Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
Post: #31  Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:42 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
Ape: Thanks for explaining the flower/river question. How about explaining the sound of one hand clapping? |
You're welcome! What about Aisle of View? The answer lies in your question above. Which reminds me: For every question, there is an answer, and for every answer, there is and must be a question.
The sound of one hand clapping means or is another way of saying or in other words is or is aka silence, which silence is the sound of no sound, as in Simon and Garfunkel's song The Sound Of Silence.
See how we can say one thing is many ways or IN OTHER WORDS? That's because when we love all words, all words mean Love, and so, as in math, each word means all other words! This is why in any dictionary all that words mean are other words!
Please check out the lyrics of FLY ME TO THE MOON.
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
I understand words can trick us and that's exactly why I don't think just using poetic responses will lead to reasonable understanding. The thing we are trying to understand does not use the same language. |
bold by ape
I am not even trying to be poetic! The poetry is automatic when we are in the universal constant rhymn of the atom and the uni: Love.
Words can't trick us when we understand that the meaning of words can only be wholly known by their opposites of contras or antonyms.
"The two contrary reasons. We must begin with that; without that we understand nothing and all is heretical; in the same way we must even add at the close of each truth that the opposite truth is to remembered." Blaise Pascal
What Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Blaise Pascal say will encourage you that we speak the only language in the Uni and so we invest or confer that language on the evidence in question:
"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical[wordy] ideas." Albert Einstein
"When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images [which are other facts]." Niels Bohr
"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of this.
All our dignity consists, then, in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavor, then, to think well; this is the principle of morality." Blaise Pascal, 347 of Pensees.
This means that the key or secret of understanding or of explaining the outer uni out there lies IN US, in our inner neuro-uni, which works by words and their opposites, which work by the word Love.
"According to an old Hindu legend...
..there was once a time when all human beings were gods, but they so abused their divinity that Brahma, the chief god, decided to take it away from them and hide it where it could never be found.
Where to hide their divinity was the question.
So Brahma called a council of the gods to help him decide.
"Let's bury it deep in the earth," said the gods. But Brahma answered, "No, that will not do because humans will dig into the earth and find it."
Then the gods said, "Let's sink it in the deepest ocean." But Brahma said, "No, not there, for they will learn to dive into the ocean and will find it."
Then the gods said, "Let's take it to the top of the highest mountain and hide it there." But once again Brahma replied, "No, that will not do either, because they will eventually climb every mountain and once again take up their divinity."
Then the gods gave up and said, "We do not know where to hide it, because it seems that there is no place on earth or in the sea that human beings will not eventually reach."
Brahma thought for a long time and then said, "Here is what we will do. We will hide their divinity deep in the center of their own being, for humans will never think to look for it there."
All the gods agreed that this was the perfect hiding place, and the deed was done.
And since that time humans have been going up and down the earth, digging, diving, climbing, and exploring--searching for something already within themselves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #32 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: Nothingness |
|
|
|
Santini said:
| Quote: |
Then we agree. It is extremely unlikely that a universe about whose advent we know nothing was created by a God about whom we know nothing.
|
Extremely unlikely rather than just as likely when there is no scientific evidence either way? Why wouldn't you just say just as unlikely as likely?
You you are the fundamentalist atheist I talked about in another post. You are just as bad as a fundamentalist Christian in that you try to force your narrow minded beliefs on others and ridicule anywhay who does not agree with you.
You see something of such majestic design that what seems likely by many of us it must have had a builder and say that it just appeared one day. To think someone built it is so silly.
I think atheists are silly. But worship science if you want to. It is your right to believe in whatever God you choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #33 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The "one hand clapping" question is rhetorical so as to bring to light that in order to have effect, there must be opposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrivateVoid
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Post: #34 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ape,
If for every answer there is a question and vice versa, what question does the universe answer? Or, what answer does the universe question? It can't be Aisle Of View.
Of course everything is poetry. But there's poetry (how we see/think of things) and then there's poetry (reality/or that which exists regardless of an observer).
In the end, all we have is ourselves so divinity/truth is within but again that's just "poetry".
Nice story about Brahma.
James S Saint,
Thanks for the alternate interpretation of "one hand clapping". Regarding...
| Quote: |
| The state of nothingness cannot exist simply because it cannot maintain itself. |
But there would be nothing to maintain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #35 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| The "one hand clapping" question is rhetorical so as to bring to light that in order to have effect, there must be opposition. |
This may enlighten some of the other discussions too
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Ozimandas
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Post: #36 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think this website will help to answer the Question.
Scroll down to the section titled "What is our universe?"
Then, read it.
. . .
I do not know if this guy is a philosopher but he has clearly explained in easy-to-grasp terms what seems to me to be the most logical and likely explanation for the existence of everything and anything.
The universe is the solution to a complex mathematical equation, a solution that "exists" outside of any consciousness or being to comprehend the equation, a solution that is so complex as to give rise to life, and evolution, and self-aware beings. It is the solution to one equation among an infinite number of equations.
This ties in with a lot of other theories, and in my view, explains a lot, if not absolutely everything. I am happy with it so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #37 Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
Ape,
If for every answer there is a question and vice versa, what question does the universe answer? |
Hi PV!
You already know the answers!
The question that the Uni, which is everything, answers is: What is Nothing?
Example: Have you ever answered:'Oh, that was nothing' to someone who told you 'Thanx for everything!' ?
You can see how the answer
to the Universe is a grain of sand, to heaven is a wild flower, and to eternity is an hour. Right?
Reference:
"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour."
William Blake in Auguries of Innocence.
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
Or, what answer does the universe question?
|
Nothing!
An atom of sand!
The sound of silence.
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
| It can't be Aisle Of View. |
Hmmmmm
The Currency or the Money of Love is the Coin of the Realm of the universe which answers all things, which is what the Uni is!
By the way, what is Aisle Of View?
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
Of course everything is poetry. But there's poetry (how we see/think of things) and then there's poetry (reality/or that which exists regardless of an observer). |
Xlnt!
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
In the end, all we have is ourselves so divinity/truth is within but again that's just "poetry". |
Xlnt! That Poetry within is the Poetry in being and in having and in motion!
Have you ever heard Poetry in Motion by Johhny Tillotson?
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
Nice story about Brahma.
|
Thanx! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Felix
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Posts: 504
|
| Post: #38 Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
"Why do things exist as opposed to there being nothing?"
You cannot know for certain whether things do or do not exist, you can only know that you are conscious of (their) existence. Therefore this is a dead-end question. The more fruitful question is: what is the nature of consciousness?
_________________
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by language. - Wittgenstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrivateVoid
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Post: #39 Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hi Felix,
| Quote: |
| You cannot know for certain whether things do or do not exist, you can only know that you are conscious of (their) existence. Therefore this is a dead-end question. The more fruitful question is: what is the nature of consciousness? |
Ok so you're saying the only "thing" we can be sure exists is our own consciousness?
That's fine (for this discussion).
So then the "thing" my question refers to is now our own consciousness: Why does my consciousness exist instead of nothing? Not as in "what is the meaning of my life" but "what caused consciousness (something) to be instead of nothing".
How is the question "what is the nature of consciousness" also not a dead-end question and why is it "more" fruitful?
How do you quantify each question's value? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #40 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
But there would be nothing to maintain. |
The state of nothingness would have to be maintained.
Metaphysically the logic of any situation determines the event. Everything must have a logical cause, even the lack of change must have a cause.
For the state of pure nothingness to remain the same or for it to change there must be a logical cause. It seems intuitive that if there is nothing to cause something to happen then nothing will happen, but that is merely an instinctive error due to us knowing nothing else from birth.
Every action that does NOT take place requires a cause for it to not take place. The state of nothingness has no means to prevent an occurrence. It has no inertia to prevent change.
If you had an impetus of value 1 working against a resistance of value 0.5, a change would occur. But if you gradually and proportionally reduce both values, the change that would occur remains the same. Even if you reduce them to zero, the change will still be exactly the same. The change will take place regardless of not having any impetus simply because you also have no resistance (inertia).
Or mathematically, where "iS" is the infinite Sum;
iS(dx) = 1
or
lim[x->inf, dx->0](x*dx) = 1
-------------------------------------------------- --------
Or another way to look at it is that the state of absolute nothingness is a state of infinite homogeneousness. Such a state means that every point is infinitely identical to every other point. Thus you have an infinite number of points that must be held infinitely identical.
This is a condition described by infinity times zero which is indeterminate. But having nothing else limiting what value that indeterminate might be, you have an infinite probability that it isn't zero because you have the one state of being zero compared to the number of possible states being any other number or the ratio of "1:infinity" = a probability of 100% that your indeterminate condition is not zero.
