My account of the universe.

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Lukus, May 5, 2005.

  1. Lukus

    Lukus Testament to the ghoul lifespan

    May 11, 2003
    My account of the Universe

    (I wrote it up in Word while drunk the other night, so the paragraphs are a little fucked up. Deal with it.)

    In the beginning there was nothing.
    No, it wouldn’t be quite fair to say that there was nothing in the beginning, but there certainly wasn’t much of what was.
    ‘Not much’ would not adequately describe it either, considering its infinite potential, and that everything had a mass except the smallness.
    No wait, ignore all of the above. Let us just say that in the beginning, the universe was in fact denser than your momma.
    Since there was no observer present to confirm that there was an everything there, there technically wasn’t anything at all, until someone could confirm it by observing it. No one was there to confirm the initial everything, which means that it wasn’t there so much as it was in a superposition. A superposition is when something is both there and not at the same time – you cannot be quite sure since there has not been an observation of it to confirm its status. This means that everything was there just as much as it was not there – which is quite fortunate, since had it only not been there, there wouldn’t have been existence right now, which would have been far more problematic to try and explain.
    Anyway, the conclusion we can draw from this is that in the beginning, there was both everything and nothing, then obviously, there was something. The ‘something’ that developed out of the everything and nothing with a bang is the universe as we know it, and considering all the observations made of it we can be quite sure that it exists, which is pretty much where I’ve been trying to get at all along. So, if you would be so kind as to ignore all of the above and let me have a try at a different, more concise wording, perhaps we could save us some time.

    The universe exists.
    This is constantly confirmed by living things beholding a part of the universe every day, much as you are confirming the existence of this very text just now by reading it. How, when, or even why the universe was created is in my opinion not as interesting as it is cracked up to be, yet countless individuals have pondered these questions throughout the ages. That is why I have gathered the answers, which are quite simple really, in this very book. To begin with:
    How? – The everything and nothing that was in the beginning ‘grew tired’ of being in it’s superposition and snapped. Suddenly there was a big blast and dimensions were created as a lot of stuff emerged in an instant – you know the rest.
    When? – A very, very long time ago.
    Why? – This will be dealt with later in the article.

    The event of the universe emerging from the superposition of everything and nothing was the first event in a seemingly endless chain of cause and effect. I say ‘seemingly’, because unfortunately, the universe is a one-time occurrence.
    Most people who has passed a basic science course already know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. They also know that E=mc², and that energy is matter and vice versa. In addition, each time matter is transformed into something else, a small part of it transforms into only energy. Energy in this form can not be transformed into anything else; it will remain just energy. As an effect, logic tells us there will only be energy in the end. Where there is only energy, no life can exist, and there will be nothing left to observe the universe and confirm its existence. It will, again, be in a superposition, as in it will both exist and not. However, then, there will be no possibility for a new universe to emerge out of the nothing and everything that will be, since the potential of all energy will have been spent. Simply that it will be in a superposition only means that it will both be there and not – the superposition does not change what will both be there and not – and what will be left of the universe in the superposition will not have the potential to transform into something that can lead to life, as the original universe in the initial superposition had. Now allow me to once more try to recapture all this in fewer words.

    In the beginning there was everything, and there was nothing. Then there was something, and the existence of the universe was eventually confirmed by observation. In the end there will be no life; only energy. In the end, a superposition will be again, and there will be everything, and there will be nothing. Now where does that leave us? It leaves us somewhere in the middle, in the part where there is existence.

    With the risk of sounding harsh, I will state that according to my calculations, a human life is approximately of the same importance as a fart in the multiverse, in the big picture that is. “Everyone is unique” and so on and so forth, but that does not change the fact that the beginning has already been, and the end has been foreseen – everything that occurs in the middle will be forgotten. A human life begins in the womb and ends in death, though almost anything can happen in between. Much like that, the universe is a play with no written script save for the first and the final scene.
    If I were you, I would worry far more about the last scene of my own life rather than the last scene of the universe, however. What difference does it make to you that the universe is a one time occurrence, when you would not benefit in any way if it was not? When a human dies, it dies; ceases to be. There is no soul that is given wings and sail into the sky; and there is no afterlife.

