Imagine Time
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No.. are you really saying that imagination causes time to exist ??
Yes.
In the Buddhist notion, objects do not arise other than through the mind. So is anything.
The very foundation of ''things'' being recorded by us, is the only true reality with meaning. Can you say ''Universe,'' without someone there to say it?
We give meaning to reality. This also goes for time.
In the Buddhist notion, objects do not arise other than through the mind. So is anything.
The very foundation of ''things'' being recorded by us, is the only true reality with meaning. Can you say ''Universe,'' without someone there to say it?
We give meaning to reality. This also goes for time.
"If a tree falls in a forest, do you hear it?"
Quite simply that old statement is all about if you are the observer, however the point is that the Tree will make noise when it falls, it's just you'll only hear it if you are their to observe it falling.
In regards to your notion of Buddhist literature, if one night you outright died for some reason, the Universe would continue, people would still go about their lives, so was your observation accountable for anything?
Technically your observations dictate how 'You' live and what you do has impact on the universe, just not a great deal. Obviously some people have made a far greater impact, for instance the majority of us would know who George Orwell was and perhaps seen, read or have heard of "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
Obviously Artists, Writers, Philosophers, Scientists, Doctors and of course Politicians can shape the world in regards to their own acclaim, as it was true with Religions and Kings/Queens but not so much nowadays.
Those are examples of how people can make impacts on this world, however our world is but a grain of sand on an infinite stretch of beach known as the Universe. So to suggest that Shakespeare has any relationship with Alpha Centauri (other than 'Radiologically/Television broadcasts of plays) is a real stretch.
It's much like the argument that a Astrologer argued in how 'The planets have relevance over our day to day lives' and how the Astrologers seem to neglect that the bodies of mass in regards to Solar systems (Stars) and their orbiting bodies out weighs our solar system many thousand times over. Yet they neglect them in their 'Calculations' which by their words 'Are accurate'.
Quite simply that old statement is all about if you are the observer, however the point is that the Tree will make noise when it falls, it's just you'll only hear it if you are their to observe it falling.
In regards to your notion of Buddhist literature, if one night you outright died for some reason, the Universe would continue, people would still go about their lives, so was your observation accountable for anything?
Technically your observations dictate how 'You' live and what you do has impact on the universe, just not a great deal. Obviously some people have made a far greater impact, for instance the majority of us would know who George Orwell was and perhaps seen, read or have heard of "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
Obviously Artists, Writers, Philosophers, Scientists, Doctors and of course Politicians can shape the world in regards to their own acclaim, as it was true with Religions and Kings/Queens but not so much nowadays.
Those are examples of how people can make impacts on this world, however our world is but a grain of sand on an infinite stretch of beach known as the Universe. So to suggest that Shakespeare has any relationship with Alpha Centauri (other than 'Radiologically/Television broadcasts of plays) is a real stretch.
It's much like the argument that a Astrologer argued in how 'The planets have relevance over our day to day lives' and how the Astrologers seem to neglect that the bodies of mass in regards to Solar systems (Stars) and their orbiting bodies out weighs our solar system many thousand times over. Yet they neglect them in their 'Calculations' which by their words 'Are accurate'.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So in essence what you're saying is that people create physical reality as they go along.. ??
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Only from our perspective..
What is so special about humans ? Aren't animals observers as well ?
"In regards to your notion of Buddhist literature, if one night you outright died for some reason, the Universe would continue, people would still go about their lives, so was your observation accountable for anything?"
I think you have misunderstood Reiku's thinking. I believe he meant that if EVERYTHING alive in the universe DIED...then the universe dies too. Why, isn't it obvious, there would be no life...a dead universe. The universe exists so long as there is even one to observe, if there is none to observe, there is no universe.
Unless, off course...IF life is inherent in the stuff you call non-life...particles doing their classical interactions as it is called. But that would mean they are alive and possess some FORM of consciousness, wouldn't it?
No life=No existence
The universe is observing itself, that is us!
