Why does existence exist?
Wouldn't any cause of existence be a form of existence? Can something create itself?
Printable View
Why does existence exist?
Wouldn't any cause of existence be a form of existence? Can something create itself?
When you say, "can something create itself", you are assuming that there was a beginning.
" At the quantum level nothing of the material world is left intact. It is strange enough to hold up your hand and realize that it is actually, at a deeper level, invisible vibrations taking place in a void. Even at the atomic level all objects are revealed as mostly empty space. On its own scale, the distance between a whirling electron and the nucleas it revolves around is wider than the distance between the earth and the sun. But you could never capture that electron anyway, since it too breaks down into energy vibrations that wink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Therefore the whole universe is a quantum mirage....." ~ Deepak Chopra
.... to me this about sums it up.... and if you subscribe to the belief that all things are made of the same basic fundamental particles, then within each existence, there is emptiness... they go hand in hand, emptiness and form, light and darkness, the yin and the yan.......there could never be just one or the other......
and about things creating themselves... I agree with bradybaker that this means there is a beginning.... It's kind of like water..... we are the points from which all things flow, yet we are the flow..... you know what I mean?
"Nothing" indeed is something, unless you are referring to space, which gives the illusion of nothing. How can we really know what nothing is. How do we know we're not already in nothing, but see it as something? These are pointless questions, really, lol.
They're just words, man. Words do nothing more than solidify certain thoughts out of the infinite other thoughts. We do not know as much as we think...
When I say, "nothing," I am not merely refering to space. Space is a form of existence. If it were nothing, there wouldn't be anything separating matter from other matter. There would be no distance between Earth and the moon or the particles of them from each other. I am asking why anything at all exists, even words. If "nothing" is a form of existence, then why does even it exist? What is even more bizarre is that an infinite number of things exist. If it is all a mirage, why does the mirage exist? If it is all in the mind, why does the mind exist? It is a difficult question to answer and a difficult question to even ask. I don't suggest in any way that I know the answer. I am just asking an open ended question to see what kind of responses I might get. I've gotten some interesting responses so far. I really liked Chopra's point.
When I ask if something can create itself, I am not suggesting a "beginning." That term is limited to the fourth dimension, which is only one aspect of existence. By "create" I mean "be the source/cause of" (not necessarily in a time sequence).
You mean can something come from nothing? We're here, so the answer must be yes, or at least "kinda". 0 = 1 + -1. On the other hand I don't think something can create itself, because it can't create itself (or do anything else) before it exists. Then again, there are theories about particles or objects that don't have a start or end, they're stuck in some kind of time loop and seem to have come from nowhere. I think I remember an example that went something like this:Quote:
Can something create itself?[/b]
1. Someone gives you a watch.
2. You go back in time and give the watch back to that person so they're able to give it to you in the first place.
and then of course the cycle repeats forever. Where did the watch come from? What created it? I don't see how such a time loop could possibly form, but who knows, the entire universe might be something similar.
That would definitely be a situation with no beginning, but it would still have to have a cause. It seems that something would have to be the source of the reality of that time loop. If circumstances could exist without causes, random bizarrities would happen all the time. Fish would spontaneously jump out of walls, or houses would suddenly levitate and start raining squirrels. The universe would lack order and be full of never ending absurdity. On the other hand, any cause of existence itself would be part of existence, and something causing itself would involve the same absurd situation as lacking cause, so that's also impossible. That makes sense to me so far, but the conclusion that follows is that existence is impossible, but here it is. This is a paradox. What is the deal?Quote:
Originally posted by Stevehattan
You mean can something come from nothing? We're here, so the answer must be yes, or at least \"kinda\". 0 = 1 + -1. On the other hand I don't think something can create itself, because it can't create itself (or do anything else) before it exists. Then again, there are theories about particles or objects that don't have a start or end, they're stuck in some kind of time loop and seem to have come from nowhere. I think I remember an example that went something like this:Quote:
Can something create itself?
1. Someone gives you a watch.
2. You go back in time and give the watch back to that person so they're able to give it to you in the first place.
and then of course the cycle repeats forever. Where did the watch come from? What created it? I don't see how such a time loop could possibly form, but who knows, the entire universe might be something similar.[/b]
Strangely enough, its fully possible for a fish to spontaneously to jump out of a wall, just as it is possible for you to walk right through a wall (given enough attempts of course, if you walked into a wall once a second for 14 billion years you still probably wouldn't have made it through). It's also possible for a horse, or a boat or a universe to spontaneously pop into existence. Cool stuff eh?
The question you are really asking is: "Why do I exist?"Quote:
Originally posted by Universal Mind
When I say, \"nothing,\" I am not merely refering to space. Space is a form of existence. If it were nothing, there wouldn't be anything separating matter from other matter. There would be no distance between Earth and the moon or the particles of them from each other. I am asking why anything at all exists, even words. If \"nothing\" is a form of existence, then why does even it exist? What is even more bizarre is that an infinite number of things exist. If it is all a mirage, why does the mirage exist? If it is all in the mind, why does the mind exist? It is a difficult question to answer and a difficult question to even ask. I don't suggest in any way that I know the answer. I am just asking an open ended question to see what kind of responses I might get. I've gotten some interesting responses so far. I really liked Chopra's point.
When I ask if something can create itself, I am not suggesting a \"beginning.\" That term is limited to the fourth dimension, which is only one aspect of existence. By \"create\" I mean \"be the source/cause of\" (not necessarily in a time sequence).
These things sure could happen, granted time is moving and there are plenty of particles flying around. But, and I think this is what Universal mind was getting at, could this happen in a place where there is no time or matter? There has to be a trigger of some sort to start the universe on its path to existance. IF the universe in fact was able to pop out of nothingness by means of some kind of time loop, why don't we see things popping up all the time all over the place? I was hoping this post would be full of answers instead of more questions, but I don't got none. :|Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
Strangely enough, its fully possible for a fish to spontaneously to jump out of a wall, just as it is possible for you to walk right through a wall (given enough attempts of course, if you walked into a wall once a second for 14 billion years you still probably wouldn't have made it through). It's also possible for a horse, or a boat or a universe to spontaneously pop into existence. Cool stuff eh?
I think that when you start to question the origin of the universe and creation is when the topic starts to move off of scientific things like the behavior of particles and empty space and form.... I think this is where the question of religion or faith, or lack thereof comes into play.........
It's interesting actually not but two paragraphs down from the quote I posted earlier was this...
"Genesis is now and always has been. Who is behind this never ending creation? Whose power of mind or vision is capable of taking the universe away and putting it back again in a fraction of a second?"
..... The rest of the book really is his answer so I can't quote it for you..... but it is called "How to Know God, A Soul's Journey into the Mystery of Mysteries" By Deepak Chopra.. a very amazing writer and genius in spirituality....... the book is not referring to the Christian God.... or any God in particular ... so don't let the title distract you..... but check it out ...
Because the chances of it happening are so incredibly miniscule that it's almost impossible to concieve a number that small. The Universe has been around a mere 13.7 billion years, give or take 1%, that is literally less than a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. And walls for fish to jump out of have only existed for a few million years.Quote:
Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>Yes.Quote:
could this happen in a place where there is no time or matter?[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-SteveHatton
why don't we see things popping up all the time all over the place?
I guess what I'm getting at is that the universe had all of eternity to pop into existence, so on an infinite time scale its inevitable for it to happen.
I don't understand how uncaused events could be possible. The chances of a fish spontaneously jumping out of a wall when there was no fish in the wall and the fish would have suffocated even if it had been may be incredibly miniscule if it were possible, but I don't see how it is even possible, and I have never come across anything that even fits into the category of such sponataneity. I have come across zillions of events in my 33 years, but nothing like that. I can't even explain how it could ever be the case. Existence as I have known it has always involved only things that fit into cause/effect chains. The probability of the fish scenario would be small, but there are an infinite number of such hypotheticals, so it seems that such things would be happening constantly. If cause is not necessary, what would put a cap on the happenings of uncaused events?
Quantum physics shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. In empty space, so called "virtual particles" are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process. They are called virtual particles because they almost always appear with their anti-matter counterpart and almost instantaneously annihilate each other.
