|
|
Post by cosmicintervention on May 13, 2020 11:15:36 GMT
In the attached document I have written down my theory about how we all got here, what comes after, what our purpose in life is, as well as the necessity of consciousness and the role we all play in the Universe.
Are my ideas justifiable and valid? What defines our sense of identity? Who is God and where did he come from? All answered within the attached document, give it a read and let me know what you think!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 13, 2020 17:54:29 GMT
The attachmemt seems to be missing. Please upload it when you get the chance so we can read it. It seems like an interesting read already!
|
|
|
|
Post by kyloscythe91 on Jun 23, 2020 9:08:51 GMT
man, i can't wait for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 22, 2020 17:11:52 GMT
The attachment is missing; however, questions about origins are extant. Most basically: Is it possible for anything to BEGIN to exist? To exist = to be there (German Da-Sein), to be somewhere, where it was not some time ago. A dish begins to be on a table when I put it there. It used to be in a box. It was put there after a potter shaped it out of a ball of clay. It began to exist by modifying something that already existed. How did it get there (in the ground)? How did the very Earth get there? Something was modified autonomously that resulted in the Earth and other things. CHANGE (metamorphosis or "physis")is the key word, but how are we to think of one's own consciousness??………………...
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 22, 2020 17:25:55 GMT
The attachment is missing; however, questions about origins are extant. Most basically: Is it possible for anything to BEGIN to exist? To exist = to be there (German Da-Sein), to be somewhere, where it was not some time ago. A dish begins to be on a table when I put it there. It used to be in a box. It was put there after a potter shaped it out of a ball of clay. It began to exist by modifying something that already existed. How did it get there (in the ground)? How did the very Earth get there? Something was modified autonomously that resulted in the Earth and other things. CHANGE (metamorphosis or "physis")is the key word, but how are we to think of one's own consciousness??………………...
Something could exist as a potential, but not necessarily realised. If a human has a soul, it may depend on factors (or a deity) outside of its control to be allowed to manifiest in any world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 9, 2020 23:35:04 GMT
joustosSo, how the attached document will have to appeared, or more generally, how your comment or mine, the letters and etc have appeared at all? Denying of the point of appearing automatically leads to "everything exists at the same time in any moment..." (Plato's "Parmenides", ch. II), and i.e. to contradiction. karlDoesn't it a unnecessary complication of potential existence? If a time T sets, then an event E will occur. But we don't know anything about the time T, except for it begins right after time T-1. And as such a logic leads to linear determinism, there's no need to limit spare areas of being.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 10, 2020 0:48:14 GMT
joustos So, how the attached document will have to appeared, or more generally, how your comment or mine, the letters and etc have appeared at all? Denying of the point of appearing automatically leads to "everything exists at the same time in any moment..." (Plato's "Parmenides", ch. II), and i.e. to contradiction. karl Doesn't it a unnecessary complication of potential existence? If a time T sets, then an event E will occur. But we don't know anything about the time T, except for it begins right after time T-1. And as such a logic leads to linear determinism, there's no need to limit spare areas of being.
You mean that if a soul exists as a potential but will be sure to be realised at some time T, then one might just as well state that it was real all along?
The thing is, I don't believe in determinism. If there is a God that decides whether or when a soul will be realised, then God could decide never to allow it to manifest in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2020 10:07:23 GMT
joustos So, how the attached document will have to appeared, or more generally, how your comment or mine, the letters and etc have appeared at all? Denying of the point of appearing automatically leads to "everything exists at the same time in any moment..." (Plato's "Parmenides", ch. II), and i.e. to contradiction. karl Doesn't it a unnecessary complication of potential existence? If a time T sets, then an event E will occur. But we don't know anything about the time T, except for it begins right after time T-1. And as such a logic leads to linear determinism, there's no need to limit spare areas of being. You mean that if a soul exists as a potential but will be sure to be realised at some time T, then one might just as well state that it was real all along?
The thing is, I don't believe in determinism. If there is a God that decides whether or when a soul will be realised, then God could decide never to allow it to manifest in the real world.
Yeah. Indeed, if as Berkeley I would say that as long as I watch (be able to touch it by a hand, etc) it (something), it exists, then I would divide reality into two: perceptual and non-perceptual. And no reason would be to consider that non-perceptual one existed. The same with non-realized yet objects: they exist somehow, but not formed, so "formation" of them = their appearing or the start point of their existence. Important that I am not against neither intuitive, nor conceptual existence of potential/actual forms. The point is in that logically it's easier to spare them. We might aim neutral substance that exist in a special way: time changing it. I'll explain the last one. It's the Presentism that holds a view that just a current moment exists, and no before, no after. And the Externalism that take all the stuff or, generally, the everything that exists at the same time simultaneously. The former easily can be presented as a searchlight and a number of particles that changes according to the pattern that the searchlight orders. For example, a set of electrons, protons, and neutrons and a function π that is the sequence of positions in which the particles change. For the Externalism is easy to aim that there are more than one searchlights. The views like those don't need in forces or some complex substance (difficult to imagine or to construct comparlily to the neutral one). |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 10, 2020 20:18:27 GMT
You mean that if a soul exists as a potential but will be sure to be realised at some time T, then one might just as well state that it was real all along?
