Thread: Is life a dream?

Originally posted by djaio+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djaio)</div>

next are you going to ask me if i have complete faith that i don't have complete faith that i have complete faith?[/b]

No, you don't need faith to not have faith. That's, well, that's the whole point of not having faith.

See? This thinking thing is very simple and fun.

<!--QuoteBegin-simone93
That is scarily close to 50/50...

Yeah, it was. But about 15 people voted today and tipped the balance.

Genjyo, that was awesome.

Originally posted by Ex Nine

Genjyo, that was awesome.

Thanks Ex Nine, just trying to defend reality! Not like it really needs to

See? This thinking thing is very simple and fun. [/b]

yeah, also stupid and pointless. out of two long posts, that was the only question you could think to ask me?

Originally posted by djaio
yeah, also stupid and pointless. out of two long posts, that was the only question you could think to ask me?

You just said thinking is stupid and pointless. Why would anyone want to ask you a question?

Don't answer that.

You should really try TMMUC. It can't hurt if you want to learn about reality.

Originally posted by Ex Nine


You just said thinking is stupid and pointless. Why would anyone want to ask you a question?

Don't answer that.

You should really try TMMUC. It can't hurt if you want to learn about reality.

Have you been doing a 'Logic' class at school ex-nine because your arguements are all trite and pedantic and extremely uninteresting. You seem unable to extend your mind to encompass the concepts of the limits of human knowledge which your original question was raising.

What the hell is this dumb tmmuc challenge meant to prove? That my view of 'reality' has been warped by watching the Matrix or the Truman show and that I need a good spoonful of physics & maths to get back on the right track?

These movies riff off the great philosophical questions of the ages: can we ever know ultimate reality, do we have free will, do our lives have any real meaning, how is the way we perceive reality in a dream different in how we percieve reality when awake etc. That is why I enjoy watching them (as well as cool special eff-x).

I've read a fair bit about physics and the universe, even if I tend to struggle with the more complex aspects of it such as the mathematics. What is your point with this 'challenge' concerning your original question "Is life a dream" like an eager little school boy who wants to show off to his mother what he learnt in class that morning.

Please be more accurate in what questions you pose to the board because you have managed to waste peoples time by posing a question that did not set the limits you intended. Poor form old chap.

Regards,
Phil

I have already apologized multiple times for not originally specifying the meaning of my question for those of you who are undecided. This is not a philosophical question, or else I would have put this in the philosophy forum. This is not a poetic question, or else I would have put it in the art forum. This is a general question. A question that includes the main features and elements the subjects in question, life and dreams. That's why this is in the general discussion area. I wanted the question interpreted generally, not artistically or philosophically. At least not in particular.

Yes, you have to stretch your mind to look at the generalities, fluid phil. Stretch it beyond philosophy. Stretch it beyond art. That is no small feat, and I applaud anyone who does it.

I've read a fair bit about physics and the universe, even if I tend to struggle with the more complex aspects of it such as the mathematics.[/b]

That's what TMMUC is about. There are no mathematics in The Matrix or The Truman Show or any other movie for that matter, especially ones that riff off the great philosophical questions of the age. And every question is good in at least some way. You misunderstand, phil. That's why watching The Matrix is part of the challenge! And that's why it's in the philosophy section, to entice people to open their minds, expand their consciousness, and bridge their philosophy with the philosophy of science. It's very difficult to do.

Otherwise I would have simply named it \"math challenge\" or something equally boring. If you're fascinated by great philosophical questions, trust me, you'll be even more fascinated - and just as challenged - by the great physics questions.

You asked:

can we ever know ultimate reality, do we have free will, do our lives have any real meaning, how is the way we perceive reality in a dream different in how we percieve reality when awake etc.[/b]

After asking themselves if we can ever know ultimate reality, physicists actually go out and try to do it. After asking themselves if they have free will, physicists actually go out of their way to exercise it and find out.

The question on whether our lives have any meaning is even more applicable. Physicist Brian Greene started the The Fabric of the Cosmos with Camus's problem of suicide. He concluded in his youth that he can only discern what kind of meaning life in the universe has after learning how the universe works. He asked a philosophical question and learned physics. The two go together perfectly.

Aristotlean mechanics ruled physics for centuries, and you know who Aristotle was, right? A philosopher. And he also talked about dreams...

I find your last question, about perception in dreams and reality, the most interesting. And that's why I think now, more than ever, with the New Age combination of spirituality, dreams, and quantum mechanics, that people take physics seriously and learn the mathematics. If they don't, they simply haven't taken physics into account.

