Thread: Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

Kromoh's posts bring to mind the koan:

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha.

Originally Posted by dajo

Wow, Kromoh, for someone who claims to have experienced the ego-death, yours seem to have developed quite well.

no offense

edit.: By the way, that's not something you 'teach'...

Lol then you actually understand nothing about ego loss. You know nothing about it, so shut up. As you said yourself, this cannot be taught, so I won't even mind explaining what my ego has to do with my belief, because you will not understand it. Also, I already told O that you cannot teach it, but he has been challenging this from the beginning. Perhaps you should try to tell him.

Originally Posted by Xei

Thanks for the link.

What you have to understand is that in physics, the only thing we ever really do is make models to match observation.

Theories like relativity and Newtonian mechanics both have ranges is which they apply; Newton's apply to 'humanish' scales and Einstein's to 'cosmological' scales. It's just not possible for these models to be wrong; they are clearly observed via experiment.

Any quantum effect which explicitly doesn't work in the framework of relativity doesn't prove relativity wrong; it simply shows us that relativity can't be used for the quantum scale.

There may well come a time when quantum is expressed as a special case of some more general theory, just as it was once realised that for extremely big scales you have to use general relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics; Newton wasn't wrong, and at human scales General Relativity actually 'turns into' Newtonian mechanics perfectly. It's just that it didn't apply to all scales.

The kind of physics you learn in school is stuff like 'applying a constant force will cause a body to change its momentum per unit time proportional to that force'. This simply can't be debased. It's been observed millions of times via experiment. You don't learn about extremely advanced effects like these, that's for guys with PhDs, but still, Newtonian mechanics is not supposed to deal with exotic situations.

And there's nothing at all wrong with the method of progress in physics, ie. the scientific method. Science is completely open to change. If a physicist observes something, he tries to explain it, not hide it. The scientific method will always be pretty much exhaustively infallible.

Bravo Kinda bad some people don't even know what 'science' is, for people like Xei to have to explain it all over

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Yeah, ego loss is not something you do once and are done with. The ego is always there, stalking you, waiting to pounce when you let your guard down.

Kromoh, for all your writing, you've added absolutely nothing of any substance to this thread.

LOL Cusp, ego-loss is a trance state that you achieve with concentration. Break the concentration and you will be back to normal. But the things you learn while in there remain. Well, not the thing's' you learn, but the thing you learn. You talk about it so abstractedly, means you have no idea what it's about.

--

I never thought I'd see O and The Cusp agree O.o

and LOL Taosaur xD

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol then you actually understand nothing about ego loss. You know nothing about it, so shut up.

Is that one of the great koans?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that one of the great koans?

Lol it would be, if I wasn't atheist. Buddhism is a religion as any other. I hate all those agnostics who think it's superior for some reason.

(Huge post. Hide the women and children. )

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Don't try to say I didn't address it. I did. I'm not going to go into territory I'm not good at. But I already stated my opinion about it.

Fair enough. You said "the video is bullshit" and didn't offer any substantial reason as to why. If that is as far as you're willing to express your disagreement with the video, then I guess it'll just have to do.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL no it isn't... Stop putting words in my mouth.

Maybe you should be a little more clear, then. You said "Do you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That implies that you wouldn't. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that maybe you meant "Don't you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. And to answer that question, judging by the way you've been acting, I'd have to say "No."

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol there's no scientifically explaining human opinion, shall you? I think it is bullshit, because it does not make any credible sense. The reason, as I stated repeatedly, is that you shouldn't take quantum theory and place it in the middle of a philosophical discussion. Any conclusions arising from that have no scientific/logical validity whatsoever.

Rhetoric. If it doesn't make any credible sense (and I'm talking about the idea of the universe being immaterial), then explain why, in your opinion, it doesn't. If not, you're basically saying nothing more than "It's wrong because I think it's wrong, and you're a doodoo head!" with a lot more text than is necessary. I don't pretend to understand all of quantum physics, but there are a few concepts I'm at least familiar with, and they lend credence to the ideas expressed in the video - at least to an extent to where I'd like to see them argued, credibly, against. I'm open to many different opinions on the subject, as long as they are backed with some sort of substance. So far, you've failed to provide anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol you got me wrong again. I never said anything about "we are one". And this is the third time you get me wrong, so that is why I friggin said that only stating my reasons wouldn't make you understand, you'd have to experience it.

The same as a theist saying "My stating the reasons why God exists wouldn't make you understand. You'd have to experience it." It's, basically, baseless drivel. If you refuse to have a discussion about your ideas, and the foundations of your opinions - on the basis that "I wouldn't understand it" - then this conversation is over. There is literally no use in talking to you. I will revert back to your original post and just pretend I didn't challenge it. There's no use for us to sit her bickering back and forth when you're going to take the "Well you're just not going to understand, so I'm not going to attemp to explain it" stance. I have no desire to appeal to such ego.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

True nature of the universe? If you can't understand it at your current age, give up trying. I've already stated a lot like the Cavern Myth and the principle of uncertainty, to human perception. Understand whatever you want from it. But don't complain when I state I'm smarter than you.

Again, you're saying nothing but "I'm right because I"m smarter than you. You don't understand anything" all while succeeding in not posting a single shred of evidence to such.

You bring up the uncertainty principle which, if you paid attention to the video, you'd know wasn't even contradicted. Fundamentally, the uncertainty principle trumps all because, whatever theories are thrown out there we don't know for certain. But we can continue to try to drive toward that truth, and though we may never find it, we will gain knowledge along the way. Please explain why your throwing the uncertainty principle out there proves the video is in correct...or...while you're at it...provide any bit of substantial evidence as to why it's wrong. So far, you haven't done so.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Again, never said anything about "treat each other as one". You get me so wrong it's no even funny. I'm starting to believe you are incapable of it.

I'm giving you the benefit of doubt in thinking that I might have misunderstood you, which is why I asked if that's what you were talking about. You're making sense to no one but yourself, so forgive me for trying another avenue to see if that's what you were talking about.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I am not going to extensively refute everything they say on the video, first because I don't have the patience, second because I'm no expert, and third because I do know they know shit of what they are talking about. Much of what they say is just their own ideas, thrown in the middle of complicated scientific speech to make it sound scientific too.

And yet you offer nothing of substance to illustrate your point. Nothing. You don't have to "extensively" refute everything they say on the video, but saying "It's bullshit. There. I'm out." means absolutely nothing. So, if that's all you plan on contributing to the thread, there is no use in my trying to get you elaborate, and I readilly fold.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Haha, lol, you don't even know what philosophy is. This thing we are doing right now - debating - is philosophing. It's not scientifical but it follows debate rules - philosophy.

And you don't seem to understand the broadness of the term "philosophy." "Debating" is not philosophy. Debating certain subjects is philosophy. It has mostly to do with the nature of being, in the sense of how to act for whatever reason, be it ethics or indoctrination. Yes, it can bleed into the area of metaphysics (which is technically not what we're talking about, but physics), but the idea posted in the video is about a theoretical science. There is a philosophical message in the video, but - as I've said plenty of times - that's not what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

That said, I have given billion reasons to why that video is ridiculous. Go read the Cavern Myth, and you'll understand that you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine. There's nothing scientific in the views held through the video. There, another reason for you. I've mentally counted at least 7 now.

You've mentally counted yet another "reason" that is completely insubstantial. You're saying "the video is wrong because you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine." Dude. Do you even hear yourself? (Figuratively, of course) That blanket statement does absolutley nothing to credibly refute anything in the video. Nothing. And please, if there is anyone reading this, correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No you didn't. If you did, try it again. That was style without substance. I explained you what logic is because you don't seems to know. Your idea of logic is ambiguous, mixed with others things, like human concepts of "good", "right", "sense", "simplicity". Logic is logic - and logic is one thing that's impartial and irrefutable. Premises are irrefutable, not logic.

As I said, and will say again: Logic, as a concept, is absolute. Logical conclusions (such as your very own) are subjective. You're trying to explain that your conclusion is "logic." And I'm trying to explain that your "logical conclusion" is subjective. Do you understand now? I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The will thing was my explanation. It is now taken for fact that you cannot understand my view. Thank you very much.

