Thursday, October 26, 2017

Why the Universe Should Not Exist

I recently came across this article ( ) on the outer webs the other day and it made me smile. I think sometimes scientists, justifiably, can spend too much time looking at the outcomes of their scientific methods and forget that their entire method started with a hypothesis.

I think this is best illustrated in this most recent "cosmological riddle our time". For those unfamiliar the scientific method starts with a hypothesis. Often these are formed based on observations based on the world, or the conclusive results of other hypothesis. In this fashion our scientific understanding of the world is all interconnected and grows seemingly exponentially, much like space. However, whenever we use this understanding to argue for understanding scientists will always hit a wall. This is of course very obvious to a philosopher, but perhaps less as obvious to those constricted to the empirical realm. That wall of uncertainty is the basis of what makes a good hypothesis, an idea, an ideas, although unique, can very much be flawed.

Taking this understanding and applying it to the physical world can only be accomplished concretely in the realms of philosophy. There will be no certain justification in the physical realm, and as instruments improve the evidence will always raise more questions than answers, always pointing back to the self. As intellectual beings we are very much in a bubble. We look out at infinite, and we look inward at infinite, but between those two infinite is a very much finite understanding of what we are looking at.

So when I read things from leading scientists that say:
In a statement on October 19, Christian Smorra, Ph.D.,
 ”All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist.”

I laugh to myself because I know technically the universe doesn't exist, and this is nothing new. This is due to many reasons most of which surrounding human mortality and human perception. We experience the world through sensations interpreted by our brain. This gives life its uniqueness, as well as limits our understanding of beings of the universe. I often speculate this is because we are part of the universe for others making us equivalent to an infinite entity, but this distinction is purely subjective, and debate that may always be.

So - what this research has really proved is that yes the universe really is just a projected interpretation of stimulation... Protons, interpreting protons, using protons, to look at protons. Let us take this notion and apply it to our understanding, and we begin to understand why Christian Smorra concluded this to be the case. Let us say that all other anti-protons and protons are equivalent with the only exception being themselves. Then observably so we would find no destructive distinction that results in universal collapse, because we can only look out at other protons. This begins to make more sense if we think of our individual selves as anti-matter instead of the more typical matter. We as a special type of matter can choose to be destructive or constructive, able to mold matter, or destroy with our laws of attraction or opposition. 

I believe that this scientific study at the very least is foundation evidence of the existence of a soul (but this may just be me). The idea that empirically something is observably true, but that notion contradicts a very general idea of our understanding of reality (such as the sunrise tomorrows), shows the importance of self doubt, and points the answer back to the start, an inward reflection, a hypothesis, right back where we started. We can be a false anti-matter, destroy others by destroying ourselves, making our actions destroy matter, or we can be true, and know that our oscillations echo throughout an infinity if only we cultivate them. 

Take comfort in our ignorance but at the very least see why heroes matter (pun intended). 

No comments :

Post a Comment

© 2016
All rights reserved