Because mathematics is not about perception. Nothing in mathematics is dependent on perception. So when you ask the question about what the difference is between perception in dreams and perception in reality, right now that difference is mathematics. Becoming lucid to reality has a large amount to do with learning its mathematical rules.

The mathematics of physics are not the more complex aspects of physics. The mathematics of physics is physics. Mathematics is an extremely powerful tool in both understanding reality and empowering yourself to manipulate reality.

Hacking reality is what physicists do. Discovering its rules in order to fashion reality to our choosing.

Seems like you created it purely to present your 'challenge' like an eager little school boy who wants to show off to his mother what he learnt in class that morning. [/b]

Sadly, I don't know what that's like. I haven't a clue what it's like in Australia, fluid phil, but in American schools kids don't learn mathematics because they aren't given a chance. They aren't challenged enough. I certainly wasn't. I've had to challenge myself and learn a great deal on my own.

And it's not hard. At least, not as hard as you think. It's still a challenge. And that's why it's called a challenge. TMMUC is about regaining that chance to learn. I challenge you to do it, fluid phil.

Well, I understand where you are coming from a little more now Nine. I still feel you were playing games a little by setting a trap you wanted people to walk into so you could rescue them with your 'challenge'. You should have started the thread with your above well-reasoned spiel about mathematics and reality to let everyone know where you stood with your somewhat loaded initial question.

After asking themselves if we can ever know ultimate reality, physicists actually go out and try to do it. After asking themselves if they have free will, physicists actually go out of their way to exercise it and find out.

The question on whether our lives have any meaning is even more applicable. Physicist Brian Greene started the The Fabric of the Cosmos with Camus's problem of suicide. He concluded in his youth that he can only discern what kind of meaning life in the universe has after learning how the universe works. He asked a philosophical question and learned physics. The two go together perfectly. [/b]

This is a good point but one I'm not sure you fully appreciate by the way you dissed people who applied a philosophical take on yr question (yes I know this is GD but we are not all as clearly as delinineated as yourself Nine) I have always found Einstein to be a great philosopher probaly because he was such a good physicist and had his finger on the pulse of reality. Science and philosophy (when properly done) are really two sides of the same coin ie. how does this damn universe work?? Are we stuck in an outdated way of thinking and are not seeing the universe as it truly is? What are our current limitations and how can we overcome them?

I find your last question, about perception in dreams and reality, the most interesting. And that's why I think now, more than ever, with the New Age combination of spirituality, dreams, and quantum mechanics, that people take physics seriously and learn the mathematics. If they don't, they simply haven't taken physics into account. [/b]

This is interesting. I've always assumed I could understand people writings about the physics and the world without needing to know the mathematics. Do I need to know French if I have someone who can interpret a paper written in French into English for me. I admit there is room for error by not speaking the native toungue myself eg. can I trust the person is faithfully translating the meaning for me? But then I could try a few interpreters and combine the results to weed out errors. Do I need to study biology in detail to get the gist of things from a Nature documentary. I just like to watch the walruses butt up against each other.

Because mathematics is not about perception. Nothing in mathematics is dependent on perception. So when you ask the question about what the difference is between perception in dreams and perception in reality, right now that difference is mathematics. Becoming lucid to reality has a large amount to do with learning its mathematical rules. [/b]

Mmmm..I'm gonna have to think about this one as I'm on shaky ground when it comes to considering how maths relates to perception. Isn't mathematics just a language? A languge is useless UNLESS it relates to objects. Are you seriously telling me that someone who was kept in a box his whole life and never saw or heard anything of the world, through sheer reasoning could come up with the equations of current day physics? That somehow maths transcends reality? Maths IS the ultimate reality? That sounds almost spiritual in itself.

I can certainly appreciate that knowing the mathematics of quantum mechanics would be the best way to know it. But realistically I'm going to struggle to find the time, effort and intellect to get my head around all the equations. I'll have a look and see if its pitched at my level.

Let my pose this to you Nine regarding mathematics in life and occurences while dreaming. In a non-lucid dream a lot of bizzare things occur which we happily accept as 'just the way it is'. When we wake (or become lucid), in this new mind-state we look on something like sitting on top of the Empire State building while playing twister as being non-sensical or impossible. We realise that WE made things make sense in the dream, not what was actually occuring itself. Could this not be the same with mathematics and our apparently 'normal' life? At one point in our history our mind-set made it seem normal that a beetle would push the Sun across the sky each day. Some scientist said (maybe Einstein) that quantum theroy was like the extremely lucid rantings of a madman.

