Theory on existence and Life

  • Thread starter ChongFire
  • Start date
  • #26
41
0
I will admit this isn't something that I enjoy hearing especially from someone who appears to be informed on these subjects, but I do greatly appreciate it. I vow from this day forward that I will try not to theorize anything anymore. Knowledge is power. Ignorance is bliss. I've been blissfully ignorant in my own ideas that I've ignored knowledge all together. A student I shall become. And this will probably be my last post for a very long time.
 
  • #27
115
0
Study and ask. Don't not post. You're a good man ChongFire. You've got a lot of heart which is what the mind needs most.
 
  • #28
May I just curiously and innocently add from a highly intellectually stimulated perception of mind and eyes, energy, time, motion, and existence in disguise. This is by far one the most interesting and invigorating articles I have ever read within my being of so called "conscious" energy and matter :) The universe is of course conscious of itself, being that we ARE the universe. We live in a conscious universe. For something to have the ability to beautifully create evolution, and to beautifully evolve creation... is a wonder beyond my own mind that I have been trying to grasp for the past 2 years now. I hope that these posts do not end... I would love to get involved... this is my forte and what I live for. Thank you for blessing me with such a glorious read. Truly genuine ideas and authentic thought are never to be scorned upon... don't leave us Chong... just continue to build and grow. Your mind is all that you have and this life is one... create it :) We are all students and we are all teachers when we work together. Yes, knowledge is power... but imagination is more important than knowledge. Work your imagination and your knowledge will grow. Failure only brings success. If you would have never theorized you would have never learned from this experience. Just for the record... I don't believe in anything meta-, spiritual, mystical, etc. All things existing are physical, and there is no "supernatural"... all things existing are natural. Anything so called "beyond this realm of existence" doesn't even matter, it would never be able to interact with us... and if and when it did, it would have to abide by the physcal laws... therefore it would end up ultimately being on our level of existence anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
115
0
Well said. Yes, I do not want you to leave. I want you to grow. I forgot to mention the dictionary and thesaurus.

Anything so called "beyond this realm of existence" doesn't even matter, it would never be able to interact with us... and if and when it did, it would have to abide by the physcal laws... therefore it would end up ultimately being on our level of existence anyway.
This is a very clearly stated analysis, but is only skin deep.
 
  • #30
Eric England said:
This is a very clearly stated analysis, but is only skin deep.

ALL things ARE only "skin deep" :) Existence is. Happen is because it must. All things are and must be. There is nothing special or super in terms of the broad window of existence. If it exists... then it quite simply exists. Why label it a term that is not philosophically and scientifically proper? You know what I mean Jean? Meta, super, spiritual, mystic... just to be honest and forthright... it gives me a good giggle every now and then :) Before knowledge must come acceptance. The acceptance that all things existing are of existence no matter how we perceive them or where they may reside. Oneness. There are no realms; There IS only existence.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
115
0
Define "existence" and "happen".
 
  • #32
Okay... hello :)

Edit : In human terms. Don't you think existence does enough talking for itself? Alright... alright, I don't define existence and happen... they define me and each other. Let the existence do the defining... it has more answers than one can ever desire or imagine. If we let the existence do the defining maybe we could all finally coalesce into a universal society and join the stars. We're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off. We all seek control... no one realizes that it's pure love and understanding that will get us to where we envision.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
115
0
Outlandish_Existence said:
We're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off. We all seek control... no one realizes that it's pure love and understanding that will get us to where we envision.
Another well put analysis.

"Seek control" – for which reasons?
"Love" – what about tough love?
"Understanding" – then comprimise?
"Envision" – utopia, organized anarchy, democracy, socialism, communism, cooperative, benificent dictator...?

Around which "principle" would we arrive at all of our decisions – personally, locally, or globally?

How would that principle need to be defined?

PS: I prefer to think of myself, as a head with my chicken cut off.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
hehe, and so you see the duality of life. Seek control because we do not understand that we are not in control. There was a free will post in another philosophy section with the posters talking about being "forced" to make decisions. It's quite funny... because time forces us to make decisions... and our environments... etc. Haha... I am speaking in universal terms. Not earthly. Love... love is the way the universe works without the human mind. No judgment, no expectation, no consistency, and no randomizations. All things are and must be. Understanding... is the comprehension and use of those mechanics. Envision... maybe that only applies to me. A place where all humans recognize that they are truly self-sufficient. No money, no power system... no strangers. The key to existence is beyond personally... locally... and globally... it's the whole of all things. Why try and limit the definition of what defines us? What makes us so special to say we have all the answers after 500 years or so of this art called science?
 
