The Greatest Illusion ???

Dark Riddle’s controversial theories on the laws of nature & the Universe

"Mankind’s greatest illusion"

Our biggest illusion as a species is the idea that there is such a thing as a beginning and an ending. That is to say that most people alive truly believe that there is a beginning and ending to everything. Most scientists base a lot of their physics theories around the prospect that the universe and everything in it came from - well, nothingness. But when you put that concept to test, it doesn’t hold up to the laws of physics, or any natural law either.

This is probably the biggest blunder in scientific history and it’s such an easy thing to trip over, because it’s an impediment hidden in plain sight - one we’ve grown to accept as generations passed. The truth of it is that the very concept and idea of beginning and ending is an illusion – it's simply not real.

It is an idea that was born from human minds. I can’t blame people for believing this, because we, as a species have lived with that illusion for thousands and possibly millions of years. From eons past, we’ve seen the sun rise and disappear as night came.

Even today, if you place a block of ice on a hot sidewalk, you’ll see it melt into water, and then turn into steam –then finally disappear. If I didn’t have a logical mind, I would have simply thought that the ice melted into nothingness. But this is not true. The ice simply changed states turning from a solid, into a liquid, and finally into a gas. The particles of the ice block didn’t disappear, they simply changed.

This analogy is much how the laws of physics work in our universe – meaning that the natural state of things IS change - an endless array of combination. Put simply things don’t fade into nothingness, because there is no such thing as nothingness – and in relation, things don’t appear out of nothingness.

But to understand this better, we, as a species of thinkers, must rid ourselves of the “Greatest Illusion” …that there is a beginning and ending to all things – the world doesn’t work that way, and neither does our universe. So then, you might ask yourself, if there is no beginning or ending, just where did everything come from? I attempt to answer that question in the segment below.

There’s no such thing as “Nothing”

There is no such thing as “Nothingness” and there never was. If you ever watched the film “The Never Ending Story” the ever-threatening phantom of Nothingness stalks that fictional universe. But ironically, it’s this very illusionary concept that is stifling our growth about the real universe. The belief in nothingness is one of the biggest mistakes that I feel scientists trip over, even greats like Stephen Hawkins claims that protons came from nothing, that they appear out of “nothing”, yet still; he contradicts himself by admitting that protons come out of “sub-atomic” particles.

For years my stance is that something or somethings have always existed – meaning that I claim that sub-atomic particles have always existed and are in fact the very building blocks to everything in existence.

Sub-atomic particles are simply particles that are smaller than an atom and are much generalized in theory and purpose. Still, all mathematical logic would dictate that if you can’t get something from nothing, then surely something must have “always” existed. In my view, the most credible theory to date is essentially my own – that the universe and all things in it, have spawned from incredibly small particles that not only act as the architect of mass, energy, and space, but to time itself.

Since these “immortal” particles are the principle ingredients of the universe and have created all things that grow and move – inanimate and living alike, time itself has spawned from it, making them immune to time and immune to the prospect of any beginning or ending.

You can think of them as a set of Lego blocks, which could be combined to create an incredibly fantastic variety of forms and elements. They are the base ingredients to the soup of the universe, to which came about our own universe and possibly other universes as well. When you put scientific theories regarding cosmology and physics in this light, a great deal makes sense, because for the first time, credible theories on the universe’s origins, don’t have to factor in the false “Illusion” aspect of nothingness.

The problem with scientists claiming that certain particles have always existed lays in two directives; one is a logical status in science...that you have to prove that either Nothingness does exist, perhaps as “Negative Space” or that those sub-atomic particles have always existed. The problem here is that we don’t have the tools as of yet to prove that something has “always” existed, or that there ever was such a thing as nothingness – not with Certainty, which is what scientists need to proclaim it.

However, the very existence of the world and ourselves already proves that nothingness is an illusion, as is the concept of beginning and ending. Why? Because no matter what manner of science, be it Quantum Physics or Newtonian science, you simply can’t get something from nothing.

This simple premise points very strongly to the idea that something must have always existed. The second and more probable reason why scientists don’t address the “always” theory is because it lends too much credence to immortality –and that notion is far too close to claiming that particle/elements with “God-like” natures exist.

Concluding this theme, one thing is sure about our universe, it is often unpredictable. We make mistakes by trying to use mathematics to measure things that are infinite. This is a mistake because math is only useful when it’s subjected to something “measurable” and so far the universe is not one of those things.

Also there’s reluctance, especially by atheists and people of religion, to admit they simply don’t know – that they DON’T have the answer to all creation. Both atheists and Men-of-God can’t prove the existence or “Non-existence” of a God. The best they can say in all reality is that they don’t know.

