The “observable universe” or what I jokingly allude to as the “physical universe” (universe ya watu wamesoma physics sana) is 28 billion parsecs In diameter. In my simple understanding from the instant the light was given the order “go” at the big bang up to now, it has been travelling at top speed, the fastest possible multiplied by the universes age, and it continues to expand at the speed of light according to observations by hubble space telescope in the 90’s. Think of Cartesian coordinates, x axis, y axis, and a third z axis “upwards and downwards” with an origin point of (0,0,0), expanding in three dimensions, in a sphere outward, to a huge(or very small) ball with the above diameter from the center. Our great/or very small universe is just an expanding ball, in Relativity theory from point 0,0,0. From which point space begins also to expand into the universe, e.t.c, very, very close to this point even by a fraction smaller than Plancks on x,y for information sake.


Of course this raises the question, what is beyond the universe, where ‘exactly” is the center of this universe, or what is it expanding into, why not square, or flat e.t.c? Best explained by horizons, there are different types, but they have what I consider a striking similarity, information. They generally try to explain what happens in between/beyond physical systems that seem to have a, say, “separation” between them. Dark matter is a good candidate for beyond physical matter kind of information, into which the universe presumably expands into, with a horizon between. For example the event horizon in a black hole, the point at which everything including light is overcome completely by the sheer power of blackness of the black hole (I hear it is so, so unbelievably black when seen), scientifically, there is still something that goes into the black hole in a orderly and logical manner and that something is classified as “information”. In other words, it is not atoms, photons, neutrinos, higgs or any other “tiny tiny particle” because it has to be arranged in more basic “information” to enter. And yes classified as “bits” and “bytes”, in the same way as binary is used in computing. So for Information theorist, science goes beyond particles, matter, light, space-time, they are “scientist” and theorist of information, and not particles or matter. Information is the substance, and the “bigness” of the universe is somewhat immaterial.

The fact that existence, (note the order), including the universe, particles, people, love, hate are made of ‘information’ which must correlate in order to function(i.e. have an underlying unifying code) has been long established even in Philosophy. Existence is not a “simulation” or “illusion”, it is REAL but not just physical, as the physical is made of at least some coded information, like “thinking” is in Descartes case. It follows that information “build up” bearing the precise physical laws, preceded the big bang so to speak, so that the universe would explode whilst following the laws relativity and quantum physics e.t.c, otherwise with different information, something different would have happened. A singularity (in big bang) is really a piece of information bearing physical laws within it. Rene Descartes, “the greatest thinker” in western philosophy established this fact in his discourse on thinking. He also “invented” the Cartesian coordinate system aka 3D system, but clearly with the universe, time, and emotions e.tc. You are dealing with at least 4 dimensions, maybe more, it has already been shown that it is impossible for “physics” to access the fourth, yet it has been determined, e.g space-time fabric, Philosophy seems capable, and Descartes illustrates this beautifully, even ancient African philosophers knew this.

The already scientifically guaranteed hopelessness of using AI to create emotions, sapience e.t.c is a plain example of the limits of physics or even symbols in accessing ‘logical’ dimensions and the STUPID demand from some IDIOTS that everything be explained to them only in a “scientific”, physical, visible, audible and solid way using the natural senses which is IMPOSSIBLE, because THINKING is not a sense as Descartes tried to illustrate, and yet they persist, very stupid idiots, spiritually blind who claim to be “scientist” but don’t understand an inkling of philosophy and that it is not a matter of seeing, touching, smelling, e.t.c. But still information theory has some very enlightening and “tangible” concepts about what is beyond the “physical” universe that can “unite” thinking, and yes, it is definitely knowledge! To push Descartes reasoning further, we and the universe are made up of thoughts. .

Please note, scientifically the EXACT center of the universe, the origin point (0,0,0) is in the EXACT center of you, where you are now, and when you die, that universe collapses! (Theory for another day), but in brief according to some quantum and information laws, it is you the observer that “makes up” that universe. The universe is actually very tiny, tinier than Planck size inconceivably tiny and is inside you.

@Much Know, the most telling part of your argument is that you don't realize that something can be both real and illusory.

A way to figure it out is by asking; does the common definition of 'real' exclude by necessity, the common definition of 'illusion'?

Here are the common definitions:

'real'
adjective
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
2. (of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
3. complete; utter (used for emphasis).


il·lu·sion /iˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.

A keen look will show that there are things that are 'real' and also 'illusions'. That is, actually existing for example, but likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted.

But it even goes further when we think more critically. Real is significant, not just existent. An illusion can also be significant.

@Much Know, I haven't said that thinking isn't real. I've only said that real thinking, can also be illusionary, or deluded, as you've pointed out about the schizophrenics.

You go further to state that thought needs no light to be. That may also be true. But as you show in your post, light can be used to rectify deluded or ignorant thoughts. That's why the Bible declares Jesus as the light and savior of the world. Or why you believe you can make me see your point better or correctly.

Notice that I've used common definitions as used by many people. If it's about philosophical meanings then that's another issue.

There is nothing wrong in agreeing with me and I agree with you. I only wish for more harmony from others just as you have done without bullying and overbearing.

Suppose we have a
theory of all things in say, M-theory, and all 'branes' in whatever dimension are causally connected, wouldn't that mean that all relativity is in fact an absolute?

Such that, all things are both absolute and relative. Myth and not myth. Wave, and particle. Everything is a 'quantum particle'.

So the question would be one of describing conditions or perhaps situations when science isn't a myth.

By the way, mathematics could be an absolute myth, if it can join all dimensions of space time in a 'compactified universe'?

If M-theory is a mathematical theory, then we'd have reason to believe it even before 'scientific proof' is given.

Conclusion? Science isn't a myth when described in equations of uncertainty.

Because this is what a MYTH is



And science




Myths = Stories. Science = tried and tested theories

Thank you

I invite you to read the two definitions again, ignore the pejorative pieces about myth and the 'factual' pieces about science.

You will see that my earlier definition applies to both 'a lens through which people seek to understand reality or an aspect of it.'

Simply because scientists, like you, say science is factual does not make it so. Otherwise we would not be having this kind of conversation where we admit so much of science is uncertain (illusion). In fact a key characteristic of any scientific theory is, it must be falsifiable, meaning it can be supplanted by new knowledge (no absolute).

Similarly, simply because a majority of scientifically brainwashed people (you again) say myths are false does not make them so. For thousands of years myths were the only lens we had to understand complex reality and they worked. In fact very few of them have been actually disproven. Please read Campbell's 'Masks of God' or even Mbithi, if you doubt me.

"Epistemological dark side" as in Star Wars, not darkness. I think there is a difference. But no matter.

As for having different frames of reference, I believe that is a given. We each have a unique frame of reference, that is what it means to 'create your own reality.' The true miracle is that we are able to find such consensus over so much variety and 'difference.'

I think having an open mind and being humble enough to admit that all this could be 'vanity' has something to do with it.

Alas the reverse situation is much too common and harmful in my opinion. For instance the political polarization we are seeing in our country comes from a few people who insist on holding onto their unique frames of reference no matter what, and large majorities of followers, on both sides, who have largely delegated thinking to their so called leaders.

Kenya needs more Tycho not less.

Today's evidence is tomorrows lie. Even the 'proven' speed of light seems to be in doubt.

Surely it would not hurt you scientists to be humble, seeing as how many of your words you have had to chew over the ages.