Tag Archives: Philosophy

The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt. 4)

On Time

Throughout I have been attacking the boundaries of space, now I plan to go after the other portion of the fourth dimension: time. There are two divisions of time I will discuss: Radial/Rotational and Linear. Radial Time is the way we measure time by years or even minutes. Radial time is usually subjective. This is usually measured by rotation such as the earth rotating around the sun. The second is Linear Time. This is a more absolute type of time measured abstractly by past, present, and future. We usually suggest Linear time begins at the Big Bang.

There is a problem with Radial time: it is rotational and subjective. We cannot find a universal way to measure time. For example, if we were on an electron we would measure time by rotations around the nucleus. However, different atoms wouldn’t have the same time and even different electrons may have different times. We measure rotational time by Earth’s rotation around the sun. But if we were to move outside the solar system, we would not be able to use this as the basis. So we may consider measuring the sun’s rotation around the center of the Milky Way. But it keeps on going outward and two problems arise. One, when we get to a certain level, we cannot be sure that they orbit anything, so there is no way to measure time. The second problem is due to the infinite nature of space. As stated in the last section, there is no center. The center will always have to be moved proportionally and subjectively.  You cannot measure time by the rotation around a ‘not center’.

Linear time is not so assured either. There are two possible problems.  Even if we assume that the big bang (which also assumes a center) is the absolute beginning, we still suffer a problem. The problem is that the big bang is an expansion event, it has the opposite effect of gravity- it pushes things away. So if something were to be there, it would not orbit it. If nothing were to orbit it, how would time happen? I may concede that time happens, the passing of one moment to another does happen. We definitely would not be able to measure it, but it may still happen. Time is solely a change within the dimension in space. Time would be measured because Object A would move from Point 1 (the place where the big bang took place) to Point 2 (the place where expansion moved Object A) and has a memory of Point 1. We would still be able to measure time in abstract terms such as ‘past’, ‘present’, and future, just not using concrete terms such as 1 year. However, as was stated earlier, there has always been something and never solely nothing. With that we should accept that the instance of the big bang wasn’t something being transformed from nothing, but probably the change of something into another form of something or just an expansion of the original something.

If you have bought my previous premises though, you should concede that there is no ‘beginning’. If you accepted my premise towards the start of this article that only something exists, then there has always been a something and never a nothing. If you have also accepted the fact that there is no center, then it should be clear that Linear time does not exist. There is no center point to measure movement from. There is no beginning to measure a starting point from. Therefore, there is no time.


The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt. 3)


The mimicking of the macro with the micro and vice versa causes an image to come to mind. The large Universe gets smaller and we see galaxies, then planets, and so on until we are at quarks and the Higgs-Boson particle. When I think of this I then am reminded of fractals. Fractals are these shapes that repeat endlessly the further you zoom in. True fractals don’t exist in nature; however you have fractal-esque shapes in those that contain the Fibonacci spiral. You can zoom in on the spiral and keep on zooming in and you will keep on seeing a spiral.

Imagine a Cartesian plane. As it zooms in, you just end up with more lines and repetition. You can do the same in reverse. When you zoom out, you will continuously end up with the same figure regardless of scale. Notice how the figure will require you to zoom several levels before the figure repeats. For example: Level 1, L2, L3, L4…. The figure will appear the same at levels 1, 4, 8, 12…. In between those intervals, however, it may appear vastly different. Notice that, although L1 and L4 may appear the same they are mathematically different. L1 may be -1 and L4 may be -1.0001.
As discussed earlier, things at the macro level seem to be replicated at the micro level. What if this is just the scale getting to the point where things look similar? What if the planets are L1 and atomic space is L4?

If we were to accept this proposition, two possibilities can be realized. Either the universe is completely fractal and will cyclically repeat, or the universe infinitely regresses in both macro and micro directions.

If the universe is completely fractal, then that would mean when you look in at tree branches you will notice the bark. Go in further, you will see plant cells. Some more you will see atoms. But these atoms would actually be planets and galaxies. Essentially, the universe would reflect in on itself.

I cannot accept this theory. I would argue that the universe is fractal like, but not fractal. The planets and galaxies may hold certain observable similarities but do not hold similarities in properties. If you were to collide multiple Saturns together, you will not get the same end product if you put multiple carbons together. It is also hard to imagine a world where Saturn is made of multiple mini Saturns inside of it. The last counter I have to this idea is that things on the macro are not affected by those in the micro. Every time an atom collides in the Hadron Collider we don’t see a large explosion in our night sky. It is improbable that the universe reflects inward on itself.

