Why are we here, what's the purpose of existence?

[arcticwolf]

Suspend for a moment the stories of the "Big Ghost in the sky and his plan" and contribute something really insightful. Anything at all, take it apart, question everything from every angle. Go! ;)

[Mordid]

to screw like rabbits.

[arcticwolf]

to screw like rabbits.

Well, I meant besides the obvious! :p

[Mordid]

Well, I meant besides the obvious! :p
Ok, I gotta be serious this time. I think the reason why we are here is because the meaning of life is to find our meaning. :)

[arcticwolf]

Ok, I gotta be serious this time. I think the reason why we are here is because the meaning of life is to find our meaning. :)

I think you are on the right track.

[Supreme American]

Ok, I gotta be serious this time. I think the reason why we are here is because the meaning of life is to find our meaning. :)

I don't see how we can really do that without guidance and/or instruction. It's like putting a car together without a manual or tools.

[arcticwolf]

I don't see how we can really do that without guidance and/or instruction. It's like putting a car together without a manual or tools.

Isn't that exactly how science got started? Is self-resolving puzzle such a far fetched concept?

[Stefan]

These questions require the notion of intelligent design. Reason is a cognitive aspect, to have reason you must be a conscious being. The only thing that would have reason for our existence would be a creator. Therefore, to answer these questions one must adhere to the belief that we were created by an intelligence capable of similar cognitive processes of reason as ourselves.

Now if you are asking about an individual ideology of what I've decided to do with my existence and what events are my major goals and actions I wish to partake in; I hope to learn as much as I possibly can about the nature of my existence and its relation to the rest of the universe, and impart my cognitive process in social interactions with other human beings, particularly a familial group.

[arcticwolf]

These questions require the notion of intelligent design. Reason is a cognitive aspect, to have reason you must be a conscious being. The only thing that would have reason for our existence would be a creator. Therefore, to answer these questions one must adhere to the belief that we were created by an intelligence capable of similar cognitive processes of reason as ourselves.

Now if you are asking about an individual ideology of what I've decided to do with my existence and what events are my major goals and actions I wish to partake in; I hope to learn as much as I possibly can about the nature of my existence and its relation to the rest of the universe, and impart my cognitive process in social interactions with other human beings, particularly a familial group.

If you want to have a being ( whatever that means ), a creator, than we have to assume that it is the absolute reality. Now why does intelligence have to originate with a being? What if intelligence is impersonal and the a building block of all there is? I fail to see how the ultimate reality has to be a being.

[Stefan]

If you want to have a being ( whatever that means ), a creator, than we have to assume that it is the absolute reality. Now why does intelligence have to originate with a being? What if intelligence is impersonal and the a building block of all there is? I fail to see how the ultimate reality has to be a being.

Being was a poor word choice, I should've used a word with far less philosophical meaning behind it. Would "entity" suffice?

I'm not going to dabble in philosophies of this; I will explain it from a physical perspective.

From a physical standpoint it seems very unlikely that the universe is constructed from or a manifestation of intelligence. It is objectively measurable that our feelings and thoughts are reactions to environmental stimuli by pathways constructed in our physical brain. There are those who argue for some form of "quantum consciousness" theory, but such a hypothesis has very little credence. It also seems likely to me that our universe isn't an effect of some intelligent design, and unfortunately, there is no foreseeable objective method(scientific method) to answer the question of whether or not our universe was created by an intelligent entity, mostly because we would not be able to comprehend the outside entity in the context of our observable universe.

So the point of my post was that to answer those questions you must have faith that our universe was created by a being capable of cognitive abilities such as reason, as it is through reason that we form questions of the "why." Only something responsible for our creation can answer these questions, and to do so it would require cognitive abilities.

[GeistFaust]

I think that life is actually random and meaningless, and that the fixed nature of objects in the material world as well as their content and information gives us the illusion of their being an objective meaning in the world. I think the world operates on the basis of a variant of operations and mechanisms, which in sum we call the law of causality. I think that behind this causal force there is no meaning or objective truth, but just illusion which arise of their being such.


The reason for this is because our mind and brain in making sense of the phenomenon of the world wants to understand the concept and notion of the thing as it appears in and of itself. That said the abstract content and information of the thing as it appears to us is useless if its not derived from an empirical basis or projected it from.


The point of departure to all matters of truth and meaning lie within the empirical world, and their ending point is to be found in the empirical world. Meaning is encapsulated by the empirical and it deals primarily with it. If there is a higher and objective meaning to life it must accord itself with the dynamics, operations, and qualitative nature of the specific empirical item we are trying to discover meaning in.


Reason is the general tool through which we make specific inquires to find specific truths about a particular object or group of objects. We also need to find specific truths in order to comprehend and delineate aspects of other beings or group of being into larger and broader sub-categories. I think though that the dynamic nature of the empirical world and our environment pressupose that everything is merely a divergence of certain notions or concepts.


The notion and concept is constantly wishing to self-replicate itself through the empirical, and this is the will to live. This divergence that takes place within the empirical mutates and deviates a thing from its original state, and thus changes the original meaning of a thing. There is no fixed meaning in most of the notions and concepts we deal with pertaining to the matter of the empirical world.


There are some matters we can verify and affirm through an abstract process of reasoning such as in the sciences and math. These things can be reached apriori in relation to a general law or a preliminary notion of the operation working this way. These judgments are synthetic apriori according to Kant, and they things which are merely determined by the sensibility, and independent of the cognitive function.


They necessitate the cognitive function and empirical examples though in order to be proved and validated. That is empirical examples and our cognitive function serve as mediators to validate these truths in our mind, even though they exist apriori and independent of our own experience. I think that these cases of apriori truths are rare, and only apply to mathematical/logical/scientific inquiries.


They hold no other merit in helping us to understand the operations and the way the phenomenal world functions around in relation to the law of the causality. Biology and Chemistry are too important subjects which deal with such matters, but in the whole I believe life is a dynamic meaningless, wandering, and random process with no overlapping meaning.


All in the end comes down to subjective judgments, and they depend on subjective critiques in order to be valid or meaningful for the human person and his condition. All is consciously and unconsciously subjective to some extent or another whether we want to acknowledge this, and there are only a few exceptions where this does not apply necessarily like in Mathematics/Science/Logic.


In matters such as theology and religion though they do apply, and this is why theology and religion is largely a subjective matter, which seems to base its dogmatic code and principles are merely that which is sensibility. This means it possesses little context to our own life or meaning when it comes to being capable of being applicable to the real world or according itself with the dynamics of the empirical world.

[arcticwolf]

Being was a poor word choice, I should've used a word with far less philosophical meaning behind it. Would "entity" suffice?

I'm not going to dabble in philosophies of this; I will explain it from a physical perspective.

From a physical standpoint it seems very unlikely that the universe is constructed from or a manifestation of intelligence. It is objectively measurable that our feelings and thoughts are reactions to environmental stimuli by pathways constructed in our physical brain. There are those who argue for some form of "quantum consciousness" theory, but such a hypothesis has very little credence. It also seems likely to me that our universe isn't an effect of some intelligent design, and unfortunately, there is no foreseeable objective method(scientific method) to answer the question of whether or not our universe was created by an intelligent entity, mostly because we would not be able to comprehend the outside entity in the context of our observable universe.

So the point of my post was that to answer those questions you must have faith that our universe was created by a being capable of cognitive abilities such as reason, as it is through reason that we form questions of the "why." Only something responsible for our creation can answer these questions, and to do so it would require cognitive abilities.

Here is where the problem is. Let's assume that an intelligent entity has planed, designed and put in place all that we call reality around us. That ultimate reality would have to be perfect by our standards. If all this was created at certain point, then the question is why? What was lacking in the experience of the creator that prompted him/her/it to create at all? Why would a perfect entity feel want, desire, or the need to create? Why wouldn't be such an entity content with what was already there?

[Insuperable]

Being was a poor word choice, I should've used a word with far less philosophical meaning behind it. Would "entity" suffice?

I'm not going to dabble in philosophies of this; I will explain it from a physical perspective.

From a physical standpoint it seems very unlikely that the universe is constructed from or a manifestation of intelligence. It is objectively measurable that our feelings and thoughts are reactions to environmental stimuli by pathways constructed in our physical brain. There are those who argue for some form of "quantum consciousness" theory, but such a hypothesis has very little credence. It also seems likely to me that our universe isn't an effect of some intelligent design, and unfortunately, there is no foreseeable objective method(scientific method) to answer the question of whether or not our universe was created by an intelligent entity, mostly because we would not be able to comprehend the outside entity in the context of our observable universe.

So the point of my post was that to answer those questions you must have faith that our universe was created by a being capable of cognitive abilities such as reason, as it is through reason that we form questions of the "why." Only something responsible for our creation can answer these questions, and to do so it would require cognitive abilities.


The very question "What is the meaning of life...? implies that there is something higher than humanity or life itself if someone thinks it through hard enough

[Virtuous]

I usually ask this question to myself while taking a shower and I keep staring.....and wondering....and staring again, until I forget what I was thinking about.

