that men's scientific means isn't equipped to answer.* ENOUGH ALREADY, GOD IS TIRED OF LISTENING TO THESE TIRED USELESS THEORIES.
Humankind cannot relate to an eternal self existent God any more that you can tell me the greatest number or the distance between the east and the west.
*GOD already said that man's desire to know what isn't meant for him to know is an endless endeavor, the inner secrets of creation is not man's business but his alone to know, people already know this. And GOD has appoint a time to make his re-entry into man's world again for all to see, what will the scientific community and it's supporters have to say then?* LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT INCOMPRENHENSIBLE EARTH SHAKING EPOCH MOMENT.
Godel's incompleteness theory is 100% correct. You will never arrive at a theory of everything because you will always have theories you can't yet prove forever. To me it's the same as Matthew 7:7 - Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open..... It's a forever journey of discovery. We're most likely in an odd simulation where our consciousness creates reality we live in.
The God concept is just a man made idea to control the minds of free thought individuals who want to advance themselves into a higher conscientiousness of science and prefer not be contained in a restrictive state of fantasy by authoritative individuals or groups.
Quit calling them 'theories'. They are guesses, and competing guesses, at that. Hypotheses. Conjectures. Guesses. Suppositions. Wild guesses. The whole thing is in a state that Thomas Kuhn called 'chaos.'
I really hate when a video starts with: “13.5 billion years ago,” they don’t KNOW anything about way back then, or even if there ever WAS anything beyond a few thousand years….
BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.* This is uniquely consistent with the Genesis account of creation of stars on day 4 after the expansion of space. Also _"Let there be light."_ on day 1 explains the uniform CMBR being a burst of photon energy with no mass.
It would seem to me that it is self evident that nothing, absolutely nothing at all, is an unstable state of affairs that in due course decays to something.
No matter what, as animals, nutrients from the earth nurtured our initial presence, our world. Then one day our world ends and our bodies go back to feed the earth. Maybe with chemicals but still. Knowing the government they figured out using embalming fluid to preserve the body might be useful as a future energy source, 🤣
Believing most of this sounds a lot like believing in religious creation stories. You just have to have faith. Proving any of this is true is no different than proving God is real. More and more I find myself asking the same questions about this as I once asked about God/religion growing up. The ideas of a “Big Crunch” being how the universe “dies” never seem to give any theories of when the universe will reverse its expanding and start moving in on itself towards the crunch. Or can someone point me towards any theories of when that’s supposedly going to start happening?
Who needs this video when there a hundreds of physicists and philosophers right here in the comment section. Thats where i get my answers to the really big questions.
There must be an answer or we wouldn't be here, would we? I like the way this video did not focus on religion, spirituality, or consciousness. Thank you. That leaves only non-nonsense physics to consider. Here is my non-mainstream science explanation. Light is transported via an INFORMATIONAL PROCESS** that allows the pathway to be optimized. This explains how light follows the RULE OF LEAST ACTION. In the case of light, the rule of least action means the fastest pathway to get from the emission to the absorption. Note that this may not be the shortest pathway... a good analogy is driving a few miles in the wrong direct to get on the expressway. This optimization is apparent when light moves through mediums that have varying refractive indexes. For example, when trying to spearfish, the target image appearing at the surface of the water is slightly offset from the direct pathway to the fish. This happens because the light follows the optimal pathway when it moves from the fish, through the water, then through the air, and eventually to your eyeball. The light moves slower through the water than the air. So, the optimal pathway to the eyeball, is to take a shortcut that minimizes the distance traversed through the water. If the light went directly to the surface, and then changed the directional angle to the eyeball, that minimizes the distance through the water. However, it increases the distance through the air. Depending upon the vertical depth of the fish and the horizontal distance to the fisherman, there is an optimal angle the light can take that minimizes the TIME to complete the overall traversal from fish to eyeball. I call this the "sweet spot". That is what you see when you spearfish! This is no-nonsense physics. But nobody really knows how it works. How does the light know where the eyeball will eventually be, when it's on its on its way to the surface? How does the light know how deep and far away it is from its eventual target? How does the light know what the relative refractive indexes of water and air are, in order to know where the sweet spot will be? The biggest mystery of science is just this... how does light operate in "reverse-time-ordering"? Richard Feynman's famous PATH INTEGRAL seems to answer the question, however, it is based upon the work of Schrodinger, who's equations suggest the the entire Universe is PREDETERMINED. Otherwise, a photon could not know in advance where and when it will intercept its absorptive target. The equations suggest that the outcome is obtained by the Universe somehow fluctuating backwards and forwards in time!! Doesn't that sound crazy? My informational processing solution allows the Universe to optimize the pathways selection IN THE FORWARD-ONLY ARROW OF TIME!! By storing the potential pathways in data structures, my informational Universe can collect this on-the-fly. At the time of absorption, my solution has already obtained a PAST HISTORY of all potential pathways this photon could have taken. It can then go though the data and select the optimal pathway to use. Once selected, the actual distance traversed can be computed. This distance can then be squared and the result divided into the original quanta of energy the photon had to deliver. This heating quanta is then added onto the heat quanta of the absorptive target, the intermediate records can be deleted from the photon queue, and I call this a "digital waveform collapse". Read "Explaining the reverse-time-ordering of light", available from the web. **We live in an INFORMATIONAL UNIVERSE. Most people assume this results from some intelligent entity programming and executing our existence on computers, off on another plane of existence. They even said this in this video. WRONG! Watch "Auto-instantiation of an algorithm is real" (available on my UA-cam channel) for my explanation, including where the matter, energy and time came from.
How the more we learn, we realise how little we know.....
Big facts
The smarter you are the more capable you are at determining your ignorance, that's why youngsters and idiots always think they know everything
Maybe the hawking radiation when everything turns into black holes in the far future slowly dives back down to a single point again and starts a new big bang
I agree
Reality is
We really don't know anything.
This is well done. Albeit that it may be simple, this is not an issue since the delivery is consistent. The truth is that our ways of attempting to understand how our universe- and the others coexisting in a parallel but different time - actually came about is still at a very infantile stage. We have thousands of years of continuous mental and emotional evolution before we will even begin to comprehend an infinitesimal amount of the questions posed here. That is if we even last that long. We are in apparent rush to be the masters of our own extinction.😂
We're still at a very infantile stage??? Most of the science discussed in this video could be roughly 50 years old or so. Why would we even need thousands upon thousands of years of mental and emotional evolution as well as research and progress to understand the universe we can perceive? pfff I think 50 or so years is more than enough to understand something we estimate to be of billions years of age. And anyway, we've seen whatever is out there, we pretty much know everything, I think now is the perfect time to start discussing about a theory of everything. We we seen all, know all, there is nothing, I mean there is no possible way there is anything else out there we cannot even perceive. We know all 3-4% of everything, the rest is dark matter and stuff, and that's about it. Theory of everything here we come!!! 😂
Yes, not possible to understand the fundamental truth of nature because of infinity : I believe quarks and strings are not the smallest. There is an infinite number of smaller things than quarks and strings. Just because we cannot have sufficient energy to smash protons does not mean quarks are the smallest particles.
Buddhism is the answer
@@1stPrinciples455no. Nihilism is the solution
Agreed. Humanity is at the cusp pf some real breakthroughs. Nanotech has the potential to totally redefine the way we interact with materials. Quantum computing has the potential to redefine computing as a whole. Genetics offers the potential that we may learn how to evolve ourselves as opposed to leaving it to chance mutation. Nuclear fusion has the potential to supply civilization with a practically unlimited, totally free energy source for as long as we can maintain a civilization that understands how to use it.
But we are clinging to the baser instincts such as the belief that we must kill and subjugate other humans in order to survive, or that making money supersedes all humanist values in life, or simply clinging to Bronze Age, Iron Age, or even Stone Age religious systems, believing that they will somehow liberate us in some other (after?) life that we have absolutely no evidence or experience of.
So it does indeed look like we'll cause a mass extinction and have to go through a new, modern dark age before we, and the surface ecosystems of the Earth, can reset themselves for a new phase of evolution.
Nevertheless, it may all turn out for the better. Imagine a human species that doesn't have a basic desire to kill and and/or subjugate all other life it finds. Wouldn't that be a nice improvement?
Intelligence could be rated by a bell curve, with human civilization near the top (I know frightening)...consider 'gravity' could be nonexistent at the quantum level and what we measure as a gravity effect actually dissipates into a manifold of electromagnetic layering, at the smallest scales of effect, so at the quantum level it actually doesn't exist.
Big bang, big bang, big bang, parroted relentlessly and perpetually in media and literature, I've had it up to here with the big bang. What I would like to know is all about the mediocre bangs, thank you very much in advance.
I've had a mediocre bang,but the best was a big bang with a large woman,I exploded into her black hole,hahaha,it's a joke
I love your reply! I feel the same
Thanks for the laugh. Would you be satisfied with a small bang?
