The posts below were published on my old blog: blog.sina.com.cn/oknomad, which is banned. I’d like to post here.
patch_for_certainty_and_consistency_of_reality
This post was published on 2021-07-26.
I have a patch for my guess about the law of certainty and consistency of reality of this universe.
According to the certainty and consistency of the reality, this universe’s past which the consiousnesses have reached is certainized (decided and fixed), and this universe’s future has infinite uncertainties, and the future and past of this universe should be consistent with the certainized past in this universe. If we are only talking about that any effect or cause of future should be consistent with its cause or effect in past and that any cause of past shoud have its effect in future, this law can be completely self-consistent, because certainized past is just like records on the tape and all future probablities or time braches will base on or grow from this past.
But if this universe’s future has uncertainties or different probabilities, that may mean that an effect of past just has a probability to incur its cause in future – in another word, not every effect of past can have its cause in future. I guess this universe is trying to keep as much logic as possible, maybe all those of shorter terms and which is past cause incuring future effect can be realized, such as our usual living and the delay choice experiment of quantumn (the one based on the light route choice). But this universe should not keep all those logics like my previous Martian example which is 1M years long and effect of past deciding future cause, because keeping all such logics will add too strict constraints to this universe’s time tree and will reduce the uncertainties of future to almost zero unavoidably, am I right?
If this guess above is right, this means that: from the logic, this universe is not perfect (which may dissappoint Newton and Einstein) and it’s only partly self-consistent – although any existence of this universe in past and future is consistent to each other, this universe lost and is losing logic inevitably, because some exsitence’s logic (effect in past) are lost in time tree (has no corresponding cause in future), and this may be the exact price or cost to make this universe have both the ability to prebuild its possbile future and the uncertainties in future.
So there is an inaccurateness and contradication in my previous description of the example of this law of certainty and consistency of reality. I’d like to rewrite my previous example here. A guy working for CIA named Sub, (my mistake, it’s not Ingo, Ingo is the first human seeing the ring of Jupiter by his tele-watching), tele-watched Mars of 1M years ago, and he saw some Martians and asked one Martian some questions, and this Martian answered him. From this Martian’s view of 1M years ago, there is a probability from future that some guy asked him some questions, and if this Martian heard and answered these questions, this Martian made it possible (not certain) that some guy can ask him these questions in future, but this is not what will happen definitely in future and is just a probability.
interacting_with_future-blind_guess_again
This post was published on 2021-07-29.
Just blind guess again, have fun of it, no seriousness, haha.
This universe’s time structure is a time tree; we at present time are living at a certain current time point; under us is the past we have reached – which has been certainized by our consiousness; above us is different future possibilities or future branches which include infinite uncertainties (and include many certainties as well).
There may be a most crazy blind guess here: the possible future which this universe is prebuilding now can interact with our present reality somehow, in which a possible future can cause an effect in our present reality and we at present can also cause directly an effect in this possible future. But this possible future has a probability to be true or reached by us in future, so this means: if this possible future falls out of the probability, there will be a single effect or cause in our present reality without its corresponding cause or effect in future. So from logic, this universe is flawed or not perfect, and this universe is losing logic.
By the way, the delayed choice experiment of quantum (one based on entangled photons) has clearly revealed that: our conciousness is different from other stuff of this universe, right? The experiment equipment itself will not incur the collapse of wave function or the certainization as I called. And also, this universe includes some kind of wave function which exists without relying on our consciousness, and even moreover, this universe has some kind of certainization (all physical existence like earth, sun, stars) which already exists without relying on our consciousness – this universe is just like a meganetic tape with a well-constructed background on it, and our consiousness is just like a magnetic head to run in this background to create our records.
Yes, it sounds like a computer game more and more, but I guess this universe does be a real existence in which our consiousnesses/souls are in, which means this univerese can affect the state or existence of our consiousness directly. For example, I guess some extreme disaster in this universe (like an explosion of an atom bomb?) may destroy a consiousness completely?
PS: That this universe’s logic is flawed or not perfect is viewing the logic from the certainized time line of this universe, but if we view the logic from all the possible future in all history of this universe, this universe’s logic is still perfect, right? Yes, every existence’s logic is right after all, including all randomness, haha.
layers_of_certainization_and_independence_of_existence
This post was published on 2021-07-31.
As to story said, Einstein once challenged Bohr: if you are right, if I don’t see the Moon, the Moon will not be there? This makes me think about the different layers of certainization and the independence of existence in this universe.
I’d like to begin my blind guess from the double slit interference experiment.
1) If our consiousness don’t reach the particle in the experiment (not observe it or will not know the path of it), the particle (photon/electron/etc) will be in the wave state, which means the particle’s existence is distributed at different points of the spacetime by different probabilities as wave.
If our consiousness reach the particle in the experiment (observe it or will know the path of it), the particle will collapse to a particle state, which means the particle will be certainized from a uncertain wave state to a certain point of the spacetime.
2) When the particle collapses or is certainized by our consiousness, it will show a particle state occupying a certain point of the spacetime in the experiment. But if we only observe or know the path of this particle in the experiment, some other characteriscs of this particle will remain uncertain like the spin direction of this particle – any one of these characteriscs of this particle will be distibuted at different states by different probabilities.
Only when we observe or will know one of these characteriscs (like spin direction) of this particle in the experiment, this characterisc of this particle will collapse or be certainized to a fixed state.
3) The guess above means: there are different layers of certainization of existence in this universe and the existence of this universe is independent from our consiousness.
First, all physical existence have been there without relying on our consiousness, as a state of wave function at very least . This wave function doesn’t mean there is nothing, but means all probabilities of a existence are there all togather simultaneously. When we incur the collapse of a wave function of a existnece by observing or knowing, we don’t create this existence but certainize this existence to a particular state from its different possible states which already exist.
Second, the level or layer of the certainization of a existence depends on how much we observe or know as well. If we observe only the path of the particle, only the spacetime point of this particle will be certainized and some other characteriscs (like spin direction) of this particle will remain uncertain.
Third, as to my blind guess, there is some kind of certainization source in this universe from the very beginning, which means: even if there is not our consiousness or any other consiousness entering this universe, the moon/sun/all stars will be just there. Because this universe is created, its creator’s consiousness create all existence in this universe, and certainize many macro-layers of this universe, and also leave many micro-layers as uncertain or as wave function.
So if Einstein doesn’t see the moon, the moon will still be there. By the way, I agree with a word of Bohr very much: don’t tell god what to do, hahaha.
PS: in fact, the different layers of certainization mentioned aboved has been proved by the experiment of entangled particles already – before you measure the spin of one entangled particle, this particle’s spin state is uncertain and this particle’s position or path is certain, right?
Be First to Comment