Is life a dream?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.


[Edit: I don't mean metaphorically, similarly, or figuratively]

[Edit: I'm not looking for a poetic answer]

[Edit: Nor am I looking for a complete single word definition of life]

[i][Edit: In other words, substituting the dictionary definitions of the words "life" and "dream" in for each other respectively, Is the state of being alive as a human being a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep?

[Edit: 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 of the subjects in question, life and dreams. That's why this is in the general discussion area.]

[Edit: There's something on your face. Right next to your...There... It's gone now.]

[Edit: This is NOT necessarily a philosophical question. For example, finding a demonstrable answer to this question is practically the definition of answering it scientifically. Answer it however you feel like. But have the courage to open your mind a little. It really does take courage!]

The morning after the Buddha had achieved enlightenment, He was sitting under a tree. Because of the great amount of peace coming from him, a man stopped and stared, unused to seeing someone so tranquil, so radient. He knelt down in front of the Buddha, who was meditating and asked him these questions:

"Noble Sir--Are you a god?"
The Buddha smiled and replied, "No I am not a god".
The man asked, "Are you an angel?"
Once again the Buddha smiled. "No, I am not an angel."
The man, puzzled then asked him one more question; "What are you then?"

And the Buddha replied,

"I AM AWAKE".

So not a dream, then?

everyone knows that life is not a dream...
its a nightmare
that you cant awake from...

:mad:

...Merrily merrily merrily...

One day Mark the Bonehead was sitting under a tree.
A man walked by and asked "Are you a god?"
To which he responded, "No, you're thinking of Numbass."
Then he asked "Are you an angel?"
To which he answered "Nope, their wings aren't so bat-like"
Then the man asked "Well what are you?"
To which he responded "I'm the guy that stole your wallet." at which point he mugged him.

True story.

What makes the dream we call life difrent from the dreams when we "sleep"? Simple... The rules. it´s not our dream so we dont make the rules. we are mearly Dream carecters in someones dream.

Oh I just knew that it was going to be appallingly close to 50/50.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raz
What makes the dream we call life difrent from the dreams when we \"sleep\"? Simple... The rules. it´s not our dream so we dont make the rules. we are mearly Dream carecters in someones dream.

---

There are no rules in a dream. It doesn't matter who's dreaming it. That's the point!

IN life, what we do affects other peoples' lives. Also, there are limits to what we can do or be. In dreams we can do or be anything without affecting anyone but our selves. Life is not a Dream.

I'll say Life is Life is Real is Constant whether one views it as a dream or not.

We'd have to take into account the humans inhabiting this Earth, or at least the ones that we know of. Would they be Dream Characters?

Sure, in a dream DC's can question their own reality when it is the Dreamer's mind that is supplying the script. If this life were a dream, who's mind is behind it?

This is absolute reality...I'm less I'm someone's DC. Heh!

Well I've always wondered if maybe we are a dream...of god? Then again as a Hindu this really doesn't line up with my religious beliefs so...

There's book called Sophie's World, and Sophie thinks she's a real person but it turns out shes a character in some other persons book and like its weird, but somewhat like this question. Is our reality our's or someone elses?

I dont think like is a dream...it just is.

Although if this really is a dream i dont have to worry about college then or my 4.0...hmm tempting...

A good proposition is falsifiable. Emphasis on the "able" part, which does not necessarily mean that is true or false. Just that it can potentially be shown false.

Consider the proposition, "life is a dream." How would we go about showing that is false? We could consider the properties of dreams, and then if we could show how life doesn't have those properties, we would show that it doesn't have the properties of dreams and, therefore, is not a dream. It can get messy if the independent meaning of "life" and "dream" are in flux for you. Is your mind naturally trying to absorb one concept into the other? Put that to a halt and decide what each means to you separately. They are separate words, after all, and separate vessels for meaning.

Consider the proposition, "life is God's dream." Now it's more complicated. Now we've added a third concept that is in extreme flux. The falsifiability of this statement is remote if you do not have some static idea on what each of those things are in the first place.

Well, I vote yes. Follow this logic if you want to know why:

It's reasonable to believe that one day, in all infinity of time, we would be able to create a virtual world, with truly intelligent 'creatures'.
Those creatures, in the infinity of time, could in turn create their own intelligent creatures.
And so on, and so forth.

This results in an infinity of intelligent creatures, where only the infinite minority are in the 'real world'
Whats the chances that you and me are those creatures?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine

There are no rules in a dream. It doesn't matter who's dreaming it. That's the point!

---

Ah! But you are wrong there! In your dreams you can make your own rules (or have no rules, how ever you want to put it). In this dream of life the dreamer goes by the rules of physics and logic (mostly). As a DC you cant brake the rules of the dream, mearly make the best of given situation. This dreamer is experiancing everything living on earth all at once. Hard for us humans to think of a dream on that scale as we always dream and live from our own point of view...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Placebo
Well, I vote yes. Follow this logic if you want to know why:

It's reasonable to believe that one day, in all infinity of time, we would be able to create a virtual world, with truly intelligent 'creatures'.
Those creatures, in the infinity of time, could in turn create their own intelligent creatures.
And so on, and so forth.

This results in an infinity of intelligent creatures, where only the infinite minority are in the 'real world'
Whats the chances that you and me are those creatures?

---

Very thoughtful Placebo. I wonder, in creating this virtual world, what boundaries or laws would have to be placed. The intelligent creatures will figure out that their world had an origin and will wonder who the intelligent creator is and what purpose they were created for.

If no way of crossing into our 'real' world is made available to them, will they have the capability of breaking out of theirs and into ours?

Would this really be considered a dream if they are living their 'reality'? Oh I forgot, this is the question!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Genjyo

Very thoughtful Placebo. I wonder, in creating this virtual world, what boundaries or laws would have to be placed. The intelligent creatures will figure out that their world had an origin and will wonder who the intelligent creator is and what purpose they were created for.

---

Yep, much like us.

Quote:

---

If no way of crossing into our 'real' world is made available to them, will they have the capability of breaking out of theirs and into ours?[/b]

---

If our parent civilisation facilitated this, wouldn't this be the same as being 'taken up to heaven' ? ;)
Kinda like being placed into a robot in order to experience the world above ours.

I am willing to say when we live we are asleep and when we "die" we wake up. I vote Yes, and I too like Placebo's inductive argument.

I find it incomprehensible that I have lived a life tens of thousands times longer( by saying that 8 hours of sleep really equals 16 years) than my current life and have no memory of it.

I believe when I die I will be dead and not alive

I believe that life is not a dream. It may be just a step on a journey, but I sincerely doubt it is a dream.

Err.... This is some deep philosophy, and one I'm not that good at discussing... I think I'll just leave it at what I've said so far. I can't think up any good point to either support/refute my theory.

interseting placebo. unfortunately i cant have this discussin with you becuase im a dumb ass and hasnt had time to form his own opinions or think about like that much yet. (im only fifteen). thtas no good excuse, but i l really wanna talk about this! oh well. soon, maybe.

The argument has been made that real life has rules and therefore cannot be confused with a dream because they have no rules. Those concrete and infallible rules have been broken a time or two. Changeing matter, controlling the weather, levitating, and even bringing the dead back to life. Proof? It's in a well documented book one can find almost anywhere. There are many as well that agree, everything in this book is true. Ask just about anyone, it's the bible.

Not a Christian, don't believe in God, need more proof?

How about the US government? There are many studies that are well doucumented. Used top researchers and the scientific method with pages and pages of data for those that need something stale and clinical. The US government thought it was a good idea and put many to work that could bend the rules so to speak. The government likes to bend the rules.

Don't trust the government? I don't blame you.

How about your local police force? There are many that have used the employ of so called phycics that bent the rules and knew things they shouldn't know. There are many well documented cases of those as well that have led to successful arrests when all other leads were used up.

Hell, even old Albert E. with pure mathamatics showed us that time is an allusion of perception.

I say life is a dream only as an analogy for lack of a better word. It is what it is no matter what term we tag it with. We think as a society that we pretty well have it all figured out. What a laugh! I think for the most part we haven't even a clue.

willthepathfinder, nobody knows all the rules for reality. What you call breaking or bending the rules can just as easily be called an exposition of the rules. Einstein didn't bend any laws of the universe that I know of.

