7
   

What is the ultimate form of Existence?

 
 
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 10:31 am
What do you think lies at the heart of creation? Is it time? Space? Light? Energy? Archetypes? Or,do you think that it is something purely abstract and/ or inexplicable? What say you? MR
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 01:58 pm
@Etherman50,
Nutella.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 02:31 pm
@Etherman50,
Eth, it’s a perfectly natural phenom while creation is an ongoing process. Eventually it will be shown that the idea of nothingness entails paradox so the instant it occurs it becomes something. To skirt the obvious contradiction its duration is zero

I suppose there’s a name for it—perhaps Nutella--but it apparently incorporates matter and energy. Then there’s the Big Bang wherein it all differentiates

Eventually after the Big Show during which there’s just a whole lot of creation going on it’s just a whole lot of cold particles mutually accelerating away from one another until they slow down and begin to coalesce, whereupon the Big Crunch

Hello test, test test..

As it’s finite, the accretion grows in mass and shrinks in “diameter” (quotes because it’s not really shaped like a ball) becoming increasingly unstable while its time slows down until its dimension has shrunk to zero and time has come to a stop whereupon its mass is infinite and of course its instability has reached critical and then of course the next Big Bang forever anon

If you need a term for it try that of the apodictical existential pantheist (my No. 2 Son and I): “God”

According to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, however, matter is near the “concrete” end of the spectrum while She’s toward the “abstract” end though of course She necessarily incorporates the entire Megillah
JLNobody
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 02:33 pm
@Etherman50,
Right now it is a bowl of oatmeal and a cup of hot coffee. That's inexplicable.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 02:41 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

That's inexplicable.


Agreed.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 02:43 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
inexplicable
repeatedly
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 02:55 pm
@Etherman50,
Etherman50 wrote:

What do you think lies at the heart of creation? Is it time? Space? Light? Energy? Archetypes? Or,do you think that it is something purely abstract and/ or inexplicable? What say you? MR


Not much anyone can do but watch and wait.
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 04:23 pm
@Rickoshay75,
What a relief.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 03:04 am
@Etherman50,
At the heart of "creation" lies everything and nothing. But even those are abstractions that fit inside my human mind. Existence, that something is, lies at the heart.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 09:18 am
@Cyracuz,
Yes, that is the existentialist's fundamental rule: existence precedes esssence, i.e., the meaninfulness of everything--I say it is an aspect of everything.
BTW, I'm glad you put quotation marks around 'creation'.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 10:15 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
...matter is near the “concrete” end of the spectrum...


How is that?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 10:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
...matter is near the “concrete” end of the spectrum...
Quote:
How is that?


In the concrete-abstract spectrum, being analog not digital, we have a rock for instance at the one end and God at the other
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 10:49 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
...matter is near the “concrete” end of the spectrum...
Quote:
How is that?


In the concrete-abstract spectrum, being analog not digital, we have a rock for instance at the one end and God at the other


Now try explaining that in plain English, please.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 11:11 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
In the concrete-abstract spectrum, being analog not digital, we have a rock for instance at the one end and God at the other



Without getting into the “god at the other end”…I am wondering why “matter” would be considered more “concrete” on any continuum than anything else.

Matter seems to be made up of molecules…which are in turn made up of atoms…which are in turn made up of sub-atomic particles…which in turn are made up of ???

Molecules are collections of atoms and are mostly space…just as the atoms are mostly space with components made up of particles that seem to be mostly space…and it may recede infinitum.

(That ultimate smallest, indivisible whatever is a mother to think about…as difficult as thinking about “nothing.”)

There appears to be a possibility that the smallest real “particles” aren’t really particles (matter) at all…but just energy.

Maybe what we call “matter” is just energy. Maybe “matter” is no more “concrete” than an electric current or a light wave or what in your opening remarks you termed “energy.”

Maybe none of this “existence” or any of its components is different from what you referred to as “god.”

