The universe

 

(Introduction)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people mean by the universe the observable; this is limited to the matter and energy found, starting with the elementary particles up to the large-scale structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

 

And they usually assume that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe.

This means that here the joint emergence of matter, space and time took place from a singular point - which developed from nothing. This then suddenly expanded with unimaginable speed.

What came before, or where this came from, is often answered by experts with 'nothing'. They don't want to admit their ignorance.

Here we are talking about a space that man has limited with his limited view.

(He saw and likes to see himself as the centre of the world.)

 

The beginning of the singular point cannot be proved; Even the general theory of relativity responsible for this, together with the quantum field theory, cannot describe this in a uniformly clear manner.

So a cognitive being can assume that there was something before that that gave rise to the Big Bang.

 

 

So, a phenomenon in the universe could be that everything can contract in one area. In a critical state, which occurs when nothing more can be absorbed, everything flies apart in a gaseous state.

 

 

The universe

(Conversation about)

 

With the topic:

Own world

Big Bang

Omnipotence

Origin of belief in God

Brain processes

 

"Your postulate is that there is only one universe, this is limitless and eternal," said CP.

"Not that I'm misunderstood," I replied. "It's not about the content here, but about the space of the universe - which is limitless and contains everything, including the state of empty spaces."

"Limitless, therefore," asked GP, "because a limit always entails the question: And what is behind this limit?"

"There is no limit to the universe."

"And forever, because there are no other spaces, time, or energy that can replace or change the universe?"

"It's all included."

"Why should one differentiate between space and content?"

"Because the space is infinite, the content - since this cannot be multiplied in the universe as a whole and already contains everything - is finite.

Both are eternal, only the content is, depending on the natural laws, 'infinitely' variable, constantly changing the structure.

Therefore, statements like: 'the thing in itself' or 'eternal ideas' in the universe also make no sense. There is nothing fixed, immutable.

The reason for this comes from the psychological structure of the person who says something like that. The aim here is the feeling in the brain that projects faith and this worldview.

The 'thing in itself' should be intelligible, that is, it should be able to be grasped spiritually by humans. It is the wish to have expressed something in the end 'originally finite'.

The 'thing-in-itself' should be intelligible, abstract, only mentally comprehensible by humans. It stems from the desire to have expressed something ultimately 'originally finite'.

It should therefore only be recognizable by the intellect, not perceptible to the senses.

Intelligible means that it can only be grasped spiritually. This usually means a metaphysical spirit that exists beyond the concrete world and works in people.

I think that this is a dream, born from the aim that there might be such a thing.

There is, of course, man's spirit, i.e. his cognitive abilities. But this is tied to his psyche and its midpoints; so physically. And here all kinds of speculations can arise.

"Eternal ideas" have people in the primordial structures - this is projected onto the outside world as ‘objective metaphysical reality’. "

"But back to the universe: Constructs are constantly being invented to show how the universe came about," I regretted.

"One should realize that one does not speak about the universe, but about its content or parts of the (human) Worldview."

"How is that?" he asked. "Why do not people distinguish this?"

The reason will lie in the human experience, in the brain: everything has emerged from something. This is transferred to the universe. But neither the universe nor the entire content (as primordial substances) had a beginning.

"Of which one could say: 'That's where it came from?" "

"Exactly. Because there was no beginning. And out of nothing, nothing can come. From this it follows that the substances have always been present in the content of the universe.

People say that everything has a reason, e.g., that there is a first mover who initiated everything.

Such a ‘mover’ is not necessary because everything runs according to substances and laws that are inextricably linked with one another. The substances can of course move on their own due to the laws within them. So, there is no need for a first mover, because the reason for movement lies in the substances themselves or in the environment. And, as I said, these substances did not have a beginning, did not arise, but have always been there in the universe (as primordial substances). "

"How do you define 'substances' and 'laws'?" CP asked.

"'Substances' are elementary particles, structures, atoms, neutrinos, molecules, neurons, crystals, liquids, gases, cells, living things, brains, forces, facts, things, living things, ideas, ecosystems, stars, star systems, galaxies, etc.", he answered. "In addition, they are also considered as virtual substances in states of empty spaces (the vacuum in space)."

"So, everything?"

"Yes," I nodded, "invariably. Everything in the content of the universe is considered a substance: on a large scale, like galaxies - which are relatively tiny in relation to infinity - or on a small scale like elementary particles. And of course, everything in humans.

'Law' means that identical parts - or waves - always give identical structures under identical circumstances.

Laws are properties of substances that, viewed in isolation, are unchangeable unless something is added to or removed from the substances.

And that means that everything can only proceed in a very specific form."

"Substances and laws belong directly and inseparably together?" CP suggested.

I nodded. "Yes, there are no substances without laws, you cannot separate or change them. The formula: substances = laws is universal. "

"Could you call it a world formula?" CP asked.

I considered. "In the sense that it applies to the entire world? That would be an option.

Adding to or subtracting from identical substances produces others that are subject to this formula. This can be seen very well in chemistry.”

"You mean: if something is added to the identical substance or if it becomes less, then a new substance with different laws results. The substances therefore each run according to the laws inherent in them.”

