Acceleration Towards the Far Universe

    The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Everything is moving away from everything else, and the rate at which everything is moving away is increasing.

    One hypothesis to explain this is to posit the existence of dark energy. We say that empty space actually has a mass, a negative mass, and say that when you get enough of nothing all in one place, it applies a negative gravitational force which pushes away surrounding matter. This then explains the accelerated expansion of the universe, for, it is the empty space that is pushing everything apart.

    Another hypothesis is Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which just makes some small adjustments to Newton’s laws in order to say that on a very large scale, it is the nature of matter to accelerate, and this effect is just diminished with smaller matter.

    I’ve been doing some lay contemplations on the matter, and had another idea.

    Let us assume that the universe is infinite, having an endless amount of matter in it. Consider what I shall call the “Far Universe,” which is all of the infinite amount of matter which is very far away from you, all around on all sides. Though it is very far away, there is an infinite amount, so the gravity it applies to you is infinite. However, because it is all around you about equally, the gravitational pull is basically balanced out.

    You can think of the Far Universe like a bubble which is around you, and applies an infinite amount of gravitational pull to you in all directions at the same time, such that all of the gravitational pull cancels itself out and you experience no gravitational pull from the Far Universe. As far as you are concerned, you are at the centre of the Far Universe, since it is defined around you, and thus are balanced at equilibrium, and are not moving.

    But what about an item a ways to your left? Let us say, a rabbit? It is slightly nearer to the edge of the Far Universe from your perspective, therefore, according to you, it should be pulled away from you, to the left. It should move away from you at an accelerating rate.

    Of course, from the rabbit’s perspective, it is at the centre of the Far Universe. It is that much closer to the further left universe, and that much further from the further right universe. As far as the rabbit is concerned, it is in equilibrium at the centre of the Far Universe. However, from the rabbit’s perspective, you are to the right of the itself, and to the right of the central equilibrium which it inhabits. Therefore, the Far Universe should apply to you a gravitational force which pulls you further to the right away from it.

    We find that this hypothesis is compatible with observation. Indeed, for any one object, that object experiences all other objects to be accelerating away from itself, while that object experiences itself to not be moving.

    When you think of things in relative terms, it all seems to make so much sense. There is no need to posit the existence of dark energy. If dark energy were the case, then the universe would necessarily be accelerating faster in areas of lower material density. There is also no need to modify Newton’s laws. Indeed, the acceleration of the universe follows naturally from the assumptions we intuitively make about the universe, just so long as we consider things relativistically, just as Einstein did with things like the speed of light, size, and simultaneity.

    I am of course by no means in a position of sufficient expertise in this field to try to press this forward as a serious hypothesis, but it nevertheless seems like it could be reasonable enough from what I understand of the universe. What are your thoughts? (If it is confusing the way I have written it, let me know if you’d like me to try rewriting it in a clearer fashion. Maybe I could focus more on diagrams.)

What it is like to be Senseless

Discussion Question:
Who is generally more conscious of what it is like to be senseless: you, or a rock?