@@christophmessner6450 True, when are we gonna hear about the just-barely-insignificant bangs?
Or the slightly-above-average bang?
As I listen I can't help but feel sorry for all the people that try and formulate theories as to how it all began, but refuse to believe in a creator. The denial of a creator just leads to endless questions, amd eventually to, well, maybe this universe will see to exist like the one before it. How can u know what happened to a previous universe and at the same time have no idea how the current one came to exist..??... Keep denying a creator, and when u die u will find out that not only was and is their a creator, but he expected something from you. Unfortunately, by the time your willing to quit the denial game, it will be too late.
i'm actually not talking about religion here, but if everything has a creator, that means someone made the creator :P
GET REAL WERE DID THEY COME FROM
We humans believe only, what we are capable of believing.
right? I often get a kick out of all the debates over something nobody was around to see, and couldn't possibly know about.
Nah, what?
We can prove many things being true...
@@dusermiginte4647 doubtless, but nobody was around when the big bang kicked off. I presume they're taking the information they have and developing theories based on the data available. It's not a sure thing. Even the big bang is taking it's hits as a theory. You can't change a fact. Theory is not fact, but is something that stems from the facts available.
That's no kidding. I don't think we're capable of understanding much about the universe,
but it sure is fun trying!
@@Dirshauna little sad to throw away the entirety of astro physics, out understanding of the quantum real and the hours of research and mathematical equations being done to calculate and confirm certain events throughout our universe, I don't blame you for understanding, even I wouldn't claim to know enough to educate someone else, but just because You do not understand any of these things, does not mean other people also do not, don't project your ignorance onto everyone else, we might still understand very little relative to how much more we could, but it seems we also understand way more than you think we do about the universe
What does the universe without me mean to me?
nothing
Great question
@@jc_malone8217good answer
You asked the best question...
You are the universe.
As fascinating as these theories are, I believe that the simple answer is that we will never know. Of course the realization that our knowledge will never resolve the mystery of our origin will not prevent our continued speculation.
I agree with you. I don't think we'll ever know, because we're not meant to, not until we die anyway. Only then, I think all will be revealed in one way or another.
@@chloewright1 I guess we'll have to wait for that. I mean, I'm curious but I'm not prepared to go to that extreme at the moment to find out.
well said
Should chemistry be denied in the ready conversion of H1 to H2 merely because H2 is difficult to detect in any direct manner in space? A paper by Canadian astronomer Paul Marmet essentially collapsed the "Big Bang" back in 1990 as he theorized the existence of intergalactic and interstellar matter as the cause of redshift rather than a doppler effect -- and accounting for anomalies much more effectively, before the discovery of the abundance of H2 throughout space, though primarily ignored by the necessities of money and career support. An abundance of H2 throughout space in a gradient that will extend to meet that of our galactic neighbor, will also account for the gravitational anomaly where the outer arms of our galaxy rotate at nearly the same rate as the central region. Quantum physics is great, dare I say so before I have dived into the math. However math hasn't actually proven the existence of dark matter, no matter how sophisticated the math is or can be. Circular reasoning isn't somehow justified if you add decades of career building and funding requirements and the consensus building that takes place over time that takes on more precedence than any math in support . .
A much greater quantity of H2 in the presence of H1 is the natural result if we acknowledge basic chemistry, exceeding the mass of the visible component of the universe and which must be ignored to maintain control over the narrative and our inability to think and take a risk without group oriented behavior and identification in support.
The "BIg Bang" is not a known fact, only a theory...
No , wrong.
It's a fact now , not a theory...
@@maggam4941 Nope. Wrong. You and anyone who believes this to be a fact are idiots.
@@maggam4941nah, facts would make predictions possible, big bang theory is chock full of ad hoc adjustments after the fact. You may have read how the most recently the James Webb telescope is also breaking the age of the universe prediction. Big bang can’t predict anything, well, no better than it’s predecessor theory of epicycles does anyway.
Really a great informative program. Thank you.
Take a step back. Let go of the pursuit for just a few moments. Take a look. Then. Realize what you are.
One day every soul will be faced with this question: "Who do you say that I AM ?".
The concept of soul is a human invention.
Amen!!
Evidence please
@@CaptainDanassume One day we will all have the evidence you demand.
@@AlanHitchner
When?
It would be nice if you did videos on David Deutsch's work, the world economy, political system and biology in this format. Your explanations are on point, this format is wonderful. Thank you
Very informative video. I had to watch the whole thing
I tend to like theory 2. It’s always there. There is no beginning and neither ending.
Its not about "what you (we) like" its about what we can prove is true.. the rest is ideas that we must learn the true reality off to move forward..
well you aren’t wrong imo, in the sense that there is no such thing as a beginning or ending. however, the way we exist is entirely different from that of let’s say a photon. so it’s really much deeper than that
@isaiahgomez1992 "there is no such thing as a beginning or ending" - as far as your understanding can take you. Which is far short of knowing everything, no one does at this point, so why speak in such certain absolutes?
@@tunnocks why can’t I though? I don’t mind being wrong, but why can’t I? I mean, the universe has absolutes and it also doesn’t. what is for sure is that we don’t know. and what we don’t know points to several assumptions. that being said, the absence of such knowledge does limit my ability to speak in absolutes. however, us humans are accustomed to beginnings and endings. action reaction. cause effect. this topic is more of a thought experiment than anything because the beginning and ending of anything throws everything we know out of the window. it doesn’t matter how much we know because there’s always more to know. and yet that in itself is absolute is it not? point is, if there is a beginning, then there has to be an ending. but an ending assumes there has to be a beginning. this pattern doesn’t make sense to me at this level because you can keep going farther and farther back. it doesn’t stop. there’s always more! if there is a beginning, why does the universe make it so hard to make that claim that there is one? I just don’t get why it hasn’t presented itself! unless, there isn’t one. and that’s where this requires us to think outside the box. I’m willing to abandon every piece of knowledge on said topic if it means I will be able to grasp whatever I witness.
@@tunnocks so sorry for the long ass response but those are my thoughts.
*The answer to the "numerous unanswered questions everywhere" is GOD, God is the answer, now go to bed and stop asking these endless questions and making stupid assumptions.*
Is it easier to believe that the universe was always here or that a creator was always here and created the universe??
There is too much evidence there that God created the heavens, the earth and all living things Genesis 1:1
@collywoodch apart from the words of the bible, which are words written by men, what evidence is there?
@msloan8273 no it is incorrect. You just don't believe in God. Or that a Devine entity created all of this.
@msloan8273 it's all around you my guy. You folks just don't pay attention
@@msloan8273you referenced the biological version of big bang theory. So explain how life evolved from single cells to create your complex body and the diversity of animals and living things. Provide your evidence that your body is a product of blind chance of cells combining without any intelligence that they were creating a body. Mind you evolution hasn’t answered this fundamental question. As for the evidence of God. Science has not provided experimental proof of the origin of the universe. All we hear in this video are assumptions and guesses framed with scientific terminologies. That is not satisfactory to the fundamental question. The reality of God can be seen from the things he has made Romans 1: 19-21.
Such a pretty video, the eye candy is awesome thx for uploading this I enjoyed it
It is interesting that of all the theories mentioned, why not mention the theory that there is an infinite being that created everything? Is it because no mathematics have been possible to predict this? Is it because the mind that infers mathematics is the only tool to that has promise to solve this problem? I have seen lots of videos describing how the universe began, but none of them talk about an Infinite being that might do this. An Infinite being ,or better called an Infinite Intelligence . Is it because there is no math that can describe such a thing? Or is it that there is no mind that can create the math that can describe such a thing? Yet, there is math that can describe a worm hole, or can describe a Big Bang, or describe a string Theory, or come up with a math that can describe quantum mechanics, or a math that can describe a multiverse. I’m perplexed that of all theories, none have contemplated that this is all planned by a infinite being. Ok, or a Infinite group of beings, Ok, or a being we have now called “God”. What proof do we have of any of this? In the end, are not we faced with the dilemma that something could be created from Nothing? And I mean nothing that does not pulse in and out of existence, but absolute Nothing, like absolute zero degrees? Putting it bluntly, I mean absolute nothing that throughout infinity there is Nothing? Can the mind contemplate that without stumbling upon an Infinite being as the creator of all things? or is it that a equation can’t be applied to it? That is the question…. Can you prove ore disprove via an equation that “The term we use as God, exists?