How do we know that we have reached the 'touchdown' zone concerning physics and science and are getting to true reality instead of a series of 'mind-sets' that we keep passing through, perhaps endlessly?

Originally posted by fluid phil
I still feel you were playing games a little by setting a trap you wanted people to walk into so you could rescue them with your 'challenge'. You should have started the thread with your above well-reasoned spiel about mathematics and reality to let everyone know where you stood with your somewhat loaded initial question.

Loaded question? Oi vay... I've said over and over that I tried to make it as simple as possible. Please do me to respect of reading the thread. Loaded trap my ass... like I would go through the trouble of that kind of premeditated silliness to, what, look good on a forum? You need to not get so paranoid. I have no interest in strutting my stuff on a forum. I'm here to learn and to help.

I may sound patronizing at times. But so what? Everyone who knows something and simultaneously cares is going to be interpreted as patronizing if they're speaking over a forum. You don't have the benefit of hearing my voice or seeing my charming face, so you take the high amount of declarative sentences, without an equally high amount of \"I think\" and \"In my opinion\" as authoritative. But I care. If I didn't care I wouldn't be here.

To put it allegorically, if I call you a pansy, I'm calling you beautiful flower.

This is a good point but one I'm not sure you fully appreciate by the way you dissed people who applied a philosophical take on yr question (yes I know this is GD but we are not all as clearly as delinineated as yourself Nine) I have always found Einstein to be a great philosopher probaly because he was such a good physicist and had his finger on the pulse of reality. Science and philosophy (when properly done) are really two sides of the same coin ie. how does this damn universe work?? Are we stuck in an outdated way of thinking and are not seeing the universe as it truly is? What are our current limitations and how can we overcome them?[/b]

Fair criticism. Thank you. Great questions too!

Isn't mathematics just a language?[/b]

No, mathematics is definitely not \"just\" a language. This may be the reason why you struggle with it, actually. You don't see its unique importance and therefore don't see it as anymore special than ordinary English.

A languge is useless UNLESS it relates to objects.[/b]

People certainly have made the criticism that mathematics is useless unless it relates to objects, including a number of famous physicists. However, true mathematicians are the guardians of clarity of thought. Whenever they make a statement or expression, they note every exception. A language such as mathematics can be used to describe an object, but to get from point A to point B within grammatical rules requires the use of pure mathematicians to preserve that grammatical structure.

Einstein said he never appreciated the complex subtitles and enigmas of mathematics itself until three years before he finished work on general relativity, long after his comparatively simple special relativity.

Are you seriously telling me that someone who was kept in a box his whole life and never saw or heard anything of the world, through sheer reasoning could come up with the equations of current day physics?[/b]

There are some people who believe that as well. They're called philosophical \"rationalists.\" Many Englightenment thinkers were like that, especially and including Rene Descartes (rationalism is epitomized in his \"I think therefore I am\"), who was instrumental in the advancement of physics. He originated the concept of the \"conservation of momentum,\" which asserts that if the position and momentum of everything in the universe were known at any point in time, then you could know the entire universe at all points in time. Totally rationalist. Rejects empiricism outright. Without Descartes, though, there would have been no Newton.

Modern day rationalists are not as extreme. But they do take empirical facts and run away with them into mathematical escapades of rational gorging.

Where do you think the Big Bang theory came from? No one was around to see it, observe it, or measure it. It's not a purely empirical theory. You can't test for it to happen and observe. However, you can observe its supposed consequences and work your way back to it rationally. It is deeply dependent on rationalist philosophy.

Where do you think we get the idea of black holes as quantum singularities? People don't just make this stuff up. Certainly we see some of the effects of what appear to be invisible massive objects, but no one knows that they are actually the size of quanta.

A lot of string theorists are rationalists, including Michio Kaku. We've never seen strings, and yet string theory is all the rage. Oh it's all the rage. There aren't even any testable predictions for them and yet they're hot because of their rationality! We've never seen branes, either.

Ask bradybaker what evidence exists to point to the existence of interdimensional membranes that float through an 11-dimensional space and smash into one another and therefore create matter/energy explosions that lead to the creation of our universe. It's almost a total work of rationalist fancy. But, you know what? It could very well be right.

It has more basis in reality than The Matrix or The Truman Show. That's for sure.

That somehow maths transcends reality? Maths IS the ultimate reality? That sounds almost spiritual in itself.[/b]

Plato was ALL ABOUT THIS.

I can't emphasize enough how the above belief has affected western society. The Catholic church was entirely reliant on Plato's theory of forms to justify Christ actually being part of the host at mass. And to justify the priest \"actually\" turning wine into blood. It's all Plato.

