the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS — Gnomon
Sounds like the TAO — Gnomon
Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? — Gnomon
Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? — Gnomon
So the answer is Be Here Now? Don't worry about what was, or will be. Sufficient unto the day . . . . . . . — Gnomon
But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". — Gnomon
And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time. — Gnomon
His outlandish ideas opened the door to Quantum Theory, which like quicksand has undermined the ancient Atomic Theory with invisible intangible Mathematical Fields as the fundamental reality of Physics. — Gnomon
physical Brains that mysteriously generate invisible mind-fields are ultimately composed of, not things per se, but incorporeal relationships between things. — Gnomon
why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live? — Gnomon
Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS. — Gnomon
Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser. — Gnomon
Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds. — Gnomon
Enfernity" : similar to Einstein's "Block-Time" or "Space-Time", but in a holistic sense, timeless & spaceless. — Gnomon
Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition. — Gnomon
My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter. — Gnomon
Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death. — Gnomon
Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms). — Gnomon
human condition — Gnomon
True, but trivial. — Gnomon
What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?
Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke: — Gnomon
NOT STUFF. Not an object, not a thing. — Wayfarer
I think the idea that you are reaching for is not first cause but brute fact. — SophistiCat
It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? — Gnomon
Was that of your own making or taken from somewhere? — Philosophim
Any thoughts? — TiredThinker
Yes! Isn't that neat? Opposed to multiverse theory being something we entertain for fun, it becomes something we can view as a logically likely reality. — Philosophim
This doesn't mean we should keep trying to look for prior to that which we discover causality, but logically, there will be a point that has no prior explanation for its existence. And if that is logically the case, what does that mean for the universe's existence? What potentials does that open up? Does this mean multiverse theory is not only plausible, but a logical certainty given enough time? — Philosophim
But somehow there must be a pillar of the universe. — Verdi
With all beautiful stuff in it — Verdi
Perfect, I'll likely do the same then. — Manuel
Somehow, this robs the universe of meaning, whatever that means, and however full of meaning it is! — Verdi
Great one! Still the question remains where the least, comes from. Maybe it came from, or lies on another great, even in an eternal succession, but even then. Where TF did that came from? In my hunger for knowledge, I just can't understand. — Verdi
The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic. — Gnomon
For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything. — Gnomon
change is an illusion — TheMadFool
Since ex nihilo nihi fit, Parmenides rejected becoming; after all becoming implies an initial stage of nonbeing which in Parmenides universe is either nothing or too close it for comfort. — TheMadFool
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what? — Gnomon
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?Multiverse theories, infer that an unknowable eternal universe has always existed, and froths with bubble universes that come & go. A likely story, but based on what "facts & reason"? — Gnomon
… from Nothing… — Gnomon
And here is the proof of a bug we found — SpaceDweller
Recall that for Parmenides, it doesn't really make sense to say a thing is not, because if X is not, then how were you just talking about it? — frank