A Metaphysical Problem

A bizarre metaphysical conclusion I have drawn (possibly in parrellel to one or more other individuals already) which I find quite perplexing and amusing (for those of you Brits out there, this comes after reading a book of "Leviathan" strips for the first time):

Our current experiences hinder our further advancement as a being, yet, we cannot advance as beings without learning from new experiences which immediately become current.

That is, a comic strip character's world is defined by its pastel colors and communication bubbles. It's entire reality is defined by these things and its five frames of existence once a day across many different locations at once. A comic strip character can never ascertain what the more realistic reality that we live in is comprised of. Similarly, comic strips within the comic strips are accordingly shorter and less detailed than the comic strips they started in. Like a mirror in a mirror, this could continue forever. The characters are each trapped in their own strictly defined realities, limited to knowing "existence" as their pen and inked worlds, never knowing that a world of greater detail and existence exists "above" them.

For that reason, we can never know ourselves what a more realistic reality would appear to be, or, if indeed it does exist outside the boundaries of our worlds. Comics live in 16 color worlds at the most. What other colors might we never know for ourselves and what do they look like? How do they blend to create more colors? Comic strip characters communicate via bubbles. How might the more real worlders above us communicate that we are incapable of? What is beyond our world, and, if our experience both hinders and defines our realities, how do we reach it? Perhaps if greater beings exist anywhere, it is because they have overcomes this unfortunate limitation, or, were evolved without it to begin with. Maybe if we could overcome this limitation, we could shape our own realities.

Another thought: if we can never know more than our own strictly defined existence, then we might suggest that everything already exists for us. Perhaps time travel exists merely because we are capable of thinking of it. Perhaps ESP as well? But if that's true, and we can think of overcoming our limitations of knowing our real existences, does that mean that this possibility already exists and we merely need to overcome it somehow? And doesn't that mean I have already begun redefining reality as I know and have overcome it already?

Oooohh boy.... You are really asking for an off-topic thread now...

I disclaim ownership of that other monstrosity... you can't prove a thing!

The above is the end result of 2 hours and 45 minutes of reading "Leviathan" comics while attempting to ignore the surrounding QBasic class I was sitting in (if I don't believe the class is there, will it cease to exist?). Needless to say, coherent thought was at a loss at the time

Ctb:

By your own argument any world containing "our" universe does not exist since we are by definition unable to perceive it. Therefore our universe is real whereas closed systems that we invent, e. g. comics, are not.

It simply cannot be proven that there is a universe which we cannot perceive which contains our universe because a proof would mean that we _can_ perceive it. OTOH, if a universe containing our universe existed that we could perceive then it would be our actual universe while what we considered before our universe was not all-containing and therefore not a universe (the universe being the entity which contains everything else), contrary to the assumption that the universe was contained by anything else.

Hence, most philosophers and scientists discard that possibility - the assumption that the universe is inside anything else does not only contradict the nature of the universe but also cannot be proven. And an assumption that is neither proven nor observable by its implications is worthless.

Ah... but philosophers and scientists are wrong far more often than they are right as they move through the thick of things. Discarding possibilities because of the limitations of your current chain of thought is a terribly fautly way to investigate things. If we had done that in the wrong instances we'd still believe the universe was a self contained ball sitting in ethereal light and that the stars were pinholes in the ball allowing some of that light through

Don't limit your mind to 3 (or, 4 as it were) dimensions and perhaps you can overcome the faulty idea that "the universe cannot be a contained system"? After all, that idea suggests the universe is just mass spreading rapidly into an inifinite void, and you can't fathom that concept either (i.e. "What does infinite space look like before mass moves into it? And if it has no shape, energy, mass, etc., then what DOES it have? And if it doesn't have anything, then how can it be there? And if it's not there, how can you say that the universe doesn't have an edge? And if it has an edge, then what shape must that edge form").

I'm just going to post one topic a week in here, I think, that noone can ever answer with any finality. By the end of the year, perhaps I can have everyone here a frothing lunatic who doesn't know which way is up

Logic, OTOH, has always remained the same.

The difference is that when this theory was created belief in supernatural things (e. g. an ethereal light) was popular or even doctrine. Today's definition of the universe differs in so far as it excludes the existance of anything outside the universe. If it is proven that something outside the universe exists then our ideas of the universe's borders have to be revised.

Or, as it were, four or five (depending on what the current problem is)

I assume you mean space which has not been reached by any light-cone - it does not look like anything since there is nothing to emit/reflect light. Of course, once you, the observer, get there with your spaceship, the place will have gravity, radiation and matter resp. energy. (And, no, you cannot observe it without introducing such changes.)

How can *what* be there?

Try to find an edge inside a hollow sphere - there isn't any edge, but the hollow space is nevertheless limited. (See also Stephen Hawking's excellent books.)

You come too late.

*cough* say no to drugs Ctb *cough* *cough*

I'm sure many have seen this, but speaking of Steven Hawking, check out his rhymes here. They are the shizznat.

http://www.mchawking.com/

But maybe that's just a limitation of your current train of thought

Okay, seriously.. since I can make that totally untestable argument to everything you say I won't.

But, that DOES bring us back to the problem I originally stated: If I can't sense it either directly or vicariously through my equipment, is it really there? Yet, if I can think of it as being there, and if my thoughts are created by my experiences, and if my experiences define my reality, doesn't that mean it's still there? Again, I ask you, is it possible that the problem is the limitations imposed on us by our senses? After all, an awful lot of people are riding along for the "black hole" ride and saying "they exist look here they are!" Yet, according to our current limitations of the understanding of physics and mathematics, we can't actually tell anyone WHAT is in a black hole or what really happens when you cross the "event horizon" (sorry, can't spell s-wortz-child to give the proper name ). That doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist though.

Incidentally.. I in no way want to make anyone think I believe this wash is an accurate depiction of the state our universe exists in, I merely find it amusing to think about things like this.

Ted -

Pyschotropic programming languages? QBasic is one of them? Uh-oh.... I'd hate to think what that makes perl

You all are thinking too big!

Forget how large the universe is, tell me how small it is.

First thought: The smallest the universe can get and still be a chunk of the universe is this particle called an "atom". Anything smaller than that can't exist.

Well yes, except that atoms are made of *something*, right?

So ya, now we have this famous experiment with (alpha?) particles and gold leaf. We now know about the nucleus of the atom. Shebang. It's smaller.

Well then someone goes out and finds protons, neutrons, and electrons.

That's all great and wonderful, then one day someone finds quarks.

....

So how low can you go? When do you get to the point where nothing smaller can exist? When do you realize you can't?

If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) you have neither proof for its existance nor any need to assume it exists. Generally, anything that exists interacts with other (likewise existant) things, procuding observable changes. Something that exists but does not interact with anything else and is not observable is - because of these properties - irrelevant for the rest of the world.

Your thoughts' initial origin is your experience. However, your mind is free to make stuff up based on that experience and that you have experienced something from which the thought of that which you think about is derived does not yet imply that the thing you think of exists.

Actually afaik there is some amount of mathematical descriptions available, but (afaik again and I can't prove it) a few things like the general theory of relativity stop working.

Note to humanity: we need to send someone to a black hole really soon to investigate it deeper. Volunteers?

The event horizon is "just" the distance from a black hole's singularity at which light, instead of going somewhere else, starts orbiting the singularity. There is nothing otherwise special there (apart from some amount of stray photons and the fact that once you're there you can just as well switch off the stupid SOS transmission and enjoy the rest of your life (or at least your ship's energy) in the Holodeck).

ACK

That's Micro$oft showing its true face ...

Ctb's threads have certainly a tendency of going off topic after a few hours

It's far from a full answer, but particles smaller than a certain size would be surrounded by an event horizon.