[arcticwolf]

Just a reminder, I did not use the word life on purpose. Existence implies more that just animated ( in motion ) life. But life will do ;)

[Stefan]

Here is where the problem is. Let's assume that an intelligent entity has planed, designed and put in place all that we call reality around us. That ultimate reality would have to be perfect by our standards. If all this was created at certain point, then the question is why? What was lacking in the experience of the creator that prompted him/her/it to create at all? Why would a perfect entity feel want, desire, or the need to create? Why wouldn't be such an entity content with what was already there?

I'm having trouble following your logic. What qualifies as perfect and why must this extra reality, which we cannot perceive, meet perfection? If that holds true logically(this perfection you speak of,) then it is a logical and seemingly valid objection for the universe being a production of an intelligence.


by our standards.

We are incapable of perceiving this extra reality empirically; through either deductive or inductive reasoning, therefore we have no standards, and it is irrelevant to the context of what is actually objectively measurable - the nature of existence, not the reason for it.

[arcticwolf]

I usually ask this question to myself while taking a shower and I keep staring.....and wondering....and staring again, until I forget what I was thinking about.

Cool story bro. And I mean it in the nicest way possible. Thank you :D

[Virtuous]

Cool story bro. And I mean it in the nicest way possible. Thank you :D

Thanks bro not many people appreceate my stories.

[GeistFaust]

The very question "What is the meaning of life...? implies that there is something higher than humanity or life itself if someone thinks it through hard enough

I think there is a certain danger with trying to compute our understanding of life in general and abstract from a groundworks that is based off of the material world. An analogy of the world needing to have a higher meaning to itself or a creative basis, which derives it from the empirical world leads us to a multitude of vagaries.



I think we end up contradicting ourselves, and acquiring less meaning about life, but unfortunately analogy is the only means we have to descibe an objective meaning to life or the necessary of a creator.


We have nothing but this, and I think it all lies on shanty grounds in so far as it regards its readiness and capacity to be applied to the empirical world, and its viability in according with the dynamics and operations of the empirical world. That is I doubt it can accord itself with the variant dyanmics, mechanisms, and operations contained with variance which is life nor can it account for each cause, which is divergent and independent of itself.

[Insuperable]

Here is where the problem is. Let's assume that an intelligent entity has planed, designed and put in place all that we call reality around us. That ultimate reality would have to be perfect by our standards. If all this was created at certain point, then the question is why? What was lacking in the experience of the creator that prompted him/her/it to create at all? Why would a perfect entity feel want, desire, or the need to create? Why wouldn't be such an entity content with what was already there?

I do not know what you mean by ultimate reality but physical and mathemtical reality is surely perfect by our standards
Your questions seem intelligent.
Our inability to answer these question does not mean that there is no ultimate Creator.

[arcticwolf]

I'm having trouble following your logic. What qualifies as perfect and why must this extra reality, which we cannot perceive, meet perfection? If that holds true logically(this perfection you speak of,) then it is a logical and seemingly valid objection for the universe not being a production of an intelligence.



We are incapable of perceiving this extra reality empirically; through either deductive or inductive reasoning, therefore we have no standards, and it is irrelevant to the context of what is actually objectively measurable - the nature of existence, not the reason for it.

Here is the logic, what we call reality is duality ( cold-hot, small-big etc ), all this has a single source hence the absolute or singularity. Singularity by definition can not be both perfect and imperfect at the same time or at all.

As to incapable of perceiving, why are you assuming we are incapable of it?
OK if the reason for it is not the most suitable, I can live with the result of.

[GeistFaust]

I usually ask this question to myself while taking a shower and I keep staring.....and wondering....and staring again, until I forget what I was thinking about.



I think Malta has unlocked and uncovered a profound mystery about the meaning of life. Life's meaning is to be found in the ordinary day to day, which has become such a common mode of reacting to the world around us. Its a mode of survival, and in it is implanted something which the extraordinary is impressed, and through which the extraordinary manifests itself.


The extraordinary is not something which is capable of being verified or validated through reason, but it deals with our reaction to the way we perceive the world in total and ourselves in light of its nature, events, and physical/moral implications/value. The meaning of life is mediocre and petty if it exists, and if it exists it exists in the form of the average everydayness of life.


This average everydayness indicates and points to a general everydayness, which is extraordinary, and I don't think we can't help but ignoring and passing over it. The meaning of life is generally ignored and passed over, and covered up with things that appear to us in the ordinary day to day sense.


That said I don't think we can deny the feeling of the extraordinary with the presence of the ordinary and empirical nor can we say that something extraordinary does not manifest itself in it. I don't know how this applies or shows us of a higher being, meaning, or next life in the context of life, but it ought to leave us in awe and wonder concerning our own being in the context of space-time.

[arcticwolf]

I do not know what you mean by ultimate reality but physical and mathemtical reality is surely perfect by our standards
Your questions seem intelligent.
Our inability to answer these question does not mean that there is no ultimate Creator.

Thank you, I think. :D

Ultimate reality is that which is the source aka God, Nirvana, Tao, or whatever else ones calls singularity.

[Virtuous]

I think Malta has unlocked and uncovered a profound mystery about the meaning of life. Life's meaning is to be found in the ordinary day to day, which has become such a common mode of reacting to the world around us. Its a mode of survival, and in it is implanted something which the extraordinary is impressed, and through which the extraordinary manifests itself.


The extraordinary is not something which is capable of being verified or validated through reason, but it deals with our reaction to the way we perceive the world in total and ourselves in light of its nature, events, and physical/moral implications/value. The meaning of life is mediocre and petty if it exists, and if it exists it exists in the form of the average everydayness of life.


This average everydayness indicates and points to a general everydayness, which is extraordinary, and I don't think we can't help but ignoring and passing over it. The meaning of life is generally ignored and passed over, and covered up with things that appear to us in the ordinary day to day sense.


That said I don't think we can deny the feeling of the extraordinary with the presence of the ordinary and empirical nor can we say that something extraordinary does not manifest itself in it. I don't know how this applies or shows us of a higher being, meaning, or next life in the context of life, but it ought to leave us in awe and wonder concerning our own being in the context of space-time.

Jokes aside, cause I was joking..I do wonder about the meaning of life while taking a shower.

But for you it wasn't just a joke apparently o_o.

[arcticwolf]

Thanks bro not many people appreceate my stories.

They don't know what they are missing! You can tell them I said that! :p

[GeistFaust]

Thank you, I think. :D

Ultimate reality is that which is the source aka God, Nirvana, Tao, or whatever else ones calls singularity.


Ultimate realities don't help us understand proximate causes or their operations and dynamics. I think the operations and dynamics of this Ultimate reality, if it exists, would self-negate itself from that which it created. I think its impossible to reduce an Ultimate cause to material causes and the dynamics and operations of these material causes, which are many and variant.


I think each organism and structure in a sense is a self-regulator of its own nature and environment in so far as it accords with a dynamic and causal law or what I call the law of quasi-mediation. If we use empirical beings or the operations and dynamics of the empirical world to describe through analogy the necessary existence of God then we run into another wall.


I believe in the God of the gaps, where if God exists he self-negates himself, and lets the world determine itself on the basis of a general mathematical or causal model, which is contained to some variant degre or another in the universe.


Proximate causes can not verify or validate the existence of an ultimate being, and nor should they ought to even if through analogy. I think its best to understand the more probably has more meaning they we can understand from it alone, but that in the end it all orients or hinges itself on our perceptions and comprehension of the proximate and empirical forms in the universe.

[Stefan]

Here is the logic, what we call reality is duality ( cold-hot, small-big etc ), all this has a single source hence the absolute or singularity. Singularity by definition can not be both perfect and imperfect at the same time or at all.


This reminds me a lot of entropy, and the symmetries found in physics, particularly particle physics(fundamental forces, matter/antimatter, etc.) The progression from the highly-symmetric ordered singularity(infinitely dense state of our universe, at the moment of its creation) to the chaotic, disordered, asymmetric nature of our universe. The arrow of time proceeding to have a higher entropy value, and therefore more disorder. We perceive this progression as time. We are unable to measure this period of our universe(before time) objectively, and maybe that can explain why we can't perceive it.

[Loddfafner]

We exist so as to give the universe meaning.

One does not need to posit a God to allow for this teleological conclusion. Basically I believe in the anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). All possible universes can happen, but the one that can witness itself is the one that does happen.

[arcticwolf]

Ultimate realities don't help us understand proximate causes or their operations and dynamics. I think the operations and dynamics of this Ultimate reality, if it exists, would self-negate itself from that which it created. I think its impossible to reduce an Ultimate cause to material causes and the dynamics and operations of these material causes, which are many and variant.


I think each organism and structure in a sense is a self-regulator of its own nature and environment in so far as it accords with a dynamic and causal law or what I call the law of quasi-mediation. If we use empirical beings or the operations and dynamics of the empirical world to describe through analogy the necessary existence of God then we run into another wall.


I believe in the God of the gaps, where if God exists he self-negates himself, and lets the world determine itself on the basis of a general mathematical or causal model, which is contained to some variant degre or another in the universe.