But you're still not understanding how improbable it is for a fish to spontaneously appear. But given enough time, I assure you that a fish would eventually jump out of the wall.
It's admittedly a very strange process, probably not fully understood by even the most prominent astro-physisists, but it is real, and it does happen.
Edit: If you want to see a fish travel through a wall though I suggest that you start chucking fishes. Eventually the fish will not hit the wall, but spontaneously travel through it. It's called quantum tunneling.
You're assuming time always existed, even before anything else. Even if there was a "time" when only time existed, I don't see how the passing of an eternal amount of time alone could trigger a universe to form, because every instant would be identical to the previous and next instants (since there would be no matter, energy, space or anything moving around). Therefore, if the existance of time were ever to trigger the existance of matter and energy, they would both spring into existance in the same instant, so it's hard to tell which caused which to form (if either is responsible for the other's existance at all).Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
I guess what I'm getting at is that the universe had all of eternity to pop into existence, so on an infinite time scale its inevitable for it to happen.
Universal Mind, causality is unavoidable, but there are possible ways to get around ordinary cause and effect events. First off, if time is going backwards (or sometimes even forwards, as with the "borrowed" virtual particles described by bradybaker), events can come before causes as long as the cause is fulfilled. If time isn't moving, or doesn't exist yet, it must be possible that a cause and effect might happen simultaniously, creating a time loop that would lead to existance.
wow, im very interested into all this kinda stuff, despite my lack of any knowledge about it lol
I'm just wondering (so that i can keep up) what the fish example means? Are you saying that if you kept on say chucking fishes at a wall, eventually one would go through it because there are infinite chances of it happening? hmmm
That could happen because there are spaces between the atoms in all objects that are big enough for other atoms to squeeze through without being blocked. If you threw a fish at the wall and the atoms that make up the fish all passed through the spaces between the atoms of the wall, and the atoms of the wall between the spaces of the fish, the fish would go clean through. But, the chance it so small that you could keep throwing a fish at a wall for trillions of years and it probably wouldn't pass through (it would more likely get stuck in the middle somewhere), but the smaller the object, the more likely to pass through completely. If you threw only a single atom at a wall, it wouldn't take too long for it to go straight through.Quote:
Originally posted by phallam
Are you saying that if you kept on say chucking fishes at a wall, eventually one would go through it because there are infinite chances of it happening? hmmm
Also, it's possible for a fish to just spontaniously appear, seemingly out of thin air. If the right atoms just happened to be floating around in a certain spot and came together in the right way, they could make a fish (it's kind of complicated so I'll leave it at that).
I've often contemplated this thinking about god as an entity. If god made the universe from nothing than who made god from nothing. How could anything come from nothing, before there were any quantum reactions at all when nothing existed not even space. How could anything come from nothing. Absoluetely nothing, no color no space no particles no quantum theory. There is no answer, it's beyond our understanding I believe. It just doesn't work. How could anything come from absoluetly nothing
Do you know what E=mc^2 means? It means that matter and energy are the same thing.Quote:
Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>Think much smaller than atoms.Quote:
That could happen because there are spaces between the atoms in all objects that are big enough for other atoms to squeeze through without being blocked.[/b]
Not quite, the chancing of it happening are incredibly close to zero, not infinity. But over a long enough time line, every event that is possible does happen at some point.Quote:
Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>Not quite, the right subatomic particles would have to pop out of non-existence, then combine to form protons, neutrons and electrons, then for atoms, then form in the proper pattern to produce what we would call a fish. Also, chances are that it would be created along with its anti-matter fist counter part and would be annihilated almost instanteneously.Quote:
If the right atoms just happened to be floating around in a certain spot and came together in the right way, they could make a fish[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-phallam@
Are you saying that if you kept on say chucking fishes at a wall, eventually one would go through it because there are infinite chances of it happening
<!--QuoteBegin-SteveHatton
Therefore, if the existance of time were ever to trigger the existance of matter and energy, they would both spring into existance in the same instant, so it's hard to tell which caused which to form
What is all this time loop crap? Time loops have nothing to do with things popping into existence.Quote:
creating a time loop that would lead to existance.[/b]
And you're assuming that a matterless, energyless void existed before the universe.Quote:
You're assuming time always existed[/b]
I'm well aware of that, and I think my usage of the word \"and\" confused you in my post. What I was saying was that the existance of time (the fourth dimension) is meaningless if the 3 known spatial dimensions aren't present, and matter/energy/space has to exist wherever those 3 dimensions are present. Time without the other 3 dimensions would have nothing to occupy, and there would be nothing to make each instant any different from the next, so it wouldn't really exist; same goes for the fact that a 3D object that only \"exists\" for a zero-length period of time never physically existed at all. So, matter/energy/space wouldn't have had to eventually spring into being just because an infinite amount of time was passing (I don't see how it could have been passing anyway), so I'm not quite sure what you meant by that original comment.Quote:
Do you know what E=mc^2 means? It means that matter and energy are the same thing.[/b]
Yes, because the topic of this thread is about trying to answer the question of how a universe could form from such a 0-dimensional void. Naturally if we were able to travel further back in time than the very first instant when existance came into being, if there even is a single instant that can be rightfully called the first (and it could be a lot further back than our big bang), we would find complete, 0 dimensional nothingness. But, trying to go back in time further than the first instant would be like trying to go south of the south pole, as someone once said. Also, when I say time loop, it's just a way to describe something that doesn't have a definate start or end point according to time.Quote:
And you're assuming that a matterless, energyless void existed before the universe.[/b]
:o WOES!!! That's fascinating! I'll ponder on that for a while. But what causes cause and effect to happen simultaneously? It looks like no matter how good an answer is, the response can ALWAYS be, "Then what causes that?" I was thinking about this really hard last night, and I came to the conclusion that causes and causation are forms of existence, so existence precedes causes and causation. Therefore, existence does not need a cause. The existence of existence is the one thing that absolutely must "be." But what causes that to be the case? I think it might have something to do with the fact that no matter how things "are," the given fact is that they "are." If nothing "is," then that is how it "is." "Is" is unavoidable, no matter how things "are." No matter what the state of things, the state of things exists. If there were no state of things (hypothetically, not realistically), then that would be the state of things, so the state of things exists automatically. The state of things is therefore part of existence, so there must be existence. What causes this? It doesn't have to have a cause. It is automatic. So why aren't bizarre events constantly happening without cause? :shock: Excuse me while I go get fitted for a straight jacket. Have a good weekend.Quote:
Originally posted by Stevehattan
Universal Mind, causality is unavoidable, but there are possible ways to get around ordinary cause and effect events. First off, if time is going backwards (or sometimes even forwards, as with the \"borrowed\" virtual particles described by bradybaker), events can come before causes as long as the cause is fulfilled. If time isn't moving, or doesn't exist yet, it must be possible that a cause and effect might happen simultaniously, creating a time loop that would lead to existance.
I don't want to play word games here, but the topic of the thread was a much more open-ended question than that.Quote:
Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>Note for interested readers: String theory suggests that there are actually 10 spatial dimensions, making for 11 overall. (SteveHatton's point still holds though.)Quote:
What I was saying was that the existance of time (the fourth dimension) is meaningless if the 3 known spatial dimensions aren't present[/b]
Whoa there, that is a HUGE assumption.Quote:
Originally posted by SteveHatton@
Naturally if we were able to travel further back in time than the very first instant when existance came into being, if there even is a single instant that can be rightfully called the first (and it could be a lot further back than our big bang), we would find complete, 0 dimensional nothingness.
<!--QuoteBegin-SteveHatton
Yes, because the topic of this thread is about trying to answer the question of how a universe could form from such a 0-dimensional void.
Why not?Quote:
Why is there existence instead of nothing?[/b]
wow, what a coincedence. This Science magazine has smething about the Big Bang and it said something about how did we come to be or something similar to your question. I'll read through it and try and find out for you ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Universal Mind
Why does existence exist?
Wouldn't any cause of existence be a form of existence? Can something create itself?
