Existence: An Explanation

A guest blogger(who wishes to remain anonymous) has let me use some of his work for a blog post. I would also like to note that I do not necessarily agree with him, and all future work he decides to do.

******************************************************************************

The mind operates under a consistent framework. That is, all states that the mind exists in are consistent with its past or future states. Principles such as the cosmological constant, the fine structure constant, kinematics, thermodynamics, etc, always remain consistent with our raw observations. If ever we find an inconsistency in our raw observations, we eventually find that it’s merely been our interpretation of those raw observations that were flawed. From this, we can infer that it’s not necessarily the case that this is a result of their being some mind independent reality.

When we deduce what the universe was like in its most primordial state, such as how it was moments after the Big Bang, we’re merely resolving the probability state in which these events existed in prior to being observed. That is to say, the Big Bang did not occur as a mind independent event; it exists as an experience that occurs in our present. In other words, the time lines of the universe and our conscious awareness are not identical. In fact, the timeline of our universe is highly analogous to the timeline one creates while understanding a fictitious storyline. When watching a movie, the viewer can deduce events of a character’s past. This does not imply that this character’s past events happened with respect to real life events. What it does imply though is that the viewer creates a time line that exists separately from one that references real life affairs. This is a perfect solution to a problem which arises in the field of quantum study; namely, retrocausality.

This theory is also the most convincing in terms of explaining the origins of our very existence. When one questions the idea of the universe resulting from conscious experience (and not the other way around), chances are their question will pertain to the origins of the conscious experience itself; or, better put, “What caused the conscious experience?” The answer to this would be that conscious experience simply exists uncaused, and that trying to think of a time when it did*’t exist will result in contradiction and thus the systematic breakdown of the thinking process. We have direct, experiential evidence of something existing uncaused. Such evidence would include various dreams, as well as the beginning of our own life relative to the universe! Be honest: Do you have any recollection of the first moments of your life? Additionally, do you ever remember how your dreams begin? It is clearly evident that it’s very well possible for our memories of the past to exist without their being an objective, mind independent past. And the fact that this resolution of the first cause paradox is supported by direct, experiential evidence, whereas others are not, makes it the most plausible of all current explanations pertaining to this study.

The Big Bang Theory is best not to be viewed as a theory that explains our existence. This theory is merely intended to explain the phenomena of cosmic expansion, such as the increasing recessional velocity of galaxies, and Cosmic Background Radiation. It says nothing about the origin of our universe or our existence. Which brings us to that question: What theory does offer an explanation for our existence? Philosophical and scientific evidence shows that the Biocentric Universe Theory does. This theory states that life (consciousness, more specifically) creates the universe, and not the other way around. In this theory, the past of the universe exists nothing more as our present experience. As we deduce what the universe was like before the existence of what we refer to as our material composition, we’re not actually discovering it as if it were already there; instead, we’re resolving it through act of observation.

Moreover to the “first cause” paradox, the Biocentric Universe Theory also offers a perfect explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. The reason why the universe is so fine tuned for life is because it is life that created the universe in the first place! This explanation is much more plausible than others, including the Anthropic Principle, the Multiverse Theory, and especially the Intelligent Design Hypothesis. All of the current alternative explanations of the fine tuning problem invoke the need for an objective reality, something that there exists no evidence for and additionally cannot escape the problem of circular definition (try defining “real” without making reference to conscious awareness). Because the other explanations of our existence and universal fine tuning lack sufficient evidence and parsimony, the Biocentric Universe Theory, a branch off of Monistic Idealism, can be deemed the most plausible explanations in terms of answering many proverbial, existential questions.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Arguments, God. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Existence: An Explanation

  1. Tim says:

    How does it follow that because everything we observe is interpreted by the mind, that therefore reality is somehow dependent on the mind?

    It’s more plausible to simply embrace realism.

  2. I assume you know how to contact the true author of this post, Tim ;).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s