He did mention "An Intelligent Designer" *
Ultimately every theory, no matter how sophisticated, confronts the stark reality of the question of existence vs. non-existence. Given this caveat, here's another theory. Inflation is still happening here where we are now. At the most primordial level, particles are coming into existence and almost instantaneously disappearing again. Space-time is being created here and now, but is almost completely offset by gravity, so although there is some freedom of movement, we do not fly apart from one another. More complex particles "hold" more fundamental particles in configurations that prevent their disappearing into nothing. Of course, it's not really particles but fields, nevertheless the concept of particles simplifies the explanation. With space time being created here and now via inflation, winding inflation backwards in time [so to speak] we see uninflated space-time so that the most primordial particles do not experience space-time the same way we do. We observe such particles through the lens of our experience of space-time, so we think we see paired particles interacting with each other at great distances, too far from one another to communicate with one another at the "speed" of light. In fact, thinking of universe beginning with an "explosion" is nonsensical, because the idea of an explosion would occur in pre-existing space and time. But if there is no pre-existing space-time, then there is no explosion. After all, the Big Bang theory is a misnomer. It's space-time that expands. Well, what do you think?
So you mean no time no bang.
@@bobobo4555 yes, no big bang event.
Where do you suppose these particles came from and what caused inflation to begin?
It seems like the quantum wave only collapses once it is observed, by an intelligent mind.
The implications of this could be the an immaterial mind is fundamental, an all other properties are emergent from this immaterial mind.
I think the ultimate questions about the cosmos can only be answered philosophically, never fully understood in terms of science and the material plane, which is only one aspect of a multitude. We are not in a position to know everything about the universe or to unravel its mysteries, which will (thankfully) always be with us. My best guess is that our universe is fine-tuned for the creation of life, and that intelligent life is the end purpose of the creation, which allows the universe to know itself. Exploration of non-physical and meta-physical planes is just as necessary and revealing as the scientific exploration of the physical world. This is where human understanding is very weak. Perhaps in these alternative modes we'll find some meaningful answers to the ultimate questions.
@@andrewdouglas1963 regarding your first question, I'm inclined to just accept the fact that the universe exists. Cosmologists and quantum physicists are studying how it has evolved but "why" is a mystery, - I think it's pointless even asking. It's all very well to say that God created the universe, but then, where did He come from? We can give Him a name, though - I suggest the "Immanent God". This is where atheists and religionists disagree. I would say that atheists are correct in that the Immanent God did not design the universe, - He didn't have any blueprints. But it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. When we say an act of observation collapses the wave function. it doesn't have to be human intelligence that did it. Your "immaterial mind" is an interesting idea, I like it.
My understanding of the death and creation cycle of the universe is this… first , we cannot possibly understand infinite and what is allways was because we exist in a time loop.. we are born we expand and we die and then are reborn.. so does everything move in these cycles.. My understanding is the black holes pull matter in and in and in, the pressure heats this all back to a “soup” where it is then expelled to again expand and cool only to recreate our understanding of big bang.. although , I believe this happens in many black holes .. so there’s not a singularity amongst the whole picture, this happens over and over in very vast undetectable distances and is separated by so much time that we cannot understand.. I believe it’s probably the rarest event that does happen over and over in timelines and vastness of space that inconceivable, yet since mathematics and properties of our construct follow laws, it pretty much all is the same magnetism, heating , bursting then cooling.. I also believe that dna in ancient and life is seeded somehow in this mixture as well so its constantly reoccurring with different results.. This is a formula only if we are not in a similated universe.. By the Mandela effect and other things in our time lines of history, it’s a very good chance we are in a simulation.. But , even if that is true, we still have consciousness that does not follow the laws of this reality..This stuff is so deep and intriguing, I’m not sure if we are able to understand it all within our limited 5 or 6 senses..also the universe may be torus shaped so yes it’s expanding yet it may be just an illusion to us as it may just be moving as a torus shape would, making it only a cell in a larger being 🤷🏼♀️
The big bang happened everywhere. All of space was that tiny point, meaning it happened everywhere
No. Imagine the universe full of only atoms... lets say hydrogen. Akin to a kiddies ball pool, Yes. There are No spaces = no vacuum of space. Now, imagine that you can squeeze two atoms together, to start fusing them. As we know, when atoms fuse, the resulting mass is smaller than the previous masses combined. In a universe full of matter, this fusion CREATES SPACES, 'space' itself. The more atoms you squeeze together the more space is created, that other masses you squeezed can move into. Cavities start forming. Smaller objects are being pulled and pushed towards these larger atoms. Some cavities become so large and numerous, the masses break off from the rest. Can you picture this?
Space itself isn't expanding. It is the Distances inbetween these objects (galaxies) that are increasing because of a universal fusion throughout the universe and all objects are pulling and pushing on each other, connected like a 3D spider web.
Pull parts of a web to stick together and the other distances inbetween neighbouring objects become greater.
There is no need for a singularity or expansion.
I call it.
Uniform web contraction
@@slaterdomain interesting hypothesis. Do you have any observational or experimental evidence for it?
I saw another pretty cool explanation for expansion that explained it as just the trajectories of matter being set during the initial conditions. Think of it like this.. if you throw 2 balls in slightly different directions, you'll notice that as they fly, the space between them "expands"
@denissavgir2881 thanks for taking interest. The idea was a eureka moment. I'm a animator, work with 3D particle affects so can imagine these things clearly. This idea really replaces the singularity idea. That the simple merging of galaxies would mean as they are pushed and pulled by gravity and magnetism, joined like a spiders web , in an infinite space there distances would increase. Its just works
@@slaterdomain your artistic abilities give you that. Mine are more autistic. But they sound similar, so whatever 😛
But I know what you mean. It's like running a simulator in your head that vosualizes it
@denissavgir2881 I have dyslexia and am an INTP personality type. Think with my right side of the brain. Think conceptually. We are the ideas people, not the mathematicians.
When we "Peter out," we just simply enter another life form (automatically). Life takes many shapes, sizes, colors, and intelligence. Everything we see and beyond (is) the anatomy of ourselves including (all) life forms. 👽
News Flash !!!! No one actually knows what took place exactly. We don't even know the mysteries of our own solar system or our own galaxy... Trying to explain how the universe itself began ..is nothing more than just guessing.
That 's making the task even funniest, and interesting
Is that a guess?
It’s quite a bit more than “guessing.”
@@spudmcdougal369 no. thats all it is.
@@ToddiousMaximous Really, no. Maybe you don’t know any physics or maybe you don’t know what guessing is or both. There’s many ways you could educate yourself before your time is up.
When you get to the end of the universe what do you find on the other side? Guess it's time to go fishing.
We will never know the truth or any secrets. All this is mere speculation. 😢
So is your comment
When you're wise enough to recognize others dwarf your intellect and knowledge on the nature of awareness, consciousness, self, reality, and god, you'll see the absurdity of your statement
The Entire Universe Is Intelligent, Our Every Thought Is Connected With Distant Worlds
We are the Universe, and the Universe is us.
The first law of thermodynamics "energy can not be destroyed or created, it can be converted only from one form to another, ultimate energy is constant" proved the correctness of the spiritualistic concept of the immateriality of the soul as energy. Actually, everything of the universe is made of light [29], even heart and soul, which would be a new direction towards the modern world to understand the whole universe. ...
Which means that everything that exists contains the information of everything else that exists.
The information of the entire universe is contained holographically and energetically in every
single cell.
It’s hard to grasp when we’re sitting in traffic or waiting in the doctor’s office to get a flu shot, but
science is revealing that our world is more of an energetic idea than anything else.
As the famous Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrödinger put it, “What we observe as
material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.
Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” That essentially everything is energy.
I used to lie in bed at night for hours wondering how my hand and my pillow, the parquet tiles on
the floor in my bedroom, and the sultry night air wafting over my body could all be nothing but
intangible, energetic information.
How was it possible? It was crazy! I mean, come on. This stuff is real!
But what is real? How do we define it? As physical beings-oops-as apparentlyphysical beings
of course we would define reality in physical terms. But given the inescapable scientific proof we
have now gathered that everything is energy at the most fundamental levels, it seems this world
(and everybody in it) isn’t physical at all.
Whether we call it the unfolding implicate/explicate order, “irregularities in the fabric of space,”
Planck scale information, or Platonic ideals doesn’t matter. Invisible, intangible and unfathomably
powerful energies lie at the foundation of the universe, interconnecting and interpenetrating all
life-unfolding as life.
And these energies are best understood as information/intelligence/consciousness itself.
As Swami Muktananda puts it, “The Self, Shiva, is supremely pure and independent, and you can
experience it constantly sparkling within your mind. It cannot be perceived by the senses,
because it makes the senses function. It cannot be perceived by the mind, because it makes the
mind think. Still, the Self can be known, and to know it we do not need the help of the mind or the
senses.”
Bottom line, matter and energy, information and consciousness are just different ways of looking
at the same thing. And if we include the experience of mystics who have directly grasped and
taught that everything is energy and about the unified consciousness of creation for millennia, we
can add the word “self” to this interchangeable mix as well.
SELF = Intelligence = Information = Energy = Mass = Life = God = Spirit = Consciousness
It’s all the same thing. It’s all ONE thing. And everything is energy.
