Quantum Quack:
Oh, I quite agree with Scott Myers, also. But on a different level the notion of now as change is indeed an interesting concept.
Infinitethought:
You seem to not realize one very, very important concept, Infinitethought, that whilst measurement is arbitrary, what is being measured is not. It does not matter if I measure x amount of space in Imperial, Metric, or any other system, how many "glinkgos" it is does not matter, but that it is measuring space.
When I walk down the street, I don't see any "points" in my experience. I see a continuum. I don't see the concepts "past" and "future". Again they are simply a measuring standard.
You do not see it, but you experience it. The now of this moment is different from the now that just ended, in this preception of change - which requires time - you do gain a notion of the past.
2.) By me asking "How long is now" it shows the flaws in the argument for "time". There are people here arguing that time exists objectively. If that were so, then one would be able to measure the now.
The now is an infinitely small point of time that is experienced successively. It cannot be measured, as it is infinitely small, but due to Zeno's Paradox being false - as I shall show sometime soon - one can go beyondit.
Ontop of that, the notion of "objective time" is validated by the fact that time has a physical correlate in atomic motion impacted by temperature, speed, and gravity.
And this is where Multiverses come in. You live in a timeless continuum, and are not at the mercy of the "flow of time" and the events that are "ordered" to happen by "Father Time".
I am going to call you on this one. If time is not a reality, and you can transcend this and "choose your reality" as such has been said before, I ask you to go forward in time, and tell me the number I will pick. In order to truly complicate the matter, this number will be betwixt 1 and 50 digits but will be an integer, be it positive or negative. I will send the number and you will send your guess/knowledge of my number to the same neutral observer, I suggest Quantum Quack, perhaps, through PM. He will then reveal on this thread the answer.
nameless:
First off, what's with the bold?
I know that going slowly won't help. While you are imprisoned within your little box of 'rules' for 'discussions', and everything else I'd wager, fundamentalism is its own prison. Anything that questions the firmly held fundamentally religious BELIEFS of materialists is 'violently' attacked as a defence mechanism. All emotional, pseudointellectual reaction.
Yes, I am surely the Pope James I of Materialism here, believing in my Divine Doctrine of Materialism, in the One True Church of Objective Reality. In materium sancti...Interestingly, I am also Pope James I of the One True Church of R. Dorothy Wayneright. If anyone gets that last reference, major kudos.
Every-THING is a fiction.
First a definition, and if you wish to argue this too, argue with the dictionary.
fic·tion n.
a) An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b)The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
c) Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.
All of your experience, your whole 'universe' and all the 'real stuff' in it exist within your mind. There is NO WAY for you to ever know whether your concepts, your mental constructs are accurate or otherwise represent any THING 'outside' your mind, IF there IS anything outside your imagination. We can never know if it 'represents actuality'.
Now, there is a bacic lesson. And that is the veracity of my statement. If it doesn't fit in with the 'rules' and 'defences' that you use to keep 'scientific reality' and 'truth' at arm's distance in defence of your delicate beliefs, thats your business. I also will not argue with a fundamentalist religionist regarding their contention that their scripture is infallible and directly from the mouth of their god(s).
Another basic lesson can be learned from a precursory study of Quantum mechanics, which also supports the above statement. QM also tells us that at bacic, foundational levels, there is no 'matter' there is consciousness as the 'Ground of all Being', not little tiny particals. Consciousness must exist for there to be what is percieved (within consciousness) as materiality.
1. Everything is fiction.
2. The self is a thing.
3. The self is fiction.
Are you willing to argue that line?
If the self is a fiction, then you cannot even prove your own words.
Also, if your definition of "thing" (as it appears to be) means only "physical thing" and not "everything in the universe including ideas", then I shall state that there is no logical incoherence in the statement of "every THING is fiction" but rather that it is simply untrue for reasons shall become manifest in the answer to my next part of your statement.
There is "no way"? Ever try? Again "Argument Against Idealism", I defy you to read it and refute my arguments. Refute them and I'll concede that Idealism is a metaphysical possibility and you'll be one step closer to convincing me of your claims.
I also will note the irony that you call me a religious fundementalist, considering the "true believer" stance you have adopted, and claiming my beliefs are invalid as they disagree with yours and ending it on there. Telling me constantly that I am outmodded and incorrect, yet providing no evidence to demonstrate this. If I'm Pope James I, you're the Ayatollah Nameless.
I'd also ask you to provide quotes from Quantum Mechanical experts that "consciousness" is the "Ground of all Being". That consciousness has any reality outside of the brain, even, and that this theory has been demonstrated to be true under scientific conditions. You know, someone like Hawking, or Einstein, or anyone worth while. Also, if you might, please demonstrate that this is a majority position amongst the scientific community, or that there is any indication that it will, if you manage to dredge up one or two opinions from learned men. There are, afterall, some scientists who are "Creationists" and other nonsense, so not every scientist can be counted on to speak scientifically.
If you are interested in furthering an understanding of 'truth/reality', as opposed to desperately defending your 'beliefs', a sincere study of QM might be helpful, also the extant various scriptures and writings of the enlightened, along with all other 'relevent disciplines', such as metaphysics, mysticism, Noetics, neuro-sciences, etc... All seem to lead the NON-AGENDIZED 'seeker' to the same 'place'.
