Existence
Ever conduct a thought experiment? The idea is to engage in highly disciplined speculation to explore questions whose answers are beyond our ability to confirm (or even test). It is an exercise in pure logic.
One fascinating topic is existence itself. This is where we try to answer the question of how everything came about. To ideally put forth a proposal that explains - in the abstract - how we came to be.
Existence vs. Non-existence
Existence is simply that which exists. Non-existence is a concept that refers to all things that do not exist – nothingness. The first consequence of these definitions is that existence did not come from non-existence. All that exists did not emerge from nothing – that is definitionally impossible.
This means that existence is eternal. Existence has always been.
Quintessential Existence
What then is this stuff that has always ‘ been’ ? We have no way of knowing, but we can give it a name. Ultimately if we use our thought experimenting minds to drive lower and lower into the very substance of existence (below atoms, below particles, below energy) we will reach quintessential existence (QE). QE is the name we can assign to the most primitive substance of existence. And that means everything that exists ultimately is composed of this primitive substance – everything is a form of QE.
Simplifying, we can state that everything is a form of the most primitive substance of existence. ( Note, this is still all by definition. )
Emergence
In a sense, existence is an infinite resource capable of producing anything. But how is anything produced? Imagine the substance of existence interacting with itself. We see this all the time with particles and above – tiny little packets of existence banging into each other, attracting and repelling to produce new forms . Stars, planets and galaxies are all, based on the findings of science, a result of existing things interacting over great periods of time to produce new aggregate forms .
When new forms arise from interactions this is called emergence. Everything we know is an emergent form of existence. ( This is also often phrased as an ‘ emergent property of existence ’. )
A Beginning Means an End
That which has a beginning necessarily has an end. The reason for this goes to the meaning of eternal. If something is formed by the natural interactions of the substance of existence everything that can possibly happen will eventually happen . So even if an emergent property is formed that can exist for eons upon eons, the form is not sustainable. It is possible for the form to be undone and thus eventually it will be.
Checkpoint
What do we have thus far? Immediately we note that there is no beginning for existence (and thus no end). Existence has always been (by definition) and thus will always be. Existence is eternal – an infinite amount of time is available for the substance of existence to interact with itself.
We do not know if there are limits to the resources of existence but judging from what we can see in our known universe (which could be an infinitesimally small sliver of existence itself), the resources are vast. With such resource and infinite time, pretty much anything could emerge from existence but what emerges will eventually lose its form – nothing other than existence itself is eternal.
Origin of our Universe
We can apply this to what we can observe and speculate about our origins. Given an infinite clock, anything that can emerge will emerge. Why not our universe? Could the origin of our universe be an emergent property of existence?
To science, the origin of our universe remains a great mystery. Modern astrophysics offers a compelling, formal explanation of cosmological evolution – the gradual formation of cosmological bodies such as planets and stars. The rules of physics do not allow science to get to time zero – the equations turn into nonsense (infinities) – but from 10 -43 seconds on, the formal rules of modern physics reveal the progression of our universe from an extremely low entropy (high uniformity compacted into a dense point of unimaginable energy) into the formation of what we see today. By time the universe was one second old, the fundamental forces and basic particles such as the electron had formed. Within 20 minutes atomic nuclei for hydrogen, helium and lithium have formed. Yet it took hundreds of millions of years before the first stars began to form.
We witness amazing structures such as quasars, stars, galaxies, planets that have emerged from the primordial substance of our universe – that provided by the Big Bang. Given what science has learned, cosmological evolution appears to be the consequence of undirected interactions over time. The formation of stars and planets through gravity, the generation of heavier elements through nuclear fusion and the distribution of said elements by supernovas.
But it this really the consequence of undirected interactions of the substance of existence or is there an underlying intent? Could the universe be the work of a designer?
Directed Formation
The reality we observe is a thing of wonder. The magnificence of the known universe, the complexity of known biological creatures (and their components such as eyes and brains) is overwhelming to our imaginations. There appears to be an order -an intent- behind all that we observe. It is natural for us to presume a sentient designer behind the scenes making all this wonder come true.
Logically, there may indeed be a designer. The designer would be of unimaginable complexity and power but that is certainly within the capability of an eternal existence. Over time, such a sentient entity could have emerged from existence. It could have then decided to form our universe (or at least establish the conditions for our evolution). Our universe might indeed be intentional. If so, then to us, this designer would qualify as God.