    Now that I am floating into philosophy, how can I possibly claim to know all this – is it even possible to know anything on this mortal coil?
    I know this because I, the author, am in fact God, and this volume is my account of the universe. I have so far only dealt with how and when the universe came to be, as well as how it will end. The biggest question remains; the why.
    However, now that I have revealed who I am, I understand that there are a few other questions that need to be addressed first. For one, when and by who was I created? If I have been since the beginning, wouldn’t I have made an observation of the universe when it was in a superposition? Well… I was there, for I have always been, but I did not make an observation. To tell you the truth, I was sort of just ‘sleeping’. When God sleeps, time stands still. (That is how I can be on the job 24/7 and still rest on occasion to not become completely stressed out). As omnipresent is my nature, I was both the everything and the nothing in the beginning, as I still am.
    Secondly, I have made many a claim in this text that contradicts much of what is written in the Bible. If this does not make sense to you, let Me remind you that the Bible was written by humans, and confused ones at that. This text on the other hand is written by Me, the Maker, He Who Dwells Upstairs. I should know about these things.
    If you are a Christian, let it be known that me verifying my existence does not make your religion ‘right’ in almost any sense. Let us say that there wasn’t a God and the universe simply created itself – that would not make the slightest difference to you as there is still no afterlife, and I have as a general principle not to interfere with the actions and reactions that are in motion on the planet Earth. I really don’t care if you’re a ‘sinner’ or a ‘saint’; there is no reward awaiting at the end for those who live ‘virtuous’ lives. Furthermore, I could give all the starving children of the world food and BMWs with a snap of my fingers, but for said reason, I won’t.
    Many religious people think that logic can actually back up their faith, when it in fact can not. Reason does not leave out the possibility of the existence of a God, but in no way does it confirm it either. Many think that since ‘nothing can create itself’, there must have been a Creator that made the universe, and that it is completely logical. They are wrong. Many who are of that belief use the example of a clockmaker to try and get their ‘logic’ across. Let us say a clockmaker makes a fabulous clock, goes off and dies somewhere, and someone finds the clock some years later. The finder would think “Oh, what a nice clock”, and assuming that it had a creator; “Whoever created it must have been very skilled.” He would not think “Oh, what a nice clock – I wonder if it created itself?” True, a clock can not, in general, create itself on our mortal coil. However, using logic in this manner to try and ‘prove’ the existence of a Creator, a God, is faulty, since the same logic would apply to the creator. Even the clockmaker, the creator, came from somewhere. Hence, God must also have come from somewhere and had a creator.
    If you argue that “Oh no, God is outside of space time, and he has been around forever”, you should also be able to accept that if something now has been around forever, it would not by necessity have been a God. If you argue that God has not been around forever, but created himself somehow, you should also be able to accept the possibility that something without an own intelligence created itself by mere chance. Whatever it is that you believe, it can not be fully supported by logic. Logic can be used to get you a bit on the way, but in the end, logic has nothing to do with it. Even if you are an atheist, logic can not indisputably tell you that there is no God, even though it points very much in that direction.

    Perhaps, I realise now, I have worded myself inadequately. I am in fact not at all similar to ‘God’ in the Christian sense – that ‘God’ is a fictive character. I am merely the everything; the universal source of intelligence. I am the architect, if you will – the ‘mastermind’ behind the extremely intelligent design (if I may say so myself) of that which is existence. And quite frankly, as I said before, I don’t care about you any more than I care about a fart floating about freely in the multiverse.
    However, even though I am the mastermind behind the design of the universe, I do not so much have a ‘mind’ as I just ‘am’, really. It’s not like I one day sat down at a work desk (I don’t even have an office) and thought up the universe – it just came to be – and I am only trying to make it easier for you by referring to myself as a person rather than an existent as well as non-existent force without an actual mind or sense of reason.
    Now obviously, even though you may be an unbeliever, you will have noticed that there is extremely intelligent design everywhere in the universe. Though then again, I realise, it is not so much my design as it is the product of mere chance, cause and effect, chaos and evolution. By saying that I am ‘God’ I do not mean that I have a beard and live on a cloud, since in fact, it is ‘I’ who am chance, cause and effect, chaos and evolution.

    Now what to make of all this. Allow me to create a metaphor: let us say that I built myself a billiard table. This universe is my game of billiards, and my balls are like galaxies (interpret that as you will). As I made my initial shot with the Big Bang I foresaw every possible reaction to my action; every possible domino effect, and I have as said already seen the end, even though I have not ‘seen’ it so much as I ‘know’ it – even though I as said don’t really know anything since I have no mind. Uhm, yeah, I will elaborate on this later on.

    In order to more easily be able to address a topic to come, I will devote a few words to the butterfly effect, and free will.
    As for the butterfly effect; a butterfly flaps its wings in some godforsaken place and George Michael masturbates in a public loo (or something along those lines). Cause and effect goes hand in hand with the butterfly effect, since everything is part of the seemingly endless chain of events. The wings of the butterfly creates a microscopic vibration in the air, that leads to one thing, that leads to another, that ends up with George Michael shaking hands with his best friend.
    Naturally, there are countless other aspects involved as well; a butterfly flapping its wings alone as a reaction to something is but the smallest thing and changes almost nothing in itself – but the reactions to it are vast, and do nothing but grow with time. Even the smallest of pebbles set in motion can cause a larger pebble to move in case of impact, which in turn can fall upon an even larger one, and end up in having caused a full-scale stone fall.
    Picture yourself home alone one evening, seeking a way to kill time. Whatever you do, you will most probably wake up in your bed the day after, and do whatever it was that you had planned to do, such as going to work. That does not mean that you will remain unchanged by the events of the evening. Even if nothing out of the ordinary happens, weather or not you for instance choose to watch a movie or read a book will in fact have major consequences. Whatever it is that you choose to do, the exact manner in which you do it will affect the rest of your life, though microscopically at first since you will still wake up in the same bed the following day, and carry on with your life as usual. It will just be a very little bit different than if you had done something else differently, in a microscopic way, the evening before. But like the effect of the butterfly flapping its wings can cause George Michael to wack his dong in the wrong place at the wrong time, so will every microscopic movement and action that you do affect your life, and thus also your environment, and in the big picture – the entire history of the world to come.