Proximate causes can not verify or validate the existence of an ultimate being, and nor should they ought to even if through analogy. I think its best to understand the more probably has more meaning they we can understand from it alone, but that in the end it all orients or hinges itself on our perceptions and comprehension of the proximate and empirical forms in the universe.

There is another possibility, that which exists has no beginning and no creator at all, it's always been. I agree with you in that there is a lot more to the story than meets the eye. For example we assume all there is is what we can measure somehow, but there may be a lot more to reality itself than we can perceive or understand right now. We ourselves may be more than just a matter we just don't know for sure yet. Our understanding is very limited but that should not stop us from looking for the answers, as we always have.

[Virtuous]

All possible universes can happen, but the one that can witness itself is the one that does happen.

I always was fascinated about the theory of the Multiverses....like there are infinite other universes with different outcomes of your life, or perhaps where you don't even exist....or else matter and laws of physics are not the same as here.

[GeistFaust]

This reminds me a lot of entropy, and the symmetries found in physics, particularly particle physics(fundamental forces, matter/antimatter, etc.) The progression from the highly-symmetric ordered singularity(infinitely dense state of our universe, at the moment of its creation) to the chaotic, disordered, asymmetric nature of our universe. The arrow of time proceeding to have a higher entropy value, and therefore more disorder. We perceive this progression as time. We are unable to measure this period of our universe objectively, and maybe that can explain why we can't perceive it.



I think this is all abstract, and its impossible to connect it with the nature of phenomenon if it determines itself in some abstract manner upon it through a general law. I don't know how we apply a proper understanding it through reason in regards to the specific material we observe within the context of the empirical world.


I also don't see how this accords to the rather random and assymetrical dynamic processes of the empirical world, which appear to have no real order. They have a cyclical order about them, but that does not necessarily necessitate there is an order to this cycle.

I think in large it only makes as much sense as we have the capacity to measure it and master nature on the grounds we construct for our own utility.

[arcticwolf]

This reminds me a lot of entropy, and the symmetries found in physics, particularly particle physics(fundamental forces, matter/antimatter, etc.) The progression from the highly-symmetric ordered singularity(infinitely dense state of our universe, at the moment of its creation) to the chaotic, disordered, asymmetric nature of our universe. The arrow of time proceeding to have a higher entropy value, and therefore more disorder. We perceive this progression as time. We are unable to measure this period of our universe(before time) objectively, and maybe that can explain why we can't perceive it.

The only digression I would make is this, universe has a beginning, middle and it ends at some point more than likely. What if the beginning of the universe is just a beginning of a new cycle?

[Insuperable]

We exist so as to give the universe meaning.

One does not need to posit a God to allow for this teleological conclusion. Basically I believe in the anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). All possible universes can happen, but the one that can witness itself is the one that does happen.

Since we have an understanding of a material world and more and more we understand the mechanisms of a material world the most basic answers are left unanswered no matter how many Universes there are. If we continue to build our understanding of the life solely on a material world humans would not differ so much from an a hybrid of an animal and computer.
Have you ever tried to do something the best you could and after some time you figured it out that your best results come from your first thoughts?
Similiarly, the more and more we explore the material world one Leibnizian answer remains unanswered and we would always come back to "Why is there something rather than nothing".
I write this based solely on a concept of a material world.

What if we include awareness.
We all know that atoms make up out visible world. Rocks are made of atoms and so are we.
Believe me I can understand evolution but I can not understand what is that which made me open my eyes and say "I think, therefore I am" like Decartes said. Is it that in my case atoms and molecules are not arranged like in rocks but in complex organization of ribosomes, dna, cells...
Surely if I start to think like this ( from the bottom to up ) no matter if that organization came purely by chance but because atoms are not alive I must ask my self "What is that which opened my eyes?".

Therefore, since awareness is transcedental I must conclude that life is also no matter if its medium is a material world.

I have already wrote a certain quote from Heisenberg on apricity and I will write it again
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

[GeistFaust]

We exist so as to give the universe meaning.

One does not need to posit a God to allow for this teleological conclusion. Basically I believe in the anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). All possible universes can happen, but the one that can witness itself is the one that does happen.



Man is the measure of all things, for man has to measure God in his light, and in doing so is merely making man the measure of all things AKA God.

This is why Christianity is so fallacious, and why it stands on shanty grounds from a dogmatic standpoint.

They invert the whole man is the measure of all things in a twisted and hypocritical manner, but in reality they mean to say such a thing and to lay down such a principle.

[Loddfafner]

To paraphrase the old joke about why a dog licks his nuts:

We exist because we can.

[Stefan]

I always was fascinated about the theory of the Multiverses....like there are infinite other universes with different outcomes of your life, or perhaps where you don't even exist....or else matter and laws of physics are not the same as here.

One of The Universe documentaries covers all of those questions. It was on youtube, but was taken down. I'd recommend looking it up. It's a really fun one to watch. Basically there are four types of multiverses postulated by physicists who adhere to M-Theory - a unified field theory that originated from the different string theories, but has very little empirical evidence to support the mathematics to be fully accepted.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

Furthermore, The Hugh Everett or Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics implies a universal wave-function in which our universe follows a deterministic pattern, and there are an infinite number of universes each with a possible wave-function. It is currently gaining acceptance more and more in opposition with the Copenhagen Interpretation which doesn't explain the reason for the collapse of a wave-function to a specific value, and relies on a non-deterministic view of quantum mechanics.

[Insuperable]

I always was fascinated about the theory of the Multiverses....like there are infinite other universes with different outcomes of your life, or perhaps where you don't even exist....or else matter and laws of physics are not the same as here.

Why propose something which can not be proven like God?
Multiverse idea is a pseudoscience and a large number of high ranking scientists and potential scientific historial figures do not agree with the notion of the multiverse.

[arcticwolf]

To paraphrase the old joke about why a dog licks his nuts:

We exist because we can.

I agree with that but that answers only the first part of the question namely why. What is the purpose is still murky, no one seems to be brave enough to tackle that one ;)

[GeistFaust]

God is as verifiable as theoretical physics is, and all people who claim to have had mystical experiences or visions of God should not be trusted.


They should be probably put in an asylum or institutionalized for insanity and delusional hallucinations.

Their experiences and visions have little to do with reality most likely, and are incapable of being applicable to reality, which is the nature of dreams and the visions of madmen.

[Virtuous]

Why propose something which can not be proven like God?
Multiverse idea is a pseudoscience and a large number of high ranking scientists and potential scientific historial figures do not agree with the notion of the multiverse.

I'm not proposing anything bro, I'm just saying it's an interesting theory.Oh by the way..Michio Kaku isn't a physicist to be underestimated.

[Insuperable]

I'm not proposing anything bro, I'm just saying it's an interesting theory.Oh by the way..Michio Kaku isn't a physicist to be underestimated.

I have never said that you are proposing anything
Michio Kaku is a TV crackpot

[Damião de Góis]

I can't answer this question, unless i'm high...

[Virtuous]

Why propose something which can not be proven like God?

Whatever you say, even if it's just "sci-fi" to you I'm still interested on such subjects.

[Stefan]

I think this is all abstract, and its impossible to connect it with the nature of phenomenon if it determines itself in some abstract manner upon it through a general law. I don't know how we apply a proper understanding it through reason in regards to the specific material we observe within the context of the empirical world.


I also don't see how this accords to the rather random and assymetrical dynamic processes of the empirical world, which appear to have no real order. They have a cyclical order about them, but that does not necessarily necessitate there is an order to this cycle.

I think in large it only makes as much sense as we have the capacity to measure it and master nature on the grounds we construct for our own utility.

Well I think that is the task we accomplish by learning mathematics. I remember watching a documentary about how many 19th Century mathematicians were emotionally distressed by the seemingly chaotic view of the universe at the time, in opposition with the highly deterministic view brought by Newton. I didn't finish it, but apparently it was about Chaos Theory, so I assume that it would have explained why some things may seem chaotic at glance, but upon further examination there is a logical(mathematical) explanation. As for entropy; it is explained in the second law of thermodynamics, which is based on empirical data.

The only thing inexplicable is the nature of the singularity. The same problem applies to black holes, which also consist of a singularity. To explain this, physicists require a unified field theory(one that includes gravity at the quantum level.) Currently, physics is at a dead end in that area though. String Theorists believe they have it, but there is a lack of good experimental data to verify string theory. That is why they are looking for things like the Higgs Boson, to verify a concept of the Higgs Field, and form an explanation of inertia and therefore mass. All of this is very hard to explain with analogies though. Mathematics is necessary for a thorough and concise understanding.

[Insuperable]

I think this is all abstract, and its impossible to connect it with the nature of phenomenon if it determines itself in some abstract manner upon it through a general law. I don't know how we apply a proper understanding it through reason in regards to the specific material we observe within the context of the empirical world.


I also don't see how this accords to the rather random and assymetrical dynamic processes of the empirical world, which appear to have no real order. They have a cyclical order about them, but that does not necessarily necessitate there is an order to this cycle.

I think in large it only makes as much sense as we have the capacity to measure it and master nature on the grounds we construct for our own utility.

I hope you are joking

[arcticwolf]

I can't answer this question, unless i'm high...

:D That's the key! :p

[Damião de Góis]

:D That's the key! :p

Last summer i was at a bar in a beach at night, and two of my friends, who were high, were discussing parallel universes... I tried to join in but i was too sober.

[arcticwolf]

Same but a bit different, how we look determines what we see, in other words the state of the mind of the observer determines what the observer can see. Are our minds evolved enough to see "the right way"? Are the tools we are using suitable to tackle the tasks at hand? What other tool mental or not would help us to further our understanding?

[Insuperable]

Being was a poor word choice, I should've used a word with far less philosophical meaning behind it. Would "entity" suffice?

I'm not going to dabble in philosophies of this; I will explain it from a physical perspective.

From a physical standpoint it seems very unlikely that the universe is constructed from or a manifestation of intelligence. It is objectively measurable that our feelings and thoughts are reactions to environmental stimuli by pathways constructed in our physical brain. There are those who argue for some form of "quantum consciousness" theory, but such a hypothesis has very little credence. It also seems likely to me that our universe isn't an effect of some intelligent design, and unfortunately, there is no foreseeable objective method(scientific method) to answer the question of whether or not our universe was created by an intelligent entity, mostly because we would not be able to comprehend the outside entity in the context of our observable universe.

So the point of my post was that to answer those questions you must have faith that our universe was created by a being capable of cognitive abilities such as reason, as it is through reason that we form questions of the "why." Only something responsible for our creation can answer these questions, and to do so it would require cognitive abilities.


Find my post and tell me what you think
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44351&page=3

[Neanderthal]

We're just a bunch of cells put together to form a living being - some are afortunate in many aspects, some don't - There's no big sciencie behind that, what is the meaning of life for a deer? what is the meaning of life for a wolf? The later to expend all his life hunting, killing and eating the first. With that said, what makes us different from animals? consciousness? feelings? forms of comunication? many many animals have those traits and still considered as inferior, to me, of course if you ask me, being creationist is like being a nature fascist, believing we are superior than the stupid animals that lurk around is just silly, we all gonna be gonne of this world one given day - just like the animals we despite so much and we don't want to be associated with - In conclusion we can say, there's no meaning in life but living, the true meaning of life have been lost with the modern ways, but we all know what whe should be doing, and believe me isn't typing behind a computer screen.

[GeistFaust]

I hope you are joking



It has no real order, but rather a variant of positions and mechanized operations, which are positioned within different points of the same plane. The real order is merely the illusion, which the thing as it appears to our sense projects upon us. The content and information of the thing is something we abstract through the phenomena regarding the dynamics and operations of the thing.



This means in a sense we can perceive and understand cause as it applies to the empirical world, but we can not always posit a proper correspondence and correlation between this and that. We come to understand a possible deteriministic or general law, which applies itself to the operations and dynamics of the empirical world.


That said we can not verify things merely through our senses, because the senses alone don't give us an adequate understanding of the specific details and understandings of the beings in the empirical world. It only gives us a concrete impression, which our imagination acts up to create an abstract image, and which our intellect acts upon in order to gain some proper understanding of that which appears to be.


That which appears to be generally is in so far as it accords with our intellect's correspondence with the operations of the empirical world. This is safe to conclude in my honest opinion, but beyond that which appears or is capable of being perceived there is little sense our intellect or abstraction can make of this content or material.


Our imagination and intellect acts as modulators of the internal and external structure of a conscious phenomenal being, which can only derive a sense of acting in relation to the actuality of the empirical world. That is they can only gain information and knowledge pertaining to their activity and self-consciousness in so far as it regards that which is empirical and operates in a dynamic manner upon the empirical.


We can understand cause as something which works through the empirical, and operates at the level of the empirical, but to verify anything beyond this cause is nonsensical. To understand any fixed order or meaning beyond this dynamic process, which occurs within the empirical is ridiculous as well.


A thing might have a cause, but this does not explain the independency of that cause, the variance of things it acts on, and the different mechanisms and operations, upon which a cause acts. This means that the different mechanisms and operations of the empirical being, which is a general rule of all empirical beings, is going to change the way a cause affects or influences a things disposition or nature.


A general rule means little if it is not applied to the empirical or does not accord with its random nature, and I think this is one thing we should accept all and all. In so far as this general rule applies to anything of a higher meaning or beyond that which we conceive or perceive of as being life is nonsensical.


We can abstract this general rule off the basis of empirical items, our perceptions/observations of these empirical items, and the action of the intellect/sensibility upon these things. In retrospect when you filter the truth out to its bareness you will realize just how subjective and random it is outside of the mathematical/logical/scientific.


These things ground themselves in the processes of nature or the correlation between necessary symbolic juxtapositions, which all correlate on the basis of certain immediate and general laws. This is to say this general law, if it exists must be derived from a rational and scientific perspective.


A rational perspective is a scientific one, and anything beyond this is incapable of being critiqued, just like anything beyond the phenomenal world is incapable of being sensed. If it can be sensed then most likely it does not exist whatsoever as being applicable to the real world or according itself with the dynamics and operations of the empirical world.


The world as phenomenon though is a meaningless and random mathematical process and operation, which appears to have order, but in retrospect is one massive chaotic spiral. Its an assymetrical order to put it more simply, and this means the variance of things in nature and their mechanisms/operations appear to be in order.


That is in so far as it accords itself with the laws of causality/gravity, but that we don't realize that this is all a farce. Our minds/brains will fix a certain meaning to something on the basis of induction, but this is invalid to coming to an absolute certainty as to this law of causality/gravity, which determines the operations and dynamics of the empirical world seemingly on the head of a needle.


Its something which must be reduced to a matter of scientific and rational deduction, and this is the only possible means we have of conceiving truths as they apply to the empirical world. I think anything beyond this does not apply, and if we realize the world as a meaningless and random process, which is determined on the basis of this general law then we will understand the essence of science.


The essence of science is not to be grasped or delineated through science or matter, but is something which is a self-regulating modulator of its own environment. Its something which has diverged and processes itself in accordance with the environment and laws of nature to the point where it has been reduced to a unique variant, which has its own mode of mechanizing itself and operating.


The order is merely a cover up and illusion to the driving force, which is really disorder/asymmetry, and which determines the world to appear to operate and mechanize itself in a order manner, but which is being determined by forces of meaningless and randomness. This is the whole mathematical trick to the universe, and if someone can discover it then I wish them the best of luck.


That said its important to understand that our brain and minds gives the illusion of an order in the empirical world around us. The brain and mind even goes so far to make the fallacious argument that the driving force behind the laws of causality/gravity are meaningless and random.


Just because a thing appears to be ordered or probably is ordered does not necessarily make it not meaningless and random in its dynamic operations. Meaning and Order though are largely inventions of the brain in reaction to the actual world which surrounds it, and the impressions it receives of it on the imagination.


There is no way to fix an order to this process if it does not apply to a scientific/logical/mathematical approach to the empirical world and the universe. If it is not applicable to it or capable of being applied by it then we reach a dead end where we ought not to proceed any further. I think there are certain limits to the scientific/logical/mathematical approach in so far as it accords with the dynamics and operations of each empirical being in the universe as determined by the law of causality/gravity.



I believe that everything has its basis on a mathematical model, which determines itself in a meaningless and random manner, but produces phenomena to appear to be acting in an ordered manner, and in accordance with an ordered mode of operation. This general law falls flat on its face when we accord the vast differences and variations we have to deal with in the empirical world, not to mention the different mechanisms, causes, and operations of things determined independently of each other.

[Stefan]

It is also known that infinity can not exist and we know that it does not exist since the Universe had a beginning.


Infinity in what context? It is possible to have a finite period of time yet still have a limitless(infinite) spatial extent. If this were negated by the fact many cosmologists believe the universe has a singularity(beginning) then there wouldn't be a debate of the shape of our universe and whether or not it is flat.



Concept of physical infinity is even rejeceted my mathematicians although not as an abstract form.
Because of that I was always fascinated that in the Bible it never says that God is physically infinite but it says that God is eternal.

Christian philosophers were saying for centuries for now that the Universe
was created out of nothing advancing it under the term "Ex nihilo" which means creation out of nothing.
If one ought to believe in God wouldnt she or he imagine the God as an eternal intelligence or intelligent nothingness with no physical form which derivates, logarithmize, multiples.... so that the total energy is always zero.

If we assume that before time there was only eternity what chance is there
for something to start to exist. Logically there would be no chance.
What or who broke an eternity.

I believe I read something about quantum irregularities in space-time at the planck length. This is too complex for me to accurately reveal insight based on analogies, though. I am not capable of giving input without the mathematical maturity involved in such an explanation. Basically I got the idea that since factors are time independent at this level, the creation of a universe(and many more) would be inevitable based from these quantum fluctuations. I doubt this is an accurate explanation of what is really proposed though. Ten years from now, when I have a PhD in high energy physics I'll get back to ya on that. :P



As Werner Heisenberg said
"The first swallow from the cup of natural sciences makes atheists, but at the bottom of the cup God is waiting"

Did Heisenberg have a notion of "God" akin to Einstein's? If so, I can see the beauty in such a concept. I'm unsure about the significance it would have in the creation of the universe opposed to its embedment within the universe though. Certainly it wouldn't be the same entity described in Christianity. An entity obsessed with some moral law and the actions of human beings.