For all its power, our designer would not be eternal. That which emerges from existence has a beginning and an end. Omniscience is also impossible. The designer might even be able to predict everything in the known universe that it created, but logically it cannot predict itself (the substance of which it is comprised) nor can it predict the domain of existence from which it emerged. And it cannot have perfect knowledge before or after its own existence. ( Note also that any number of designer entities could have emerged from existence so clearly an individual designer does not know all. ) Finally, the designer is all powerful relative to the universe it created, but it has limits – it is not omnipotent because it is ultimately a portion of existence. Only existence itself is omnipotent.
To wit, our known universe may be the result of a cosmic designer. This designer would fall short of eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. attributes but could nevertheless be of awesome complexity and power. It would be our God. The higher power that exists above (our) God is the eternal substance of existence itself – that which has the power to create anything – even gods. Existence itself is the ‘first cause ’, the uber-god.
Undirected Formation
While directed formation is possible, it is not a necessity. If the designer of our universe could emerge from existence, then our known universe could also emerge from existence.
Proponents of views such as Intelligent Design put forth the premise that complexity requires a designer. They point to complex biological constructs such as the eye and claim that it is impossible for such an amazing construct to be the result of undirected genetic permutations naturally selected by a changing environment.
The well-established, highly evidenced, cross-disciplinary evolutionary sciences disagree and have thoroughly refuted the premise of Intelligent Design on scientific merits alone. But logic alone can determine the validity of the premise: ‘ complexity requires a designer ’.
This premise is immediately self-refuting. If an intelligent designer is required to produce constructs such as the eye then the designer is itself complex. Applying the premise of ID, the designer must have a designer. This will never end – an infinite regress. The premise contradicts itself.
But if we return to our thought experiment, there is a resolution. Of course the eye could be the result of biological evolution – a conclusion heavily supported by scientific findings. It could however be the result of a designer. But we would not impose a rule that complexity requires a sentient designer. There could be a chain of designers, but ultimately the first designer would have emerged from existence – not designed.
Given designers must emerge from existence there is no reason to speculate that we were designed. Our universe could have emerged from existence instead of its designer. A designer is an unnecessary extra step – an hypothesis that lacks supporting evidence.
Conclusion
Existence alone is eternal. Everything necessarily emerges from the substance of existence and thus has a beginning and an end. Nothing other than existence is eternal. Sentient entities emerge from existence and logically could be arbitrarily powerful and knowledgeable. But none of these forms are eternal and none can possibly know everything or be all powerful.
We (as part of our universe) could be the result of an intentional design. There could indeed be a designer who is the brains behind it all. But since the designer would have emerged from existence there is no logical need for a designer. Our universe could have itself emerged from existence instead of the designer.
So where did we come from?
Although we may never know the specific details of our origin, we do know that we are all necessarily emergent properties of existence. Everything is composed of the quintessential substance of existence, has a beginning and in the end the substance of our forms will combine into other forms. Our forms may not be eternal, but we are all part of an eternal existence.
Tags
Who is online
218 visitors
We know some things. We can logically reason other things. The rest is a mystery.
Pretty sure that everybody else is just a figment of my imagination.
I think technically you are correct.
Everything we know is based on raw data processed by our brain. In effect, everything we perceive is an illusion - it is not as it truly is. All that we 'know' is what our brains can 'imagine'.
Nice article.
Commenting to find later.
excellent article and some very thought provoking questions/points.
Thanks !
What if part of out of QE, came the beginnings of the designer and that designer, while having a beginning and an end, it existence is extremely long, and far longer than we can conceive?
I don't want to call this god, though, since that comes with a lot of religious beliefs about what the designer is.
btw.. I will be in and out of this discussion since I only have a limited amount of time.. but I will try to keep up.
In the spring and summer, if I leave a bucket with water in it outside, it will grow algae. Perhaps that's where we came from... Personally, I am thinking that we are the product of random chance. There are literally trillions of planets in the universe...not hard to imagine that one planet might sprout something. If you follow the Drake Equation, (which was designed with ONLY our galaxy in mind), there would be several thousand planets with at least some form of intelligent life in our own galaxy. If you look at our own solar system, there are two. Earth, (duh), and Mars with most believe could have supported human life in it's past and could again in the future.
The algae that you find in your bucket, is a product of spours that the wind blew in and reproduced asexually. Interestingly enough, there are algae that reproduce sexually. So to reply to your reply, there was an algae that developed the spore that filled your pot.
Like a hamster humping a "mouse"?
Having difficulty parsing the question. Assuming 'if part of out of' means 'from part of'.
A designer (or many designers) could have emerged trillions of years ago for all we know. They may all still exist and may continue to exist for hundreds of trillions of years from now. In the context of eternity trillions of years is not even a drop in the bucket.
Our universe could have been designed (or maybe even designed by a committee of designers). It is possible. But no designer is necessary because if a designer can emerge from existence there is no reason why a universe could not do likewise.
Well, why assume that existence is orderly. It might be very chaotic. In string theory, the ll dimensions are not orderly. What could have happened was an accidental event that came together as the designer or designers.. maybe even all very different and occurring at different times.
I do not assume existence is orderly.
Considering string theory there may be multiple dimensions.
String theory is an hypothesis of existence. If true, the 'string' would be the closest we have come thus far to the substance of existence. But that would not necessarily mean 'string's are quintessential existence. 'String's may (and likely are) emergent properties of existence.
Bottom line, there is existence and then there are the forms of existence. Existence is the unary foundation for everything. (Simply by definition.)
Great article! I shall counter your questions....with one of my own....
.
If all the world's a stage...where does the audience sit?
.
But seriously..
How do we know that our entire universe is not in one drop of rain water, in a different universe? For all we know, we are the nucleus of an atom, in a much larger universe.
It could be.
But if we trace back up through the chain of containing universes we ultimately (logically) arrive at quintessential existence and something interesting emerging from it.
I think no matter how we look at it, existence is fertile soil from which interesting things emerge and where they eventually return. Existence is eternal, everything else -no matter how powerful or complex- is a transient form.
True TiG.. Science tells us though, that matter cannot be created, or destroyed, only changed. Something to throw into the mix as well.
True. But remember that science can only speak to the laws of physics for a mature universe (one that is at least a picosecond old). Outside of our known universe .... in the greater domain of existence itself ... we have no idea what might be possible.
Fair enough. But the premise is sound.
Pretty much a theory that I subscribe to.
Once emotion is removed from the equation humans hold no more sway in the universe than say a rock. That is to say that atoms take on all forms, but yet when broken down everything is mere atoms of which we are a part.
This existence is another word for nature. The essay does not account for something outside of nature, which is understandable, because we cannot comprehend anything outside of this nature, this existence.
The essay proposes that existence could somehow work on itself and over immeasurable time produce the physical universe.
But existence must then be a thing, because if it is nothing it could never produce the physical universe. Something can never come from nothing. If 'existence' produced the physical universe, then existence (nature) must have physical properties that were created from a SUPER-natural source.
These are the 'eternal questions'. Why do we exist? Where does everything come from? We will never know, because we cannot measure or perceive anything outside of this existence, and that is likely where it all began.
Nope. Goes well beyond that John. Existence, as used, applies to all that exists. I was very careful in my explanations. What we call nature may be a very special case - a sliver of existence.
Actually you have it backwards. This article is mostly about that which is outside of nature (as we know it). Existence deals with one and only one attribute - being. The article makes no assumptions of the substance of all that exists but rather simply gives this unknown substance a name (QE). This article is all about NOT making assumptions.
It proposes that everything that is said to exist is necessarily a form of existence. There is nothing other than the substance of existence available. If the substance of existence did not interact with itself no forms would emerge. If no forms emerge no forms 'exist' and we would not be speaking.
In short, if something exists it necessarily is an emergent property of existence. By definition.
Existence is the opposite of nothing. I established that upfront. Existence is the eternal landscape that hosts all forms that we say 'exist'.
Anything we would call supernatural is that which is beyond natural explanation. If something supernatural exists then it is by definition an emergent property of existence. That is to say, if something exists it is OF existence. Again, by definition. Note, John, your argument is based on your incorrect presumption that I equated existence with nature. I did not. I was very careful to not do that.
True. Best we can do is engage in thought experiments. But to do this one must be very careful to understand the meaning of the terms used. Precision is everything here.
No, nature is all that exists that human beings can measure or find evidence for. Nature is not trees and streams and clouds, it is everything.
Your argument is predicated and tethered to the concept that there cannot be anything beyond THIS existence. I don't believe that is necessarily true, or can be proven.
You comments are then contradictory. This, for example ...
... make no sense if you consider nature to be everything. There is nothing outside of everything. Everything is everything.
Note: I did not put in a qualification of ‘measurability’ or ‘evidenced’ on existence. You inserted these so the first thing I suggest you do is remove these artificial qualifications. You may not have realized that you changed the definition of existence and then argued against the changed meaning.
What is 'THIS existence'? Existence is one thing - it is a unary concept - it is the first attribute. There are not multiple existences. What would that even mean? That is, if you wanted to speculate about different planes of existence or dimensions of existence that is fine, but ultimately all of these planes / dimensions are part of existence itself.
Existence = everything. Something exists or it does not.
This existence is what we can or could conceivably validate as existing. It is inconceivable that human beings could experience another existence, but it doesn't mean there isn't one. It is impossible for us to know that.
I disagree that we can know whether or not what we call existence is the entirety of of it, so therefore I don't believed I changed the definition.
Don't you agree that what we call existence is informed by our experience of it and our experience in postulating about it hypothetically as human beings?
It seems to me that you constructed an argument to prove that God must be something that arose from existence , and not the other way around. While it is a fair argument there is no proof of it because we don't know what we don't know.
If you want to redefine existence then write your own article John. There really is no point discussing this further if you continue to change the definition of existence to something that is relative to human perception.
This article is about existence and there are only two possibilities: something exists or something does not exist. If there is some 'supernatural' plane of existence (or whatever else one might or might not be able to conceive) then it is part of existence. If it exists then it is part of existence. The only way to not be part of existence is to not exist.
See? Binary. Yes or No. That is all we have to work with. No assumptions at play, just the most basic, obvious definition of existence that we have.
Exactly.
I find it extremely egotistical for a person to ask the question "Why is there existence?" and then answer it with "So a supernatural being could create me."
Religion gets in the way of understanding and enjoying life and companionship with other people. Religion only equals endless discord over who is worshiping the correct god in the correct way. This narrows our focus and prevents us from the shock and awe of existence.
The more a person narrows their focus, the easier it is to control them.
I wish that all of our children were taught to view life through the same lens that this article projects.
Kudos, TiG.
Not going to be able to help you man. Seems you are dead set on defining existence in a special way so that there is something more than exists or not exists. Any logic you propose using a contrived, vague definition of existence is non-sequitur.
Why you refuse to acknowledge existence in its most universal, assumption-free sense: 'something exists or it does not exist' is beyond me.
You designed an argument intended to postulate that any "God" must be subservient to nature.
That is not the definition of "God".
A supernatural being would have to exist outside of this existence , at least in part, because otherwise it would be a "natural" being . You of course, want any God to be totally encased within nature, or inside this existence.
Unfortunately for you no one knows if that is true or not, and can never know.
If existence has physical properties and not only philosophical ones, then it has to have been created. Since a thing cannot create itself, it has to have been created from the outside.
Which means that the creator has to be created by a previous creator who had to be created by a previous creator, so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
Infinite regress. TiG mentioned that.
It just isn't logical to try to explain complexity (or existence itself) by invoking a creator for whom the proposed rules of complexity (or existence itself) do not apply.
I think you've misunderstood what TiG means by 'existence'. You seem to be using it to only mean our universe, while also postulating 'the existence' of an agent of creation outside our universe. That postulated agent must also be included in 'existence'.
Consider Big Bang Theory. Existence would include not only the universe that emerged and evolved out of the Big Bang, the one we experience today, but also whatever existed (in whatever form or condition) prior to the Big Bang. Even if it was just some kind of quantum reality, a perfectly calm and balanced set of quantum fields or something, totally devoid of fluctuations that would give rise to particles. That would still be part of 'existence'.
I offered a thought experiment that made no assumptions. I think you just do not like the consequences of the experiment. Look at how you worded your opening statement. You come right back inserting the word 'nature' as if you did not read a single word I wrote and then reveal that you think I contrived some kind of bogus argument. Like I said, if you are going to change the words and the meaning of same you should write your own article. Here I ask you to at least not change the meaning of the words used in this article.
Just follow the logic without changing the meaning of words and tell me where I am wrong. I am interested in that discussion. After a while it gets boring constantly calling out where someone introduces a straw-man or stubbornly changes the meaning of words.
Again you go right back to 'this existence' and offer supernatural as if something supernatural would 'exist' but not really 'exist'. You are introducing strange assumptions into a thought experiment devoid of assumption. Existence = that which is. Period. No assumptions. No special conditions of existence. Just the absolute basics.
You declare creation necessary and ignore the emergence of form from interaction. We observe emergence of form daily in our own little sliver of existence.
Next. Outside of what?? There is only existence and non-existence. Follow your own statements: "a thing cannot create itself". Correct! So you propose that something that does not exist (outside of existence) created it??
Something either exists or it does not exist. The something that exists is necessarily a form of existence. There is no other choice - if something exists it is OF existence. It makes no sense to say that there is something outside of existence that is creating all that exists. If something is outside of existence then it, by definition, does not exist.
You have contrived a semantical definition to suit your purposes. According to your theory , God must have evolved from nature rather than the other way around. No one can know that, but you declare your theory ironclad. Fine, it suits your purposes.
Existence as human beings can discuss it is as it is experienced by us as human beings. No one has ever uttered a word about it except from the human understanding of it and the human semantics to describe it. You say existence is nothing more or less than everything that exists. It is hard to argue against that, from the human perspective.
I would say that we don't know if there is another way of looking at the question from a non human perspective, since we cannot , even conceivably , use another perspective.
Show the flaw in my logic John. Repeatedly complaining -falsely- (and it is insulting too) that I contrived something (implying sophistry) is counterproductive (and now real old).
I have not proposed a theory. I have conducted a thought experiment. Again, stop complaining and making negative allegations and show the flaws in my reasoning. Don't change the meaning of words, don't add in new assumptions, do not ascribe negative factors to me. Just engage in thoughtful debate.
Not following what you are trying to say here. Quoted it in case you choose to clear up the language.
It is simply a definition John. I offered the most basic, assumption-free definition of existence that I know of. I doubt it can get more basic than existence = that which exists. On what grounds do you have a problem with that? How would you define existence at the most basic level? I would love to know if there is a more basic, assumption-free way to describe existence.
That is a cop-out.
I will offer a semantic construct to help out. Let's say that someone states: God exists. Explain existence in that context. If God exists then does that mean existence is a property of God? That God is OF existence? Simple English. Trump exists. God exists. You exist. Earth exists. Thoughts exist. Words exist. The number Pi exists. All these ideas are based on a fundamental notion - that of existence. So define existence in its most basic terms (no assumptions) so that the above statements all make logical sense.
"Cogito ergo Sum" I think, therefore I am. Now "thinking" is not physical existence, but "I am" is. So with a few words I have created a physical living being, a physical existence out of a thought that in itself is no more than spiritual.
You qualified existence with physical. That is an assumption that is deliberately not made in this article. That is, existence is simply that which exists. There are no assumptions made about the nature of the existence other than being something other than nothing. The substance of existence is carefully chosen language to describe existence without making any assumptions other than that which exists is OF existence. We do not know if this substance is energy or something exotic well below what we perceive as energy. Ergo the placeholder word 'substance'. Bottom line, no assumptions.
That established, our thoughts exist in our brains as biochemical information. Mental thoughts actually do exist physically - your brain is physical. When you communicated your thoughts to us you made an imperfect copy onto a binary medium via a mechanical device (a keyboard). The medium then perfectly (albeit in a different form) translated your keystrokes into a packet structure for communication which was received by the NT platform, processed and stored in textual form in the NT database and then presented for all to see via HTML. All quite physical.
But even with your thought ultimately being physical, you did not create a physical living being. The being (you) already existed. And if you imagined a new being all you would have created was a thought of that being - you did not actually create the being.
To wit, there is no spiritual component in your scenario best I can tell. You were just dealing with physical things that are below the ability at which we can control (biochemical interactions) or perceive but your thoughts were created and retained with a mechanism (your brain) that is quite physical.
Now, the question is what constitutes 'spiritual'? I presume by your comment that you consider spiritual something that exists but would not be considered physical by us. I have no example for what that might be (even dark energy is technically physical) but I can say that if something spiritual exists then it is, by definition, OF existence. It is either existence itself, a form of existence or it does not exist.
Trillions upon trillions of years from now, the very last white dwarf in the very last galaxy will cool to absolute zero. There is no thermal energy left in the Universe. But does the Universe cease to exist, or does it simply go dormant? Are the atomic particles gone, or are they simply at eternal rest?
Science does not know. Current views are that the universe ends in heat death. We have much to learn still.
Another question (per this article) is: is our universe all there is? That is, if our universe ends in heat death does that mean existence itself ends in heat death?
Seems to me that since our universe did not emerge from literal nothing (something was there to trigger the event) that our universe is a part of existence - not existence itself.
I think the only thing we know is that something was before the universe - the universe did not pop into existence from literal nothing. It is an emergent property of existence at the very least.
Science can offer explanations for how the universe evolved from its initial state of quarks and electrons into the gasses, matter and ultimately into cosmological bodies. Dark matter is simply a construct of the mathematics so science has no idea (yet) on dark energy and dark matter.
And rightly so. These are profound questions that we all would love to have answered. Wish we had the answers (at least credible answers based on evidence and reason).
When you force me into enough thought to make my head hurt, you have done a good job, very provoking piece.
Seems to me that since our universe did not emerge from literal nothing (something was there to trigger the event) that our universe is a part of existence - not existence itself.
I myself subscribe to the notion of happenstance and random chaos as the incubator, and the Bing Bang the trigger mechanism, from that all else evolved. As to what brought us to that point in time, I must leave that to folks with a larger cranial capacity than mine to figure out.
But let us ponder that existence in itself might well be illusionary with no beginning and no end.
see 10
It seems that existence necessarily has no begin and thus no end.
Even though it's the simple "Big Bang Theory" TV show.... what Leonard told Penny is pretty great about "existence" possibilities.
I still contend that Energy is the culprit. You are saying that Energy has a QE particle, whereas Quantum Physics says that is false . (You will need to login with your LinkedIn account to view the article). Since Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it is my opinion that this is indeed the QE you are seeking, and as you have pointed out, with an infinite existence, the combining into an intelligent lifeform is bound to happen eventually. As a matter of fact, an Energy Being would be the most rudimentary of intelligent life to come first before an actual intelligent physical being.
I am not saying that. I am saying that everything necessarily is a form of existence - i.e. everything that exists ... exists. So everything is a form of the quintessential substance of existence. I make no mention of QE 'particles' because that presumes knowledge of QE. We have no idea what QE might be - all we know is that existence is real and that everything that exists is of existence. By definition.
Except that is demonstrably NOT what I wrote nor can that be taken by any reasonable read as my meaning.
How can you possibly claim that? Energy (as we understand it) might be a very evolved form of existence. We have zero information on QE; all that we know s that QE necessarily exists because we exist.
My bad. I took this statement of your post as implying that:
I emphasized the portions that led me to interpret your writing the way I did.
Simply because the formation of Energy into waves would occur long before the forming of atomic particles simply because waves would have to be the beginning of any movement. Thoughts are formed with waves of energy so it would seem natural that Thought would precede the beginning of a physical Universe. In a total vacuum devoid of any physical forms, waves of energy would continue in a spreading pattern, and without colliding into anything, they would never "bounce" back which is necessary in order to start forming an "eddy" to induce the first "spinning" of Energy. So logically speaking, a Thought process was necessary to "think" of deflecting energy in such a way to begin the very vortexes that make up protons and neutrons.
Now if we assume that the Big Bang Theory is correct, then we also assume that this is not the first time around for us having a Universe. The ONE constant between this one, the one(s) in the past, and future Universes is Energy. Since Energy cannot be destroyed, but it can be condensed, it stands to reason that an Energy lifeform could indeed survive and if we accept that we Exist, then we must accept that the Energy that is the very substance of that Existence has always, and will always exist in perpetuity. Given those facts, there leaves little doubt that Energy, given Aeons to the trillionth degrees, has become an Intelligent Being. Now I'm not saying that ALL forms of Energy are sentient, but that at some level it does have sentience. Just as the sentience of mankind and of plantlife are far from the same, so too would I imagine the different forms of Energy would be. If nothing else, our thoughts alone prove that Energy is sentient at some level. On the other hand, I can't imagine a bolt of lightning picking a target with sentient thought.
I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining my thinking on the subject, and this isn't a nonsensical diatribe that I am posing here. This is a real attempt to discuss this line of thought and explore the possibilities in a philosophical and logical discussion. If you prefer, we can call an impasse, but I really hope you don't.