Remember, I'm seriously into investigations of the paranormal too. So, don't read me as antagonizing when I say, for the love of Christmas, just because the government does something, that doesn't mean they made a smart decision. That's the second time today I've seen someone make that fallacy. It's just rampant in the paranormal community.

The same goes for cops. And there are plenty of documented failures of psychic investigations too. Time will tell on that one. I'll be glad to see more attempts and obviously more success, if it can be had.


Those of you who think life is a dream are open-minded, right? From now on, every time you watch The Matrix, make an effort to spend the same amount of time watching The Mechanical Universe or something similar. You can watch it for free at that link after signing up.

Yes. The way we percieve reality in life is very similar (if not exactly the same) as the way we percieve reality in a dream. It would be a huge benefit to us not to strictly differentiate between the two the way we currently do. To view the world as if a dream would go a long way to us overcoming our biologically ingrained attachment to the world of the senses that can cause us much pain and misery. Everything is temporary in this universe. Refer my rantings entitled "Battle for your Soul"
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23149

fluid phil, the next time you watch The Matrix, will you match it by watching two hours of The Mechanical Universe?

In tibetan tantric dream yoga practices, one moves through the stages of awareness in different states of sleep--dream, lucid dream, active dream, awakened dreaming and a state of total lucidity or Clear Light.

Lucid dreaming as is practiced by most of us, myself included, is just one of the first stages in dream yoga. Like physical yoga, it just takes time to stretch those muscles and tendons by practice, practice, practice.

Life is an unconcious dream for most of us, a nightmare for some of us, a lucid dream for others. Then there's those few doing something else....

Now I thought I made it clear. I guess I didn't.

I didn't say old Albert bent any rules, I just said he showed us mathmatically reality is not the way we perceive it.

As far as the government goes, I thought I implied well enough that I don't trust them very well at all. I guess I should have said it outright.

Psychics in the employ of law inforcement? Yes, there are charlatans every where but, what about the ones that solved the case when disciplined and educated detectives couldn't?

I was simply trying to give documented examples of reality not being what it seems for those that need plausable proof, if they cared to look into it.

The world of concrete laws are not as concrete as they may seem. If one cares to look and not just blow them all off. Reason is a good tool for debunking just about everything without truely answering anything. Yes, I said it. Perhaps that is another thread in the making but, I don't think reason alone can answer all questions.

As far as life being some sort of dream, I said it already, it's an analagy for lack of a better word.

We have no idea what life is really about, so trying to find one simple word to define it is next to impossible.

Well, will, we're not enemies here. I think our words are crossing somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by willthepathfinder
As far as life being some sort of dream, I said it already, it's an analagy for lack of *a better word.

---

Then you don't think it actually is a dream. There. That was simple, wasn't it? ;)

Quote:

---

We have no idea what life is really about, so trying to find one simple word to define it is next to impossible.[/b]

---

But, didn't you just use the word "life?" :) I'm not looking for a definition of life here. I was just wondering if people see life and a dream as synonymous. You don't seem to, but you seem to like a figurative relationship.

I'm not looking for poetry. I suppose I should've said that in the first post.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I love to hear other peoples opinion. I will be the first one to admit, I'm human and don't have all the answers. I have my opinions but, hey I could be wrong. What the hell do I know? Besides that, I love someone who can stick to thier guns and give plausable reason why. That's how we figure all this s$%t out, right? I'm just like any other guy, I'll latch on to what explaines my world best for me untill I find something better. Debate with others is a wonderfull thing. It makes one think in ways you wouldn't otherwise. Even though we may not see eye to eye, it's all still soaking in and I'll be chewing on it till my nest post. And perhaps I'll be forced to revise my opinions on this or that topic. This is a good thing, and so is a diference in oppinion. :wink:

Life is a dream, we just haven't become lucid - awake - yet.

duh.iI thought that was obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by djaio
Life is a dream, we just haven't become lucid - awake - yet.

duh.iI thought that was obvious.

---

How can it be obvious to you if you're not awake yet?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
How can it be obvious to you if you're not awake yet?

---

Exactly what I was thinking after reading that ;)
If you're not truly lucid, then how can you know you're dreaming. You find this in lucid dreams as well, the action of questioning the dream seems to have a hand in making you lucid.

BTW, some people believe in fairies and think that it's obvious that they exist.

Perhaps a better question would be, "Is life an allusion?" Can we know everything about ourselves and the world with our limited five senses?

We contrive devices to probe our world deeper, but with our current concept of reality and limited senses. The data we attain is then interpereted with our limited perception.

Think of how far we have come from a thousand years ago and then think about a thousand years from now. I imagin that there will be many who will wonder how we could be so dumb.

Maybe we are living in a dream.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by willthepathfinder
Perhaps a better question would be, \"Is life an allusion?\" Can we know everything about ourselves and the world with our limited five senses?

We contrive devices to probe our world deeper, but with our current concept of reality and limited senses. The data we attain is then interpereted with our limited perception.

Think of how far we have come from a thousand years ago and then think about a thousand years from now. I imagin that there will be many who will wonder how we could be so dumb.

Maybe we are living in a dream.

---

What a good point willthepathfinder
This is why I could not answer with just a yes or no answer.
While life might, in light of science not technically be a dream, many of us may be living a a state of unawareness. a dream like state.
WAKE UP :!:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by willthepathfinder
Perhaps a better question would be, \"Is life an allusion?\"

---

An allusion is an indirect reference to something. What do you think life is indirectly referring to? Or do you mean \"illusion?\"

Quote:

---

Can we know everything about ourselves and the world with our limited five senses?[/b]

---

We have more than five senses. It's an incredible failing of modern schooling that people aren't commonly aware of this. Just outright a grade F. [i][Edit: Schools are failing

Medical science has shown the existent independence of the kinesthetic sense and the vestibular sense. Also, through victims of certain kinds of sensory paralysis, we know that touch is actually a conglomeration of other independent senses, including heat and pain.

Science is and always has been in the business of discovering new senses.

Quote:

---

We contrive devices to probe our world deeper, but with our current concept of reality and limited senses. The data we attain is then interpereted with our limited perception.

---

Another failing of schooling. ;) I really mean to accommodate us while saying that. I am not saying that you are faulted, but that the teachers and governments who have assumed the role of guiding us have done a poorible job. It's so bad I feel the need to construct a new word for it, meaning both poor and horrible.

That data we attain is interpreted with the use of mathematics. Nothing in mathematics is dependent on perception. That's the whole point.

Quote:

---

Think of how far we have come from a thousand years ago and then think about a thousand years from now. I imagin that there will be many who will wonder how we could be so dumb.[/b]

---

They'll probably just think of our ideas as quaint. For example, when Copernicus said that the Earth was moving through space, there were many logical questions to challenge that statement. If the Earth is spinning, why aren't we flying off of it? Kids have the same questions when they hear that the Earth is moving, and no one would seriously say they are dumb. Their questions reveal their intelligence.

If anything, they will think of our questions as extremely intelligent, the same way we look back on the questions of others with reverence, while knowing their fruits.

Quote:

---

Maybe we are living in a dream.[/b]

---

Notice how different that is, though, from saying, "maybe I am living in a dream." That's essentially the same as, "maybe I am dreaming," and produces a touchstone for lucidity. However, when you say, "maybe we are living in a dream," then who is the dreamer? Us? God? Amorphous matter? Suzy?

If you can't identify the dreamer, you cannot know that life is a dream.


I really should have made it clear in the first post that I wasn't looking for metaphor, simile, allegory, figurative language, or other poetic devices.

Howetzer, for example, if I had asked for that, it might have made your answer a whole lot easier. You do not appear to think that life is a dream but rather that it is dream-like, in which case your answer would be a "no."

Man! You really love to pick apart every little detail don't you.

Yes, my spelling sucks and often I type a little to quick and hit send. Jeez.

The fact that we continue to revise our ideas on what and how we perceve and with what senses and how many just prooves the limitations of our senses and perception.

Mathmatics is pure and dosen't involve the faculty of perception? Wow, you're right, schools do pump a lot of crap into our heads!