I'm having a hard time understanding your view because every single thing you've said in this thread amounts to "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind." And "The video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there" (which still says nothing to show why the points in the video are wrong, seeing as how it's putting for the idea that - as Lemonsoul obviously understands - our physical senses should not be necessarily counted on to give us an accurate depiction of the true state of the universe. Not a very hard concept at all to grasp.)

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No, that is not true, and you know it. Don't put words in my mouth goddamnit. That is just not logic, it's deduction. Deduction uses logic, but isn't irrefutable as logic - deduction can very easily be wrong.

Every deduction but your own, apparently. Or wait...your giving us the impression that your deduction is just irrefutable logic. I forgot. I'm sorry, your "logic" is infallible. Forgive me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Logic would be something like the following line of thought: two people come out of a closet. One of them is injured. So, did the other person hurt them? The logical answer would be "not necessarily"

We see the universe through 5 senses. These senses come to us as electrical signals interpreted by our brain. Observing the universe through extra-sensory tools that allow us to see beyond our basic parameters of perception shows us that many of the things that seem a certain way to us, through our senses, are not actually that way.

Logically: the universe may not actually exist in the way our brains interpret it.

Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's the first one. And just go read the Cavern Myth NAO. It's quick and clean. You'll see that the video's so-bright theory was imagined in antiquity. The law of uncertainty was made on that exact principle - and this is physics 101. The answer is we'll never be able to prove if there is an "other, material world", instead of just echoes, or shadows, or whatever you want to think of it. But if you say this proves your point, then I'm sorry but that's an irrefutable argument.

The video doesn't state we can prove anything. Maybe you should rewatch it. It presents the idea that I stated above - nothing more. Like I said in the beginning, you missed the point of the video, and now you're trying to justify your initial position which (surprise) has nothing to do with the video.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just so you don't have to ask again, my point is: don't try to use concepts from an unknown area of quantum physics to try to prove any point in a philosophical debate.

Unknown? I haven't said anything about quantum physics that isn't already known. Maybe you should brush up a bit. I've stated nothing but very simple observations that have been made, and haven't done one thing to explain why it is they are the way they are - which is the unknown principle you're accusing me of discussion...which I'm not.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Don't try to mask what you said. You did do an ad ignorantiam. And now you are making a strawman.

Do you even know the meaning of a straman? I'd love to see you explain how it was that I made one right there. Should be interesting.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I just said my lack of understanding the video doesn't mean the video is right, indeed. But you fail to recognize this simply ambiguity.

And I stated your saying the video is bullshit (whether you understood it or not) doesn't even lend a shred of credence to back your idea that it's bullshit. And I'll say again that, with all the typing you've done, you still haven't shown anything of substance.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never stated that my lack of understanding was real. I was just showing an ad ignorantiam you made. You were the one to make the mistake with the logical fallacy lol, what are you even bitching over?!?

Oh, excuse me. I must have lost sight of my logical fallacy in the midst of all your ad hominems. Again, my mistake.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The "let's just treat everyone as one" - you know I'm not here to waste my time on that, so top trying to ridicule me - I didn't think you were so low to be sincere. And all I had to say about the latter is in this post, so mind reading before any hasty "you didn't explain!!"

...You didn't explain (anything relevant to the video).

The crux of your argument is "the ideas expressed in the video are wrong because nobody knows for sure" - which is....basically, wrong. Just because we don't know for sure what's out there doesn't mean the idea that the universe likely isn't the exact same as we perceive it is wrong. Read this paragraph six times if you need to, so you can understand how simple the concept is.

Originally Posted by dajo

Wow, Kromoh, for someone who claims to have experienced the ego-death, yours seem to have developed quite well.

You noticed that too, eh? Maybe what he experienced is ego-undeath? (Where's a zombie smiley when you need one?)
Tell me, Kromoh...what did you take away from your "ego-loss"? Apparently you haven't retained too much, because you've shown enough ego in this thread to start a blitzkrieg.

Originally Posted by Xei

Thanks for the link.

What you have to understand is that in physics, the only thing we ever really do is make models to match observation.

Theories like relativity and Newtonian mechanics both have ranges is which they apply; Newton's apply to 'humanish' scales and Einstein's to 'cosmological' scales. It's just not possible for these models to be wrong; they are clearly observed via experiment.

Any quantum effect which explicitly doesn't work in the framework of relativity doesn't prove relativity wrong; it simply shows us that relativity can't be used for the quantum scale.

This is exactly my point, Xei. Exactly. I'm not saying that physics is wrong. I'm saying it is turned upside down when trying to measure things on the quantum scale, leading to an extensive level of uncertainty about the true nature of the universe. That's all. That's all I've been saying since the beginning. True enough, it's hard to word everything in a way that's easily interpreted by everyone, but if you go back and read what I've said before, with the knowledge of what I've said in this paragraph, you will understand more where I'm coming from.

It is like a diver on the cusp of diving to (what mankind believes is) the lowest depths of the ocean. But, when when he gets there, he finds a cavern that descends another 6 miles, rendering the amount of oxygen he used (Newtonian physics) as inadequate to make the rest of the trip. It doesn't mean the oxygen he used before didn't work - only that it requires possibly something else to go further.

Originally Posted by Xei

There may well come a time when quantum is expressed as a special case of some more general theory, just as it was once realised that for extremely big scales you have to use general relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics; Newton wasn't wrong, and at human scales General Relativity actually 'turns into' Newtonian mechanics perfectly. It's just that it didn't apply to all scales.

Again, I completely agree. Maybe I had a hard time wording it in a way that couldn't be interpreted as me saying Newtonian physics is wrong, and if that's the case, then I apologize. But I do remember stating before this that I didn't think "physics" was wrong.

Originally Posted by Xei

The kind of physics you learn in school is stuff like 'applying a constant force will cause a body to change its momentum per unit time proportional to that force'. This simply can't be debased. It's been observed millions of times via experiment. You don't learn about extremely advanced effects like these, that's for guys with PhDs, but still, Newtonian mechanics is not supposed to deal with exotic situations.

Of course not. Quantum physics would count as the exotic situations you are speaking of, yes? I'm saying that the way we perceive the world is not necessarily based in a way that includes these exotic situations. That is what the video is saying as well. You haven't commented much on the video itself, so if you agree with the notion that that is what the video is talking about, please explain it to Kromoh.

Originally Posted by Xei

And there's nothing at all wrong with the method of progress in physics, ie. the scientific method. Science is completely open to change. If a physicist observes something, he tries to explain it, not hide it. The scientific method will always be pretty much exhaustively infallible.

I'd have to ask you to please state where I ever said there was anything wrong with the scientific method. I have - and have always had - a great respect for the scientific method. I have said nothing against it at all, during the course of this thread and, indeed, during my entire stay here at DV.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

As you said yourself, this cannot be taught, so I won't even mind explaining what my ego has to do with my belief, because you will not understand it. Also, I already told O that you cannot teach it, but he has been challenging this from the beginning. Perhaps you should try to tell him.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where I asked to be taught ego-death. Or that I challenged that you could teach it. I asked you to elaborate on your opinion, and you've tap-danced around doing so in every possible way. Now who's putting words into who's mouth?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bravo Kinda bad some people don't even know what 'science' is, for people like Xei to have to explain it all over

Hilarious. Overstepping Xei's misinterpretation of what I said, I'd like you to point to where I've showed a misunderstanding of the scientific method, in this thread.

Aaaannnnnd GO!

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never thought I'd see O and The Cusp agree O.o

Another testament to how well you pay attention. The Cusp and I have agreed on a lot.

Now, all the bullshit aside...can we try to get this back on track? The video talks about how our perception of the universe can't be relied upon to depict the true state of the universe. It's a very simple premise. You state it's all bullshit. I'm asking you now, to drop your arrogance and explain your position (and the uncertainty principle does nothing to refute that idea). If you refuse to do that because "I wouldn't understand" (as delegated by your arrogance), then there is no reason for us to continue this conversation.

It's that simple.

Yeah, it looks like we're on the same page. I only went into the scientific method thing to cover all the bases, as I wasn't completely sure what exactly you were referring to.

