Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

There would be nothing uncomfortable or inconvenient to me if the truth were that the universe is a hologram, Adam. But to go from what you read in a magazine about some speculative notions...

...to “There is quite simply no such thing as existence, for we have good reason to presume that the Universe is nothing more than a hologram”…

…is an example of a rather large heap of oompah.



And IF the universe is actually just a lump of cheese…world hunger may soon no longer be a major problem.



REALITY should be in suspension. All indications are that no human knows with any degree of certainty what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is.

It is in suspension…and always has been.

Anyway...in my opinion, you grossly overstated your case.

If you want to start again, fine. It is an interesting topic…once explored in depth here in A2K for over a decade. But if you want to pontificate (or primarily to hawk your book)...you have come to the wrong place.

Points are made to be overstated, otherwise there would not be much point in making points. Merely because a line of thought is speculative does not mean that it should not be, at the very least, taken into consideration. The fact that mainstream scientific journals such as Nature find the hologram-theory of the universe a hypothesis worthy of debate entails that we should, realistically, consider this possibility to be one that could be of some merit. A hologram is certainly not the equivalent of "the real thing", in the sense that it lakcs the projected object's objecthood. We cannot, of course, infer from this that something could not exist outside of the hologram, however we are only dealing with the contents of this universe, the one we are situated in. It is no stretch of the imagination to infer that the universe contains nothing, if it is indeed, through some bizarre circumstance, a simulation.

Adam...you are going to have to do MUCH better than this if you are going to sell any of that stuff you are trying to sell.

Really! "Points are made to be overstated!!!"



It is worthy of consideration and it is worthy of debate. But presenting it the way you did takes away from its worthiness. You were way overboard.

But you seem like the kind of person who will stonewall rather than acknowledge that you were overboard.

So...I'll just give you more rope.

While it is a matter of personal taste, there is merit in reading those who go way overboard and, at any rate, such writers make for far more entertaining reading than the n-th work of horribly boring analytic philosophy that reads as if it were written by a robot.

Recent writers such as Derrida would agree with you about "making points". Making a point involves a statement of "what is the case" which is an act of privileging in the sense of standing out from a background context. To a large extent, this has become an acceptable functional explanation for our linguistic usage of the verb "to be", a consideration of which automatically involves a reconsideration of what we mean by the word "existence".

Reference Die Kehre...the post 1950's refocusing of philosophy towards language usage rather than epistemology, largely as a result of advances in "cognitive science". Unfortunately, few on this forum either understand it or have an interest in that shift away from analytical philosophy.

You keep making STRONG assertions about not making assertions please stop it ! Its not funny any more...in fact honestly I am starting to find it really saddening.

Oh dear! Which I is "saddened" ?
Do you mean "the one that is evoked by the word fresco", or the "one which is evoked by any context antithetical to its perceived intellectual integrity"?

I have a sad facet of self which is evoked by those who do no reading about "making assertions". Assumed "problems of infinite regress" (a la Russell's paradox) can be transcended by considering different levels of analysis (e.g. social vis-a-vis psychological). The assumptions about continuity of "mechanism" is simplistic. Cognition is multi-layered.

Read Derrida (for example). Context rules semantics !

A kid in Pierce County, WA went into his school last week and fired a few shots at ceiling and floor. He was thinking suicide by cop. A teacher tackled him an instant before the security guard could take him out.

So, for an instant, this misguided youngster was at the very edge of existence.

Not necessarily. It depends how you care to define "existence". Some would say it is an aspect of "any concept of human tsocial significance". That would allow believers (like you) to claim "existence" for "God". Neither physicality nor biological viability are necessary attributes of"existence" as used in ordinary language.

Hmm
I'm a 'believer' who is quite certain that, at death, we return to our pre birth, pre conception state of non existence.
Also, my post was a feeble attempt to trivialize the OP.
For that, I apologize.

As good a blind guess as any, Neo. But a blind guess nonetheless.

If all the "believers" on all sides of these issues would just acknowledge their guesses as guesses...

...we might all be better off. Always a lot harder to argue with any strength about differences in blind guesses...than "beliefs."

By the way...that applies as much to the "believers" who blindly guess there are no gods...as it does to those who blindly guess there is.

Well, I'm certain my guess is correct.
How do you feel about your guess?

Neo...you are way too intelligent to write something like that.

If you truly were certain your guess is correct...it wouldn't be a guess.

But you are guessing.

You are guessing there is a GOD...and amazingly, you are guessing that the Jehovah's Witnesses know what pleases and offends that GOD...and what the GOD expects of humans...and everything in between and related. You've drunk the entire batch of Kool Aid.

My guesses are just guesses. Some of them I feel more confidence in than others...BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS JUST GUESSES...not certainty.

So the screamingly obvious semantic point about "existence" not requiring physical or biological connotations completely escapes a simpleton fixated on the word "guess".
Elsewhere on this forum you will find pages and pages of waffle generated by a simpleton arguing that Einstein was only "guessing" (wrongly) about Special Relativity. (Einstein no doubt would be laughing all the way to the Nobel ceremony) The perpetrator of that diatribe ironically calls himself "layman"...a more apt title could not chosen for one who thought adolescent usage of words like "guess", "right" and "wrong" had any currency whatsoever at ontological levels of analysis which potentially transcend materialism.

Ahhh...so in order not to be deemed a simpleton...

...we would have to adopt your blind guesses about REALITY!

Really, Fresco...I would have expected more from you.

But now that you have gotten into the gutter...be careful. People will **** on you in the gutter just to **** on you...they won't bother using your laughable guesses as a rationalization.

Good luck ducking.

You know nothing about the REALITY, Jon Snow.

Go back to sleep.

Aww, shucks, Frank

You are one person we can always rely on to pretend you know the truth about REALITY.

Of course, that merely shows that you are not man enough to acknowledge that you don't.

No problem. I suspect most people were already supposing that to be so...and because of that, your confirmation of it really doesn't impact all that much.