The other possibility, that the universe is fractal like and will regress infinitely, seems more probable. This is to say that when you go from L1 to L2…L4 and so on, that L1 and L4 will look alike, but will not have the same properties. This is similar to looking at a Cartesian plane and zooming. The squares may look the same, but will have completely different measurements (2, -1 vs. 2.050037, -1.020045).

Finding a Center

Something to be noticed about this infinite regression is that it will not have a center. If we go off continuously macro-ly or micro-ly, we will never find an end. For things to have a center they must have an edge, boarder, or end. As suggested in the first section, there is no boarder to the universe. When looking at the universe, it goes off in all directions without end like a Cartesian plane. Therefore, there is no center.

An objection to this would be the fact that we use the populated (where there is stuff) part of the universe as the center. This won’t work for several reasons. If we were to do this, it would be completely relative to our portion of the universe. We assume that our portion of the universe (all the galaxies inside the known universe) is the only one. Why not assume there are other populated portions of the universe past the edge of what we know as the universe? My other counterexample is that we don’t use a chocolate chip to measure the radius of the cookie. We need to know where the edge of the cookie is in order to measure the radius. And since there is no edge to the cookie, the cookie goes on indefinitely in all directions.

F3 Fractal Universe

The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt 2)

Patterns in Nature

We can notice, if we look hard enough, that things on the Macro scale mimic those on the micro scale. Figure 1 helps illustrate this.

For example: free floating bodies. At the macro level, you have planets that orbit stars. You also have things like meteors that have no orbit and just float around without a specific orbit (although keeping the inertia from the orbit that gave them momentum originally). Meteors and other free floating bodies can get caught in each other’s gravitational pull and collide to create planets. At the micro level, you have electrons that orbit nuclei. There are also smaller particles called quarks that create the components of atoms.

The Fibonacci sequence is another repeat throughout the system of nature. The Fibonacci is a specific sequence. The rule is Fn= Fn-1 + Fn-2. For example: 1,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc. This composes two ‘golden’ measurements: the golden spiral and the golden square, collectively known as the golden ratio. Both can be created with these integers. Both are repeated in nature. The spiral of a seashell mimics the two spirals that compose a galaxy. Many plants exhibit this spiral as well, including pinecones and roses. There are a few non-spiral shapes that can be shown to be of the Fibonacci sequence. The branching of such figures as dendrites, lightning, and tree branches are an example. They branch from 1, to 2, to 3, to 5, and so on.

There is a potential criticism of my hypothesis that the macro mirrors the micro and vice versa: humans have tendency to archetype or symbolize things. This may take down the examples I have comparing a human arm to earth and cities to the circulatory system. However it will not compensate for the Fibonacci sequence examples (which can be mathematically proven). Note that it is not one thing; it is a series of things. Even if that is the only argument that withstands its critics, it contains not one example, but many.

F1 Patterns

The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt 1)

The Infamy of Infinity

In the current scheme of things, we are taught to think of time and space as finite. We get stuck into the view due to the fact that the things around us our finite. The water is separate from the ground; Venus is separate from the sun, and so on. Things begin and then they end. Where the water ends, earth begins; where the earth ends, the air begins. One might think that this happens just because we can imagine the finite more clearly than the infinite.

The reason this dichotomy exists is due to the fallibility of human perspective. When a leaf dies we say that it ‘ceases to exist’. This is the natural process of decay and death. We assume this must be the opposite of existence. In reality, this is not the case. The particles that compose of it never actually die, meaning they don’t disappear. No, these particles merely change form. As the law of conservation states: energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely transformed.  Therefore the particles always exist. Decay is merely the moving of matter from one state to another. Humans have only had the second perspective within the last 100 years. Because of the first perspective being prevalent for so long, we are stuck with this idea of finite, that things have an end.

Imagine a red circle. Now look out towards its boundary. What do you see on the other side? White or black maybe. Others say nothing. However you cannot think of ‘nothing’. That white or black space you think of is ‘something’. You can apply this same thing to the concept of the Universe, a supposedly bounded entity. But when you get to the edge, what happens? Do you hit a bubble that you cannot past; an ‘invisible wall’. I will argue that you will be able to go on forever past this so-called ‘boundary’.

Throughout this paper I will term things ‘infinite’ and ‘finite’. Respectively I am referring to something ‘without end’ and something ‘with end’.

On Suicide

Im reading a philosophical paper on suicide for a class and i came across some terribly interesting lines:

“[committing suicide] amounts to a confession…. A confession that life is too much or you dont understand it…. it is merely confessing that life ‘isnt worth the trouble.'”

Albert Camus “The Myth of Sisyphus”

Later he describes that the realization of life’s absurdity causes one to give up (suicide) or create hope, which Camus describes negatively because, to him, hope amounts to a delusion. He suggests that what we should do is bask in life’s absurdness (the fact that it has no meaning) and just examine it.