There's really not much I can say about quantum mechanics though, as I say... I have a feeling it's just one of those things where, if you don't have a degree in it, you just can't really interpret what it means; if you can't do it quantitatively you probably can't do it philosophically. This has been my general experience with my education in the sciences, really.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, it looks like we're on the same page. I only went into the scientific method thing to cover all the bases, as I wasn't completely sure what exactly you were referring to.

Ok. Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Xei

There's really not much I can say about quantum mechanics though, as I say... I have a feeling it's just one of those things where, if you don't have a degree in it, you just can't really interpret what it means; if you can't do it quantitatively you probably can't do it philosophically. This has been my general experience with my education in the sciences, really.

And I do agree with that. However, I do feel that knowledge of some quantum observations is enough to apply knowledge of those observations in a conversation where the other person makes it seem like such properties are impossible. That's all I'm doing here. Few quantum concepts that I am familiar with are entanglement, non-locality, and the collapse of a wave-form (a la Shroedinger's Cat). I'm definitely not an expert, or even well-versed in these areas, but I'm confident enough with my knowledge of the concepts to be able to bring them up, in a discussion where the other person seems to hold on to a dogmatic paradigm that such physical properties are impossible.

That's all I've been doing.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

(Huge post. Hide the women and children. )

(huge breath)

Fair enough. You said "the video is bullshit" and didn't offer any substantial reason as to why. If that is as far as you're willing to express your disagreement with the video, then I guess it'll just have to do.

I already gave thousands of reasons to why I think this video is bullshit. Don't make be start retro-quoting.

Maybe you should be a little more clear, then. You said "Do you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That implies that you wouldn't. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that maybe you meant "Don't you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. And to answer that question, judging by the way you've been acting, I'd have to say "No."

I wouldn't be debating if I hadn't understood the video. Unlike some people (like UM), I don't argue for "winning" the argument, nor to provoke people. If I've been discussing this up to know, you can bet I understood the video enough to think I'm capable of debating over it.

Rhetoric. If it doesn't make any credible sense (and I'm talking about the idea of the universe being immaterial), then explain why, in your opinion, it doesn't. If not, you're basically saying nothing more than "It's wrong because I think it's wrong, and you're a doodoo head!" with a lot more text than is necessary. I don't pretend to understand all of quantum physics, but there are a few concepts I'm at least familiar with, and they lend credence to the ideas expressed in the video - at least to an extent to where I'd like to see them argued, credibly, against. I'm open to many different opinions on the subject, as long as they are backed with some sort of substance. So far, you've failed to provide anything of the sort.

LOL. Once again - Don't apply concepts of the least understood part of science to debate philosophical questions, like what is the essence of the universe.

To think of it, the very definition of "material" refers to human perception. The universe is material because it's made of matter. Matter is what we defined matter to be. Whatever if it's intangible, or not very well understood - the universe is material because we defined it as material. What I'm saying is that quantum physics is one of those areas of knowledge that, if you don't understand fully, you can very easily misunderstand. And that is what the people on the video did.

Just like that question students may have: if the speed of light is the fastest there is, then you have a car is driving at 100km/h, doesn't the light coming from the car exceed the speed of light?
The answer is no, because the formulas we use for calculating speed are actually a simplistic model which isn't valid for extreme values. See how this is akin to quantum physics? If you don't understand it very well, you're very likely to misunderstand it.

The same as a theist saying "My stating the reasons why God exists wouldn't make you understand. You'd have to experience it." It's, basically, baseless drivel. If you refuse to have a discussion about your ideas, and the foundations of your opinions - on the basis that "I wouldn't understand it" - then this conversation is over. There is literally no use in talking to you. I will revert back to your original post and just pretend I didn't challenge it. There's no use for us to sit her bickering back and forth when you're going to take the "Well you're just not going to understand, so I'm not going to attemp to explain it" stance. I have no desire to appeal to such ego.

I've already said I've tried explaining this to multiple people, including you twice, and you didn't understand it. Even dajo confirmed it's not something you can teach. I've tried telling you, just go up there and see. But you didn't understand, so I wonder why you're still challenging me over this.

Again, saying nothing but "I'm right because I"m smarter than you. You don't understand anything" all while succeeding it not posting a single shred of evidence to such.

LOL I was just being bitchy over there xD

You bring up the uncertainty principle which, if you paid attention to the video, you'd know wasn't even contradicted. Fundamentally, the uncertainty principle trumps all because, whatever theories are thrown out there we don't know for certain. But we can continue to try to drive toward that truth, and though we may never find it, we will gain knowledge along the way. Please explain why your throwing the uncertainty principle out there proves the video is in correct...or...while you're at it...provide any bit of substantial evidence as to why it's wrong. So far, you haven't done so.

LOL OF COURSE the uncertainty principle wasn't contradicted. I said the whole basis of the logical reasoning in the video comes down to the uncertainty principle. "The universe could be very different from what we
think of it, so let's try to think of it differently, we might get right". The video uses the uncertainty principle as a means of being irrefutable.

I'm giving you the benefit of doubt in thinking that I might have misunderstood you, which is why I asked if that's what you were talking about. You're making sense to no one but yourself, so forgive me for trying another avenue to see if that's what you were talking about.

Rhetoric.

And yet you offer nothing of substance to illustrate your point. Nothing. You don't have to "extensively" refute everything they say on the video, but saying "It's bullshit. There. I'm out." means absolutely nothing. So, if that's all you plan on contributing to the thread, there is no use in my trying to get you elaborate, and I readilly fold.

I'm considering retro-quoting as we speak. I've already given you a list of reasons.

And you don't seem to understand the broadness of the term "philosophy." "Debating" is not philosophy. Debating certain subjects is philosophy. It has mostly to do with the nature of being, in the sense of how to act for whatever reason, be it ethics or indoctrination. Yes, it can bleed into the area of metaphysics (which is technically not what we're talking about, but physics), but the idea posted in the video is about a theoretical science. There is a philosophical message in the video, but - as I've said plenty of times - that's not what I'm talking about.

LOL. Debating ideas with a purpose of finding a logical answer - it's called dialectic - from the greek 'dialect', which means dialogue. Debating anything the way we are is considered philosophy.

LOL again. The video throws many opinions, many of them metaphysical, in the middle of scientific fact, in order to mask the opinions as facts, or at least give them credence. Nothing in the scientific part of the video was wrong. But the matter is, what exactly in the video was scientific?

You've mentally counted yet another reason that is completely insubstantial. You're saying "the video is wrong because you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine. Dude. Do you even hear yourself? (Figuratively, of course) That blanket statement does absolutley nothing to credibly refute anything in the video. Nothing. And please, if there is anyone reading this, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll retro-quote one I finish refuting to this post. You've convinced me.

As I said, and will say again: Logic, as a concept, is absolute. Logical conclusions (such as your very own) are subjective. You're trying to explain that your conclusion is "logic." And I'm trying to explain that your "logical conclusion" is subjective. Do you understand now? I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

LOL. Logical conclusions are not subjective. I know you are gonna call my argument irrefutable, but I've already tried explaining it to you more than once, and you misunderstood me on both. I gave many reasons why my conclusion is logic. If you missed them, it's not my fault.

I'm having a hard time understanding your view because every single thing you've said in this thread amounts to "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind." And "The video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there" (which still says nothing to show why the points in the video are wrong, seeing as how it's putting for the idea that - as Lemonsoul obviously understands - our physical senses should not be necessarily counted on to give us an accurate depiction of the true state of the universe. Not a very hard concept at all to grasp.)

No, wrong. I didn't say "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind". I said "the video is nonsense and it doesn't change my mind".

Nor did I say "the video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there". I actually meant that the video makes an irrefutable argument based on the uncertainty principle. And trying to defend an idea based on the uncertainty principle is the worst thing I've ever heard of.

LOL, if you're not going to rely on your physical sense, what will you rely on? Who knows if even your physical senses are an illusion, and you're only dreaming this. Who knows if even your thoughts are an illusion. Maybe we don't exist at all. Welcome to the uncertainty principle - don't try to prove an argument based on it, it won't work.

