timeless motion. — EugeneW

What do you mean by timeless motion. Because for me motion indicates a reference to space and distance. And I can’t see how motion from A to B can exist without some form of time which elapses between them. I thought space and time are inseparable - the space time continuum. How does motion occur without some medium be it time or space?

Also, pedantic note: "the universe" =/= "existence" (as the poll suggests); analogously, the latter is like a field and the former a dissipating structure^ with respect to that field (i.e. ocean and wave/s, respectively; or continuum and set/s). — 180 Proof

Ah yes i see what you mean. I often, like many, struggle to distinguish between that which is (exists and is objective) and that does not - in any “real” sense but which is merely a construct or concept used in order to make comprehension easier.

Fields and possibilities and waves, probabilities, potential vs the cold hard particulate objective world. The scope of “existence” in this way perplexes me. As I often wonder does it extend to feelings, dreams, ideas or is it merely that which is measurable in some physical external sense. I wonder where that which exists has its limits with the imaginary. Where something borders nothingness. I believe it is human tendency to make everything concrete. To imagine quarks as solid things as opposed to mathematically demonstrable oscillations that themselves are not tangible. Is maths something that exists as a physical logic or is it a human tool to navigate the physical world which has no application other than in our comprehension?

We have been arguing about what is real and what is not for millennia, I suspect this won’t be soon resolved.

I believe that depression cannot be the default state of human existence alone. For depression to exist so must it’s opposite. One does not know depression without knowing serenity, peace or joy- even if only briefly.

However if life’s greatest questions are impossible to know; for example who am I, why am I here, what’s does it all mean, what is consciousness, does love exist? Etc, if there is an irrevocable uncertainty to existing that cannot be known objectively or “proven” one way or another, this does set the grounds for a state of constant concern, anxiety, disatisfaction and lack of knowledge that goes with attempting to seek resolution.

If this is the case there are those who are destined to fail - the ones who wish to understand and go about trying, and those who have long given up and simple are - conceded to a state of peaceful ignorance and apathy.

For me as for many “depression” is a state of pointlessness, a state of not having your principle needs met, of being disenfranchised by what one can offer their mind to resolve these great questions. If your principle needs are untenable then you are in a constant state of failure to be nourish them. However unlike the general state of affairs answerable or not, you and I as beings can choose our psychological needs. Our basic desires can be anything, it seems them pointless instead to be despaired by the unknown and instead happy to exist in a mystery.

There can be no cause of existence. For there to be a cause something must exist. — Fooloso4

Could it be that “cause” is “existence”? In this way there is no need for cause indeed as it is synonymous with existence itself. Existence is cause or existence is energy - the ability to be/ do.

The verb “to be” may answer to no one. It simple “is”.

well I agree however if we consider that observation or “awareness” could possibly be an innate fundamental property of energy, just as entropy, motion, force, matter, charge etc is then it always existed in some form. In this case reality and awareness cannot be disentangled but are relative: the object being observed and the that which observes - 2 sides of the same coin.

An interesting point, at least in my opinion, came up in my discussion with Bartricks recently concerning the problem of evil, and how God potentially allows injustices despite being omnibenevolent. — ToothyMaw

Justice itself requires a choice between good and evil. You cannot punish someone who has no faculty of choice/ decision making. That’s why one can be “not guilty by insanity”.

Even the concept of “good” itself necessitates the existence of evil. Otherwise goodness would be meaningless.

So in the case of an omnibenevolent god an antithesis is required - an omnimalevolence. Otherwise how would such benevolence be practised and how could we ever “right” the injustices if said injustices never existed.

It’s just like saying can something be completely white? But is white white without black? Without any semblance of contrast to give it its unique definition it cannot exist in that way.

Well I think our views of reality are similar. You cited that it is the “collective agreement” more or less. The totality of everything we can possibly be aware of. In a sense I agree with you.

But here comes an analogy. The U.S airforce decided to create a seat that would be most comfortable for all their pilots. They imagined that the average of the measurements of all their pilots buttcheeks would be the best fit. They soon found out that no single pilot fitted the seat and that all still had issues with it. No one fit the average ie there is no normal.

I like to think of reality as the same. The true reality - the one in which all our personal bias and prejudices and falsities in belief as well as our individual idiosyncracies in the five senses are removed from - doesn’t fit anyone’s explanation or experience exactly.

No single individual can know for sure the true reality only their own rendering of it. That’s not to say we don’t collective make a great effort to describe truths about it through scientific method.

We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god? — TheMadFool

Don’t let the language mislead; “discover” can also apply to a state/ condition or substance that we have “created”. Ie. I “discovered how to manifest” discovered and invented are very similar

We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god? — TheMadFool

I would argue that we create knowledge. Information, physical, chemical and biological processes all pre-date us. But knowledge is a construction of relationships. It’s not simply enough to observe water to “know it” - at most you have a superficial knowledge of “identification” of water by the senses and basic impulse to drink, use it to bathe etc.

However, without understanding it’s extended relationship with life, with ice and gas, with other chemistry, with the environment, ecosystem and landscape etc one doesn’t “know” water to any great length.

Knowledge is something that can only be possessed by a reasonable advanced cognitive agent. If knowledge pre-dates us then either a rock can obtain knowledge or knowledge without sentience is completely pointless

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. — Philip K Dick (1978)

Tell this to those who refute its existence/ desire not to believe or be aware so much that they choose to be dead

They don't? I would say that belief in such an incoherent notion was pretty much ruled out by science and logic. Of course there are plenty of ad hoc arguments in his favour, but they are far from convincing. — Banno

Yes but your incoherent notion is only one description of such an entity. Of course science and logic have discredited a giant bearded man flying around in the clouds. However there are many more scientific/ philosophically intuitive versions of the concept of “god”. For example things in physics that are indestructible, the properties of energy, the logic and order inbuilt into how the universe functions, the existence of consciousness, emotions etc. I’m not saying god must be a person but it’s not unreasonable to imagine that consciousness and the universe are the same thing or that it is a fundamental quality of existence. And if it does turn out the entire universe is a conscious, self- emerging, auto-evolving system that defines and refines its own laws, constantly creates and destroys ...then I would say that’s pretty godly.

And how again do you resolve the old problem of God making something so heavy he cannot lift it? — tim wood

One would imagine (s)he is also the stone. The stone isn’t separate from god as (s)he is supposedly omnipresent. So the question is “can god create a portion/ part of themselves from themself” which rationally would be a yes.

Supposing god being everything means god = universe. The rock is an analogy for “singularity” as it is the concept of everything being condensed into one state/condition non separate from itself in terms of time space and energy. An actual physical rock requires too many variables in order to exist: different elements, space, time, certain forces ... some of which must not be too strong or too weak. These of course also exist outside of the rock. You couldn’t have a rock with no space or time or gravity this would be nonsense.

So one would say that if god has free will to do anything he/ she certainly enjoys order and logical relationships. Perhaps that is part of their being - a logic/ reason by which to make sense of what they are.

I think a physicalist would say it's an 'activity' of brain. Activities are non-spatial because they don't have a position, they are motions/movements of an underlying substrate. — aporiap

Is memory an activity of the brain? When we record/ document things we usually require a physical and stable substrate to code it/ write it into. But I would say memory is a facet of the “mind” and yet I couldn’t conceive or how a memory would not have a position/ location on which it is stored

Haha :p

I think 'loner' is a word frequently used as a pejorative in literature and in a law and order context and often precedes a discussion on serial killing or some other hate crime. — Tom Storm

Haha well I used the term in a loose and ambiguous way but perhaps that’s not how it’s interpreted by people at large for this reason - it’s derogative nuances.I guess for me a loner is someone who is lone and doesn’t necessarily choose to be but it is more the conditions of their lifestyle and lack of opportunity for interaction that makes them so. But this doesn’t mean they aren’t accustomed and quite happy to be. I’m often a cheerful loner. People are busy and I’m restricted in ways to spend time with others but enjoy my own company equally. Use whatever term you prefer.

I’m interested in the large divide between those who cannot stand being alone and those who cannot stand to be forced to engage with others. I wonder why there is this discord in such a populous and typically social mammalian species as humans are believed to be.

A good imagination will probably serve you well though above most other aspects. — I like sushi

Agreed. I think one can be self-entertaining. But it demands a level of persistent curiosity and pondering. An unstimulated mind is and unhappy one in my experience

who is to say that self actualisation is not @going with the flow” perhaps a goal or achievement is natural to you. That by simply being you, you easily and fluidly gravitate towards a certain path. Going with the flow doesn’t mean that things must always be easy. Flow is turbulent. There are rapids in any stream or river.

For me the Tao is intuitive. Follow what feels right even if it t is a challenge

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. — T Clark

I have grappled with this concept before. The universe should be able to account for ignorance, non-definition, abstraction and uncertainty. The heisenbergs uncertainty principle for example dictates that it is impossible to accurately measure all parameters simultaneously - it seems something must always be unknown and therefore no single formula should be able to account for all permutations.

. Music is made of silence, which merely interrupts with sudden soundscapes, each piece (i.e. an ephemer — 180 Proof

Interesting that you responded with this because the original title of the thread was the importance of “absence/ nothingness” before I shifted focus to insignificance. I had a line that said “music and frequency is not just noise but rather an interplay of absence and noise. Silence plays a role.

haha putting it frankly

thats an excellent argument. Admittedly I cannot argue with it so naturally I must agree. It’s nice to be swayed in new directions thanks :)

These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. — Derrick Huesits

I had the very same thought and questions based on this argument years ago. It’s nice to see these ideas resurfacing independently through other peoples logic/ thought process.

The issue I have is resolving the fact that everything must have an opposite in order to be manifest. As we know there are physical things which act so there must be non physical things that do not act. It’s like if there was only “white” and no black we would not be aware of the whiteness and ultimately white loses its significance/meaning as it cannot be defined - it has no parameters or contrast with anything.

This is where time and empty space/ void comes in. I believe they are qualities of energy. Because without them energy could not act (time) or be physical (space) as matter. I try to explain it as 0 = -1 +1. Zero is the whole, +1 is energy/matter and -1 = space time. They mutually permit the existence of each others qualities. When combined they are ultimately nothing but potential - the singularity.

Potential is not nothing but it also isn’t anything. It’s a “capacity” to be. And potential can be broken into its four qualities: the space to be, the time to be, being (the physical) and the action to become (energy)

I have considered time from your concept also. For example if we had no ability to remember time would not pass. As each moment is completely novel and unanticipated. If one cannot recognise the existence of past through memory then the present means nothing. Similarly without the past and present the mind could not logically anticipate future present states. The concept of /expectation of a future too would not exist. One would not have a past, would be unaware of the future and would simply consider the present moment as being the only thing that has ever existed despite present conditions constantly changing.

However regardless if whether one recalls the past or has an expectation of the future or not the present will of course continue to change. I doubt this state of living is possible as none of our bodies mechanisms can work if there is no recollection of previous states.

How does one become hungry if they cannot remember the development of the sensation, compare it to a point when they were satiated, when they last ate, remember they are looking for food or how to catch and consume it. Without memory our body mechanisms would fail. We would not survive

Language is not perfectly definable because it isn’t perfectly qualifiable. For example if I were to give the best definition for an apple. I would also have to perfectly define the component words (for example “fruit”, “tree”, “edible” etc) that I used to make the definition. Then I would have to define the words I used to define those ones and so on ad Infinitum.

Language relies on vagueness and approximation of experience between two individuals because in order to use your exact precise “personal language” - ie that based off your personal experiences and knowledge, in the exact same way as you, one would have to be an identical copy of you - identical neural pattern/ thought processes with no more, less or qualitatively different knowledge whatsoever.

In many ways this is why mathematics is a more perfect/ precision language than spoken languages as it isn’t as subjective. Numbers are numbers. It’s not a debate and the functions we can apply to them are consistent and objective regardless of where you come from or your background.

Defining concepts, ideas and terms in a discussion is important of course but it is inversely proportional to the fluidity/ progression of said discussion, as extensively debating definitions is tangential to the original discussion.

These interactions of forms are information. Information creates a sense of time, and drives our evolution. — Pop

But don’t all interactions require time in order to occur? Yes they can create a “sense” - subjective perception - of time but they still require an objectively existing passage of time in the first place to even occur.

yes it is possible for something to be true and false at the same time. Because of relativity of a state or condition to an observer.

Consider a 6 painted on the ground and two observers standing on the opposite side of the symbol. It is true that observer A sees a 6 and it is true that observer B sees a 9. From their perspective the opposite observers claim is false. From their personally logic/ observation this is true.

The reality of course is that it depends on the perspective. It is “spatially relativistic”.

Similarly we can think in terms of temporality. A civilisation observing earth from 20,000 light years away sees a planet populated by a few, unsophisticated humans with little technology and no civilisation. The claim that “planet earth is populated by 8 billion humans with sophisticated technology and integrated globalised societies” would to them be false in this moment based off observations but we know from living here that it is true.

For me “power” denotes the capacity of an agent (person, object or thing) to exert influence over/ augment a system.

Power comes down to “work done” (energetic processes) and “control” (the order/ hierarchy) through which said processes can be directed. If human activity is the topic of power then politics is the control... and if the natural world is the subject of power then entropy is the control.

We as concious agents have the capacity to exert our influence over both eachother and the natural world through our actions

how does one account for the existence of irrationality, abstraction, subjectivity and opinion via logical/ reasonable means? They are “true” in that they do exist and exert an effect through the “human condition.” I find it difficult to believe that logic therefore encapsulates the whole truth of things but rather that logic is one facet of the truth.

I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science. — Caldwell

I feel that science is more of a methodology or “mindset” - so I find it hard to believe the pillars of logic could decay now that we have established a method that has clear structure based in reason. Observation - Hypothesis - experiment and conclusion. In principle this method is not even restricted to science as it is the concept of “trial and error” and the formulation of an explanatory “best fit”.

In essence we understand consistency, repeatability and predictive value as the core of what is “true” about the natural/ physical world. We have seen it work for us countless times in the past and led to the development of many a life enhancing technology, pharmaceutical or revelation. Sure you can “believe” whatever you want but there is little value in something that doesn’t offer practical application across the board for all.
Science combats skepticism because of its utility.

What would be the point of an internet if the person utilizing it is an idiot? — TheMadFool

Well idiots need entertainment too. There’s nothing more dangerous than idiocy with too much time on its hands haha

If only our phones could text and call without the internet. — Michael

Could phone and text infrastructure handle a massive synchronous increase in usage globally in the event that the internet does not provide this service. I mean there must be a limit to the data those towers can transmit at any given time right?

Much whinging — unenlightened

I mean most probably. However I was thinking more along the lines of economics, transport, health services etc. Would it not be a bit more chaotic than just inconvenient?

funny you say that coz I just ordered one haha

The OP is extraordinarily numb; anyone who seeks an evolutionary account of love is not in love. — Banno

Perhaps I am.

then may exist a sequence of consciousnesses, though bearing no relation to anything it succeeds or replaced. — Dante

Hmm interesting... but one would imagine all conscious beings have some consistent feature that they all share. The parameters scientifically speaking that give rise to the state? The laws that permit it. Even if the form and content of each “life” is unique both qualitatively and spatial temporally.

Spatiotemporally in the sense that identical twins are genetically identical but we understand them as two separate individuals because they don’t occupy the same space though they are clone of eachother. Even conjoined twins are not one organism

What it is it then that demarcates the individual?

Inference: Life proceeds death because death precedes life. — Dante

Many believe in “reincarnation for this or similar ideas.

I personally subscribe to the notion that upon death we will simply be replaced by another consciousness that emerges posthumously via birth with a broadcast of a new and very much separate experience. (Not a form of reincarnation — Dante

Why use the term “we” then. If “we” are “replaced” by something non- “we” in any way shape or form then there is absolutely no continuity. You could just as easily say sometimes matter gets organised into something conscious. Reincarnation suggests a continuity of “conscious being” - some fundamental phenomenology whereby the consciousness that maintains our personal awareness is never lost but rebuilt. If you believe in replacement rather than continuity then there’s nothing intriguing about this as we know from science in a mechanical sense that we are recycled materially at least.

While dreamless sleep is the first and immediate comparison to death that comes to mind, your statement would imply that anytime I go into dreamless sleep, I actually die. I don't think that is what happens to me every night. — Hermeticus

Not necessarily. Dreamless sleep is retrospective from a state of being awake. Just because one doesn’t recall being aware during sleep doesn’t mean they didn’t dream. They just didn’t record it in memory. And unlike death or being awake neural activity actually increases during sleep.

Can you tell an Alzheimer’s patient that because they don’t remember the last hour they were dead for that hour. No.. they were still aware during that hour they just don’t at present recall having been so.

oes this huge following indicate that the lure for ,many people of attaining salvation by belief in all powerful God who will grant them an eternal life of biss in heaven is more powerful than the practical wisdom of how to achieve happiness in this life? — Ross Campbell

If you offer someone two options:

Do nothing and place your hopes on a provider which will give you all you want if you’re good

Vs.

You can be your own source of good things but it’s arduous, the road is riddled with obstacles and suffering and the challenge will put you to the greatest test of your will/ ability to continue and character.

Many will prefer the passive role. Begging for a morsel instead of finding the wheat and grinding their own flour.

It also has to do with the fact that in Buddhism the analogy is that living is a superposition of both pleasure and suffering and it’s up to you to resolve yourself in this cycle because coming back is only ever going to be in this world. Whilst Christians polarise it and project expectations onto an uncertain point after death which is infinite and different from the world we live in - either all good or all bad rather than a mix.

The problem here is that you can’t live in a state of all good because goodness is meaningless without a constant reminder of its opposite.

So that it can be. — Fine Doubter

But it already is. Water “is” but doesn’t mean it requires to ask or be in anyway sentient of why it is the fluid. So why do living things or at least the higher orders of life have that ability?

The underlying, absolutely radical, meaning of "Origin of Species" is that life, evolution, and, by extension everything else, are not for anything. There is no meaning or purpose for anything. No "why." — T Clark

Yeah I see what you mean and I understand from a strictly evolutionary perspective it satisfies the development of traits simply due to pressures exerted on a “living system”.

But why develop cognition sufficient enough to conceive of ideas of “free will”, “agency” and “purpose” etc. If it’s an illusion why would even the illusion ever come to exist unless it has some advantage or is it just a funky by-product of complexity

. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility — Gnomon

Very interesting proposition. I too have considered a similar thread of thought in the past. The way I see it is with 2 assumptions:

Assumption one: energy must cause change. It is a fundamental property of energy.
Assumption 2: the “singularity” is a uniform/ homogenous origin state.

Logically then, the only possibility for a singularity is therefore to become “un-single” ie. internally “divide” into two or more properties. Because change cannot occur in a single state. What would it change into if it remains the same all the time? Change requires an A and a B.

How the singularity first changed is a bit difficult to determine for me. It’s a bit of a which came first: energy, time, space or matter?

Assuming that the singularity is some form of “proto- energy” or “potential to act” then one would imagine time and energy must begin simultaneously as one of the first “divisions” of this “prime mover/ universal substance”.