the universe and space....?

0 Replies

JLNobody,

Good clarification, "One realises that one was never distinct in the first place, …and further...... one realises that one never was. Another paradox.

As K says, "When one realises that the observer and observed are the same everything changes.".......the importance of thought diminishes, to say the least.

And nice layout regarding 'passive awareness',.... action, effort, purpose in that direction are counter to it, such a dilemma for a non self.

We/you/I live in a representational world, as a representation, that's one reason this 'self' is referred to as false, or ersatz, or pseudo etc.

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, thanks. Yes when one takes the non-dualistic perspective there is no longer a "need" to think one's way out of the existential traps we suffer. Yet we need to think to solve the practical problems of life (e.g., growing food, building bridges, etc.) and those presented us by virtue of our social lives (e.g., organizing social relations, both intrasocietal and intersocietal). But I agree: our "spiritual" condition requires we go beyond thought and SEE what we are and our condition is directly/immediately without the mediation of dualistic thought.
See you in a week.

0 Replies

truth
Ican. "Exist" cannot exist outside of consciousness, IMHO. The "WORLD" is intrinsically empty of meaning. WE are the meaning makers. You argue, logically, that in the total absence of information, a condition is or isn't X, 50% either way. My problem with that is that it seems groundless other than logically (running the risk of rigor mortis). The planet X (about which we have zero information) is gooey (50%) or it is not gooey (50%). At least when Frank argues for epistemological guesswork, he implies that people make intuitively acceptable, or "educated," guesses. Regarding the belief in God, the believers have, according to the atheists, poor or bogus evidence, but it is valid evidence as far as the believers are concerned. They are not tossing a logical coin (as in Pascal's Wager).

0 Replies

bogowo,

Your theory of time seems plausible. If I have understood you correctly, your theory necessitates the existence of stuff (e.g., objects) for time to exist. Then if your theory is valid, something additional to OOU (call it, SATOOU) must have some stuff in it for time to exist in it.

Is the existence of stuff necessary to the existence of gravity?
Remembering that stuff is matter and/or energy, and that both energy and matter manifest the force of gravity, I guess stuff is necessary for the existence of gravity.

Is the existence of gravity necessary to the existence of light (i.e., electromagnetic radiation)?
I guess gravity is necessary to the existence of light, because without gravity stuff could not be compressed sufficiently to emit light.

Frank,
What does it mean to say that time exists whether it's measureable or not?
I guess it means nothing, if time cannot at least be a descriptor for a sequence of events.

Can there be a sequence of events in a space that contains zero stuff?
I guess not! Without stuff, how can there be any events, much less a sequence of events?

If SATOOU does not contain any stuff (either finite or infinite) can it inform our senses of its existence?
I guess such a SATOOU cannot inform our senses of its existence.

So if all my guesses are valid, it is necessary for SATOOU to contain stuff for us to perceive its existence. If SATOOU's existence cannot be perceived if it contains zero stuff, then why discuss it.

So let's guess that the only useful theory is that SATOOU contains some stuff. Can we perceive any data from SATOOU?
I guess not yet! Well until we can perceive data from SATOOU, why discuss it now? Why not wait until we can perceive such data? Afterall. currently there's at least a 50% probability that we will never perceive such data.

Can we perceive data from OOU?
I guess we have, are and will. So why not limit our discussion to that from which we can collect data?

Are theories about the existence of other things that may exist, but from which we can collect zero data, worth discussing?
I guess not! So I too join others here and advise us here to discuss only OOU: why it exists, wat its nature is, why we exist, what our nature is, and what our role in OOU is.

What do you think?

0 Replies

JLNOBODY,
You guess: "Exist" cannot exist outside of consciousness ... .

That guess appears worthy of thougtful debate.

Can stuff exist whether or not there exists human consciousness to perceive stuff's existence?
I guess it can! I guess it did long before human consciousness existed on earth.

Does a consciousness exist in addition to human consciousness?
Twyvel, I guess guesses yes. If I remember correctly, Twyvel once guessed in an Abuzz thread that all that exists, exists as a manifestation of that consciousness which itself subsumes all existing consciousnesses. Twyvel provided some data as evidence of the truth of his guess. Unfortunately, I have forgotten what that data was.

At the moment, absent data to the contrary, I guess reality exists (i.e., OOU exists) independently of human consciousness. What does anyone lose if one were to guess the same? What does anyone gain if one guesses the same as twyvel?

0 Replies

JL. I try to use infinite as a mathematical term, " a never ending series".
One never gets to the last countable number. I suspect one never gets to a last countable planet or the last motion of the Cosmos.

Since one cannot see, (conceptually, philosophically, or empirically the End, thence I infer that there may well have been no beginning.

This, IMO, is a fair description of an infinity.

The problems seem to arise when influential persons assume a beginning when an infinity has no need for one. Most current theories assume a beginning which cannot be shown to have happened. Some call that "assumption" Gods, Big Bangs, Quantum Fluxuations and several more.
Humanity has been much abused by these various assumptions.

BoGoWo, I agree. It seem as if something must exist if time were to exist. I think that this is a ramification of "The principle of Causality". But this principle seems to fall short when one encounters the "Uncertainty principle" of Quantum Mechanics.

Therefore if a "Beginning of Time " is being "shown" then an assumption of the beginning of the existence of "stuff" is also or must be shown.
Time, ie the speed of time varies with actual motion, or effective motion, (gravity). This is where it begins to get hairy. Or I think it fair to say that "This is where the red shi t hits the fan". Smile

(Poetic missing letter) Good Thoughts, M

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

What does it mean to say that time exists whether it's measureable or not? I guess it means nothing, if time cannot at least be a descriptor for a sequence of events.

Well as you know, I am not as willing to guess on things like this as you are -- and in any case, I see no reason to guess as you are guessing.

This bit of discussion was occasioned by something you wrote:

Quote:

Can time exist within a space that lacks stuff (matter and energy)? I don't understand how time can exist in a space without stuff (i.e., zero stuff). How could time intervals occur if there zero stuff to exist in time? So I guess that the existence of stuff in space is necessary for the existence of time in space.

The points I made about that comment were:

1) I do not know if time exists within a space that lacks stuff. I suspect nobody does. It is a very, very, very mysterious proposition.

2) Essentially I trivialized (not inappropriately) the fact that you "cannot understand how time can exist in a space without stuff" -- which really is just an extension or re-wording of "I do not know."

3) I then called attention to the fact that initially you were discussing "time", but in your third sentence, you changed to discussing "time intervals." I noted that "time" may be able to exist under the conditions you are positing (no stuff) -- but "measuring time" may not be able to exist under those conditions.

I stand by that. "Time" may have an aspect in reality that transcends a human's ability to measure it in any way. So while stuff in space may be necessary for humans to measure time (or to conceive of measuring time) it is possible that time can exist in space without stuff anyway.

I really do not know.

You make lots of assumptions and guesses about the unknown, Ican, and I've gotten in the habit of questioning you when you do, because at some point, you will suddenly come up with a conclusion contingent upon those assumptions and guesses.

Better to deal with them while they are still wild guesses than try to sort them out after you get into one of your wrap-ups.

Quote:

Can there be a sequence of events in a space that contains zero stuff?
I guess not! Without stuff, how can there be any events, much less a sequence of events?

I do not know, but I will also guess not.

Quote:

If SATOOU does not contain any stuff (either finite or infinite) can it inform our senses of its existence?
I guess such a SATOOU cannot inform our senses of its existence.

That is a guess pulled out of thin air. You are talking such weird stuff here-- anything is possible -- and I certainly would not completely eliminate the possibility of our senses being able to perceive of SATOOU even if it is a void.

Quote:

So if all my guesses are valid, it is necessary for SATOOU to contain stuff for us to perceive its existence. If SATOOU's existence cannot be perceived if it contains zero stuff, then why discuss it.

So let's guess that the only useful theory is that SATOOU contains some stuff. Can we perceive any data from SATOOU?
I guess not yet! Well until we can perceive data from SATOOU, why discuss it now? Why not wait until we can perceive such data? Afterall. currently there's at least a 50% probability that we will never perceive such data.

Oh, no. Don't even think you can go there. We've been down this road many times in the past -- and your arguments here make no more sense than they have in the past.

You are determined to end up with a finite universe. And to get there you simply eliminate all possibilities that prevent you from getting there.

As I have said in the past -- if you want to define the UNIVERSE as all of the space, time, and stuff that we can detect and infer as existing AND NOTHING MORE (OOU) -- then of course, the universe is finite. You really do not have to go through all this mental gymnastics stuff to get to that, because if you stick only with your definition of OOU - it is finite.

But that is an absurd, illogical, and underhanded way to deal with this operation. THE STUFF OF THE BIG BANG MAY NOT BE ALL THERE IS!

Quote:

Can we perceive data from OOU? I guess we have, are and will. So why not limit our discussion to that from which we can collect data?

Because if we do, you are going to end up with a finite universe -- from which you will be able to infer that INTELLIGENCE (read that GOD) was and is necessary to get from where we began to where we are now -- and therefore we are endowed with certain unalienable rights that you want to discuss.

NOTE TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT DEBATED WITH ICAN PREVIOUSLY:

Ican is an engaging, unfailingly polite, relentless, proponent for a...perspective/philosophy/view of existence that he advocates. He is indefatigable and one of the most tenacious individuals I've ever engaged in discussion. And he is a relentless researcher.

My last paragraph up above may seem strange to anyone who has not previously engaged Ican in discussion, but I guarantee it is accurate enough to go to the bank with it.

Quote:

Are theories about the existence of other things that may exist, but from which we can collect zero data, worth discussing?
I guess not! So I too join others here and advise us here to discuss only OOU: why it exists, what its nature is, why we exist, what our nature is, and what our role in OOU is.

What do you think?

Re-read what I have written up above, Ican -- and you'll have a very good idea of what I think about that idea.

0 Replies

Frank, You may go to the bank with it, but you'd best use it. I suspect Ican is about 1/2 way to infinity. When we all get there I'll have a Mobius Jug full of fermented elderberry juice to toast us with.

JL, CI, and Twyvel. I hope we're going to have a party!!! Best

0 Replies

Frank,

I wrote:
Can we perceive data from OOU? I guess we have, are and will. So why not limit our discussion to that from which we can collect data?

You responded:
... if we do, [ican is] going to end up with a finite universe -- from which [ican] will be able to infer that INTELLIGENCE (read that GOD) was and is necessary to get from where we began to where we are now -- and therefore we are endowed with certain unalienable rights that [ican wants] to discuss.

You've almost got it! Wow! Laughing

Here's my rewording to make it right:
... if we do, [ican is] going to end up with a finite universe -- from which [ican] will be able to infer that the evolution of OOU was, is and will be directed; that direction is flawed BUT persistent; that direction is probably INTELLIGENT (but do not read that GOD, because God is alleged to be flawless AND persistent); that INTELLIGENCE was necessary to get from where we began to where we are now; and that INTELLIGENCE endowed us with certain unalienable rights. [ican wants] to discuss the implications of this in an appropriate forum. Subsequent to that discussion, [ican wants] to discuss in an appropriate forum whether or not our government's elected and appointed officials <support> our Constitution as lawfully amended (as they have given their oath or affirmation to do), AND as interpreted in the context of our Declaration of Independence.

There now! It's all on the table! As I think of more that might be relevant, I shall quickly disclose it! :wink:

0 Replies

ican711nm (Post: 3rd August 2003, 13:57)

general agreement here (hey, what's going on?), there is little point in discussing u're 'SATOOU' if it is beyond our perception, however, i think my 'infinity' argument still make sense.

i think we should limit our 'guesses' and discussions to necessary elements, and leave out such things as
"a manifestation of that consciousness which itself subsumes all existing consciousnesses"
as these leaps of 'faith' have nothing 2 do with defining the nature of OOU.

and Mech; if the phenomina (relationship) of 'time' does not exist @ the Quantum Mechanics level, this is consistent with the related observations and causality principles.
and if we can accept the generation of time from 'stuff', then an infinity of time becomes moot, and i don't see an overall beginning or end as even viable.

and Frank;
"My last paragraph ... may seem strange to anyone who has not previously engaged Ican in discussion, but I guarantee it is accurate enough to go to the bank with it."
surely u're not saying that u r sure of something!
this is an event equivalent in every way to the "big bang"! Rolling Eyes

but sadly Frank i will insist on having ideas that i will adhere 2, unless it can b demonstrated that they r wrong (and i'm willing 2 let that happen)

[as an aside i should add a disclaimer here with respect 2 my "Buggered English" that i have adopted, and refer all 2 such a thread under "English", where u can grasp my purpose, and please add your comments; if my text is 2b considered undeadable, then i have failed in my intent, and will adjust 2 suit, or quit]

and i'll drink 2 'infinity' (or infinitely) most willingly; pass the jug; actually its a H_____ tube or bottle (can't quite remember the name); and we may not get 2 quench our thirst very effectively, there's no internal surface!

0 Replies

and ican; [you are now ignoring the fact that the postulating of something else renders the universe as within a continuum which is ultimately infinite - all/everything there is; we need not discuss that, but can not turn around 2 discuss a 'finite' universe; i will allow the infiniteness of the universe 2 remain 'tabled']

you say "if we do, [ican is] going to end up with a finite universe -- from which [ican] will be able to infer that the evolution of OOU was, is and will be directed; that direction is flawed BUT persistent; that direction is probably INTELLIGENT"

what possible basis is there 2 infer direction, and moreover, absolutely none 4 'INTELLIGENT' direction; this planet disclaims such thoughts!
(we've been here before)

fact please.

0 Replies

Bo

By all means, use your new spelling shortcuts if you choose. The certainly are understandable.

I personally find them distracting and would never use them myself -- but then again, I am a fairly speedy typist and really feel no need for shortcuts of the sort you are using.

0 Replies

frank 4 an explanation of my new dementia (differing from the old 1s) check out:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10173&start=0

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank,

I wrote:
Can we perceive data from OOU? I guess we have, are and will. So why not limit our discussion to that from which we can collect data?

You responded:
... if we do, [ican is] going to end up with a finite universe -- from which [ican] will be able to infer that INTELLIGENCE (read that GOD) was and is necessary to get from where we began to where we are now -- and therefore we are endowed with certain unalienable rights that [ican wants] to discuss.

You've almost got it! Wow!

Here's my rewording to make it right:
... if we do, [ican is] going to end up with a finite universe -- from which [ican] will be able to infer that the evolution of OOU was, is and will be directed; that direction is flawed BUT persistent; that direction is probably INTELLIGENT (but do not read that GOD, because God is alleged to be flawless AND persistent); that INTELLIGENCE was necessary to get from where we began to where we are now; and that INTELLIGENCE endowed us with certain unalienable rights. [ican wants] to discuss the implications of this in an appropriate forum. Subsequent to that discussion, [ican wants] to discuss in an appropriate forum whether or not our government's elected and appointed officials <support> our Constitution as lawfully amended (as they have given their oath or affirmation to do), AND as interpreted in the context of our Declaration of Independence.

There now! It's all on the table! As I think of more that might be relevant, I shall quickly disclose it! :wink:

Naturally, I will accept your re-wording of my comment -- although I think my comment captured the true spirit of the matter -- and was much easier to understand.

As for the...

Quote:

(but do not read that GOD, because God is alleged to be flawless AND persistent)

...I seem to remember a thread in which you acknowledged that your INTELLIGENCE was God, but I'll accept for now that you don't mean God -- even though you have your non-God INTELLIGENCE endowing us with stuff.

IN ANY CASE...there is the possibility that whether the universe is finite or infinite is not germane nor important to anything we are going to discuss. If that is the case, I truly could not care less which way you guess on the issue if you feel the need to guess.

If it turns out, however, that finite or infinte does matter to the issue we are discussing, then I insist that infinite is a possibility and is as probable, based on what we know, as is finite -- all your fanciful calculations notwithstanding. :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Let's see where that takes us. :wink: :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

BOGOWO,

I'll delay discussing most of the hypotheses I listed in my restatement of Frank's statement of where I am going. I'll get to it in time.

So here's were I am at the moment:
>I have zero data about the existence of SATOOU, so I will subsequently ignore it.
>I do have some data about the existence of OOU, so I will subsequently discuss it.

I guess from a preponderance of data that that the principal cause of the redshift in the <light> (i.e., visible and non-visible radiations of all kinds) received from distant galaxies is the Dopler effect due to the speed of separation of these galaxies from our telescopes. If this guess is valid, then the data obtained from observations implies that OOU is more probably finite than infinite, and is expanding at an accelerating rate.

However, Mech for plausible reasons, based on some interesting data he has offered me, guesses that the principal cause of the redshift is the travel of light through the spacetime stuff (e.g., spacetime gravity) of OOU. If this guess is valid, then there is a 50% probability that OOU is finite and a 50% probability that OOU is infinite: that is, we have zero other data to imply finite or infinite one way or another.

Until we get more data to explain redshift, further discussion on this point will probably not be fruitful.

However, even if OOU is finite and is expanding, it may be a pulsating entity such that it expands and contracts over a finite cycle for an infinite number of cycles. Currently we have zero data to support a pulsating universe theory, and accordingly have zero data to support an infinite cycling theory.

So I'm left with the question is all of OOU or any subset of OOU (e.g., human beings) purposeful? If it or they are, then we can legitimately ask what possesses that purposefulness? I infer that one of the attributes of a thing that possesses purpose is some degree of intelligence. If neither the whole or anysubset of OOU have a purpose, then seeking WHY OOU is the way it is will prove fruitless. Also, with no purpose, all of OOU or any subset probably lack intelligence. Eitherway, with or without purpose, OOU or any of its subsets merit us trying to understand what they are and how they do what they do, in order to enable us to achieve whatever it is we want to achieve.

