My ultimate theory on the universe

Originally Posted by georgeTmaxwell

How can this be known?
.

"Nothing could be without space, yet space is nothing. Before the universe came into being the "Big Bang" if you like, there wasn't a vast empty space waiting to be filled. There was no space, as there was no thing. There was only the Unmanifested-the One. When the One became the 10,000 things, space seemed to be there and enabled the many to be. Where did it come from? Was it created by God to accumidate the universe? Of course no. Space is no-thing, so it was never created."

And that quote from a book, holds true to what physicists are thinking today. Look up the "Theory of Everything."

Originally Posted by georgeTmaxwell

So if in one place there is space and in another nothing, then the line between cannot be constant.

This thread has a few different opinions which makes it hard to follow sometimes :)

In order for 'space' to exist there has to be stars. So you would know 'space to be.' Without reference points. The Here and There and Neither. There would be no-thing. Space would not exist. There would literally be nothing.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Topology

Time is a secondary concept. We measure time through a change of state occurring. If there is no change then no time passes. Time is secondary to change.

If we look at the universe from the perspective of light, the amount of time passing between a light particle emission and light particle absorption is instantaneous (in the reference frame of light). If it were not instantaneous then there would need to be a state change within the light particle to register time passing, and there isn't. If no time passes, no distance is traversed and the point of emission is adjacent to the point of absorption.

Similarly Space is a secondary concept. There cannot be space without something occupying it. Space IS density of energy. There is no point in space where there is no energy present.

We can't reason about quantum mechanics and the structure of the physical universe using concepts grounded in human experience! We see an empty room and call that space. We can fill that room and space doesn't change it just gets filled. This is human perception. It doesn't work for the physical universe. We try to bolt our concepts onto the universe and we get silly things like conceiving of a vast infinite emptiness that matter occupies. But there's no way to measure or interact with emptiness. This is just a concept. We measure space through energy changes, speeds of light, temperature, etc. etc. Nowhere in the interaction with space is there any kind of emptiness, it is full. Density is primary and our measurement of space is secondary .

Yes I agree, but we can't seperate the mind form the universe, and the perspective of a photon's simultaneous departure and arrival not only contracts space, but also places the photon everywhere at once.

The difference between nothingness and space is a confusion... for states are simultaneous, and nothing is just 'as much as' something, because the shibang is entirely reliant on what is mindfully perceptable...

Now it gets complicated... the thought structure has limitation and as comparitive references diminish definition becomes more obscure until it just vanishes. To simplify, the mind can not form definition between two references, so duality is equally possible as singularity, and nothing is also equally possible, but only in simultaneity with the other possibilities... thus the funny photon.

Defining space could be the key. Space as having energy or particles and space being a vacuum with nothing in it. Probably helps this discussion.

I agree it wasn't created and I understand how you say when the universe was a singularity, there was nothing outside of it.

But I am not convinced we know what is outside our universe or even how anyone can define the boundary of the universe.

As far as the theory of everything, I still think this is a loose theory uniting four principles into one.

I love the concepts of the quantum world because it is not what we would normally understand with our own sensors. I also love the fact that with science, what we think and write today could be outdated tomorrow :)

Personally, my main interest is understanding a unity between the quantum level consciousness, personality and spirituality.

@georgeTmaxwell
.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by moke64916

In order for space to be there must be two points. So space is no-thing. It never was created. Without space there is nothing.

this is an epistemological treatment of space.

the present direction of science suggests that space is ontological.

.

Originally Posted by hybrid

this is an epistemological treatment of space.

the present direction of science suggests that space is ontological.

.

Can you simplify this a bit for me please? Ontological?
.

[hybrid]

two say that space is no thing dependent on two objects is base on perception and knowledge, thus epistemology. space as ontological means space is a substance. the wave medium.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by georgeTmaxwell

Defining space could be the key. Space as having energy or particles and space being a vacuum with nothing in it. Probably helps this discussion.

I agree it wasn't created and I understand how you say when the universe was a singularity, there was nothing outside of it.

But I am not convinced we know what is outside our universe or even how anyone can define the boundary of the universe.

As far as the theory of everything, I still think this is a loose theory uniting four principles into one.

I love the concepts of the quantum world because it is not what we would normally understand with our own sensors. I also love the fact that with science, what we think and write today could be outdated tomorrow :)

Personally, my main interest is understanding a unity between the quantum level consciousness, personality and spirituality.

@georgeTmaxwell
.

a three dimensional empty frame is four points...

Originally Posted by hybrid

two say that space is no thing dependent on two objects is base on perception and knowledge, thus epistemology. space as ontological means space is a substance. the wave medium.

Got it, thanks.

[hybrid]

this perspective can be reverse.

Originally Posted by moke64916

In order for 'space' to exist there has to be stars.

in order for stars to exist, there has to be space

So you would know 'space to be.'

so you would know "what is a thing called star"

Without reference points. The Here and There and Neither. There would be no-thing. Space would not exist. There would literally be nothing.

no thing is not nothing. space is a substance because there is waving going on there. whether its material or non material, nonetheless its a a thing, maybe just invisible and does not inter act with us. but its there.

.