Why does the Universe exist?

@Fil Albuquerque,

First, I agree that there is something or somethings that go into what we colloquially call 'mind'. But the problem I have is that we don't understand or have a good agreement on what 'mind' really is.

I agree that we can make a statement about its 'meta category'. But to define mind itself? I don't think that's possible. Its an abstraction and quite probably a collection of things that we assume makes up 'one' thing called 'mind'.

So, when you say minds cannot be created by themselves..etc..I don't know what that means because I cannot successfully define 'mind'.

All I can say with any certainty is that the things I feel and think do have a reality, I just don't know what that reality is and I certainly can't make a statement with authority saying mind cannot create mind because, one (as I mentioned), I don't exactly know how to define mind and two because I do not have the whole collection of 'things' from which to make a comparison (I cannot get outside of that 'mind' - whatever that means!). I and all beings that I know of, lack the scope to make a sure, certain declaration.

This is not to mention issues with time and eternity gumbing up the works..which make are attempts at understanding this even worse..

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Sure thing. I just want to refute solipsism which is the sacred ground of the subjective argument and the idiotic argument mind creates our reality. Mind comes and is a product of Reality not the other way around. Even if this a priori reality is no longer available to us due to the filtering of subjectivity. I have produced a cohesive argument that demonstrates mind cannot be the root of existence once it cannot explain itself own existence.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Don't you know the argument Fresco and others around, including a big portion of idealists and rationalists made the world is a product of our imagination ? Well my argument disproves that argument.

I totally agree mind is a collection of things thus not the root of Reality. In fact that was the point I was trying to make against the idea mind is the root of our experienced world. Mind would have to justify itself own existence to start with. Remember according to the mantra no thing but mind was supposed to be Real...but then mind itself could not be real if not created by another mind as that would disprove the argument that mind creates ALL reality, including the realness of mind itself. This argument causes an infinite regress of minds creating minds and its circular, as MIND at large would not ever be justified.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Sure thing. I just want to refute solipsism which is the sacred ground of the subjective argument and the idiotic argument mind creates our reality. Mind comes and is a product of Reality not the other way around. Even if this a priori reality is no longer available to us due too the filtering of subjectivity. I have produced a cohesive argument that demonstrates mind cannot be the root of existence once it cannot explain itself own existence.

It is possible Fil, that you are the only one who truly exists and everyone else is a fictitious arising of reality for you for some reason. Me included, I am here just as a mindless arising of your reality, nothing more. You are the only being that is real in this reality, the rest of us are mindless props of your reality.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

If you read carefully my last half a dozen posts I just refuted that step by step...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If you read carefully my last half a dozen posts I just refuted that step by step...

You can argue it but it can't be proven. All attempts to say since there is objective agreement on aspects of reality then by all means your mind and my mind experience reality in a similar way. It's a good argument but can't be proven.

I say it's all meaningless since I think even the mind itself is an illusion.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

If anything I agree mind is an ilusiion as there is no valid argument for free will. and Free Will is central to a mind which is not just a sophisticated computer. As for proving it I proved the argument is inconsistent and self contradictory.

0 Replies

Again if as argued by fools the criteria for something to be real is that mind has to create it then mind itself would not be real as mind cannot ground itself in itself before itself exists.

...thus it follows, that if mind is real and it cannot create itself from its own bootstraps up, mind was not created by itself to be real. Mind is, must be, part of an a priori WORLD. This kills God as the root of Being and brings the pragmatic view of a Rational mindless world without free will, creativity, reduced to pure computation in a boundless loop that is eternal yet finite in information size. Like a fractal that repeats itself forever. In sum Consciousness is not special, not much different from a rock processing heat/entropy when the Sun hits its surface.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

WE ARE pseudo sophisticated ROCKS !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Snails

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

...and THAT ! Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Don't you know the argument Fresco and others around, including a big portion of idealists and rationalists made the world is a product of our imagination ?

Yes, I am aware of that. Although I don't know if they feel it is exactly that. I think they might say that we can't get outside of our minds to know what it is that's 'out there' to make any True statements about the nature of reality.

In the meantime, we only have the brains we have that generate our reality. I don't see this, as you seem to, as being solipsistic. At least not in the sense that there's nothing really 'out there' and that the universe is a complete fabrication of the mind. I think you can understand that reality is unknowable while at the same time believing that we are a part of that unknowable universe. I do hold though, that its possible we might know more than these subjective notions. Maybe contra to what I stated before, we really do know the universe because we are a part of it and so reflect it a la Leibniz's monads..?

Interesting stuff man..

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

However, I do question the big bang theory.

Why? I thought you were pretty confident in science's abilities.

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Great explanation.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Yes n no. Your pov also begs the question just as much as he does.
Does subjectivity create itself ? If it is a "thing" then its objective.
Or it is not a thing...

In regard to the question at hand which is "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" the question is about subjectivity seeing as how it involves hearing and sound. If no one or nothing (no subject) could hear then hearing would not be a "thing"--it would not exist--and because sound, as defined in regard to hearing in the question at hand, is possible only by way of hearing, then sound would not exist either. In regard to the question at hand, for there to be sound there would necessarily have to be hearing.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Yes n no. Your pov also begs the question just as much as he does.
Does subjectivity create itself ? If it is a "thing" then its objective.
Or it is not a thing...

In regard to the question at hand which is "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" the question is about subjectivity seeing as how it involves hearing and sound. If no one or nothing (no subject) could hear then hearing would not be a "thing"--it would not exist--and because sound, as defined in regard to hearing in the question at hand, is possible only by way of hearing, then sound would not exist either. In regard to the question at hand, for there to be sound there would necessarily have to be hearing.

In Buddhism this question is taken to another level. It suggests there isn't even a hearer to have heard anything.

Sound is by definition egocentric but the characteristic of sound is vibrational waves crashing into atoms which in turn crash into other atoms transferring the vibration data.

In other words it's reversed, there is sound always but never a preciever. It seems to contradict our intuition but it's pointing to a truth that is difficult to grasp.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Sound is by definition egocentric but the characteristic of sound is vibrational waves crashing into atoms which in turn crash into other atoms transferring the vibration data.

There seems to be a contradiction in this definition of sound, it's at once egocentric (I presume it has to do with subjectivity) but also objective. In any case, it's a different definition as the one implied by the question at hand.

I doubt that any Buddhist would call those vibrational waves crashing into atoms which in turn crash into other atoms transferring the vibration data "sound" if no one, or nothing, including Buddhists, could hear.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Sound is by definition egocentric but the characteristic of sound is vibrational waves crashing into atoms which in turn crash into other atoms transferring the vibration data.

There seems to be a contradiction in this definition of sound, it's at once egocentric (I presume it has to do with subjectivity) but also objective. In any case, it's a different definition as the one implied by the question at hand.

I doubt that any Buddhist would call those vibrational waves crashing into atoms which in turn crash into other atoms transferring the vibration data "sound" if no one, or nothing, including Buddhists, could hear.

If a person is an aspect required for sound to exist then a Buddhist would say there is never sound then.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

If a person is an aspect required for sound to exist then a Buddhist would say there is never sound then.

This sounds like religion!

Mystical stuff that uses the nomenclature of science but the conclusions of metaphysics - whatever that means!

I believe its safe to say that there is perception - a KRANG!!! by any other name..its nature, just who perceives, hard to define..by our words.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

catbeasy wrote:

Quote:
If a person is an aspect required for sound to exist then a Buddhist would say there is never sound then.

This sounds like religion!

Mystical stuff that uses the nomenclature of science but the conclusions of metaphysics - whatever that means!

I believe its safe to say that there is perception - a KRANG!!! by any other name..its nature, just who perceives, hard to define..by our words.

Religion, philosophy, or psychology and the analysis of what makes up consciousness. Call it what ever you want. When it comes down to it we are discussing the requirements for sound. Why is it necessary for both subject and object to be present or not present to determine it?

So on a planet where no life is that has thunder storms of crackling bolts if lightning in an atmosphere there is no sound? Plain silly. It's egocentric to say a preciever is required.

3 Replies

Why does the Universe exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know