The thing is, I don't believe in determinism. If there is a God that decides whether or when a soul will be realised, then God could decide never to allow it to manifest in the real world.
Yeah. Indeed, if as Berkeley I would say that as long as I watch (be able to touch it by a hand, etc) it (something), it exists, then I would divide reality into two: perceptual and non-perceptual. And no reason would be to consider that non-perceptual one existed. The same with non-realized yet objects: they exist somehow, but not formed, so "formation" of them = their appearing or the start point of their existence. Important that I am not against neither intuitive, nor conceptual existence of potential/actual forms. The point is in that logically it's easier to spare them. We might aim neutral substance that exist in a special way: time changing it. I'll explain the last one. It's the Presentism that holds a view that just a current moment exists, and no before, no after. And the Externalism that take all the stuff or, generally, the everything that exists at the same time simultaneously. The former easily can be presented as a searchlight and a number of particles that changes according to the pattern that the searchlight orders. For example, a set of electrons, protons, and neutrons and a function π that is the sequence of positions in which the particles change. For the Externalism is easy to aim that there are more than one searchlights. The views like those don't need in forces or some complex substance (difficult to imagine or to construct comparlily to the neutral one).
If the universe is deterministic, then one could claim that the past, present, and future, all exist. One can just see time as the fourth dimension, so that the past is just a backwards movement in time, and the future is a forward movement in time. But let's say that there exists randomness. And let's say that at some point in time in the history of the universe, a random event would determine whether a particular phenomena would happen. And this particular phenomena would in some substantial way determine the development of the universe. For example, decide whether or not galaxies would later form. If that random event didn't happen, and this lead to matter never forming galaxies, the universe would have been lifeless for eternity. The possibility that it could have had life would then forever only be a potential it once had, but which was never realised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 25, 2020 3:18:48 GMT
Yeah. Indeed, if as Berkeley I would say that as long as I watch (be able to touch it by a hand, etc) it (something), it exists, then I would divide reality into two: perceptual and non-perceptual. And no reason would be to consider that non-perceptual one existed. The same with non-realized yet objects: they exist somehow, but not formed, so "formation" of them = their appearing or the start point of their existence. Important that I am not against neither intuitive, nor conceptual existence of potential/actual forms. The point is in that logically it's easier to spare them. We might aim neutral substance that exist in a special way: time changing it. I'll explain the last one. It's the Presentism that holds a view that just a current moment exists, and no before, no after. And the Externalism that take all the stuff or, generally, the everything that exists at the same time simultaneously. The former easily can be presented as a searchlight and a number of particles that changes according to the pattern that the searchlight orders. For example, a set of electrons, protons, and neutrons and a function π that is the sequence of positions in which the particles change. For the Externalism is easy to aim that there are more than one searchlights. The views like those don't need in forces or some complex substance (difficult to imagine or to construct comparlily to the neutral one). If the universe is deterministic, then one could claim that the past, present, and future, all exist. One can just see time as the fourth dimension, so that the past is just a backwards movement in time, and the future is a forward movement in time. But let's say that there exists randomness. And let's say that at some point in time in the history of the universe, a random event would determine whether a particular phenomena would happen. And this particular phenomena would in some substantial way determine the development of the universe. For example, decide whether or not galaxies would later form. If that random event didn't happen, and this lead to matter never forming galaxies, the universe would have been lifeless for eternity. The possibility that it could have had life would then forever only be a potential it once had, but which was never realised.
Do you propose that there are alternate universes as well? Like time traveling and such people found the rewind and fast forward buttons? |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 25, 2020 5:14:27 GMT
If the universe is deterministic, then one could claim that the past, present, and future, all exist. One can just see time as the fourth dimension, so that the past is just a backwards movement in time, and the future is a forward movement in time. But let's say that there exists randomness. And let's say that at some point in time in the history of the universe, a random event would determine whether a particular phenomena would happen. And this particular phenomena would in some substantial way determine the development of the universe. For example, decide whether or not galaxies would later form. If that random event didn't happen, and this lead to matter never forming galaxies, the universe would have been lifeless for eternity. The possibility that it could have had life would then forever only be a potential it once had, but which was never realised.
Do you propose that there are alternate universes as well? Like time traveling and such people found the rewind and fast forward buttons?
