An idea I had (Philosophy)

Post Reply New Topic

Its a mess, in that on one side we have no proof (yet) that its either always been here or was even created at the big bang.

Another angle, to say that there was nothing before our known universe and the big bang - we'd have to know whether dark matter and dark energy are dependent or independent of the big bang; ie. is dark energy vibrating on the lines of spacetime beyond the edges of our known universe? If so then we can say that dark energy could have had a lot to do with bringing this universe into existence, and with infinite probability that means many more before it as well. The problem with infinite probabilistic resources though - in an eternity before us, reality becomes unhinged a bit as random chance becomes a teleology with limitless potential. The religious perhaps could wonder whether a God was a consciousness wrought of the writhing of space time and dark energy or whether the God they worship actually is space time and dark energy.

I think the most powerful thing at least here is not one's ability to generate answers nearly as much as one's ability to generate well aimed and previously unthought of questions. To look at it from the perspective of has it always been here or were we in an unending void prior to that - might be too binary, I'd focus on chiseling at the walls of that dichotomy more than working at finding the best explanations for either or as separate givens.

Infinite wind at least seems possible .

We definitely have some impressive windbags though that's for sure .

If it's okay (and I guess it's too bad if it's not, and I apologise in advance) - I'd like to move this discussion further away from the limitations of what is currently observed by our 5 senses and more into the area of the mind.

Our world as we know it is made up of:
1a) eye sense faculty which depends on objects of sight for its existence
1b) objects of sight which are dependent upon the eye sense faculty
2a) ear sense faculty which depends on objects of hearing for its existence
2b) objects of hearing which are dependent upon the ear sense faculty
3a) nose sense faculty which depends on objects of smell for its existence
3b) objects of smell which are dependent upon the nose sense faculty
4a) tongue sense faculty which depends on objects of taste for its existence
4b) objects of taste which are dependent upon the tongue sense faculty
5a) touch sense faculty which depends on objects of touch for its existence
5b) objects of touch which are dependent upon the touch sense faculty

Are we in agreement that this encompasses all external phenomena as we know it?
And then there is the faculty of the mind, or consciousness - which depends on objects of conception for its existence. And the conceptions depend on the faculty of the mind.

Now to really get what I'm saying this requires some careful consideration because it might just blow your mind.

Carefully observe the interdependent relationship of sense faculties and their objects. How one cannot exist without the other. Take the example of an apple. The sight of the apple in any single moment is entirely dependent on the object of the apple. Examine carefully and you'll find that there is no other cause for the sight of the apple (NB. just the sight) other than the eye sense faculty which observes it. And in return, the eye sense faculty that observes the apple is entirely dependent on the object of the apple. There is no other cause for that specific observation.

Now this rule applies to all the other senses - such as the tasting of the apple etc. It can also be applied to all other observable phenomena, eg the sound of an aeroplane overhead is dependent on the ear sense faculty that perceives it and vice versa.

Using this analysis you can see how our entire reality exists in a non-dualistic way - that every sense object and sense faculty are mutually dependent. However in our common everyday experiences all phenomena appears to us as separate independent entities. And even though these dualistic appearances are commonly accepted objective concrete examples of reality - when we carefully analyse we can see that we are actually mistaken by this.

The appearances we commonly observe are therefore unreliable. We are constantly being fooled every time we perceive an object to be independent of the sense faculty that observes it.

Now the mind - which can certainly be just as unreliable, of all the 6 sense faculties (that's 5 of the body and 1 of the mind) is the only faculty capable of realising its non-dual state. Coupled with this potential is the fact that the mind is also the only faculty we possess that is not confined to the sensory objects of the world (or space) around us. And if we are indeed to discover phenomena that's beyond our observable surroundings IMO we have only our mind to depend on.

The other sense faculties we rely on for our observations are 1) unreliable because they can't help but perceive things as dualistic; and 2) the phenomena they can observe is severely limited.

So what I'm saying is that any scientist who confines their investigations of the extent of the universe to the observable phenomena of the 5 sense faculties is necessarily going to be limited by what can be perceived by them. That's probably very obvious. And I hope everyone is content with this.

However, if we are to truly discover an extent of the universe it must necessarily be achieved within the realms of the mind. Now, we all know that abstractions, though not accepted in external phenomena - are indeed accepted in the mind (however controversially). And infinity is one of those abstract phenomenons. It's not a meaningless concept when we consider its usage in mathematics. It doesn't matter that it can't be applied to concrete phenomena because I'm suggesting that it's the mind and concepts that will determine the extent of the universe, and not the incorrectly perceived and limited external observations that are currently our accepted reality. And it would only be achieved via direct experience of this insight, rather than by the common and limited means of gaining knowledge - by reading books. So therefore, IMO - no actual proof can be available.

Meditation techniques that I am aware of that are used for this aim involve the use of a 'mandala' which is a symbolic representation of the notion of an infinite universe - which, by constantly familiarising one's mind with its symbols and imagery can have a profound effect on one's current understanding of the universe. -Possibly.- And anyone who has attained such a realisation can't tell anyone else because no one would believe them! So think of this what you will, but I'd say be careful of imposing your limiting views because if you go back over the earlier sections -carefully- you'll see that as far as accepting a conventional reality goes - appearances are not what they seem to be.

So anyhow - what do you think? Why can't it be possible for an abstract notion in the mind to be considered as an objective phenomenon if it indeed turns out to be the most accurate and thorough view of reality?