Is god conscious of the entire universe?

[Schahin]

So lets talk about this insane subject.

The Universe is billions and billions of lightyears big, if not even more, it expands in an accelerating speed faster than the speed of light.

Just imagine, galaxies, suns lot of times bigger than our sun in billions of lightyears away from us, gazillions of them. The mind is absolutely too weak to even slightly comprehend the vastness of our universe.

Our sun and our planet are just a single grain of sand in all the sands on earth, if not even on other planets.

Light travels 7,5 times in a second around the eart, now imagine travelling billions of years with that speed, its ridiculously vast and never will anybody ever understand the slightest bits of it.

 

So is god/consciousness seriously consciouss of absolutely every possible thing in the universe for all the billions and billions of lightyears, planets, stars, elements, minerals and so on and so forth?

 

Well, if we think of consciousness being conscious of every single ant and every on of their cells and all types of minerals and plants and animals on earth and more than that, and that consciousness if infinite, the answer should actually be yes, which is just mindblowing, what do you think?

Edited 17 hours ago by Schahin

[Hojo]

@SchahinI dont think so. Its conscious of it the same way you are right now. Its POVS running through labyrinths. Its conscious of the universe via these POVS. Each Pov dosent know the other ones. But at the same time it created the entire story of the single POV. The objective universe isnt anything, its like infinite POV layered over each other every single one looking for something that cant be found. 

There is  POV of the universe tho and its looking at itself but it cant see the whole thing the same way you cant see the whole thing from your POV but you know the universe is there. The POV calls itself God. This POV looks inside itself and behind it it sees your POV, and its POV is inside of you.

Its conscious of everything but not at the same time.

Edited 14 hours ago by Hojo

[Ramasta9]

It really depends on how you define the word God.

Let me make it easier for you: Our Entire universe, and all infinite parallel universes / multiverses / dimensions ad infinitum...

Are all (within Consciousness) thus there is ONLY Consciousness. Its not really "out there" that's the illusion we perceive.

The way our minds think what consciousness is is not actually what consciousness is.

Consciousness Creates The Reality

Edited 15 hours ago by Ramasta9

[Princess Arabia]

12 hours ago, Schahin said:

Just imagine,

There's your answer.

[Malkom]

He realizes through you. Looking, for example, at the stars, the fire, the sea.... This is how God looks at himself and realizes

Edited 5 hours ago by Malkom

[Malkom]

 

And light doesn't travel ANYWHERE. For us, it moves at the speed of light because we have an inertial frame of reference, and for light itself, inertial frames of reference don't exist. In a sense, from our perspective, it has an absolute frame of reference, although that's not entirely correct (hypothetically, you could imagine it moving from one point to another instantly, and at all times, and existing forever and seemingly "motionless," if you could possess the consciousness of "light").

And light in our world can travel at superluminal speeds, but it's as if "within a wave packet," meaning it can move like that, but it can't transmit information or interactions faster than the speed of light.

Edited 5 hours ago by Malkom

[Breakingthewall]

28 minutes ago, Malkom said:

 

And light doesn't travel ANYWHERE. For us, it moves at the speed of light because we have an inertial frame of reference, and for light itself, inertial frames of reference don't exist. In a sense, from our perspective, it has an absolute frame of reference, although that's not entirely correct (hypothetically, you could imagine it moving from one point to another instantly, and at all times, and existing forever and seemingly "motionless," if you could possess the consciousness of "light").

And light in our world can travel at superluminal speeds, but it's as if "within a wave packet," meaning it can move like that, but it can't transmit information or interactions faster than the speed of light.

Yes, For light, there is no space, time, or speed. Light propagates in space and time because it is spacetime that transmits information at a specific speed, the maximum that its architecture allows, being space and time.

Light does not occur; "occurring" is a property of spacetime, and spacetime is a property of mass. Only that which interacts with the Higgs field enters the space-time dimension, acquiring density, slowness, then time.

[Malkom]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes, For light, there is no space, time, or speed. Light propagates in space and time because it is spacetime that transmits information at a specific speed, the maximum that its architecture allows, being space and time.

Light does not occur; "occurring" is a property of spacetime, and spacetime is a property of mass. Only that which interacts with the Higgs field enters the space-time dimension, acquiring density, slowness, then time.