This was an assignment for a philosophy paper I had to turn in. I was only allowed to turn in one page even though I had so many opinions on it. This is what I had written completely in response to James’ work “Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth”.

The first point he makes is on how most pragmatists believe truth is inherent and how they are wrong. He believes that truth is not inherent; that truth happens to an idea. James says that truth happens when an idea is validated or verified; the measuring of the event is what makes it true. Not the fact that apples fall from trees, but the fact that Newton was there to connect the dots. He is saying that the moment Newton makes the claim that “if an apple is separated from a tree, then it will fall downward. An apple separated from a tree. Therefore, it falls downward.” and his assertion is proven enough times (yes, in all observable cases p does cause q), it will become agreed upon. This is the event of verification or the moment an idea becomes true, claims James.

However, I argue that truth is innate. There are governing laws of the universe, which are objective to our existence. He seems to be arguing “If truth falls in the forest and nobody observes it happen, it is not truth”. Although truth is a description that we invented, the idea still holds even if we aren’t there to call it truth. Imagine a world without humans to observe it. Gravity still happens, apples still fall. We may not be there to measure it and it may not be OUR truth, However, the universe will still follow that law and our idea of what truth is will still pertain to the universe. Humans understand the world with our concepts and symbols. Our methods of understanding the universe are mathematics and numbers. Although the universe may not be driven by math and numbers, the ideas are still the same: The idea “1” is followed by “2” happens in every case whether we call them “1 & 2”, “one & two” or “Aay and Que”. The idea of order still maintains its truth.

James also claims that a truth’s value lies in its usefulness. I agree with this statement; we look for truth so we can do things with it. I do disagree with his statement “It is true because it is useful.”  “If it is true (p), then it is useful (q). It is true (p). Therefore, it is useful (q)” In a situation in where I know it is the truth, such as knowing the sky is blue, (p) it would never have any use (q) this claim would be false and his argument unsound.  If the statement was reversed (if useful, then true), it could still be proven wrong. An objects usefulness lies within the subject. A pencil’s use is to write. The truth being: “If it is a pencil, then it can write”. To humans this is proves James claim correct. But if there were no humans, just animals, this would cease to work. An animal might cannot use it as a writing tool but may use it as a weapon or shelter. This does not make the statement “If it is a pencil, then it can write” false, because the ability to write still exists in the pencil. There are probably uses of the pencil that we don’t know of but that doesn’t make the claim “If it is a pencil, it can do x” incorrect. We just don’t have the knowledge to use it as such yet.


God and Evil

I came across an interesting thought today: If God is all powerful and all good, then why does evil exist. For evil to exist means either God is not powerful enough to extinguish evil (therefore not all powerful) or God allows it to exist and therefore is not all good. I’ve been thinking about it and thinking I’ve come up with some sort of conclusion.

Beforehand, I should tell you I’m not really religious. I don’t follow any specific religion. Because, quite honestly, I don’t know who is right. However I do believe in God, at least the concept.


I’m not going to get detailed in this but for the sake of understanding, the idea I have of God is not a “person”; does not have limbs. God is merely an Idea/thought-form. Communication with said being would probably be incomprehensible. Definitely unlike talking. When I say “God”, think of when you say things like “nature”, “the universe”, or “fate”; a generalized being with absolutely no specific image attached to it. I think most concepts have been too corrupted by man. All religious texts are written though a human, who is inherently flawed. “Created in His image” may not (and probably does not) mean physically. We are the only species that has complex reasoning and has metacognition: we can think about our thoughts, as well as self-awareness. Those are the blueprints for which we are based off of.


To get to the point though, why does evil exist/ why do bad things happen? I have two answers:


Think about a videogame. You are playing and you are passing each level flawlessly. Then you get to a level that is really hard. You keep on dying and starting over. Eventually, you figure out that you were supposed to do some complex thing that you haven’t done before. What if you did not have that challenge? You would play that game and pass it within an hour and say “boy, what a waste of time” and I bet no one would be proud of your accomplishment. What if every day you just kept on taking soma and walked through your life easily without any challenges, and you always got what you wanted? It’d be a pretty boring life. But that’s not even it. Think back to the videogame. Normally when things got hard you learned some really cool technique or combo that helped you later in the game. That’s life exactly. You become homeless; you learn to appreciate what you have (not to envy others). You get hurt in a relationship, you learn to love better. A murderer tries to kill you and fails, you learn to appreciate existence.  Adversity causes growth.


