The Nature Of Reality

[Vicepuma]

I have read a lot of the ideas here and yeah some things i feel could be accurate but some are just pure specualtions. What i mean is if a tree falls on some who is sleeping in a forest and doesn't hear it, but gets killed by it, mean that this person didn't die of course it doesn't. That person actually dies and some also probably mourned for him.

I'm not sure but probably some of you at least have had sumone in their life that has died. To me it's me grandmother, now if things where so undefiable i could say well she miht still be alive but that would make no sense as she doesn't exist anymore for this world except the minds of the ppl that knew her. Does that mean she still exists then? I don't think so nither does my mind.

Now i study physics and abstract questions like philosophy are intressting but very hard to define. We have the same in physics. When you reach a certain level you come to realise that the universe is infinite but it's still growing. In lame terms we say explain that as if u can multiply 2 with to to get 2 twos same can be done with infinity just becomes infinty times 2. It also arises the queston of if the universe is infinite then there is a small probability that there are infinite number of plantes like earth in the universe. On these infinte number of planets there's a smallar probability that there are human lifeforms that look like us but it's still an infinite number. Then u say there's even a smaller probability that some of these infinite lifeforms someone looks excactly like me but it's still infinite and i'll rape it up by saying that if all those things are infinite as we compare with the universe it mean on infinite earthlike plantes there exist infinite number of humanlike lifeforms that look excatly like me and are at this moment writing the same post i am.

Now that's philosophy from my physics, it's not the easiest thing to understand tho that the universe is infinite but it keeps on growing of course to be able to believe this one must pretty much also think that the Big Bang existed but i'm getting off topic here.

If the theary of infinty is true then there exist many branches of your life scientificly at least thus one could say it might have some cosmic string attached between these individuals. This post is highly speculative and should not be taken too seriously but i wanted to put it out there.

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE i'll rape it up by saying...

ecchi!!! Pervert!!! Hentai!!!

lol.

Anyways, I see what you're saying with the whole infinite existences thing. Unless I'm a fool, I believe string theory supports the idea of 11 or so dimensions, in which reside every possible outcome of every possible universe from every possibility from the big bang, which means there are an infinite number of infinite possible universes. And that idea raises some interesting thoughts.

First off, assuming that their are alternate realities, would they be identical to this one? If you go off of the fundamental building block of science (that given an identical set of starting conditions, the same result will always occur), then you'd think they would be. The only factor that could change things would be what we see as free will. I don't think it's possible to know that if someone was to somehow live the exact same life over again, whether they'd make the same decisions, it's a very difficult thing to determine (once/if we perfect our studies of... "brainology???", and know how the human mind works, we might find out just what free will is. WOOT!).

Secondly... I don't remember what the second thing was, but I don't know if I'm totally convinced by string theory's 11th dimensional universe shpill. As it stands, the theory borders on being a pseudo-science, because there's no way to test if it's false, all it gives are some equations that work... because they just do.

I'm not sure if GUTs (grand unified theories) directly relate to this thread, but hey, they're definitely interesting, but even if we did discover the super-equation to how the universe works, we still wouldn't know the why of things, and we still couldn't say for sure what reality is.

...although if we did know some super-equation for the universe, it would suggest that there is definitely a uniform order to this world, hinting that we may not be living in some house-cat's dream. But who knows, maybe in the real reality, house-cats have god-like intellect. I wouldn't know.


QUOTE Man, you truly are an intelligent being.

Yay!

Until next time, "LIVE!!!!! LIVE, DAMMIT!!!"

 

[outl-w_monsum]

QUOTE (Vicepuma @ Nov 08 2007, 06:08 AM) I have read a lot of the ideas here and yeah some things i feel could be accurate but some are just pure specualtions. What i mean is if a tree falls on some who is sleeping in a forest and doesn't hear it, but gets killed by it, mean that this person didn't die of course it doesn't. That person actually dies and some also probably mourned for him.

I'm not sure but probably some of you at least have had sumone in their life that has died. To me it's me grandmother, now if things where so undefiable i could say well she miht still be alive but that would make no sense as she doesn't exist anymore for this world except the minds of the ppl that knew her. Does that mean she still exists then? I don't think so nither does my mind.

Now i study physics and abstract questions like philosophy are intressting but very hard to define. We have the same in physics. When you reach a certain level you come to realise that the universe is infinite but it's still growing. In lame terms we say explain that as if u can multiply 2 with to to get 2 twos same can be done with infinity just becomes infinty times 2. It also arises the queston of if the universe is infinite then there is a small probability that there are infinite number of plantes like earth in the universe. On these infinte number of planets there's a smallar probability that there are human lifeforms that look like us but it's still an infinite number. Then u say there's even a smaller probability that some of these infinite lifeforms someone looks excactly like me but it's still infinite and i'll rape it up by saying that if all those things are infinite as we compare with the universe it mean on infinite earthlike plantes there exist infinite number of humanlike lifeforms that look excatly like me and are at this moment writing the same post i am.

Now that's philosophy from my physics, it's not the easiest thing to understand tho that the universe is infinite but it keeps on growing of course to be able to believe this one must pretty much also think that the Big Bang existed but i'm getting off topic here.

If the theary of infinty is true then there exist many branches of your life scientificly at least thus one could say it might have some cosmic string attached between these individuals. This post is highly speculative and should not be taken too seriously but i wanted to put it out there.
Ok, with reference to your post I just want to say that you have made a major linguistic error. Something that is infinite cannot grow. The word infinite means that its already as big as it can be - so big that it has no limit - therefore it can't grow to be more than infinite because infinity is the largest quantity possible. So to say that "the universe is infinite and it is still growing" is wholly fallacious.

You could say that the universe is massive and that it has the potential to continue growing for infinity. That would be a more accurate way to describe what you are trying to say.

But anyway, something that is infinite is usually something that we can't determine a start time for. Something that is infinite is something that exists ALL of the time regardless of when the universe started. Its not a relative concept - infinity is the idea of foreverness. So to say that the universe is infinite is again shown to be wholly fallacious, because we all believe in the big bang (the start of the universe). If the universe was infinite it would have existed before the big bang.

Many philosophers are very sceptical about whether there is in fact a such thing as infinity that exists. Some say it is just a negation of the word finite, and so it has no real meaning to itself but to be the opposite of something else.

Also, I just remembered a whole branch of philosophy that we touched upon when I did Philosophy at school - Ontology. That is the study of existence. Basically, there are different ways things can exist. When things exist in our mind they do not have to correlate with what exists in the world. So, someone might continue to think that a missing loved one is alive but they in fact dead, or more optimistically, there could be the thought that a missing loved one is dead and they are in fact alive!

I have yet to decide which theory for the universe is a good one. The multiverse string theory is very tempting to go with because it accommodates so much. If there was just one universe we would have no real sense of free will. But when I think about it, it seems more likely that there is only one universe that we exist in:

If you consider the exact positions and relationships between every single particle in the universe at this specific instance and are able to trace all the previous relationships and positions of the particles back to the start of the universe, then you can use a computer to predict the outcome of any instance of where the particles are arranged in a certain order. (this is founded on the premise that how particles have behaved in the past is how they will behave in the future, which is totally full of S***, but I dont want to explain why right now, its difficult to even think about let alone write about). So basically, if the particles of the universe are of a certain nature and they always behave in specific ways in certain situations, then from the point the universe began, we have had no freedom whatsoever. We are just a consequence of particles interacting with each other in some huge chain reaction that involves every particle of the universe! This also means that the chain reaction continues and we only act the way we do because of previous particles. Free will is just in fact an illusion lol!

But hey, remember that philosophy is pretty much, purely, speculation. Many of the questions asked in philosophy are those types of questions which cannot be answered and so when we try and give answers, we find that we are only speculating, and the possibilities end where our imagination can think of no more ideas.


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Nov 09 2007, 01:31 AM)

The only factor that could change things would be what we see as free will. I don't think it's possible to know that if someone was to somehow live the exact same life over again, whether they'd make the same decisions, it's a very difficult thing to determine (once/if we perfect our studies of... "brainology???", and know how the human mind works, we might find out just what free will is. WOOT!).


Dude, seriously - Philosophy of mind - its COMPLICATED and LONG. Its really interesting nonetheless and maybe one day when I have more time, I will start blurting stuff out about Epiphenomenalism and such things.......

 

[Vicepuma]

QUOTE (outl-w_monsum @ Nov 09 2007, 04:02 AM) Ok, with reference to your post I just want to say that you have made a major linguistic error. Something that is infinite cannot grow. The word infinite means that its already as big as it can be - so big that it has no limit - therefore it can't grow to be more than infinite because infinity is the largest quantity possible. So to say that "the universe is infinite and it is still growing" is wholly fallacious.

You could say that the universe is massive and that it has the potential to continue growing for infinity. That would be a more accurate way to describe what you are trying to say.

But anyway, something that is infinite is usually something that we can't determine a start time for. Something that is infinite is something that exists ALL of the time regardless of when the universe started. Its not a relative concept - infinity is the idea of foreverness. So to say that the universe is infinite is again shown to be wholly fallacious, because we all believe in the big bang (the start of the universe). If the universe was infinite it would have existed before the big bang.


That's not true, infinity can grow, at least in physics it can and is not bound by a number in any way just because it's infinity. In physics the universe is infinite because we have no numbers to messure it but it's also still expanding thus infinity is becoming bigger. I know it's hard to grasp that infinity can grow but in this case it can.

Now if you don't believe me ask a physics proffesor or something i think they can describe it a lot better then me.

 

[outl-w_monsum]

QUOTE (Vicepuma @ Nov 09 2007, 04:16 AM) That's not true, infinity can grow, at least in physics it can and is not bound by a number in any way just because it's infinity. In physics the universe is infinite because we have no numbers to messure it but it's also still expanding thus infinity is becoming bigger. I know it's hard to grasp that infinity can grow but in this case it can.

Now if you don't believe me ask a physics proffesor or something i think they can describe it a lot better then me.
lol - in that case, i feel arrogant enough to say that all physicists are wrong!! =P (joke lol)

"The word infinity comes from the Latin infinitas or "unboundedness." It refers to several distinct concepts (usually linked to the idea of "without end" or "bigger than the biggest thing you can think of") which arise in philosophy, mathematics, and theology. " (Wikipedia)

I can understand what you are trying to say though lol. Basically, you are trying to say is that the growth of the universe is unbounded in terms of grown right? But thats not the same as saying that the universe is infinite. We can all imagine that there is something greater than the universe, (like a place where there are loads of universes). So in that sense its the universe is not infinite because it is not bigger than the biggest thing we can think of hehe.

So yeah, depending on exactly what you mean by the word infinite then it can/cannot be used to describe the universe - can we agree on that?

Btw, I did Physics too as well as Philosophy, so I have a fairly decent idea when it comes to both ends of the spectrum lol - many say that Philosophy and Physics go hand in hand, but I disagree - Physics is very very very different from Philosophy and where they intertwine, I consider it to be mostly Philosophy. I say this because we have yet to define these kind of things by equations and numbers - so far we have only been able to explain things in words, which is the way of arts - when science catches up and produces the equations, these kind of things will be scientific problems and philosophy will be extinct (at least in this area lol).

Edit: I was just reading some stuff on infinity - its COMPLICATED.......

 

[Vicepuma]

QUOTE (outl-w_monsum @ Nov 09 2007, 05:44 AM)

I can understand what you are trying to say though lol.
So yeah, depending on exactly what you mean by the word infinite then it can/cannot be used to describe the universe - can we agree on that?

Btw, I did Physics too as well as Philosophy, so I have a fairly decent idea when it comes to both ends of the spectrum lol - many say that Philosophy and Physics go hand in hand, but I disagree - Physics is very very very different from Philosophy and where they intertwine, I consider it to be mostly Philosophy. I say this because we have yet to define these kind of things by equations and numbers - so far we have only been able to explain things in words, which is the way of arts - when science catches up and produces the equations, these kind of things will be scientific problems and philosophy will be extinct (at least in this area lol).

Edit: I was just reading some stuff on infinity - its COMPLICATED.......
I totally agree with you there. It's not quite compareable as you have to prove things in physics by equasions and calculation whilst in philosophy you kinda play some sort of guessing game(sorry philosophers i haven't studied it at all so it's just a stupid input).

and yeh infinty isn't really explained at all with anything we have written it way more then that just that it's a basic idea of physics and maths on a very high lvl.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE
I can understand what you are trying to say though lol. Basically, you are trying to say is that the growth of the universe is unbounded in terms of grown right? But thats not the same as saying that the universe is infinite. We can all imagine that there is something greater than the universe, (like a place where there are loads of universes). So in that sense its the universe is not infinite because it is not bigger than the biggest thing we can think of hehe.

It can be a bit more complicated than that.
You can very easily find infinite subset in a finite set (for example in a disk, you can trace a spiral whose length is infinite. It's obvious for everyone with basic skills in math.

Less evident is our universe, since it's non-euclidian. And non-euclidian geometry can be counter-intuitive for most people.
I can't be very precise, I haven't touched that for a while (and have no will to do it again, it's too mind-blowing). Just look at some non-euclian models like the Poincare's disk (with the metric associated) to have a first approach.

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE Btw, I did Physics too as well as Philosophy, so I have a fairly decent idea when it comes to both ends of the spectrum lol - many say that Philosophy and Physics go hand in hand, but I disagree

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the matter, but there are many who believe that once physics answers the what of the universe, that it will go on to answer the why, and therefore become one with philosophy, or something like that. But for now, i agree with you, physics deals solely with how things work, not what things are and why they are the way they are.


QUOTE It can be a bit more complicated than that.
You can very easily find infinite subset in a finite set (for example in a disk, you can trace a spiral whose length is infinite. It's obvious for everyone with basic skills in math.

Aww man, I'm taking a course in discrete mathematics at the moment, and It's completely turned my idea of mathematics and physics upside down. Like, for example, mathematics, by definition, have absolutely nothing to do with reality, it just so happens that it's in some way useful. The laws of mathematics in no way apply to the real world. For example, a number can either be negative or positive (so if a number isn't positive, it must be negative). In the real world, though, someone asks an agnostic if they believe in god. They would answer that they neither believe nor disbelieve in a god, but have some vague belief somewhere in between. Life is not absolute, like mathematics, at least we can't prove that it is.

Someday man might discover whether or not physics and mathematics hold the answers to the universe, but hey, at least we've been able to concoct things like computers out of it, that's got to count for something.

This might be slightly off topic (maybe not), but isn't it encouraging that we can make computers, machines that are based solely upon principles of logic and mathematics, in nature? It shows that, at the very least, or ideas of math and physics come close to what's really going on.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Nov 09 2007, 04:44 PM) Like, for example, mathematics, by definition, have absolutely nothing to do with reality, it just so happens that it's in some way useful. The laws of mathematics in no way apply to the real world.
Mathematical laws don't apply at the real world, it's perfectly true.
But reality can be modelized by physical models based on mathematical results.
So mathematics is an indirect way to understand our world, through physics. I can lead to theorizing new results, who can be verified after that.

That's how Neptune was discovered by Adams and Le Verrier because Uranus' trajectory wasn't right, another planet should be meddling with it.
It also happen everyday in nuclear physics. You don't put stuff at random in a particle accelerator and then you see what happen, you put just the things you need and then, you just verify if the theorical results and the pratical results are similar.

Can't remembe who, but one of the great scientists of the last century said that one of the greatest miracles was that our world was understandable (and logical) through physics. ^^

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (Dalriada @ Nov 09 2007, 09:23 PM)
But reality can be modelized by physical models based on mathematical results.
So mathematics is an indirect way to understand our world, through physics. I can lead to theorizing new results, who can be verified after that.

That's how Neptune was discovered by Adams and Le Verrier because Uranus' trajectory wasn't right, another planet should be meddling with it.
It also happen everyday in nuclear physics. You don't put stuff at random in a particle accelerator and then you see what happen, you put just the things you need and then, you just verify if the theoretical results and the practical results are similar.

Can't remember who, but one of the great scientists of the last century said that one of the greatest miracles was that our world was understandable (and logical) through physics. ^^
I dig, I dig. But still, this doesn't change the fact that physics only works... because it does. Know one know why, all we know is that given relatively similar starting conditions, we get relatively similar results, and yes, we've gotten equations for most everything we know about, but many of those equations are based solely off of observation, observation limited by what we as human being can sense. Quantum theory and Newtonian physics (well, I guess the Newton's theory's have already been proven false... ANYWAYS!!!) are still incompatible, as there is no known correlation between the laws that govern the two.

Don't get me wrong, I love physics, and I'm a firm believer in mathematics, but we've still got to realize our limitations of being self-aware beings with minute lifespans.

Anyways, I think I might share one sheer speculative thought about infinity. It's really just a passing thought I get from time to time, but hey, it's interesting. When people think about infinity, they conversely think about the infinitely small. Like, for example, I believe you talked about being able to create a spiral of infinite length upon a finite disc. That assumes that said line has no width, which works fine in a theoretical, mathematical setting, but when you get to real-life observation, we can't determine whether there is such a thing as a limit to how small a unit of matter can be, nor is there a way to tell if time is truly continuous. We can assume it, and it works out fine that way, but I still don't see any definite evidence saying there is so limit to how small a unit of measurement can be. I may by physics-savvy, but I'm no guru.

Just thinking in that mindset, I think of computer technology as an example. We can use a computer to simulate our much more precise laws of mathematics with relative accuracy, using only 1's and 0's. The theory is solid and complete, but when we use a real-world machine to do it, it's incomplete, there's always some round-off error, and it's always simulated logic. Mayhaps the universe works in the same way, our theory is solid and works as a whole, but in the real world, non-continuous (not necessarily finite, though) as it is, there's always round-off error, since we're dealing with continuous sets. Bah!!!

I'm really just thinking this along these lines since I've been dealing with so much discrete mathematics lately, where we usually don't deal with infinite scenarios, the math takes a lot more work...

Bah! I'm leaving too many passing thoughts here. Sorry for the pseudo-technicality of this all, but there are just so many interesting things to get off on when you deal with something as broad as "the Nature of Reality", since there are so many plausible circumstances.

And I'm sorry for my insanely long, crazy indulgent post!

Komenesai!!! (sorry for butchering that lame attempt at anime-esque humor!!!)

 

[outl-w_monsum]

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Nov 09 2007, 11:33 PM) Bah! I'm leaving too many passing thoughts here. Sorry for the pseudo-technicality of this all, but there are just so many interesting things to get off on when you deal with something as broad as "the Nature of Reality", since there are so many plausible circumstances.

And I'm sorry for my insanely long, crazy indulgent post!

Komenesai!!! (sorry for butchering that lame attempt at anime-esque humor!!!)
Chill - its all good

Now I think its time to put all this scientific mumbo jumbo to an end. I am going to attempt to show you why science has yet to triumph over philosophy in these kind of matters. Metaphysics is something that has no maths yet (and I think that maths is an amazing way to describe reality - those mathematicians who do this are in my mind the greatest).

I don't know whether this will have as much impact on any of you as it did on me when I first learnt about these devolutions of reality and how science, is in fact groundless and could collapse at any instant. Maybe you have heard about some of these arguments and already disregarded them - maybe you haven't and maybe they will make you search harder for the answers.......

I will try my best to explain these ideas in such a way that they can be understood - but even the greatest philosophers had difficulty expressing these ideas coherently and sensically.

It begins with the Problem of Induction:

This one is a problem that many of you must have already come across. Induction is a form of argument. E.g If *event x* followed *event y* many times before, then *event x* will follow *event y* in the future. So, if I drop a ball (event x) and it falls to the ground (event y) every time I do it, then it is in the nature of scientific minds to claim that it will always fall at all instances the ball is dropped. I think that all of us can understand this quite well.

Induction however, is known to be flawed because events that take place in the past do not necessarily follow to give the same events in the future. We have no evidence of future events. Only past events, and that is not enough. The future holds endless probabilities. For instance, for all we know the idea of gravity may fail to hold at some instance in the future! We may drop the ball (event x) and then it might in fact float for a few moments (event z)! From a simplistic point of view, it could be argued that one case where gravity does not hold is enough to say that we need to redefine our concept of gravity to accommodate the anomaly. But as slightly more intelligent beings we are of course able to realise that one instance where a general law does not hold is usually due to some other factor. It all depends on how greatly we take that factor into account.

Regardless of this, we can show another example where this reasoning can be shown to be totally flawed, through use of parallel arguments. If we take a simple woman/man, who has reasonable intelligence. Enough in fact to make inferences and reason with a decent level of accuracy (an average homo-sapien). This person is out in a field on a stormy night and claps (event x). After a second there is a loud thundering sound from the sky with light flashing (event y). The person claps again (event x) and then there is again flashing light with thunder (event y). The person repeats this through the night and the same thing happens - *event x* follows *event y*. It is in the nature of man, to make a link between these two events. We don't do it intentionally, it is something automatic. But there is in fact NO causal link between the two events. It is just a mere coincidence that the two events correspond in time. SO, it can be argued that we could be wrong about all the causal inferences we have made! So when we speak of cause and effect, it could just be purely coincidence after coincidence.

The most frightening thing about this is that it has been shown that all causal inferences (any cause and effect scenario) is nullified. A further disturbing thought is that when we claim there is cause and effect we only actually observe two events taking place and not an actual relationship between them. The only relationship we observe is that one follows the other.

Take for instance a window and a crazy man. He lifts his fist and smashes his hand through the glass. Event 1 is the process of punching the glass, and Event 2 is the shattering of the glass. Now we all would nod our heads in unison if I said the man punched the glass and this caused it to shatter. However, all we can really claim to have seen is Event 1 followed by Event 2. The actual causation is not visible. Let me try and make it a little clearer by offering other reasons for why the glass might have smashed. Imagine that at the exact same instance, there was someone with a sniper rifle hundreds of metres away who shot the glass at the instant that the crazy man punched it. So, we observed one event followed by another and we didn't see the third event that actually contributed. Causation is something like this - an invisible concept. It is something that we don't ever actually perceive - it is in fact an artificial idea.

Take for instance a Snooker table. If the player hits the white ball onto the red ball we would all nod in unison to say that the white ball caused the red ball to move. But all we observe is the event of the white ball hitting the red ball followed by the red ball moving off. For all we know, the balls could be magnetic with someone underneath the table manipulating them!

Causation has now been shown to be quite a fishy concept and seeing as pretty much all science is based on inductive inferences and causal inferences, it has been shown that science has missed out a whole valley's worth of reasoning to justify its foundations. Once the foundations are taken away a building surely falls - so for science to succeed and to take its hold, these problems must be overcome somehow.

(Sorry for the length - but I wanted it to be explained fully - I hope you lot all understand it and stuff, I haven't read through the stuff in a few months and I probably won't read it again until I retire hehe. Personally, this stuff ruined my life for a year, but I enjoyed learning about it and it was truly interesting. Just keep in mind that this stuff shouldn't be taken too seriously - from a practical perspective - away from all the philosophy - just remember that the world does have some uniformity, and even though we can't prove that causation is actually happening, it must be lol!)

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (outl-w_monsum @ Nov 10 2007, 06:18 AM)Now I think its time to put all this scientific mumbo jumbo to an end. I am going to attempt to show you why science has yet to triumph over philosophy in these kind of matters. Metaphysics is something that has no maths yet (and I think that maths is an amazing way to describe reality - those mathematicians who do this are in my mind the greatest).
I dig, I dig. I definitely understand the point you're making, and a valid point it is.

Science, awesome as it may be, is based upon nothing more than the assumption that there are laws governing the universe and guess-and-check observations.

You're ball "hitting" another ball example just got me thinking again of the theory of relativity (bah! more science!

). If you were watching the blue ball hitting the red ball while travelling at crazy-high speeds, you would see the red ball move before the blue ball ever came in "contact" with it. ... don't really have anywhere to go with that, but the science behind it is sound.

At any rate, I'd build a bit more off of what you were saying and apply it to logical thought in general. Logic (at least by my definition), says that given certain assumptions, something will ALWAYS result in another thing. You can chain the logic together, come up with nifty laws and rules that make it easy to predict all sorts of things (that's pretty much the summation of mathematics), and that's fine for something abstract like mathematics, but when you deal with real life, the only assumption you can safely assume (even that's arguable) is that you are you and you can feel things. Going off shaky assumptions like that, anything you do or think of relating to logic is based off of little more than a guess (or wishful thinking).

Even so, seeing some of the awesome, seemingly impossible things that our science can accurately predict, it's just amazing.

...and it's for reasons like these that I don't give people much beef about the way they think or believe, so long as people can respect the fact that, in the end, the culmination of our thoughts, dreams, ideas, and emotion, are based off of nothing more than instinct and wishful thinking (Dang that's pessimistic!)

...hmmm, I just had at thought. I think my above arguments sound logical, but what's assumption am I basing my arguments off of? and where am I coming up with that assumption? Any help here, fellow anime-addicts?


QUOTE (Sorry for the length - but I wanted it to be explained fully - I hope you lot all understand it and stuff, I haven't read through the stuff in a few months and I probably won't read it again until I retire hehe. Personally, this stuff ruined my life for a year, but I enjoyed learning about it and it was truly interesting. Just keep in mind that this stuff shouldn't be taken too seriously - from a practical perspective - away from all the philosophy - just remember that the world does have some uniformity, and even though we can't prove that causation is actually happening, it must be lol!)

Daijubo?!? (Spelling japanese in english.. not one of my fortes)

 

[EggBeast]

Oh man!!! I was taking my walk to classes to day, listening to some thought-provoking metal, and I started thinking about the definition of "self". I had one of those moments where I just went "whoa, that is seriously trippy". I'm totally serious, I actually stopped walking for a moment and said "whoa" (I don't do drugs, by the way, and I got a full night's sleep.

). I mean, if you really start thinking about your own self-consciousness, it can get pretty mind-bending.

Now, I don't believe in spirits, afterlife, reincarnation, or any of that stuff. I do, or at least kind of do, see life as a self-contained entity (like a mouse is a mouse, and its consciousness (whatever that may be) is some kind of... constant awareness of its senses?). However, then you get to realize that you yourself are a self-contained entity, and the sum of your thoughts and emotions are contained inside your head. What I got around to thinking was after I'm dead an gone, would "I" ever have a consciousness again? I've never known anything but existing, it's totally incomprehensible for me to comprehend non-existence. It's like, totally mind-bending for me. I used to think of it kind of like... nothing, but I have no idea what nothing actually is (nothing is nothing, but nothing isn't anything? is nothing part of anything? does nothing even exist?!?, but nothing, by definition, is that which doesn't exist, but if it doesn't exist, how can it exist?!? AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!).

And a bit on the topic of existence, a good friend of mine recently went through some tough (holy crap!) times, and told me that for the last 6 months he'd essentially tried to stop existing. However, he happened to believe in an afterlife, and according to his beliefs, he couldn't possibly stop existing, even if he were to die, and it was pretty much that thought that got him out of this insane phase of life. I really thought that the his idea that he could never stop existing was... depressing... and confining... and yet I could see how some would see it as comforting.
Quoth the almighty Kamelot, QUOTE "I am immortal, thus my freedom is captivity" -Followed by a kick-butt chorus about "finalizing my history", followed by a totally mind-blowing guitar solo, Augh!!!! Awesome!!!WAIT! that's from the song I was listening to when I started thinking about all this stuff! trippy...) At any rate, I don't think I'm even trying to make a point, or add to any argument here. All I can do is throw out all this stuff and... "bask in its complexity", as a teacher of mine once put it. Subject matter like this is just... untouchable! If any of you guys have any thoughts, please, please, please share! That's the beauty of it all!!! I love fansub.tv!!!

Augh, I love thinking about stuff like this. I don't know if I'll every be able to wrap my mind around it. This is the boundless-mysteries-of-the-universe life's all about.

 

[outl-w_monsum]

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Nov 10 2007, 03:23 PM) Daijubo?!? (Spelling japanese in english.. not one of my fortes)
Lol, I am fine now and your transliteration is close lol (daijobu - at least from what I remember thats how it should be spelt)

And I still think you didn't really get what I was saying, but dont worry, it takes a lot of misery and depression to really realise what these people were saying.


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 06 2007, 04:23 AM)

Augh, I love thinking about stuff like this. I don't know if I'll every be able to wrap my mind around it. This is the boundless-mysteries-of-the-universe life's all about.

Now, I used to LOVE thinking about this stuff too, but its WAY better to think about girls/guys or music or something! At first you will enjoy just the thinking, but then you start to take things to extremes and things can start to go downhill! So keep it all surface level if you can - I don't want to see a perfectly (seemingly) intelligent person ruin their life for a few years.

Also, I believe in an afterlife (mostly because of my religious views). I can understand non-existence though. Its pretty simple really. There is existence, and non-existence. There is something, and its opposite. Something can be said to be finite, whilst something else is said to be infinite.

Also the whole consciousness thing is pretty simple too. It all depends on what you think about the mind. Do you think the mind is your brain? Or do you think it is something separate to your body?

If you believe that your mind or conscious is your physical brain, then when you die, your brain will switch off, and your consciousness will go too!

If you believe that your mind is something separate and independent from your body and brain, then your consciousness has the ability to live on as a separate corporeal thing.

Now something interesting and more complicated is the issue of what makes you you. Is it your appearance? Is it your memories and experiences? Is it your DNA? Is it your impact on the world?

Once you find various answers to these questions, then you can truly ask whether you continue to exist after you die. If you think that part of consciousness is the impact you make on the world then you do essentially continue existing so long as that thing that you impacted exists.

I am going to be a dick and tell you to stop being sooo egotistic lol! (something I do often hehe).

You need to consider your surroundings and other people too when considering consciousness. Self-awareness can lead to things like solipsism which is a stupid way to think about the world (an interesting way - but stupid nonetheless). Solipsism is the view that you are the only thing that exists and everything else is like a construct from your own consciousness.

Consciousness could not exist without other people existing around you. (Think about this one hard.)

Also, you have reminded me of a time when I also stopped on my walk back from school and I felt as though time had freezed in that instant. I was thinking about reality, and I realised that everything could be nothing. I stopped and I held my breath wondering and staring at the sky and the trees. A passing car brought me back to my senses and I carried on walking, but since that day I can't say I was ever the same.

Don't think too much about these things! makes you miserable in the end - just go out to the gym, work out and have fun - find a girl/guy have a family, make an honest living lol.

(If it doesn't make you miserable, then thats cool, but it also probably means that you don't TRULY understand the implications of some of the thought processes)

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (outl-w_monsum @ Dec 06 2007, 12:45 PM)You need to consider your surroundings and other people too when considering consciousness. Self-awareness can lead to things like solipsism which is a stupid way to think about the world (an interesting way - but stupid nonetheless). Solipsism is the view that you are the only thing that exists and everything else is like a construct from your own consciousness.
That totally just reminded me, back in elementary school, I started getting different ideas about "the nature of reality". One thought I had was that since I "knew" I had my own consciousness, then everyone else might just be robots. Later I got the idea in my head that, much the same way cartoons are to use, we ourselves could be the artistic product of some, greater, non-cartoony artist. Back then, I never took into account that things could also be vice versa, nor that any of those possibilities would ultimately be nix.

At any rate, even if all you guys are a figment of my imagination, or I a figment of yours, it doesn't change what we perceive. Not to sound egotistical (I don't think in these terms, really) but if someone, be it me, you, some alien-bastard, who's dreaming everything we know up, it doesn't change what goes on in the world. I am no solipsist (thanks for the new word, btw), but even if I were, it wouldn't answer anything, and it wouldn't change my views of the world at all.

At any rate, you definitely prove your point that it's much more sane to look at things at face value. 2 or 3 years ago, I really started thinking hardcore about this kind of stuff, and I've already come to know this downward cycle of thought you described, but I've got to say, I find it all just fascinating! I mean, when you do start thinking hardcore about what your own existence is, and what that entails, you definitely start going mad. But I like to wonder, what is it about it that makes me mad? And why do I react that way to it? It's a fun (if maddening) way to learn more about yourself, and truth be told, you cannot know anything without first knowing yourself.

And besides that, if, hypothetically speaking, someone where to truly take an objective look at their life, taking out any bias, there's really not much of anything to go off of. All you can do is make up definitions for things like "being" or "nothing" that make sense in your head, and then try to slap those made up labels onto everything you see around you (this process is also known as creating art).

QUOTE Don't think too much about these things! makes you miserable in the end - just go out to the gym, work out and have fun - find a girl/guy have a family, make an honest living lol.

(If it doesn't make you miserable, then thats cool, but it also probably means that you don't TRULY understand the implications of some of the thought processes)
It's true that you can't live life trying to define what life is, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't try, you just can't forget to live while your at it!

And just for the record, I just got a little existentially giddy yesterday, it had been a while since I paused to think "whoa". The universe truly is a great mystery, I know I won't be able to wrap my head around even a fraction of it within my lifetime.

QUOTE I am going to be a dick and tell you to stop being sooo egotistic lol! (something I do often hehe).
That's some sound advice, but what can I say? I'm a geek when it comes to self-discovery

.

Augh! I love it!!!

...but time to focus on school for now

. And thank you, by the way!

 

[poonk]

What a fun thread!
QUOTE (outl-w_monsum @ Jul 31 2007, 04:17 AM)Self-awareness however can be criticised lol. When we look into ourselves, who is looking?? Surely it is a logical contradiction to look at your own mind, because you would have to use ure mind to look at it. Its like looking for your head. You can never see your head because of the way your eyes are positioned!The question of the nature of self-consciousness (the mind-body problem-- is consciousness just a series of brain states, i.e. something observable/quantifiable, or is it something somehow separate from the brain, i.e. unobservable?) has been plaguing people forever, and the best suggested explanation I've stumbled across was in philosopher Colin McGinn's book The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World where he posits that ultimately our minds are not adequately equipped to comprehend themselves (i.e., while humans have done wonders using their brains to explain external phenomena, the nature of consciousness itself makes it inaccessible to our minds); I use the analogy that we can never "step back" from consciousness to observe it, as we are always in it (sorta like how Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard argued that we could never quite "grasp" the meaning behind our own life because there is no stationary point within it where we can look back upon it; sorry, I've got Kierkegaard on the brain lately; blame the Religion VS. Science thread for that, and for my blatant abuse of semicolons). The book is very interesting, at least what I've read of it (I will sheepishly admit to not finishing it yet though; reading it gives me a headache sometimes, ironically *giggles*).


QUOTE (outl-w_monsum @ Aug 04 2007, 06:40 AM)so wat about a tree that falls in a forest, where there is no consciousness to observe it?
does this mean that the tree never made a sound when it fell because there was nobody to hear it?This is sorta neither here nor there, but for argument's sake, I guess I would argue that while the tree may generate soundwaves, unless there is a consciousness present to process said soundwaves, there is no sound (which assumes that you define "sound" as an sensory experience, and not just the compressed air itself, like how light waves themselves are not the same as "sight").


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Nov 08 2007, 03:09 AM)Dang, isn't self-awareness just the pits?  It's a beautiful thing, though.*pffft!* This reminds me of a Kurt Vonnegut quote (from Breakfast of Champions): "THANKS A LOT, BIG BRAIN" (I think I quoted that correctly; it's been quite a few years since I read that book).


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Nov 09 2007, 01:31 AM)Unless I'm a fool, I believe string theory supports the idea of 11 or so dimensions, in which reside every possible outcome of every possible universe from every possibility from the big bang, which means there are an infinite number of infinite possible universes.
...
Secondly... I don't remember what the second thing was, but I don't know if I'm totally convinced by string theory's 11th dimensional universe shpill.  As it stands, the theory borders on being a pseudo-science, because there's no way to test if it's false, all it gives are some equations that work... because they just dooh, String Theory. I read a book on ST once and I felt like such an idiot; the author actually said something to the effect that "you may want to skip these 2 chapters as they involve advanced mathematical explanations (etc.) and will not affect your comprehension of the rest of the book." I really tried to read those chapters, but while I understood most of the individual words, the overall comprehension was just not there. Whenever I read about ST (or any sort of other spacial dimensions) I'm reminded of the allegorical novella Flatland written by Edwin Abbott Abbott, published in 1880, in which the author imagines a world of "people" who exist in only 2 dimensions (basically, represented as geometrical shapes, etc.); how could they ever conceive of that third dimension? In other words, if were possible for us to even communicate with them, how could we (3-dimensional) beings ever possibly convey what it's like to live in 3-D? It wouldn't even be part of their... *language fails me, shouldn't have had that last drink* ...um, reality (there's that word again!). Similary, while other dimensions may exist, I can't think of any concrete (i.e. observational, and not purely-mathematical) way to describe/experience/prove them. Makes me wish I took more advanced math.


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 06 2007, 04:23 AM)I've never known anything but existing, it's totally incomprehensible for me to comprehend non-existence.  It's like, totally mind-bending for me.  I used to think of it kind of like... nothing, but I have no idea what nothing actually is (nothing is nothing, but nothing isn't anything?  is nothing part of anything?  does nothing even exist?!?, but nothing, by definition, is that which doesn't exist, but if it doesn't exist, how can it exist?!?  AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!).Whoa, I think you've read my mind. I've long thought that one of the ultimates in the unknown is "what is is like not to exist"; I mean, in itself, it's a contradiction in terms; "what it is like" (an experience) is completely incompatable with the concept of "not existing." I think this is why the concept of no afterlife freaks people out so much; in theory, it should elicit nothing more than a shrug (after all, if I don't exist I will be neither happy nor unhappy, I just won't be); but there is something very uncomfortable for many people about the concept of ceasing to exist, regardless. (yeah, I know, this is perhaps more appropriate for one of the religion-related threads, but whatever).

In (random, nonsensical) conclusion: This thread is rather interesting; thanks to EggBeast for pointing it out.

 

[outl-w_monsum]

Totally agree with that conclusion

A few points about non-existence - I really feel as though most people who think a lot, don't take the necessary step back and just think about it objectively.

From a personal perspective (subjective point of view) there are COUNTLESS things that we can't comprehend. Emotions such as love and hate or even experiences where we can't explain what happened without making contradictions. E.g. "I was feeling paranoid but not paranoid, but aware of everything and just relaxed and tense....." - I quote from *someone* who experimented with drugs......

Similarly, non-existence, is pretty impossible to comprehend on a subjective level - simply because its beyond the reaches of our experiences and potential experiences. BUT! From an objective perspective, its pretty simple. When you take that step back, and think about it, you will see how simple it is! Something is there, then its not there. Taking the view that there is no after-life, it is simple then to realise that one day I will die, and cease to exist. There will be no more sensory inputs, there will be no more thinking, there will be total and pure nothingness. Even though the only way to objectify this idea is by using negatives, it is the most simple way. And I remember Occam's Razor at this instant.

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (outl-w_monsum @ Jan 03 2008, 01:09 PM)Similarly, non-existence, is pretty impossible to comprehend on a subjective level - simply because its beyond the reaches of our experiences and potential experiences. BUT! From an objective perspective, its pretty simple. When you take that step back, and think about it, you will see how simple it is! Something is there, then its not there. Taking the view that there is no after-life, it is simple then to realise that one day I will die, and cease to exist. There will be no more sensory inputs, there will be no more thinking, there will be total and pure nothingness. Even though the only way to objectify this idea is by using negatives, it is the most simple way. And I remember Occam's Razor at this instant.
hmm, I don't know if "simple" is the right word to describe it. It's all good and well to put things simply, and leave it at that, but you've got to realize this is reality we're talking about, the vast expanse that is everything and nothing combined. We don't live in a magical world with clean-cut rules and definitions, this isn't mathematics or science, were we make our own definitions and assumptions to rely on.

Take heed that the main thorn in our side here is that we have no defintion for existence. Since we've all gone through life's experiences and learned whatever the crap it is we learn, we just kind of... "understand" what we mean when we talk about things like reality and existence... but when we try to actually define it, we realize that it's really quite the task. There are so many possible ways to explain our reality (ie the matrix-esque explanation, the "we're all the figment of someone's imagination" explanation, the "I am the only 'real' person, and I'm in some funky super-experiment created by super-aliens" explanation, all that crap), and they all equate to the exact same life experiences or us. When we define "non-existence" as "that which doesn't exist", we're really saying nothing at all. If we don't know what existence is, then how do we know what not existing is

? That's why one can't really make an objective explanation without leaving serious holes in the argument. Our lives, as we know them, are completely subjective. We can only learn from what we experience and then try to make some sort of connection between those things in our head. Of course, objectivity is great and all, it's what helps us all stay sane (I think that's the exact point you were trying to make), but it doesn't make things "simple" in any way, shape, or form, it only gives the illusion (oOoOoOoOhHhOoOoO!!!) of simplicity.

And touching a bit more on the idea of non-existence, ever since I really thought about what it would be to simply not exist after dying (waaaay back in high school there...) I actually found the idea very comforting. Even more comforting than the idea of an afterlife. The idea of living forever sounds... depressing... confining... maddening... in a way.

But even so, as of late, even though I don't really go for the traditional idea of an afterlife, I'm not really so convinced of the traditional idea of not existing anymore either. I mean, yeah, there's always the chance that at any given second we'll awaken from our "divine virtual reality machine" in some "divine super-mall" inside of some form of "super-reality", but I'm not really talking about those weird theories here. Think of it this way, before I was born, I didn't exist. But then BANG!!! I was born, instant existence!!! After I die, BAAMM!!! no more existing for EggBeast! I go back to that state of non-existence again, yes? If the only requirement for coming into existence is to have been in a state of non-existence, then hey, who's there to smack me in the face and call me a madman for saying that I may one day "become" some sort of self-aware being? (well, I can think of 6 some-odd billion or so who would smack me for it, but that's beside the point!

) It wouldn't be like some "soul" leaving a dead body, having it's "memory" wiped and then entering into the body of some "ferret". No, it would just... "happen" (I use quotes because defining "happen" requires the definition of "exist" and no one knows that that means yet.)

Don't get me wrong here, I haven't suddenly turned into a reincarnation fanboy here, I'm still fairly certain of the "permanent non-existence" theory (it is, after all, a very comforting idea to me), but that in no way makes it the "truth" (dang, truth is even harder to define. when you think about it, it's really just some vague, abstract idea, even more so than "reality").

It can be very fun brain-food to munch on, though

.

And just touching a bit on Occam's razor... the idea is applied in every form of science nowadays. In most every physics book you pick up, it explains that the ultimate goal of physics is to be able to explain every occurrence in the universe using one or two basic, fundamental laws. I think that's a great idea, myself, it would mean that we live in a sane world after all, but it's really no more than wishful thinking of the side of we humans, based off of nothing more than our basic intuition to make connections between the different things we experience. And even if someday we discover some sort of sub-matter that only does one thing, and explains everything we experience in the world, that would rock and all, and we'd theoretically be able to use it to predict the things we cannot yet experience (like.. I dunno... non-existence maybe? maybe not...), but without being able to test those predictions, they too, become nothing more than wishful thinking on our part.

But there's nothing wrong with wishful thinking, so long as you're obviously not deluding yourself (I'm not even going to touch on how abstract the idea of being "delusional" is... dang! Xp)

 

[SecretDagger]

QUOTE (ss-samuel--x @ Dec 08 2006, 05:53 PM) i one heard that when your falling asleep, and your half dreaming, and then your leg shoots out...that apparently that is when your heart stops and is starting again

i also had a dream one, in which i was falling and i woke a millisecond before i hit the 'floor', and i could feel the floor along my arms as if id actually hit it


so if i could feel something from my dream, maybe we are dreaming now

we can feel things here and in dreams, maybe our dreams and just dreams in a dream
maybe that is a dream within a dream within dreams

its endless.
When our mind cannot tell what is reality and what is fiction, things that happen in fiction can become reality, I'm not saying that it your arm rips off in a dream and you think it's reality your arm will rip off in real life, but there is a possiblility that you will feel the pain, ever for a split second, this has happened to me several times, when the mind thinks' that the body is damage, it will even damage it; itself.

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (SecretDagger @ Jan 03 2008, 11:12 PM)When our mind cannot tell what is reality and what is fiction, things that happen in fiction can become reality, I'm not saying that it your arm rips off in a dream and you think it's reality your arm will rip off in real life, but there is a possiblility that you will feel the pain, ever for a split second, this has happened to me several times, when the mind thinks' that the body is damage, it will even damage it; itself.
Mind-tripping stuff, isn't it? It just goes to show how subjective reality is. When you enter a dream so real, you feel like you're actually living in it, how are you to tell it's not actually "real"? Who's to say you're not dreaming right now? How would you know the difference?

Of course, even if life is a dream, that's no excuse to waste it away. We are where we are, so we'd better work with it, no matter what "it" actually is. Hey, at least you'll have had an interesting dream to tell your super-buddies in super-reality

.

...and going on a small tangent from that, that's kind of why it bugs me when I hear people talking in absolutes. When someone says something like "I hold the one and only truth and meaning to life!" I say "AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!". I totally dig the motion of relativity. When you jump 5 feet in the air, it's absolutely impossible to say whether you moved up 5 feet or if the entire universe moved down 5. Time and space bend and warp with uber high-speed object and uber-dense masses. Nothing is absolute (well, except maybe the speed of light, but hey, I don't know that).

And what's with this truth we hear so much about? Most people I've talked to say that they believe there is some "truth" somewhere out there in the universe. Something that they can't truly comprehend with their limited wisdom and understanding, but a Truth nonetheless.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great when people search for some truth in their lives, but when they take that truth as an absolute and use it as a basis of discrimination and hatred against others (The Inquisition, perhaps?), they totally forget what world it is they're living in. Now you can't forget just how subjective reality is here, and when you keep that in mind, you realize that any "truth" ANYONE may have found in their lives is based off of their own desires. In a world where no one can know ANYTHING for sure, any kind of "truth" that may have been found is based off of no more than a leap of faith on the part of the individual, which in no way makes it "true". What strange and abstract concepts humans come up with!

Reality Rockz!