I think you have misunderstood Reiku's thinking. I believe he meant that if EVERYTHING alive in the universe DIED...then the universe dies too. Why, isn't it obvious, there would be no life...a dead universe. The universe exists so long as there is even one to observe, if there is none to observe, there is no universe.
Unless, off course...IF life is inherent in the stuff you call non-life...particles doing their classical interactions as it is called. But that would mean they are alive and possess some FORM of consciousness, wouldn't it?
No life=No existence
The universe is observing itself, that is us!
Ah but we are then back to the old argument of what makes an observer. I mean all life could be wiped out, but they might leave mechanical systems that can manufacture themselves and log the universe as a whole.
Although they aren't alive, they are still able to Observe, therefore the universe is not dependant on life existing to exist itself.
Although they aren't alive, they are still able to Observe, therefore the universe is not dependant on life existing to exist itself.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It doesn't need an observer either.
"Ah but we are then back to the old argument of what makes an observer. I mean all life could be wiped out, but they might leave mechanical systems that can manufacture themselves and log the universe as a whole."
In that case...how do you know you are not merely a mechanical system too?
"Although they aren't alive, they are still able to Observe, therefore the universe is not dependant on life existing to exist itself."
Maybe you could illustrate this point more vividly somehow?
I really am no getting it?
How does a non-living thing possibly observe?
After all, isn't observation a quality of life?
Does that mean a rock can observe me?
Where does the observation go?
And who is -they? Robots?
:shrug:
In that case...how do you know you are not merely a mechanical system too?
"Although they aren't alive, they are still able to Observe, therefore the universe is not dependant on life existing to exist itself."
Maybe you could illustrate this point more vividly somehow?
I really am no getting it?
How does a non-living thing possibly observe?
After all, isn't observation a quality of life?
Does that mean a rock can observe me?
Where does the observation go?
And who is -they? Robots?
:shrug:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
"Ah but we are then back to the old argument of what makes an observer. I mean all life could be wiped out, but they might leave mechanical systems that can manufacture themselves and log the universe as a whole."
In that case...how do you know you are not merely a mechanical system too?
"Although they aren't alive, they are still able to Observe, therefore the universe is not dependant on life existing to exist itself."
Maybe you could illustrate this point more vividly somehow?
I really am no getting it?
How does a non-living thing possibly observe?
After all, isn't observation a quality of life?
Does that mean a rock can observe me?
Where does the observation go?
And who is -they? Robots?
:shrug:
Look the whole milky way could be wiped out for all I care, it doesn't mean the end of the universe.
"Look the whole milky way could be wiped out for all I care, it doesn't mean the end of the universe."
Your statement lacks any argument.
Could you give a specific reason why?
Or are you just going to say that is how it is because---I say so?
I am just trying to help you make your point, so I can understand you!
Let me give an example:
Ducks are really squids.
There is no back up to the logic. It doesn't go anywhere.
I know you can do better then that!
Your statement lacks any argument.
Could you give a specific reason why?
Or are you just going to say that is how it is because---I say so?
I am just trying to help you make your point, so I can understand you!
Let me give an example:
Ducks are really squids.
There is no back up to the logic. It doesn't go anywhere.
I know you can do better then that!
No.
"Ah but we are then back to the old argument of what makes an observer. I mean all life could be wiped out, but they might leave mechanical systems that can manufacture themselves and log the universe as a whole."
Frank J. Tipler wrote a book based on this idea. He claimed we would eventually die and be replaced by robots that eventually would build the God Robot. He also claims that cars are alive.
Some of his ideas are pretty good...others seem mistaken.
Frank J. Tipler wrote a book based on this idea. He claimed we would eventually die and be replaced by robots that eventually would build the God Robot. He also claims that cars are alive.
Some of his ideas are pretty good...others seem mistaken.
Help,I'm caught in a "time loop'! I keep seeing the same questions asked over and over again, when will it ever end? :shrug: