9
   

Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 03:07 pm
@AdamLOV,
AdamLOV wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

The truth, as revealed by scientific practice, can be uncomfortable and inconvenient.


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.


Quote:
If the universe is not real, all meaning must be bracketed.


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

Quote:
Reality, at the minimum, has been placed in suspension.


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.

AdamLOV
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 03:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 03:35 pm
@AdamLOV,
AdamLOV wrote:

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.


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!!!"


Quote:
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.


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.



AdamLOV
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 04:00 pm
@Frank Apisa,
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.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2015 12:37 am
@AdamLOV,
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 May, 2015 04:00 am
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtpiJy2RzMkz3dBZcK4xwTiaWaOuGmQjmWT9w_CnNVqpprMhgt
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2015 07:28 pm
@fresco,
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.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2015 11:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Oh dear! Which I is "saddened" ? Smile
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 !
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 May, 2015 02:10 pm
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.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 12:35 am
@neologist,
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.














neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 12:42 am
@fresco,
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 04:30 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Hmm
I'm a 'believer' who is quite certain that, at death, we return to our pre birth, pre conception state of non existence.


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."


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 04:32 am
@Frank Apisa,
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.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 08:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
Well, I'm certain my guess is correct.
How do you feel about your guess?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 09:14 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

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.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 12:05 pm
Laughing
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.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 12:27 pm
@fresco,
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.



fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 12:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Go back to sleep.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 12:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Aww, shucks, Frank
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2015 01:00 pm
@fresco,
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.
 

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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 03:51:01