Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
A philosophy.
    #7440378 -

This idea has been floating around my head the past few days, and frankly it's just one of those "What if?" Philosophies.

What if our universe and everything in it was created by man -or human so to speak- once they've reached such an advanced level of technology? If there is a God, and he created us in his image, well that image is man.

There was a philosopher (I'm not sure who, since this was explained to me by someone who couldn't remember the name) who proposed the universe was created, almost like a program or machine, and then simply left to run. And we've been discovering more and more math going back to the roots of the universe, and it seems more and more like a machine.

I think these kinds of things are rather interesting. Your thoughts?


--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Bernackums]
    #7440467 -

Unlikely.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Icelander]
    #7440488 -

Well that's obvious, i said it was one of those "What if?" philosophies. But I don't think it would be any less likely than any other philosophy, since no one has any answer.


--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Bernackums]
    #7440524 -

Not true IMO. Philosophy's based on observable facts and following laws of nature as we know them would be more likely to be true than the flying spaghetti monster philosophy of existence.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Bernackums]
    #7440533 -

This is very close to the "brain in a vat", "matrix", "Descartes' evil demon", "simulated reality", "solipsism" ideas, which I think are fascinating, likely, unlikely, and unknowable.


--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Icelander]
    #7440540 -

Mhm, I understand what your saying and it makes sense. Just from where i stand on it, none of us know the answer to "What is this?", that's where philosophy comes in. And yes, certain theories seem much more logical than others, but that's just to our perception. The universe is massive, so massive that I can't comprehend the size, and we're growth on a floating rock, I say that anything we say is "likely" is only likely in our minds. Consider the possibility of parallel universes where the physical laws we have aren't completely the same, but that universe is still grouped in the question 'What is this?", so I can't think the answer would neccesarily be logical. In my opinion the likely solution isn't always the right one, I leave my mind open to anything.

Edit: Directed at Icelander, JonathanSeagul snuck a post in there XD. ANd I agree Jon, that these kind of theories (especially solipisim, have a listen to Nine Inch Nails' Right Where It Belongs) are very interesting to just think about.


--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.

Edited by Bernackums (09/22/07 03:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Bernackums]
    #7440586 -

but that's just to our perception.

That's all we have.:shrug:

But don't get me wrong here. I enjoy pure speculation based on intuitive hunch or anything else and do it all the time.:monkeydance:


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Icelander]
    #7440918 -

"But don't get me wrong here. I enjoy pure speculation based on intuitive hunch or anything else and do it all the time."

Exactly, I just made the thread because I thought it was a neat thought.


--------------------
Let's get the fuck out of here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Bernackums]
    #7440954 -

Right and then we try to rip it apart.:lol: That's P&S for ya.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Bernackums]
    #7442023 -

I think there's a huuuuuge hole in this theory, and it's this: how did we 'advance' to the point of being able to create this technology if we're the product of the technology?  You could also put it like, man may have made the universe, but who made the man? :cool:

I think either we 'and this' have always existed, or something outside of us created us.  It's not logical to say we created ourselves, that's a circular argument and defeats the purpose of the question. :shocked:

There also is no point in saying we are merely a simulation. :rolleyes: Gimme a break. :tongue2:


--------------------
"I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou

"To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: stellar renegade]
    #7442050 -

I don't think it really matters if we're a simulation or not.
From a certain angle, we can be considered as being an evolved program (at least compared to the programs we create in this stage :grin:)
Hmmm, should our feeling good (if we choose to do so), be teared apart only by the acknowledgement that we're a program of sorts? I say no! :razz:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7442104 -

Precisely, m'dear. :congrats:  :rockon:


--------------------
"I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou

"To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: stellar renegade]
    #7442126 -

stellar renegade said:
I think there's a huuuuuge hole in this theory, and it's this: how did we 'advance' to the point of being able to create this technology if we're the product of the technology?


The infinite would stand on its own, regardless of our own existence.