Bro I Wanna have what you had.. joking.
Everything came from God! ALLAH is the creator read the Quran and you will have all the answers.
@@ramo4uuuu It will explain the ethics that approve murdering unbelievers.
Isn't it more logically revalent and feasible to simply believe that God spoke the universe into existence. With all these theories and something as ridiculous as a big bang would require more faith to believe than to give God the credit he deserves.
No it's not more logical. It's idiotic. God is Santa Claus for grownups.
Um... no. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Didn't your god give us the capacity to explore our surroundings? Isn't your god 'behind it all?' Well, than you don't have to lobby for god's cause - I assume the all-powerful can carry their own water. Your god supposedly gave humans free will, so let's use it. God came to take away your pain, your 'sins'... not your mind.
I truly wish all blessings to you and yours.
No.
We are still like Apmen trying to unravel the Rubik's Cube.?
The absence of matter and energy is easy to understand but an absence of space is hard to comprehend.
It’s like a no place for a physical being. But a normal place for non physical being who need zero dimension to exist or walk on. Assuming if there is existence of some sort out side of dimensions in other words is there existence out side of physics ( a being made of non physics stuff ).
@grande6075
No, it is not so hard to understand because according with what I read somewhere space is also MATTER...
Nicely put, and a thought I had never experienced
@@paulsymanski489 Maybe i am.not intillegent enought to understand a lot of thing especially if the topic is too complicated but logically there are some ideas discussed which defies simple logic such creation of space. You cannot create an space because it has no.physical attribute because space is actually nothing,it is an absolute term. Time on the other hand will not exist without space because movement from one.place to another can only be posible if there is an space.
Am I getting the back end of the bull?
It's all a dream
God works in mysterious ways!!
I like to think that the multiverse is a bootstrap paradox. That the information lost within blackholes as they evaporate isn’t lost instead it emerges from the theoretical White Holes, the black/white hole a wormhole through Time itself the white holes emerging and expelling its absorbed energy back out into the universe as the Big Bang.
Exactly black holes are worm holes, i like the way you think as i have been thinking this for years. But on further research ( internet) the connection is different each blackhole connect to Suns our Sun is connected to a blackhole in Andromeda galaxy M32 via portals this how the universe works connected like a matrix via portals ( now i can't say on here how i got this info). you can enter the Sun portal but cannot exit a black hole so us going via our sun to Andromeda we would have to exit at M33 you need to come out like half way due to the entrance forces from the blackhole. to enter via a black hole all is needed is for the ship to change to the frequency of a blackhole become one with the blackhole (so to speak) frequency is the way to understand the universe . The universe is more complexed its a WOW factor all over again. the big bang never happened the earth is 13.98 billion years old and that's where they are getting mixed up. As we are still in the primitive stages of understanding space. Sun to sun is also a portal as well. Just like on earth and our solar system all the planets are connected to the sun via a portals and the same goes for all the 200 trillion Galaxies in the universe portals portals the matrix of the universe. The universe is full of life amen.
I think bootstrap is a part of it. JWST recently found galaxies in the early ages of the universe where they found fully formed galaxies that are older that they assumed they would be at the time period in the universe they found them.
My thoughts: Is it not possible that those galaxies existed already and that space existed before the big bang? Maybe steady state and the big bang are both right (big bang for our observable universe/ what is considered our universe; steady state for a more macro "universe[the plain for a multiverse]")and we need a revised hybrid theory...🤔 In other words, maybe we're still thinking too small. 😅
So my explanation for these galaxies is that when our observable universe was a singularity it attracted these galaxies, likely drifting in from another "universe".
The Big bang is likely from a singularity, I'd say. Likely multiple ones that combine into an unsteady state and started to expand. The singularity of a black hole is so dense it warps spacetime, so the question of "why don't we see naked singularities?" is more "when are naked singularities? Is it possible to detect naked singularities? And what conditions need to be met for them to occur in spacetime?" I think the way it works that once a black hole fizzles out a singularity stabilizes in spacetime somewhen, somewhere. It's infinite density attracts anything around it and vaporizes anything that touches it, adding to its mass, but eventually, it becomes too unstable and expands outward in all directions (Big bang). I think this idea also sort of explains the uneven expansion of the universe. There may be singularities attracting portions of our universe just outside of our ability to observe them.
But I'm no scientist, just a nerd who likes science.
I call them just "singularities" after the first mention of "naked singularities", due to being detached from a black hole somewhere/when. I think of a "naked sigularity" as a singularity where it's event horizon (clothes) has been forcefully destroyed. But a singularity left behind by its black hole is just a "singularity." Look up Kurzgesagt's video about destroying a black hole. That's where I started developing this idea.
The singularity of a black hole is in the future of information that falls into it. The singularity itself is theoretically so dense that physics breaks down in black holes. Space and time flip flop, and the black hole and the event horizon itself is just a barrier between the singularity and the rest of the universe. So, the singularity likely isn't bound by time or space. It exists somewhere outside it until its black hole no longer exists, which is why I believe the question is "when sigularities appear? And what conditions are needed for them to specifically stabilize in the physical realm?" Black holes themselves act like ultramassive particles and don't retain specific information of the things that go in them, just their mass. Which, it presses into an infinitely dense point (at which point I also hypothesize would cause it to heat up. Maybe trillions of degrees.🤔).
Two black holes colliding=a bigger black hole. Dark mass entering a black hole=bigger black hole. Banana enters a black hole=banana's mass bigger black hole. The only things that define a black hole are it's mass, spin, and charge. If you overfeeding a black hole it will eventually reject new information. Same goes for spin and charge. So a black hole can only naturally get so big...still incomprehensibly massive, but not too much if any bigger than ones we've already found. Which the biggest one we've found is about 66billion times the mass of our sun.
From this information, I think that black holes stabilize their singularities while they "grow" and that it doesn't exist in any one place in spacetime, while the black hole still exists. Once the event horizon Hawking radiates out and dissipates, the singularity stabilizes somewhere/when. Almost like a quirk, but supermassive...or maybe just as small...due to it's hypothetically infinite density...🤔 and attracts things to it.
From what I understand, the idea is that the black hole fizzles out from Hawking radiation, but doesn't actually explain what happens to the singularity or all the mass collected by the black hole.
In Kurzgesagt's video, he talks about how if we destroyed the event horizon of a black hole to reveal it's singularity, objects would still fall towards the naked sigularity but they would be able to get as close to it as they wanted, and even escape away from it as long as it didn't touch the singularity. Otherwise, things touching the sigularity would become vaporized. Which is why I think it's possible for them to have a form of stability for long periods of time. As it's existence, may explain some inconsistencies in expansion. Once it's collected enough extra density, though, or collides with another or multiple singularities, it eventually destabilizes and expands outward. Big bang.
Yes, it'd technically be a "white hole", and the expansion itself would likely only take a couple of microseconds, as the expansion period we'd consider a "white hole" would. But I, personally, want to stay away from that term. As I believe, that singularities probably expand in all directions spherically vs. just a mass ejection from a white hole somewhere in spacetime like is normally imagined when visualizing that particular idea.
The idea of the big bang is that all the matter we see was once condensed into a single point (like what we believe the singularity of a black hole to be) in a dense ball so hot (trillions of degrees) that nothing could really form from it.
So my idea is that singularities have some stability until something happens that makes them unstable and the information is released. And I think that something needs to happen to destabilize it. Like other singularities collecting together or for the singularity to hit a "mass tipping point" causing it to eject. These are just my ideas.
shiva is that nothingness(pure consciousness) from big bang happened and we are in his brain as an illusion.. its already proved and known to physicist
Theory based on nothing and not very logical
@@grantandrew619 Well there is some actual theoretical physics to the idea of white holes and that's based on current observations, and mathematics, so...
The thing is, you have to hypothesize something, to attempt to look for evidence.
such an amazing video I really enjoyed your post
I'm glad for all of the lives they saved.
The Cosmic Cycle: Universes within the NAVOMITTO Framework
NAVOMITTO's multidimensional perspective offers profound insights into the cyclic nature of our universe and the cosmos as a whole. Within its framework, our observable universe can be seen as a lower Clarion manifestation that emerges from a higher dimension, evolves through an "eonic lifespan", and ultimately returns - giving way to a new Clarion and a new cosmical cycle.
The end of the previous eon (universe cycle) represents a gain in clarity but loss of information. This occurs as the universe horizon shrinks and multiplicity simplifies back into Nothingness. We realize the "clarity" that ultimate reality is the dimensionless void of Nothingness.
Nothingness, paradoxically, is the "Big Bang" that gives rise to the next eon. From the dimensionless potential of the void, a new lower Clarion universe manifestation emerges.
The new universe begins at Clarion 1, representing an undifferentiated state where all perspectives are fused together. As differentiation occurs, the universe horizon expands rapidly.