Wow! At least someone understands this, and hasn't just watched popular science shows where everything is oversimplified and essentially shows "comics." And yet, you described it a bit "three-dimensionally." In fact, it's connected to "world lines," and any body, even if you're sitting in a chair, is already moving at the maximum possible speed of light in "four dimensions" on a "world line"! Any body at rest in our world moves at the speed of light in "four dimensions," and light itself is on the surface of a four-dimensional light cone and is not moving anywhere.

Then let's move on. Haha, there are four fundamental forces – strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force (which also includes light), and gravitational force. But the point is that, for example, magnetism itself doesn't exist in the electromagnetic force, with some manipulations in quantum mechanics. What's my point? The point is that if these four fundamental forces are combined, only one force remains. Which one? Gravity. It would seem simplified. But no. In such a case, we need to introduce another 20-odd dimensions (maybe less, I could be wrong since my knowledge is superficial). And look what's happening here. This is, in a sense, the territory of string theory (hypothesis). In creating this theory, concepts such as "toposes" were used. What are those? It would take at least 2,000 pages, ahahaha, so we won't go into detail here. I'll just say that these abstract structures are like separate mathematical universes, with morphisms (their own logic) within them. Okay, let's not go into detail. It's just that "toposes" seem to resemble the workings of consciousness itself; they're very, very abstract things. Whoever achieved them possessed a simply incredible level of abstraction.

You might object, "It's just a fantasy," and it doesn't exist. But no, dude, it's not just a fantasy. First, there's a kind of meta-theory, that is, what we observe (relatively speaking) or vaguely perceive intuitively. Then heuristic considerations emerge; in general, yes, these are observations. But these are neither hypotheses nor theories, and since we're real brutals—hahaha—we need to put this into a formal narrative, and then it truly becomes a hypothesis or a theory that can be worked with. This isn't just something I made up, so be it. It has a connection to Reality.
Personally, I'm looking for proof of P=NP, so to speak. Why is this suddenly so? Maybe it's not true and you made it all up yourself. Why bother looking for an answer? Do something useful. No. No. No, again. It's all very real and very serious. And I've already read a lot of crazy people who "proved" this problem. It's all NONSENSE. You really need to go beyond your mind here, and here's why. To solve it, you need to, as they say, know the problem firsthand. And these "faces" are the so-called barriers. What are they and what problems do they cause? For example, the first barrier of relativization completely rules out proof by diagonalization, and the use of "oracles"—not just methods and techniques, but an entire class—is immediately ruled out. Another barrier is the barrier of natural proofs. The third barrier is the barrier of arithmetization. The fourth barrier is calibration. And each barrier is a separate methodology, meaning there's no need to search for this method; let's take another one, and so on—it immediately eliminates everything and prohibits everything. And so on, there are more, I won't list them all. I mentioned "topos" for a reason; I have an intuition that the answer lies through them, because they are capable of uniting the "ununitable," but these are just thoughts for now.
And so when someone writes that they solved this problem, but they don't describe how they got around all these barriers, their article can be immediately closed and not read further. The more I pursue the "P=NP" thread, the more I realize it's comparable to the development of aircraft manufacturing... there's no end in sight. And I increasingly see that the process of finding a proof is literally, not even metaphorically, like conquering Everest before anyone had ever conquered it, without paths, without routes, without equipment, and so on, with all the barriers and challenges.

What will a proof of P=NP achieve? A lot. For example, it will allow us to create incredible substances by predetermining their properties, simply by testing them in a short time. And it will also destroy privacy, since it will be possible to factorize any cipher into prime factors. But I'm not interested in that. I'm not a hacker, and I don't like causing suffering. Ahahahaha. I just enjoy the process itself; I'm interested in the "truth" and only that. The rest of the world is all about nothing, it's all vanity, it's all perishable.

I've written a lot, and probably in vain. Because apparently no one else is interested in this. We'll discuss it like all lazy people and freebie lovers – straight to God.

This is all purely my position. Reality isn't limited to my positions and opinions. But still, my opinion is also Real.

Edited 3 hours ago by Malkom

[Breakingthewall]

@Malkom imo string theory is too contrived; it has something that makes it limited, even impossible. For me, the theory that points to the true structure of reality is quantum field theory. The forces you mention wouldn't be forces, but rather minimal excitations of the electromagnetic, gluon, and weak nuclear fields. The problem is gravity, which is perhaps as Einstein predicted: a curvature of spacetime due to mass.