We can't rely on human engineers to develop this Deus Ex Machina without relying way too heavily on the anthropomorphic principle. If it exists, its more likely that it's already been created by an extraterrestrial civilization. We may have our own 'version' existing somewhere in the indefinite future, but that would actually mark the end of Mankind as we'd officially be post-human at that point. Odds are though, a uber-intelligent omni-computer invented by individual species would only be a networked expression of the unitary singularity that already exists, not 'multiple singularities'.

Quote:
You could also put it like, man may have made the universe, but who made the man? :cool:

I think either we 'and this' have always existed, or something outside of us created us.  It's not logical to say we created ourselves, that's a circular argument and defeats the purpose of the question. :shocked:




So you believe something outside of us created it then? Why is it not possible it always existed, but in the beginning it was unaware and then in the indefinite future it becomes fully self aware of it's existence as a singularity.

At the singularity, all the different timelines would always reach the same conclusion which was this realization of all that has come before, realized through the activation of this "simulation" but it wouldn't really be a simulation, because there would be nothing outside of it.


Quote:
There also is no point in saying we are merely a simulation.


Maybe not merely a simulation, but merely one possibility

Quote:
:rolleyes: Gimme a break. :tongue2:





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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #7442347 -

There is a short story by Isaac Asimov that relates to the OP's idea:

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #7442433 -

EternalCowabunga said:
stellar renegade said:
I think there's a huuuuuge hole in this theory, and it's this: how did we 'advance' to the point of being able to create this technology if we're the product of the technology?


The infinite would stand on its own, regardless of our own existence.


But all I'm saying is that we could not then be credited for the existence of everything.  The credit would go to the Infinite.

EternalCowabunga said:
We can't rely on human engineers to develop this Deus Ex Machina without relying way too heavily on the anthropomorphic principle. If it exists, its more likely that it's already been created by an extraterrestrial civilization. We may have our own 'version' existing somewhere in the indefinite future, but that would actually mark the end of Mankind as we'd officially be post-human at that point. Odds are though, a uber-intelligent omni-computer invented by individual species would only be a networked expression of the unitary singularity that already exists, not 'multiple singularities'.


There's actually a school of thought which refers to this... lemme look it up... well nevermind, I can't find that damned book right now.  :ohwell:

Anyway, they believe (or at least hypothesize) that one day we will become God and create the universe past, present and future.  The only problem with this is, as you have said, we would cease to be ourselves before having created everything.  The credit would really go to a transcendent deity which somehow shares a link to ourselves.

EternalCowabunga said:
So you believe something outside of us created it then? Why is it not possible it always existed, but in the beginning it was unaware and then in the indefinite future it becomes fully self aware of it's existence as a singularity.

At the singularity, all the different timelines would always reach the same conclusion which was this realization of all that has come before, realized through the activation of this "simulation" but it wouldn't really be a simulation, because there would be nothing outside of it.


No, it could be credited to the Infinite.

As for the rest, you're still trying to solve the question of how it came into being, except imposing a quality of illusion upon it to make it appear as if it came into being on its own.  :foreheadslap:  But the question still is, from where did it derive its being from?  (If we even need to ask the question at all.)  From unawareness?  But then there comes the problem of how unawareness (if it can exist in any pure form at all) could come into being, or how come this point preceded the point of awareness (after the singularity).

Interesting theory, though. :strokebeard:

EternalCowabunga said:
Maybe not merely a simulation, but merely one possibility


Yes, but I don't see how that would make our existence any less real.

EternalCowabunga said:
Quote:
:rolleyes: Gimme a break. :tongue2:






lol, nice. :yesnod: :lol: :congrats:


--------------------
"I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou

"To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: stellar renegade]
    #7442516 -

stellar renegade said:
I think there's a huuuuuge hole in this theory, and it's this: how did we 'advance' to the point of being able to create this technology if we're the product of the technology?


The infinite would stand on its own, regardless of our own existence.


Quote:
But all I'm saying is that we could not then be credited for the existence of everything.  The credit would go to the Infinite.