As higher clarions emerge with more specialized perspectives, the rate of change decreases. This corresponds to the observable universe's exponential expansion slowing over time.
After Inflectia, clarions begin decreasing in number again. Reintegration and loss of multiplicity set in, mirroring an accelerating expansion and "Big Rip" endpoint for the universe.
Ultimately, the horizon shrinks to nothing once more, signaling a return to the dimensionless potential of Nothingness and the beginning of a new eon/universe cycle.
NAVOMITTO's multidimensional framework thus insightfully portrays how the evolutionary dynamics of our universe's expansion and contraction map onto NAVOMITTO's framework of clarions differentiating from and returning to an ultimate ground of Nothingness. The "shrinkage of horizon to nothingness" represents both an endpoint and new beginning, as one eon gives way to the next within infinite cosmic potential.
NAVOMITTO: A Multi-Systemic Framework for Understanding Reality
Nothingness and existence are two sides of the same coin
Illusion
1-there is Illusion. Reality originates from and ultimately returns to the static Ground of paradoxical Illusion. Illusion encompasses both unmanifest non-being and manifest being, undifferentiated unity and multiplicity of form. Within Illusion lies both the potentia for all possibilities and the manifested plenitude of existing realities. All that exists emerges from Illusion. Due to the paradoxical nature of illusion, linear causation and acausality coexist. The causal-acausal paradox is beyond conceptualization, arising from illusion encompassing all opposites and paradoxes. So Reality is the Ground of Illusion, which encompasses both everything and nothing in eternal paradoxical unity.
Illusion contains Systems.
System (Universal/Dimention)
2-there is System. A system is an organized whole that arises from and participates in the Ground of paradoxical Illusion. Systems also includes any concept, property, quality, quantity, relationships, process or emergent properties or etc. Systems embody unique perspectives. interactions of all other systems (each with different influence), leads to manifestation of that Particular system. System exists in different Clarions and different Perspective.
one example of a System is Differentiation. Differentiation is a system that works on other systems and create next clarion from previous clarion in that system. Differentiation involves separation of superimposed information (at previous lower clarion) into more clear information (at next higher clarion) that leads to increase in clarity, But losing of information's. Differentiation creates Reciprocal Hierarchy Structure of Systems. (For example: At a lower Clarion , you may have a Perspective that contains information about red and green (Particular red-green). There is no green or red in this lower Clarion Perspective but there is only red-green. Through the System of differentiation, the information in this Perspective (Perspective red-green) can be separated into 2 simpler, more clear Perspectives at next clarion (Perspective red + Perspective green). red Perspective is the parallel Perspective of green and red-green is the parent Perspective at lower Clarion. So if you move from red-green Perspective to red Perspective you will gain clarity but at the same time you lose information of green Perspective.
Perspective (Particular)
3-There is perspective. Perspective defines the unique viewpoints, information and experience/qualia contained within a system. A system contains the total set of perspectives arising from all clarions from 0 to Maxima, encompassing an infinite number of potential perspectives within Illusion. The set of perspectives within a given clarion constitutes that system at that Clarion. Each perspective contains information that describes the system at that clarion from a unique vantage point, manifesting its own unique qualia.
Clarion
4-there is Clarion. Clarion refers to hierarchical levels of system, each containing a varying number of perspectives. Higher Clarions represent more specialized and differentiated perspectives, while lower Clarions encompass more simplistic and generalized perspectives. Subclarions represent hierarchical levels between two given Clarions.
Nothingness
5-there is Clarion 0. Clarion 0, known as nothingness, represents an undifferentiated state devoid of any particular manifestations, systems or perspectives. Containing no perspectives , Clarion 0 is a state of pure potentiality before existents arise at Clarion 1. It encompasses all of Illusion in its unmanifest form, containing the potentia for all possibilities in an undifferentiated state without taking on any particular form. All systems are common in Clarion 0. Clarion 0 represents the superimposition of all Systems since no particular System or perspective has manifested. Clarion 0 is the most simple state.
Existence
6-there is Clarion 1. At Clarion 1, the first Perspective of a system emerges after Clarion 0. It contains one undifferentiated perspective blending all Perspectives at Clarion 2. At Clarion 1, The system's information exists undifferentiated, representing its uncertain, unorganized state.
Inflectia
7-Between Clarion Zero and Clarion Maxima, there is an intermediate Clarion that has the largest amount of Parallel Perspectives. Perspectives at Inflectia has the most complexity while Perspectives at Clarion 1 and Platonica has the minimum Complexity.
Platonica
8-there is Clarion (Maxima-1). In Clarion (Maxima-1), System needs another Differentiation to reach Clarion Maxima. Platonica means System in the most certain state. each perspective at Platonica contains the last bit of information in that System.
In Platonica, with One differentiation, existence is destroyed and nothingness remains. Platonica is formed from the superimposition of Nothingness in clarion Maxima.
Maxima (Infinity)
9-there is Clarion Maxima. In Clarion Maxima, there is no superimposition, and all causes have already occurred, with no change left to be made. In Clarion Maxima, there can be no further differentiation, and there is nothing left to differentiate. Therefore, paradoxically, Clarion Maxima, represent Clarion 0. Maxima can be any number from zero to infinity.
drmora.ir/2023/04/06/navomitto/
What if there always was all energies, all posibilities just as a eternal, boundless sea? Once it feels like as an owner and Master of everything, it’s soul can be created of all possibilities, together with all dimensions. So if it took a charge of everything, it can design and arrange how the structures can be like in it’s imagination, like we can do in our mind. But the foundation where all possibilities stay is in the dark matter, it keeps him grounded, that the creation does not take charge of control, so he can keep it’s structure arranged by him. Also we as a human beings can understand rational things eith our rational state of mind like logic (cause-effect), we can change our emotions with our mind too. But we can not understand emotion, we can only resonate. So if we want to fully understand physically enture universe, it will be only 0,0001 of our knowledge. If we want to understand dark matter, we should at least resonate to that emptyness, then the rest of a possibilities will arrise and pop up. Then we can connect with everything and experience it. Maybe we don’t have a possibilities to change that, but that’s what is kept to us, to experience it. The further away from rational mind we go, the lesss control we have. In my experience we can resonate with that what is and atleast see that with our spiritual eyes. Scientists and physisists can explore things physically, but they can’t create a tools for resonating above physical matter, but soul can. So answer can be experienced internally if a person prepared himself. 😊
Where did material come from? Existence come from? Where did something come from nothing. What your looking for dose not come from the eye or the material world as we see it. It's much greater than that. The day you understand the spirt, the sole, maybe then you will have your answer. In the meantime keep looking..! Because God always knew.
If there is something called gravity waves, maybe there are time waves=ripples of time that give this universe a solid appearance.
'heavy' waves....electromagnetic.
What do you mean?
God made the universe simply because something is better than nothing..... Look at my wife...
When the universe begins the final moments of the big rip, the very fact that quarks are separated from one another creates enough energy in that moment to explode in to a quark gluon plasma every where. Ultimate heat death and expanded space time is the same as big bang uniform energy with different gradients.
When the last universe died ,all that was left was dark energy and dark matter,but Einstein says every act there's a negative reaction,
Action
Not gonna rip, just continue on forever and ever
There's no probable behaviors to suggest that there was ever a beginning or will ever be an end. There was no reason for there to be a start and finish to life in our known universe.
Curiosity killed the cat
That's what I hate about the big bang theory. It's just a theory and you was not born before, so don't speculate how it was created. The Bible simply lets you know, but human stupidity gets in the way. Smfh
It makes sense to me that everything that exists and existence itself came from a monumental and immensely complex set of circumstances that was designed by a super intelligence. If it wasn’t created by a super intelligence, then we simply exist in a cyclical universe that repeats itself in exact sequence over and over again or is expressed in the infinite possibilities of a multi-verse.
We were designed by God which is the same as saying super intellegence
Emptiness, by definition, contains the potential for everything. Conversely, all phenomena must eventually return to emptiness. I think that's a good place to start. That may turn out to be simultaneously a philosophical, and scientific concept.
Fexl didn't burden us with the math here (fortunately), but as Penrose has shown, emptiness and infinite potential are mathematically equivalent states. A universe that has expanded completely, and therefore dissipated all it's matter, is in a state of pure energy, without mass or time, and thus provides the infinite potential for a completely new universe (including a completely new arrow of time - i.e. entropy - for the mass it generates). This is kind of the crux of Penrose's Cyclic Conformal Cosmology ( at least as I understand it).
It is the only theory of cosmology that doesn't violate the the law of entropy in order to arrive at the highly ordered state of pure energy needed to generate a universe such as ours.
by excluding an infinite creator and dismissing the idea of mankind having a spirit, and relying solely upon the mathematics excluding those variables in determining the destiny of the universe, the inevitable conclusion is that the universe will inevitably still exist long after humans and any other living things have ceased to exist.