[Insuperable]

Infinity in what context? It is possible to have a finite period of time yet still have a limitless(infinite) spatial extent. If this were negated by the fact many cosmologists believe the universe has a singularity(beginning) then there wouldn't be a debate of the shape of our universe and whether or not it is flat.



I believe I read something about quantum irregularities in space-time at the planck length. This is too complex for me to accurately reveal insight based on analogies, though. I am not capable of giving input without the mathematical maturity involved in such an explanation. Basically I got the idea that since factors are time independent at this level, the creation of a universe(and many more) would be inevitable based from these quantum fluctuations. I doubt this is an accurate explanation of what is really proposed though. Ten years from now, when I have a PhD in high energy physics I'll get back to ya on that. :P



Did Heisenberg have a notion of "God" akin to Einstein's? If so, I can see the beauty in such a concept. I'm unsure about the significance it would have in the creation of the universe opposed to its embedment within the universe though. Certainly it wouldn't be the same entity described in Christianity. An entity obsessed with some moral law and the actions of human beings.

physical infinity can not exist. The world can only tend to it. Eternity is another thing.

Anyway regarding Heisenberg

In his autobiographical article in the journal Truth, Henry Margenau (Professor Emeritus of Physics and Natural Philosophy at Yale University) pointed out: “I have said nothing about the years between 1936 and 1950. There were, however, a few experiences I cannot forget. One was my first meeting with Heisenberg, who came to America soon after the end of the Second World War. Our conversation was intimate and he impressed me by his deep religious conviction. He was a true Christian in every sense of that word.” (Margenau 1985, Vol. 1).

Einstein believed in strict causality till the end of his life. In his last surviving letter to Einstein, Heisenberg writes that while in the new quantum mechanics Einstein’s beloved causality principle is baseless, “We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the particles, and thus He could let the causality principle continue to have validity.” (Heisenberg, as cited in Holton 2000, vol. 53).

[arcticwolf]

Infinity in what context? It is possible to have a finite period of time yet still have a limitless(infinite) spatial extent. If this were negated by the fact many cosmologists believe the universe has a singularity(beginning) then there wouldn't be a debate of the shape of our universe and whether or not it is flat.

The really interesting question is, is the beginning of the Universe the one time phenomena or is it just the beginning of a new cycle, and if it is what does that mean?

[Insuperable]

The really interesting question is, is the beginning of the Universe the one time phenomena or is it just the beginning of a new cycle, and if it is what does that mean?

According to our knowledge about cosmology and astrophysics the Universe is the one time phenomena

[Veneda]

The really interesting question is, is the beginning of the Universe the one time phenomena or is it just the beginning of a new cycle, and if it is what does that mean?

It is paradox within a paradox. Vicious circle to be resolved by our simple minds ;)

[GeistFaust]

The really interesting question is, is the beginning of the Universe the one time phenomena or is it just the beginning of a new cycle, and if it is what does that mean?



There are so many questions we can ask about ourselves until we realize that their fundamental source and point of departure merely arises within our mind as it reacts to the structures of the empirical world. I think these questions do not pertain to any empirical world, and thus appropriate deductions and inductions can not be made off this basis.


I think it would be nonsensical to believe in any conclusion, which merely proceeds from our abstraction of the real world around us. The dynamics and laws of causality operate off the basis of potentiality and kinetic energy, and everything in a sense whether it exists, has exists, or will exists is potentiality and kinetic energy.


This potentiality and kinetic energy, which is determined by the operations/dynamics of the empirical world, and which are determined by the laws of causality/gravity makes it impossible to grasp with such "possibilities." They certainly do allow us to ask such questions, but with no rational conclusion to be made, but only cheap and plastic analogies, which in essence mean little with what they mean to say.

I think the whole will to live operates off this basis of potentialty and kinetic energy, which operates on the basis of fixed and actual concrete empirical beings. This fixed and actual concrete being has restrictions placed on it by the laws of causality/gravity. This is the same with our reason/observations as they pertain to our sensibilities reaction to the sense impressions we obtain of the empirical world around us.


Our sensibilities are restricted to having things impressed on them or acted upon them in so far as their is a sensual recognition of the empirical world around us. Our sensibility also restricts our understanding of general laws and abstract notions/concepts to what we can grasp on the basis of the empirical world and its operations as determined by the laws of causality/gravity.


I think such a question is self-limited, and to ignore these limits is commit suicide. If one wishes to make the empirical world intelligble, and to materialize the abstract and general concepts of the world then he commits suicide.

[Stefan]

The really interesting question is, is the beginning of the Universe the one time phenomena or is it just the beginning of a new cycle, and if it is what does that mean?

I like the idea of a cyclic model more than a singularity one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Unfortunately, one must put faith in Brane Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology) for a logical explanation

If M-Theory gains empirical evidence with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and other aspects to prove the existence of strings and membranes, I think it is likely there is not only a cyclic process, but an eternal inflation of "bubbles." Currently; however, M-Theory has no empirical evidence, and is not much more than mathematical art. Possibly relevant art, and to some physicists - even likely, but still seemingly art.

Edit: Regardless, there is much we don't know.

[arcticwolf]

It is paradox within a paradox. Vicious circle to be resolved by our simple minds ;)

There you go, killing my illusions of grander! :D

[arcticwolf]

I like the idea of a cyclic model more than a singularity one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Unfortunately, one must put faith in Brane Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology) for a logical explanation

If M-Theory gains empirical evidence with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and other aspects to prove the existence of strings and membranes, I think it is likely there is not only a cyclic process, but an eternal inflation of "bubbles." Currently; however, M-Theory has no empirical evidence, and is not much more than mathematical art. Possibly relevant art, and to some physicists - even likely, but still seemingly art.

Edit: Regardless, there is much we don't know.

I would not discard singularity either. Can't it be both, connected to singularity and cyclical?

[Insuperable]

It has no real order, but rather a variant of positions and mechanized operations, which are positioned within different points of the same plane. The real order is merely the illusion, which the thing as it appears to our sense projects upon us. The content and information of the thing is something we abstract through the phenomena regarding the dynamics and operations of the thing.



This means in a sense we can perceive and understand cause as it applies to the empirical world, but we can not always posit a proper correspondence and correlation between this and that. We come to understand a possible deteriministic or general law, which applies itself to the operations and dynamics of the empirical world.


That said we can not verify things merely through our senses, because the senses alone don't give us an adequate understanding of the specific details and understandings of the beings in the empirical world. It only gives us a concrete impression, which our imagination acts up to create an abstract image, and which our intellect acts upon in order to gain some proper understanding of that which appears to be.


That which appears to be generally is in so far as it accords with our intellect's correspondence with the operations of the empirical world. This is safe to conclude in my honest opinion, but beyond that which appears or is capable of being perceived there is little sense our intellect or abstraction can make of this content or material.


Our imagination and intellect acts as modulators of the internal and external structure of a conscious phenomenal being, which can only derive a sense of acting in relation to the actuality of the empirical world. That is they can only gain information and knowledge pertaining to their activity and self-consciousness in so far as it regards that which is empirical and operates in a dynamic manner upon the empirical.


We can understand cause as something which works through the empirical, and operates at the level of the empirical, but to verify anything beyond this cause is nonsensical. To understand any fixed order or meaning beyond this dynamic process, which occurs within the empirical is ridiculous as well.


A thing might have a cause, but this does not explain the independency of that cause, the variance of things it acts on, and the different mechanisms and operations, upon which a cause acts. This means that the different mechanisms and operations of the empirical being, which is a general rule of all empirical beings, is going to change the way a cause affects or influences a things disposition or nature.


A general rule means little if it is not applied to the empirical or does not accord with its random nature, and I think this is one thing we should accept all and all. In so far as this general rule applies to anything of a higher meaning or beyond that which we conceive or perceive of as being life is nonsensical.


We can abstract this general rule off the basis of empirical items, our perceptions/observations of these empirical items, and the action of the intellect/sensibility upon these things. In retrospect when you filter the truth out to its bareness you will realize just how subjective and random it is outside of the mathematical/logical/scientific.


These things ground themselves in the processes of nature or the correlation between necessary symbolic juxtapositions, which all correlate on the basis of certain immediate and general laws. This is to say this general law, if it exists must be derived from a rational and scientific perspective.


A rational perspective is a scientific one, and anything beyond this is incapable of being critiqued, just like anything beyond the phenomenal world is incapable of being sensed. If it can be sensed then most likely it does not exist whatsoever as being applicable to the real world or according itself with the dynamics and operations of the empirical world.


The world as phenomenon though is a meaningless and random mathematical process and operation, which appears to have order, but in retrospect is one massive chaotic spiral. Its an assymetrical order to put it more simply, and this means the variance of things in nature and their mechanisms/operations appear to be in order.


That is in so far as it accords itself with the laws of causality/gravity, but that we don't realize that this is all a farce. Our minds/brains will fix a certain meaning to something on the basis of induction, but this is invalid to coming to an absolute certainty as to this law of causality/gravity, which determines the operations and dynamics of the empirical world seemingly on the head of a needle.


Its something which must be reduced to a matter of scientific and rational deduction, and this is the only possible means we have of conceiving truths as they apply to the empirical world. I think anything beyond this does not apply, and if we realize the world as a meaningless and random process, which is determined on the basis of this general law then we will understand the essence of science.


The essence of science is not to be grasped or delineated through science or matter, but is something which is a self-regulating modulator of its own environment. Its something which has diverged and processes itself in accordance with the environment and laws of nature to the point where it has been reduced to a unique variant, which has its own mode of mechanizing itself and operating.


The order is merely a cover up and illusion to the driving force, which is really disorder/asymmetry, and which determines the world to appear to operate and mechanize itself in a order manner, but which is being determined by forces of meaningless and randomness. This is the whole mathematical trick to the universe, and if someone can discover it then I wish them the best of luck.


That said its important to understand that our brain and minds gives the illusion of an order in the empirical world around us. The brain and mind even goes so far to make the fallacious argument that the driving force behind the laws of causality/gravity are meaningless and random.


Just because a thing appears to be ordered or probably is ordered does not necessarily make it not meaningless and random in its dynamic operations. Meaning and Order though are largely inventions of the brain in reaction to the actual world which surrounds it, and the impressions it receives of it on the imagination.


There is no way to fix an order to this process if it does not apply to a scientific/logical/mathematical approach to the empirical world and the universe. If it is not applicable to it or capable of being applied by it then we reach a dead end where we ought not to proceed any further. I think there are certain limits to the scientific/logical/mathematical approach in so far as it accords with the dynamics and operations of each empirical being in the universe as determined by the law of causality/gravity.



I believe that everything has its basis on a mathematical model, which determines itself in a meaningless and random manner, but produces phenomena to appear to be acting in an ordered manner, and in accordance with an ordered mode of operation. This general law falls flat on its face when we accord the vast differences and variations we have to deal with in the empirical world, not to mention the different mechanisms, causes, and operations of things determined independently of each other.

As the design of the Universe seems an apparent to you I must tell you that chaos is which is an apparent one.
Chaos theory is anything but chaos. It got its name in the beginning of theory and scientists like to say how it is one of the most misnamed theories ever because they found later that behind the chaos lies an order. That is what chaos theory is all about - finding higher level order in the apparent chaos. Anyway what do you expect from a world if not being chaotic, but on a physical level world is described not only by statistical mathematics and aproximation but by the exact mathematics and physics.
There are too many constants in the Universe which need to be constant and symmetry must sometimes be broken in order for them to remain the same. That is order in the long run.

[GeistFaust]

All outside of the scientific/logic/mathematical model is matter which could be said to be a product of the imagination/sensibility/mind. That which deals with the scientific/logic/mathematic is truly objective, and does not deal with the madness of such things dealt within the dogmatic code of religion or theology.


The scientific/logic/mathematic model accords itself with an actual and factual understanding of how the operations and dynamics of the laws of causality/gravity apply to phenomena, and how we can understand phenomena within the broader context of this dynamic operation. We can only understand it in a broader context in so far as we understand the "differentiation" in which the law of causality/gravity applies itself to a single empirical item.


All empirical items more or less occupy their own space as a general law, and it is this space in which their energy has the potentiality to be converted and mechanized into energy in reaction to multiple causes and effects. I don't think you can reduce this whole process to a mere singular reaction, event, or being, but rather to a cyclical chain of events and reactions, which occur within the context of many beings.


If we understand it in this manner we will not limit our scope so much, and we will begin to see the chaotic, random, and meaningless intentionality of the will to live. This is something that can be understood, but one must understand it all as if life was nothing and in a void. It is only by understanding it as such that we realize that their is only a perceived order, and that all is merely a divergence of events and beings that operate on the basis of "differentiated" mechanisms and operations in nature.


I think this is a healthy thing to accept, and in doing so we are preserving the scientific, and thus true and authentic form of investigating ourselves and the world around us in the broader context of the universe. I think the scientific model is limited, because that which it is dealing with, which our senses deliever to us is limited.


That it is limited by the dynamic and kinetic nature of the empirical world, which is determined on the basis of causality/gravity. Its also limited in so far as it can be verified on the basis of scientific measures, which I think will not always be able to understand how a general law applies to a certain set or sequence of reactions.


It is when some consistency in this set or sequence of reactions occurs given our general knowledge of the nature of this reaction process that we can induct the probability of a general law existing for this particular case.


I think that that we need to treat with caution and skepticism regarding the consistency of things, since the consistency of a thing can lead to an illusion, which will lead us to draw inadequate conclusions concernings the general laws of the universe as they apply to the operations of the empirical world.

[Insuperable]

I like the idea of a cyclic model more than a singularity one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Unfortunately, one must put faith in Brane Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology) for a logical explanation

If M-Theory gains empirical evidence with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and other aspects to prove the existence of strings and membranes, I think it is likely there is not only a cyclic process, but an eternal inflation of "bubbles." Currently; however, M-Theory has no empirical evidence, and is not much more than mathematical art. Possibly relevant art, and to some physicists - even likely, but still seemingly art.

Edit: Regardless, there is much we don't know.

Higgs boson has nothing to do with M-theory ( string theory ).
Higgs boson is a mainstream science.
String theory is criticized by the mainstream science

[Insuperable]

I like the idea of a cyclic model more than a singularity one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Unfortunately, one must put faith in Brane Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology) for a logical explanation

If M-Theory gains empirical evidence with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and other aspects to prove the existence of strings and membranes, I think it is likely there is not only a cyclic process, but an eternal inflation of "bubbles." Currently; however, M-Theory has no empirical evidence, and is not much more than mathematical art. Possibly relevant art, and to some physicists - even likely, but still seemingly art.

Edit: Regardless, there is much we don't know.

And I forgot to tell you that eternal inflation theory is dead as of 2010. Its only that some physicists can not reconcile with that

[arcticwolf]

All outside of the scientific/logic/mathematical model is matter which could be said to be a product of the imagination/sensibility/mind.

Yes, there is concept out there that matter is the product of the mind. It's not exactly new either. It's over 2500 years old and it's called Buddhism.

[Stefan]

I would not discard singularity either. Can't it be both, connected to singularity and cyclical?

I was mostly speaking of a mathematical singularity opposed to the prior gravitational singularity.

For some reason I have the idea in my head that a cyclic universe wouldn't have asymptotic intervals, or singularities. Basically it would be infinitely continuous.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5383


Now Steinhardt and Turok say that – according to ‘M-theory’ – the universe need not pass through a singularity between a big crunch and a big bang. Supported by most cosmologists, M-theory says that space–time has eleven dimensions, of which we perceive four: three in space and one in time. Our four-dimensional ‘brane’ – short for membrane – is moving among the remaining dimensions or branes, which are hidden at very small or very large length scales

Ah I remember reading something along the lines of this in the book, "The Elegant Universe" by Brain Greene during one of the chapters about black holes. I should re-read the book again.

[Insuperable]

I was mostly speaking of a mathematical singularity opposed to the prior gravitational singularity.

For some reason I have the idea in my head that a cyclic universe wouldn't have asymptotic intervals, or singularities. Basically it would be infinitely continuous.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5383



Ah I remember reading something along the lines of this in the book, "The Elegant Universe" by Brain Greene during one of the chapters about black holes. I should re-read the book again.

Cyclic Universe theory is dead because it has been found that the Universe wont contract but expand "forever", if that is what you are referring - Cyclic Big Bang theory.

[GeistFaust]

As the design of the Universe seems an apparent to you I must tell you that chaos is which is an apparent one.
Chaos theory is anything but chaos. It got its name in the beginning of theory and scientists like to say how it is one of the most misnamed theoreis ever because they found later that behind the chaos lies an order. That is what chaos theory is all about - finding higher level order in the apparent chaos. Anyway what do you expect from a world if not being chaotic, but on a physical level world is described not only by statistical mathematics and aproximation but by the exact mathematics and physics.
There are too many constants in the Universe which need to be constant and symmetry must sometimes be broken in order for them to remain the same. That is order in the long run.


This supposed order of yours is merely an illusion at the best, and if its not then its not capable of being verified in any empirical sense. That said we can verify certain aspects of the universe's design through mathematic/logical/scientific procedures they ought to accord with general empirical principles, which have been derived through empirical observation and experimentation.


These general principles are not always as fixed as like to believe they are, and sometimes there are some exceptions to a particular model. Pure general principles, which exist independently of our mind, and which need only to be understood in an abstract manner, still need to be verified through rational abstraction based off the sense impressions we have of the empirical world.


That is they must derive themselves from the empirical world, be affirmed in accordance with the operations/dynamics of the empirical world, and be affirmed through the synthetic measures of our own reason/mind. That said this order you speak of in chaos theory is not misunderstood, but is properly understood by many, especially atheists.


If there is a higher level of order in this chaotic orientation of the universe then I would like you to prove it to me, and give it an empirical grounding and application. If it has no capacity to be applied to the empirical world, then it merits no general existence or rule for which it can determine and account for all phenomena and matter in the universe as it pertains to their different mechanisms/operations.