Whoa there! Shocked

We, at least some of us Smile

, have purpose in the sense that what we choose to do is based on what we think will achieve our purpose. So clearly there is at least one subset of OOU that has purpose (i.e., is purposeful).

If a subset of a thing is purposeful, is it possible for the whole thing not to be purposeful?
I guess not, because I cannot reason how a set can be logically said to not have an attribute that a subset of that set has. On that account, I guess OOU is purposeful and has intelligence.

Ok then, how intelligent is OOU? Is it limited to the aggregate human intelligence or is it greater, even much greater than that? If it's greater, how much greater? Do we have any data? Idea

0 Replies

Frank,
Yes, I once held that the INTELLIGENCE of OOU, if it exists is God. I no longer hold that. Possibly it's true, possibly it's false that the INTELLIGENCE of OOU is God. I have a tad of data on that! My sources have disabused me of the notion that God can have flaws. They argue that by definition God cannot be God unless God is infallible (i.e., flawless). So I am compelled to come up with an alternate name for the INTELLIGENCE of OOU. You'll have to love this! How about IOU, for the Intelligence of the Universe?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank,
Yes, I once held that the INTELLIGENCE of OOU, if it exists is God. I no longer hold that. Possibly it's true, possibly it's false that the INTELLIGENCE of OOU is God. I have a tad of data on that! My sources have disabused me of the notion that God can have flaws. They argue that by definition God cannot be God unless God is infallible (i.e., flawless). So I am compelled to come up with an alternate name for the INTELLIGENCE of OOU. You'll have to love this! How about IOU, for the Intelligence of the Universe?

Better than your first acronym for the concept -- which, as I remember it, was, god -- governor of development(?).

I think that the theists who "disabused" you of the notion that God can have flaws did you a disservice. I know Terry (hardly a theist) would never cotton to that idea. In fact, I've seen some very strong arguments from Terry positing a reasonable non-infallible god - and I've seen you do the same.

Quote:

I'll delay discussing most of the hypotheses I listed in my restatement of Frank's statement of where I am going. I'll get to it in time.

So here's were I am at the moment:
>I have zero data about the existence of SATOOU, so I will subsequently ignore it.
>I do have some data about the existence of OOU, so I will subsequently discuss it.

In actuality, you do not have "zero" data about the existence of SATOOU.

You know, for instance, that it MAY or MIGHT exist. That is something.

In any case, since you are pursuing this, I have to assume that you consider the question of whether or not the universe (or UNIVERSE) is finite or not -- to be significant to what you have to say here.

So I ask this question: If it is, as I am assuming, significant -- why on Earth would you arbitrarily ignore the fact that SATOOU may exist -- considering the fact that if it does, the question of whether or not the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite becomes even more complex and even more unanswerable.

Keep in mind (not that I need remind you) that I am of the opinion that we do not have nearly enough information to make any kind of meaningful statement about whether or not the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite.

If SATOOU is excluded from consideration -- all we are left with is OOU -- which, in effect, is all of the universe which we know exists and everything we can meaningfully infer exists -- WHICH BY DEFINITION is finite. (I am, of course, assuming we cannot infer infinity.)

That is such an unreasonable stacking of the deck that it seems improbable that a person of your intelligence would even consider it -- let alone advocate it.

So why not just drop that line of consideration?

In fact, why not simply acknowledge that we do not KNOW if the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite -- and that we do not have enough knowledge to make a probability estimate that is significantly better than 50/50.

Frankly, I think the probability estimate CANNOT be shown to be better than 50/50 (remove the word "significant") unless the deck is stacked to favor one side or the other. That is one of the reasons I give you so much argument on this point.

0 Replies

Ican

A comment, if I may, about your signature line, since I feel impacts directly on agnostics and agnosticism. (My reason should be obvious.)

Quote:

Certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it!

Don't think for a second that "probability" is necessary in any way for "belief." A wild guess; something pulled out of thin air; a whim--all are more than adequate for almost all "beliefs."

Deal with it!

0 Replies

In actuality, you do not have "zero" data about the existence of SATOOU.

You know, for instance, that it MAY or MIGHT exist. That is something.

One more time:

The
only
thing
I
know
for
certain
is
that
I
don't
know
anything
else
for certain.

I'm looking for the data you claim I have! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know