Therefore attempting to establish the origin and destiny of the universe is a futile waste of time and furthermore has no real meaning or reason to have ever existed in the first place.
😏 If there's nobody around to observe the universe, does it even exist?
If the answer is yes then, what difference would it even make?
For me, the no beginning thing is impossible to understand. Let's say the universe always was and always will be, no end or no beginning. Well, that's pretty mind numbing first of all to envision a universe with no beginning. It's even beyond the mind boggling concept of infinity to me, because to me everything has to have a start and I have an easier time picturing a never ending space than no beginning whatsoever. In my mind, there would HAVE to be a "first" universe that "started" the whole cycle. How could there never be a first? That is difficult to grasp. I feel there has to be a first even in a never-ending cycle. Universe always was and is, but there surely was a first universe, right?
@@lilmike2710that's a good question. I wonder that myself. If no consciousness ever existed in the entirety of the universe, the universe would exist yet there would be nothing at least living / conscious to observe it's existence. This seems quite sad to think about, oddly. Perhaps due to our own biases, but for what point would an entire universe the size of ours or even bigger be if not a single living soul existed? What is the point now as it is WITH life? At least with life feels like there is slightly more point to the universe than if there had been no life in the universe. So, on the contrary, a universe with no life would almost certainly have no point, while a universe with life, well we could at the least make what we want for our purposes, but a universe without purpose or ability to observe itself sounds quite dull and even more pointless indeed. Just imagine countless universes just like that. With no life forms for it's entire existence. Nobody to ever observe it even existed. It existed in fact, but with nobody to observe that, it is as good as if it had never existed. Us observing it somehow does seem to give extra meaning just by mere observation. Though, that is, meaning to us. The universe itself possibly could care less whether there is consciousness or not.
That all being said, some theories do suggest that our consciousness in a way is the universe itself trying to understand itself and our constant curiosity of everything and the universe is reflective of that. The desire to just know how we came, and not just us but the universe. If that is the case, then the entire point of our existence would in fact technically be in finding out the meaning of how we came about and the universe. So, unless you know the meaning of existence yourself, you have no idea whether it is a pointless venture or not. and final point, even if it is entirely and totally pointless, space curiosity and innovation is a good huge reason why we are as technologically advanced today as we are. Space forces us to innovate and come up with new solutions and ideas and think outside the box to solve very complex challenges. These often end up being useful things to most of humanity. The first space race brought about TVs and monitors. You can thank space curiosity for that. Among many other inventions we use today. Technologies already invented are also further refined. Overall, we lose little to nothing in searching for answers, and we gain everything from knowledge to new technology that is useful to everyone. Not really seeing the downside that would make it not worth it. Even if there was no point, if you truly go by that logic, then why do you personally exist and what is the point of you doing anything at all if you know in the end it amounts to nothing? The answer is because perhaps you do value life a bit more than you lead on, and if you value life, you'd value knowing how and why it came about. Life itself has no purpose, and perhaps finding out how the universe came about could even explain our purpose. So perhaps answering that question could finally answer the life long question everyone who has ever lived wonders, what is the purpose of life?
And if every life form felt as you did that there was no point - then every life form would not survive long or be technologically advanced, and your assumption life would go on might not hold true if life doesn't make attempts to protect itself from the dangers of nature and space by advancing technology through wonder and curiosity of the universe.
Who created the singularity ,who created what ever created the big bang
The more I come to understand, the more I know. The more I come to know, the more I come to Believe.
My course in life has shown me much about death since no one is getting out of here alive. I’ve met many avowed atheists during the course of my years. Ironically, one of the final utterances of even the most devout atheist seemed to be “Oh, God”. I pray we all find peace in that phrase. 🙏 Joe
The more I come to understand, the less I understand.
That last phrase is brought to you by deep cultural conditioning.
Believe in what, though? Understanding the universe can only lead you away from the gods of the various scriptures. If you're suggesting that understanding led you to belief in the god of the Bible, then I would question how much you really understand. in fact, I would question whether you're really taking it in and not just cherry-picking what you can twist to fit your theology and disregarding the rest.
And the phrase "devout atheist" is absurd, as is your claim that an atheist's last words are "oh God". How many atheists have you seen die?
@EveAgaindoesgoogle Welcome to the world of Christian disinformation. But, at # 9 out of 10, that pesky lying thing isn't really that big a deal for them.
@@EvieDoesUA-cam Have all the doubts about my beliefs & their foundation that you require to justify whatever you need to justify in your mind. I’m at peace.
I’ve held the hand of many devout atheists as they approached death and while they actually died. And you?
They still have no idea! All remains being speculative theories...
I like to think of things by looking at the sheer scale of the universe. With so much space and time, I can totally see our entire universe being a chance outcome. When dealing with infinity, everything that CAN happen, WILL happen eventually.
Wrong, 0 times infinity is still 0. It is inconceivable that we exist out of chance.
GOD is the infinite power behind all thought which leads to creation.
I would assume you are young, naive, and misguided by secular humanism that is so prominent today. But if you want the real reason why nothing is something, seek God
Yeah once it is there, but why is it there, why is SOMETHING there? It absolutely makes no sense.
@@petehuckleberry5068there is no god
I think people who have to blast out GOD in all caps, like it was some kind of ultimate ammunition, are naive.
@@YogiMcCaw Well, he did it with CAN and WILL.
Finally someone admits, we don’t know anything
Theres plenty of things we know. Like we know how elements are created inside hot stars. We know how planets formed from gravity, we know how stars are created. We know what different planets are made of from gas planets, to rocky planets. We can identify almost everything in the visible universe.
@@tubester4567 that’s funny
Truth
First, explain what the Real Universe is before speculating on simulation
All of the people you see around you are other universes.
Why is 13.00 to 20.00 during chapter CCC repeated
It is to point the cycling of the universe to cycling of parts of a UA-cam clip?
Excellent video, and professionally narrated without the usual hyperbole associated with so many others. Well done!
Truely!
Why when how where :::::: 😮 the true question of all times is : WHAT🙂🙂🙂
While the universe may in some ways appear to be a simulation, this begs the question as to what computer is running this simulation, and what is the power supply for such a computer? It does appear that information processes are part of the answer.
FROM NOW TO INFINITY THE ? --- "WHERE DID THAT COME FROM" ----- ERGO WHERE DID THE COMPUTER COME FROM ---- WHERE DID THE OPERATOR COME FROM -------------------- I STILL ARGUE WTF IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS INSANE SEARCH THAT WILL "ALWAYS" END UP BUT WHERE DID THAT COME FROM ----------------- IN THE MEANTIME OUR UNIQUE PLANET IS BEING FCKNG DESTROYED -- AND I WILL STRONGLY INSIST THAT THE DARK MATTER IS A RUSE OF THOSE WHO CAN NOT FATHOM THAT THE FORCES OF GRAVITY , CENTRIFICAL FORCE , BLACK HOLES CONTROLLING TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS OF SPACE - DARK MATTER MY ASS IT IS JUST THE POWERS OF THE UNIVERSE ------------- BIG BANG OR NOT WHEN ARE WE GOING TO COME "BACK TO EARTH" AND SAVE THIS 1 IN A ZILLION ZILLION BLUE PLANETS AND FCKNG SAVE IT FROM THE IDOACY OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION BEYOND THE NEEDS !
D-wave quantum computers. That’s why religions worship the black cube 🕋. Look up what a D-wave computer looks like.
Hard to say, do we really know how big we are? Tiny atoms? Could we fit a universe in the nucleus of a cell? We can simulate a universe on a computer now. Maybe not on a personal individual level as the processing power would be enormous but if our creator/s we’re better technologically it shouldn’t be to big a problem for them
dyson sphere
Where is the freezes and who turns the machine off and on, surely that would have discontinuities at some points and everything can be explained better in a real world at present!?!
This issue with Penrose’s theory is it pushes back the original point of the “big bang” but at some point it still needs to start from nothing to something, so a cyclical universe sounds nice and tidy, but what and where did the first cycle start or begin with is still not addressed, only pushed back cycles, but not to the “first cycle”. As several theories have suggested that continue to push a dead string or loop quantum gravity, still fails…
If there is infinity, be glad! I write as the intellectual imposter syndrome shouldn't by definition of there is the 404 or singularity or just like most of what we know +1 shouldn't we by laws that are in place in our observable universe and likely all over and more..I'm super high on bud and am trying my hardest to be on point.. sry shouldn't every thing arrange exactly the same again unless heat death is the end but it cant í refuse to take part in that agreement only if each time would have the same laws which I will belive! its not just a one time thing mustn't be and thensome wink wink know wuh i meen nudge nudge. I'm out shii replay please 😅
There is no first cycle. It goes in a circle.