Life is a dream, life is like a dream, life has dream like tendancies. Life is a broad topic and I don't think a simple word or phrase will encompass it. So, in a sense the statement, "Is life a dream?" is a trick question.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Howetzer, for example, if I had asked for that, it might have made your answer a whole lot easier. You do not appear to think that life is a dream but rather that it is dream-like, in which case your answer would be a \"no.\"

---

Well pardon me Ex Nine! But sometimes there is too much grey area for me to give a yes or no direct answer.
Yes I tend to lean towards that life is dream-like. But to me that is far from no!
If I could not give a yes or no answer in a yes or no poll then, I maybe should have not posted. My apologies

Quote:

---

Originally posted by willthepathfinder
Man! You really love to pick apart every little detail don't you.

---

It happens when I don't understand something. ;)

[quote]Well pardon me Ex Nine! But sometimes there is too much grey area for me to give a yes or no direct answer.
Yes I tend to lean towards that life is dream-like. But to me that is far from no!
If I could not give a yes or no answer in a yes or no poll then, I maybe should have not posted. My apologies

Oh no, I should be apologizing! And I do apologize. As I've said before, I did not clarify my meaning in the question.

Actually, I should thank you. Because you just helped me prove that "Is life a dream?" is a poor question. All questions are good in at least some sense, but some are plainly more insightful and penetrating than others. And much of science is concerned with finding the right questions to ask. This one is not high on the list.

"Is this a dream?" or "Am I dreaming?" are essential questions for everyone concerned with having a lucid dream, and that includes all of us here. We can't become lucid in a dream without them. Substantively answering them in the affirmative literally give us the definition for "lucid dream," dreaming while knowing you are dreaming. Those questions lead to the wonderful discovery of lucid dreaming.

"Is life a dream?" is a poor question, much like "Are we a dream?" and "Is reality a dream?" They are all poor questions. All questions have some value, but these don't have much. These are an intellectual pauper's questions in my opinion. People who pursue these questions for a long time are people who do not want to know very much about life, people, or reality.

If only for the reason that there are better questions.

---------

Why did I ask it if I don't think it's a good question? Good question ;)

So many people make the claim that life is a dream or is indistinguishable from a dream, therefore making it synonymous with a dream. I'm disheartened by those people and I wanted to see how many of you agreed with this claim in the simplest way possible. The results were about what I expected from DV after having been here a couple months - a majority of "no," which is why I stay here, but a sizable minority of "yes," which means I have to continually brace myself for posts of that nature.

I still haven't found anyone who will agree to my Matrix/Mechanical Universe challenge.

There is no such thing as a stupid question, just a stupid answer :P
Sorry, just had to ... *grimaces*

I apologize if I come off a little abstract at times. It's not always easy to put an idea into words that everyone can follow. I try but, someone will always read something else into it. I'm sure you can relate.

Life is a dream, a big shared dream that we all have a part in creating. We all have a part to play and a contrbution to it. Does that mean it's not real? Ya it's real. What comes first the dream or the reality? One must have a dream first before it can become a reality. And since it's a shared dream, other peoples dreams can become our reality as well. Whether we accept that or not is entirely up to us. What you accept becomes your reality.

If life is a dream then the question becomes how do we make it a lucid dream. Alot of post have been saying that life isn't a dream becuase there are "rules" in life. When we dream a non lucid dream there are "rules" as in we are unable to controll the dream and we are unaware that it is a dream.




Wait am I high...

I don't know and so I voted yes to piss Ex Nine off.

We really don't have a way of knowing what dreams are, or of what their relationship with life is. Dreams would seem to be a part of life, and so it would be inappropriate to call life a dream, but that doesn't mean that we truly know what life is, or what dreams are.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
I don't know and so I voted yes to piss Ex Nine off.

We really don't have a way of knowing what dreams are, or of what their relationship with life is. Dreams would seem to be a part of life, and so it would be inappropriate to call life a dream, but that doesn't mean that we truly know what life is, or what dreams are.

---

You said you didn't know, but then you said no.

Okay, wait, I'm grappling with this... you said, "It would be inappropriate to call life a dream." For what other reason would it be inappropriate to call life a dream than for the reason that it's not a dream?

You say that we don't know what life truly is or what dreams are. But that's not a sufficient reason.

For example, I don't truly know what's in the book War and Peace. I've never read it. But I know that it doesn't include a hundred-page treatise on Coulomb's law of electric fields. And, of course, I don't truly know the subtleties of Coulomb's law either. How can I not truly know either War and Peace or Coulomb's law and yet know they are not, in at least one sense, one in the same? I really do think that is an interesting question! They were both known at the same time period. Tolstoy might have heard of Coulomb's law and War and Peace is certainly large enough that it might have an idiosyncratic mention - but certainly not a hundred-page treatise. How do I know that? Really, I think that is a great question.

The answer, though, turns out to be, because I do have at least a rudimentary understanding of both. One is a work of historical fiction about Russia encompassing a large number of years and focuses on human emotional events, military strategy, and political philosophy. The other would be a work of science, nonfiction, without human emotional events or political philosophy.

You may think I am the one being idiosyncratic here, for life and dreams aren't anything like War and Peace and Coulomb's law, right? But whatever we don't truly know might as well be a book we haven't read or a law of nature we haven't discovered. We do know something about this book and we have experienced something about this nature.

So, even though we don't truly know what life or dreams are, all of us here have a rudimentary understanding of both. Without that, of course, we wouldn't even be able to speak of them. That rudimentary understanding can be shown by their dictionary definitions.

dream - a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep.

life - the state of being alive as a human being.

We often refer to dreams as the "dream state." So this makes the question very sensible. No tricks.

Is the state of being alive as a human being a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep?

That's the question I meant to ask. :whyme:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine


How can it be obvious to you if you're not awake yet?

---

how do i put this... it's obvious to a part of my mind. the dreamer(pun?), the philosopher in me knows that i have the ability to walk outside right now and fly into the air. but the more physical, practical part of me - my body, i guess - still has its doubts.

if i had complete faith with every part of my being that life is a dream with limitless possibilities, i'd be flying in the clouds right now.

changing the subject a little... i think the poll question is much too simplified. it's not one of those things you can force a yes/no answer to. sometimes you have to give a poetic answer. i think life is a dream...but not the same kind of dream we experience each night. 'dream' is just the best word.

kind of like asking if you believe in god. unless you're a devout christian or a diehard athiest, it just isn't a yes or no question. [/i]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine

Is the state of being alive as a human being a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep?

That's the question I meant to ask. :whyme:

---

the question is more open then you realize.

here, look at your definitions of life and dream:

Quote:

---

life - the state of being alive as a human being. [/b]

---

What is \"alive\"? doesn't that just mean \"having life\"? which brings us right back to the question \"what is life?\" so your definition of life really says nothing.

Quote:

---

dream - a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep. [/b]

---

What are thoughts? can we really agree that dreaming happens in the mind? What is sleep? when you say "sleep" what immediately comes to mind is a person lying in their bed, unconscious. but sleep could also mean other things. for instance, 'asleep' is a good word for the state of unawareness, unenlightenment, etc.

it's like when the Buddha says "I am awake." yes, we know he's physically conscious, but he meant something deeper than that.

that's the nature of words. they depend on people's differing minds to gain meaning. we may think we have a universal understanding of words like life, death, dream, love... but they're open to interpretation. in fact, their meaning depends on your interpretation.

if you've seen the movie Waking Life, the part near the beginning when the girl is talking about the word Love sums up pretty well what I'm trying to say.

yeah...sorry if my thoughts are scattered, it's 7 AM and i haven't slept all night. wish i could dig up better words to express my ideas. i guess my whole point is, the question "is life a dream?" is by its nature an open question that demands more than "yes" or "no" - and no matter how you try, you can't change that nature.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by djaio
how do i put this... it's obvious to a part of my mind. the dreamer(pun?), the philosopher in me knows that i have the ability to walk outside right now and fly into the air. but the more physical, practical part of me - my body, i guess - still has its doubts.

if i had complete faith with every part of my being that life is a dream with limitless possibilities, i'd be flying in the clouds right now.

---

So, you have complete faith that complete faith makes a difference?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine


So, you have complete faith that complete faith makes a difference. Is that right?

---

If you really put it into context of our brains and the way they are manipulated. Or better, I should say disillusioned it is rather vexing. But true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine


So, you have complete faith that complete faith makes a difference?

---

um, sure? i don't really know how to answer that. what's the point of this question?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by djaio
um, sure? i don't really know how to answer that. what's the point of this question?