¶   Years ago I contemplated consciousness, and came to the conclusion that I'd rather believe that there is consciousness to all matter rather than assuming that there exists some magical and mysterious divide between some creatures which are conscious, and everything else which is not. Of course, ultimately I don't know, but given those two options, I concluded I preferred animism.
¶   More recently, as I've been studying and learning more, and honestly, thinking less, I've come to doubt myself a bit and develop a greater trust in the conclusions of others. However, today as I thought about the topic again, I still found my old conclusion seeming to hold up just as well. Furthermore, I feel my learning may eventually allow me to better articulate my opinion.
¶   Thus, I have articulated this concept, "what it is like to be senseless."
¶   In the past, when I would speak of believing that all things have consciousness to them, people would make silly assumptions like supposing that I believe inanimate objects can think, or feel, or sense the world around them. I don't know why they were so quick to jump to this conclusion, as I never said any such thing. I tried to explain that that was not what I was saying.
¶   I tried to distinguish between "phenomenal consciousness" and other kinds of consciousness, such as what I have long called "coherent responsiveness." In behaviourism, we would want to talk about whether or not an entity is responding to its environment in a coherent way. Clearly, a rock doesn't respond much. However, a classic and very intriguing question to play with is the philosophical musing of whether or not a rock experiences "phenomenal consciousness;" that is, whether or not it experiences "qualia," or, "what it is like."
¶   To be especially clear that I'm not asking whether or not a rock experiences what it is like to feel pain, or to contemplate the meaning of its existence, or to watch the sun set, I have worded the question, "what is it like to be senseless?" Does the rock experience what it is like to be senseless?
¶   And, for that matter, I have also long asked related questions like "what is nothingness like," or "what is it like to not exist?" These questions intrigued me, for, it is different to experience the absence of something than it is to not experience that something. I could see that there is no ball on the floor, or it could be too dark for me to see if there is a ball on the floor. I could remember not knowing if the ball was there, or I could not remember having had known whether or not the ball was there. I could remember having had forgotten, or I may be oblivious to the thought one way or another, my attention turned completely elsewhere. With my attention elsewhere, what does that leave where my attention is not?
¶   Perhaps, being that "I" am constantly occupied with somethings, I am left ignorant of what nothings are like. Perhaps if I were not so occupied with somethings, I would touch upon the experience of nothingness. Yet, could I remember nothingness even if I'd known it?
¶   One way or another, let me not stray too far from my original question. Tell me your opinion on the matter, "who is generally more conscious of what it is like to be senseless, you, or a rock?" In general, what do you think of the idea that inanimate objects experience what it is like to be senseless? It would also be helpful if you could check the box to email the follow up comments to you, so that you can respond to other peoples thoughts and maybe we can get a bit of a discussion going between people.

Edit: To be clear, by "senseless" I basically mean the state of not being conscious of one's environment (due to lack of senses) or one's thoughts or feelings (do to not having any, lacking a mind, the "sixth" sense). In asking if they are "conscious" of it, I mean phenomenal conscious. Do they experience what it is like to not be conscious of the world around them or within them?
Also, in case you don't know what I mean by phenomenal consciousness and "what it is like," here is Frank Jackson's gedankenexperiment of Mary the colour scientist: http://youtu.be/gZy3Ky9y_fg. I do not believe the rock processes data, but it may experience what it is like to not be processing data.

Why Facebook is terrible, and I am returning to Blogger

Over a month after posting.

Facebook wants you to pay money before it will even show a blog post to the subscribers of that blog. I had switched to facebook, because I'd hoped that the notification system would promote more discussion in the comments. As it turned out, fewer people were even so much as responding. Apparently, the reason there was less participation, is because there were fewer people who even knew that I was posting anything. Maybe there's something better than blogger, but suffice it to say, it's not facebook. I am returning to blogger.

Moved to a different part of Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Looking-Glass-Eyes/125324614229570?sk=notes

Moved to Facebook

  http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163921750323242

(Hopefully this works.)

Blogger really isn't working for us.

Just one sample of evidence would be the fact that nobody has responded to my comment on "Rooted in Order, Branching to Chaos."

It seems like several people on facebook read my blog, but don't give any feedback, probably because it would require them to sign in. Facebook's notification system has recently improved (for those of you who use it rather than leaving your farm vill notifications amassed at "99." I think you know who you are. Heehee.) so I was considering transferring my blog to a facebook group. Most of the people who give me feedback here are already on facebook anyway (and those who don't have or want to have a facebook account can do like I did at first if they want, and create a fake account under a fake name that has absolutely every setting set to private and has no friends and never posts any information whatsoever, and you can never use it except for one purpose. You could even make a fake gmail account to register it to. Of course, look where that got me... I've reconnected with more "friends" than I remembered even meeting in my life.)

Looking

¶ A pupil and a mentor stood in a garden. The mentor said, "Look, there is a dog."
¶ The pupil looked and confirmed, "Yes, there is a dog," and soon after the two left the garden without anything else having transpired.
¶ The next day the pupil and the mentor stood in another garden. The pupil said, "Look, there is a cat."
¶ The mentor looked and answered that he saw no cat, so the two began searching the garden. Among the plants they each found many birds and squirrels and other animals. Each time they would find one they would point it out to the other, and the mentor would sometimes ask if maybe the pupil had not seen a cat, but had seen this animal here, or that one there. They discussed each animal, to see if it might have been what the pupil had called a cat. After a good day of exploration, discussion, and learning, they found a dog and agreed that it had been what the pupil had called a cat, then left the garden.