Last edited:
  • #35
115
0
Now I am a head with my chicken cut off.

I'm going to venture into other territory.
 
  • #36
A head with its chicken cut off is still a chicken with its head cut off... this is what you're not seeing that I am trying to tell you; all things are a duality, a mirror... we are actually agreeing... but you insist on being right so you are not able to see past your own postulate. The philosophy of philosophy : one should never worry about winning, truth is all that matters. Existence isn't limited to one perception. It was nice having a discussion with you. May your ventures bring you many new lessons and much new knowledge so that you may see clearly.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
115
0
I don't insist on being right, just concise.

Yes, in one sense we agree – the mirror. But in another we don't – beyond the mirror. You don't think there's anything beyond the mirror and I do. And even within the mirror we don't agree. But we need to be concise. Specific question, specific answer, specific question...

All I want to do is use a simple methodology... not win.
 
  • #38
41
0
Alright fine. I won't go but only because being away from like minded individuals for even a few days has been driving me stir crazy. I think way to much to keep my thoughts to myself.

I believe this conversation is turning more towards phylosophy than metaphysics and as so I am delighted to continue conversation. For the both of you assuming that you both are still reading this post. What is your take on free will?

To start off this question I will define my interpretation of it. Free will is not as free as I was led to believe. I believe that the decisions I will make will be predecided for me before I come to these decisions. Everything you've experienced up to this moment is what makes you you. Everything you've experienced programs you to think the way you do. But it is in this argument that the uncertainty principle comes to mind. If total randomness exists on a quantum level why can't it exist on an intellectual level. Is it not possible that our minds as machines can be affected in a slight enough way that it is impossible to predict our thoughts?

I've heard before that "God" knows the decisions you will make for your entire life. I once interpreted this as "God" knowing what you will do. It is now my belief that "God" will know what decisions you will come to based on what you decide. For example "God" knows you will be faced with deciding when to get up in the morning. You could hit the snooze and sleep a little longer or get up. Whichever you decide at that moment will open a whole new list of decisions and close a list or vice versa.

For this statement the term "God" was not being used in reference to an entity watching and knowing but rather the mechanisms of the universe allowing. Essentially its like an action reaction machine. Once its started you know what the most likely outcome will be. If there is some single mechanism in work behind the entire universe that guides everything, is it possible for this mechanism to be predictable too? Again at this point I will bring up the uncertainty principal. But not to use it but rather dispute it. Are truly random events in the universe TRULY random? Essentially is there any such thing as true randomness?
 
Last edited:
  • #39
115
0
ChongFire said:
Alright fine. I won't go but only because being away from like minded individuals for even a few days has been driving me stir crazy. I think way to much to keep my thoughts to myself.
Welcome back, it was like you never left.

I believe this conversation is turning more towards phylosophy than metaphysics and as so I am delighted to continue conversation.
For those of you who might read this and think that it needs to be moved to philosophy, I would suggest that it's a historical fact that philosophy is the father of mataphysics and science. I think we are validly working in a subset of it.

What is your take on free will?
I take it when I can get it. :-)

Free will is not as free as I was led to believe.
It would seem that any "substance" has a higher calling than free will. If two or more "substances" are determined to occupy the same position at the same time, they can't. If they are determined to bump into each other, they can't. At a minimum, a "charge" holds them apart. I think this is a correct physical analysis.

Is it not possible that our minds as machines can be affected in a slight enough way that it is impossible to predict our thoughts?
Not only that, but are they "our" thoughts.

I've heard before that "God" knows the decisions you will make for your entire life. I once interpreted this as "God" knowing what you will do. It is now my belief that "God" will know what decisions you will come to based on what you decide.
Let's skip this one, since you are using "God" to refer to the universe.

... but rather the mechanisms of the universe allowing.
I think "allowing" is a good concept.

If there is some single mechanism in work behind the entire universe that guides everything, is it possible for this mechanism to be predictable too?
Is "the single mechanism at work behind the entire universe", inside of the universe itself? Think long and hard on this one. As for being predictable, I won't delve into what I think the "mechanism" is or where it is, but I will say that it is predictable in its process, but that doesn't directly translate into predictable results (to us).