You fall into a blackhole once you try to convince someone you can verify the inner order of what amounts to a blackhole in a scientific/empirical sense. If you can not verify it through the senses or in accordance with the matter of the senses then it does not exist or apply to your reality. I hope you can understand this, and I just realized you are a Christian.


If you are going to justify a claim for some lame and pathetic theological or dogmatic reason than please I ask you to go read the bible. I am sure you can inform us from that "piece of work" that their is a deeper order to the chaos in the universe.


I doubt you will find anything of concrete meaning though or which can be applied to the phenomena and material of the empirical world as it pertains to the operations/dynamics of itself as determined by the laws of causality/gravity. You are going to find you are arguing into circles, and retrograding back onto an argument, which you perceive is orderly, but is actually chaotic.


This is the consequence of ignoring the illusion that your perceptions/brain cast upon you of the universe being and its dynamics being ordered. :rolleyes: I think you should learn that this illusion arises from the fixity of empirical items in a single plane where all phenomena co-exists with each other.


The other illusion arises from the affect the succession or the co-linear nature of time has on your memory, brain processes, and mind. I think you should realize that what is driving this perceived order is a meaningless, random, and chaotic array of kinetic/potential energy, which bases its permeatations on a mathematical model. Good day chap, I don't need to argue with you, especially if you are going to argue for something delusional as Christianity.

[arcticwolf]

Cyclic Universe theory is dead because it has been found that the Universe wont contract but expand "forever", if that is what you are referring - Cyclic Big Bang theory.

I think what you mean to say is, this is just the current theory which we can not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt? Do I understand this correctly? ;)

[StonyArabia]

To serve the purpose of God and to be takecarers of the earth, be it's Vicegerents. Thus the purpose is to come close to God, however because the evil can often consume the self, humanity often forget it's purpose and becames one of the most destructive forces known to the earth. Peace can only come with a clean soul and self. Thus it all goes to peity and virtues that are practiced and this how both the self and earth will eventually heal. Arrogance for example is the roots at the destructive of the Self, so in essance the human self is the earth itself.

[GeistFaust]

Yes, there is concept out there that matter is the product of the mind. It's not exactly new either. It's over 2500 years old and it's called Buddhism.



Yes, and its about time people in the West start realizing this fact/truth, but I don't necessarily mean we all should convert to Buddhism.


I think Buddhism realizes a lot of the fundamental truths and facts of life, but does a poor job of putting a structure or rational guidline around it.


The reason for this is because Buddhism is negatory, and not something which seeks to project meaning, through rationalizations, onto that which is merely a product of the mind.

[Stefan]

Higgs boson has nothing to do with M-theory ( string theory ).
Higgs boson is a mainstream science.
String theory is criticized by the mainstream science

The mass of the Higgs Boson can be predicted by the super-symmetric standard model(40-90 GeV), if the Higgs Boson is discovered, and it verified to have the predicted mass, then it is the most substantial evidence for super-symmetry. Of course, it doesn't prove anything of strings or M-branes, but it would be some sign of heading in the right direction at least.

[Insuperable]

This supposed order of yours is merely an illusion at the best, and if its not then its not capable of being verified in any empirical sense. That said we can verify certain aspects of the universe's design through mathematic/logical/scientific procedures they ought to accord with general empirical principles, which have been derived through empirical observation and experimentation.


These general principles are not always as fixed as like to believe they are, and sometimes there are some exceptions to a particular model. Pure general principles, which exist independently of our mind, and which need only to be understood in an abstract manner, still need to be verified through rational abstraction based off the sense impressions we have of the empirical world.


That is they must derive themselves from the empirical world, be affirmed in accordance with the operations/dynamics of the empirical world, and be affirmed through the synthetic measures of our own reason/mind. That said this order you speak of in chaos theory is not misunderstood, but is properly understood by many, especially atheists.


If there is a higher level of order in this chaotic orientation of the universe then I would like you to prove it to me, and give it an empirical grounding and application. If it has no capacity to be applied to the empirical world, then it merits no general existence or rule for which it can determine and account for all phenomena and matter in the universe as it pertains to their different mechanisms/operations.


You fall into a blackhole once you try to convince someone you can verify the inner order of what amounts to a blackhole in a scientific/empirical sense. If you can not verify it through the senses or in accordance with the matter of the senses then it does not exist or apply to your reality. I hope you can understand this, and I just realized you are a Christian.


If you are going to justify a claim for some lame and pathetic theological or dogmatic reason than please I ask you to go read the bible. I am sure you can inform us from that "piece of work" that their is a deeper order to the chaos in the universe.


I doubt you will find anything of concrete meaning though or which can be applied to the phenomena and material of the empirical world as it pertains to the operations/dynamics of itself as determined by the laws of causality/gravity. You are going to find you are arguing into circles, and retrograding back onto an argument, which you perceive is orderly, but is actually chaotic.


This is the consequence of ignoring the illusion that your perceptions/brain cast upon you of the universe being and its dynamics being ordered. :rolleyes: I think you should learn that this illusion arises from the fixity of empirical items in a single plane where all phenomena co-exists with each other.


The other illusion arises from the affect the succession or the co-linear nature of time has on your memory, brain processes, and mind. I think you should realize that what is driving this perceived order is a meaningless, random, and chaotic array of kinetic/potential energy, which bases its permeatations on a mathematical model. Good day chap, I don't need to argue with you, especially if you are going to argue for something delusional as Christianity.

In order for mathematics to work there must be an order. You do not need to write up fancy words and novel size posts to say otherwise

[Insuperable]

The mass of the Higgs Boson can be predicted by the super-symmetric standard model(40-90 GeV), if the Higgs Boson is discovered, and it verified to have the predicted mass, then it is the most substantial evidence for super-symmetry. Of course, it doesn't prove anything of strings or M-branes, but it would be some sign of heading in the right direction at least.

The Higgs mass in that range has been excluded like zillion years ago by experimental data. LOL.

[GeistFaust]

To serve the purpose of God and to be takecarers of the earth, be it's Vicegerents. Thus the purpose is to come close to God, however because the evil can often consume the self, humanity often forget it's purpose and becames one of the most destructive forces known to the earth. Peace can only come with a clean soul and self. Thus it all goes to peity and virtues that are practiced and this how both the self and earth will eventually heal. Arrogance for example is the roots at the destructive of the Self, so in essance the human self is the earth itself.


This is all too theological and abstract to be applicable to reality and the way one filters his experience, thinks of them, and acts upon them. If a God can not be proved than how can his "existence" being correlated with the real. That if God is merely a hypothetical being, which can not be applied to the empirical or can not be grounded in an empirical manner than what argument can be made for God's existence as it pertains to the empirical.



If we argument for the existence of God in the context of the empirical than a contradiction arises in regards to the empirical world. A thing can not co-exist within the same plane as that which created it. At the same time if God can not be applied or does not apply to the empirical world and the operations/dynamics of it then how we can correlate our perception/observation of the world with the existence of a God.


That is how does this correlate with a divine creator who created the world. It all sounds like a bunch of an abstract nonsense, which theology has find in its meaningless manner to construct and invent. The question is God an invention of the brain or is the brain an invention of God.


I think that given our understanding of the empirical world, its dynamics/operations, and proximate causes we can induct that its most probable that God has no correlation with this.


The question next is we should negate the existence of God on this basis. My answer is not necessarily, but we can induct that the probability of such a being existing, especially as Christianity/Islam/Judaism imagines it to be fallacious and non-existent.

[GeistFaust]

In order for mathematics to work there must be an order. You do not need to write up fancy words and novel size posts to say otherwise


I don't think order is a necessity in order for mathematics to function or operate in an appropriate manner.

I think that mathematics, science, and logic create an order out of the chaos in a particular sense.

In another manner they are affirming the chaos of the universe, by affirming the order of things in a purely synthetical sense.

[Insuperable]

I think what you mean to say is, this is just the current theory which we can not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt? Do I understand this correctly? ;)

It is proven, it is not a theory. The expansion of the Universe not does only not slowing down but it is accelerating. Proven in 1998. Nobel prize awarded 2011.

[arcticwolf]

Yes, and its about time people in the West start realizing this fact/truth, but I don't necessarily mean we all should convert to Buddhism.


I think Buddhism realizes a lot of the fundamental truths and facts of life, but does a poor job of putting a structure or rational guidline around it.


The reason for this is because Buddhism is negatory, and not something which seeks to project meaning, through rationalizations, onto that which is merely a product of the mind.

Not sure what you mean by negatory. Buddhism is realistic.

[GeistFaust]

Not sure what you mean by negatory. Buddhism is realistic.



I think its pretty evident what I mean by negatory. I am speaking about the emphasis on the negation of desire and self in order to reach nirvana.

I know a lot of Buddhism is based on reality, but it does a poor job of systemizing or rationalizing it into a broader context, which takes on a more specific meaning.

[Insuperable]

I don't think order is a necessity in order for mathematics to function or operate in an appropriate manner.

I think that mathematics, science, and logic create an order out of the chaos in a particular sense.

In another manner they are affirming the chaos of the universe, by affirming the order of things in a purely synthetical sense.

You are accusing me for being a Christian. I saw too many time in real life and on the TV when people asked atheists why mathematics works they simply said "I do not know". It is a descent answer and I can go with that answer since I am Christian who believes in something not because I am 100 percent sure in that.
The point is that they will never say there is no order.
Your logic is flawed. It is the order which created mathematics, logic and above all the science.
You are an intelligent person and I can not believe I am discussing this with someone of your intelligence.

[arcticwolf]

It is proven, it is not a theory. The expansion of the Universe not does only not slowing down but it is accelerating. Proven in 1998. Nobel prize awarded 2011.

Yes that part is proven, I don't grasp how that proves that it will not have an end at some point.

[GeistFaust]

You are accusing me for being a Christian. I saw too many time in real life and on the TV when people asked atheists why mathematics works they simply said "I do not know". It is a descent answer and I can go with that answer since I am Christian who believes in something not because I am 100 percent sure in that.
The point is that they will never say there is no order.
Your logic is flawed. It is the order which created mathematics, logic and above all the science.
You are an intelligent person and I can not believe I am discussing this with someone of your intelligence.



I think a lot of things at times operate off the basis of probability, and we can only make inductions based off of certain observations/analysis. This is the best we can do at times, and the dynamic nature of the empirical does not always allow us to show consistency in the order of its mechanisms. I think that chaos, meaningless processes, and randomness coincide with mathematical order of the universe.


That is a certain process or the sucession of one event from another as we perceive and observe it appears to be ordered. That said this order is a product of our mind in order to organize and gather a proper understanding of how the law of causality/gravity applies itself within the context of the empirical.


That said I don't think a consistent understanding can be made between what we observe in the context of causality/gravity and the dynamics and operations of the empirical world as determined by these laws of causality/gravity.


Order is an illusion of our brains/minds in reacting to fixity of the empirical world as it co-exists within a single plane of existence, in which our senses gather impressions, our intellects makes sense of the operations/nature of the empirical world and its own nature within this context, and upon which our sensibility/imagination gathers imagery.


I think our sensibility/imagination often fool us, and that we can not trust our sensibilities understanding in correlation to what is impressed upon our senses, and then collected and analyzed by our intellect. I think the problem in seeing the way the world orients itself whether it be in an ordered or chaotic manner is that we fail to see both in each other.


We fail to see the order as being determined by the chaos, and that the chaos falls into what seems to be a natural order in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.


I think that outside this order is merely a product of chaos, and merely coincides with the chaos, which manifests itself through the potentiality/kinetic energy of the dynamics and operations of the empirical world as they are determined by the laws of causality/gravity.

[arcticwolf]

I think its pretty evident what I mean by negatory. I am speaking about the emphasis on the negation of desire and self in order to reach nirvana.

I know a lot of Buddhism is based on reality, but it does a poor job of systemizing or rationalizing it into a broader context, which takes on a more specific meaning.

The negation of desire and self is just a part of reality or strictly speaking those are the two main reasons that constrict and limit mind's ability to perceive reality directly. In other words if even a vestige of either one is present in the mind not matter how minute, the mind is incapable of grasping reality fully.

The whole thing is about the tuning of the mind to be the precise tool for the job of inspecting/investing reality.

[GeistFaust]

The negation of desire and self is just a part of reality or strictly speaking those are the two main reasons that constrict and limit mind's ability to perceive reality directly. In other words if even a vestige of either one is present in the mind not matter how minute, the mind is incapable of grasping reality fully.

The whole thing is about the tuning of the mind to be the precise tool for the job of inspecting/investing reality.


Yes, but what is the point of understanding and comprehending the void, which is life if we do not project our own subjective desires and intelligence onto it. I find the whole project to be worthless, meaningless, and self-defeating. The mind necessitates in its reaction to the empirical material of its environment, to instinctually make sense of the content and information of the empirical world as it coincides with the dynamics/operations of the empirical world.


I think this necessitates that their be some form of subjective intelligence or desire involved this, and you can not say there is none. There is not just a mere void, but this void is filled in by our own subjectivity, which is not a mere subjectivity, but a self-consciousness that transcends itself.


It is the subjective I, which derives and abstracts the potentiality or kinetic energy behind the empirical material of our senses into something meaningful and structured. Meaning can only be derived through the subject and through the subjectivity of that subject. It is the subject who is the catalyst of creativity, since the energies of the subject are constantly being utilized and applied in the subjectivity of the subject.


This subjectivity is necessitated by our instincts/brain/mind in order to survive, and it is upon this measure that we strive to know things as they are. We desire to expand upon this model, and to explain it as a void is merely nonsensical in my opinion.


Reality is the I, and it is upon the I that self-consciousness is derived and abstracted in a sense that reflects the empirical world and which shapes and crafts the empirical world into something meaningful for the observer/subject/

[arcticwolf]

Yes, but what is the point of understanding and comprehending the void, which is life if we do not project our own subjective desires and intelligence onto it.

The point according to Buddhism is to cease to participate in the cosmic spectacle which universally has three characteristics: impermanence, impersonality and suffering. In other words it is to stop creating this reality by expiring ignorance in the mind. That is the point according to Buddhism. All this you see or perceive around you is the product of stupidity to be blunt. Buddhism aims at extinguishing this stupidity. I never said Buddhism was politically correct :D It's brutal at times ;)

[GeistFaust]

The point according to Buddhism is to cease to participate in the cosmic spectacle which universally has three characteristics: impermanence, impersonality and suffering. In other words it is to stop creating this reality by expiring ignorance in the mind. That is the point according to Buddhism. All this you see or perceive around you is the product of stupidity to be blunt. Buddhism aims at extinguishing this stupidity. I never said Buddhism was politically correct :D It's brutal at times ;)


That is self-defeating in my opinion, and its leads to all kinds of evil. I think it could lead to mental/psychological instability, and all other kinds of evils.

Schoepenhauer described that if one wishes to discover and search beyond the veil of Maya then he would endure evil instead of good.

Negating the world's suffering through suffering is wrong just as over indulging in pleasure to negate it is wrong. The only appropriate way to deal with the world is through rationality and a stoics mentality.

[arcticwolf]

That is self-defeating in my opinion, and its leads to all kinds of evil. I think it could lead to mental/psychological instability, and all other kinds of evils.

Schoepenhauer described that if one wishes to discover and search beyond the veil of Maya then he would endure evil instead of good.

Negating the world's suffering through suffering is wrong just as over indulging in pleasure to negate it is wrong. The only appropriate way to deal with the world is through rationality and a stoics mentality.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions here. Buddhist does not suppress suffering and forces the mind to conform to the steel grip of the will. The whole process of refining and tuning the mind is gentle and very patient, it's gradual. The end product is the mind perfectly balanced, in the state of constant equanimity. In other words happiness and unhappiness are not the goal as both are inferior to neutrality. For a tool to be perfectly suited for the job at hand, that tool has to fit for the job. Perfectly balanced mind is the perfect tool to investigate reality. That's the premise of Buddhism.

But Buddhism is just one of the ways to look at this and not all of us are Buddhists or are even familiar or interested in Buddhism. I don't want to make this thread about Buddhism. But if you want to discuss it from that angle you are welcome to do that.

[Drawing-slim]

When we die all the matter and particles that make our body separate, huging it out for the last time, walkin way knowing once they were part of somthing bigger and more cimplicated which randomly or not land and fucntion for some different form of existnece.

But the soul factor remains more for debate.
What is the soul, we humans suppose we have a soul which sperates us from annimals etc

What is soul, what is made of, where does it go when we die ?

[arcticwolf]

When we die all the matter and particles that make our body separate, huging it out for the last time, walkin way knowing once they were part of somthing bigger and more cimplicated which randomly or not land and fucntion for some different form of existnece.

But the soul factor remains more for debate.
What is the soul, we humans suppose we have a soul which sperates us from annimals etc

What is soul, what is made of, where does it go when we die ?

That depends on who you ask, and how you define it. To some it is a permanent entity a true essence of a human being or a being in general. Some identify it with consciousness, and some don't think it exists at all. As anything based on belief it's debatable. One thing is for sure that knowing beats believing every time. It makes sense to embark on the journey that leads to experiential knowledge. Faith does nothing to further knowledge of any kind.

[Insuperable]

Yes that part is proven, I don't grasp how that proves that it will not have an end at some point.

The end is something else but cyclic Universe is not an option anymore

[Grumpy Cat]

http://www.usernetsite.com/humor/how-evolution-happens/eat-survive-reproduce.jpg

[007]

We are here to determine whether IM is or looks white. :D

[arcticwolf]

We are here to determine whether IM is or looks white. :D

Hahaha That's the most plausible answer so far. :p

[Corvus]

IMO it is to pass the genes and wisdom to the next generation, in other words, to have children.

[arcticwolf]

It sure seems that way most of the time at the basic level. But there is this little thing ... nothing is what it seems. ;) In reality we are not sure what we are. The deeper you dig in quantum physics all this seems more like an idea/thought than anything else. Matter is all we know so far or can prove. Ignorance may or may not be bliss. :p