originally: "all metaphysical questions answered?"

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

the question mark was for the point where i couldn't answer them, but i thought it would be fun to see how many i could answer somehow.

the idea came when i was reading an older post that asked if souls could age. quick, the skeptics (very important to have skeptics) point out that there aren't any, so they can't age. but assuming we have souls, do they?

i liked my own answer for this, ( Razz

) and i have others, but i've already started thinking of questions i can't answer. some are easy:

"how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
"angels don't take up space, so really any number can fit there."

but anything ontological:

"do angels exist?"
i dunno! but i might be able to point out different groups of people that think they do or don't.

i think it could be a lot of fun, although for whom i'm not sure. my answer for "do souls age?":

Quote:

souls exist on a nonphysical plane, where time doesn't exist. even when "connected" with the body, they are on a nonphysical plane.

things can't "age" on a plane with no physical events or passage of time. but they can grow in sophistication, they can become more complex, or more balanced. the difference is that in a timeplane, these states are finite in number and sequential, where a soul and an "old soul" can be distinguished from each other.

sooner or later, souls do progress, agelessly. an "old soul" has simply reached that point from this plane. on a timeless plane, everyone has already.

you can imagine all the questions that arise from this answer. basically i've just taken what i/others think they know about what a soul is, and put that together with the question. it doesn't necessarily result in a "right answer," it just results in an answer. if the answer is interesting, it was worth asking the question.

if the answer isn't interesting, there probably was no point in asking. also, there's no reason other people can't answer too. i'm just offering to try to answer all the ones that i can think of an answer to.

anyone interested?

(f/x: crickets chirping)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 761 • Replies: 4

No top replies

Quote:

things can't "age" on a plane with no physical events or passage of time. but they can grow in sophistication,

etc

No....you are playing the same game as the naive realists who say trees in forests can fall "without observers". Just as you are the observer of the tree falling in your minds eye you are also the observer of change of "sophisication in that hypothetical soul"... all "change" is in essence temporal.

0 Replies

yes and no.

here's 10 numbers:

0123456789

let's say for the sake of argument, here's the one you can see right now:

7

okay, but there are 10 there. if you're looking at one at a time, from here, you see one of them. that's time.

on an eternal plane, you'd see:

0123456789

and you'd see the same thing here, but not all at once.

so you're changing, but from another perspective, you are and you already have.

anyway, i said "answered." i didn't promise you'd agree, but if you want to debate it, then the person that asked gets two (or three or four) answers for the price of one. actually there's a whole thread on it somewhere, but i'll probably bail this one if another question is asked.

0 Replies

I think your position depends on observer defined "event windows" and the sense that an "event" loses "temporality" like a snapshot. However you might consider the secondary observational process of interpretation of the snapshot which itself is a temporal event. For example, although a Picasso painting might be said to represent several views of a model "simultaneously", both the painting and the act of interpretation take place in "time".

But thanks for an interesting mental exercise !

0 Replies

believe it or not, i did think of that.

if you consider decimals (because a line of numbers is very easy to type, more than the ideal illustration, which might be graphical and ultimately x-dimensional) in the row of "snapshots" above, part of the whole you could possibly see is yourself, "back in time" as it were, looking through yourself looking through the subjective lens of "time."

put more simply: if you can see everything you ever did at once, you can see yourself seeing only part (amongst everything else.) just because you now (hypothetically) have objective access and can see the whole entire forest, doesn't require that you've lost the ability to pick out a tree. you can see yourself as a baby and as a grown wo/man and all your "growth" is right in front of you.

this becomes a lot more difficult to imagine if space is a similar illusion to time and reality is a centralized point, but that's another problem, really, and i would bet the solution isn't that different, but a lot more difficult to put into words.

0 Replies

originally: "all metaphysical questions answered?"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know