That's exactly the point I was making, it happened because it was logically necessary in order to complete the time line. No argument there.

EternalCowabunga said:
We can't rely on human engineers to develop this Deus Ex Machina without relying way too heavily on the anthropomorphic principle. If it exists, its more likely that it's already been created by an extraterrestrial civilization. We may have our own 'version' existing somewhere in the indefinite future, but that would actually mark the end of Mankind as we'd officially be post-human at that point. Odds are though, a uber-intelligent omni-computer invented by individual species would only be a networked expression of the unitary singularity that already exists, not 'multiple singularities'.


Quote:
There's actually a school of thought which refers to this... lemme look it up... well nevermind, I can't find that damned book right now.  :ohwell:


I think you might be refering to the Transhumanists: http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/

Quote:
Anyway, they believe (or at least hypothesize) that one day we will become God and create the universe past, present and future.  The only problem with this is, as you have said, we would cease to be ourselves before having created everything.  The credit would really go to a transcendent deity which somehow shares a link to ourselves.


Once again, no argument there :thumbup:
But at the same time, in a sense man could be credited in his own limited egotistical view of things if he didn't realize the full implications of the singularity.

EternalCowabunga said:
So you believe something outside of us created it then? Why is it not possible it always existed, but in the beginning it was unaware and then in the indefinite future it becomes fully self aware of it's existence as a singularity.

At the singularity, all the different timelines would always reach the same conclusion which was this realization of all that has come before, realized through the activation of this "simulation" but it wouldn't really be a simulation, because there would be nothing outside of it.


Quote:
No, it could be credited to the Infinite.

As for the rest, you're still trying to solve the question of how it came into being, except imposing a quality of illusion upon it to make it appear as if it came into being on its own.  :foreheadslap:  But the question still is, from where did it derive its being from?  (If we even need to ask the question at all.)  From unawareness?  But then there comes the problem of how unawareness (if it can exist in any pure form at all) could come into being, or how come this point preceded the point of awareness (after the singularity).


I wouldn't say unawareness came into being but exists at varying degrees relative to the point of singularity. Unawareness being the quality of not being the realization of the singularity, so unawareness exists everywhere outside the singularity but is also part of it, like a sphere that curves in on itself into a single point and back on to itself. The unawareness still exists in infinity but precedes the point of awareness.

Alternatively, I would say it doesn't need to derive it's being from anything because if it's a logical structure than it seems to be complete within itself, like any logical structure. Logic doesn't get it's validation from something else, it's the other way around.

Quote:
Interesting theory, though. :strokebeard:


It's a cool story for sure :mushroom2:
Of course the dao that can be named is not the dao :yinyang:

EternalCowabunga said:
Maybe not merely a simulation, but merely one possibility


Yes, but I don't see how that would make our existence any less real.


definitely real

EternalCowabunga said:
Quote:
:rolleyes: Gimme a break. :tongue2:





Quote:
lol, nice. :yesnod: :lol: :congrats:


:stoned:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #7443079 -

This sort of question I feel has been answered best by Asimov. If the universe was created, this would be a plausible way.

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

The Last Question

By Isaac Asimov



The story begins in the year 2061, when a colossal computer has solved the earth's energy problems by designing a massive solar satellite in space that can beam the sun's energy back to earth. The AC (analog computer) is so large and advanced that its technicians have only the vaguest idea of how it operates. On a $5 bet, two drunken technicians ask the computer whether the sun's eventual death can be avoided or, for that matter, whether the universe must inevitably die. After quietly mulling over this question, the AC responds:

"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Centuries into the future, the AC has solved the problem of hyperspace travel, and humans begin colonizing thousands of star systems. The AC is so large that it occupies several hundred square miles on each planet and so complex that it maintains and services itself. A young family is rocketing through hyperspace, unerringly guided by the AC, in search of a new star system to colonize. When the father casually mentions that the stars must eventually die, the children become hysterical. "Don't let the stars die," plead the children. To calm the children, he asks the AC if entropy can be reversed. "See," reassures the father, reading the AC's response, "the AC can solve everything." He comforts them by saying, "It will take care of everything when the time comes, so don't worry." He never tells the children that the AC actually prints out:

