Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

An idea I had (Philosophy)

Page 2 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TonyTheTiger
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

29 Dec 2009, 7:37 pm

All right, some interesting ideas, thanks.



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

29 Dec 2009, 8:31 pm

Descartes wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Descartes wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Hi Descartes, if there is such a law as 'matter cannot be either created or destroyed' then you've just contradicted yourself by saying that forests can be burnt down (ie destroyed) and then they repair themselves. A seed must be created from something (ie another tree) and the continuous cycle continues onto the seedling being created from the seed and on it goes.

There's no intelligence. It's a basic law of cause and effect.


I didn't think of that. But what I think the law of "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" implies is that if something is destroyed, then it will ultimately be replaced.

Of course, this law would also suggest that the universe was never created, but that it has always existed and will continue to exist. But recent scientific observation has negated this claim upon discovering that the universe is expanding and thus has started out in a very dense and compact state until something happened that caused it to continuously expand, hence the Big Bang Theory.

I know I'm drifting off topic a little, but I couldn't help but note that.


So you mean that the energy potential of matter converts into something else? If so, I still have difficulty seeing how this indicates an intelligence unless it involves the consciousness of a living being. Otherwise I agree with the idea of a potency in all matter that doesn't disintegrate, but rather cycles continuously in the midst of all the coming and going of matter.

And whether the universe expands, explodes or becomes compacted - there still must be a cause for this, an origin from which it came. (And that origin itself must be unoriginated.) Because what other known phenomenon exists without an origin? Do we have an example of something dense and compact that didn't arrive at that state without a cause? I don't think this recent scientific discovery negates a beginningless existence.


It depends on how you see it, I guess. I see it as an intelligence on nature's behalf, but that's just me.

And I don't think anybody can come up and claim they know for sure what prompted the universe into existence. The furthest scientific observation can trace the history of the universe is back to a state of dense compactness, but as of now nobody knows of its history prior to this.


Yeah, Descartes - I appreciate that there's sort of a beauty in seeing an intelligent design in nature. I can accept it from that perspective only. And you're right - nobody knows anything until we know.

EDIT: ...knows anything in regards to the origin of the universe that is.


_________________
happily reclusive


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Dec 2009, 9:49 pm

SporadSpontan wrote:
Descartes wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Descartes wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Hi Descartes, if there is such a law as 'matter cannot be either created or destroyed' then you've just contradicted yourself by saying that forests can be burnt down (ie destroyed) and then they repair themselves. A seed must be created from something (ie another tree) and the continuous cycle continues onto the seedling being created from the seed and on it goes.

There's no intelligence. It's a basic law of cause and effect.


I didn't think of that. But what I think the law of "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" implies is that if something is destroyed, then it will ultimately be replaced.

Of course, this law would also suggest that the universe was never created, but that it has always existed and will continue to exist. But recent scientific observation has negated this claim upon discovering that the universe is expanding and thus has started out in a very dense and compact state until something happened that caused it to continuously expand, hence the Big Bang Theory.

I know I'm drifting off topic a little, but I couldn't help but note that.


So you mean that the energy potential of matter converts into something else? If so, I still have difficulty seeing how this indicates an intelligence unless it involves the consciousness of a living being. Otherwise I agree with the idea of a potency in all matter that doesn't disintegrate, but rather cycles continuously in the midst of all the coming and going of matter.

And whether the universe expands, explodes or becomes compacted - there still must be a cause for this, an origin from which it came. (And that origin itself must be unoriginated.) Because what other known phenomenon exists without an origin? Do we have an example of something dense and compact that didn't arrive at that state without a cause? I don't think this recent scientific discovery negates a beginningless existence.


It depends on how you see it, I guess. I see it as an intelligence on nature's behalf, but that's just me.

And I don't think anybody can come up and claim they know for sure what prompted the universe into existence. The furthest scientific observation can trace the history of the universe is back to a state of dense compactness, but as of now nobody knows of its history prior to this.


Yeah, Descartes - I appreciate that there's sort of a beauty in seeing an intelligent design in nature. I can accept it from that perspective only. And you're right - nobody knows anything until we know.

EDIT: ...knows anything in regards to the origin of the universe that is.



The concept of "knowing" is a good deal more fugitive than most people realize. When one's nose itches and it is more or less confirmed that it is there when one scratches it, that is all inference. It is common that people with amputated limbs can sense them. The origin of the universe is somewhat more removed.