There is every reason to believe that there are stars and galaxies outside of our own, observable universe. In fact, Hubble has taken images of such galaxies from before they went beyond the Hubble radius (The limit of what we can observe and reach).
But I do not believe in the parallel universes one refers to in relation to traveling back in time. I simply do not believe that traveling back in time is possible. Einstein's general relativity theory seems to open up for it, but even if the relativity theory had been a complete theory, which it is not, it doesn't provide any answer to how it could be done practically. For example, one suggestion is to use what's called negative energy, but matter with negative energy has never been observed anywhere, and no one knows if it actually exists.
Parallel universes in relation to time travel are linked to the idea that all possibilities are realised, just in different universes. This means there is no actual free will. If you make one choice in one universe, you'll make another choice in a parallel universe. And you'll make all possible choices, good as well as evil. You just happen to live in the universe where you made the choices you have. If there is no free will there is hardly a self, integrity, and character, and given that everyone makes all kinds of good and evil choices, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of good and evil. -And what's true for humans must be true for God, who will also make every choice imaginable, realised in different universes. (Although those who believe in these kinds of parallel universes probably don't believe in God to begin with.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 25, 2020 5:23:17 GMT
Do you propose that there are alternate universes as well? Like time traveling and such people found the rewind and fast forward buttons? There is every reason to believe that there are stars and galaxies outside of our own, observable universe. In fact, Hubble has taken images of such galaxies from before they went beyond the Hubble radius (The limit of what we can observe and reach).
But I do not believe in the parallel universes one refers to in relation to traveling back in time. I simply do not believe that traveling back in time is possible. Einstein's general relativity theory seems to open up for it, but even if the relativity theory had been a complete theory, which it is not, it doesn't provide any answer to how it could be done practically. For example, one suggestion is to use what's called negative energy, but matter with negative energy has never been observed anywhere, and no one knows if it actually exists.
Parallel universes in relation to time travel are linked to the idea that all possibilities are realised, just in different universes. This means there is no actual free will. If you make one choice in one universe, you'll make another choice in a parallel universe. And you'll make all possible choices, good as well as evil. You just happen to live in the universe where you made the choices you have. If there is no free will there is hardly a self, integrity, and character, and given that everyone makes all kinds of good and evil choices, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of good and evil. -And what's true for humans must be true for God, who will also make every choice imaginable, realised in different universes. (Although those who believe in these kinds of parallel universes probably don't believe in God to begin with.)
Nicely said. So then, since you mentioned Einstein, you're also a bit distrusting of some scientists too correct? |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 25, 2020 5:41:34 GMT
There is every reason to believe that there are stars and galaxies outside of our own, observable universe. In fact, Hubble has taken images of such galaxies from before they went beyond the Hubble radius (The limit of what we can observe and reach).
But I do not believe in the parallel universes one refers to in relation to traveling back in time. I simply do not believe that traveling back in time is possible. Einstein's general relativity theory seems to open up for it, but even if the relativity theory had been a complete theory, which it is not, it doesn't provide any answer to how it could be done practically. For example, one suggestion is to use what's called negative energy, but matter with negative energy has never been observed anywhere, and no one knows if it actually exists.
Parallel universes in relation to time travel are linked to the idea that all possibilities are realised, just in different universes. This means there is no actual free will. If you make one choice in one universe, you'll make another choice in a parallel universe. And you'll make all possible choices, good as well as evil. You just happen to live in the universe where you made the choices you have. If there is no free will there is hardly a self, integrity, and character, and given that everyone makes all kinds of good and evil choices, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of good and evil. -And what's true for humans must be true for God, who will also make every choice imaginable, realised in different universes. (Although those who believe in these kinds of parallel universes probably don't believe in God to begin with.)
Nicely said. So then, since you mentioned Einstein, you're also a bit distrusting of some scientists too correct?
Thank you. Einstein himself was not keen on the idea of traveling back in time, and he also emphasised that his theory would have to be replaced by a larger, more complete theory. I do think the relativity theory was an important contribution to physics, but as a step forward, not as an adequate description of reality.
What I don't like in regards to some scientists is when they go beyond what they have scientific grounds for stating, but use scientific language to make it sound scientific. Modern physics has parted with the principle that scientific claims should be testable. The holographic principle is one example of that. And one argument I've heard repeated by physicists in defense of these kinds of theories, is that "it's reasoned out with mathematics". Mathematics itself demonstrates nothing but mathematics. It needs correct premises in order to deduce the correct conclusions. -And when the premises are such formulated that they're not testable, the whole construction may be nothing but a mathematical exercise, with no relation to what's actually true.
The holographic principle is based on string theory, and one of its founder, Leonard Susskind, once stated in a lecture about string theory at Stanford university (available on youtube):
"It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. ...It has lead to new mathematical theorems."
Yes, exactly. That may be all it is: An exercise in mathematical deduction.
|
|