The Protestant Reformation? Plato AGAIN. It's almost all about Martin Luther rejecting the Platonic philosophy of the church. Christ doesn't actually go into the host. It's symbolic. You don't have to eat the host. You don't actually need a priest. Christ is everywhere. Etc. It all fell down with the rejection of Platonic philosophy.

Copernicus? The dude was a Catholic monk. The church was on the verge of accepting the sun-centered solar system but it needed more evidence to explain the apparent stillness of the Earth. That evidence would come with Galileo. The church didn't denounce the Copernican model until 70 years after Copernicus! Oh yeah, Galileo? He probably never would've been a problem without the Protestant denouncement of Platonic philosophy. Galileo's mathematics and reason impressed the church on countless occasions previously. It was only after the Protestants that the church big shots had to throw their mess around in a desperate attempt to keep power.

Incidentally, there are plenty of mathematicians and physicists who espouse Neo-Platonism. Roger Penrose is probably the most notable. He begins his book The Road to Reality, of all things, with the Platonic description of a independent existence for mathematics. I should note though that he does not take it very far in the literal sense.

I can certainly appreciate that knowing the mathematics of quantum mechanics would be the best way to know it. But realistically I'm going to struggle to find the time, effort and intellect to get my head around all the equations. I'll have a look and see if its pitched at my level.[/b]

Math is so important for quantum mechanics because no one ever \"sees\" the quantum world except through mathematics. The wavelength of light just isn't big enough for us to see actual atoms, much less see into them. We have to use electron microscopes, and those don't give us any pictures except a bunch of waves on a surface. No actual color. Total mathematical constructs.

Classical mechanics is just as applicable today as it ever was, though. Quantum mechanics does not prove Newtonian mechanics wrong, just that it can't describe things on the quantum level. It's fantastic, however, at describing things at our level of reality. That's part of the enigma!

How do we know that we have reached the 'touchdown' zone concerning physics and science and are getting to true reality instead of a series of 'mind-sets' that we keep passing through, perhaps endlessly?[/b]

Experiment.

To sum it up in one word "experience." If it doesn't agree with experience, it's not science.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Loaded trap my ass... like I would go through the trouble of that kind of premeditated silliness to, what, look good on a forum?

Well there are those that do it. Who knows why
Anyway, looks like the thread is getting going nicely now.

No, mathematics is definitely not \"just\" a language. This may be the reason why you struggle with it, actually. You don't see its unique importance and therefore don't see it as anymore special than ordinary English. [/b]

You miss my point Nine.

There is no mathematics floating around in the universe. It is a mental creation of man. A star doesn't get up in morning and think \"Boy, I've got a big day ahead of me pumping out energy into the cosmos. I better start doing the equations to convert hydrogen to helium\" It just does what it does.

The laws of science are only OUR description of what the universe is upto. They are our attempt to master the forces of the cosmos. But they are not reality itself. Often, and this is the brilliance of science, we realise in certain conditions eg. very big or very small, our descriptions of that reality are no longer suitable and someone creates a whole new set of laws such as Einsteins relativity theroy. Its the same way people create new phrases in English to describe a new situation more accurately or with more impact.

However, true mathematicians are the guardians of clarity of thought. Whenever they make a statement or expression, they note every exception. A language such as mathematics can be used to describe an object, but to get from point A to point B within grammatical rules requires the use of pure mathematicians to preserve that grammatical structure. [/b]

I'm going to show my ignorance here, but don't they sometimes fudge equations by adding in 'constants' to make the results work? And doesn't the big break throughs in physics go hand in hand with new forms of mathematics such as differential equations. Its like, after the physicist has looked at things in a new way, the language is no longer adequate to say what he wants to say so he creates new grammatical techniques. The maths of today is a lot different than the what the Greeks were using all that time ago. Its evolving all the time, just like all languages.

Originally posted by Ex Nine


You just said thinking is stupid and pointless. Why would anyone want to ask you a question?

oh, my bad. i thought you said "this thinking is very simple and fun" referring to your way of thinking. didn't realize you were talking about thinking in general.

actually, thinking in general can be pretty pointless...seems like most people who take the time to think, think too much and complicate things.

but how did the discussion turn to mathematics? it's not my topic or anything, but i thought we were talking about life and dreams.

here's my uneducated two cents: math is based on logic. and there are things in the universe logic can't touch. like, say, dreaming, especially the lucid kind. lucid dreaming is about the most blatantly illogical thing there is. so incorporating logic and math in a discussion about dreaming seems really limiting to me.