"That's the same," I nodded. "Everything is going according to laws. In addition, everything organic runs in addition to the laws of midpoint-mechanics. "

--- Own world ---

"To come back to the word 'world' again," CP remarked, "you also say everyone lives in his own world."

"There you should distinguish between the entire world - the content of the universe - and our views of it.

It's the midpoint-mechanics that make it possible for everyone to live in their own worlds: the midpoints, by their aims, bring man and the world into a structure that excludes everything else that does not suit them. Since ultimately everyone in his aims, which are midpoints, different from other people, everyone also lives in his own world. However, the more similar aims are with other people, the more similar are their worlds. This can also be seen very well in groups whose goals are more and more similar to, usually unconscious compromises, and thus create a corresponding world. "

--- Big Bang ---

"I would like to come back to the Big Bang, which is seen by many as the beginning of the universe," GP said. "If you ask where that came from, what was there, then it is said that everything was created from contracted energy - as a singular point. If you keep asking, you usually won't get an answer.

Or said; it came out of nowhere. I.e., it is claimed that the Big Bang did not come from the universe but created it itself," I said.

“Since people like to explain everything; the big bang theory comes in very handy; that would give him the very beginning of the universe.”

GP nodded thoughtfully, "but can't it be that a content of the universe has actually united at this point? That it was just a change of state in a larger area of the universe?”

"You're probably right about that. So would settle the question of the origin of the singular point.”

We were silent. After a while I continued: “But maybe it's on purpose. Since the inventor of this theory was also a priest during his lifetime, the suspicion is very high that the reason for his statement that ‘the Big Bang came out of nothing’ should actually be: from God. But since that would make him less credible, he probably preferred to keep it a secret.”

"And if you put it like you did?" GP thought about it. "Our world began with the Big Bang."

"That would probably be a valid statement and one that would be difficult to refute," I replied. "Many speak of the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, or that the universe expands or contracts, etc. From the standpoint that there is only one universe, infinite and eternal, all these statements are pointless. They only make sense when you say, 'the beginning of our world' or 'our world expands'. But since these formulations are only human perspectives, but humans want to give universal answers, one will probably continue to use the term 'universe', although this is not appropriate for these statements. "

"Because people think they have expressed everything with it?"

"I think it only creates confusion about the truth."

"And - do you believe that people, when they realize that, will change their idiom?"

--- Omnipotence ---

"Well, in this content of the universe, God would no longer have room with his alleged omnipotence. Because everything consists of substances that run according to laws and God does not have the power to change them. "

"So, because people could not live out their divine fantasies then?"

"I think that will be an important reason. Topics like Universe or God allow for all sorts of fantasies. People love fairy tales.

But anyway, no matter what facts you say, there fantasies will continue to live. "

"Believers say that God is the universe, limitless and eternal."

"Could he, in his omnipotence, change laws? The definition of laws is: Identical parts - or waves - under identical circumstances always result in identical structures. "

"They would say that he could too."

"Could he then change the universe, in this sense himself? Does not he also abstain from substances and laws like everything in the universe? Has one ever seen - and is it scientifically proven - that an almighty God has repealed laws? He would have had enough of the cruelty that happens on our planet every day. "

"You are right."

"That's what I meant when I said that the fantasy product 'God' with its alleged omnipotence has no place in the universe. And - if God is the universe, these people express at the same time that God consists of substances that run according to laws."

"Others say God created the universe."

"Then God would create a universe where everything has to be done exactly as it happens."

"And in which there is no freedom!", CP concluded.

I nodded. "Because you cannot change laws.

Here I would like to quote Max Planck: 'The truth never triumphs; its opponents only die out.'

Ideological concepts, such as religions - for example: there is a God, absolute freedom or a free will - stand the knowledge, the truth in the way. They are midpoints that do not allow that there is no God or ultimately no freedom.

It is impossible for these people to know the truth because they assume false assumptions. They see what they want to see (from the point of view of their aims)."

"Here, reason, intellect, intelligence hardly have a chance?"

"Absolutely none. Obstacles in the form of confusions and emotions trickle away everything. "

"Where do these obstacles come from?"

--- Origin of the belief in God ---

"The concept of the head, the leader you trust, has a subordinate part to it. This was particularly important for living beings, like the primitive people, in order to have aims, such as role models, in order to survive best Original structures established and is the actual cause from which the term "God" was formed.

And then, among other things, from the development processes of childhood, from the 'magical phase': This begins around the age of three and lasts for about two to three years. Between the age of three and five, she influences the child's thoughts and actions. In particular, the primordial structures in the brain probably play a role here. During this period, anything is possible in the childish imagination. Everything that the child desires and thinks, beautiful as well as terrible, could actually happen. What it thinks and does it see as an important cause of much that happens. At the same time, the child fears that other children and adults, but also witches, fairies and monsters could do something similar in the same way. Things and events are largely magically experienced by the child, and 'magical theories' try to interpret and explain them. Witches, monsters and ghosts, but also Santa Claus, Christ Child and Easter Bunny really do exist in the childish conception. '"

I continued, “Pretty much all of us humans go through this magical phase, and in each of us it lives on more or less until the end of life. Because experiences that we once felt to be important often remain emotionally intact for the rest of our lives.

This phase will be one of the main reasons why fairy tales, myths and sagas have a strong appeal and why God, for example, is considered a real being. And these fantasy templates are then further developed in the culture and with the views that prevail in society.”

 

“Can the magic phase explain why many adults still believe that everything is possible? Even though it's not possible to change laws?"

“Yes, this should have a significant impact on adult thinking. Some still believe in mystical figures inside, such as gods, fairies, the devil. This is where superstition has its roots.”

"So, magic and religion have their origins first in the primordial structures and then mainly in the magical phase," CP concluded.

"But people do not want to recognize, but project into the outside world.

 Ones again:

By the way: All phases, especially those that the child goes through up to around the age of seven, form feelings that can be of decisive importance in later life.

For example, the attachment behaviour: through the physical contacts, usually with the mother, strong positive feelings of the people and the world, which are stored in the infant or toddler and remain lifelong. The people would like to experience these feelings in their further development and adulthood and therefore seek closeness and contact with other people. "

"Often one hears the sentence: I have the feeling, God loves me," CP still remembered.

"Cannot it be a transmission of the feeling of being loved by the parents, especially in childhood?" I asked.

CP looked pensive. "You may be right."

--- Brain processes ---

After a pause I said, "But in fact everything is possible - in the brain. This can be seen, for example, in fairy tales that are believed to be true, to the fantasies of believers or what you perceive in your sleep. "

I nodded. "The brain is already doing strange things, especially in sleep."

"Because much that matters in the daily routine is degraded during sleep," I added. "The attention or consciousness does not send information to the brain; the midpoints are shut down while sleeping."

"They do not play the role then as in the waking state?"

"This cannot work because sleep would be disturbed by the midpoints.

Or vice versa: Imagine your brain acting like it is in sleep during the day."

"You mean, if the aims, the midpoints, which are active in the course of the day, no longer determine the course?" 

"One catastrophe would follow the other. That's why they put the brain in a certain structure whose main aim is survival.

As we sleep, we generally do not need the goals of survival, so they are largely shutting down. Unless something extraordinary happens. Then, of course, we will wake up immediately, and the usual midpoints again take over the direction.

The difference between being awake and being asleep is, among other things, that in the former the midpoints provide a certain structure, whereas in sleep they are partially reduced to zero. For example in areas of the frontal lobe. So they have little influence on the brain, which can therefore conjure up the strangest images through associations, links and aims without a midpoint- mechanism.

Because if a midpoint generally occupies a person strongly, then this topic can also occupy him in his sleep, with the aim of finding a solution.

But this is less rational, but according to the laws that act in sleep. "

"When awake or asleep, the brain acts like similarities," CP repeated. "The difference between the states lies in the aims.

While the brain serves the aims of the midpoints of the day when it is awake, i.e. it searches for what fits the midpoints so that they can reach their goal,  these are usually almost inactive when we are asleep. Themes play the roles here.”

"Exactly," I nodded. "The dream spins out of a story another story, etc. Reality, as we know, does not matter. But one should not forget: in the dream, the sentence: 'Everything has the goal to form a structure according to the laws', not abolished. Neurons = laws. "

"Then it just runs according to other laws!"

I nodded again. "By other compounds of the substances. Also, regarding the aims of relaxation and integration of the experience during the day. They relativize the information of being awake.

And as I said: In the dream, the day midpoints lose their power, and are subject especially to the laws of creativity. "

"The dream is therefore so difficult to understand in the wake," concluded GP, "because then you are back in the usual midpoints. Whereas in dreams these midpoints are dissolved, and may only act as aims. This ends immediately when we wake up and are again in the areas of the frontal lobe."

"Because the dream then usually has no value, is not important for the present," I underlined. "In sleep, associations, largely uninfluenced by the awake midpoints, can play their game."

Then I went on to say, "You can imagine the brain as a huge space filled with neurons, synapses, myelin sheaths, glial cells, dendrites, and axons that form nets."

"By that you mean the midpoints of the brain that run according to the laws in them."

"Exactly, there are endless possibilities for variation among each other, especially when strong midpoints, as in sleep, hardly play a role. The brain can in the dream among other things use all the experiences that man has made and weave them into bizarre webs. By the way: if it has not made certain experience, like a blind child, it will not use any pictures. "

"The brain works and processes in dreams," GP concluded.

“Yes, but not from a logical point of view. Dreaming means, among other things, being creative. However: The more rigid the centers are, and this particularly affects the complexes, i.e. encapsulated centers, the less they can be worked on in the dream.”

"By 'complex' you mean an area in the human being that is inaccessible."

"Yes, he eludes change through other midpoints. He remains unaffected by the change in external circumstances. The complex still shows the behaviour and feeling as it had in the original situation.

Since the central point of life is adaptation, all psychic aims should be adaptable, changeable, with their midpoints. Complexes resist any kind of change, but affect other midpoints. But anything that is rigid can be an obstacle to the flexibility of the psyche."