I have studied QM quite a deal. Moreover, who is the "religious zealot" now? I should read "scriptures" of the "enlightened"? "Enlightened" to what? I should listen to "mysticism"? Yeah? And do you know what "metaphysics" even means? Metaphysics is a philosophical discipline concerning the nature of reality and being. We are arguing metaphysics right now! I think I'm pretty knowledgable of it, no? And noetics? Why should I believe in this? And neuro-sciences, actually, seem to demonstrate a hardline materialist notion of the mind, rooting consciousness and thought in it alone.
Fine, I'm willing to be incorrect (as I am never 'wrong', but that might be too fine a distinction for you to understand). Feel free to show me something, anything, that science has 'proven'!! And fkking with my words proves nothing. Burn the straw men and deal with the substance!
Hardly a "straw-man" to call you on a logical fallacy in your thought. If nothing can be proved, yet you claim that this is truth, then things can be proved, and thus your original statement is false. If you can deal with this contradiction, that is your logical insufficiency, not mine.
But sure:
How about the physical laws of nature? Thermodynamics, the Speed of Light, the Laws of Motion, the Law of Conservation of Energy...et cetera? Or how about the existence of the QM phenomenon you reference?
No, any 'belief' is based on a fiction, or worse, a lie, at its foundation. I have no beliefs. I don't assimilate the notion of an 'external' universe (into my present understanding) beyond 'mind' because there has NEVER been, nor can be any evidence for such a thing. That is why I liken your 'belief' to 'fundamentalist religious belief', an 'emotional belief' that requires delusion and twisted science and 'dark logic' to validate and 'uphold' such a 'belief'. It is not that 'I' do not hold it so, neither science nor enlightened 'minds' throughout the millennia hold it so, and from my own studies and cogitations, which have been quite extensive, I too find no evidence of the existence of anything 'objective'. That is merely a delusion, IMO, held as a result of taking your own SUBJECTIVE sensory input (illusions) and thoughts to be in an accurate relationship with their PERCEIVED 'objects'. Believing in the 'reality' of an 'illusion, is 'delusion'!
Again, read my "Argument Against Idealism". I believe I have conclusively proven that external reality must exist, based on the nature of knowledge itself.
Also, please demonstrate your claims that objective reality cannot exist? Please give me all your arguments? Because, as it stands, you have offered none, and thus your cries that my beliefs are "delusion" and "dark logic", sound far more like the rantings of a zealot than a rational philosopher.
Actually, what we call 'photons' are absolutely dark. There is no 'sky' to be 'seen' other than in the mind as a result of our ocular and nervous stimulation by 'waves of potentiality'. The 'blue' is in your mind, not in the 'sky', which is also in your mind.
The perception of blue may be simply how we see blue, but the frequency of the the photons are always produced by the sky in the frequency humans pick up as blue. Moreover, you just invalidated your very statmeent, by noting that there is an interaction betwixt your so called "waves of potentiality" and the "ocular and nervous system". Both must -exist- in order for that interaction to take place. They are not in my mind but exist independent of it due to that very fact.
Actually, 'shock waves' are absolutely silent. There is no 'sound' 'out there' in the universe. Shock-waves must interact with a conscious membrane, such as an ear-drum, and IN THE MIND be translated into what is 'perceived' as 'sound'. So far, the universe in front of your nose is absolutely dark and absolutely silent. The same it true for all the 'evidence' of all your senses that your mind formulates into a 'universe of 'light', 'sound', 'motion', 'smells', etc...
I never once claimed that shockwaves weren't "silent" in and of themselves, but rather, that we -perceive- such shockwaves as sound. The shockwaves exist, we pick them up as sound. Ontop of that, any thing we have ever found has been through the senses, so the very phenomenon which you believe to be "more real', or "only real", or whatever you're attempting to prove, are in fact validated by the senses at one point.
Fear not, no harm done. You were on the correct track... You just didn't follow the implications, or the science, very far... (it DOES tend to screw with our delicate 'beliefs'!).
I followed it to precisely where it lead. Sound exists as shockwaves in the air and independent of an observer, still exist by virtue of how the physical laws work.
"From QM to Buddhism to Psi phenomena to Chaos Magic, Consciousness, Noetics, Sufism, Gnosticism, Zen, Martial Arts, Bushido, etc...."
And you call me a religious zealot, when you follow Buddhism, Sufism, Gnosticism, and Zen? And "Psi Phenomena" which almost all the time have never been validated? And Chaos Magic? When's the last time -that- was validated under scientific scrutiny? And since when does Bushido cover such things? Bushido is the warrior ethics of the samurai, that is all.
A fictitious 'year' consists of 365 fictitious days for the fictitious earth to circumnavigate the fictitious sun. Fictitious 'me' has used his fictitious 'time' to gain a very good fictitious 'understanding' of the 'fiction' that so many deluded fictitious people 'believe' to be 'real'.
This leads to me to ask: If -everything- is fictious, how do you come to truth? You say you have truth, do you not?
Scott Myers:
I love you, man. Truly. Excellent responses across the board.