Maybe space, light, matter, gods…no real difference.

Not saying it is...just saying "maybe"...and wondering.

Just wondering why you saw matter as “more concrete.”

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 11:28 am
@dalehileman,
Another spectrum (a dualism involving polar opposites) is the difference between immediate and mediate(d) experience. Some experience is "concrete" in the sense that it comes to us without linguistic effort. Take the experience of "blue". It is direct or immediate. But "contrast" it to the abstract notion of"blueness" which is, by definition, mediated by neurological ideas of optical mechanisms and physical properties of perceived objects. More abstractly, I sometimes I refer to the ideal of a "blue rose", something we can never exeperience immediately, only mediately as a metaphorical idea(l).
Ultimately, of course, everything is experienced immediately, whether it be a thought-sensation or the stubbing of a toe.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 12:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Without getting into the “god at the other end”…I am wondering why “matter” would be considered more “concrete” on any continuum than anything else.
Your point Frank is well taken, on the basis that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, my point exactly from a pantheistic point of view; She exists or doesn’t depending on you you define Her. Most of us though think of a rock as more concrete than, say, mathematics or nascent transcendence



Quote:
There appears to be a possibility that the smallest real “particles” aren’t really particles (matter) at all…but just energy.
Quiote so; yet intuitively we think of them as more nearly concrete than, say, the Catholic Church, FedCo, space, time, in order of increasing abstraction

Quote:
Maybe what we call “matter” is just energy. Maybe “matter” is no more “concrete” than an electric current or a light wave or what in your opening remarks you termed “energy.”
Point well taken. However we think of matter as energy packed into a small space hence more nearly concrete



Quote:
Maybe none of this “existence” or any of its components is different from what you referred to as “god.”
Bingo. The concept is difficult to express without everyday dualism

Quote:
Maybe space, light, matter, gods…no real difference.

Well after all there do seem to be differences though we apodictical existential pantheists think of the Entire Megillah as Her. Maybe all the “matter” is her “body” while all the activity is her “thought"

Quote:
Not saying it is...just saying "maybe"...and wondering.
Me too

Quote:
Just wondering why you saw matter as “more concrete.”
Yes I quite understand
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 12:32 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4990419)
Quote:
Without getting into the “god at the other end”…I am wondering why “matter” would be considered more “concrete” on any continuum than anything else.
Your point Frank is well taken, on the basis that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, my point exactly from a pantheistic point of view; She exists or doesn’t depending on you you define Her. Most of us though think of a rock as more concrete than, say, mathematics or nascent transcendence



Quote:
There appears to be a possibility that the smallest real “particles” aren’t really particles (matter) at all…but just energy.
Quiote so; yet intuitively we think of them as more nearly concrete than, say, the Catholic Church, FedCo, space, time, in order of increasing abstraction

Quote:
Maybe what we call “matter” is just energy. Maybe “matter” is no more “concrete” than an electric current or a light wave or what in your opening remarks you termed “energy.”
Point well taken. However we think of matter as energy packed into a small space hence more nearly concrete



Quote:
Maybe none of this “existence” or any of its components is different from what you referred to as “god.”
Bingo. The concept is difficult to express without everyday dualism

Quote:
Maybe space, light, matter, gods…no real difference.

Well after all there do seem to be differences though we apodictical existential pantheists think of the Entire Megillah as Her. Maybe all the “matter” is her “body” while all the activity is her “thought"

Quote:
Not saying it is...just saying "maybe"...and wondering.
Me too

Quote:
Just wondering why you saw matter as “more concrete.”
Yes I quite understand



Dalehileman, I couldn'ta said it better myself!
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 03:52 pm

being pure energy
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 04:23 pm
@north,
Don't be silly; it's pure "stuff." Rolling Eyes
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2012 04:27 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Don't be silly; it's pure "stuff." Rolling Eyes


the evolution of biology

is pure energy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is the ultimate form of Existence?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 04:13:22