What is the role of coexistence in the existence of matter and life?

[Eric England]

Define "existence" and "happen".

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

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.

 

[Eric England]

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.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

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?

 

[Eric England]

Now I am a head with my chicken cut off.

I'm going to venture into other territory.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

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.

 

[Eric England]

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.

 

[ChongFire]

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?

 

[Eric England]

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.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

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? 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.

 

[ChongFire]

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.

 

[Eric England]

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.

 

[ChongFire]

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?

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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?