Space would be something, created by quantum entanglement, and the fields, which would be potential properties of reality, could never cease vibrating because that contradicts the uncertainty principle. There would always be a minimal vibration, creating the virtually infinite vacuum energy and forces.

My contribution: These fields would also not be fundamental but emergent from deep properties of reality, mathematical relationships that unfold infinitely if you delve into them. Any manifestation of reality would ultimately be a coherent relationship between possibilities, which in turn would divide into other coherent relationships, creating infinite interconnected parallel dimensions.

[Yimpa]

My mind won’t stop making patterns, discovering synchronicities, and drawing insights. It’s quite relentless. I’m learning to accept this is how I was always meant to make sense of the world. Just something that was kept locked away for a while, to conform to a world that desperately tried to make me think like a sheep; not fly free like a rainbow unicorn.

[Malkom]

34 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Malkom imo string theory is too contrived; it has something that makes it limited, even impossible. For me, the theory that points to the true structure of reality is quantum field theory. The forces you mention wouldn't be forces, but rather minimal excitations of the electromagnetic, gluon, and weak nuclear fields. The problem is gravity, which is perhaps as Einstein predicted: a curvature of spacetime due to mass.

Space would be something, created by quantum entanglement, and the fields, which would be potential properties of reality, could never cease vibrating because that contradicts the uncertainty principle. There would always be a minimal vibration, creating the virtually infinite vacuum energy and forces.

My contribution: These fields would also not be fundamental but emergent from deep properties of reality, mathematical relationships that unfold infinitely if you delve into them. Any manifestation of reality would ultimately be a coherent relationship between possibilities, which in turn would divide into other coherent relationships, creating infinite interconnected parallel dimensions.

You're writing to someone who does this professionally.
And the way you write is, to put it mildly, a bit amateurish. Quantum field theory is incomplete, not only because it lacks a theory of gravity, but because it has very serious holes, flaws in much more subtle areas, and there are many of these flaws precisely because of the lack of a theory of gravity.. There are many examples, I won't overload them, but here's an example: D(ρ)=(1−p)ρ+pIdD(ρ)=(1−p)ρ+pdI
where pp is the error probability, II is the identity operator, and dd is the spatial dimension.
As I already wrote, magnetism doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist because the special theory of relativity was introduced and quantum electrodynamics was born. (They can't unify the general theory of relativity.)
This is a drop in the ocean. Many things cannot be described without gravity; this is an important step. This is the Millennium Problem of physics, one might say, one of the open problems. If they are unified, then quantum mechanics will be renamed relativistic quantum mechanics.
String theory is incorrectly called a hypothesis, more accurately, and yes, it does unify gravity. But I'm not an expert. And as I already wrote, hypotheses like "I just wanted to come up with something interesting" don't happen.

You write that in such a case, infinite vacuum energy would be created—that's precisely one of the barriers to unifying gravity into quantum field theory. And the question arises: could it be that gravity isn't quantized? If so, that would be extremely, extremely strange. This would mean you could study quantum physics "from the outside," so to speak—I'm exaggerating now. And in general, many things hint at quantization.

You write that space is the result of quantum entanglement, as many popular science programs say. In general, yes, they're right. Hahaha, space-time isn't primary.

Edited 2 hours ago by Malkom

[Breakingthewall]

19 minutes ago, Malkom said:

And the question arises: could it be that gravity isn't quantized?

Sure it isn't. Gravity is perfectly formulated in the theory of relativity; it's not a force, there's no gravitational field or gravitron, it's a property of spacetime. The problem is that this produces impossible results in quantum equations, but this logically implies that space and time are ill-defined; we don't know what they are. Searching for the gravitron seems pointless.

Quantum mechanics needs a continuous spacetime, as if it were an essential property of reality, the framework where reality occurs, and it seems quite obvious that this is not the case; spacetime is emergent. Therefore, quantum theory is what is incomplete; trying to force the gravitron into it seems strange.

[Leo Gura]

Meow

[Malkom]

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure it isn't. Gravity is perfectly formulated in the theory of relativity; it's not a force, there's no gravitational field or gravitron, it's a property of spacetime. The problem is that this produces impossible results in quantum equations, but this logically implies that space and time are ill-defined; we don't know what they are. Searching for the gravitron seems pointless.