Originally posted by fluid phil
There is no mathematics floating around in the universe. It is a mental creation of man.

That is debatable within philosophy of mathematics. And, quite frankly, it is a very hard position to justify. There are mathematicians who espouse it, of course (they're usually called \"constructivists\") but they are a very small minority. You might be interested in reading about constructivism and the inherent difficulties with seeing mathematics as a mental creation of man.

Your admittance that you have difficulty understanding math coupled with your brazen acceptance of constructivism reveals that you are arguing from ignorance. This is what I'm trying to help you with: not arguing from ignorance. There's nothing contemptible about constructivism. But your advocacy of it in a debate with someone is dishonest, not just to me and other members of this forum, but to yourself.

A star doesn't get up in morning and think \"Boy, I've got a big day ahead of me pumping out energy into the cosmos. I better start doing the equations to convert hydrogen to helium\"[/b]

What does \"doing equations\" mean? Do you think it means calculation? If so, you have a very VERY common misconception about mathematics. It's most likely no fault of your own, but of the way mathematics was taught to you. I can't overstate how our school systems suck so badly.

The misconception is that calculation equals mathematics. This misconception is reinforced because when we go to \"math\" class, and we are assigned \"math\" homework, that is largely about calculations. The truth of the matter is that calculation is something you do with the use of mathematics.

Do you wonder why you had to anthropomorphize something in order to make your point? I think that shows you are at least able to understand. Your anthropomorphization of stars and then your rejection of the anthropomorphization of stars is completely meaningless.

Just to give you a clue into the silliness, here's a look into how I read your statement:

\"Hey Ex Nine. Stars don't think, speak, or get up in the morning, and they don't go to school to study math or physics.\"

\"Yeah, no shit, phil.\"

It just does what it does.[/b]

Obviously.

The laws of science are only OUR description of what the universe is upto. They are our attempt to master the forces of the cosmos. But they are not reality itself. Often, and this is the brilliance of science, we realise in certain conditions eg. very big or very small, our descriptions of that reality are no longer suitable.....[/b]

They are no longer sufficient.

That's so important. Science is empirical. Old descriptions don't just disappear. Newtonian mechanics is just as true today as it was hundreds of years ago. It's just not sufficient for explaining the whole of reality.

Science is not about finding one description for everything. Despite what you may think about a physical \"theory of everything,\" physics won't end after that is complete. And with no testable predictions in sight for any theory of everything, that might not happen for a long time anyways.

... and someone creates a whole new set of laws such as Einsteins relativity theroy. Its the same way people create new phrases in English to describe a new situation more accurately or with more impact.[/b]

Thinking like that will definitely hurt your ability to understand mathematics.

And you misunderstand relativity. Einstein's new laws had to be intertwined and unified with Newtonian mechanics. If you don't understand Newtonian mechanics you will never understand general relativity.

And it's funny because I can imagine Einstein suppressing the want to kick your ass for trivializing general relativity like that. General relativity is so complicated, I seriously question whether or not you will learn it in your entire lifetime. The dude worked on it for 10 years, doing nothing else, after he already formulated rules for special relativity.

I'm going to show my ignorance here, but don't they sometimes fudge equations by adding in 'constants' to make the results work?[/b]

No, mathematicians don't \"fudge\" constants. There are only a few mathematical constants, like pi, and those have the same value on alien planets. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter will always be the same. And that's not a statement of faith or belief. That can be rigorously proven.

Physicists fudge constants, though. Are you suggesting there might be something wrong with that? It's incredibly useful as part of the process. Solving equations by introducing constants is taught in the first chapter of the physics textbook I'm reading now, actually.

Without Planck's constant, for instance, there never would have been quantum mechanics. Without Newton's Gravitational constant, we wouldn't be able to measure the mass of the Earth.

This is one of the reasons why it's important to understand the mathematics of physics in order to understand physics.

And doesn't the big break throughs in physics go hand in hand with new forms of mathematics such as differential equations.[/b]

Not always, no. There are plenty of topics in mathematics that are entirely useless in physics. Actually a surprisingly small percentage of the ideas in mathematics are used in physics.

Its like, after the physicist has looked at things in a new way, the language is no longer adequate to say what he wants to say so he creates new grammatical techniques. The maths of today is a lot different than the what the Greeks were using all that time ago. Its evolving all the time, just like all languages.[/b]

No, that's not really true either. Mathematics evolves by building on itself with rigorous foundations. If something works it stays forever. If something doesn't work it will probably stay around until someone disproves it or makes it work. Other languages evolve through a complex process that involves discarding old conventions and accepting new ones. We still use a great deal of the same things that the Greeks did. The Pythagroean theorem is thousands of years old. It's objective truth. No matter how you write it, it's immortal.