Every deduction but your own, apparently. Or wait...your giving us the impression that your deduction is just irrefutable logic. I forgot. I'm sorry, your "logic" is infallible. Forgive me.

Oh man. Stop making bullshit statements. Deduction is one thing, logic is another. That's what I explained earlier, because you didn't know the difference. If I based my view on deduction or logic is another, completely unrelated thing.

Also, stop trying to "win" this argument just for the sake of it. Contrary to you, some people actually mean what they say in discussions like this. I can count at least 5 extra long posts of yours, where you only challenge my belief,s and offer nothing substantial yourself to refute to my arguments. Should I say that magical word?

We see the universe through 5 senses. These senses come to us as electrical signals interpreted by our brain. Observing the universe through extra-sensory tools that allow us to see beyond our basic parameters of perception shows us that many of the things that seem a certain way to us, through our senses, are not actually that way.

LOL. Who said your senses aren't an illusion? Who said your brain isn't an illusion? Who said you concept of "brain" isn't an illusion. Maybe you're just dreaming this, and even I don't exist. This is what they fucking call UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. And the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE is ironically the only certainty we have. But it can't be used to prove any argument at all, and trying to do that produces irrefutable arguments.

Logically: the universe may not actually exist in the way our brains interpret it.

Do you disagree?

Maybe even your brain doesn't exist. Maybe even your awareness doesn't exist. Free will is an illusion. I am discussing this with you knowing that it doesn't change in any way the uncertainty principle. Maybe you're just my imagination. That's what I mean by the video, nor you, changing my view on the subject.

The video doesn't state we can prove anything. Maybe you should rewatch it. It presents the idea that I stated above - nothing more. Like I said in the beginning, you missed the point of the video, and now you're trying to justify your initial position which (surprise) has nothing to do with the video.

So, the video states the uncertainty principle? Is that all you're taking from the video? Then I'm losing my time here. Plato did it with the fucking Cavern Myth I told you to read pages ago. Maybe if you had read it, we wouldn't be arguing now.

Unknown? I haven't said anything about quantum physics that isn't already known. Maybe you should brush up a bit. I've stated nothing but very simple observations that have been made, and haven't done one thing to explain why it is they are the way they are - which is the unknown principle you're accusing me of discussion...which I'm not.

I already responded to this with the car and speed of light problem, up above.

Do you even know the meaning of a straman? I'd love to see you explain how it was I made one right there. Should be interesting.

Strawman is when you change what the person said when responding, and thus refuting a false argument instead of the person's argument. You said I did something and refuted to it while I didn't.

I never said anything about the video being right because I didn't prove it wrong. I said about the video being right because I (allegedly) didn't understand it.

Also, the ad ignoramtiam you made... don't just ignore it lol. That's what I was criticizing you for - even if a person (me or someone else) doesn't understand an argument, it doesn't mean it's true. I made a supposition to try to teach you something and you criticize me for it. *.*

And I stated your saying the video is bullshit (whether you understood it or not) doesn't even lend a shred of credence to back your idea that it's bullshit. And I'll say again that, with all the typing you've done, you still haven't shown anything of substance.

It doesn't lend credence to the video either. I gave many reasons why I think the video is bullshit, and you ignored them all.

Oh, excuse me. I must have lost sight of my logical fallacy in the midst of all your ad hominems. Again, my mistake.

Ad hominem is not even a logical fallacy, you idiot xD It's an argumentative fallacy.

...You didn't explain (anything relevant to the video).

The crux of your argument is "the ideas expressed in the argument are wrong because nobody knows for sure. Which is....basically, wrong. Just because we don't know for sure what's out there doesn't mean the idea that the universe likely isn't the exact same as we perceive it is wrong. Read this paragraph six times if you need to, so you can understand how simple the concept is.

No, that is not what I said (which means you're making a strawman - happy?). I said that the basis of the video's reasoning is the uncertainty principle (I refuse to explain it once again), and that it doesn't prove anything in an argument. The uncertainty principle cannot LOGICALLY be wrong. I never attacked the uncertainty principle LOL. But any conclusions made from it are bullshit. Why? because there is absolutely zero certainty. maybe invisible pink unicorns exist, and we just can't see them. So let's just go and believe them, right?

You noticed that too, eh? Maybe what he experienced is ego-undeath? (Where's a zombie smiley when you need one?)
Tell me, Kromoh...what did you take away from your "ego-loss"? Apparently you haven't retained too much, because you've shown enough ego in this thread to start a blitzkrieg.

Haha, again, you never understood when I explained the essence of it, so don't criticize what you don't know. Having experienced a moment of ego-loss doesn't change "how much" ego I have left. Lol. Ego is not quantifiable. It's a status. And you're an ignorant.

Hilarious. Overstepping Xei's misinterpretation of what I said, I'd like you to point to where I've showed a misunderstanding of the scientific method, in this thread.

Aaaannnnnd GO!

I didn't mean you, idiot. Which only makes you more of an idiot. lmao

Another testament to how well you pay attention. The Cusp and I have agreed on a lot.

And to think I thought you were a wise guy..

Now, all the bullshit aside...can we try to get this back on track? The video talks about how our perception of the universe can't be relied upon to depict the true state of the universe. It's a very simple premise. You state it's all bullshit. I'm asking you now, to drop your arrogance and explain your position (and the uncertainty principle does nothing to refute that idea). If you refuse to do that because "I wouldn't understand" (as delegated by your arrogance), then there is no reason for us to continue this conversation.

Yes, the video talks about the uncertainty principle. Yes, no problem with that. But as you acknowledge it, it uses that as a premise. I will not repeat the fact that any conclusion made from the uncertainty principle is bullshit, because there is zero certainty. Oops, I just did.

I already tried to explain it to you, and you didn't understand. So don't say that.

I don't have much to add, since O is arguing from a very similar position to my own and is doing a pretty good job with it, but I would like to address the issue of the uncertainty principle. Some people here are attempting to use it to lend credence to their argument but it seems like few people here actually understand its implications.

The uncertainty principle is not meant to be taken as a fundamental truth of our reality. What it really shows is actually only a fundamental flaw in the dualistic subject/object mode in which we perceive the universe. It is not that the motions of particles are necessarily fundamentally uncertain, but that our knowledge of them is limited to merely the way they interact, and it impossible to extricate the observer, and therefore the observer's effects from the observation being made. We are incapable of perceiving a thing as it really is, and are limited to perceiving relationships between the thing and ourselves, and so the fundamental nature of the thing must remain a mystery to us.

Now for some retro-quoting. Here, you'll see some substance

Just so you don't say I didn't offer anything substantial.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Human beings are too arrogant to think the universe exists because of them. Bah, we are only barely capable of conscious thought and already think our mind breaks the laws of physics. We think the mind is something immaterial, but it is only the outcome of neurochemical processes in our brains. The feeling of being experiencing something, or consciousness as humans named it, is only one of the functions of the brain. Consciousness requires intelligence, and intelligence is how complex and well-functional the brain anatomy is - given shape to and filtered by evolution.

So no, the mind does not exist. The brain exists, but it's as subject to the laws of physics as anything else. It is arrogant (and dumb) to think human beings are special. Just because we don't/can't observe something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We once couldn't observe atoms, but voilà, they were always there.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

All that stuff in the video was already coined by Plato, much, much before our time. Search for his Cavern Myth (I think that's the name). The answer to it is the scientific principle of uncertainty - we can never be sure we are in the Matrix or in the real world. Maybe there are thousands of matrix one inside the other.. who knows. Maybe there isn't a real world at all, only the matrix. Nevertheless, and most importantly, it's one single question we will never have the answer to, no matter what we do - we'll never have a confirmation - not even after death (that'd be stupid). So, as dr House once brilliantly said: "I prefer to live life like this wasn't only a test."

You just have no idea just how extremely much human thoughts are clouded by instinct and emotion. To the point of fear of death making people come up with huge conspiracy theories, and so on. An expression I came up with, and like it very much, is: we are blinded by our own eyes.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

There is simply no point in creating a life philosophy based on electron behaviour - simply because absolutely nothing assures us we know everything there is to know about electrons. What to our eyes may seem random might have a very logical underlying explanation. Quantum theory is still fresh new, and scientists all over the world agree there is just too much to learn before it can be considered even accurate, but believers go all the way to an area they understand crap about to try to prove/create/debate belief.