Quantum mechanics needs a continuous spacetime, as if it were an essential property of reality, the framework where reality occurs, and it seems quite obvious that this is not the case; spacetime is emergent. Therefore, quantum theory is what is incomplete; trying to force the gravitron into it seems strange.

You seem to be approaching these issues in a rather categorical and definitive manner, but that's normal. By the way, Leo released a new video – The Limitation of Rationality . I haven't watched it yet, but I think it's somewhere close. Haha.
The theory of relativity is a very successful theory, very precise and effective, just like quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, for it to work, you need a "canvas," you need a "continuum." The discreteness and quantization of spacetime are unsuitable for quantum mechanics in its modern form. But as I already wrote, it has many shortcomings, and the fact that one of the shortcomings you mentioned, "spacetime," should arise is actually a small part, let's say at the superficial level; in fact, things are much more interesting there.
But neither quantum mechanics nor the theory of relativity are complete.
The theory of relativity is incomplete, if only because it contains singularities; that's the limit of what it can do. The term "singularity" comes from mathematics. That is, because of this, we don't know what happens inside a black hole or what happened BEFORE the Big Bang. Moreover, we know nothing about "Planck scales" other than that they exist and that literally everything about them is the same.
For example, if we take the Navier-Stokes equation, another Millennium Problem in mathematics, its solutions run into singularities. But in reality, no singularities occur in the flow of gases and liquids. A singularity is a sign that the theory is powerless to address this issue, and a different, non-trivial approach is needed. It's similar in relativity theory.
I'm not a supporter of the string hypothesis, but I'm not an opponent either. And I'm not an expert on it, but from what I've heard, it's, for example, another solution to "dark energy." In the context of the string hypothesis, "dark energy" is associated with "space," only not like ours, but as if one dimension higher. Moreover, the string hypothesis is connected to the holographic principle, and this principle is connected to information theory. Moreover, the "topos" from which the string hypothesis was born (not only because of them, but also because of them) are something entirely new, and they are still rarely used; there is potential for their use in artificial intelligence. This is all very, very cutting-edge science. But this is an area more for speculation, considerations, and assumptions...
Of course, some might say, "What's the point of all this?" "I'll take psychedelics and experience everything." But that's not true. If you truly want to receive the gifts of the Universe, to put it poetically, you need to do exactly that, at least in this direction.
Science is not dogma or faith.
Reality is INFINITE. The finiteness of reality contradicts one of the main principles of philosophy: the limitlessness of knowledge.

Edited 1 hour ago by Malkom

[Malkom]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Meow

meeeeeeeow ahaha 

[Breakingthewall]

50 minutes ago, Malkom said:

You seem to be approaching these issues in a rather categorical and definitive manner, but that's normal. By the way, Leo released a new video – The Limitation of Rationality . I haven't watched it yet, but I think it's somewhere close. Haha.

Yeah, I'm not so connoisseur as you . Then, we already have fixed this frame, so you don't need to point it in every message. Just tell me where I'm wrong. 

50 minutes ago, Malkom said:

The theory of relativity is incomplete, if only because it contains singularities; that's the limit of what it can do. The term "singularity" comes from mathematics. That is, because of this, we don't know what happens inside a black hole or what happened BEFORE the Big Bang

 

The theory of relativity is incomplete but perfect in it's extension. The infinities that result in the equations are the limitation of our mathematics to this dimension. The singularity doesn't means that the theory is wrong, means that reached that point, the model is another. 

50 minutes ago, Malkom said:

Reality is INFINITE. The finiteness of reality contradicts one of the main principles of philosophy: the limitlessness of knowledge

Infinity is very different that unlimited. Infinity is mathematical concept applied to a framework. For example, numbers are infinite; you keep counting and they never end. But within the framework of numbers. Unlimited means there are no boundaries. It's not a dimension, it's neither large nor small. Infinity is a possibility of the unlimited. Therefore, reality is unlimited, not infinite.

Then ultimately the reality is not mathematical, mathematics happens in reality 

Edited 50 minutes ago by Breakingthewall

[Malkom]

43 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yeah, I'm not so connoisseur as you . Then, we already have fixed this frame, so you don't need to point it in every message. Just tell me where I'm wrong. 

 

The theory of relativity is incomplete but perfect in it's extension. The infinities that result in the equations are the limitation of our mathematics to this dimension. The singularity doesn't means that the theory is wrong, means that reached that point, the model is another.