I'll finish with explaining another misconception about mathematics. This is one I didn't realize until a couple years ago. When I did calculations in school I did them very quickly, practically without thinking. I was yelled at by my teacher all the time to "show my work," and I wanted to tell her to shove it up her fat ass. Over time I developed an attachment between the way mathematics looks and how it works. Which is to say I couldn't distinguish between its notation and its rules.

That's a recipe for trouble, because mathematical notation is used inconsistently, meaning that things like parentheses, lines, and symbols can all mean different things depending how someone is using them. This is a great barrier to learning mathematics, in my opinion. There is no central authority for the correct use of notation.

It's the notation that has evolved, phil. Not the concepts. Musical notation has changed over time too, but not the music.

Ex Nine, why are you so authoritative? I'm sure you are smart, but why do you always state everything like it's the only truth? It's certainly misleading to me, it's like you are not respecting other's beliefs.

Originally posted by Ex Nine+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ex Nine)</div>

The mathematics of physics are not the more complex aspects of physics. The mathematics of physics is physics. Mathematics is an extremely powerful tool in both understanding reality and empowering yourself to manipulate reality.[/b]

I disagree. Understanding to me means knowing why. Math does not describe why, it describes what.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ex Nine
...bridge their philosophy with the philosophy of science. It's very difficult to do.

I don't see where science fits into this. If we have to take the intersection of science and our own philsophy, it may only limit the possibilities. Earlier in the paragraph you were just describing being open-minded. Restricting one's self will only further close their mind.

And FYI, I'm about to graduate from a university with a major in Computer Engineering and a minor in Mathematics. I have understood plenty about physics, although I've almost forgotten everything about relativity. I understand math and logic too, I can argue.

I've probably missed a couple points I want to comment on, but that's because your beliefs are hidden between the history lessons. I'm too lazy to go back now and re-read everything I didn't mark on the first time through.

Originally posted by DistantClone
Ex Nine, why are you so authoritative? I'm sure you are smart, but why do you always state everything like it's the only truth? It's certainly misleading to me, it's like you are not respecting other's beliefs.

I'm not sure you have done me the respect of reading the thread either. But it's getting long now and I understand if you missed it. I talked about this only a couple posts ago.

I have no intention whatsoever of stating everything like it's the \"only\" truth. That's your imagination working. I am here on this forum to learn and help. Give me the benefit of the doubt?

If it clarifies, please automatically fill in the words \"I think\" throughout my posts. You may safely assume that whatever I write is what \"I think.\" After all, I am saying it.

I don't see where science fits into this. If we have to take the intersection of science and our own philsophy, it may only limit the possibilities. Earlier in the paragraph you were just describing being open-minded. Restricting one's self will only further close their mind.[/b]

That's a closed-minded viewpoint, isn't it? Cutting yourself off from science?

And FYI, I'm about to graduate from a university with a major in Computer Engineering and a minor in Mathematics. I have understood plenty about physics, although I've almost forgotten everything about relativity. I understand math and logic too, I can argue.[/b]

That's great! I rather envy you. I'm about to graduate with a major in Economics, which I'm finding out is an extremely depressing science, and I wish I had done something more substantial like comp-sci or physics.

I've probably missed a couple points I want to comment on, but that's because your beliefs are hidden between the history lessons. I'm too lazy to go back now and re-read everything I didn't mark on the first time through.[/b]

I appreciate your honesty in that.

If my beliefs seem hidden it's because I don't have very many. Concerning the subject of dreaming and its relation to reality, I have even fewer beliefs. I'm far, far more interested in knowing something. That's being open-minded, isn't it? Not settling on beliefs?

It should be obvious that I think learning is important. That schools aren't exactly places where a lot of learning happens. That I think science can help us distinguish dreams from reality. And that science can help us understand dreams better. Questions beginning with "why" also exist in science, if you have to courage to ask them.

Science is far more open anyone thinks, even more open than what many scientists think. It's just had a bad reputation. Perhaps for that reason, actually - that many scientists seem to underestimate its openness.

Originally posted by DistantClone
I don't see where science fits into this. If we have to take the intersection of science and our own philsophy, it may only limit the possibilities. Earlier in the paragraph you were just describing being open-minded. Restricting one's self will only further close their mind..