~Haz
I'm not claiming to be right, but I think it's unavoidable when assuming time had a beginning. Of course, there are many theories of extra dimensions, along with nearly infinite possibilities that haven't even been thought of yet that could explain existance, but when temporarily ruling out those possibilities, I figure that you need a timelike dimension for existance of any sort. So: If there was a true first instant in time, then "before" that instant, time wouldn't exist. Without a dimension of time, spatial dimensions wouldn't hold up and you'd find 0-dimesnional nothingness.Quote:
Whoa there, that is a HUGE assumption. [/b]
There might easily have not been a definate beginning though. Time might bend/loop back on itself somehow so that in a way, the universe would have existed for an infinite amount of time, which wouldn't be possible if there was a first instant. Trying to find the beginning of time might be like an early explorer trying to find the edge of what he thinks is a flat earth. Just throwing ideas out there....
that was a great metaphor
I don't think you can compare the "creation" of the universe (if it was actually created) to such simple geometry.Quote:
Originally posted by SteveHatton
Trying to find the beginning of time might be like an early explorer trying to find the edge of what he thinks is a flat earth.
Really cool discussion. I'm sure to post more. I'll try not to make rash assumptions, but I'm sure that's impossible at times...
:D
Be open that time could be a mental concept, just because the hands on your clock move and the numbers on your watch changes numbers, does not prove that time exists. Think about that. Things and objects move, but does that really mean time exists? I got reference from this in "Conversations With God." Extremely insightful book. It's not particularly religious in anyway, but it's really cool.
I used to believe certain things, especially the ideas from the Bible (which can be interpreted in a million ways). I switched to atheist views, evolutionist views, quantum science views or whatever. I don't like to stick to one set of ideas that one person or a group of people made. I learned that after mindless devotion to several thought patterns and beliefs. I think more for myself now...it was challenging and kinda scary.
Try to be aware of what emotions you attach to certain theories, they can be deceiving "convictions." Anyways, no theory is absolutely provable, at least in my recollection. I don't think that the smallest unit of matter has ever been discovered, and probably never will. Thus, the Einsteinian theory of relativity. Can you imagine the world having a smallest measurable building block? I dunno bout you guys, but kinda makes me feel uncomfortable and artifical like I'm in a lego and digital world...if it's true.
If there is no smallest building block, wouldn't that make everything in existence "infinite" in nature? Some may say this equates to God, some may deny it. I don't really care. But it's probably why people say God is in everything, like pantheists. Besides, the only way for God to be omnipresent is to actually be in and of everything; otherwise, he's really not everywhere, but merely "around" everything. I prefer to look for potential truths behinds everybody's words, rather than deny them at face value.
I love what Universal Mind said about a cause being another form of existence...It really makes me imagine the loop of creationism, and how it's a never ending cycle.
Oh Gosh, Deepak Chopra was hard for me to intellectually digest, and I spit it out at first reading. I kinda understand what he's saying....kinda. It was really too much shit for me to handle!! LOL
I appreciate and find interest in everybody's responses. If I make some of the same points more than once, it is only to keep the some of the discussion pointed in the direction I am going for. I have thought really hard about this issue since I was a child, and I really got into it in my mid-teens. I really hope to have a clear answer some day, but I am not counting on it. It will be a lot of fun looking for one, though.
I want to stress that I am not necessarily talking about a first "moment" of existence. I am not talking about where in time existence came about. That would involve a situation of time preceding existence. Time is part of existence, so my question involves what preceded time and everything else. That's the paradox. Any answer is a form of existence, so it cannot be the right answer, apparently. It seems that if existence has a cause/source, it would have to be something that doesn't exist. Wouldn't that make it an invalid answer? If existence has a cause/source, then cause/source precedes existence, even though it is a form of existence. Thus, existence does not have a cause/source. So why would any form of existence need one if it is possible for something to be uncaused, and how could existence have order if circumstances can exist without cause? Maybe this all really is a dream, and we will eventually wake up and go, "Oh yeh... Duhhhh..."
I'm not really sure what connection you're seeing between \"the smallest unit of matter\" and relativity.Quote:
Originally posted by AirRick101
I don't think that the smallest unit of matter has ever been discovered, and probably never will. Thus, the Einsteinian theory of relativity.
Sounds to me like you're attaching some emotion to theory there.Quote:
Originally posted by AirRick101
Can you imagine the world having a smallest measurable building block? I dunno bout you guys, but kinda makes me feel uncomfortable and artifical like I'm in a lego and digital world...if it's true.
Yeah...I can't help but be emotionally attached to a minimum of beliefs. But can you? Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
I don't choose beliefs based on what makes me comfortable or uncomfortable. In fact, I don't "choose" beliefs at all.
I think what sets a person free is to know there is not necessarily a truth or lie side, so there's less sense of needing to protect something. It's direct from Buddha, when he gives this confusing thing about "don't say this world is fake, because it's not. But don't say it's real either. They're both illusion." Somethin like dat. The middle ground.
But pray tell, what are your beliefs anyway, Brady Baker?
You can sit in the middle ground all you want, but you won't gain a thing from it. When it comes right down to it, there is a single truth out there. There is a single correct way of describing the universe and everything inside of it. Now I don't claim to know what that description is, few people do, and those people that do are most likely wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by AirRick101
I think what sets a person free is to know there is not necessarily a truth or lie side, so there's less sense of needing to protect something. It's direct from Buddha, when he gives this confusing thing about \"don't say this world is fake, because it's not. But don't say it's real either. They're both illusion.\" Somethin like dat. The middle ground.
Good question. I think that there are two kinds of truth, ultimate truth and practical truth. In both cases, I trust the methods of science and mathematics to lead me in the right direction. Practical truth is much more easily arrived at than ultimate truth, practical truth is the general useful knowledge that we have gained and use constantly.Quote:
Originally posted by AirRick101
But pray tell, what are your beliefs anyway, Brady Baker?
For example, we understand the concept of gravity well enough and have tested it thoroughly enough to conclusively say, "yes, gravity does exist". We can then apply our knowledge of gravity and achieve some pretty incredible things, like launching a satellite into space with the precise velocity and trajectory to have it be captured in Saturn's orbit.
The great thing about using science to arrive at practical truth is that it's a self-correcting process. We used to think that everything revolved around the Earth, but with more observation we learned that Earth and the other planets in the solar system actually revolve around the Sun.
Ultimate truth however is a bit trickier. I still trust science to answer big questions like "Where did the universe come from?", but there is definitely a limit to how much science can tell us. For example, I can't prove that anything outside my own mind exists. So when it comes right down to it, I think the only logical conclusion you can make is that you cannot make any conclusions. I really, really hate admitting that though.
I think that the best way to approach any problem is to consider the evidence on both sides and come to a logical conclusion...that may sound pretty obvious but it's disgusting how many people jump to conclusions they like without putting any thought into them. In the case of Christianity there is no logical evidence to support such a system of beliefs...so why hold those beliefs? Some of you might say "But you can't disprove it either!!". That's technically correct, but a pretty damn weak statement to base your way of life on. If I were to claim that there is an invisible ten-foot tall pink unicorn in your room, and demand that you feed it, you could justifiably expect some sort of hard proof.
Finally I'd like to mention Occam's Razor. Many of you probably know what it is, basically it says that if there are a number of explanations for something the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. I think that everyone should consider that when they are trying to reason their way into any belief.
The quote from Buddha I take to mean there isn't a "real" objective universe that exists outside of our(meaning all of our) consciousnesses, but that that universe is certainly real enough for us.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-AirRick101
You can sit in the middle ground all you want, but you won't gain a thing from it. When it comes right down to it, there is a single truth out there. There is a single correct way of describing the universe and everything inside of it. Now I don't claim to know what that description is, few people do, and those people that do are most likely wrong.Quote:
I think what sets a person free is to know there is not necessarily a truth or lie side, so there's less sense of needing to protect something. It's direct from Buddha, when he gives this confusing thing about \"don't say this world is fake, because it's not. But don't say it's real either. They're both illusion.\" Somethin like dat. The middle ground.