---

Because, if you have complete faith in the efficacy of complete faith, why is it so difficult for you to have complete faith that reality is a dream and then go around flying? You already have complete faith, so shouldn't that complete faith be making a difference?

Your complete faith in the efficacy of complete faith, combined with your inability to have complete faith, is an inescapable contradiction.

If life WAS a dream and we were all members of it, surely at least one person would have discovered lucidity and would be flying around making things appear and stuff.....

So my answer is no, life is in no way a dream in the sense that my other body is laying in bed right now creating my surroundings.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine


Because, if you have complete faith in the efficacy of complete faith, why is it so difficult for you to have complete faith that reality is a dream and then go around flying? You already have complete faith, so shouldn't that complete faith be making a difference?

Your complete faith in the efficacy of complete faith, combined with your inability to have complete faith, is an inescapable contradiction.

---

wow. you're putting way too much thought into this.

i don't know all about how my mind works. it's not like i can rate my faith on a scale of 1 to 10. but to answer your question, no, i guess i don't have complete faith in my complete faith. next are you going to ask me if i have complete faith that i don't have complete faith that i have complete faith?

Quote:

---

If life WAS a dream and we were all members of it, surely at least one person would have discovered lucidity and would be flying around making things appear and stuff..... [/b]

---

we're still struggling with control of our dreams, and that's the few of us that are trying. patience. humanity is young.

That is scarily close to 50/50...

There exists a continuity that is hard to ignore. From birth to death, a human being interacts with a gradually changing, yet constant universe. Now, billions of human lives inhabit this blue planet, not to mention countless animal and plant life.

Every cross relationship would also be questionable to reality, if one were to imply their surroundings were just a dream. Usually, dreams mirror the reality we know of and our mind reconstructs what it can. Spotting an inconsistency may trigger lucidity. When we wake up, we look for that constant to let us know this is in fact real life, where cause and effect do have consequences.

Dreaming can resemble reality, our senses are active I suppose, but I believe the reality will only be known when it is scrutinized for inspection and you take into account our memory. Memory and history, though not synonyms, are necessary to distinguish a chronological and cohesive order. In real life, we have people, written records, and Nature itself to attest to the validity of it all.

The real challenge would be to prove this exact location, moment, and place is not real.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine

Genjyo, that was awesome.

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :sunflower:

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :roll:
Anyway, looks like the thread is getting going nicely now.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.\"

Quote:

---

It just does what it does.[/b]

---

Obviously.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

... 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DistantClone

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.

---

I've now read this three times, and I still don't understand what you mean.
Dreams exist at a physical location, because the neuronal sorcery going on at night shows laws other than our waking laws?
To me that's like saying that I can call fire from the heavens in my computer games, and they have to conform to the physical laws, so that means I should be able to indeed call fire from the heavens??

The neuronal wizardry taking place during your dreams still conforms to science as best as we can make out. Why do the artificial environments created by dreams have to be related to our waking reality?

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to believe this, but I can't see how. The tibetan dream yogis seemed to believe the same. They practiced lucid dreaming control in order to show that the real world is much the same and can also be controlled.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Placebo

To me that's like saying that I can call fire from the heavens in my computer games, and they have to conform to the physical laws, so that means I should be able to indeed call fire from the heavens??

---

you aren't calling fire from the heavens in your computer games. you're pressing keys so your animated spirte can.

while lucid dreaming, YOU are the one calling fire from the heavens. sounds like technical nitpicking, but it makes a difference. while dreaming, you are using your own mind and will and body to call that fire. what's to say doing it in a waking state isn't possible? after all, the only reason you can call that fire from the heavens in your dream is because you know you're dreaming.

a little disclaimer about me...i'm an idealist, a dreamer. to me it makes perfect sense that we should be able to do whatever we want while awake. i'm probably insane, but who isn't these days?

That was a wonderful reply indianlinks, thank you very very much. I really can't tell you how refreshing that was.

I am looking for empirical evidence that life is not a dream, which is a subtle difference from empirical proof, because I do not think a large amount of truth can be found from empiricism alone. That's also another reason why mathematics is so interesting in its relationship to science. Mathematics by itself really has no empirical nature to speak of, aside from cases where it would be very abstract.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Indianlinks
I jsut don't think there can be a singular empircal answer to this question, there has to be rational involved.

---

I agree! I just think we need to open our minds to empiricism more.

Quote:

---

I can't get my head around the idea of using physics and nature to prove something that is metaphysical and rational[/b]

---

There is a time honored form of proof called "proof by contradiction." If we know that reality behaves a certain way, through empirical observation, and then show that an experience behaves contrary to that way, as in a dream, we can show that the experience is not reality in a proof by contradiction. Some rational philosophy can pick up where that proof lets off. "If an experience is not reality, then it must be a dream."

See? I'm not at all against philosophy. I just want an open-minded examination. :)

The above is actually similar to some thought processes I've had while attaining lucidity within dreams. In order for the argument to work, though, it is crucial that reality not be a dream, so that a dream itself can be proven by contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
There is a time honored form of proof called \"proof by contradiction.\" If we know that reality behaves a certain way, through empirical observation, and then show that an experience behaves contrary to that way, as in a dream, we can show that the experience is not reality in a proof by contradiction. Some rational philosophy can pick up where that proof lets off. \"If an experience is not reality, then it must be a dream.\"

---

i just got reminded of that simpson's episode where homer becomes a genius and shows flanders mathematical proof that god doesn't exist.

anyway, i guess that's it. Ex Nine just solved the mystery of life and dreams using the proof of contradiction. the topic's done. whoever leaves last, can you turn out the lights? thanks.

djaio, I just learned that have never had a lucid dream. Do you think that might be because you are unable to properly distinguish your dreams from reality?

I love lucid dreaming. I think lucid dreaming is everyone's birthright. If there's any way that I can help you achieve one, I'll do it. Lucidity is my central motivation here.

It would be much easier if you would assume that instead of getting me to prove it. I assume that your central motivation for coming to this forum is lucidity. Isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
That was a wonderful reply indianlinks, thank you very very much. I really can't tell you how refreshing that was.

I am looking for empirical evidence that life is not a dream, which is a subtle difference from empirical proof, because I do not think a large amount of truth can be found from empiricism alone. That's also another reason why mathematics is so interesting in its relationship to science. Mathematics by itself really has no empirical nature to speak of, aside from cases where it would be very abstract.

There is a time honored form of proof called \"proof by contradiction.\" If we know that reality behaves a certain way, through empirical observation, and then show that an experience behaves contrary to that way, as in a dream, we can show that the experience is not reality in a proof by contradiction. Some rational philosophy can pick up where that proof lets off. \"If an experience is not reality, then it must be a dream.\"

See? I'm not at all against philosophy. I just want an open-minded examination. :)

The above is actually similar to some thought processes I've had while attaining lucidity within dreams. In order for the argument to work, though, it is crucial that reality not be a dream, so that a dream itself can be proven by contradiction.

---

Why is it that life is a dream until proved otherwise? Why isn't it, life is not a dream until proven otherwise? Neither will be proved either way. So if that is the only way you can find resolve to the question, then be ready to live a life of uncertainty.

No. I'd say life iis not a dream, because 'I like the idea of the Dreamwordl being completely different than the Mechanical Universe, and that the Dreamworld has no laws to follow but those laws you put in it.

Quote:

---

djaio, I just learned that have never had a lucid dream. Do you think that might be because you are unable to properly distinguish your dreams from reality?

---

no. it's really the opposite...my dreams don't seem real enough. when i'm dreaming, it's like there's this cloud obscuring my senses...there's no visual detail, sound is fuzzy(if it's even there), i don't even feel like i'm really there - more like i'm watching my dream from someone else's viewpoint. it's like i'm dreaming about sleepwalking.

Quote:

---

I love lucid dreaming. I think lucid dreaming is everyone's birthright. If there's any way that I can help you achieve one, I'll do it. Lucidity is my central motivation here.

---

if you think anything you say can help me achieve it, by all means speak up.

[/quote]It would be much easier if you would assume that instead of getting me to prove it. I assume that your central motivation for coming to this forum is lucidity. Isn't it?[/quote]

yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Placebo
I've now read this three times, and I still don't understand what you mean.
Dreams exist at a physical location, because the neuronal sorcery going on at night shows laws other than our waking laws?

---

No actually I was going the other way with the implication. I believe that dreams actually have a place somewhere in outerspace. For example, two people could share a similar dream if they visit the same spot, or one person may have same dream more than once. When lucid, I've jumped out of the dreamscape and it left me right in outer space. Also, I've gone out of body and floated right into outer space. I did not observe any differences.

I'm leaning on the "dreams exist at a physical location in the universe" statement as a fact within my beliefs. Because dreams do exist in our universe, they must be governed by the same laws that the universe obeys. What we see in waking life seems to be a subset of what we see in our dreams. I'm saying what we do in our dreams we could also do here in life, upon "lucidity". We may need to define would it would mean to become lucid in waking life.

Further: When we turn lucid in this dream called life, we will be able to control things just like in a lucid dream. (Tangent to another thread) People are starting to wake up, as 2012 is nearing, I know I am. We are changing, it's almost graduation time (see "Ascension" if you are confused).

[Edit: Apologies for editing this post a bunch of times. This post was very challenging. I was just trying to make sure it's consistent and readable.]

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Why is it that life is a dream until proved otherwise? Why isn't it, life is not a dream until proven otherwise? Neither will be proved either way. So if that is the only way you can find resolve to the question, then be ready to live a life of uncertainty.[/b]

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Alucinor Architecton
No. I'd say life iis not a dream, because 'I like the idea of the Dreamwordl being completely different than the Mechanical Universe, and that the Dreamworld has no laws to follow but those laws you put in it.

---

This is a really great exchange, because in a sense I think you're both right.

We have to start somewhere, Awishstyle. Uncertainty is one thing but a complete lack of grounding in anything is another. Something must be axiomatic or, in other words, self-evident. It should be self-evident that life is not a dream.

But how do we know it's self-evident? What are the criteria for self-evidence? The criteria for self-evidence is entirely a philosophical matter and open to debate. Axioms cannot be proven by definition. "Is life a dream?" is not itself necessarily a philosophical question, but the criteria for self-evidence is.

Science takes empirical observations as the criteria for self-evidence.

Alucnior says it's self-evident that life is not a dream for the clarity of thought it brings to his observations of the dream world and the real world.

There's another word that means clarity of thought. "Lucidity."

Lucidity, especially (but not only) in the sense of lucid dreaming, is what we're all going for, regardless of what path we take to get it. Reaching it is the criteria for self-evidence.

It would follow that, if you do not say anything is self-evident, you are lucid of nothing.

What is lucidity? It is clarity of thought that can be applied to observation for the purposes of understanding, manipulating, and interacting with the observed.

To sum, I'm looking for empirical observations that life is not a dream so that through the philosophy of science it can be philosophically justified as self-evident that life is not a dream, for the purposes of bringing clarity of thought - Lucidity. The question "Is life a dream?" need not be philosophical, however, because we can still empirically define life and dreams separately and then, after their definitions are independently justified, show that they are not the same through analysis. Here, though, the question intersects with philosophy, but only to justify the self-evidence of the answer. The answer itself need not be philosophical, just be philosophically justified.

That's very abstract and complicated, I know, and I'm perfectly willing to recognize error and dissenting opinion if it exists. There may indeed be a circular argument in there somewhere, especially if your philosophy is that everything is philosophical. :P

Again, these claims are open to debate. I write in declarative sentences so that my claims may be easily understood, criticized, and refuted. Not as an implication that I am an authority figure. I fully recognize that I cannot prove axioms, and I that I cannot prove the self-evidence of something. I write declaratively to actually assist you in demonstrating that I'm wrong. If you think I write authoritatively, that's your opinion and simultaneously your loss.

Alucinor, if you watch The Mechanical Universe until the end they'll tell you that "scientists no longer believe in that universe," because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Why would they call the series "The Mechanical Universe," though, if scientists no longer think of it that way? For that matter, why would they teach a bunch of mechanics in first place? Because BOTH mechanics and quantum mechanics are extremely useful theories. They help us with our clarity of understanding reality. In that sense they help us become lucid of reality.

That both of them work so well is an unsolved mystery of modern physics. We know a great deal, but we don't know everything. There is no human authority to tell you how everything in the universe works. The only authority is the lucidity applicable to observation.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius

---

Quote:

---

I don't know and so I voted yes to piss Ex Nine off.

We really don't have a way of knowing what dreams are, or of what their relationship with life is. Dreams would seem to be a part of life, and so it would be inappropriate to call life a dream, but that doesn't mean that we truly know what life is, or what dreams are.

---

You said you didn't know, but then you said no.

Okay, wait, I'm grappling with this... you said, \"It would be inappropriate to call life a dream.\" For what other reason would it be inappropriate to call life a dream than for the reason that it's not a dream?

You say that we don't know what life truly is or what dreams are. But that's not a sufficient reason.

For example, I don't truly know what's in the book War and Peace. I've never read it. But I know that it doesn't include a hundred-page treatise on Coulomb's law of electric fields. And, of course, I don't truly know the subtleties of Coulomb's law either. How can I not truly know either War and Peace or Coulomb's law and yet know they are not, in at least one sense, one in the same? I really do think that is an interesting question! They were both known at the same time period. Tolstoy might have heard of Coulomb's law and War and Peace is certainly large enough that it might have an idiosyncratic mention - but certainly not a hundred-page treatise. How do I know that? Really, I think that is a great question.

The answer, though, turns out to be, because I do have at least a rudimentary understanding of both. One is a work of historical fiction about Russia encompassing a large number of years and focuses on human emotional events, military strategy, and political philosophy. The other would be a work of science, nonfiction, without human emotional events or political philosophy.

You may think I am the one being idiosyncratic here, for life and dreams aren't anything like War and Peace and Coulomb's law, right? But whatever we don't truly know might as well be a book we haven't read or a law of nature we haven't discovered. We do know something about this book and we have experienced something about this nature.

So, even though we don't truly know what life or dreams are, all of us here have a rudimentary understanding of both. Without that, of course, we wouldn't even be able to speak of them. That rudimentary understanding can be shown by their dictionary definitions.

dream - a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep.

life - the state of being alive as a human being.

We often refer to dreams as the \"dream state.\" So this makes the question very sensible. No tricks.

Is the state of being alive as a human being a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep?

That's the question I meant to ask. :whyme:[/b]

---

It's inappropriate to call life a dream because we don't know that it is, and by our general idea of a dream isn't compatible with it being life. But we are uncertain because we don't know if our definition is accurate. We think dreams occur during sleep and that life doesn't, but if you look at the definition for life, the state of being alive is really no different from "A series of thoughts, images, and sensations occuring in a person's mind." The only thing to distinguish dreams and life is our conception of sleep, but we could easily be in a sleep of the next degree dreaming of dreaming and life. Of course we have no way of knowing if life is a dream, and any theory about the relationship between life and dreams is as good as the next.

Bells, please read my latest post. I think I've made theoretical progress.

But I probably should respond to your post anyways, since you went through the trouble to write it.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

The only thing to distinguish dreams and life is our conception of sleep, but we could easily be in a sleep of the next degree dreaming of dreaming and life.[/b]

---

No, that totally destroys our conception of sleep. This is important because that further eliminates our conception of waking and therefore lucidity. By turning waking into sleeping and creating a hollow concept of waking, you make both concepts incomprehensible and empty meaning from the whole pursuit.

We know this because it leads to no conclusions, which is to say conclusions that go nowhere and help no one, like this one:

<!--QuoteBegin-Bells
Of course we have no way of knowing if life is a dream, and any theory about the relationship between life and dreams is as good as the next.

---

See? That argument goes nowhere because there's no knowledge to be had from it. It's totally useless. Throw it out.

Quote:

---

No, that totally destroys our conception of sleep.[/b]

---

so? maybe our conception of sleep is wrong. i think that's his point.

Quote:

---

See? That argument goes nowhere because there's no knowledge to be had from it. It's totally useless. Throw it out.[/b]

---

this is what we mean. you talk like you're some kind of authority in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by djaio
so? maybe our conception of sleep is wrong. i think that's his point.

---

No, I don't mean wrong. I mean nonexistent. Destroyed. Gone. Lost. Depleted.

Not false. But hollow. Blank. Perished. Defunct. Useless.