But since "infinity" it would all be the same regardless, shameful edit😂
It may be that the Universe, or reality that allowed it to come into exist, is eternal and therefore never truly beginning as it always existed and will always exist.
@@gisli12 The problem humans have is that we ground everything in the concept of 'time', but time is an emergent property and doesn't exist for fundamental particles etc, so the concept of a 'first' may be redundant.
The creator created from Notting to Something
It is written in Al Quran
Can check any one
Don't see creation
See what Creator said
I will never forget the words of Stephen hawking when he was asked this question .
His reply was , a single molecule mutated and began the entire process of which is still happening today .
Mind blown beyond the stars , astronomy has to be the most fascinating subject ever , I mean things that occur on planet earth seem totally insignificant in the context of the universe .
I think that is what happened to him. What happened in the "Universe" is still a mystery.
So where did the single molecule come from, and why did it mutate?
We just don't know but this is a much more plausible answer than creation which is pure mythology .
@@roddychristodoulou9111 evolution, which means we came from lower animals? But in larger sense it is what we have been given, and the ability to use it.
Even the brilliant hawking could not grasp the concept that there was no beginning and will be no end. Its anthropomorphic arrogance
To build a certain house you should have preparation for part materials in complete and that suppose of building universe alike.
The four-fold imagination
William Blake saw angels and ghosts and the Hallelujah sunrise, even on the darkest day.
William Blake’s childhood vision on Peckham Rye is well known. Sauntering along, he looks up and, according to an early biographer, ‘sees a tree filled with angels, bright angelic wings bespangling every bough like stars’. On another occasion, he ran indoors declaring he had seen the prophet Ezekiel under a tree. His wife, Catherine, later reported that Blake first saw God at the age of four. I love that ‘first’.
The Bible’s vivid prophetic and visceral apocalyptic imagery stirred him as well. It ‘overawed his imagination’ so that ‘he saw it materialising around him,’ Peter Ackroyd reports in his biography Blake (1995). When as an adult he became an engraver, artist and poet, Blake was driven to enable others to apprehend such sights. In one of his epic poems, ‘Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion’ (1804-20), he declared:
… I rest not from my great task!
To open the Eternal Worlds, to open the immortal Eyes
Of man …
At the time, there were few with the eyes to see and ears to hear him. The industrial age was booming, manifesting the insights of the scientific revolution. It was a tangibly, visibly changing society, fostering an almost irresistible focus on the physical aspects of reality. The narrowing of outlook is captured in one of Blake’s best-known images, entitled ‘Newton’ (1795-1805). It depicts the natural philosopher on the seabed, leaning over a scroll, compass in hand. He draws a circle. It’s an imaginative act. Only, it’s imagination rapt in the material world alone, devoted to studying what’s measurable. For Blake, Isaac Newton represents a mentality trapped within epicycles of thought. While claiming to study reality, it isolates itself from reality, and so induces, as he wrote in a letter to his patron Thomas Butts, ‘Single vision and Newton’s sleep’.
Newton (1795-c.1805) by William Blake. Courtesy the Tate Gallery, London.
Many of Blake’s contemporaries regarded him as eccentric or mad. But a different mood prevails today. Busts are as evident as booms. Civilisation itself can feel as if it teeters on the brink. Blake’s critique of ‘dark Satanic Mills’ now appears prophetic; his advocacy of the need for ‘Mental Fight’ to liberate the imagination sounds like a calling. When, on a damp Sunday in 2018, a substantial slab of handsomely engraved Portland stone was unveiled to mark his burial place at Bunhill Fields in London, hundreds gathered, having heard about the occasion by word of mouth. They were addressed by Bruce Dickinson, the lead singer of the heavy metal band Iron Maiden, who described Blake as one of the greatest living English poets. And he meant ‘living’. Blake never really dies, the rock star insisted.
This sense of his immortality arises with a recognition of the conviction upon which Blake bet his life: the human imagination is not only capable of entertaining fantasy. When coupled to creative skill and penetrating thought, it reveals the truths of existence and life. It converts everyday incidents into rich perceptions that might amount to a revolution in experience. It underpinned Blake’s vocation as a visionary and a thinker, as Northrop Frye stressed in his study of the man, Fearful Symmetry (1947). And it promised the gift of what Blake called ‘fourfold vision’, a taste of which can be gained by considering what it allowed him to perceive when observing the sunrise. ‘When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea?’ he has an interlocutor ask him in an imagined exchange. ‘O no, no! I see an innumerable company of the heavenly host crying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty!”,’ he replies.
The appearance of divine intelligences as dawn breaks - Frye called it ‘the Hallelujah-Chorus perception of the sun’ - will look like an ecstatic product of a fanciful mind to those expecting the Sun to look like a golden disk in the sky. But Blake could see more because he had realised that he saw the sunrise (and everything else) not with his eyes, but through them. Blake’s promise, therefore, is that the imagination, carefully embraced, frees you not to see more in the Sun, as if he were projecting jubilant angels onto its blazing orb, but to see more with and through the Sun. He understands that it is not the physical eye that enables what we see, but the mind’s eye: the retina, optic nerve and brain are the servants, not masters, of perception. We are all in exactly the same predicament; it’s just that the individual who detects only the guinea-sun has opted to see the guinea-sun alone, perhaps believing that they’ve side-stepped the part that imagination plays in what they perceive to arrive at an imagination-independent image of our stellar neighbour.
This is to close ourselves up, to paraphrase Blake’s remark from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790-93). It is to see all things through the narrow chinks of our caverns, because we take as gospel truth the doctrine of scientific materialism that nature is purely physical. That starts to unravel once we realise that our conscious impressions can’t be divided from objective viewing, as if the former were a deluded epiphenomenon. Rather, the issue is how accurate and inclusive any take on the world is - a take that can diversify and expand as the imagination deepens and grows. ‘A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees,’ Blake wrote, and then he tempts us further: ‘If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite.’ This is no psychedelic hope or dreamy aspiration. Blake is a philosopher and artist. He understands how perception works, theoretically and practically. And there are ways to open ourselves up and escape the cavern.
That's a very interesting post, thank you. I must investigate this William Blake. Everything you wrote about what he said hit home for me, like reading something I already knew, but couldn't put it into words. Thanks again.
Even jesus wouldn't have time to read that massive novel
Proselytizing often?
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.
47 surah Adh-Dhariyat 😍
And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating. Verse 33 from surah Al-Anbiya
When the first creatures crawled out of the water and began to explore the shore, surely they didnt believe they understood the whole planet!
No one can understand the whole planet, leave alone the Universe.
Quantum realm of probabilities seem to indicate a split from the classical physics realm of deterministic, but..? never the twain shall ever meet?!
You know how insane that is to think that creatures called from the water right just like apparently you believe what Darwin said
Not to mention Mike leaving physicist geneticists State why are there not fishman walking out of the water why don't we have tadpole people running around because it's not true. DNA in the human body is far too miraculous tab come from primordial ooze figure it out there's no way you came from rocks. Unless you are all thinking with rocks
@@kenkenobi1610evolution theory is flawed
Ummm...if some supreme force made the universe..what made the the supreme force and how did it make the supreme force...and who made the thing that made the supreme force... and if the supreme force made all of the physical things in the universe including the universe...where did all of the things required to make the physical things come from.
I don't know is the best answer a rational person can give.
I ask why would it need a creator?
If the universe has always existed and just changed form why a creator. Has there ever been nothingness?
In my opinion the description for theory 4 stopped short of one major factor, the simulation apparatus appears to be biological in its structure. The computers components, its hardware, its bios etc - these are all "natural' and it was our reverse engineering our 'real-world' reality that motivated the design of the computer.
You can use same metaphors for any technological object: the universe looks like how we design a chair.... how we design a house... how we design a bridge... how we design a toilet... how we design an airplane, car, boat, etc. How we design radios.
Using a computer is just using the latest and greatest technology.
@@jmitterii2 Whilst I'm open to new ideas and willing to abandon preconceived beliefs wherever necessary, but this is unlikely to happen in this instance my friend. Thanks for sharing all the same.
I am a very simple human being and do not want to dwell into why and how the universe came into being. But I have reservations about the probabilistic notion. This view stems from the fact that we have not been able to explain the behavior of quantum particles. Just because we have not been able to explain quantum particles seemingly random behavior, today, with our current limited knowledge of quantum particles, it is preposterous to assume that they act randomly. A case in point is the quantum entanglement. There, definitely, is a communication between the entangled photons which we are still to discover. It could be anything from another dimension or medium of bonding/particles. I am hopeful, that discovery will point to a deterministic physical relationship.
Absolutely nothing is difficult to comprehend, perhaps there's no beginning and there's no end
No beginning? That's difficult to comprehend.
Worst sentence ever? Yup.