The real reason is that there is no reason at all. The real sense is that there is no sense at all. The real knowledge is that there is no knowledge at all. Saying this will not make you understand, as I've said it didn't make anyone understand before. We use logic in mathematics, in diagnosis, in science, but only few people use logic to really understand.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Haha I explained exactly what quantum entanglement has to do with my view. Just because we do not understand it now, it doesn't mean it's something random or illogic. As Einstein himself explained, if something seems random, then there's probably an underlying reason we aren't observing. Just because science does not know why particles change properties seemingly randomly, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a reason. Saying it doesn't have a reason is idiotic. Just because we don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My advice? Leave quantum physics to professionals who know what they're talking about. Don't try to place particle physics in the middle of a philosophic debate.


I never said that was the line of thought I adopted - "it makes sense already, let's stop going further". No no. Many times, you go as deep as the bottom, only to find that the answer didn't require such depth. Yet, since you're been to the bottom, you know for certain the answer is true. That's what I've talking about the whole time.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol it's not the same thing, and I'll explain why. With the god assumption, you have the belief in god but not a fact associated with its existence. With quantum entanglement, you have the fact but not something that would explain it. Actually, the logic is the opposite of the god paradigm.


Nah. The example you used doesn't fit. Firstly, because there is no "most logical" way to get out of the position. There is only a way that benefits the person the most. And what one considers benefits them the most is relative.

What I mean when I (and probably the rest of the world) say 'logic', is stuff like: All boys wear hats. Matt is a boy. Therefore, Matt uses a hat.

Logic is under no circumstance relative. It might be that the premises are false, such as not all boys wearing hats, or Matt not being a boy... but if the premises are true, then the logical deduction that Matt uses a hat is also true.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah, don't try to assume what I think. I said something and you interpreted it wrongly. My point is that all we do and will to do is only human emotion/instinct, and that if we were reason alone, we wouldn't even question things, because there would be no will to question. Will is human condition. And that is what I consider my knowledge, and just saying this will never get you to understand what it fully means. You have to experience having no will at all in order to understand. I never said that the physical is absolute. I just said that it's ridiculous to try to find a meaning for life based on what we don't yet understand of quantum physics.


Particle physics won't give you insight your you reason for existing. That's what I'm trying to say when I say not to use quantum theory in philosophical arguments. I didn't "ignore the validity of many of the things expressed in the video". I don't deny some stuff in the video was right (a video can't be so bad as to be 100% wrong), but there are too many flaws on it to take it seriously.


Science works on that same logic. And the logic I'm using is as valid as any other, but I insist, only describing it will not make you agree with me. You need to feel what it is like to have no will, just once, for you to agree with me. We are only humans, only the product of the medium. There's nothing special to it.


You didn't say a thing in there. I said that if the premise is true, the conclusion is true, because of logic. I was actually explaining to you what logic is, since you seem not to understand it.


I've already said my point, you are the one to ignore it. Don't use quantum physics, especially an area that is so poorly known, to try to prove something in a philosophical argument - and that goes for you and the people on the video.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol there's no scientifically explaining human opinion, shall you? I think it is bullshit, because it does not make any credible sense. The reason, as I stated repeatedly, is that you shouldn't take quantum theory and place it in the middle of a philosophical discussion. Any conclusions arising from that have no scientific/logical validity whatsoever.

True nature of the universe? If you can't understand it at your current age, give up trying. I've already stated a lot like the Cavern Myth and the principle of uncertainty, to human perception. Understand whatever you want from it. But don't complain when I state I'm smarter than you.


Again, never said anything about "treat each other as one". You get me so wrong it's no even funny. I'm starting to believe you are incapable of it. I am not going to extensively refute everything they say on the video, first because I don't have the patience, second because I'm no expert, and third because I do know they know shit of what they are talking about. Much of what they say is just their own ideas, thrown in the middle of complicated scientific speech to make it sound scientific too.


That said, I have given billion reasons to why that video is ridiculous. Go read the Cavern Myth, and you'll understand that you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine. There's nothing scientific in the views held through the video. There, another reason for you. I've mentally counted at least 7 now.


No you didn't. If you did, try it again. That was style without substance. I explained you what logic is because you don't seems to know. Your idea of logic is ambiguous, mixed with others things, like human concepts of "good", "right", "sense", "simplicity". Logic is logic - and logic is one thing that's impartial and irrefutable. Premises are refutable, not logic.


No, that is not true, and you know it. Don't put words in my mouth goddamnit. That is just not logic, it's deduction. Deduction uses logic, but isn't irrefutable as logic - deduction can very easily be wrong.

Logic would be something like the following line of thought: two people come out of a closet. One of them is injured. So, did the other person hurt them? The logical answer would be "not necessarily"


It's the first one. And just go read the Cavern Myth NAO. It's quick and clean. You'll see that the video's so-bright theory was imagined in antiquity. The law of uncertainty was made on that exact principle - and this is physics 101. The answer is we'll never be able to prove if there is an "other, material world", instead of just echoes, or shadows, or whatever you want to think of it. But if you say this proves your point, then I'm sorry but that's an irrefutable argument.


Just so you don't have to ask again, my point is: don't try to use concepts from an unknown area of quantum physics to try to prove any point in a philosophical debate.

Also, O:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

In my opinion, I believe that because we are physical beings, we cannot perceive the true nature of physical objects in a perfect, non-diluted way. It would be akin to trying to find what lies beyond the veil of death without actually dying. We can continuously divide the physical objects of the universe in a hypothetical sense, but our physical senses and capabilities divide what we can achieve in terms of information as well. Therefore, the smaller the thing we are trying to percieve, the less it seems to exist to our perception. In the reverse, it is almost impossibly difficult for us to fully understand the nature of everything, because we are multiplying what we are perceiving infinitely, making it impossible for us to view things at a larger scale without leaving bits of data out.

Unless you can perceive infinity and perfect zero simultaneously, then you cannot understand the absolute nature of reality. You are merely dividing the line between 0 and 1, dancing between a decimal followed by infinite 9's and a decimal followed by infinite zeros with a 1 at the end. You are merely shifting back and forth between materialism (1) and nihilism (0). You should not embrace one or the other. You should embrace the whole. Or at least try to. n__n

Recent scientific evidence DOES actually support the idea that the universe is one big giant hologram. This isn't much different from what I already suspected, but it's still pretty cool.


From New Scientist:

According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.
.
.
.

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image.


Full Article

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I already gave thousands of reasons to why I think this video is bullshit. Don't make be start retro-quoting.

And not one of them was substantial.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I wouldn't be debating if I hadn't understood the video. Unlike some people (like UM), I don't argue for "winning" the argument, nor to provoke people. If I've been discussing this up to know, you can bet I understood the video enough to think I'm capable of debating over it.

And in the same breath, you say that you (paraphrase) "don't speak on things subjects you're not good with." Then you talk about how the video talks about quantum physics...and you're arguing the video. Contradiction.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Once again - Don't apply concepts of the least understood part of science to debate philosophical questions, like what is the essence of the universe.

And even though you don't know enough of it to refute it, you say the video is wrong. Hilarious.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

To think of it, the very definition of "material" refers to human perception. The universe is material because it's made of matter. Matter is what we defined matter to be. Whatever if it's intangible, or not very well understood - the universe is material because we defined it as material.

Is it me, or did you completely miss the fact that you just agreed with the video?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What I'm saying is that quantum physics is one of those areas of knowledge that, if you don't understand fully, you can very easily misunderstand. And that is what the people on the video did.

And how can you know they misunderstood it, when you, admittedly, don't understand it yourself? Marinate on that for a moment.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just like that question students may have: if the speed of light is the fastest there is, then you have a car is driving at 100km/h, doesn't the light coming from the car exceed the speed of light?
The answer is no, because the formulas we use for calculating speed are actually a simplistic model which isn't valid for extreme values. See how this is akin to quantum physics? If you don't understand it very well, you're very likely to misunderstand it.

Absolutely nothing to do with the video, which simply concludes that our perception of the universe is the way it actually said...which you actually agreed with a couple of paragraphs back. LOL.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I've already said I've tried explaining this to multiple people, including you twice, and you didn't understand it. Even dajo confirmed it's not something you can teach. I've tried telling you, just go up there and see. But you didn't understand, so I wonder why you're still challenging me over this.

Because you're using it to state how you're right, and it has absolutely not weight in this context, so I'm looking for you to explain away how it actually applies. As of yet, as I've said many times, you haven't.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL I was just being bitchy over there xD

Seems to be a running theme.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL OF COURSE the uncertainty principle wasn't contradicted. I said the whole basis of the logical reasoning in the video comes down to the uncertainty principle. "The universe could be very different from what we
think of it, so let's try to think of it differently, we might get right". The video uses the uncertainty principle as a means of being irrefutable.

The video presents a paradigm which can be reached by logical reasoning. It proposes the idea that "the universe may actually be different than the way we perceive it." What's more, is that it simply gets to the fundamental aspect of the universe being nothing but atoms and sub-quantum particles which (surprise) actually coincides what we already know of the universe. You're acting like the video is talking about how the universe is really made up of unicorn hair and cinnamon.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I'm considering retro-quoting as we speak. I've already given you a list of reasons.

None of which actually related to the message in the video. Only stating that the video is wrong because of the uncertainty principle, which illustrates that the idea proposed in the video can't be proven, but does nothing to lend credence to your idea that the ideas proposed are wrong.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Debating ideas with a purpose of finding a logical answer - it's called dialectic - from the greek 'dialect', which means dialogue. Debating anything the way we are is considered philosophy.

That's actually very interesting (just looked into more of it). I understand the idea of philosophy, but not the extent to which the word applies, which - like I said - spans very many branches.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL again. The video throws many opinions, many of them metaphysical, in the middle of scientific fact, in order to mask the opinions as facts, or at least give them credence. Nothing in the scientific part of the video was wrong. But the matter is, what exactly in the video was scientific?

I believe I already stated that it was in the realm of theoretical science. A la Bohm. It is about breaking away from the ideas of people/places/things as being tangible, and looking at them as the mass of particles/information that they really are. Going further, it goes to bring into question whether or not those particles (physicality) really exist as we know them because, under certain conditions, their "physical" properties dissolve. All of this is rooted in scientific fact.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Logical conclusions are not subjective.

I disagree, and I've given examples as to why.

Originally Posted by Kromoh
No, wrong. I didn't say "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind". I said "the video is nonsense [B

and[/B] it doesn't change my mind".

Again, semantics, here is what you said:

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And the reason why I believe my view prevails is that the video nor quantum physics changes it, or anything for the matter.

So your view prevails because the video doesn't change it? Sounds like your standard, biased, perspective, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nor did I say "the video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there". I actually meant that the video makes an irrefutable argument based on the uncertainty principle. And trying to defend an idea based on the uncertainty principle is the worst thing I've ever heard of.

The video said what you agreed to (that reality is likely different from what we perceive it to be), and highlighted the fact that what we "believe" to be is nothing more than clouds of these particles, that may exist only as a wave of said particles in space. That's It.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL, if you're not going to rely on your physical sense, what will you rely on? Who knows if even your physical senses are an illusion, and you're only dreaming this. Who knows if even your thoughts are an illusion. Maybe we don't exist at all.

Congratulations, you now understand - and apparently agree with - the video! :bravo:

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Oh man. Stop making bullshit statements. Deduction is one thing, logic is another. That's what I explained earlier, because you didn't know the difference. If I based my view on deduction or logic is another, completely unrelated thing.

You are stating that your view is logic, implying that all others are illogical. That is what I'm correcting you on, and I will stand by that. Your view is your deduction. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Also, stop trying to "win" this argument just for the sake of it. Contrary to you, some people actually mean what they say in discussions like this. I can count at least 5 extra long posts of yours, where you only challenge my belief,s and offer nothing substantial yourself to refute to my arguments. Should I say that magical word?

Ever since the beginning of this argument, I've been asking you to challenge the ideas proposed, substantially. I've done very little to challenge your "beliefs" other than when you "believe" that "the video is bullshit" but don't offer an reason as to why. (And in case you've missed the point, most of the "reasons" you've offered were stark misinterpretations of the video.)

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Who said your senses aren't an illusion? Who said your brain isn't an illusion? Who said you concept of "brain" isn't an illusion. Maybe you're just dreaming this, and even I don't exist. This is what they fucking call UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. And the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE is ironically the only certainty we have. But it can't be used to prove any argument at all, and trying to do that produces irrefutable arguments.

Again, thank you for actually beginning to understand the video. The video doesn't use the uncertainty principle. It simply doesn't contradict it. It predicts and idea (a very basic one) that is likely to be true whether you apply the U.P. or not - that reality is likely not what we simply perceive it to be, and it goes into why. That's....pretty much it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Maybe even your brain doesn't exist. Maybe even your awareness doesn't exist. Free will is an illusion. I am discussing this with you knowing that it doesn't change in any way the uncertainty principle. Maybe you're just my imagination. That's what I mean by the video, nor you, changing my view on the subject.

I'm glad you're catching up. Way to perfectly summarize what the video is actually saying.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

So, the video states the uncertainty principle? Is that all you're taking from the video? Then I'm losing my time here. Plato did it with the fucking Cavern Myth I told you to read pages ago. Maybe if you had read it, we wouldn't be arguing now.

The video doesn't state the uncertainty principle. I wonder, more and more, if you actually watched it. If you would have looked into the theories of Bohm and his Implicate/Explicate Order theory, like I'd stated from the beginning, we wouldn't be arguing now.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Strawman is when you change what the person said when responding, and thus refuting a false argument instead of the person's argument. You said I did something and refuted to it while I didn't.

I never said anything about the video being right because I didn't prove it wrong. I said about the video being right because I (allegedly) didn't understand it.

And, ironically, I never said the video was right because you "didn't understand it." Did I? No. Way to highlight your strawman while defining a strawman.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Also, the ad ignoramtiam you made... don't just ignore it lol. That's what I was criticizing you for - even if a person (me or someone else) doesn't understand an argument, it doesn't mean it's true. I made a supposition to try to teach you something and you criticize me for it. *.*

See above. I never said the video was right because you "didn't understand it." I said that the video gave more to go off of, to lend credence to the argument, than your argument against it. That was a call for you to add more substance to your argument, and you failed miserably, upholding my point.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It doesn't lend credence to the video either. I gave many reasons why I think the video is bullshit, and you ignored them all.

That would be because most (generously) of them didn't have anything to do with the video, only your misinterpretation of it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Ad hominem is not even a logical fallacy, you idiot xD It's an argumentative fallacy.

Thinking the use of an ad hominem helps you make your point is a logical fallacy.
Class dismissed.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No, that is not what I said (which means you're making a strawman - happy?). I said that the basis of the video's reasoning is the uncertainty principle (I refuse to explain it once again), and that it doesn't prove anything in an argument. The uncertainty principle cannot LOGICALLY be wrong. I never attacked the uncertainty principle LOL. But any conclusions made from it are bullshit. Why? because there is absolutely zero certainty. maybe invisible pink unicorns exist, and we just can't see them. So let's just go and believe them, right?

That is, again, completely counter-intuitive to the point of the video. You're going in circles and have absolutely no idea which side of the revolving door you intend to come out of.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Haha, again, you never understood when I explained the essence of it, so don't criticize what you don't know. Having experienced a moment of ego-loss doesn't change "how much" ego I have left. Lol. Ego is not quantifiable. It's a status. And you're an ignorant.

Never said ego was quantifiable, or that you "lose" it when you experience ego-loss. I asked you what you took out of it. One would figure, as with meditation, that it teaches you the insignificance of ego, and the significance of trying to channel it to the wayside (as with the concept of enlightenment). That was my interpretation. I realize it may not be correct, which is why I asked YOU what YOU brought out of your ego-loss experience. Typical that, instead of answering with substance, you simply chose to say I "shouldn't criticize what I don't know."

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I didn't mean you, idiot. Which only makes you more of an idiot. lmao

I'll chalk that up to your apparent inability to express yourself effectively. Being that I've agreed with many of the ideas expressed in the video, and everyone in this thread but you, the logical assumption that you were talking about me as well. If you spoke with a little more specificity (assuming you didn't say exactly what I implied you said, the first time) we wouldn't have these little trainwrecks (and calling you an "idiot" right here would fit perfectly, but it would be pretty childish, now wouldn't it?).

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, the video talks about the uncertainty principle. Yes, no problem with that. But as you acknowledge it, it uses that as a premise. I will not repeat the fact that any conclusion made from the uncertainty principle is bullshit, because there is zero certainty. Oops, I just did.

You're so confused you're confusing yourself. The video doesn't "talk about the uncertainty principle." It presents the idea that the way we see the universe is likely not the way it actually is. Just saying that, alone would be leaning on the U.P. but the video puts forth evidence as to why it's likely not the way that we see it. It doesn't just say it and "bam" leave it alone. It explains it in a way that (surprise) after all this bickering, you've actually agreed with - ironically adding more substance to my claim that you misunderstood the video in the first place.

Originally Posted by Naiya

Recent scientific evidence DOES actually support the idea that the universe is one big giant hologram. This isn't much different from what I already suspected, but it's still pretty cool.


From New Scientist:

According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.
.
.
.

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image.


Full Article

Awesome. Thanks for that, Naiya.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Awesome. Thanks for that, Naiya.

No problem!

I'm of two minds on this whole subject.

Firstly, as a science major I have to at least believe there is some kind of objective reality out there (illusionary or no), and that even though we can never fully understand it, the act of trying to understand it gives our lives meaning.

Now I'm going to really mindfuck you.

Secondly, I know from personal experience with LD and AP how fragile the idea of reality is. AP can feel much more real than the physical plane. No amount of me telling myself "this isn't real" does much of anything. It just becomes a little bit silly to keep telling myself that after a while. I do buy into the whole Orwellian "reality is what we believe it to be thing" to some extent, but because there is more than one consciousness with more than one experience, that means that even if that theory is completely correct, SOME kind of "objective" reality must arise so that the subjective realities of individual consciousnesses can interact with each other.

Originally Posted by Naiya

but because there is more than one consciousness with more than one experience, that means that even if that theory is completely correct, SOME kind of "objective" reality must arise so that the subjective realities of individual consciousnesses can interact with each other.

I'll see that mindfuck, and raise you another:

What if that "objective reality" (which I'm not arguing against at all) is nothing but waves of either information or energy? What if their interacting (as covered by David Bohm) is what gives us our sense of "this and that" - our sense of one object being different from another. Bohm likens the interactions of consciousness as being like whirlpools in a body of water. If viewed from one perspective, they seem as separate entities, but know that the body of water is, really, just one body of water, all whirlpools (even in an ocean) are fundamentally connected.

So if there is an objective reality, which I believe there likely is, what is that objective reality like? Does it have substance, or is it nothing but energy interacting with (basically) itself in space?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So if there is an objective reality

I'm going to raise you one more mindfuck, and suggest that there is no such thing as objective reality, and that reality is created and defined entirely by individual consciousness that cannot interact with each other on a direct level.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'll see that mindfuck, and raise you another:

What if that "objective reality" (which I'm not arguing against at all) is nothing but waves of either information or energy? What if their interacting (as covered by David Bohm) is what gives us our sense of "this and that" - our sense of one object being different from another. Bohm likens the interactions of consciousness as being like whirlpools in a body of water. If viewed from one perspective, they seem as separate entities, but know that the body of water is, really, just one body of water, all whirlpools (even in an ocean) are fundamentally connected.

So if there is an objective reality, which I believe there likely is, what is that objective reality like? Does it have substance, or is it nothing but energy interacting with (basically) itself in space?

Hmm. Sounds pretty much like the extension of what I had in mind. Definitely a possibility.

Actually, the way I used to think of it was that we're all little bubbles in the ocean. We don't know we're all part of the same body of water because we're stuck in our own little air bubbles.

I'm shrinking it down because on several parts, you were only being rhetoric, didn't refute my point with another one (but with an ad hominem instead), and also because these posts are getting way too long.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And in the same breath, you say that you (paraphrase) "don't speak on things subjects you're not good with." Then you talk about how the video talks about quantum physics...and you're arguing the video. Contradiction.

LOL Stood misunderstanding me and then accusing me of things. I don't even thing you misunderstood me on that one; you're just being bitchy.

The science contained in the video is undeniable. I just think that the conclusion they take from it is childish.

Is it me, or did you completely miss the fact that you just agreed with the video?

Lol weren't you the one just saying the "universe may be immaterial"?

Because you're using it to state how you're right, and it has absolutely not weight in this context, so I'm looking for you to explain away how it actually applies. As of yet, as I've said many times, you haven't.

I'm not using it to state how I'm right, bastard. You're just taking these conclusions yourself. You asked challenged me to explain what my view was, I explained it, you didn't understand, and now you say shit about it. For you to see how paranoid you are, my original point didn't even include my view on the topic - I was only criticizing the video for being infant-level.

The video presents a paradigm which can be reached by logical reasoning. It proposes the idea that "the universe may actually be different than the way we perceive it." What's more, is that it simply gets to the fundamental aspect of the universe being nothing but atoms and sub-quantum particles which (surprise) actually coincides what we already know of the universe. You're acting like the video is talking about how the universe is really made up of unicorn hair and cinnamon.

Oh, who's talking about logic now? It's not your definition of logic, is it? +.+

My point is, to heck if the universe is different from what we perceive it - it doesn't change what it is to us. Now for the habitual ad hominem - how old are you again?

None of which actually related to the message in the video. Only stating that the video is wrong because of the uncertainty principle, which illustrates that the idea proposed in the video can't be proven, but does nothing to lend credence to your idea that the ideas proposed are wrong.

LOL stop the strawman. I never said the video is wrong because of the uncertainty principle, you craphead. I said that the video is bullshit because it is solely based on the uncertainty principle.

That's actually very interesting (just looked into more of it). I understand the idea of philosophy, but not the extent to which the word applies, which - like I said - spans very many branches.

Plato would have been proud of our Extended Discussion section

I believe I already stated that it was in the realm of theoretical science. A la Bohm. It is about breaking away from the ideas of people/places/things as being tangible, and looking at them as the mass of particles/information that they really are. Going further, it goes to bring into question whether or not those particles (physicality) really exist as we know them because, under certain conditions, their "physical" properties dissolve. All of this is rooted in scientific fact.

LOL. I coincidentally replied to this above. There's no need to change your view of the world because of it. Also, there's no need to go as far as particle level to realise that objects never touch at all. Even if, under certain conditions, some physical properties are bent, like the viscosity of Helium at near-zero temperature, it doesn't mean that they are no longer physical. Physicality and physical property are two different thing. Take it like ice and steam - they're both water, but with different properties.

The thing I criticize about the video is not the science in it, damn.

I disagree, and I've given examples as to why.

Those examples were wrong, and I showed why.

Again, semantics, here is what you said:

Not semantics. Grammar is actually top priority in a sentence, or haven't you noticed that? A yes can go to a no because of grammar.

So your view prevails because the video doesn't change it? Sounds like your standard, biased, perspective, if you ask me.

LOL you understand me so wrong. I said the video doesn't prove my views wrong. It doesn't bring up some new, more logical explanation than the one I already have. That is why I think the video is bullshit.

The video said what you agreed to (that reality is likely different from what we perceive it to be), and highlighted the fact that what we "believe" to be is nothing more than clouds of these particles, that may exist only as a wave of said particles in space. That's It.

LOL what a genius are you! When did you come to that conclusion? I know at least 3 people who came to this conclusion on their on and posted a topic here at DV.So then, what is that crappy message the video tries to get through? lol

Congrats on realizing that. You should start questioning God in no time.

Congratulations, you now understand - and apparently agree with - the video! :bravo:

LOL don't be a bitch. That's what I've been saying from the beginning. I say the video bases on that principle. And that principle proves no logical conclusion made from it.

You are stating that your view is logic, implying that all others are illogical. That is what I'm correcting you on, and I will stand by that. Your view is your deduction. Nothing more.

The "implying" part is all your imagination. Stop saying what my view is or isn't if you can't even understand it. When I say my view is logic, I mean logic in its strictest sense. In fact, it's so logic it's hard to even think of it. But once you do think of it, it makes logical sense. Just like the certainty that we will never be completely certain about anything - makes logical sense on its own.

I just think the video is bullshit, that's all. Stop thinking of uncertainty on the scientific level, leave that to the experts who give a damn about it. Think of uncertainty on the experience level, and we'll have a decent intelligent debate.

Again, thank you for actually beginning to understand the video. The video doesn't use the uncertainty principle. It simply doesn't contradict it. It predicts and idea (a very basic one) that is likely to be true whether you apply the U.P. or not - that reality is likely not what we simply perceive it to be, and it goes into why. That's....pretty much it.

LOL yes it does. The video bases all its reasoning on the uncertainty principle. I wouldn't say the universe is likely to be different lol. Of course the universe is not the tangible objects we deal with every day. I took that for fact from the beginning. If that's what you've been arguing over, then you are even less intelligent than I thought you were. Bah... you really aren't even worth trying to convince that way. You haven't been through most realizations I've been. Trying to convince you will be such a waste of a time xD At least I can say it keeps boredom away.

I'm glad you're catching up. Way to perfectly summarize what the video is actually saying.

LOL stop trying to ridicule me, that is beyond my tolerance line. The video is stupid because it fails to realize the truth in the most initial parts of the timeline.

And, ironically, I never said the video was right because you "didn't understand it." Did I? No. Way to highlight your strawman while defining a strawman.

LOL.. that's what I've been trying to knock into you - challenging my beliefs doesn't prove yours.

Thinking the use of an ad hominem helps you make your point is a logical fallacy.
Class dismissed.

LOL e-x-a-c-t-l-y. I never used your inferior intelligence to try to show why the video sucks. All the ad hominem's were clear ad hominem's. For someone who says I misunderstood the video, you misunderstand me quite often.

Never said ego was quantifiable, or that you "lose" it when you experience ego-loss. I asked you what you took out of it. One would figure, as with meditation, that it teaches you the insignificance of ego, and the significance of trying to channel it to the wayside (as with the concept of enlightenment). That was my interpretation. I realize it may not be correct, which is why I asked YOU what YOU brought out of your ego-loss experience. Typical that, instead of answering with substance, you simply chose to say I "shouldn't criticize what I don't know.

Don't lie, you tried to ridicule me for having a strong ego even after experiencing ego-loss. LOL... Trying to abandon your ego is as stupid as the points you've been making. You don't understand this because you haven't experienced it, but "significance", or "importance" are human concepts - part of the ego. Also, you don't have the will to put your ego to the wayside, because, as I've already said (but you didn't understand), when you have no ego, you have no friggin will. No will to do anything. Don't try to go into something you are ignorant about.

If you can't even understand what ego-loss is, what it implies, or how it feels, how do you expect to be able to understand the knowledge you gain from it? Well, just so you don't say I don't put substance into this, the knowledge you gain is: nothing exists. Not even you. Now please, don't try to refute to this, crying out loud trying to prove that something exists, because you don't understand enough to be able to argue about it. And if you did understand, you would agree with me anyway about it, so..

And finally, you really shouldn't criticize something you don't understand.

I'll chalk that up to your apparent inability to express yourself effectively.

My inability to express myself, or your inability to interpret what I say? -.- It's very easy to just assume the other one is wrong, isn't it?

You're so confused you're confusing yourself. The video doesn't "talk about the uncertainty principle." It presents the idea that the way we see the universe is likely not the way it actually is. Just saying that, alone would be leaning on the U.P. but the video puts forth evidence as to why it's likely not the way that we see it. It doesn't just say it and "bam" leave it alone. It explains it in a way that (surprise) after all this bickering, you've actually agreed with - ironically adding more substance to my claim that you misunderstood the video in the first place.

--- "Just saying that, alone would be leaning on the U.P."

So, the video does talk about the U.P.? It doesn't have to include specific words to talk about something, little genius.

--- "but the video puts forth evidence as to why it's likely not the way that we see it."

LOL saying the video puts forth evidence shows you're wrong. There is *no* evidence to that, that's what I've been trying to tell you, and that's what you've been ignoring/misunderstanding, idiot. I've repeated so many times that there is no evidence on that area that now I wonder if you're actually a very well-tamed parrot or so.

You misunderstand my arguments, and start thinking I misunderstood the video. One of us is wrong, heh?

Originally Posted by invader_tech

I'm going to raise you one more mindfuck, and suggest that there is no such thing as objective reality, and that reality is created and defined entirely by individual consciousness that cannot interact with each other on a direct level.

But what is the origin of those consciousnesses? Is there a single absolution in which they all either exist as individuals, or as part of the same whole? Maybe what so many interpret as more than one consciousness is really 1 consciousness split into many, giving the illusion that they are more than one - as with multiple personalities.

Originally Posted by Naiya

Hmm. Sounds pretty much like the extension of what I had in mind. Definitely a possibility.

Actually, the way I used to think of it was that we're all little bubbles in the ocean. We don't know we're all part of the same body of water because we're stuck in our own little air bubbles.

Yeah. Pretty much the same idea. Like with the whirlpools, each bubble can be seen as individual, but when knowing that the same water molecules flow in and out of each of them, they are all connected to the same whole.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

stuff

Kromoh, seriously, I'm done. You insist on perpetuating the type of conversation pissing contest that I'm just not interested in participating in. If you want to interpret this as your view having prevailed, or whatever, then I'm going to simply concede, and state that I don't have the stamina to keep fighting a battle based on so many obvious misconceptions (on both our parts.) I'll bow out gracefully, duly note that you feel the video is bullshit, respect your opinion and move on.

Though, please address the article Naiya posted (as it lends credence to the video as well) if you wish to continue the discussion. You've already implied in another thread that you don't care about what other people find disrespectful, if you disagree, so I'm not going to even ask you to keep any further discussion to a civil tone, but if you want to continue the discussion with me, that's what you're going to have to do. Other than that, I'm absolutely done, and if you want to take that as a sign of your victory, I'll opt out of challenging your opinion. I'll leave it up to anyone else - who actually sat through all that bullshit we just went through - to make up their own mind on who made the most sense.

It's been fun. Thanks for voicing your opinion.

Damn.. I really *was* curious about what some of your replies would be.

I might read the article later.. not in the mood just now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But what is the origin of those consciousnesses? Is there a single absolution in which they all either exist as individuals, or as part of the same whole? Maybe what so many interpret as more than one consciousness is really 1 consciousness split into many, giving the illusion that they are more than one - as with multiple personalities.

You read my mind.

Anyone's guess is as good as mine, but that's generally where my mind is in terms of what we are with respect to reality. You used the multiple personalities example, so I'll ask that you consider another example I like to use often, which is that of a dream. A dream operates as it's own reality. It has it's own particular set of rules and vividness that you can actively control if you are aware of them. The dream characters inside are no more than an expression of yourself, your own mind, all divided and spread out into different people/things. Given enough time, these dream characters would soon come to theorize that the dream world they exist within is just an illusion (as well you know it is), and some will go so far as to suggest that they are a part of the same mind (which is collectively your mind).

With respect to dreams, the only thing that exists in actuality is consciousness (and perhaps the brain, which intelligently processes the information). All of the 'reality' that becomes the dream comes as a result of your consciousness. The real world that both you and I experience day to day is analogous to the dreamworld in the way I just described. Nothing more than a convincing illusion that we use to interact with each other ("a collective consciousness experiencing itself"). I'm sure this probably sounds outlandish to a great deal of people, but if you'd like me to clarify my point of view on this, I'd be happy to do so.

As for the origin? Who knows? Existence by itself appears to be a sort of paradox on its own, but here we are. The existence we experience implies that there be some source or point of entry, and I wouldn't be surprised if that 'source' was the consciousness we are all theoretically a part of.

What's wrong with the idea of a floating sea of infinite energy, given form and structure by the conscious beings that reside within it?