So given you understand what I was describing do you hold it possible that an intelligence could exist at a level lower than energy (energy as we understand it of course)? It would not be an intelligence that we would be able to recognize of course because we do not even understand energy at the moment.
We do not know that. Other universes could have existed with something other than energy. If we do not know the quintessential substance of existence we cannot presume that energy is a common denominator. The only common denominator would be QE and that might be quite a bit lower than energy.
Only in the physics of our known universe. All bets are off outside of our domain.
I do not presume energy = QE. It might be, but we do not know. That is precisely why I go with QE so as to not arbitrarily deem energy the most primitive substance of existence (since I do not know that).
But they are not facts. Your logic is good but you inserted the premise that energy is the most fundamental substance of existence. That premise needs proof for your argument to be sound.
Have never used impasse, probably never will. Certainly not for your recent comment which is on-topic and thoughtful IMO.
Yes, I can grant that possibility.
Agreed and probably a discussion for another day because one of the other Laws Of Physics, namely every action produces an opposite reaction begs the belief that an alternative Negative Existence that mirrors our own SHOULD exist, then that Negative Universe must also have Negative Energy as its building blocks of matter, or more simply put; a Universe full of Anti-Matter.
That is because we have not yet identified anything smaller by way of particles and once we have drilled down to the level of Quarks, we are approaching Plancks Length which scientist believe to be the smallest measurement achievable before winding up being nullified because at that range, the universe is probabilistic and indeterminate--or in laymen's terms if I am understanding this correctly, entering into the Chaos Dimension. In such a dimension, there can be no Order, and since Order is necessary for Matter and our Universe to exist, this leads me to believe that Energy is indeed the QE you speak of.
Having just learned of this rule, I don't understand why it isn't used more often before the discussions devolve to the point they do around here, lol!
Something to ponder. There really must be something below the level of energy ... at least it would seem that way given we do not know the substance of space-time. Is space-time a form of energy or something else? The cosmological bodies (e.g. stars, planets, etc.) are certainly forms of energy. And energy impacts space-time. But space-time itself is a bit more exotic.
One thing that I know is that Time is a Force, and as a Force, it is in itself a form of Energy. Why do I say Time is a Force? It is simple really, without time, NOTHING changes. This also explains why it is impossible to Time Travel backwards through Time. In order to move backwards, you would first have to stop the forward flow of time. Once you stop the flow of Time, you cannot restart it because at the critical point, everything would come to a standstill--literally freezing in motion. In order to progress (or regress if you will) backwards there would have to be something to give you that push in the right direction. If everything is stopped, there can be no Force applied. Force can be manipulated, applied, redirected, and removed. Yes, Time could theoretically be stopped, but doing so would cause ALL of Existence to stop and thus end--quite literally frozen in Time.
As to space, it is said that Nature abhors a vacuum. This is undeniably untrue. Everything contains vast amounts of Space right down to the Quarks we have been discussing. When we speaking of "folding Space" we are not folding a cloth, but we are folding distances through space. Distance is a combination of not only how far apart objects are, but the amount of Time needed to traverse it. This is why it is indeed possible to manipulate space-time, but not actually manipulate Space. It is literally NOTHING. You cannot manipulate that which does not exist in a material form with mechanical force. The only way to manipulate Space would be to fill it with Energy. Once filled with Energy, space is no longer Space.
Now when we combine the two elements of Space and Time, we have what is known as Space-time. This is the point of the Observer of the passage of Time between the other three dimensional points of x, y, and z axis's. Being that this is an observation being made, it has no actual properties in and of itself. Yes, we can change the Observers relations ship to the event being observed and even influence the rate at which the observations are being made by manipulating Energy, but this does not affect the actual event in question. If I record an explosion and slow it down when I play it back, I have changed the space-time of the observation, and have not changed the explosion itself.
From where do you get that? Not from physics, so the balance of your comment makes no sense to me.
Time might be considered a way to measure change, but it is not the agent of change.
Because Time flows and its flow is what carries the other Forces of Nature along. If we could reverse the flow of Time, that building you knocked down would stand back up as the forces that brought it down are reversed. Tis says to me that Time is not just a Dimension, but a Force as well.
Physics from metaphors, eh?
using layman terms helps to evoke the mental image. I didn't think using the phrase "Time passes" would provoke the same understanding of the Force I am seeking to induce, namely that of the pressure applied to keep things moving forward like flowing does.
Understood, but phrases do not an hypothesis make.