The other side (more dealing with God and religion): Why does god allow evil to exist? That must mean he is not all good, right? Not necessarily. We are Its creation, or at least part of It (depending on what you believe). It decided it wanted best for us. I guess we could argue free will is not necessarily best for us or why it is best for us, but that is what we have. Evil exists because of choice. If only good were to exist, would we really even have choice, or just the perception of it? You could also argue that this evil exists because a truly benevolent being would see the good in everything. And if there is good in everything, then there is no evil. Why would I say NO evil? Because evil is the absolute absence of good, and if there is good in everything than there is no such thing as evil.



Nobody Knows Anything

I’m so tired of hearing about scientists and christians arguing who’s correct about subjects, and condemning the other when they find out that they are correct. Nobody really knows anything, ill try to explain the best i can my case:


Back in the middle ages the paradigm was based on scripture. If you could not find it in the bible, it was wrong. You can actually find old maps based on the bible that have jerusalem in the center with barely any water, because thats what the bible said (for an image: http://www.edgeofenclosure.org/images/462_medieval-mapJerusalemCenterC1250.jpg) . Now, this is literally wrong, you can use your eyes to figure this out. Same with the heliocentric universe, this is true, however you would have been condemned to believe otherwise. The church ruled for like 1000 years. You were raised using scripture to explain everything. Anything that was counter to it was not fathomable. Take a look at Flatland, its kind of like that: They are all circles in a 2d world. Trying to say that a 3d sphere (science) really exists did not make any sense. Eventually scientists poked holes into this view on the world to where science became the new paradigm.


Currently we are still in the science paradigm. Its based on mathematics. Now math and numbers are theoretical and man-made construct (dolphins dont ‘count’). You could say that they are the equivalent to gospel and scripture: the basis of the paradigm. Science has improved our life in many ways, and we need to have gone through this paradigm to get to where we are headed. But there are holes being poked into our paradigm.


Quantum theory is starting to prove things that science said were impossible. This theory, however, is still based on mathematics (hopefully meaning that we’re on the right path) and uses it to prove its theory. The ideas of multiverses, time travel, and the same atom being in two places at once (which could explain the existance of separate consciousness or ‘the soul’) are now theoretically possible. 


Now eventually this may be proved wrong based on something completely different. But why must we cut eachother down on ideas that may be disproven in the future. Let the scientist believe what they want, the religious what they want, and whatever future theorists say.


On a side note about the bible and probably other relgious texts as well. It was written by MAN, a inherently flawed creature. Now christians (or other religions) believe that its God’s word, however, man assembled it. The catholic church actually has taken out alot of chapters (apocraphal texts), and what was put in the bible was decided by men in power. Food for thought. Just everyone stop fighting.


“Man is the only creature who will kill over ideology” – Robert Sapolsky


What time do i have to go to work/school? That means i must wake up at this time. Get ready by this time. I am able to eat lunch around this time. The movie starts at this time. And i must go to bed by this time so i can be able to count time again the next day.

It is the only thing that prevents us from doing what we wanna do. We have only a minimal time to live, and most of that is used working, schooling, sleeping, eating, ect. Animals (besides from a ‘biological clock’) dont worry about time. They live their lives without worrying about what time to go to sleep, eat, or whatever. They just do it whenever they feel like it. Can human civilization function like this? Are we able to just live our lives independently from each other or do we need “order, rule, regulation” (tool- silival third eye) to live efficiently? Would we have to regress our whole society? Ive been thinking about some Utopian ideas working with freedom and i figured out we are slave to time more than anything else in the world.

Im actually proposing a question of discussion if you’d be willing to leave a answer in the form of a comment:

Is it possible to live lives without the existence of time? Would we have to get rid of ‘work’ and ‘school’ in this scenario for it to work out?


Ive been thinking about ‘perfection’. Im not talking about physical perfection, although this rant will apply in just the same way. Im a really self-aware person- I analyze all of my actions, thoughts, and beliefs. I try myself to become the best person i can be. I strive to become a person that I would want to be around. I have many flaws and try to fix as much as i can, but i would not call myself a perfectionist. But i noticed some problems in this activity. When you try to fix yourself, you may end up breaking yourself in other ways. A complete perfectionist would end up psychoanalyzing themself to the point where they will look for problems to make sure nobody finds them. They may even create them ( a mental version of Body Dismorphic Disorder). It will also lead to a low self esteem. Not only because of the “Where is my problem attitude” but also because not all problems can be fixed. Some of our flaws make us exceptionally different. A flaw for one may be a gem for another. ie: A needy person (flaw) may seem absolutely wonderful for someone who has never had much attention. Remember “Perfection only exists as an idea” Socrates on circles (fun fact: thats where A Perfect Circle the band name, came from). Nature is not even perfect. Heres the moral: Fix your flaws if you notice them and CAN, otherwise, accept them.