An infinitely existing universe is also hard to imagine: where does energy come from? How come it never fades? It is never used up? How come it never becomes inert? I mean, if it indeed keeps going forever.
Dinner might be it,
before the big bang.
In probably less than 10 years I'm sure artificial intelligence will completely understand the universe but may not be able to explain it where even the smartest humans would be able to understand since it would be so complicated.
ROFL less than 10 years hahaha
AI in itself has to be programmed .. it can enhance its programming by finding other information that will work with the programming it already has .. it can search out information about anything and everything you want because it is already available .. it can just do it at a speed that we can not comprehend .. if the AI is linked quantum computers we may see something that could be found to be very close to being able to write its own code .. as with the coding of the human DNA .. it is but we don’t understand how .. yet ..
ai rely on what our inputs are, ai don’t think out of the box, it just collect information what we feed it.
Still doesn't explain what began the first cycle
Even if simplified this documentary maintains consistency and correctness, something that many TV documentaries are unable to do. In brief, way more interesting and well done than every Kaku/De Grasse Tyson's show.
Fantastic video. There is still so much to learn. Perhaps science and mathematics is insufficient to give us a "THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".
I suppose that only TIME will tell !!! 🤔🤔🤔
You think you'll know? What arrogance...😂
Agree, like the finite can even begin to understand the infinite mind of God.
We never have the answers because we don't seek within, I think
What does your statement mean ? You are inferring that all those people that have "seeked within" DO HAVE the answers ! Really ?
*GOD created everything has been known since man has been alive, think, speak and hear. All these endless theories are never going to answer anything but only lead to more questions that men's scientific means isn't equipped to answer.* ENOUGH ALREADY, GOD IS TIRED OF LISTENING TO THESE TIRED USELESS THEORIES.
Prove your claims. 😂😂
Can you read your god's mind?😂😂😂😂
Infinity exists. There is no need for beginnings or endings except for finite perceivers.
Humankind cannot relate to an eternal self existent God any more that you can tell me the greatest number or the distance between the east and the west.
*GOD already said that man's desire to know what isn't meant for him to know is an endless endeavor, the inner secrets of creation is not man's business but his alone to know, people already know this. And GOD has appoint a time to make his re-entry into man's world again for all to see, what will the scientific community and it's supporters have to say then?* LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT INCOMPRENHENSIBLE EARTH SHAKING EPOCH MOMENT.
My first bang was more mediocre than big, and it was over in a nanosecond. Sigh.
Godel's incompleteness theory is 100% correct. You will never arrive at a theory of everything because you will always have theories you can't yet prove forever. To me it's the same as Matthew 7:7 - Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open..... It's a forever journey of discovery. We're most likely in an odd simulation where our consciousness creates reality we live in.
Will you please leave the religious mumbo jumbo out of it please
@@coventrypunx1014so lost I pity you
@@Wild-EyeNo, he’s right. God is not a good theory for anything and religion is nincompoopery.
Impressive and realistic summation by Matthew
Go away
The God of the Bible always was. He is eternal. Read the book.
Why can't you people just believe in the Great God who just happens to be the designer, creator, and sustainer of all things.
And what created the Great God?
The God concept is just a man made idea to control the minds of free thought individuals who want to advance themselves into a higher conscientiousness of science and prefer not be contained in a restrictive state of fantasy by authoritative individuals or groups.
God did not create Man, Man created God
@@darrelneidiffer6777is it right question!?
Ok but why did he leave us alone to our own vices if that's creating soo much suffering and injustice
I cannot imagine how an space can be stretch since it has no physical property since space is basically nothing ,cannot be felt,seen or detected.
Quit calling them 'theories'. They are guesses, and competing guesses, at that. Hypotheses. Conjectures. Guesses.
Suppositions.
Wild guesses.
The whole thing is in a state that Thomas Kuhn called 'chaos.'
I really hate when a video starts with: “13.5 billion years ago,” they don’t KNOW anything about way back then, or even if there ever WAS anything beyond a few thousand years….
BIG BANG Gravity Problem:
1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation
2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite
3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny
4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light
5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon
6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg
7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2
8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs
9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter
10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known
11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..*
*The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*
This is uniquely consistent with the Genesis account of creation of stars on day 4 after the expansion of space. Also _"Let there be light."_ on day 1 explains the uniform CMBR being a burst of photon energy with no mass.
It would seem to me that it is self evident that nothing, absolutely nothing at all, is an unstable state of affairs that in due course decays to something.
Sounds true so scratch that
The Universe will always be beyond our comprehension. That's just an unfortunate fact.
Sir Roger Penrose awarded nobel prize has your answer
Particles appearing and disappearing out of nowhere still baffles me
start believing in a supernatural being called God
Not only is the Universe strange, those talking about it are also….
No matter what, as animals, nutrients from the earth nurtured our initial presence, our world. Then one day our world ends and our bodies go back to feed the earth. Maybe with chemicals but still. Knowing the government they figured out using embalming fluid to preserve the body might be useful as a future energy source, 🤣
😆
Maybe our reality, the one we understand, is just one of an infinite amount of different realities
Your guess is as good as mine.
Physics, and the Bible agree. For anything to exist, that which is eternal must by necessity be.
What happened? God happened. Read the Bible.
Rby minus cA....1+0-B....qs-C equals?
Believing most of this sounds a lot like believing in religious creation stories. You just have to have faith. Proving any of this is true is no different than proving God is real. More and more I find myself asking the same questions about this as I once asked about God/religion growing up.
The ideas of a “Big Crunch” being how the universe “dies” never seem to give any theories of when the universe will reverse its expanding and start moving in on itself towards the crunch. Or can someone point me towards any theories of when that’s supposedly going to start happening?
Who needs this video when there a hundreds of physicists and philosophers right here in the comment section. Thats where i get my answers to the really big questions.
There must be an answer or we wouldn't be here, would we? I like the way this video did not focus on religion, spirituality, or consciousness. Thank you. That leaves only non-nonsense physics to consider. Here is my non-mainstream science explanation.
Light is transported via an INFORMATIONAL PROCESS** that allows the pathway to be optimized. This explains how light follows the RULE OF LEAST ACTION. In the case of light, the rule of least action means the fastest pathway to get from the emission to the absorption. Note that this may not be the shortest pathway... a good analogy is driving a few miles in the wrong direct to get on the expressway. This optimization is apparent when light moves through mediums that have varying refractive indexes. For example, when trying to spearfish, the target image appearing at the surface of the water is slightly offset from the direct pathway to the fish.
This happens because the light follows the optimal pathway when it moves from the fish, through the water, then through the air, and eventually to your eyeball. The light moves slower through the water than the air. So, the optimal pathway to the eyeball, is to take a shortcut that minimizes the distance traversed through the water. If the light went directly to the surface, and then changed the directional angle to the eyeball, that minimizes the distance through the water. However, it increases the distance through the air. Depending upon the vertical depth of the fish and the horizontal distance to the fisherman, there is an optimal angle the light can take that minimizes the TIME to complete the overall traversal from fish to eyeball. I call this the "sweet spot". That is what you see when you spearfish!
This is no-nonsense physics. But nobody really knows how it works. How does the light know where the eyeball will eventually be, when it's on its on its way to the surface? How does the light know how deep and far away it is from its eventual target? How does the light know what the relative refractive indexes of water and air are, in order to know where the sweet spot will be?
The biggest mystery of science is just this... how does light operate in "reverse-time-ordering"? Richard Feynman's famous PATH INTEGRAL seems to answer the question, however, it is based upon the work of Schrodinger, who's equations suggest the the entire Universe is PREDETERMINED. Otherwise, a photon could not know in advance where and when it will intercept its absorptive target. The equations suggest that the outcome is obtained by the Universe somehow fluctuating backwards and forwards in time!!
Doesn't that sound crazy?
My informational processing solution allows the Universe to optimize the pathways selection IN THE FORWARD-ONLY ARROW OF TIME!!
By storing the potential pathways in data structures, my informational Universe can collect this on-the-fly. At the time of absorption, my solution has already obtained a PAST HISTORY of all potential pathways this photon could have taken. It can then go though the data and select the optimal pathway to use. Once selected, the actual distance traversed can be computed. This distance can then be squared and the result divided into the original quanta of energy the photon had to deliver. This heating quanta is then added onto the heat quanta of the absorptive target, the intermediate records can be deleted from the photon queue, and I call this a "digital waveform collapse".
Read "Explaining the reverse-time-ordering of light", available from the web.
**We live in an INFORMATIONAL UNIVERSE. Most people assume this results from some intelligent entity programming and executing our existence on computers, off on another plane of existence. They even said this in this video. WRONG! Watch "Auto-instantiation of an algorithm is real" (available on my UA-cam channel) for my explanation, including where the matter, energy and time came from.
Are we a pimple on a flea..who created the flea
AND THERE SHALL BE A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH