Philosophy Discussion Forums

Burning ghost wrote:My erection ...

HAHA!

Small or big? lol

Relative to comparison I guess its both!

Why burning ghost hasn't been completely incinerated by now, ghostly member and all, there's a conundrum.

How small or how big can we get?

Theoretically. you could go on asking if we can further sub-divide whatever level of microscopic scale we have currently reached. The same thing applies to the mega-scale of the universe. What is outside of our universe, is it infinite? Perhaps the way we think about scale in naive and really just a mental construction we impose on what we see.

-- Updated May 26th, 2017, 4:46 am to add the following --

Webplodder wrote:How small or how big can we get?

Theoretically, you could go on asking if we can further sub-divide whatever level of microscopic scale we have currently reached. The same thing applies to the mega-scale of the universe. What is outside of our universe, is it infinite? Perhaps the way we think about scale is naive and really just a mental construction we impose on what we see. Is time and space no more than surface features of a deeper reality that we are unaware of?

It is only natural for a human to use their own body as a scale to which all things are measured. Bigger then me is big and smaller then me is small. However, big and small do not exist in reality. The entire universe could fit into a grain of sand on some cosmic beach. All the stars in our galaxy could be just a neurone in some cosmic beings brain.

Explainations, generate the illusion that we KNOW something, but the truth is, it's all fantasy, not unlike our dreams at night. We dismiss our dreams at night as being unreal and prefer to think of our waking state as being real, but both states are just different aspects of the same unreal illusion.

Present awareness wrote:It is only natural for a human to use their own body as a scale to which all things are measured. Bigger then me is big and smaller then me is small. However, big and small do not exist in reality. The entire universe could fit into a grain of sand on some cosmic beach. All the stars in our galaxy could be just a neurone in some cosmic beings brain.

Explainations, generate the illusion that we KNOW something, but the truth is, it's all fantasy, not unlike our dreams at night. We dismiss our dreams at night as being unreal and prefer to think of our waking state as being real, but both states are just different aspects of the same unreal illusion.

Interesting, but then that begs the question: How do we define real and unreal?

Webplodder wrote:

Present awareness wrote:It is only natural for a human to use their own body as a scale to which all things are measured. Bigger then me is big and smaller then me is small. However, big and small do not exist in reality. The entire universe could fit into a grain of sand on some cosmic beach. All the stars in our galaxy could be just a neurone in some cosmic beings brain.

Explainations, generate the illusion that we KNOW something, but the truth is, it's all fantasy, not unlike our dreams at night. We dismiss our dreams at night as being unreal and prefer to think of our waking state as being real, but both states are just different aspects of the same unreal illusion.

Interesting, but then that begs the question: How do we define real and unreal?

Many speak of the temporal as unreal (or less real) and the perennial as all that is truly real.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY wrote:And i don't mean that it can't be explained by the lack of information.

I have adapted the belief that everything has an explanation, but i'd like to know if there's a thing that can't be explained.

I prefer something small.

I believe that there are things that cannot be explained by the human intellect as its logic is alien to deeper ontological questions, most saliently the question of existence itself, "no beginning," which I term "the ultimate mystery." I believe such can only be understood upon an empirical basis. If interested, see my philosophical proof a creator thread under Philosophy that touches on this consideration in my last reply to another poster.

You can't explain how the entire universe started inside the period at the end of this sentence.