Good question. I think that there are two kinds of truth, ultimate truth and practical truth. In both cases, I trust the methods of science and mathematics to lead me in the right direction. Practical truth is much more easily arrived at than ultimate truth, practical truth is the general useful knowledge that we have gained and use constantly.Quote:
Originally posted by AirRick101
But pray tell, what are your beliefs anyway, Brady Baker?
For example, we understand the concept of gravity well enough and have tested it thoroughly enough to conclusively say, \"yes, gravity does exist\". We can then apply our knowledge of gravity and achieve some pretty incredible things, like launching a satellite into space with the precise velocity and trajectory to have it be captured in Saturn's orbit.
The great thing about using science to arrive at practical truth is that it's a self-correcting process. We used to think that everything revolved around the Earth, but with more observation we learned that Earth and the other planets in the solar system actually revolve around the Sun.
Ultimate truth however is a bit trickier. I still trust science to answer big questions like \"Where did the universe come from?\", but there is definitely a limit to how much science can tell us. For example, I can't prove that anything outside my own mind exists. So when it comes right down to it, I think the only logical conclusion you can make is that you cannot make any conclusions. I really, really hate admitting that though.
I think that the best way to approach any problem is to consider the evidence on both sides and come to a logical conclusion...that may sound pretty obvious but it's disgusting how many people jump to conclusions they like without putting any thought into them. In the case of Christianity there is no logical evidence to support such a system of beliefs...so why hold those beliefs? Some of you might say \"But you can't disprove it either!!\". That's technically correct, but a pretty damn weak statement to base your way of life on. If I were to claim that there is an invisible ten-foot tall pink unicorn in your room, and demand that you feed it, you could justifiably expect some sort of hard proof.
Finally I'd like to mention Occam's Razor. Many of you probably know what it is, basically it says that if there are a number of explanations for something the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. I think that everyone should consider that when they are trying to reason their way into any belief.[/b]
I think you trust science like a theist trusts god and probably for the same reasons.
I just don't see how you can accept this flimsy idea of "practical truth". Doubt destroys truth when it cannot be escaped through reason, and doubt does not descriminate on the basis of the percieved utility of beliefs which is your basic arguement for the accepting of science as truth. There is no reason to believe that your perceptions(including memory) give you an accurate reflection of the objective universe. Beleif in perception is a leap of faith, no different from any other as no leap of faith is based on reason, but a desire to claim, use, or possess understanding.
I had an arguement with a religious friend of mine and as usual I made it blatantly obvious that there was absolutely 0 reason behind her beliefs, and that the reason she wouldn't consider anything else was because she had too much invested in them(as indeed she does). I think the same is true of many atheists. They aren't willing to see that they have no grounds for their beliefs because of the implications of them losing those beliefs.
P.S. I don't think Occam's Razor supports science in any way. I think it would be much simpler if a diety(not as described by any major religions as they like to complicate things) simply exercised his will and that was the universe. It is much simpler than so much science.
Did you just decide to ignore the rest of my post? Maybe you just didn't percieve it correctly. Practical \"truth\" and ultimate \"truth\" are seperate concepts. If you or I pick up a pencil and let go of it 100 times, we will see the pencil fall. That's practical truth. It allows for all the incredible technological advances observed in our civilization. It may not be certain, but its useful and reliable. Practical truth is why you choose to interact with your environment, it's why you choose food and drink over hunger and thirst.Quote:
Originally posted by Belisarius
I just don't see how you can accept this flimsy idea of \"practical truth\". Doubt destroys truth when it cannot be escaped through reason, and doubt does not descriminate on the basis of the percieved utility of beliefs which is your basic arguement for the accepting of science as truth. There is no reason to believe that your perceptions(including memory) give you an accurate reflection of the objective universe. Beleif in perception is a leap of faith, no different from any other as no leap of faith is based on reason, but a desire to claim, use, or possess understanding.
Depends on what kind of truth you're talking about, but I see your point. Don't overlook the fact that it says "tends" to be correct, not "is" correct.Quote:
Originally posted by Belisarius+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Belisarius)</div>I use science as a guide, I don't put blind faith in it. Just as you do whether you want to admit it or not.Quote:
I think you trust science like a theist trusts god and probably for the same reasons.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius
I don't think Occam's Razor supports science in any way. I think it would be much simpler if a diety(not as described by any major religions as they like to complicate things) simply exercised his will and that was the universe. It is much simpler than so much science.
I guess you're correct, I do live my life according to "practical truth"(although I would probably use another term), and I try to justify it, but I haven't yet been able to. I guess when it comes down to it I am simply an optimistic nihilist, which is more than a bit of an oxymoron. I prefer to look to spectacular and satisfying theories to explain the universe than the common wisdom that so many seem to cling to. As my high school history teacher said,"Devils see the darkness and angels see the light." When there are so many possibilities and none are more likely than the rest(as far as I can see) I would rather consider the more fascinating and happy ones than those that seem more reasonable, but less gratifying.
What I think sustains me is the knowledge that there must be a single objective truth, whether I can see it or not.
P.S. It is interesting to note that most existentialists or nihilists adopt extreme political positions(including me). That might be connected to some sort of human need to believe something.
There is no single way or truth, because it all exists because of how we make it the truth. Now I'm not saying, "THERE IS NO GRAVITY YOU BASTARDS!" (meaning, I love science, but I like to play devil's advocate, a lot [heh]) I'm just saying not everything will conform to man-made laws all the time. For example, we drop your pencil 99 times and on the hundred time, physics goes haywire and the pencil warps itself into nothing, along with everything else in the universe. No indication that it will do this, and the chance are a many million trillionths to nothing of this happening, and frankly, it's stupid and absurd to think this will happen. But we have no certaintity that it will not. Which begs to question, "Can we absolutely let things like Gravity become scientific laws?" Think about for a few minutes. It's really more of an critical thinking question, and not an absolute answer of one.
You're missing the point a bit. I explained that practical truth is not certain, it is however very useful. In the realm of ultimate truth you are 100% correct, the pencil could fall, the pencil could float or the pencil could not even exist at all.
I don't see how it could be denied that there is one true way that the universe functions. I understand that we can never know what that way is, but that way does exist.
:bump: :lol:
EDIT: I am drunk as @#$%, and I thought it would be hysterical to dig up this fossil. :lol:
Why does there need to be a cause at all?
Our human experience seems be through "time," so we see things arise "from" other things, hence our dependence on the idea of cause and effect. I'm still trying to figure out how this could work (it's not some theory I've perfected), but I feel like there's some way everything could just "be" without requiring that it be experienced through the dimension of time. If cause/effect relationships were mapped out outside of time, wouldn't it be a frozen network of concepts linked to one another in various ways?
More importantly, many philosophers have written about the idea that either we make up cause and effect completely (see Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols: "The error of a false causality"), or we note some cases of cause and effect and assume it always applies (see Hume in Treatise of Human Nature). That's the problem of inductive reasoning: if you've seen a hundred white swans, you'll assume they only come in white--then you run into a black one. Here's a better example, but it can get confusing. If you've seen the sun rise every morning, you assume it will rise again tomorrow (you assume the future will be like the past). Why? Because, in the PAST, every time you've wondered if the sun will rise the next day, it has risen (in the PAST, the future has been like the past). But you have no reason whatsoever to believe that the sun will continue to rise the next day (that, in the FUTURE, the future will be like the past). Because the argument observes the future having been like the past in the past, we rely on the idea of the future being like the past to prove that the future will be like the past (and an idea can't be used to prove its own truth), so the argument fails and we in fact have no idea if anything––the same scientific principles, conceptions of time, and so on––will still exist in the future. Let me know if that was completely unclear. Or just read up on skepticism. SO what does that mean in terms of this thread? As far as I can tell, just because we observe cause/effect relationships on a daily basis does not mean that they are necessary (I'm going more with Hume than Nietzsche here), and there is no reason whatsoever why the "something" (universe, reality, mirage?) needed to have a cause.