Thus the state of nothingness is an impossible state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Felix
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Posts: 504
|
| Post: #41 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
"How is the question "what is the nature of consciousness" also not a dead-end question and why is it "more" fruitful?"
Because we can explore the nature of consciousness: various states of consciousness and how our mind operates or seems to operate.
"So then the "thing" my question refers to is now our own consciousness: Why does my consciousness exist instead of nothing?"
This seems like another fruitless question to me. All knowledge comes from making and examining distinctions. What are you going to compare existence with, nonexistence? How can you explore nonexistence?
_________________
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by language. - Wittgenstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #42 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Felix wrote: |
| All knowledge comes from making and examining distinctions. What are you going to compare existence with, nonexistence? How can you explore nonexistence? |
The lack of distinction is all nothingness is. Thus the question has been "Why is there distinction?"
Or as I used to ask it, "What is the fundamental logic for the impossibility of indifference?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #43 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| Felix wrote: |
| All knowledge comes from making and examining distinctions. What are you going to compare existence with, nonexistence? How can you explore nonexistence? |
The lack of distinction is all nothingness is. Thus the question has been "Why is there distinction?"
Or as I used to ask it, "What is the fundamental logic for the impossibility of indifference?" |
Hmmmmm Since indifference is another word for similarity whose opposite is difference, the fundamental logic for the impossibility of indifference is the possibility of similarity.
And because we have to put so much life out of existence to sustain our own existence, we do know what non-existence is and so we can explore it while we exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrivateVoid
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Posts: 17
|
| Post: #44 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| The state of nothingness has no means to prevent an occurrence. It has no inertia to prevent change. |
Your mathematical approach is intriguing although I'm not sure it's being applied correctly. My calculus is rusty so the limit formula is not clear but the written explanation gives a sense of the overall idea.
Unfortunately, not to be a pain, but the state of nothingness you refer to is not truly nothing since it has "points" and mathematical rules that the points follow.
I suppose the nothingness I am imagining is a kind of Platonic Form if that's the right term. Nothing (ironically?) cannot exist--sadly.
But assuming we accept such a nothingness with infinite points, there are some problems:
- We should not simply assume the existence of infinities like "infinite homogeneity". For example: energy in atoms come in discrete levels and not in a continuous range. Recent theories suggest that there is also a smallest unit of space and a smallest unit of time so in one inch there might not be an infinite number of points. Without these infinities, the results may differ.
- We may be applying this math to a state that may not follow those rules. For example Euclidean geometry is great for flat surfaces but not on curved ones.
But in any case it seems existence is condemned to exist.
| Felix wrote: |
| All knowledge comes from making and examining distinctions. What are you going to compare existence with, nonexistence? |
Yes?
| Felix wrote: |
| How can you explore nonexistence? |
Well I've been exploring the IDEA of nonexistence in my consciousness but you can't physically explore nonexistence since that would be contradictory. I am imagining a state of nonexistence and asking a silly question like why am I here thinking this with this whole universe around me instead of there being nothing.
Fruitful? Yes it's easier to explore that which we can point to or touch but isn't what our consciousness thinks of part of "exploring the nature of consciousness"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #45 Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
| James S Saint wrote: |
| The state of nothingness has no means to prevent an occurrence. It has no inertia to prevent change. |
Unfortunately, not to be a pain, but the state of nothingness you refer to is not truly nothing since it has "points" and mathematical rules that the points follow. |
I had considered saying "amount of nothingness" rather than referring to "points". It is the same. You are talking about an "infinite amount of nothingness". Since all such things are relative, since there is absolutely nothing else but nothingness, the amount of it that you have is "total".
And it wouldn't matter anyway. I am calculating from the lack of resistive force. The counter force is absolutely zero regardless of how much of the nothingness you want to consider.
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
| We should not simply assume the existence of infinities like "infinite homogeneity". |
Oh but we certainly can.
Even ignoring that their speculation of space branes is utter non-sense invention to try to save face on other issues, the simple truth is that we have defined our nothingness as absolutely the only state. That means there can be no "holes" or "branes" or anything but the nothingness we stated => homogeneous. If branes are necessary so as to have other existence, that issue comes later.
| PrivateVoid wrote: |
| We may be applying this math to a state that may not follow those rules. For example Euclidean geometry is great for flat surfaces but not on curved ones. |
The sucker punch of the age is that people don't realize that THEY declare what coordinate system they want to use. Such systems have nothing to do with what is or isn't real. They are a chosen model to begin a thinking process. We declare them to be exactly what we want them to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