Very important distinction. [Edit: I'm not being sarcastic]

Quote:

---

this is what we mean. you talk like you're some kind of authority in this discussion.[/b]

---

You didn't read my previous post, did you? You disrespect me more by not reading what I have to say and then criticizing before I ever could by reading and then criticizing.

That's your uninformed opinion and your loss.

look, exnine. i try to read your posts. i read them through and through and all they give me is a headache. i'm not stupid. i just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

i normally understand ideas really well. but your mind seems to work in ways i can't keep up with, and you use language i simply don't understand. your topic question is a great question, and i'd love to discuss it. not using proofs and mathematical logic, but with human ideas and human language, that everyone can understand and relate to. don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-science. science has an enormous wealth of knowledge and it can add a lot to the discussion...but i shouldn't have to have a science major, or a huge vocabulary, just to participate in this discussion.

but in the meantime, your attitudes are really the only thing i can respond to.

Alright, thank you for your honesty. Please, when you don't understand something, it would really help to just say, "I don't understand," and then ask questions, because then maybe I can help you understand. There's also no shame in asking questions, asking for clarification, asking to elaborate on a specific point, etc.

Notice that understanding does not mean acceptance.

If I can help you understand that my own statements are wrong, that's just as good as helping you understand that they're right.

I have no wish to act as an authority figure and you would eventually find that out, if you didn't get caught up by appearances. Your fictitious ideas that I'm trying to act as an authority are giving ME a headache. It's ironic, because it's probably you acting as an authority of opinion on writing style. :) The truth is it's actually the opposite of what I'm trying to do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Earlier I
I write in declarative sentences so that my claims may be easily understood, criticized, and refuted. Not as an implication that I am an authority figure... I write declaratively to actually assist you in demonstrating that I'm wrong. If you think I write authoritatively, that's your opinion and simultaneously your loss.

---

That means I am trying make it easier for you to take the argument apart and look at simple, individual parts to analyze their validity. I really am trying to make it easier for you argue against. Your opinion about my writing style is secondary, and elevating it to primary is actually going to assist in preventing understanding.

Furthermore, there's no reason for me to write in an open discussion forum if I wanted my ideas to be interpreted as authority. That would be so foolish of a person, wouldn't it? There are people on this forum who do that, though, especially the religious nuts like Leo Volont and Awaken4e1, and I despise them for it.

And I would really thank you to forget you ever had that opinion of me.


You shouldn't be focusing on theory anyways, in my opinion. You should be worrying about actual practice. It's more important that you find a way to have lucid dreams. Then you can ponder about their existence later. ;)

The most important thing you can do is start a dream journal and write in it every single night. Regardless of theory, dream journaling is an enormously effective tool. Your dream fuzziness, however, means that you should write in more detail than would otherwise be necessary. Write everything you possibly can, even if it doesn't seem relevant at first. If you find that your dreams are too fuzzy to write much of anything, then speculate on what they might be about. If you hear a muffled sound, write everything that you think it might be. You are actually fortunate that you can remember anything at all about your dreams, and I don't foresee your fuzziness being a problem in the long term. But write. Write. Write. Write. Make it a habit. The point is to build upon a solid foundation in order to expand your awareness. I think you'll do fine.

But I must stress - there's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't understand someone. There's absolutely no shame in it whatsoever. If anything, it's because they did not do a good job of explaining, or because for simplicity they left something unexplained, in which case, you can help them help you by asking questions or arguing against specific points.

If they really are arguing from authority, notify a moderator. We don't need people like that here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Raz
What makes the dream we call life difrent from the dreams when we \"sleep\"? Simple... The rules. it´s not our dream so we dont make the rules. we are mearly Dream carecters in someones dream.

---

so it seems


there is no actualy definition of reality, we simply dont exist, but by contrast we have to exist, its impossible for us not to (or that is all that i can reason) but either way we are the imagination of ourselves

Quote:

---

\"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter in the universe is energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness sharing in itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is just a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves\"[/b]

---

Some of you tend to forget all too soon that you can tune into this dream and bend the rules a little and move around freely in it, using a non-physical vessel to explore a physical world...

its a dream built like a video game, you just gota understand that and be able to actually believe it, thats the part most people get stuck on, the ego and the psyche are not good things to have developed

You all must keep in mind also... we are all one, no matter how you look at it, reality is reality which is part of reality as we know it, of which the dream world is a part of and everything is connected in some way.

we are all made of atoms which at the core are just made of energy, everything, consciousness, that car, the entire earth, the entire universe... all of it is just energy, thats what you are...

now, there are an amazing amount of different types of energy (most not in a pure form as one might experience in a kundalini expereince, but that is irrelevent in the context) we have gravitational energy and electromagnetic energy, thermodynamic energy, we have thought energy, we have light energy, we have an infinte plethora of energy, or ways energy percieves reality, or ways it interacts with our so-called reality...

i am often confused as to why people let doctrines and beliefs get in the way of their perceptions...

Why on Earth is no one accusing Gus of writing authoritatively?

He just pronounced that someone's beliefs were getting in the way of perceiving reality. Then he supplanted those beliefs with a new one, professing that you have to believe the physical world is "a dream built like a video game" in order to perceive it correctly. To smooth this over, as if to alleviate the reader from feeling cognitively violated, he declared that the psyche and ego are "not good things to be developed."

Go on. I'm waiting.

I voted yes based on the that most of the time I can't tell if I'm dreaming and I think most of my dreams are real until I wake up except lucid ones. So maybe life is a "dream" and I won't realize it until the dream is over (death) or until I become "lucid". Just my point of view I hope I don't sound stupid. :santa:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bells@
The only thing to distinguish dreams and life is our conception of sleep, but we could easily be in a sleep of the next degree dreaming of dreaming and life.

---

No, that totally destroys our conception of sleep. This is important because that further eliminates our conception of waking and therefore lucidity. By turning waking into sleeping and creating a hollow concept of waking, you make both concepts incomprehensible and empty meaning from the whole pursuit.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bells

---

Quote:

---

Of course we have no way of knowing if life is a dream, and any theory about the relationship between life and dreams is as good as the next.

---

See? That argument goes nowhere because there's no knowledge to be had from it. It's totally useless. Throw it out.[/b]

---

Regarding 1st Quote: Bells' statement is only meaningless based on that specified concept of sleep. Who said our concept of sleep is correct? I happen to agree with Bells, and as of just today I'm starting to think we are both dreaming while we are waking, and doing other things too. Of course, we are not tuned in to any \"realities\" other than our waking one. Some of us are good at tuning in to our \"sleeping reality\", which makes vividness, lucidity easier.

Regarding 2nd Quote: Actually we do know that all possibilities still remain in tact. We know we have not over-specified anything. It may go nowhere, but at least we know it did not go the wrong direction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Why on Earth is no one accusing Gus of writing authoritatively?

---

I think it's clear from context that he's a little farther out on the limb. It's unsafe to speak from his point and call it truth. You stand closer towards the trunk, where you may easily say things as fact without much risk. In essence, you are on sturdier ground.

I said "No", mainly because I dont like the idea of life being JUST a dream. It's a depression thought really. Makes you feel lonely and isolated. Everything you see is just created in your mind. Pretty delusional, to be honest.

I agree with Phallam. It would be sort of like the Matrix, if it were....

Also, if it were true, then I would wake up and all that happened would be a figment of my imagination and I could never remember what happened... and then I'd have to start over... which would have its perks, if I learned from my mistakes. But, I say no.

It might be a dream yes. We might be plugged into a big computer like in the matrix.

But becouse that is outside of our reality, it does not matter. If we would wake up from this reality, we would enter another one. Another universe. But within This reality it does not matter weather we are dreaming or not.

A dream in essence is a reality in such a way that it on it self is true, but when we wake up, or know we will wake up it no longer is true. But evertime It can seem true.

This reality is real untill you find the higher reality, if there is one. But probably we will never know.

Although I'm probably late, I hope this is read. One thing I've learned through many days and nights of pondering is life is what one makes of it. It is useless to believe that life is but a dream in the literal sense. Figuratively it is perhaps the only arguement that can express life, and it's meaning, but to take it seriously is certain to cause chaos and confusion. To take it in and ponder on it without expecting to find meaning in it is to go through doors without direction and perhaps finding your own meaning in it. As for me this is all I have to givr to you. Amico mio non pensiamo al domani e cogliamo insieme quest'attimo de la vita che trascorre...
-Cardevan
My friend don't think of tomarrow and choose with me this moment of life that passes...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neruo
It might be a dream yes. We might be plugged into a big computer like in the matrix.