I think the biggest problem is that we're so intent on finding a capital-T Truth: some ultimate answer, some reason, some way to make sense of the experiences we have. Why can't it just be absurd and unexplainable? Why couldn't "something" have just spontaneously appeared? Yes, it's ridiculous. So what? Some of this boils down to what "reality" actually is and whether anything really "exists" aside from being constructed through observation and experience. How do we know it isn't all just nothing, instead of something? I know, I know--the whole mirage thing still needs a cause, and I can't deny that I'm having some kind of experience or sensation right now. I agree, and I don't have a solid answer. But I don't believe in the kind of objective reality that a lot of people talk about. I've posted this link like 3x already on this site, but I find it really interesting so I'm posting it again. Don't know who wrote it:
http://www.geocities.com/arno_3/4/4-3.html
I know of a teacher who would spend a good portion of class running in to the wall trying to demonstrate this principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradybaker
I read through this and found it quite interesting...and even managed to follow most of it, though I don't typically bother with this sort of thing. However, I was a little disappointed that I don't think this statement was answered by bradybaker. Maybe it was and I missed it. (But I'm pretty sure it wasn't.) I too was wondering how "instances" were possible if nothing, including time, existed before the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevehattan
Don't have time to read all the posts here at the moment, but I will later. For now I'll just say that non-existence is impossible because there is nothing but existence. To imagine non-existence is just fantasizing and getting nowhere IMO, though I try to do it all the time myself ;)
I thought about it once, and came to the conclusion that nothing exist, not even myself, and so I am not writing this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
First off, Interesting thread and posts made on here. Definitely something I hope everyone ponders throughout their lives, if not every day of their lives. It definitely helps one build tolerance, character, and the ability to truely let things slide.
Secondly, I feel that it's all in your head...with the world actually existing as more of a mirror, showing you all the different parts of your true self. No matter how inconceivable or hard to fathom it may seem at the time. As for the point behind existence, well that's easy, it's that there is no point, and it's all one big distraction of self. We are all one and the same...one large interdimensional interconnected quantum jigsaw puzzle.
And, because I think they pertain to this topic, here are the lyrics from a recent song I made, 'At The Brink':
As you reallign your blurry vision,
You're bound to find your neither dead or living.
As you cast aside what you believe in,
There's no smile or cry that can hide this feeling.
Universal mind don't you know you're dreaming?
Neither you nor I has a truth worth seeking.
As you reach inside of your decision,
Open up your mind but there's only one listening.
Ask instead: Why did I choose existance?
I got this one!!! That is if no one said it. I'm too lazy to read through the book you guys created.
The reason existence exists and that we see it is because we wouldn't see it if it didn't exist. So...because we see it it's only natrual that it does exist.
Does that make sense to any of you?
The question seems flawed. Why is a rose a rose? Because if it were anything else, it would be something else, of course. I'm refering to the particular phrasing of 'why does existence exist?'
As far as the title of the thread is concerned, I think you know what my stance on the subject is, since we've discussed it ad nauseum. I'm still not sure why you have such a hard time grasping the concept of an infinite thing not requiring a cause. Or, perhaps its that you simply believe that the universe must have had a beginning, in which case you really are a theist after all. Something from nothing just doesn't work, as far as we can tell, and so the only available option for that explanation is a being that has the ability to create itself, which I believe to be non-existent.
But, since you will inevitably disagree with me, I'll leave you with some wiser words than my own on the subject, and kudos to anyone who recognizes them;
Quote:
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.
With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.
We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids.
A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.
The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.
Reality is the original Rorschach.
That is self-evident, just as non-existence is self-evidenlty non-existent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
No. Viewing the Universe, causes and effects are merely artifacts of perception. In Reality, everything happens on its own in Absolute Perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Form is something created out of the Formless. Both exist, yet of different nature. Together they are one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
:lol: Thanks for digging up this oldie. I like reading what people have to say about the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
It looks like your argument explains why we see existence (because existence exists), but not why existence is there for us to see it in the first place. You say that our seeing it necessitates that it exist, and I agree with that, but didn't it have to already be there for us to see it?
I do believe that even something infinite would have to have a cause. There would have to be reasons the infinite reality exists in the exact state that it does instead of some other state. However, existence itself is such a vague principle that it might be the one thing that does not require a cause. It is the one form that all other forms have, so it is the most general form there is. When you talk about an infinitely powerful God that has human emotions or whatever, like you and I have a zillion times before, I think we are definitely talking about something that would have to have a reason for its existence even if it has always existed. A cause does not have to be something that exists in time and precedes its effects in a time sequence. It can be a metaphysical principle at the root of the existence of something eternal. But like I said, existence itself might not require a cause. Cause is a form of existence, and that is what makes this issue really warped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
By the way, I am not certain that the universe had a beginning, but I am certain that it has some type of causal root. If existence has a causal root, that causal root exists, making it a form of existence. That would be a circular scenario. So either a circular causal scenario exists, or there is at least one thing that does not require a cause, so it seems. Don't both of those defy the laws of reality as we know them? Hmmmm....
After all of my brainstorming, what you said is pretty close to what I think the answer might be. It is just so difficult to explain it without contradiction. The answer seems to transcend language.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Logic is a form of existence, so existence itself is at the root of logic. Therefore, the most fundamental nature of existence might be something illogical, yet real. It is almost painful for me to say that, but it seems like it might be the case, based on... logic.
I have never advocated the existence of a personal god with purely human emotions. (except that humans, as a small and largely insignificant part of god give it their emotions in a largely insignificant capacity)
You haven't advocated it, but many others have, and I have talked about it a lot. I guess you and I just talked about "God". When I use that term, I am talking about something that at least has a mind and other specific characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
This is the ultimate philosophical question in my opinion.
The answer may eventually just be mathematical. We can't cope with this concept because we live in a universe with linear time. It may be that reality has many time dimensions in which spontaneous existence is completely logical. However, sadly, we may never be able to emulate such logic, let alone comprehend it.
I know, and I just can't deal with that. I don't want to die never having understood why there is existence instead of complete nothingness and why existence is in the specific form it is in, but I will probably never understand it. So... let's drink Budweiser and yell about football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
/thread
nothing can't create. how can nothing create? there is nothing in it. no atoms, no cause, nothing.
existence came from something - its the something we don't understand. as this something is outside of time, existed before the universe, as we know it. and the best we can say is, this something, always was
Thanks for demonstrating my point so well. You're talking in terms of linear causality. :|Quote:
nothing can't create. how can nothing create? there is nothing in it. no atoms, no cause, nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
no, I don't agree
even atoms magically appearing into existence, I don't agree with that either. I don't agree those atoms came from nothing - but came from something we don't understand yet, like ether.
nothing is nothing, existence is.
You're still thinking, 'first there was nothing, then there was something, what caused that?'. You can't deny that that is a product of thinking in terms of linear time.
Linear time simply cannot be the structure of overlying reality in my opinion, because it gives paradoxes. There cannot be an infinite string of causes and effects because the whole string must have a 'cause' (interestingly this is where the prime mover argument for God comes from). However neither can there be a finite string of causes and effects because the first cause is in turn an effect and requires a cause itself, and is hence not the first at all.
First of all, the smallest particle of matter isn't matter, but a wave of energy that behaves in a way that an obsever expects it to. It responds to mind. Why does existence exist? that is the mystery of mysteries and anything I way would be wrong. So don't bother trying to argu with me. Here goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
existence doesn't exist. It is a dream. A dream of the mind. But why does the mind exist? The mind is nothing. Nothing is the mind. Matter is dreamed up from mind. That is why it is empty energy that responds to the mind. So although all phenomena are essentially void and empty of any inherent reality, it still continues to manifest. This is the fertility of the mind.
Now someone asked the good question, why do (we,you,I) exist? Why does the one quantum field of universal mind exist? A good answer was why not? This is the mystery this is the paradox at the heart of creation that cannot be known ever. All that can happen is hypothesis and philosophies. But this is the Riddle with no answer. Existence is a mystery to be lived, not a puzzle to be solved. Enjoy!!!
no, im not thinking in linear timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
you are turning my words into linear time
I am saying there is something OUTSIDE of time all together, something that is eternal - but we understand eternal is something that is lasting for a very long period of time, and even that is not an accurate description. I am saying there is something that simply IS.
