Curiousity was an eventual answer to my question of how we came to be. I have been pondering over this from a number of years now. The way I see it, as time goes by, we unravel more and more mysteries about the universe. Core theories change, we discover new things that don't fit in our current compass. Funnily, these things are new to us, but have been in existence since the dawn. What pushed us to keep on exploring and find answers, curiosity.


We still know only so little about the universe even now, difficult to affirmatively say, that our existing theories would be correct.

Anyway, even when we base out the exact theory, we still can keep on asking what created the most fundamental particles that define our theories. This seems like a never ending loop, so eventually I strongly think it has to end in nothingness.

Also, one very important realisation that I had was, we are live in our very own worlds. I am just a piece of flesh with consciousness. I will never be able to perceive what you sense, or even cannot exactly replicate what I sense to you. We are living all alone in our bodies, and that's a fact. Which honestly makes everything relative, including reality, perception of time. If I had no consciousness, I would not have been able to explore and unravel the universe (or even the smallest of things). The key driver is consciousness.

Even within conscious beings, the key driver is curiosity. Otherwise you wouldn't want to have new experiences, get new ideas. You will just be stuck within that time of your own.

Also, there's a lot of background from the Murphy's Law, individual experiences, life death, curious and non-curious states. I can further deep down if you are up for it.

The point is, today we are even having this conversation because probably this post or idea sparked curiosity in you. If it wouldn't have, probably you would never have known this idea, and all the potential realities that arise out of here.
Just like, observation is key in physics, but why do you even want to observe in the first place? Don't do it, it might as well start to be non-existent for you.

Might not be relevant from a philosophical POV, but I highly recommend watching the "Death's Game" on Netflix. You will come up with answers to the questions you have mentioned by yourself. Do share your thoughts afterwards, if you decide to watch.

I am just trying to understand if I can possibly record what goes through within us at every moment. For instance, even when the culture is being passed on to subsequent generations through whatever medium, there's a unique individual recipient, who will understand, digest, and internalize whatever has been conveyed (meaning might be singular this way). In the culture project, we are recording the input of what has already happened in the larger society. I am trying to go a little deeper and broader, and understand if we can parameterize any input whatsoever (essentially, the lifetime) that a conscious being receives.

Thanks for the feedback, and I agree with you. This was my first post here, and I couldn't contain my excitement to be discussing on all the topics, so I had put all of them to see how the discussion flows. Will develop each thought deeply.

Also, on the entropy piece. I think that entropy is more fundamental than time itself, which is the reason why I used entropy to define time.

In a universe where nothing ever changes, time has no meaning. Time emerges only when change or entropy is introduced.

I agree. If you keep extending this theory and keep asking, "why this exists", you end up at, "the universe is nothing but a particle which got curious"

Great example of the video game. Even the unseen territories of the video game are consistent with the seen territories and as a whole, because they were designed that way. It's only that we observed a part of it, which does not impact the creation. But, we derive our understandings only from the things we have observed or imagined. For example, anti-matter was always in existence, but we found it later. Before the discovery, all our theories did not account for anti-matter. After the discovery, some theories would still be consistent and some might be proven false which were yet considered to be true. (Everything is true until proven false).

I like to think from the direction of nothingness. How can you arrive at the universe (or reality) as we know it today, from the state of nothingness. Everything makes a lot of sense with this POV.