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

29 Dec 2009, 11:22 pm

There is no pervasion that just because our knowledge of the origin of the universe is limited - that it must necessarily follow that there is a limit to the origin of the universe.


_________________
happily reclusive


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Dec 2009, 12:10 am

SporadSpontan wrote:
There is no pervasion that just because our knowledge of the origin of the universe is limited - that it must necessarily follow that there is a limit to the origin of the universe.


In other words, like quantum effects, and the indeterminacy factors, the origin changes whenever you think you have it nailed down since it could come out of a multiple of parallel universes.



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

30 Dec 2009, 12:19 am

Yes, except I suspect infinite universes. If the number is merely multiple and not infinite - it doesn't make sense to determine a certain number. Just like it doesn't make sense to stop at one.


_________________
happily reclusive


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Dec 2009, 12:24 am

SporadSpontan wrote:
Yes, except I suspect infinite universes. If the number is merely multiple and not infinite - it doesn't make sense to determine a certain number. Just like it doesn't make sense to stop at one.


And since your consciousness may wander from one universe to another very similar one from hour to hour you and I may be posting to different people from one minute to the next.



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

30 Dec 2009, 12:31 am

Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Yes, except I suspect infinite universes. If the number is merely multiple and not infinite - it doesn't make sense to determine a certain number. Just like it doesn't make sense to stop at one.


And since your consciousness may wander from one universe to another very similar one from hour to hour you and I may be posting to different people from one minute to the next.


No it's from however many moments there are in a second to the next one! lol Because our mind changes from moment to moment we are a new person from moment to moment - whether or not our consciousness remains in this universe.

But I also think it's possible to emanate any number of beings throughout any number of universes - simultaneously - from the one consciousness. Provided it has developed full realisations of such things.


_________________
happily reclusive


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Dec 2009, 12:42 am

SporadSpontan wrote:
Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Yes, except I suspect infinite universes. If the number is merely multiple and not infinite - it doesn't make sense to determine a certain number. Just like it doesn't make sense to stop at one.


And since your consciousness may wander from one universe to another very similar one from hour to hour you and I may be posting to different people from one minute to the next.


No it's from however many moments there are in a second to the next one! lol Because our mind changes from moment to moment we are a new person from moment to moment - whether or not our consciousness remains in this universe.

But I also think it's possible to emanate any number of beings throughout any number of universes - simultaneously - from the one consciousness. Provided it has developed full realisations of such things.


And, of course you must take into account that we are only conscious of four dimensions at a time and we may be living simultaneously in thousands of different universes and being aware of only a tiny part of ourselves at once.



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

30 Dec 2009, 12:52 am

Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Yes, except I suspect infinite universes. If the number is merely multiple and not infinite - it doesn't make sense to determine a certain number. Just like it doesn't make sense to stop at one.


And since your consciousness may wander from one universe to another very similar one from hour to hour you and I may be posting to different people from one minute to the next.


No it's from however many moments there are in a second to the next one! lol Because our mind changes from moment to moment we are a new person from moment to moment - whether or not our consciousness remains in this universe.

But I also think it's possible to emanate any number of beings throughout any number of universes - simultaneously - from the one consciousness. Provided it has developed full realisations of such things.


And, of course you must take into account that we are only conscious of four dimensions at a time and we may be living simultaneously in thousands of different universes and being aware of only a tiny part of ourselves at once.


Oooooooooh.... Yeah you're getting closer to what I'm thinking. Except it's not thousands - but Infinite. And yeah - I think that we're, in an ultimate sense, much bigger than what we are aware of. Yes.


_________________
happily reclusive


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Dec 2009, 1:41 am

SporadSpontan wrote:
Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Yes, except I suspect infinite universes. If the number is merely multiple and not infinite - it doesn't make sense to determine a certain number. Just like it doesn't make sense to stop at one.


And since your consciousness may wander from one universe to another very similar one from hour to hour you and I may be posting to different people from one minute to the next.


No it's from however many moments there are in a second to the next one! lol Because our mind changes from moment to moment we are a new person from moment to moment - whether or not our consciousness remains in this universe.

But I also think it's possible to emanate any number of beings throughout any number of universes - simultaneously - from the one consciousness. Provided it has developed full realisations of such things.


And, of course you must take into account that we are only conscious of four dimensions at a time and we may be living simultaneously in thousands of different universes and being aware of only a tiny part of ourselves at once.


Oooooooooh.... Yeah you're getting closer to what I'm thinking. Except it's not thousands - but Infinite. And yeah - I think that we're, in an ultimate sense, much bigger than what we are aware of. Yes.


Infinity is best left to mathematics which is just imaginative exercise. You cannot count the number of electrons in the universe (and I doubt the number is constant) but it is not infinite. This is all speculative fun and not connected to any observed reality so don't take it seriously. Insofar as our observations are concerned we live in one universe and it started a specific number of billions of years ago and will cease to exist as a dynamic entity in a specific point in the future. These temporal indications are so huge we can discount them as having any effect on our contemporary lives. Everything else is Alice in Wonderland and Oz.



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

30 Dec 2009, 1:53 am

Infinity can be realised by omniscient mind, if such a thing is possible.
Observations in the past have proven to be limited. So why wouldn't current observations also be limited?
The effect this has on contemporary lives is that by opening our minds to possibilities, we have a chance of broadening our observations.


_________________
happily reclusive


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Dec 2009, 2:51 am

SporadSpontan wrote:
Infinity can be realised by omniscient mind, if such a thing is possible.
Observations in the past have proven to be limited. So why wouldn't current observations also be limited?
The effect this has on contemporary lives is that by opening our minds to possibilities, we have a chance of broadening our observations.


Omniscient minds are just as unavailable as infinity in the real world. Fairies, demons, Easter Bunnies, and God are much more fun if you enjoy nonsense.



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

30 Dec 2009, 3:21 am

Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Infinity can be realised by omniscient mind, if such a thing is possible.
Observations in the past have proven to be limited. So why wouldn't current observations also be limited?
The effect this has on contemporary lives is that by opening our minds to possibilities, we have a chance of broadening our observations.


Omniscient minds are just as unavailable as infinity in the real world. Fairies, demons, Easter Bunnies, and God are much more fun if you enjoy nonsense.


I don't find those things fun. And besides, it's not a question of what is more fun - but rather what could be gained from whatever it is we choose to marry our minds with. I think the only way to achieve ultimate results is to think in terms of infinite matter. Then if this doesn't eventuate, so be it. But by refusing the notion then it won't be possible to realise it. There's no nonsense in hypothesising and then experimenting to see what conclusion one can arrive at. But for someone who's never experienced meditation - it would be difficult to accept that a transformation and expansion of the mind is possible.


_________________
happily reclusive


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Dec 2009, 3:39 am

SporadSpontan wrote:
Sand wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
Infinity can be realised by omniscient mind, if such a thing is possible.
Observations in the past have proven to be limited. So why wouldn't current observations also be limited?
The effect this has on contemporary lives is that by opening our minds to possibilities, we have a chance of broadening our observations.


Omniscient minds are just as unavailable as infinity in the real world. Fairies, demons, Easter Bunnies, and God are much more fun if you enjoy nonsense.


I don't find those things fun. And besides, it's not a question of what is more fun - but rather what could be gained from whatever it is we choose to marry our minds with. I think the only way to achieve ultimate results is to think in terms of infinite matter. Then if this doesn't eventuate, so be it. But by refusing the notion then it won't be possible to realise it. There's no nonsense in hypothesising and then experimenting to see what conclusion one can arrive at. But for someone who's never experienced meditation - it would be difficult to accept that a transformation and expansion of the mind is possible.


If you want to play funny games with yourself feel free. But insofar as the reality we contend with every day there is no such thing as infinite matter. Your love affair with the word "ultimate" is, to say the least, annoying. What the hell does it mean?



SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

30 Dec 2009, 4:22 am

Oh wow, I'm hurt that you find it annoying because it is as you say - 'a love affair' for me. But yet, you ask me what it means? So I'm confused. Do you really want to know? Because I don't know if I can explain it any further than I already have for you. It means something like 'final' or 'end point'. So basically what I'm saying is that existence has occurred since a beginningless time and will only keep occurring unless we individually put a stop to it - by realising an ultimate state.

You don't have to concern yourself with this if a life after death doesn't make sense to you. But for those of us who see this as a possibility, and also recognise the general and specific sufferings of existence - we would very much like to put an end to it.

It's our dream, it's our passion, it's our love affair. That we consider that there is not only an end to any form of suffering forever, but this state of awareness also brings with it an inconceivable bliss, wisdom, compassion and ability.

I don't mind how much nonsense you derive from this because I already know your position on this type of thing. I suppress my urges to share more information, because unfortunately communicating my special interest comes across as forcing my crazy religious views onto others. I've been accused of this too many times already. So I usually try to shut up about it. So thanks for asking - even though the question was posed in such a confusing manner.


_________________
happily reclusive