I am saying nothing is just that - nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing.
what I am talking about is the something, that always was. it is outside of time, outside of this universe and outside of everything that we know and understand. from this something came the birth of our universe and time as we understand it.
in this scenario, God is not the cause. God IS.
Like he said.
At this moment in time, we call it "nothing." We call it "void," "vacuum," and "empty space."
But still, it has a name. It has qualities. What if, one day, we find that a "void" can be quantitatively measured? Remember that nothing is certain in science. A theory suggests everything is strings, another says light is the absorbtion of darkness. The truth shifts.
@everyone claiming there is no beginning: Thank you. I thought I was alone in this viewpoint. <3
It does actually, you won't know for sure unless you experience it - language always falls short in description; nothing can measure the non-linear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
That is why we can barely grasp it with words. Try to picture science and logic, as they only formulate explanations based on the surface of things, and not the essence of things (being). You cannot measure "beingness" or anything of experiential nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
That's kind of what I said, though. I'm saying the overlying layer of reality has more than one time dimension, so in a sense it is 'eternal beyond time' because a linear period of time makes no sense in that context.Quote:
no, im not thinking in linear time
you are turning my words into linear time
I am saying there is something OUTSIDE of time all together, something that is eternal - but we understand eternal is something that is lasting for a very long period of time, and even that is not an accurate description. I am saying there is something that simply IS.
I am saying nothing is just that - nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing.
what I am talking about is the something, that always was. it is outside of time, outside of this universe and outside of everything that we know and understand. from this something came the birth of our universe and time as we understand it.
Debateable.Quote:
in this scenario, God is not the cause. God IS.
What evidence do you really have to jump to that conclusion? And how are you defining God here, what kind of God are you talking about?
In my opinion there is only one thing that transcends time and space. Consciousness is not limited by space but is bound to time. Everything physical is firmly bound in both space and time. However, there is one thing remaining; that thing is mathematics, which is an aspect of pure logic. Logic alone is nowhere and notime.
http://thumbnail.image.rakuten.co.jp...8006209930.jpg
Existence is a paradox. Every answer just brings more questions. Logic fails when contemplating the mystery because at the heart of every question is a paradox. Those who don't see the unverse as paradoxical haven't looked deeply. If you don't find life to be a paradox that shows that you have only lived superficially. When attempting to make sense of life's mysteries we are in danger of trying to explain it with philosophies. And with philosophies everything we can say about it is untrue, or at the best, partially true.
We would be wise to keep in mind that we are a part in this ultimate reality, and our minds are just a small part of us. Any philosophy is a collection of thoughts and concepts generated by our small minds. The ultimate reality is larger than the sum of all beings, minds, thoughts, and concepts. Any philosophy, any logic, any religion, any science cannot explain the mystery which is by necessity larger than the sum of all experience. For it is the mother of all experience. It is the mother of all thoughts and all concepts.
Therefore, remember that we are just playing with philosophy, we are entertaining ourselves. But we would be foolish to believe in anything our minds think up because no mind and not even all the minds can comprehend the vastness of the paradoxical mystery.
That being said, why is there existence? I think it has something to do with orgasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
What the hell do you mean by "ultimate reality"? Are there many little lesser fake realities or what?
Reality is a stupidly vague term to begin with.
The Ultimate Reality actually connects with Spirituality. It is God/Universal Mind/Supreme Truth, etc. (However that would lead off-topic)Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
The other "fake" realities are really illusions of the mind.
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I don't like the 'illusions of the mind' part, since the mind is supposedly a part of the illusion as well. In order for this explanation to hold water, you're going to have to come up with what exactly it is that is entertaining this illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Ok give me an example of a fake reality plz.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
For example: a dream at night. The perception that we are all separate beings with separate minds. The ego is a thought. A definition of reality depending on thoughts and perceptions ABOUT reality as sensory input into our limited five senses. I could go on and on but this sums up the most important points.
Hahaha I can't believe you think things exist.
I knew it would have a pleasing relationship with you. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
The mind is definitely part of illusions. The ego is what entertains the illusions to a great extent. The ego and mind are one and the same; ego/mind/self.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
False realities are actually in any thinking/perspectives; the ego is part of any thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
[QUOTE=really;808430]
The mind is definitely part of illusions. The ego is what entertains the illusions to a great extent. The ego and mind are one and the same; ego/mind/self.
QUOTE]
Like I said, if the ego/mind is also an illusion, then what is it that is percieving the illusion?
Oh. So the definition of reality for you is what is from our five senses or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
I'd call a dream rather real. It may not be physical or mind independent, but it is still real, just as a dream; if it wasn't real it wouldn't exist.. Just as an idea is real as an idea.
And also tell me why you think we aren't all seperate beings with seperate minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Well this depends what you are saying happens after death in your belief system. Death means very different thigns depending on your beliefs.
Well, even from a purely materialistic point of view that completely disregards the possibility of actually connecting to someone else's mind through only the power of your own, we can never be completely seperated from each other. Every time you communicate you share a piece of your mind with someone else, and you cannot stop communicating. Everything you do betrays a piece of your mind to others. Any casual study of group psychology will show that groups operate as a cohesive whole even without the intention of the individual. Groups have their own specific agendas and even ideas which may or may not be shared by any of the individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
Just look at the phenomenon of mob mentality. Often times, mobs will commit acts that no individual will claim to have wanted to participate in. They will say that they felt controlled by an outside force and that they were compelled to do what they did. This outside force can be described as the mob mind, which each individual is a part of.
Maybe check out mirror neurons, that's an interesting phenomenon. When one person sees somebody perform an action, the same neurons fire in their brains, as if it were they who performed it. It's thought to have a role in learning.
But that's really a bit of a tangent now...
As far as I can tell, there's really no such thing as a fake reality. Basically if you reduce the term 'reality' down to 'a group of experiences experienced by a conscious observer', then there is no issue. This universe is certainly quite illusory, as most of the phenomena we feel confortable with, such as solid objects or time, are really just the emergent properties of some basic laws. I don't think that makes them any less real though. Nor could you truly call the Matrix a false reality, it was a group of common experiences shared by many people...
Then again you could take the view that there is only one reality which is mathematics and logic, and everything else that people experience is just a little section of the result of that logic.
Wow. I love that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
There is existence instead of nothing because the sum of everything is nothing
Another cool thought. I really think you are at least in the ballpark of the answer there. Nonexistence has something to do with what and why existence is, apparently. I say that because aside from existence, there is nothing, so nothingness is the only possibility for what could be at the root of existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumbs
QUOTE]
Like I said, if the ego/mind is also an illusion, then what is it that is percieving the illusion?[/QUOTE]
Good question. Ask yourself that. It is pure consciousness. The mind is what interprets experience.
Defining reality? I can say that reality is a spiritual reality or I can say that reality is the material universe that we can percieve with our sense. But these are actually philosophical concepts and reality is not a philosophical concept. Reality is........(gong noise) And we won't give it a name. But reality is NOT what we think ABOUT it. What we think about it is interpretation. Of course there are no fake realities but there are illusions born of the mind and having no existence outside of the mind. Like the ego. For example a dream might be a real thing, but the view that the objects in a dream are actually separate real things independant from consciousness is an illusion that only the lucid dreamer knows. You cannot prove with logic and science to a dream character that he is a part of your consciousness. Only lucidity brings this knowledge.
Perception is also an illusion. Beyond perception is God - the Witness and Being of Everything. Thus, God is hidden by the illusions of the ego. To remove/silence the ego is to remove the false identity of the self and so reveal the identity with everything; the Self.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
No it doesn't. The Real Truth does not depend upon beliefs or meanings; it is Impersonal. Death of the Spirit is actually an impossibility as God/Eternal Life is only Life and All Love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
Yeah, and that's what your belief is.Quote:
No it doesn't. The Real Truth does not depend upon beliefs or meanings; it is Impersonal. Death of the Spirit is actually an impossibility as God/Eternal Life is only Life and All Love.
You haven't really given any evidence, either empirical or logical. And anyway, the creator can't be omnibenevolent, that's completely at odds with observation.
This is a belief. Atheists will always point that out especially when you use the word "God". But if you refrased it and said that energy never dies, it just transforms and that life feeds on life, this would be a fact. But essentially you are saying the same thing. What atheists don't realize is there is a diffence between facts and truth, and what theists don't realize is that there is a difference between beliefs and truth. In another thread people are arguing over if 2+2=4 or 5! If you us the binary system 10+10=100. These facts are different but the truth of the quantity remains the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
The truth of this statement, and I don't think even an atheist will argue, is that the witness and being of everything is consciousness. Now the mystic might define God as consciousness wjile the materialist will define consciousness as a biproduct of brain functions. Now science has never proved consciousness. It has no way to prove it or measure it. But every single person accepts consciousness, even scientists, because it is so obvious. There is consciousness is the truth, but it is not a scientific fact. There is no proof for it. So here is an example of what the gnostic sees. The gnostic knows (not believes) that the whole universe and everything in it is divine just like you know (not believe) that you are conscious. If you take the fact of your consciousness and erase the thought of the ego, all you have left is a field of consciousness with no center and no edges and no limits. This is what the mystics call God. And anybody can experience this but science will never understand. Transpersonal psychology knows this also.Quote:
Beyond perception is God - the Witness and Being of Everything. Thus, God is hidden by the illusions of the ego. To remove/silence the ego is to remove the false identity of the self and so reveal the identity with everything; the Self.
All you have to do, is a scientific experiment, regardless of what you believe, to experience the truth for yourself, and that is to erase the thought of the ego while remaining alert and present, and you can experience the field of consciousness we all belong to. It is very simple, but not that easy. I want everyone to try this before they debate over beliefs again, because I see some people talking about beliefs, I see some talking about science, I see some talking about personal knowledge. And it is funny. Those without personal knowledge or experience always bring up science to justify their beliefs.
Why is there Earth instead of Mars?
You can always tell someone who doesn't know the truth from personal experience because they have beliefs. However, a person that only knows belief and has no experience will never recognize when someone else knows from experience. He will always think that the other is talking about beliefs also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
A person that believes thinks that they know. It is an illusion of the ego. "I know the truth" is the ego talking from beliefs. A person with experience who really does know will say something like "The truth is". Borrowed knowledge is not the truth of experience, it is belief. For example, most of us accept intellectually that energy=matter but we do not know it from experience. We can use this fact in debates and it will help prove our point. But we don't live our lives as if we know this. The truth is beyond intellectual borrowed knowledge. The truth of what you know is a lot less than you think it is. And you know things that are contrary to what you believe. This goes for everybody, theist and atheist alike.
everybody: Try to figure out the differences between true knowledge and belief in yourself. Also try to find the difference between facts and truth.
There isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
No, I'm pretty sure there is.
The next planet past Earth is Earth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Jesus.
I asked basically: "Why life on earth and not mars?"
Or how ever you want to look at it. Not the ordering of the planets!!
Thank you for recognizing that I am Jesus. You did not mention life. You just asked why Earth and not Mars, which sounds like asking why existence and not nothing. We have existence instead of nothing, but we do not have Earth instead of Mars. However, we are on Earth and not Mars. That is because it is what I decided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Congratulations UM, you know are lvl 56 in Coming To Your Own Conclusions Despite The PointTM
I am not sure I can form much of a conclusion in trying to determine what you just said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
God damn mud people.
Did I hit a wormhole and end up in Senseless Banter? Stop fucking with the pancakes that eat the fossils' memories, Gilligan inside.
Well it is just like every topic I've ever seen in most things in the lounge people have something else they want to talk about so somehow they steer it that way, so I figured I would cut out the middle-man and lead the topic directly to what I'm interested in, which is the fact that you, UM, are a mudman, and I am tired of your god damn mud parties. You never even invite me but you have to be blaring that music at all hours of the night right next door to me. Some people need sleep at night for work in the morning you know!Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Mississippi mud has been sung about by ZZ Top and The Doobie Brothers. I rest my case. My case continues. You cannot be invited to a party that celebrates you in secrecy, not that we are doing that. Come to the party and go to sleep. You can claim a spot on top of the refrigerator if you get there late enough. Just keep those damn first graders out of my yard. This Zen parable on the reason for existence has been brought to you today by the letters C and M and by the Lord Vader Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Until I am Enlightened, it is a belief. In that respect, these are not opinions, they are recontextualizations. My only choice is acceptance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Only you can find this out for yourself; it begins with acceptance and genuine interest. If you want to know more about this, another thread I have explained a lot in is "A proof of non-existence of god".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I did not mention omnibenevolent. However, God is Omnibenevolent through Creation itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The interpretation will always be different depending on who the reader is. I speak Spiritually, not religiously (Independantly).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Dr. David Hawkins has found the bridge; he can measure Consciousness, logarithmically, whether it'd be collectively or individually; the consciousness of anything in existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
Lol, seriously? How do you measure consciousness? How do you even define consciousness? Mind linking me up to some reliable sources on this? Or I woudln't mind if you elaborated yourself on it :pQuote:
Originally Posted by really
Well I suppose Chayba, between you and I, there are two conciousnesses lol. That is the only way I can imagine measuring concsiousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
If that were true then he wouldn't have created pain or suffering, would he?Quote:
I did not mention omnibenevolent. However, God is Omnibenevolent through Creation itself.
You can't measure consciousness. What exactly does he use? How can you make consciousness quantitative when it is an all-or-nothing quantity? And why the hell is it 'logarithmic'; do you know what a logarithm actually is?Quote:
Dr. David Hawkins has found the bridge; he can measure Consciousness, logarithmically, whether it'd be collectively or individually; the consciousness of anything in existence.
Google him; read and understand his fascinating books. He is the modern, mystical Avatar! Go!Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
http://www.nightingale.com/Auth_Bio~...d_Hawkins.aspx
Watch what you say. Creation is Creation. Evil fails (itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
In Reality, no suffering is possible. All Is Eternal, infinite Love. Suffering and pain are illusions. Illusions. Think about that.
When Reality is found, the questions of existence cease altogether. In Truth, all thoughts are ceased - they were nothing, really.
(Until one decides he will be confident, he may find himself to be nervous.)
You can. Find this out yourself. Consciousness is not on or off; it is progressive, karmic and collective. This is Philosophy, though, I can not answer to large degrees (or else I would go off-topic). PM me if you need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes. The same reason the decibel is measured logarithmically, to account for massive numbers/measurements; illustrate their relativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Conscious experience is all an 'illusion' in a certain sense, but that doesn't make it any less real. Love is also an illusion, if pain qualifies as one.Quote:
In Reality, no suffering is possible. All Is Eternal, infinite Love. Suffering and pain are illusions. Illusions. Think about that.
I'd rather you did explain the thought that leads to that conclusion, actually.Quote:
You can. Find this out yourself. Consciousness is not on or off; it is progressive, karmic and collective. This is Philosophy, though, I can not answer to large degrees (or else I would go off-topic).
Well not really, you can use a linear scale to illustrate massive quantities, for example using units such as moles of substance, where a mole is 6 x 10^23 molecules... only where you have some readings which are comparatively very large to other readings in the same data set would you log the data.Quote:
Yes. The same reason the decibel is measured logarithmically, to account for massive numbers/measurements; illustrate their relativity.
If all conscious experiences are illusions, there is no need for the word "illusion". Illusions are dominant for the unenlightened conscious being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It is, while many people think love is painful. :D God is Love; nothing can be without Gods Love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Read my posts, they are all helpful to this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=57263
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=57744
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=58539
That's right; "6 x 10^23" is a massive number isn't it? Log brings that down to roughly 24.78! Big difference. Using the linear scale encourages mess, in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Hawkins can't "measure" consciousness, he just made up a shitty scale to name after himself with no scientific backing whatsoever.
According to you. Existence is impossible. But you still will not accept that you are missing something. So all existence mocks you. If you had the courage to face my philosophy. Your entire idea of reality would be dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I said existence is impossible? I guess I will just take your word for it. You and ChaybaChayba should get together and go trolling, if you are not the same person. (By the way, "According to you," is not a sentence. :wink:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/ASC1216.jpg
It's a sentence if I put a full stop.
Ok so you believe existence is possible. Despite your philosophy that does not allow it to exist.
