What is the ultimate form of Existence?

Forums: Philosophy, Creation, Existence
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 8,028 • Replies: 102

[+3] - Lustig Andrei - 05/21/2012Nutella.
[+3] - JLNobody - 05/21/2012Right now it is a bowl of oatmeal and a cup of hot coffee. [b]That's[/b] inexplicable.
[+3] - Frank Apisa - 05/22/2012That word "creation" is often used in very creative (!) ways, Cyracuz. Often theists will ask, "So how do you explain Creation without a creator." I guess it is a form of...
[+3] - Cyracuz - 05/22/2012It is. But there is a creator for creation, no doubt. Next time you get that question, tell the one asking it to look in a mirror.

@Etherman50,

Nutella.

1 Reply

@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

1 Reply

@Etherman50,

Right now it is a bowl of oatmeal and a cup of hot coffee. That's inexplicable.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

That's inexplicable.

Agreed.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

inexplicable

repeatedly

0 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

What a relief.

0 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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'.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

...matter is near the “concrete” end of the spectrum...

How is that?

1 Reply

@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

3 Replies

@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

@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.”

1 Reply

@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

@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

1 Reply

@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!

2 Replies

being pure energy

1 Reply

@north,

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

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

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

the evolution of biology

is pure energy

0 Replies

What is the ultimate form of Existence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know