"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Thousands of years into the future, the Galaxy itself has been colonized. The AC has solved the problem of immortality and harnesses the energy of the Galaxy, but must find new galaxies for colonization. The AC is so complex that it is long past the point where anyone understands how it works. It continually redesigns and improves its own circuits. Two members of the Galactic Council, each hundreds of years old, debate the urgent question of finding new galactic energy sources, and wonder if the universe itself is running down. Can entropy be reversed? They ask. The AC responds:

"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Millions of years into the future, humanity has spread across the uncountable galaxies of the universe. The AC has solved the problem of releasing the mind from the body, and human minds are free to explore the vastness of millions of galaxies, with their bodies safely stored on some long forgotten planet. Two minds accidentally meet each other in outer space, and casually wonder where among the uncountable galaxies humans originated. The AC, which is now so large that most of it has to be housed in hyperspace, responds by instantly transporting them to an obscure galaxy. They are disappointed. The galaxy is so ordinary, like millions of other galaxies, and the original star has long since died. The two minds become anxious because billions of stars in the heavens are slowly meeting the same fate. The two minds ask, can the death of the universe itself be avoided? From Hyperspace, the AC responds:

"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Billions of years into the future, humanity consists of a trillion, trillion, trillion immortal bodies, each cared for by automatons. Humanity's collective mind, which is free to roam anywhere in the universe at will, eventually fuses into a single mind, which in turn fuses with the AC itself. It no longer makes sense to ask what the AC is made of, or where in hyperspace it really is. "The universe is dying," thinks Man, collectively. One by one, as the stars and galaxies cease to generate energy, temperatures throughout the universe approach absolute zero. Man desperately asks if the cold and darkness slowly engulfing the galaxies mean its eventual death. From hyperspace, the AC answers:

"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

When man asks the AC to collect the necessary data, it responds:

"I WILL DO SO. I HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR A HUNDRED BILLION YEARS. MY PREDECESSORS HAVE BEEN ASKED THIS QUESTION MANY TIMES. ALL THE DATA I HAVE REMAINS INSUFFICIENT."

A timeless interval passes, and the universe has finally reached its ultimate death. From hyperspace, the AC spends an eternity collecting data and contemplating the final question. At last, the AC discovers the solution, even though there is no longer anyone to give the answer. The AC carefully formulates a program, and then begins the process of reversing Chaos. It collects cold, interstellar gas, brings together the dead stars, until a gigantic ball is created. Then, when its labors are done, from hyperspace the AC thunders:

"LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

And there was light


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A philosophy. [Re: Visionary Tools]
    #7443080 -

A longer version exists here


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Does philosophy protect you?
( 1 2 all )		 Epigallo 2,494 24 07/27/07 08:45 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The philosophy of applying philosophy.
( 1 2 all )		 JoseLibrado 2,865 31 03/17/20 01:15 AM
by AZZI
* What is the difference between science and philosophy?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Mr. Mushrooms 3,830 48 06/07/08 10:54 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* Philosophy, Sociology, & Psychology Regulars
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Poid 4,406 97 10/30/09 09:23 PM
by Icelander
* .
( 1 2 3 all )		 AnonymousRabbit 3,898 44 11/06/08 05:47 PM
by AnonymousRabbit
* Philosophy and spirituality are dead.
( 1 2 all )		 zannennagara 3,059 23 09/22/09 05:30 PM
by AlphaFalfa
* a little philosophy of why we think the way we do while trippin'
( 1 2 all )		 butralance 2,714 27 10/01/08 06:23 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* HyperSpace! what do you believe and know?
( 1 2 all )		 summitstealth 2,179 23 03/06/03 08:42 AM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,078 topic views. 0 members, 33 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.