Science is a tool. Nothing more. Ignoring it would cause you to be potentially throw away the knowledge and wisdom that could come of understanding science's point of view.
This is not to say that science is necessarily always right, but a lot of thought has gone into it. That makes it worth considering when evaluating your belief/knowledge systems.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Your admittance that you have difficulty understanding math coupled with your brazen acceptance of constructivism reveals that you are arguing from ignorance. This is what I'm trying to help you with: not arguing from ignorance. There's nothing contemptible about constructivism. But your advocacy of it in a debate with someone is dishonest, not just to me and other members of this forum, but to yourself.

Fuck off Ex-nine. I'm sick of your snotty-nosed, smary attitude. Dishonest? I've been incredibly fucking honest, even admiting when I was coming from a position of ignorance in regards to mathematics. Do I need to have WRITTEN the fucking theroy of general relatively to just refer to it? (and thats all I did - I didn't even try to describe it). You've got a real attitude problem niney. Maybe you need to feel superior (as a lot of students do) and I suspect thats why you started this thread (with a poorly worded initial question).

NEWSFLASH: This isn't the International Mathematics Discussion Forum. This is just a bunch of dreamers trying to work out what the hell is real and what the hell is delusion and if there is really a difference.

Just to give you a clue into the silliness, here's a look into how I read your statement: *

\"Hey Ex Nine. Stars don't think, speak, or get up in the morning, and they don't go to school to study math or physics.\" [/b]

Now I KNOW you must be doing a 'logic' study unit because this is the sort of inane, insular statement only a young student studying logic could be arsed to write. I was using this absurdist device to further illustrate my point that the way homosapians circa 2005 PERCIEVE reality is not neccesarily what REALITY actually is.

Oh, and here's a tip Nine. Just cos you write a little side-note that states that you should not take what you say as the behaviour of an arrogant prick, doesn't then mean you can then act like an arrogant prick with complete imunity.

[Warning to all involved parties]

Guys, you seem to have forgotten that you are no longer in Religion & Spirituality. Please keep it civil.

Indeed, let's regain composure please! It's interesting to discuss the commonalities and differences between dreaming and living within one thread. Of course, with all the complexities it's easy to lose focus.

Guys, plural?

Phil you're just reading insults in where they don't exist. I have no intention whatsoever to offend you or anyone. But you should feel ashamed of your baseless viewpoints.

"Poorly worded question." That's sounds kind of funny now. 63 people so far have managed to answer a yes or a no to the simply worded question "Is life a dream?" What makes them so different?

Originally posted by fluid phil
Now I KNOW you must be doing a 'logic' study unit because this is the sort of inane, insular statement only a young student studying logic could be arsed to write. I was using this absurdist device to further illustrate my point that the way *homosapians circa 2005 PERCIEVE reality is not neccesarily what REALITY actually is.

Absurdist device? iwogioermgy3h9w9m. That's an absurdist device.

If you want to do some postmodernist poetry, please, by all means go to the art section.

Oh, and here's a tip Nine. Just cos you write a little side-note that states that you should not take what you say as the behaviour of an arrogant prick, doesn't then mean you can then act like an arrogant prick with complete imunity.[/b]

Aha, so you think there's actually objectivity to my supposed arrogance? Interesting! We can use that as a starting point. Because, really, how do you know you're not just dreaming?

Originally posted by Ex Nine

Newsflash: This isn't the International Philosophers Discussion discussion forum, either.

NEWSFLASH: \"is life a dream?\" is a philosophical question. you brought it up.

still don't know how math got into this.

That's a closed-minded viewpoint, isn't it? Cutting yourself off from science? [/b]

we're \"cutting ourselves off\" from science because science doesn't have much to do with dreaming. how scientific is the question \"is life a dream?\" don't you understand there are things beyond the realms of science, math and logic?

If it clarifies, please automatically fill in the words \"I think\" throughout my posts. You may safely assume that whatever I write is what \"I think.\" After all, I am saying it. [/b]

no. it doesn't work like that. everything you've said you've said with the attitude of "i know. and you don't."

Originally posted by djaio
NEWSFLASH: \"is life a dream?\" is a philosophical question. you brought it up.

No it isn't, not necessarily. Open your mind a little!

still don't know how math got into this.[/b]

Your previous statement shows you didn't read the thread and this one does too. You do a lot more disrespect to me by not reading and then criticizing than I ever could by arrogance.

we're \"cutting ourselves off\" from science because science doesn't have much to do with dreaming.[/b]

Then you don't understand science.

This makes sense because, well, you cut yourself off from it, haven't you? That could easily preclude you from understanding it.

how scientific is the question \"is life a dream?\"[/b]

It can be very scientific! Finding a demonstrable answer to that question is practically the definition of answering that question scientifically.

don't you understand there are things beyond the realms of science, math and logic?[/b]

Certainly. But, then again, given that science is inductive perpetually, all we can really say is that they are beyond science for the moment.

no. it doesn't work like that. everything you've said you've said with the attitude of \"i know. and you don't.\"[/b]

I am always, always always always open to correction. I actively look for it. I seek out people who will correct my mistakes and improve me.

I'm hoping it will happen in this thread. Eventually. Some smart person want to join in?

I love learning. And as it happens I think there's no such thing as being too open-minded. It's a shame that you do not seem interested in the same.

Ok...I'm not smart and in no way consider myself smart, I just decided to rejoin because I re-read the whole thread, and realized my first post was stuid and non-sensical, due to lack of sleep. Which is no excuse, I know.

After reading what has been going on, I've come to this conclusion. You (ExNine) are looking for empircal proof that life is not a dream. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll go on assuming I'm correct for right now. I jsut don't think there can be a singular empircal answer to this question, there has to be rational involved. I can't get my head around the idea of using physics and nature to prove something that is metaphysical and rational. While it is possible to use physics to lead us to a higher thinking, the answer has to come from us. As much as I hate to say it (in fear of the response I'll get from you) philosophy has to be involved here. *ducks down and shields her body from expected blows*

Of course I don't mean the kind of half-dazed "what is life" philosophy, I mean philosophy from the philosophers, like Plato, Descartes, Kant, heck why not even the Tao Te Ching?
I've read The Republic, and I would like to think that Plato's allegory of the Cave could be beautifully applied to this question. If life is dream them, we must wake up and free ourselves from the cave and the screen to find ulitimate truth. Or perhaps the pursuit of the "Good" is the dream that we are living.

But once again, that's a little to much philo than I feel that you would like to hear.

I think it is also to define the terms more than you alreadly have. I really find your definition of life as the "living state of a human being" (I think that's what it is) to be begging the question. The reasoning behind this is circular and not going to get us anywhere in this debate.

I think life would be better defined as our world surrounding us in which we are limited by social costructs and physics. Is that life a dream? I'm not quite sure yet (even though I voted "yes" way back when). My mind is in the middle, just questioning.

I hope that gave you something to think about. I hope.

And your reference to Descartes' cogito ergo su reminded me of a joke my philosophy teacher told me :
All the great philosophers are at a party and a waiter comes around and asks Descartes if he would like a snack. Descartes answers "I think not" and disappears with a poof.

Doesn't sound as funny in type. Oh well.

Originally posted by Placebo

Science is a tool. Nothing more. Ignoring it would cause you to be potentially throw away the knowledge and wisdom that could come of understanding science's point of view.
This is not to say that science is necessarily always right, but a lot of thought has gone into it. That makes it worth considering when evaluating your belief/knowledge systems.

I view science as incomplete. Instead, I take metaphysics (hello old debate). If we consider the possibilities when dreaming, and also the possibilities allowed by metaphysics, they may just be the same. Science comes up the short straw and the weak link. << Ex Nine, that was my consideration of science.

I have another bone to pick with science, but I'll leave that aside.

Here's an interesting though. A long time ago, there used to be physical laws that things obeyed on earth, and separate laws for the universe. Some genius came along and said "There could be only one set of laws". I think it was Newton who did that.

Now, when we dream, our dreams adhere to an entirely unexpected set of laws. Whenever we dream, the same physical/universal laws can be observed in addition to others, i.e. levitation of objects. I want to further push that point and say "There can still be only one set of laws".

What that means is that dreams actually do exist at a physical location, and whatever may happen in a dream may also happen here on earth. If you want me to show you I may control things on earth like in a dream, you will have to wait for me to become lucid while I'm awake.

DistantClone, thank you. you put my thoughts into words flawlessly. the way i see it, whatever we can do in a dream we can do in real life. lucid living is my ultimate goal - my dream, i guess.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

NEWSFLASH: \"is life a dream?\" is a philosophical question. you brought it up.[/b]

No it isn't, not necessarily. Open your mind a little! [/b][/quote]

it's a hell of a lot more philosophical than it is mathematical.

Then you don't understand science. [/b]

ok, there's the mechanics of REM sleep. that's about the only science i can think of that fits in here. if you think that can add to the understanding of the topic question, go ahead.

I am always, always always always open to correction. I actively look for it. I seek out people who will correct my mistakes and improve me. [/b]

ok, here's a correction: if you want to talk about math, start another topic about it. people that come into this topic want to discuss the question "is life a dream?" not watch you go off about something hardly anyone understands anyway.