Some day we will find out that the answer is because.
Geez the answer to the universe all wrapped up in a neat little bow. Because.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
You are nothing. Stop trying. Stop speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Then what are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Just...be-cause and that's the answer. lol. No wonder children say it, it's so obvious.Quote:
Geez the answer to the universe all wrapped up in a neat little bow. Because.
~Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Well seriously...I don't know what reason it could be besides because hehe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
there are far deeper implications to the word then you would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Further, the motion ~ expression.
I'd never thought I'd see you as a pessimist, ClouD.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
This was the idea I was getting at in my other thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I have no idea.
Lmao..Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Negative...positive, degrees of the same phenomenon.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Nothing...everything...
In the middle.
Don't confuse questions with statements. Existence is obviously possible. Here it is. I just don't understand how.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
What is your philosophy that I am scared to face?
Well then, don't call yourself "nothing". Don't call myself "nothing" either, don't call ourselves anything, actually. Accept me for what I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
I was being dramatic. Sometimes I like horror effects. If you don't know how existence exists. Now what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
:?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Start a thread on the topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
You have done that.Quote:
Start a thread on the topic?
So here we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Lets try and figure it out then shall we? Or do you not want to figure it out? We can begin by getting a clear yes from you, that you do want to find out and will co-operate with another like me that always wishes to find out until it's done. You must accept that I wish to find out as you do. Or I cannot help you with this question.
You must consider the possibility that it's possible I could find out and know the answer. Unless you co-operate and say a clear yes I wish to find out and will work with someone who could possibly have the potential to raise the bar for both of us. Then creating a thread to make room for us to discuss it seriously would be a redundant response to what you think is an unanswerable question.
If you think it's possible there is an answer. You must say a clear yes I will co-operate with complete honesty to begin finding the answer. Only then can anything new proceed.
Was all of that necessary? I started a thread on the issue, thereby requesting answers. Saying I don't know the answer is not the same as saying there is no answer. Of course there is an answer. If you have it, you may start talking. (Haven't you been in this thread for a while? :?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Good but to get anything new you have to admit to co-operation not just letting me talk. If someone is not willing to discover the logic through active involvement in practical experiments without a defensive wall up with their own conclusions there is no hope of participating in a new experience that shows you beyond what you would otherwise not have access to.
There is not much more I could say without demonstrating the answer. That requires your involvement to be willing to actually know it in reality and experience it. You have to first discard you own limiting ideas for a short period and when that period is over you can then resume what makes sense to you. I'm not saying or promising to know the full answer. Only some effects of significance.
Or if you wish to just have a plain old discussion about it without any initiative to be more motivated in finding the answer activity. It will not lead to much but if you think that is right for you that is ok. But do not expect me to be able to show you anything. You would be missing out if your intention is what you say it is.
That depends on what it is. On another site a while back, some lady said she could prove the reality of magic to me if I spend thirty minutes a day for many months trying to use my mind to make a fire truck appear. I declined. What do you have in mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
You have a good sense of humor.
WOW you started this with UM too? And you complain people call you a troll? We are all here to learn, your arrogance that we are too stupid compared to you is only producing negativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Thanks. So, what do you have in mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I think UM, and Minervas should get a room. I seen them responding to eachother in several threads.
Get it on you 2.:banana::banana::banana:
You misunderstood, reading the book by it's cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Alright I'm not sure if I'm stating something someone else has already.
But I can’t help but to reply.
There is something because there is space.
If there was nothing there would be no space.
And the notion of there being no space cannot exist, hence existence.
There was no beginning and there is no ending.
Existence just is. Because the concept or notion of “nothing” simply cannot exist.
In other words one verses zero. One being something, zero being nothing.
Nothing created existence it always has been is and always will be.
I don’t mean “nothing” as literally nothing, just nothing. I hope this makes sense.
Anyway see ya around.
Yes! I think that is the explanation. But what caused it to be where nothing cannot exist? In asking that, I feel like I am standing face to face with the answer, but with a blindfold on. It is as if the answer is so close here I can reach out and touch it, but I don't fully know how to. Maybe the answer to that question is nothing. The fact that nothing cannot exist does not need a cause. Well then, why is there existence in the first place, as the only thing that can exist? I just stood at the door of the answer and arrived where I started. This has Zen written all over it. There must be something to Zen.Quote:
Originally Posted by taltho
Yeah, the word "nothing" has two meanings, as illustrated by this...Quote:
Originally Posted by taltho
Nothing is better than infinite happiness.
A gas station sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, a gas station sandwich is better than infinite happiness.
lol
sandwiches and gas stations make me think of beer... Mmm beer... boy I'm glad theres existence. Otherwise there would be nothing...
The reason why there is existence is so we can drink beer.
So would say the drunken Zen.
Sometimes I see it that way. When I really crave beer, I think it is the only thing that exists. Existence = beer. (Existence = beer) = alcoholism.Quote:
Originally Posted by taltho
I think I've said what I have to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by taltho
Just trying to keep tings on topic for the sake of the thread starter. know what I mean? ;)
What you've had to say is quite funny and it did make me laugh. :lol::lol: LoL.
BTW the beer thing was just an illustration and is not meant to be taken literally. I don't believe the excessive use of alcohol is wise.
P.S.
Is it kosher to quote yourself... well I just did so I hope so.
Space only exists to people who have eyes to see...and in reality all that is is either the interaction or lack there of between eyes and light. General space doesn't really have any proof of its existence...all we know for sure is that energy reacts. And since the notion of a thing being already forever (versus growing forever) it makes more sense for space not to exist than to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by -
So are you saying that space is only perception rendered by our ability to see?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Well aren't light and sight something? Thereby proving existence...
How do you suppose space has no proof of it's existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
And since, as you say, we know that energy reacts then the idea of there being nothing is an absurdity.
Infinity just is and space gives it the ability to be. for without space there would be no room. Also even more controversial I don't believe that it's growing or shrinking or any other such notion. You see I think it just is and never changing. Like I said, controversial. It only changes in our very limited perspective. Infinity is very difficult to understand or explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
So for this reason I believe the notion of nothing is an absurdity.
Your talking as if I'm saying existence doesn't exist...and that light and sight aren't things. I'm saying it is entirely possible that space as we perceive it doesn't exist. Just because we see dimensions doesn't make them exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by taltho
Again...looks around for where I said that there is nothing. Just because you can't fathom how a thing can exist without having literal dimension doesn't mean that it isn't possible.Quote:
How do you suppose space has no proof of it's existence?
And since, as you say, we know that energy reacts then the idea of there being nothing is an absurdity.
You keep on pretending like I'm saying nothing exists...I'm just saying that there are certain restraints on the way that perception is allowed, and in reality nothing we see looks anything like what it actually is. Magnification, color, shape, size, all of these things are calculated by our minds.Quote:
So for this reason I believe the notion of nothing is an absurdity.
Edit: I'm sure you wouldn't say the first, second, and third dimensions don't exist, because in order for space to exist they would have to, however, by your logic, they can not exist independently.
Sandform, I agree with that mostly. sorry for the misunderstanding.
I still stand by my original point though.
Hay I don't mean to come across as attacking you or anyone else, so please don't anyone take offense at how I talk.
It is easy to get lost with words.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
I read "You are nothing. Stop trying. Stop speaking." quite absolutely. But I don't understand clearly, because you were not very elaborate, nor comforting.
However:
1. If you were emphasizing humility, then I am with you.
2. If you were emphasizing that no "person" can be enlightened, I am also with you in that sense.
But I don't see what you mean by saying "we are nothing" yet you are "in-between nothing and everything". Please explain?
Lost in the coveringsQuote:
Originally Posted by really
Lost in the means
How many truly ever catch a glimpse of Self?
Looking right at It, One does not see It
Can one see the seeing itSelf ?
Is the answer 'meringue'?
ClouD may have a valuable message for me, but have not understood it yet. He has not explained what has been "covered", but only alluding to it. This is a risk to me, because I am getting confused with the allusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
They can be counted easily (if they are known at all).Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Glimpses are of spectacular brilliance. One never forgets.
If one reveals they are all one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic