Home | Community | Message Board


RVF Garden Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we?
    #4493603 - 08/04/05 03:23 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Ah, existence. Everybody's favorite subject! Lets dive right in.

When we come upon an object, such as a car or a radio or a remote control, we view that object as posessing it's own existential qualities. It's characteristics, such as it's size, shape, colour, cosmetic appeal, all seem to pop out at us as though radiating their own existence from where the object sits. Very rarely do we challenge this most fundamental assumption about the universe.

First, suppose that the universe is an infinte continuum. Without apprehending this supposition as a starting point, everything proposed below is meaningless.

Second, suppose that objects can only be said to possess characteristics in constrast to other objects. For example, if we are to observe a bowl of fruit on a stand, it is only by relating the differing characteristics of each piece of fruit that we identify them as seperate. This is an apple. That is a banana. This is an orange, et cetera. Furthermore, it is only in relation to the bowl's surroundings that we ascertain that a bowl exists at all. If the bowl's surroundings were nothing more than null space, a kind of clear, colourless, shapeless void, we would not be able to determine the boundries of the bowl and therefore not able to perceive the bowl of fruit at all.

So things are said to exist because their characteristics are perceived in contrast with other things. If we are to suppose that an object's characteristics exist inherently, as they appear to, we must be able to prove that those characteristics exist objectively, as part of a phenomenon unique from ourselves. But it is very easy to disprove this.

In an infinite continuum, that is to say, a continuum without boundries or borders of any kind, objects which are said to possess inherent characteristics must possess them in an entirely contradictory and impossible fashion. Take the example of size. In an infinite continuum, a given object must necessarily be infinitely larger than other, smaller objects, and, simultaneously, infinitely smaller than still larger objects. The same can be said of density, weight, height, width, or any of the other characteristics which lend an object discernment from another. What we have here is an impossible situation: although we can observe that the objects in our surroundings vary in their identifying characteristics, when compared to an infinity of other objects they are all identical in every respect.

And so it is nonsense to suppose that an object can possess, as part of an objective universe, inherent characteristics of infinite mass and infinite diminutiveness at the same time. These two cancel eachother in the same way 1 and -1 cancel eachother, and, when it comes to assigning an object inherent characteristics, the answer must always equal zero. Since to us all objects exist in dependence upon their discerning characteristics, from this we can follow that objects do not at all exist in the way we presently believe them to exist. As discrete entites, in fact they do not exist at all.

Of course, upon arriving at this conclusion, it becomes necessary to ask: if objects possess no existential qualities, how is it that we perceive them, and why do they appear to exist independently? It is because we are involved in lifelong contract as the agents of our own experience. As long as we are human beings endowed with and reliant upon the five senses, it is not possible for us to examine the universe from any other viewpoint than our own. And, of course, since we conceive of ourselves as just another discrete object floating about in the universe, it is very simple to discern objects as large, small, hard, soft, attractive, unattractive, and so on. We conceive them as such in relation to our concept of self, which includes our size, strength, sex, race, as well as our own preferences, right down to the most subtle aspects of our being.

And so we can see how our relationship with the universe is, in reality, a relationship with our own self-concept. If we have a positive or virtuous self-concept, we shall have a positive relationship with the universe. This shall manifest in ways as magnificently vast and complex as our own selves. By the same token, if we have a negative or destructive self-concept, so too shall we have that experience. Our experiences shall behave as echoes of our actions. If we were to lose track of our self-concept altogether... well, some of us have experience with that and can draw our own conclusions.

Now, at this juncture I've crossed the line from a discussion about the nature of things into a discussion about ethics, morality, and self-knowledge. That's another subject entirely. However, I believe the two might share an intimate connection


The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.

When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.

Make the smallest distinction, however
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.

To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.

When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the mind?s essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

-- The Third Zen Patriarch


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 93,974
Loc: underbelly
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4494072 - 08/04/05 09:26 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.

When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.

Make the smallest distinction, however
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.

To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.

When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the mind?s essential peace is disturbed to no avail.
____________________________________________________

--  :rofl2:
I love this !  I have never known, or read the words of anyone who can follow this.

It also for me begs the question. Why life, if the object is to ignore it. I used to be into this stuff but now I'm not so sure at all. Yet taken to some less ultimate degree, this can be usefull.  :mushroom2:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4494413 - 08/04/05 12:21 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Your conclusions do not necessarily follow at all. You make erroneous logical hyperjumps. Try again.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Swami]
    #4495901 - 08/04/05 06:11 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

If you could point out a few of those, we should be able to ascertain if I've made an error in logic or if you've simply misunderstood me altogether.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMighty Bop
Big Boy

Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 1,920
Loc: Nowhere
Last seen: 2 months, 28 days
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4496745 - 08/04/05 10:00 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

I believe Ped.


--------------------
"One attaineth whatever state of being one thinketh about at the last when relinquishing the body, being ever absorbed in the thought thereof." - Sri Krishna to Arjuna, Bhagavad Gita, viii, 6


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,413
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 18 hours
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Mighty Bop]
    #4496887 - 08/04/05 10:36 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

ped's the man :cool:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebuddhamind
mad scientist
Registered: 08/04/05
Posts: 12
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4496950 - 08/04/05 10:57 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
Furthermore, it is only in relation to the bowl's surroundings that we ascertain that a bowl exists at all. If the bowl's surroundings were nothing more than null space, a kind of clear, colourless, shapeless void, we would not be able to determine the boundries of the bowl and therefore not able to perceive the bowl of fruit at all.



I agree that we perceive objects only based on their relation to other objects. I reason that it is not possible to know only one thing. Have an example-- even if all I knew was this orange, I would perceive the objects within the orange: juice, pulp, seeds, skin. But I would not perceive the orange as a whole. Even though I only know an orange, my memory recognizes more than one object within the orange.

Wouldn't the bowl stand out rather sharply against nothing??

I would agree if you said the bowl was the universe-- then we couldn't perceive the edges, because the bowl would be all that exists. We would still perceive things within the bowl, though. The fruit would exist, but the bowl itself as a whole could not. All we would know about the bowl is the grain of the wood.

Maybe if you looked at it from the idea that all we really see is light bouncing off the objects. In nothing but a void, there is no light, so the object can't be seen.... ????

But that makes me return to the old philosophical question, how do we know anything exists? We never actually perceive objects-- we perceive the indirect effects of objects, such as the light bouncing off of them, their chemical smells, the firing of the neurons that tell me I've just typed the letter "l", what the refrigerator sounds like.... I never actually perceive the object.


--------------------
Last night I had a dream that we went to Disneyland,
Went on all the rides, didn't have to wait in line.
I drove you to your house where we stared up at the stars
I listened to your heartbeat as I held you in my arms


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSerioOria
?!one#!>?

Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 566
Loc: upstate, SC
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: buddhamind]
    #4497008 - 08/04/05 11:12 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Each lives life inside of their own head, no wonder it was so easily agreed upon that the earth was the center of the universe, since every man to his own lives in his own universe, the universe around us is not one and we the viewers, the only true universe is the one you make, so lets questio every facet of it.


--------------------
Live every day like it is your first
or
Live every day like it is your last
My ArT!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLuke
thought

Registered: 07/27/05
Posts: 168
Loc: the Well
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4497377 - 08/05/05 12:42 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
Ah, existence. Everybody's favorite subject! Lets dive right in.

When we come upon an object, such as a car or a radio or a remote control, we view that object as posessing it's own existential qualities. It's characteristics, such as it's size, shape, colour, cosmetic appeal, all seem to pop out at us as though radiating their own existence from where the object sits. Very rarely do we challenge this most fundamental assumption about the universe.

First, suppose that the universe is an infinte continuum. Without apprehending this supposition as a starting point, everything proposed below is meaningless.

Second, suppose that objects can only be said to possess characteristics in constrast to other objects. For example, if we are to observe a bowl of fruit on a stand, it is only by relating the differing characteristics of each piece of fruit that we identify them as seperate. This is an apple. That is a banana. This is an orange, et cetera. Furthermore, it is only in relation to the bowl's surroundings that we ascertain that a bowl exists at all. If the bowl's surroundings were nothing more than null space, a kind of clear, colourless, shapeless void, we would not be able to determine the boundries of the bowl and therefore not able to perceive the bowl of fruit at all.

So things are said to exist because their characteristics are perceived in contrast with other things. If we are to suppose that an object's characteristics exist inherently, as they appear to, we must be able to prove that those characteristics exist objectively, as part of a phenomenon unique from ourselves. But it is very easy to disprove this.

In an infinite continuum, that is to say, a continuum without boundries or borders of any kind, objects which are said to possess inherent characteristics must possess them in an entirely contradictory and impossible fashion. Take the example of size. In an infinite continuum, a given object must necessarily be infinitely larger than other, smaller objects, and, simultaneously, infinitely smaller than still larger objects. The same can be said of density, weight, height, width, or any of the other characteristics which lend an object discernment from another. What we have here is an impossible situation: although we can observe that the objects in our surroundings vary in their identifying characteristics, when compared to an infinity of other objects they are all identical in every respect.

And so it is nonsense to suppose that an object can possess, as part of an objective universe, inherent characteristics of infinite mass and infinite diminutiveness at the same time. These two cancel eachother in the same way 1 and -1 cancel eachother, and, when it comes to assigning an object inherent characteristics, the answer must always equal zero. Since to us all objects exist in dependence upon their discerning characteristics, from this we can follow that objects do not at all exist in the way we presently believe them to exist. As discrete entites, in fact they do not exist at all.

Of course, upon arriving at this conclusion, it becomes necessary to ask: if objects possess no existential qualities, how is it that we perceive them, and why do they appear to exist independently? It is because we are involved in lifelong contract as the agents of our own experience. As long as we are human beings endowed with and reliant upon the five senses, it is not possible for us to examine the universe from any other viewpoint than our own. And, of course, since we conceive of ourselves as just another discrete object floating about in the universe, it is very simple to discern objects as large, small, hard, soft, attractive, unattractive, and so on. We conceive them as such in relation to our concept of self, which includes our size, strength, sex, race, as well as our own preferences, right down to the most subtle aspects of our being.

And so we can see how our relationship with the universe is, in reality, a relationship with our own self-concept. If we have a positive or virtuous self-concept, we shall have a positive relationship with the universe. This shall manifest in ways as magnificently vast and complex as our own selves. By the same token, if we have a negative or destructive self-concept, so too shall we have that experience. Our experiences shall behave as echoes of our actions. If we were to lose track of our self-concept altogether... well, some of us have experience with that and can draw our own conclusions.

Now, at this juncture I've crossed the line from a discussion about the nature of things into a discussion about ethics, morality, and self-knowledge. That's another subject entirely. However, I believe the two might share an intimate connection


The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.

When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.

Make the smallest distinction, however
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.

To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.

When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the mind?s essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

-- The Third Zen Patriarch




Great, with Zen there is nothing found. So you have filled what you have wanted and searched for. It has always been. Theres nothing you can express physically with Zen. Zen is within and in the moment.

So you can use drugs, meditate and suffer etc. It will mean nothing. Because nothing is found in Zen. Nothing can be gained or lost.

The only problem you have Ped is too many concepts you foster that belong in Buddhism. Drop them all. Just retain too what is stated in Zen. Everything else is an attachment.


Edited by Luke (08/05/05 12:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: deff]
    #4497502 - 08/05/05 01:00 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

ped's the man

And I'm the woman?  :rolleyes:


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,413
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 18 hours
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Swami]
    #4498339 - 08/05/05 03:11 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Yes, swami, you're the woman. :laugh:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 93,974
Loc: underbelly
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: deff]
    #4499026 - 08/05/05 09:20 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

deff said:
Yes, swami, you're the woman. :laugh:




The woman who makes accusations and then won't answer when questioned. :mushroom2:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Icelander]
    #4499803 - 08/05/05 02:16 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

>> The only problem you have Ped is too many concepts you foster that belong in Buddhism. Drop them all. Just retain too what is stated in Zen. Everything else is an attachment.

I understand that, at least intellectually. I'm still exploring, and don't believe I'm ready to pursue moksha by abandoning conception. I have not yet understood what it means to shed all attachment, nor have I understood how that is to be accomplished truly. What I am practicing now is patience -- patience with myself, patience with life, and patience with the path. Patience helps us gain perspective, and it's gathering perspective which is the stage I am at in my spiritual life. If I've made the mistake of developing attachment to Buddhism and so-called Buddhist ideas (I have), I'm not going to scramble furiously to correct the error. I'm going use patience to stand back a bit and examine the nature of the problem with completeness. Then I will develop the wisdom to uproot it and prevent it from recurring. That is the essence of non-attachment.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 93,974
Loc: underbelly
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4499846 - 08/05/05 02:28 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Sweet. :heart:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4499893 - 08/05/05 02:41 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

a given object must necessarily be infinitely larger than other, smaller objects, and, simultaneously, infinitely smaller than still larger objects.

This doesn't follow at all unless you are using different rules. If this is a totally imaginary world you are conjuring up then we cannot understand these new rules and how they pertain to our current world.

I read your supposition, but you fail to define it.

What purpose are you trying to serve by saying a 6' tall man is infinitely taller than a man 5'11"? This is not deep philosophy. And of course, I can come up with my usual "Swami Challenge" to test your idea from which you will back down...


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Swami]
    #4499952 - 08/05/05 02:55 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

"Objects seen in this mirror may appear both infinitely smaller and infinitely larger than they are."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4500025 - 08/05/05 03:10 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

>> Wouldn't the bowl stand out rather sharply against nothing??

You're imagining nothing as a kind of blackness, or like a white expanse, or something of that nature. But black is something. White is something. "Nothing" here refers to absolute formlessness, a total absence of attributes. It is difficult to imagine, but, since it is only in contrast against something that we perceive anything, in contrast against nothing, we could not perceive anything.

The only way we are able to distinguish objects from eachother is by deciding what is the object and what is not the object. We decide what our body is by deciding what our body is not. My body is not the desk; it is not the keyboard I'm using. It is not my apartment, the lawn in front, the earth, the sky, the stars. But if there was nothing to look at and say "this is not my body", how would it be possible to ascertain what is my body? How would I decide where my body begins or ends?



>> I would agree if you said the bowl was the universe-- then we couldn't perceive the edges, because the bowl would be all that exists. We would still perceive things within the bowl, though.

It's absolutely correct to say the objects confined by a limited universe would possess inherent characteristics. If the bowl is the whole of existence, and the bowl has definite boundries, then of course the objects within it would have limited boundries and limited characteristics as well. We could say that an apple possesses it's own inherent shape, because in the universe you're describing there is a limited number of shapes.

However, this view imposes boundries on the universe. What I'm describing depends on the idea that the universe has no boundries -- it is a continuum without beginning or end. Because it is an infinite continuum, it possesses infinite probability, and infinite dimension. That means there is no limit to the variety of characteristics an object can posesses. If something exists within a continuum of infinite dimension, it cannot be said to possesses characteristics of it's own, because those characteristics would be subject to contradictory modes of existence -- on the one hand, infinite positivity, and on the other, infinite negativity. As far as characteristics and go -- and it's characteristics which allow us to perceive objects as independent -- all objects are null and void. Therefore, no object is seperate from another object, and no object exists inherently.

If you draw a circle on a piece of paper, you can imagine for a moment that this is the largest circle which can exist. Now draw a smaller circle within that circle. And another. And another, until your pen is too large to make anything more than a dot. Now use your imagination to conceive of smaller circles going on and on into infinity. Wait a minute -- into infinity? How can we can go smaller and smaller like this into infinity? Is it possible for us to be at the "top" of something with no bottom? How can something which is limitless at one end be limited at the other? If we were somewhere within this continuum of circles, we would not be able to get out the top, because the number of circles we would put behind us along our journey would be infinite. Yet somehow we just made a journey into this continuum: how? How would it be possible to enter a tunnel like this, passing by 2, 3, 4, 5 circles, only to turn around and discover that we cannot get out, because the number of circles we must put behind us to reach the exit is unlimited? If something is to have a beginning, as this continuum did when we drew the first circle, it must have an end as well. By the same token, if it is to have no beginning, it must not have an end.

And so if there is to be an infinite number of smaller circles within our original circle, there must also necessarily be an infinite number of larger circles. To impose an outward limit is the same as imposing an inward limit. Now, if we suppose that there is no outward or inward limit to our continuum of circles, we must also accept that within this continuum there is no circle which is "large", or "small", except in relation to our own concept of what large or small is. This is because any given circle has an infinite number of larger counterparts, and at the same time it has an infinite number of smaller counterparts. Indeed, "large", or "small" is not a characteristic an object can possess inherently within an infinite continuum. By this same reasoning, no object within an infinite continuum can possess any kind of inherent characteristic. If our universe is an infinite continuum, the objects within it possess no inherent characteristics, and in fact our entire world is -- dare I say it -- a construct of our discriminating, self-centred mind.

And if that conclusion is accepted, it follows that if you wish to change your world, all you must do is change your mind.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Ped]
    #4500090 - 08/05/05 03:20 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
First, suppose that the universe is an infinte continuum. Without apprehending this supposition as a starting point, everything proposed below is meaningless.



You may suppose anything you like, but this has nothing to do with our current universe. The universe has a finite size, though of course it has been expanding since the big bang. There is also a minimum size in the universe, known as a singularity. This was the original size of the universe before the big bang. Then you have the speed of light as the top speed of anything within the universe(though space itself can expand faster than light, since it has no mass). The universe is more vast than most people can comprehend, but that doesn't make it infinite.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Silversoul]
    #4500135 - 08/05/05 03:28 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

(Disclaimer: not a comment on anyone)

The universe has a finite size...

Does human stupidity have any sort of a limit? Is there a singularity, such as wiping out the Human Race, that cannot be exceeded?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we? [Re: Swami]
    #4500144 - 08/05/05 03:30 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

>> What purpose are you trying to serve by saying a 6' tall man is infinitely taller than a man 5'11"? This is not deep philosophy.

>> This doesn't follow at all unless you are using different rules. If this is a totally imaginary world you are conjuring up then we cannot understand these new rules and how they pertain to our current world. Reference: (a given object must necessarily be infinitely larger than other, smaller objects, and, simultaneously, infinitely smaller than still larger objects.)

I am not imagining or conjuring up a world, I am attempting to understand our current world. Neither is it so that I am saying that a 6' tall man is infinitely larger than a 5'11" man. This is one application of this philosophy, but it is not an application with any real value.

At present, when we look at an object such as a skyscraper, our mind informs us about that object's size, in this case we are informed that the object it is very large. It's size appears to us from the side of the object, as though "large" were a characteristic it possesses inherently. If "large" is to be a characteristic that an object possesses inherently, it must possesses it so objectively, and for an object to possess this characteristic objectively there must be a limit to what "large" and "small" can be.

If an object has infinitely larger and infinitely smaller counterparts, then size cannot be said to be a characteristic that the object possesses. In this way I am attempting to illustrate that our mind, which informs us that objects possess their own inherent characteristics, is fundamentally mistaken in the way it relates to the universe. This does have profound implications, because it means that we can approach the universe from unlimited perspective and with an unimaginable flexibility which has equally unimaginable implications.

I will gladly take the Swami challenge. Dish it up, home boy.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Reality: Our objective, benelovent friend SkorpivoMusterion 1,034 11 11/19/05 05:04 PM
by Ped
* Existence, and before existence there was.... MovingTarget 639 6 12/14/04 12:15 PM
by Ped
* *cough* EXISTENCE *hack*
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
buttonion 14,352 173 03/19/04 02:03 AM
by Frog
* I have philosophical evidence for the existence of God!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 7,876 109 02/14/04 01:28 AM
by SpecialEd
* If the universe is infinite
( 1 2 all )
WhiteRabbitt 3,098 35 09/02/06 10:51 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Existance - simplified tak 1,394 10 10/18/01 11:48 PM
by Surf Bum
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,172 8 01/31/02 11:20 PM
by Swank
* Finally! Proof of Gods Existence!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Mad_Buhdda_Abuser 5,707 87 03/03/10 06:27 PM
by Evolution

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
1,982 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
RVF Garden Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.115 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.