Again at this point I will bring up the uncertainty principal. But not to use it but rather dispute it. Are truly random events in the universe TRULY random? Essentially is there any such thing as true randomness?
"TRUE randomness", I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Any wonder if we are long lost triplets? As for God being the universe... that is also my belief. Mine is a bit more broad. I revised it to God is all that is. Free will... I don't believe in it. As mentioned before, we are just reacting... and we are actually forced to make decisions because this concept that we nail down and stamp with the name "time" must go forward (that is of course without it being manipulated by science or technology) Time cannot stop... time is not only here on Earth, yet it is passing throughout the entire cosmos. Every second we experience here is also passing 13 billion light years from here. Free will or a wound up ticking time bomb? :tongue2: On more minute levels of consciousness it appears as if one has free will. As for randomization, again, this is just my view; I don't believe in it either. All things are and must be... that's the best I can explain it. If something decided to be not... and not to be... we'd have a problem. I'll have to think up a good analogy for this in regards to future reference. It's nice talking.
 
  • #41
41
0
Just for reference I am moving today so I will not be posting for as long as I don't have internet. But you can believe me that as soon as I get internet back I shall return.
 
  • #42
115
0
Ok. Just make sure to do what I forgot to do, one of the times I moved. I forgot to take my belongings with me.
 
  • #43
41
0
Ok one last thought before I turn my computer off. I've been trying to envision what the fourth dimension would be like in my mind. I've tried figuring out the basics of how a dimension relates to another dimension. First I look at how you define where something is in a dimension and apply another dimension. When comparing the first second and third dimensions I always find myself describing a higher dimension as in fact being higher. First look at the first dimension revealed that a single number could describe where something is. To add a dimension to this you must be able to have two things exist on that exact point. So you go higher creating a plane. The second dimension is much the same way. Two numbers define where something is. To add a third you must be able to have two points in the exact same position on two dimension field. To do this you add the third dimension which is commonly concieved of as up and add yet another number to describe its location in this third dimension. So I figured that the fourth dimension would be capable of having two points exist at the exact same coordinates in the third dimension. My first conclusion was that time was the fourth dimension and this is in fact a good way to envision two points existing in the exact same place in the third dimension being as how you add a number that describes where it is in time. But just today I thought that time could be described as the third dimension in a two dimensional universe. If you add where a point is in time in the two dimensional plane then you would have three dimension. From our stand point we know that you can infact have a third directional dimension in this two dimensional world. For this reason I believe that the fourth dimension is not in fact time itself. Though time does follow into what the fourth dimension would be similar to, it is my belief that it is possible to have a fourth directional dimension. Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
  • #44
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
All right guys, this has gone on long enough. Fine enough topic to discuss, but this has become a 'yeah, that's cool' chat more than the development of anything of philosophical worth. Sorry.

Regarding the other directional dimensions, you can have an indefinite number of them so long as they are circular. There is a video posted in the Beyond the Standard Model forum with Brian Greene talking about his book The Elegant Universe, which provides a terrific non-mathematical explanation of how this works. Of course, these may or may not actually exist. As of now they are just one possibility.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,083
18
ChongFire said:
Ok one last thought before I turn my computer off. I've been trying to envision what the fourth dimension would be like in my mind. I've tried figuring out the basics of how a dimension relates to another dimension. First I look at how you define where something is in a dimension and apply another dimension. When comparing the first second and third dimensions I always find myself describing a higher dimension as in fact being higher. First look at the first dimension revealed that a single number could describe where something is. To add a dimension to this you must be able to have two things exist on that exact point. So you go higher creating a plane. The second dimension is much the same way. Two numbers define where something is. To add a third you must be able to have two points in the exact same position on two dimension field. To do this you add the third dimension which is commonly concieved of as up and add yet another number to describe its location in this third dimension. So I figured that the fourth dimension would be capable of having two points exist at the exact same coordinates in the third dimension. My first conclusion was that time was the fourth dimension and this is in fact a good way to envision two points existing in the exact same place in the third dimension being as how you add a number that describes where it is in time. But just today I thought that time could be described as the third dimension in a two dimensional universe. If you add where a point is in time in the two dimensional plane then you would have three dimension. From our stand point we know that you can infact have a third directional dimension in this two dimensional world. For this reason I believe that the fourth dimension is not in fact time itself. Though time does follow into what the fourth dimension would be similar to, it is my belief that it is possible to have a fourth directional dimension. Your thoughts?
This is trivially true and is used by mathematicians all the time. It's called an n-dimensional space. Forget your linear algebra already?
 

Related Threads on Theory on existence and Life

  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
9K
Replies
45
Views
43K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
637
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
R
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
55
Views
5K
Top