    Even if you acknowledge this to be true, you do not sit around and think “I would choose to have a beer right about now, but since that would be a reaction to my thirst among countless other aspects, I wouldn’t really choose to have that beer, now would I?” There is still a choice there, even though your choice is nothing but a reaction in the chain. Let us say that you ponder the direct effects of you choosing to have a beer; It would taste good and you would feel comfortable, but there is also a chance that you would then want to have another beer and then yet another, as well as stay up later than usual, which would result in being slightly more tired the following morning. Weighing these aspects, you do make a choice, even though it is heavily controlled by the circumstances. That the butterfly effect is true does as said not cancel free will. It has always been known that we have been affected by our environment, just not to what extent.
    Who are you anyway, and what do ‘I’ (even though discussing what ‘I’ really am isn’t a concluded topic yet) mean in saying that you choose? For starters, ‘you’ are your perception. Your perception in turn is subject to a brain; chemical reactions and electrical impulses – almost like a machine, in fact. Everything that is processed is quite naturally not under ‘your’ control. Since ‘you’ do not control your environment, you do not fully control ‘you’ or how you will process it either. There are also circumstances that come from within that limit you in your choices, such as instinct. When you are thirsty and have the possibility to do so without negative effects you will choose to drink (unless there is something wrong with you in the head.) But, as said, there is still choice. And with that, it is time for me to reveal my purpose. Why did I go through all this trouble to create this universe?
    I will not lie to you. There are two reasons why I did it. Number one is; because I could. Number two, but far more important, is: I didn’t have a choice. How could I not have had a choice when I have just explained how there is a thing such as free will?

    Well… The Big Bang was actually not the first action in the great chain of events – it in itself was a reaction. To what? Infinity. There was infinity at first, there is infinity now, there will always be infinity.

    What I am trying to get at with all this is, as I have already implied, that I do not really exist at all, and that it was thus not really I that was ‘responsible’ for the Big Bang. I have just been there all along, throughout infinity, without in fact having been there at all. For what I truly am is a metaphor for the intelligent design of the universe – and thus nothing like a God in its right meaning that has been thought up by man.
    Let me for one final time recapture the essence of this text in an updated an accurate manner.

    There was no beginning; there was infinity.
    Our existence is somewhere ‘in the middle’ of infinity. (Had there been a map of infinity, there would have been a big fat arrow pointing to this point, together with the text “You are here”.) The main conclusion of all this is: We exist.
    There will be no end; there will be infinity.

    Yes, that is by far the best summarisation I have come up with so far; short and concise. If you disagree, and feel that I was only wasting my energy before by making this blatant point in more than 3000 words, it’s not my fault if you won’t recognise it. Now, since ‘I’ as stated never existed at all but merely functioned as a metaphor describing a non-existent architect of the intelligence of the universe, I just realised that there is no way I could have written this text, so I will stop now before I cause a glitch in the Matrix. Oops, shouldn’t have said that.

    The Metaphor.

    Credits to: Myself, “Responsible for none of the above.”

    Ps. I forgot to address the meaning of life, which is to get laid as much as possible with as hot chicks as possible (yes, even if you are a girl). That is all.
    Pps. I'm really pretty much 'faking knowledge' here since I in reality know shit about science. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to an opinion!
  2. Elric

    Elric First time out of the vault

    Feb 26, 2005
    Actually what does that men exactly?

    I agree with you, but there is no actual proof of this info. Could be as well the word of God transcribed. No, doesn't make sense, sorry...