Infinity is very different that unlimited. Infinity is mathematical concept applied to a framework. For example, numbers are infinite; you keep counting and they never end. But within the framework of numbers. Unlimited means there are no boundaries. It's not a dimension, it's neither large nor small. Infinity is a possibility of the unlimited. Therefore, reality is unlimited, not infinite.

Then ultimately the reality is not mathematical, mathematics happens in reality

Infinity is NOT A NUMBER at all. I won't debate what infinity is, because that would make it finite anyway, which is pointless. As for whether reality is mathematics or not? Reality is NOT mathematics. There is no mathematics without Reality. Existence, so to speak, is primary. So, just a thought experiment, a fantasy: take some aliens. They have a completely different language, a completely different way of thinking, they will have different everything, and their mathematics will be different too, and they will describe it differently, perhaps much more intelligently coolest than we do. And so it will be.
Moreover, in quantum mechanics, for example, it is just a method of description, and no one really knows what exactly it is, just as a "primary experience," so to speak. Anyone who says they know is lying 1000%
The phrase "shut up and calculate" came into being when its incredible accuracy was suddenly revealed, and it suddenly became clear that there was no need to derive anything, but rather that the derivation had already been prepared, and you just go ahead and calculate. This is a purely pragmatic approach; questions like "what is this" are unnecessary for practice. But I don't study pragmatics; I study fundamentalism, which is potentially incomparably more practical; look around.
Although Max Tegmark says that the Universe is mathematics. But most likely, he means something very profound. In general, mathematicians, for example, dislike the "technicality" of problems because it's automatic, lacking elegance and vitality. "Technicality" is certainly necessary and is an integral part of it, but that's not mathematics; here everything has already been decided. Moreover, regarding quantum mechanics, it's actually calculated using a "hydrogen ion." It couldn't be more complicated; there simply isn't enough power, and there isn't enough. Because of this, even plasma physics can't be fully explained. I even sometimes troll cosmologists: "You say you know what happens in the depths of stars when we don't even know about plasma, and they can't argue with that. Ahahahaha." Secondly, "They talk about spontaneous symmetry breaking before the Big Bang, which resulted in an explosion." "I tell them, 'Wait, guys! If there was no time before the Big Bang, and time is a shift in symmetry (not a violation), then how do you even have the concept of BEFORE?'" Stupor  Not a single cosmologist takes their work seriously. I can even tell them, "What makes you think there's something out there in space? Maybe it's a projector, and some multidimensional cosmological joker is shining from there, laughing at you for being truth-seekers and finding it?" I'm trolling them professionally, because they genuinely don't give answers; you don't see that in popular science.
There's a joke in mathematics: nothing is forbidden in mathematics; anything is allowed. As soon as you do something forbidden, you become a new branch of mathematics. But that's just a joke. Another joke: theorists want to unify everything, simplify it, and reduce it to a single formula, while experimentalists, on the contrary, discover everything new and disruptive. This is also a catchphrase from scientific circles.
I'm now lifting the veil a little bit on the scientific community.

Edited 8 minutes ago by Malkom

[Malkom]

48 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yeah, I'm not so connoisseur as you . Then, we already have fixed this frame, so you don't need to point it in every message. Just tell me where I'm wrong.

 

The theory of relativity is incomplete but perfect in it's extension. The infinities that result in the equations are the limitation of our mathematics to this dimension. The singularity doesn't means that the theory is wrong, means that reached that point, the model is another.

Infinity is very different that unlimited. Infinity is mathematical concept applied to a framework. For example, numbers are infinite; you keep counting and they never end. But within the framework of numbers. Unlimited means there are no boundaries. It's not a dimension, it's neither large nor small. Infinity is a possibility of the unlimited. Therefore, reality is unlimited, not infinite.

Then ultimately the reality is not mathematical, mathematics happens in reality

In fact, the physics  shmizik is just something to do, it's pointless. I'd rather relax in nature, go ATV riding, hahaha. Now that's the real deal.
Although my true passion is proving the Millennium Problem - P&NP It's clear that everything can be infinitely complicated, there's no limit, but the question is whether it can be infinitely simplified, and how. For example, P=Pspace, P=EXP, P=NEXP There's already such power here that planet Earth or Mars are simply negligible compared to the size of the universe; you'd simply burn up from such power