The Nature of the Universe

S

seekeroftheway

Let go your conscious self...
Registered Senior Member
Mankind has been pondering this very question for a very long time. it isn't entirely above us, is it?

My idea: The Nature of the unity of opposites as described by Yin and Yang and other theoretical philosophies based on the observation of nature and our surroundings.

Friends idea: Total subservience to God.

Douglas Adams' idea: 42.

Mr. Adams' idea, however very ingenuitive, is rendered obsolete due to the obvious lack of a solid question with which we might verify the answer. However, anyone who shares the same obviously logical view of Mr. Adams may, by all means, agree with him and debate his point.

So, any other ideas?
 
seekeroftheway said:
However, anyone who shares the same obviously logical view of Mr. Adams may, by all means, agree with him and debate his point.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or is "42" ment as an "it is impossible to know the meaning of the universe"? Therefore, 42 is quite witty answer. As why it´s 42, rather then 24 or 666, see wikipedia.
 
seekeroftheway said:
Mankind has been pondering this very question for a very long time. it isn't entirely above us, is it?

My idea: The Nature of the unity of opposites as described by Yin and Yang and other theoretical philosophies based on the observation of nature and our surroundings.

Friends idea: Total subservience to God.

Douglas Adams' idea: 42.

Mr. Adams' idea, however very ingenuitive, is rendered obsolete due to the obvious lack of a solid question with which we might verify the answer. However, anyone who shares the same obviously logical view of Mr. Adams may, by all means, agree with him and debate his point.

So, any other ideas?
Click to expand...
The meaning of the universe is the room for things in the universe to exist. Was it Einstein that said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible for us?
 
Cyperium said:
The meaning of the universe is the room for things in the universe to exist. Was it Einstein that said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible for us?
Click to expand...
That is correct. And it is quite robust way of thinking that we understand sth about universe. (The first part, not the quote from Einstein :) )
 
The nature of the universe itself, in essence and quiddity, is motion and nothing else.

I always took the view, the idea behind the hitchickers guide was that the question was wrong, not the answer!
 
the nature of the universe is entropy, i can see it in everything. energy is sometimes forced to the middle, to become organized, but is always trying to get back to the disorder. rather than thinking of it as chaos, think of it as diversity.
 
Spectrum said:
What makes you think the universe is entropic RoyLennigan?
Click to expand...
energy always has the tendancy to go from organization to disorder. and there is always an interaction of fundamental forces that inevitably forces energy into order so that it may return to chaos.

when you look at simulations of the gravitational interactions of galaxies in the universe, you see that they all spin around a center, pushed and pulled inwards simply by the interactions with each other. but then at the middle the forces are so close together, and so much stronger that the galaxies are flung outwards at incredible speeds, jumbling the matter within.

also, we see that some or much of the energy we put into something does not actually do the work we used it for, but is still needed in the operation. take the combustion of gas for instance; most of the energy in the process is lost and cannot be used, but it is still a very efficient method.

life survives through diversity. diversity is chaos and disorder. in their complexity, they create a kind of disorder among the entire group of what we call 'life'. but even then, the group of chemical interactions (what we call an organism) will die--after creating a reorganized copy of itself--and its matter and energy is disorganized again, returning to the chaos. no life lives forever, it always has to return to disorder, even if it starts another line of organization seperate from itself.

also, it should be observable that it is much easier to destroy something than it is to build it.
 
RoyLennigan said:
energy always has the tendancy to go from organization to disorder.
Click to expand...

That raises the question why we have anything/something in order right know? If matter and energy have allways gone from ortder to disorder, do we see remnants of something? This would propose that at some time in the past, everything (or at least a lot) was in order.

Furthermore, aren´t "order" and "disorder" subjective terms? Which is more ordered, sequence "001" or "100"? If this simple question can answer anyting about the nature of the universe at all.
 
Naat said:
That raises the question why we have anything/something in order right know? If matter and energy have allways gone from ortder to disorder, do we see remnants of something? This would propose that at some time in the past, everything (or at least a lot) was in order.

Furthermore, aren´t "order" and "disorder" subjective terms? Which is more ordered, sequence "001" or "100"? If this simple question can answer anyting about the nature of the universe at all.
Click to expand...
not really, if you look at it like the gravitational analogy i was using. when you look at it like this, the very force that is causing the galaxies to spin wildly out into the far reaches of space is also the same force that is causing them to attract each other and spin towards the middle. but when you look at the whole, you see that most of the galaxies (energy) is diffused arbitrarily into a larger area of space than the few (but very dense) that reach the middle. so its a continuing process, whereby the same forces causing disorder are also bringing some of that disorder into order just to put it back into disorder. it might seem pointless, but really it is reorganizing and putting energy packets in different orders and patterns, then taking them out and doing it all over again.

download the movie linked below to get an idea of what i'm talking about
http://www.galaxydynamics.org/swarm.html

for the second part, i guess you could look at order as being both subjective and objective, but its not exactly the same in entropy as the everyday use. in physics alone there are at least two distinct interpretations of entropy. it can be said to be the amount of energy in a system that cannot do work; it is also said to be the level of randomness, or diversity in a system. both of these explanations are dealing strictly with energy.

001 and 100 are both ordered, but its hard to explain just how ordered. first of all, they are themselves not energy, but symbols related to a concept. you can't really explain things like numbers with entropy because they are not actual things, they are only ideas. so in this, entropy could be used subjectively. but when concerning physical interactions of the universe, entropy--to me at least--shows the true nature of our universe. i dont see the idea simply as energy tending to return to disorder, but that the forces at work in our universe continually recycle energy, at some point putting into order but inevitably breaking it down into disorder once again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top