    By the way, define 'infinity', I'm curious. I also like the explanation of the meaning of life, can't do nothing but agree :)
  3. Member of Khans

    Member of Khans Vault Dweller

    Aug 26, 2004
    Just :rofl:...
    A bit Hitchhikers-like, isn't it?
  4. Thorgrimm

    Thorgrimm A Smooth-Skin

    Dec 16, 2003

    Actually a lot Futurama-like. :wink:

    Cheers Thorgrimm
  5. bob_the_rambler

    bob_the_rambler Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    May 3, 2003
    Sounds like the ramblings of a depressed guy who has had one to many and too much time time think himself into circles, who has some X's and a inferority complex.....Pretty cool though, rambling about the illogic nature of absolute logic. I liked the part about, how in the begining there was nothing and something, exestence and nothing exsiting. a limitless expectation for expasion, true creation without reprentation, the logic of a tree falling in the forest and the question does it make a sound or not?
  6. gonzo13

    gonzo13 First time out of the vault

    Dec 2, 2004
    I do not see how you could debate it Elric, just take it for what it is..... I don't know... what is it?.... :?

    Pretty fucking funny.... though I do not know how I feel about spending all that time reading it.... was it a waste or not???..... :|

    Oh well..... now where did all those hot women go..........(wanders off murmuring to himself).... as may as I can and as hot as I can..... hmm
  7. The Vault Dweller

    The Vault Dweller always looking for water.

    Aug 24, 2004
    A+ for your philosophy exam Rasmus of The Order.

    Hey...this isnt The Order?

    :shock: ,
    The Vault Dweller
  8. John Uskglass

    John Uskglass Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Aug 29, 2003
    C-. It's like Nietzsche without the humor. Go read Chesterton or Kierkegaard and stop being such a fucking nihilist.
  9. The Vault Dweller

    The Vault Dweller always looking for water.

    Aug 24, 2004
    John Uskglass do you mean me or Luke?

    The Vault Dweller
  10. Lukus

    Lukus Testament to the ghoul lifespan

    May 11, 2003
    K, thanks for the feedback everyone.

    I guess I should do that. I never read Nietzshe, Chesterton, Kierkegaard, or anyone else for that matter really. No wait, once I read 'the existentialism is a humanism' by Sartre, but that's all. I've pretty much just picked up stuff from here and there and had too much time to think myself into circles, like bob figured. Most of the science stuff I've picked up from conversations with my elder brother who is some educated smartass something. I guess I could develop my philosophy further by not just drawing rather uneducated conclusions like I have in this essay.

    Though what exactly do you mean with calling me a nihilist?

    Uh? How can the same word mean an advocate of anarcism and someone who rejects all theories of morality and religious belief? Anyway, I'm not an advocate of anarchism. I don't so much 'reject' morality either, though I don't think there is any universal moral code or 'universal justice'. I have my own moral code that works just fine. As for rejecting all theories of religious belief, what can I say? I'm not religious. I'm not denying that there is a possibility that I am wrong in my beliefs either, so I'm not 'rejecting' other theories so much as I don't believe in them. Seems to me like you meant to tell me to stop being such a fucking atheist?

    1. I couldn't find a better word for it, but with the 'something' I actually meant 'everything'. It wouldn't look as good to write: "First there was/had always been everything, then there was everything, and then there was everything." Makes sense, no?
    2. That the existence of the universe was eventually confirmed by observation means, pretty much, that we couldn't have been sure weather or not the universe existed before we existed ourselves to confirm it... Conclusion: We exist.
    3. In the "end" there will only be energy as explained earlier in the text. Well, technically there won't be an "end", only and end to life. I guess.

    But at the time that it was written that the bible was written by confused humans, the metaphor was still under the impression that it existed and explains it with that he should know about such things ;). Though, yer, there is no ultimate proof weather or not there is a God, and this text is my observation rather than fact.

    Forever and ever, and ever and EVER. (Or maybe just 'without end').

    Hehe, you got it pretty much nailed ;). Glad you liked it tho.
  11. Silencer

    Silencer Night Watchman Staff Member Admin

    Nov 7, 2003
    I think he's referring to the part where you wrote that there was nothing in the beginning.
  12. Lukus

    Lukus Testament to the ghoul lifespan

    May 11, 2003
    But then I revised it to that there was everything and nothing in "the beginning".
  13. Silencer

    Silencer Night Watchman Staff Member Admin

    Nov 7, 2003
    Hence, if there was nothing in the beginning, and at the same time there was everything in the beginning, then everything==nothing, hence you are maintaning that everytihing in nothing, making you a nihilist ;)

    Uh, or something.
  14. Murdoch

    Murdoch Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 24, 2003
    Oh please, CCR. Let's see you ever come up wth something half as original as God's account of existence. :roll:

    And I still think 'the metaphor' created the universe because it was looking for companions, not worshippers or philosophers.
  15. John Uskglass

    John Uskglass Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Aug 29, 2003
    Actually, that's funny. That's very Jewish, there's a comment about that in...the Talmud I think, God's nature as both everthing and not-exsisting.

    Nihilist in that it comes off as Sartre-esque, and Sartre=Nihilist IMHO.

    Chesterton fucking RULES. Man Who was Tuesday is among my favorite books, and a quick read.
  16. Big T

    Big T Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Jan 23, 2004
    Or something.