…But there’s nothing wrong with that. We are a young species and are far from our heights of intelligence. I honestly suspect, that sometime in the future, both religious ideology and that of science will merge to prove something far more incredible than we’ve ever imagined.

--Dark Riddle/Jesus Morales

Originally posted by darkriddle
Also there’s reluctance, especially by atheists and people of religion, to admit they simply don’t know – that they DON’T have the answer to all creation. Both atheists and Men-of-God can’t prove the existence or “Non-existence” of a God. The best they can say in all reality is that they don’t know.

…But there’s nothing wrong with that. We are a young species and are far from our heights of intelligence. I honestly suspect, that sometime in the future, both religious ideology and that of science will merge to prove something far more incredible than we’ve ever imagined.

--Dark Riddle/Jesus Morales

thats a long winded way of describing cognitive schematic organization and categorical biases, if indirectly. I can't imagine there are too many scientists that would disagree with you either...

Colour perception is a much better and more poignant example, though. For instance, we classify colours into discrete categories, "blue", "red", "green", "yellow", etc, but those categories don't reflect the nature of colour, as it has no discrete categories but rather exists on a continuum including parts we are unable to perceive. The biases we have in terms of these categories are related directly to the type and spectral range of our photoreceptors in the eye itself, meaning that we are dividing the colour continuum into discrete parts the instant light hits our retina.

This is very basic science, in fact, so I'm entirely unsure why you point to scientists specifically as opposing your ideas?

All theories in of themselves are composed mainly of hypothesis, and not hard facts. My initial point here is the concept that "beginning & ending " are illusions. My analogies used to visualize this may have been poor. Still, I think most physicists suspect this, yet don't actually claim it because it's so difficult to prove, as I mentioned in my first post.

This is why I single out scientists as facing a stumbling block, because hard evidence is needed to ascertain certainty - which seems impossible at this time in our cultural and technical evolution. In short, they're often stuck trying to prove what can not be proved, leastwise not in credible scientific methods/standards. This is why I posted it on a philosophy thread.

There is also a lack of technology needed to prove such claims - which is why I do NOT claim my "Eternal-Particles" theory a fact. I'm an artist and writer and it would be silly for me or anyone else to make that kind of claim without evidence. --And I certainly don't have the credentials to do so. However, I am entitled to my observations and theories, even if they don't mean squat to credible scientists. Yet I still think that the scientific community might benefit, even from people like me, who point out certain "ideas" that may have gone unnoticed.

Slightly related, there are many theories by some of my favorite physicists that claim there are other dimensions, though not as facts, but "possible" reality - or should I say "Realities." LOL.

Originally posted by darkriddle
All theories in of themselves are composed mainly of hypothesis, and not hard facts.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have no idea what you're talking about.

the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/
Noun:

1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"

2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".

With all due respect, you have no understanding of it. It's just an idea. ...Please don't start "trolling" here.

"Theory" is used wildly different in scientific circles than it is in colloquial lay-language. In common language it's used much more closely to the word "guess." Whereas in scientific terms it's used much more closely to the term "fact." The theory of evolution is no more a "theory" in the sense you're using it than, say, the idea that the earth is round.

Trolling is very much the wrong accusation here. He's taking issue with something he disagrees with.

in essence, theories are an idea that binds together a series of empirical observations. Often these observations will be the outcome of an experiment or study that is designed to test specific hypotheses.

further, as a prerequisite, a theory must be able to predict the outcome of future experiments, thus, it is what generates hypotheses.

so, yes, theories and hypotheses are very closely related and do rely on eachother, a theory is comprised of observations, or "facts".

Originally posted by darkriddle
Our biggest illusion as a species is the idea that there is such a thing as a beginning and an ending.

Originally posted by darkriddle
There is no such thing as “Nothingness” and there never was.

Originally posted by darkriddle
I claim that sub-atomic particles have always existed and are in fact the very building blocks to everything in existence.

But heck, this is just my preference. Thanks for letting me play.

Originally posted by Mindship

I disagree. I prefer the holistic-transcendent model of reality, which sees physical existence (and its constituents) as an illusion (our greatest) created by the Something That Always Was (outside of which exists Nothing).

Good point. --I like that line of thinking and hadn't really thought about that before.

It kind of reminds me of some of the "Simulation" talks that some physicists are throwing around. Kind of like The Matrix theme.

Originally posted by Digi
"Theory" is used wildly different in scientific circles than it is in colloquial lay-language. In common language it's used much more closely to the word "guess." Whereas in scientific terms it's used much more closely to the term "fact." The theory of evolution is no more a "theory" in the sense you're using it than, say, the idea that the earth is round.

that's why hypothesizing is a more favorable method