But becouse that is outside of our reality, it does not matter. If we would wake up from this reality, we would enter another one. Another universe. But within This reality it does not matter weather we are dreaming or not.

A dream in essence is a reality in such a way that it on it self is true, but when we wake up, or know we will wake up it no longer is true. But evertime It can seem true.

This reality is real untill you find the higher reality, if there is one. But probably we will never know.

---

Does anyone remember why the machines invested a lot of technology, time, and even imagination to providing the humans a virtual reality and home? It has been years since I've seen the movies, but I vaguely remember the humans were used as batteries for the machines. Creating a dreamworld seemed like a nice thing to do, imo.

I agree Neruo, living is all that would matter, independent of the mechanics or science involved. This doesn't prove that this universe is undeniable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucid Rasta
everyone knows that life is not a dream...
its a nightmare
that you cant awake from...

:mad:

---

+1

Okay, I confess, you guys. I really wish that life was a dream. I hope you don't think I am biased towards my position. If life was a dream, that would be fantastic. Then that would mean my dog really didn't just die today.

It would mean that I didn't notice that I hadn't seen or heard her all day today. It would mean I didn't get up to look for her when my dad asked where she was. It would mean that I didn't find her obscured in a shadow on top of a chair in a dark corner of the house that no one visits. It would mean that I wasn't surprised by her awkward "sleeping position." It would mean that I didn't think, immediately after that surprise, how amazingly relaxed and comfortable she looked, despite her position. It would mean that I didn't actually think of taking her picture, she looked so silly, with her head upside down over the arm of the chair. It would mean that I didn't have a distantly sick feeling as I went to go get my dad and show him how funny and classically dog-like she looked. It would mean that I didn't actually say, "you think she's dead?" while half-smiling at her. It would mean that I didn't say, "Gizmo... Gizmo, wake up." and then again "wake up!" a bit louder. Of course, it would mean she wasn't motionless, that I didn't put my hand on her, I didn't nudge her, that I didn't feel fresh death with my own hands, that I didn't feel how completely lifeless she was, how unusually heavy, that I wasn't so surprised that she wasn't sighing at how tired she was, that I didn't feel the absence of any respiration.

Really, I'd love to "wake up" and find that this didn't really happen. Furthermore, I'd love to use my lucidity to let her run in open fields as much as she'd like to and let her explore wherever she pleased without getting run over by a car (like how my other dog died, years ago). I'd love to let her eat junk food without making her sick. Yeah, and I'd love to bring back my other dog and let them play together again. They were awesome, the two of them. We called them the "dogs in black."

Ahhh, where was I...

Oh yes, if this was a dream, that would mean my dog's dead body is not still in that room where I found her, right now. It would mean that this is not a Saturday night because the city doesn't have people on call now to pick up deceased pets. It would mean that the ground isn't snow-covered and frozen so much that we can't dig a grave.

So, when one of you guys become lucid, and can change space and time and fly around and all those other great things you can do in a dream, you want to use your powers to remember me and help me become lucid? Or at least do a small favor and "wake up" the still warm Lhasa-mix that's so heavy and immobile she's like a bag of sand?

If this was a dream, wonders... it would mean that I didn't feel like a complete idiot petting her expired body. And that I didn't actually think that this was like petting a stuffed animal. A large heavy stuffed animal that kind of smells. That's what my dog is now, and I'd thank you Buddha folks to help a brother out, if and when you are able.

She is half Tibetan after all. That should give her some leeway with the Awakened One.

You say she's the one who is "awake" and I'm "asleep?" Oh that'd be great! Because right now she doesn't look awake. Not hungry. Not wanting to play. Not having to go out. Not yawning. Not greeting me when I get home. Never greeting me again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Bells, please read my latest post. I think I've made theoretical progress.

But I probably should respond to your post anyways, since you went through the trouble to write it.



See? That argument goes nowhere because there's no knowledge to be had from it. It's totally useless. Throw it out.

---

You can't throw out truth based on its disutility. The fact of the matter is that we truly don't have any knowledge of the relationship between dreams and waking life, the best we can do is speculate as you have done. My statement actually was useful because it ensures that we don't mistake idle speculation for truth. I'm trying to discourage you from coming up with ideas, and the only reason it's important for me to state that we don't know anything about the subject is because your theory is materialistic, and people are pretty generally materialists and apt to take your theory as fact when it is merely speculation.

I am so sorry Ex. I really am. I emailed you too, I just feel awful.

Life is what we make it.

Oh yeah, Bells, I'm such a materialist, because I have a problem with playing fetch with my dog in my imagination.


It's okay Indie. :) Thank you. She was about 13, but still apparently very healthy. Very sudden and unexpected.

I didn't mean to make you feel bad, but we are discussing the large and difficult issues, and we should be honest.


Bells, I'm tempted to go downstairs and do some more reality checks. Maybe some meditations. What do you think? Is it possible for me to wake her up while I wake myself up?

Her bowels emptied. She's not the pretty relaxed sight I saw her in now that we've moved her. But I am dreaming, right?

Sorry to hear about your dog Ex..

In Buddhism there is a practice called Phowa, which is a prayer for the deceased conciousness to move on to a 'pure land', or doggy heaven in this case. I could do a Phowa session for your dog if you like? Just let me know, or if you want to know more details just PM me.

Incidentally, Buddhists tend to call our waking world a 'dream like' reality, composed of aggregates such as form, and mental factors such as discrimination, feeling, and other mental factors. All these aggregates come together in our mind and we 'impute' reality. So I would vote that life is like a dream.

I would appreciate the Phowa. I wonder, though, what would happen if no prayer was given? Does the deceased just wander, especially if they are far from enlightenment? Will she have a better chance at enlightenment in that realm? Won't she stand a better chance to reincarnate to a human and reach enlightenment through the eight fold path? Sorry, I just want to make sure she gets a good deal, you know? ;)

So far I have been interpreting the "dream like" answer as "no," because similar comparisons acknowledge that two different things are being compared in the first place.

However, I see now that that isn't necessarily. If something is "like" something, it may that that something actually is the something being compared to. "Hey, that looks like my suit... wait a minute, that is my suit!"

So those of you who answered "dream like," what makes you stop from going all the way and saying life is a dream?

Yes.
There is no difference.
Separation does no exist in this infinite interconnected universe.
To be separate is to be god, and even it is not so as you are the everything.
.
Dream = Life, Life = Dream.
.
When the physical body dies, those who are strong enough live on in the world of dreams. Reicarnation is a combination of physical and spiritual allignment on earth.
Death = Life
Dreams = present, past and future.

We dream of past lives. We dream of parts of past lives. We dream of others past lives that are related. We dream the future (which is the past). We never dream the now, because our thoughts cannot concieve it in its entirity, so we dream the void.

dream = 1 = all = 0 = Life
:mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
I would appreciate the Phowa. I wonder, though, what would happen if no prayer was given? Does the deceased just wander, especially if they are far from enlightenment? Will she have a better chance at enlightenment in that realm? Won't she stand a better chance to reincarnate to a human and reach enlightenment through the eight fold path? Sorry, I just want to make sure she gets a good deal, you know? ;)

---

In Buddhist tradition, after death the very subtle mind leaves the body and enters the ‘Bardo’. The experiences in the bardo are influenced by the actions and experiences of the life (or lives) previously lived, as well as if the death was peaceful or not. Karma is often referred to as actions and their effects. So if you’ve spent your life with a happy, peaceful mind, the bardo will have aspects of happiness and peace (much like dreams are peaceful when you’re in a happy mood). There are some actions which have more potency than others (such as killing out of anger, or sacrificing out of compassion) that influence the direction of rebirth (called throwing karma). It is said that within 7 days in the bardo, one wakes up (or has a bardo death) into a new rebirth. It may be that if the being is not ready (for one reason or another?), they may have a mini bardo death after 7 days, and be reborn again in the bardo for up to 49 days. Up to 49 days later, they are reborn somewhere as dictated by the influences of karma. In Buddhist cosmology, there are 6 realms to be born in ranging from god realms with little suffering, to the hell realms with intense and increasing suffering. It is thought that the human realm is the most favorable since it has enough suffering to keep you motivated to find an end to suffering, but enough freedom from suffering so that we can engage in meditation and whatnot.

The prayer in Phowa is a special request to Buddha Avaloketishvara (the embodiment of limitless compassion). Through the prayer you ask the powers of limitless compassion to help all beings (in particular Gizmo) to find a fortunate rebirth, such as a human, or even better, in the Pureland of Avaloketishvara, which is outside the realm of suffering, and where they can work towards enlightenment under the guidance of a Buddha. There's a lot more to it than that, but seeing as how it's also a Tantric practices, it is said that a qualified spiritual guide is needed to explain it. There's a book called "Living Meaninfuly, Dieing Joyfuly" from Tharpa.com that would do a better job of explaining than I currently can.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Blulanou42

dream = 1 = all = 0 = Life

---

If 1 = 0, 0 = infinity, death = life. Then You = full of shit =D

Lets just say I disagree with that theory of yours ;)

WOoooooooooooooooooooh!!!

I've just read the entire thread and this is very very intense. It's a good question as it really makes you think. Thinking is good :) I now can't help but put in my two cents. (I apologise in advance :wink: )

To answer the question 'Is life a dream' I feel it is necessary to apply a little philosophy, a little logic and everything in between. Any question concerning life involves...well...everything!

I will state that no, life is not a dream - at least not a dream in the sense that it is not like dreams I have when I'm asleep.

But then our dreams are part of our life and part of our reality. We eat, we sleep, we dream. It is part of who we are. We can distinguish dreaming from waking but it's
still part of us. In that sense dreams and life are one. (Before anyone contradicts me on that one I'll ask them to re-read that sentence :) )
Also, our dreams take from life and life takes from dreams. Life and dreams resemble one another.

Lets go further...

moving into life and reality :)

All that exists is here and now. All that exists of the future is our dreams of the future. Although in some ways time isn't a straight line (precognitive dreams?). (Well, time is what you make of it...)

Sorry getting abstract!

I'm trying to emphasise that the present is all there is. The past is memories - memories in the earth, in literature, in our minds.

We dream different dreams but we share one reality. But the present/reality is perceived differently by everyone. It depends on where you are standing. So you can also argue that there is not one reality, there are many. A childs reality is just as valid as any adults. They haven't experienced so much, but experience doesn't define what reality is, it defines your own reality, but not theirs. A schizophrenic sees people and talks to them. Those people are real to them.

And then there are the rules, the laws of gravity etc. Gravity exists, but we created the term to define it. Exit our atmosphere and you are floating around in space. So that rule doesn't exist in space. Expand your thinking and take into account all the other planets, gravitational pull and the sun all that and then gravity isn't one rule is part of a whole set of rules. Hate to sound cliched to say expand your mind...
But the law of gravity exists on this planet and it's different elsewhere. Hard to explain where I'm going with this. If you get it you get it. :) am trying hard!

The mathematics thing.

Hell, we all hate it - the theory of it anyway. But it's true it doesn't relate simply to objects. It relates to music also! Not just time, but harmony, harmonics and perfect pitch! And that's
when physics comes in...
Mathematics pretty much relates to everything. But mathematics isn't, how do you say.. solid? Don't know if that's the right word, but I refer to the existence of imaginary numbers,
of negative integers and even 0. Technically they don't exist, but they are crucial and they aren't really ever wrong are they? (unless a calculation is wrong)

Ultimately mathematics proves that everything is part of one reality. Because everything is part of the same set of 'laws'. So Gus is right, we're all part of one reality. And ExNine is right about the mathematics thing.

Hmm, was also thinking about the fact that all numbers are infinite. There is an infinity between 1 and 2. Between touching someone or something. And yet we cross that infinity every day... Don't know if that's relevant, but I like the thought. :)

And Science. Science is not absolute. Science is forever evolving isn't it? We don't know everything. Scientists don't know everything - they are still trying to make sense of the world.

Meaning in life. What is meaning? why do we want meaning. When you understand you don't need 'meaning' or that there isn't a definitive 'meaning' of life you gain peace
and acceptance. Kinda abstract, but as soon as you stop searching, as soon as you don't need to search, there is no 'empty hole' of sorts in your soul.

That's the whole point in buddhism really...Enlightenment is simply being aware, existing in the moment and seeing things as they really are. Easier said than done. Am not sure if my description is quite right, but the theory behind being enlightened is actually very simple.

Sorry if my thoughts seem scattered - that's because they are!

I often ignore small details and make gross errors of fact (very frequently). I think of
the big picture. But the small questions help to solidify or (as is sometimes the case) demolish my perceptions. I think we should never place too much importance on our own opinions (easier said than done). Open-mindedness is not believing 'life is a dream'. Open-mindedness is knowing you can be proved wrong. So please feel free to do so!

I like what neuro said about this question not mattering. Because the question
is almost irrelevant in a sense. For the person living in the box the science of the outside world is irrelevant, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So even if we were being dreamed it doesn't matter, it is irrelevant.

So, back to reality (haha). If I take this computer screen as example, I know for a fact that this screen is an illusion. It is a bunch of wires and chips and whatnot with electic circuiting and it creates this illusion. However, for all intents and purpose the screen is real and the documents and windows are real. They may be 'imaginary' but they are a medium through which I can work.

I forget who said this in the forum about Gus being on a limb and Ex Nine being by the trunk. Very good analogy! Neither Gus or Nine are wrong (at least I can't see any way of proving them wrong). But, of course, it is the same tree isn't it?

As far as bending the rules goes and in waking life, well why not? As for myself I will use the tools I've been given and try to attain lucidity of mind both in dream and in waking life. (I refer to lucidity as in clarity of thought etc)

I apologise for my mind vomit, but I just had to let it all come out :mrgreen:

I can now rest easy tonight!

I haven't read through the entire topic yet, but my opinion from a scientific point of view is the following. try following my train of thought and tell me what you guys think. it takes a bit of concentration but its down to earth enough to understand.

Based on the fact that all individuals have the same perceptions in the material world, meaning we all sense & experience the same, it is safe to conclude that there has to be a reality out there. so, if by life being a dream you mean life being unreal, with no materialistic existence outside of your own head, I will disagree.

However, we sense & experience the world the same, but that's because we all have the same sensory organs and neurological programming. science is accepting that our brain makes up the world for us. it manipulates the sensory input. basically that means that we don't see with our eyes, we see with our mind. so, if by dreaming you mean experiencing a mental made up state of mind differing from reality (I don't know how else to put it), then yes, life is a dream.

EDIT: I answered NO, because i suspected your question to mean if i though that life was nothing but an illusion, something that you make up and does not exist. that, i do not believe. i do believe that we are experiencing a very limited part of whats out there in a very distorted way and from this point of view i would say we are dreaming. but LIFE, life exists, it's real.

Yet if you would have asked: "is life perceived in the same way dreams are perceived?" I would have answered YES. in dreams the "you" perceives sensory data from the subconscious (the brain). the same applies when awake. when awake the sensory organs input signals (unlike when dreaming). yet not to "you". the brain is what picks up the raw signals and manipulates them before forwarding them to "you". so you are not getting the signals from your sense organs at all, but from your brain. just like when dreaming. this means living is experienced in a "dream state of mind" like i said earlier on. still with me? this is where it becomes trippy.. (stop reading if you don't like trippy)

1) The brain can be seen as an interpretation tool, bringing the outside (external) world into a frame of reference. each animal must then have its own frame of reference. some references are bigger than others. we humans might have the biggest on this planet. the bigger the frame of reference, the more one can perceive.

2) When awake, the real world is the source of external input by your sensory organs (to be put in the frame of reference by your brain). it's what makes the world real and not an illusion. its comes from outside. there is something out there.. no matter how we perceive it. its there non the less. now, what if something "external" is the source of input in your dreams as well? meaning, how do we know that dreams are not real? (a reality not inputted into the brain by the sensory organs but by something Else.. a sixth sense?) what if during dreams the brain merly acts as frame of reference (like it does when awake) instead of being the source of the dreams, as is generally believed?

3) What if we could break free of this limited frame of reference. it would be hard to do in real life but in lucid dreams anything goes right? there is no law. maybe this is the next step after mastering lucid dreaming. the next step being able to step out of this limited frame of reference.. into a beyond-human world?

Very nice :!: