"Time" and the Multiverses.

[wesmorris]

Wes, is that 'ramblings' comment a cheap shot?

I heard a rim shot. It's a nifty little trap really, for to claim them otherwise would indeed rob you of a point! lol.

All my BS is ramblings too though, so I was projecting for humorous purposes.

You can only take me as seriously as you take yourself eh?

Yes me too.

(and I only take me seriously part of the time (this wasn't one of those times))

I can't see whether you are smiling or not.

This medium is a bitch sometimes. I was, I promise.

Actually my words ARE a fiction, like everything else, and illustrate my point..

But my friend, the play's the thing!

 

[Prince_James]

Nameless:

I read down a bit and how you completely misunderstood two things:

1. When I said "I have no time" I did not mean "ever". I mean "at the moment". I knew it would take a long time to answer to you and I was tired, it being 10 am and I had not gotten to sleep.

2. I am not saying you are an Idealist (though it would seem you are) but rather, that I have previously presented an argument which I believe is valid here, which I assert proves the reality of external objects.

I will respond to the rest of your posts in the order which they were received with the other, as per usual.

Quantam Quack:

Change yes, this was the impost. A zero duration event horizon of continuous change. Now the big question is this event horizon simultaneous for all objects of mass regardless of relative velocity?

It would stand to reason, that yes, the now, being infinitely small, must exist as the same for all objects of mass regardless of their relative velocity. However, since time otherwise depends on inertial frame, a different amount of 'now moments' will be experienced corresponding to how much time the perceiver experiences. Of course, the answer will also sync together in that tere will be an infinity for each, though "unequal infinities" still equal eachother.

Nameless:

Without putting every sentence of yours that I quote into the traditional 'quote box', I simply put your words into italics and mine into bold for the simple reason of making it easier to read. Thats all. You can have the bold if you like.

Understood. I just found it weird when I read it, is all.

1. Everything is fiction.
2. The self is a thing.
3. The self is fiction.

OK, I'll go along with that.

Good.

Of course not, nothing can be proven.

Yet if nothing can be proven, and we have just proven that...The revelation that nothing can be proven, you see, is a proof itself, and thus refutes its own idea. A contradiction which forces it to be an invalid thought.

Yes, I have no problem including "everything in the universe including ideas and concepts" into my understanding of 'fictitious things'.

Then you must agree that your statement is in contradiction to itself and thus impossible to be considered true.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by 'Idealism' (are you referring to someone or other's writings? I can think for myself, thank you), and you will believe as you will. Not because you are honestly willing to alter your world view as new evidences are found and new hypotheses formed and experience gained, but you seem to have an amotional need to 'believe' that which you do. Security? I don't know or care. I would not, for the same reason, 'debate' a 'true believer' of any garden variety on their 'pet belief'. Y'all (not necessarily meaning you personally) don't care about 'truth', you have your 'beliefs'! So, being that I really don't give a rats wind-hole what you 'believe', again, I'll not engage in a point by point annhilation of your whole 'belief structure' while you don't hear a word that I am saying.

I have no emotional need: I desire only truth. That is my sole desire as regards philosophy. I will abandon any precept which is not in line with the truth.

I have no, and made no 'claims'. I simply share from what I have found. There are some who might find my words boring, useless. That is fine, just 'move on'. There are some who might find my words interesting and wish to give them some thought. And there seem to be those who appear 'threatened' by these words; who 'react' in defensive agressive behavior (language, in this case... war and atrocities in others...)

When you state something is x, you are "making a claim". Saying "time does not exist" is a statement, a claim. Moreover, my "aggressive" behaviour is no more than a challenge towards the beliefs which you believe are true yet I believe are false. I am willing to accept your beliefs as true if demonstrated to be they are.

I don't care to 'change' your thinking. I would consider it a victory if if my words could be 'heard' before the 'defence mechanisms' take over..
I don't want to 'refute' anything that you think is true. I couldn't even if I wanted to make the attempt. Your understanding is just as 'valid' to you as mine is to me.

My "defense mechanisms" are not engaged, simply my reason. I believe you wrong, if you prove, instead, that I am in error, then I shall concede to the truth. However, that my understanding is "valid" to you is surely a lie, as you have demonstrated by asserting a different truth.

"And, you cannot refute what I understand as 'so'... "

Okay, Ayatollah. Whilst I admit the possibility of being wrong, you state that I cannot refute what youhold to be true?

Perhaps you could make an attempt to understand; you would lose nothing, would you, if you made a simple attempt to 'understand where I'm comming from'? You can 'understand' and still not agree... I don't know if making an attempt to understand one's fellows has ever been a 'bad' thing?
This is from where my 'fundamnentalist' referrences come.

I understand where you are coming from. I respect that you hold a belief. But beliefs are not sacred to me, nor does my understanding of where you come from matter, either. I am a lover of wisdom, a philosopher, and as such, I seek truth. I challenge those who I, at the present time, believe are wrong, in hopes that they either come to truth, or they convince me that I am flawed so that I might attain to truth.

At best, you can offer your 'words of your truth', and I can and will, if found worthy, incorporate them into my 'understanding'. You could also do the same. No fkking verbal combat, no debate (the whole Aristotelian concept behind the whole thing brought the world into the state of horror in which it finds itself today), no egotistic 'refutations' of another's 'truth'.

It only mildly satisfies my ego to defeat another in a debate, for my purpose is not to simply be victorious, but to attain to truth. However, it is clear that either you, I, or neither of us are right. To find out we -must- debate, and I ask, what is wrong with debate that you would hate it so?

I am willing to eat my words, just cut and paste for me where I claimed that your 'beliefs' are 'invalid'.

You have never stated the words "your beliefs are invalid" but your assertion of truth and mine stand in opposition, you have championed your position of truth, and you have said I was wrong from many bases, science included. In fact, you do so in the next paragraph.

I'm sure that they are very valid to you, in your universe. Just not to science or to people who 'know' better, ie; have other beliefs, or none at all, in their universes.. You are the one who claimed some sort of 'scientific hogwash' to 'validate' your understanding. I merely attempted to bring you up to speed... with scientific cutting edge understanding of 'reality'.

"Valid in my universe"? We now exist in different ones? How then do we interact? (I know you dod not mean so litterally, but the very notion that we are not existing in the same reality is absurd). Ontop of that, you have offered no proof to demonstrate that my beliefs are not scientific at the moment.

If you honestly seek 'Truth', you will find the way for yourself. Go study the sh!t out of all the 'materialist science' and apply the light of critical thinking along the way. At this point, I could never provide enough 'evidence' for you, and will not be lured into a 'pissing match'!

I have and do.

Do you also buy something because some celebrity on TV endorses it?
Nevertheless, there is enough on the web if you are interested enough in 'Truth' to read thoughts that differ with your 'beliefs'. Folks with 'beliefs' usually focus, unscientifically, on only that which 'supports' those 'beliefs. Only reads authors with whom they agree. It's out there, right at your fingertips. Do the work. Pay YOUR dues.
Bye the way, I liked that 'anyone worth while' comment.

You speak of modern science validating your beliefs. If they did, you could surely provide evidence from those eminent in the field. I have read plenty of sources, and found little to not support my beliefs.

Hahahahahaha, yes!! Cover your ass for all contingencies!! Hahaha... Nice try. And what fallacy would I be committing, oh philosopher, to try to 'demonstrate the validity of a point' by recourse to 'consensus opinion'? Numbers of 'believers' to 'prove' something? Surely you jest!

The scientific community is a confederation of experts. Would not one go to the carpenter's union if one had a question fundemental to carpentry? We gain our knowledge of science from these people, it only makes sense to recourse to them when we have a question about their findings, or if possible, to seek out the answer through experiment ourselves, or through joining their ranks.

Richard Feynman (ever heard of him?) once told me that,
"Quantum Mechanics comes on as so off the wall, that only a mystic state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries."

Funny, considering QM relies on analysis through scientific methods...reason...and mystics would have us no better than apes.

Perhaps auto mechanics might have been more profitable?

Only profitable in the sense that I am not a professional scientist, and thus would make more money if I applied lessons learned from automechancis to my life than simply knowing QM related things.

No.
Well, perhaps on a very elementary level. The first level, actually. You are still enveloped, lost, within the delusions of the senses and the minds constructs.

"Delusions" of the senses? And what other avenue of thought and knowledge do we have but the senses? Intelligence depends on them.

Noetic studies are, "Of, relating to, originating in, or apprehended by the intellect."

Generally, the non New-Age term for this is "psychology" (in the traditional sense) or "Philosophy of the Mind". Considering the dubious link with Pthygoreans and Platonists in their usage of 'nous', I am skeptical of the truth of anything related to this.

However, if you have any particularly enlightening books on the subject, please list some off. I'll see about reading them sometime.

Personally, I think beliefs are for children and would never support such sloppy thinking in anyone. Actually, when you're tired of thinking in the moment, form a 'belief', and 'go back to sleep...

We agree for once.

Not if boldly followed to its natural 'end' while also assimilating understandings gleaned from studies (and, of course, always independent thought and analysis of the 'data' found) of QM, mathematics, logic, meditation, etc... Any sincere 'seeker' will 'evolve', whatever 'path to truth' he is on will be useful, or discarded... Not everyone is interested in truth, though. Many prefer the 'comfort' of their 'beliefs'...

Yes, such as yourself? For again: Modern neuro-science overwhelming supports the notion of the mind in the brain alone. Unless you have some startling revelations?

Sorry, you weren't commenting on my 'thought', you were diddling with my words to egoically win a 'shallow victory' in an arena that we were not discussing. Hence, a straw man. It wasn't what I said that you 'dealt with', but HOW I said it. I have been to the land of 'technical rules' of logical debate. The visit was fruitful in that the visit neatened up my thought processes a bit. I no longer need the rules of the formal language. That little exercise served its purpose.
You find value in my words or you do not.
I'm not playing a game here.
If you find value in my words, you 'win'.
If you understand what I MEAN when I elucidate my 'present understanding' and you reject the 'data' that I am providing, you still 'win' as your thought processes have had a good workout and your 'present understanding' reaches a new 'level', perhaps.
If you get me to think like you do, your ego wins.
That is not a 'good thing', nor an 'honest' or 'sincere' 'goal' in our communication..

We were certainly discussing whether reality is real or fictious, and whether science has ever proved something or not. Your statements betrayed a logical contradiction and still do. I therefore doubt the veracity of your claims.

I do not want you to "think like I do" simply to satisfy my ego, but that I believe I have attained to truth.

Again you put your words in my mouth.

"Everything is fiction" "There is nothing to be proved"

I do no such thing.

Please cut and paste where I actually said such rubbish, or, better yet, just deal with my meaning in the words that I actually use... please?
All I have stated is that 'nothing has ever been 'proven' by science. Any 'legitimate' scientist you ask will tell you the same thing.

I highly doubt that they would not say it is empirically proven.

Dude, believe in whatever god you like. All the fundamnentalist catchwords are there... I believe... conclusively proven... must exist... Well, only if, like all fundamentalists, you refuse to apply any critical thought to your 'beliefs' can you use words like these...

A rather biased position, no? I have demonstrated through philosophy these things.

Even if that were true, it would be impossible for you to ever 'know' it experientially, with 'evidence'.
You cannot get out of your own mind by its own internal thought processes. You will simply travel in smaller and smaller circles 'till implosion and madness or 'enlightenment' and Madness...

True: I can never leave my own mind or internal thought processes. I however, can learn the nature of knowledge, which leads me to revelations that shall soon be expressed. Keep an eye open for new threads by me in the next week.

Or, put another way, the only things that can be 'found' by the senses/mind are the 'things' (concepts) which the senses/mind are capable of 'finding' (conceptualizing). And the circle tightens...

If any such knowledge exists, then we are incapable of ever gaining it. It becomes something which we have no possible access to, and thus can be disregarded. Inf act, we have no reason to even believe such things exist.

Internal consistency to a degree. After all, if the 'fiction' wasn't internally consistent (without too much scientific scrutiny) it wouldn't be all that convincing, would it? A superficial degree, though, as the internal consistency (of the sensual evidence of an external 'reality') cannot view itself from 'outside' it's own closed loop (without a great 'expansion' of 'consciousness').
Logic is an Ouroboros, a serpent that feeds on it's own tail.

And how are we to attain to this "expansion of consciousness?" Moreover, simply because we are confined to the mind, does not mean we cannot again dive prove many a thing.

Better an Ouroboros which is self-evident, then nonsense.

Sorry, but I would love to see you prove that assertion! Hahahahahaha....

Sure. Make a tree unstable, set up a recording piece, and wait for the tree to eventually fall. Or even better: Turn on a stero at a sound level too high for the human ear to pick up and point it towards a glass object.

Yes. Perhaps you need to consult the dictionary re; zealotry.
I practiced many disciplines. I did the 'work'. I left no stone unturned. I 'paid' my 'dues'.
I have no 'beliefs'. I am not 'zealous' about anything. Nothing is that important to me.

I, who profess no religion, am called a religious zealot, whilst you suggest I believe in Sufism was my main point, but as to whether or not you're a zealot, you sem to rather passionatly defend yourself and make little recourse to attempting to prove things.

Although the words of your statement here are 'nonsensical', I think that I understand your meaning, and you are displaying your ignorance of the subject. Try giving this very easy read a glance, http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html

Certainly an interesting website, but I shall note the following:

1. I await them to present their arguments in mainstream scientific journals for scrutiny from their peers, as well as for others to validate their experiments.

2. This does not prove that the mind is somehow not of the body, or non-material. Indeed, that a material mind, rooted in the brain, impacting its surroundings through some medium, would not be outlandish if demonstrated to be so.

You are again displaying your ignorance in the subject. Google it up for yourself, the web is full of informative articles and sites. You can find the answer your own question pretty easily, if you are seriously interested. (Hmm, the 'answers' might 'shake' that 'materialist belief' of yours.) Again, even this is covered in the recommended article above.

I actually have studied some Chaos Magic related things before.

Zen was the 'religion' of the Samurai for a reason. I was interested in why and how Zen applied to their 'mastery'. So, I, again, did the experiment. I followed the 'discipline' and learned what I desired.

Zen was used by the samurai to produce discipline, mental clarity, and a freedom from attachment necessary to kill and die for the sake of one's lord at any moment. Nothing too "mystical" about this.

A good question, if there is no agenda.
First, to speak of 'truth' you would have to define what it is to which you refer. Otherwise we cannot discuss 'it', if there even IS such a 'thing'!! So, I'll await your 'definition' of 'Truth'? (and like an egg, the trap is laid..*__-)

Second, $100. to the first person that can cut and paste MY WORDS (provide a link) where I declare that "I have truth"!

You never declare "I have truth" explicitly, but it is implicit in your assertion. All claims imply truth.

Definition of truth: Correspondence with reality/logic.



Infinitethoughts:

What I am saying is we need a more "advanced" tool, or more correctly the "tool" is completely outdated, due to the discoveries of Quantum Physics. If the discoveries were never made, we would not need a new tool.

Demonstrate these discoveries! Thusfar you have not done so.

Well I said it when I first started this post, which is basically..... it seems that we live in and amongst Infinite Parallel Universes. (Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation.) What we thought was an objective fact of the universe, (time) is really just the motion thru these parallel universes.
This point of view leads us to a much more expanded way of experiencing what is, then the old Classic Newtonian scientific view.
If you have a civilization that exists this way, it seems to me progress can get made and fast.

The Many World's Interpretation suffers from a fatal flaw: It necessitates an incalcuable amount of new mass and energy per infinite-moment and exponentially necessitates more. In essence: It violates the law of conservation of energy on an obscene scale.

Moreover, the notion that we are just seeing "motion" "through" these parallel universes, requires time itself. Motion can only exist in time. And as Scott pointed out, time is a reality experienced.

Think about it. What does our civilzation believe? Ancient and antiquated ideas, based on ancient and outmoded science. Part of the reason is everyone is scared to death of QP, cause it undermines everything we know. Newspapers and TV shows will not touch it with a ten foot pole !

Funny: I often see TV and news on QP. Must be living in another universe!

You are missing the points of my discussion. Hopefully what I answered to Scott above will clear it up ?

Partially. Yet if time is an illusion, and I believe it was you - though it may have been Nameless - which spoke of "picking our reality and not being structured by time!" you ought to be able to go into the future relative to now and find out which I number I chose.

The now line is infinitely thin? Then what do I experience all the time?!
How can something that I experience all the time be infinitely thin?

I will be demonstrating this soon when I refute Zeno's Paradox.

Nameless:

No, you don't, as it weren't!. Every word from your mouth screams non-understanding, more self-delusion?

How so? Because I challenge you?

An emotional and judgemental response. Typical fundamnentalist...

"Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See Synonyms at foolish." - First definition of "absurd" at www.dictionary.com

Who is the emotional and judgemental one now, hmm?

Hahahaha.... You aren't familiar with enough of either 'logic' or 'science' to discuss them with me, much less 'refute' anything.

See above. Though I would laugh when you say I know nothing of "logic" when you do not believe in truth!

You can shut me up immediately, and I'll sit at your feet, O Master, if you just offer ONE SCIENTIFIC ABSOLUTE PROOF of the 'objective existence' of any-thing!!! ANYTHING!! That aught to be simple for you with all your 'refutations' that you speak about yet have not demonstrated at all. AT ALL! Prove one thing, scientifically. Just one! And I will be happy to consider myself 'refuted'! OK? Simple? Go for it.

I assume you will accept both empirical and logical proofs? And you will read my "Argument Against Idealism" as it is a starting point for the theory I shall present?

Furthermore, I think that we have left the 'track' of this thread. If there is more to be said on 'our' subject, perhaps another thread? Out of respect for those trying to discuss this thread's topic?

Why don't you go ahead and make the thread? I'd be glad to move.

Nameless:

It is amazing how much energy people 'spend' trying to understand and 'make real' an 'illusion'. Trying to paste 'hard' sequins and labels on a chimmera so they can 'keep it in a cage' to show off to easily impressed friends. When all these mental callisthenics and work is over, 'time' will still be an 'illusion', a 'fiction' and nothing more (well, perhaps a 'delusion' also..). One cannot make it 'realer' than that despite all the 'mental wranglings' and 'duct tape' in the world!!

Religious dogma. You do not even attempt to prove your assertions there, Ayatollah.

wesmorris:

Yeah but your ramblings aren't real either. Does that rob you of a point?

I would certainly say so.

 

[Prince_James]

Oh, and the Many Worlds Interpretations also violates C, since it would require the creation of an entirely different universe exactly at the infinitely-small moment of possibility for whatever is creating the new universe.

 

[infinitethoughts]

Oh, and the Many Worlds Interpretations also violates C, since it would require the creation of an entirely different universe exactly at the infinitely-small moment of possibility for whatever is creating the new universe.

Not if all the the universes already exist......or better said the static-experiencial-fields.....which leads us into the definition of infinity. One of the definitions of Infinity is everything has already happened.

These infinite parallel static-experiencial-fields are all there waiting. Every time you make a decision, based on your decision you move into the corresponding static-experiencial-fields.

Therefore everything is real, everything is true ?

So then what kind of place is this? Where everytime you make a decision you move into parallel static-experiencial-fields. Where everything revolves around you ? (Each person feels as if "they are the center of".)

It's obvious that "Time" is the measuring standard of someone's invention.....the clock. That's it. Nothing more.

I started this thread to really push the boundaries of knowledge. I've just encountered people obsessed with high school level Science 101.
Except for Nameless and Onefinity.

And Prince James just takes this damn thread and spins it round and round going frikkin nowhere ! Good job "Prince".

Case in point below.

I said:

Ok, we both agree "time" is a tool.
What I am saying is we need a more "advanced" tool, or more correctly the "tool" is completely outdated, due to the discoveries of Quantum Physics. If the discoveries were never made, we would not need a new tool.

And the "brilliant" response?

Demonstrate these discoveries! Thusfar you have not done so.

You're wasting my point-of-focus so I consider it done going round and round in circles with your fundamental views of existance. (On almost every single Newsgroup, you gotta have someone that fills that role seems like.)

So I'm just gonna discuss the cutting edge ideas out there. I'm not interested in high school. Hated it anyway, boring as hell. BORING, BORING ! !

------
-Prince James added to IGNORE list.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Well looks like it's finally becoming common knowledge that this thing we call "time" does not exist. (So sayeth Barbour, Hawking, Misner and other physicist's. Which I've been saying for years, also.)
That we do not exist in a "uni"-verse but rather a Multiverse.

So then what is this "progression" or "movement", that we have labeled as "time"?

Simple, it's the movement thru the Multiverse. Here's where the fun begins:

Everything exists at the same time.

infinitethoughts,

I wouldn't exactly call this common knowledge nor truth. The many worlds
theory is just that... a theory. In this case, it's a theory built on top of many
other theories and this increases the risk that it might not be correct.

Regardiless it is quite cool. The theory does pretty much state that all
probable permutations of matter exist simultaneously.

I think the "movement through the multiverse" explanation of time may be
a misinterpretation however. If the many worlds theory is true then there
is ZERO movement through anything. It's just one static hunk of information
out there. So why do people perceve linear movement? Each state of matter
of a person's brain comes with a perception of that state and a memory
of other states. This would effectively mean that every state of yourself
is percepeiving that state and memory of other states simultaneously and
the combination of state and memory of other states results in an illusion
of linear movement.

It's quite funky.

 

[infinitethoughts]

Crunchy Cat..

Now we're gettin somewhere. Very, very....very good point. You've taken it to the next step. Possibility that there actually is no such thing as movement. Which then now starts to take it to the next challenge....is their actual -space-? Cause without movement, space cannot exist.

"Well of course there is space, there is distance between things you fool." I hear people saying. Yes but, this space, you only know it by your senses. Could it be your senses are fooling you?

No way, my senses would never fool me !

Ok.............Imagine you've lost your memory, maybe to play the latest VR game, who knows. Technology has advanced to the level where Virtual Reality is very very close to "reality". You are in the advanced VR "game".......you would NOT know the difference between "reality" and the VR environment. How would you be able to tell the difference?

Your senses have fooled you.

You're in the middle of an awsome dream, your neighbor decides to have dinner at 3 AM, and being the courteous neighbor he is, he bangs as loud as he can around in the kitchen.................BOOM, the fantastic reality you where in disappears, "instantaneously" you're in a different reality.

Your senses have fooled you?

 

[wesmorris]

Crunchy Cat..

Now we're gettin somewhere. Very, very....very good point. You've taken it to the next step. Possibility that there actually is no such thing as movement. Which then now starts to take it to the next challenge....is their actual -space-? Cause without movement, space cannot exist.

Let me ask: If there is movement because it is thought to be so, is implied that it should be unthought? Is not movement a description for a perspective and if so, is that perspective invalidated by the realization of itself?

"Well of course there is space, there is distance between things you fool." I hear people saying. Yes but, this space, you only know it by your senses. Could it be your senses are fooling you?

What's the difference when they are all you have to go on?

No way, my senses would never fool me !

No, what's the difference if my senses are fooling me?

Ok.............Imagine you've lost your memory, maybe to play the latest VR game, who knows. Technology has advanced to the level where Virtual Reality is very very close to "reality". You are in the advanced VR "game".......you would NOT know the difference between "reality" and the VR environment. How would you be able to tell the difference?

And if you couldn't tell the difference, there could be none to you.

You're in the middle of an awsome dream, your neighbor decides to have dinner at 3 AM, and being the courteous neighbor he is, he bangs as loud as he can around in the kitchen.................BOOM, the fantastic reality you where in disappears, "instantaneously" you're in a different reality.

Damn you must have some vivid dreams. I cannot say that my dreams seem to be "reality" to me. I'm not rejecting that, but just that while in them there is no option for me to consider their nature. While in the dream I do not reflect to see "if this is real". It just is.

Your senses have fooled you?

I don't know if one's sense can fool them, or one is a fool in how they sometimes interpret their senses. I would argue that if one is a fool to believe their senses because they sometimes find their input useful, then everyone is a fool, which robs the term "fool" of any utility.

 

[nameless]

... that I have previously presented an argument which I believe is valid here, which I assert proves the reality of external objects.

No! An argument 'argues', a proof 'proves'. Perhaps this is where your confusion lies.

Yet if nothing can be proven, and we have just proven that...

My statement was that nothing has yet been proven. The evidence (evidence is not proof) validates this statement.

The revelation that nothing can be proven, you see, is a proof itself,

No, a 'revelation' is not a 'proof'. Your non-understanding the meaning of the terms that you use (or have your own 'personal' meanings) make this conversation very difficult, and I seem to be repeating myself much too often.
The simple truth is that you can refute my observation and hypothesis by providing one single 'proof'. I'm thinking that all this wordy BS is a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact that you have no 'proof' to support your 'beliefs'.
Come back when and if you ever do. No more silly wordplay.



I have no emotional need: I desire only truth. That is my sole desire as regards philosophy. I will abandon any precept which is not in line with the truth.

Hmmm, first you say that you 'desire' truth, and then claim to 'abandon' that which is not 'true'. That you desire 'truth' says that you do not 'have it', but you seem to have some sort of fantasy of it to use to discard that which conflicts with your BELIEFS! Irrational and contradictory.

This is purposeless.. I'm not here to 'beat you (your sophomoric understanding) up and leave you bloody' (and you don't even realize that is what is happening!). Sad. Of course the bloody mess can look up from the ground and, responding to the question, "Have you had enough?", say that he is just wearing you down as as he is again kicked in the ribs and vomits blood...
I'm a peaceful guy...

When you state something is x, you are "making a claim". Saying "time does not exist" is a statement, a claim.

Saying that I have never witnessed something is not a claim, but an observation. Saying that science has not found any proof of the independent existence of time, and, yes, past high school science, actually hypothesizes its non-existence. Except for the emotional 'believers' of course..

Moreover, my "aggressive" behaviour is no more than a challenge towards the beliefs which you believe are true yet I believe are false. I am willing to accept your beliefs as true if demonstrated to be they are.

Such nonsense. If I say that I have never seen an angel, and therefore have no reason to incorporate angels into my world-view and understanding, and you 'believe' in angels and 'challenge me to prove that they do not exist (when I only said that there is no evidence to convince me) is the most bass-ackward mental blasphemy I can imagine.

The onus of proof is on you!
Put up or shut up!



"And, you cannot refute what I understand as 'so'... "

Okay, Ayatollah. Whilst I admit the possibility of being wrong, you state that I cannot refute what youhold to be true?

No, Gr asshopper, you cannot refute my EXPERIENCE. This is ridiculous...

beliefs are not sacred to me, nor does my understanding of where you come from matter, either. I am a lover of wisdom, a philosopher, and as such, I seek truth.

All 'beliefs' are 'sacred' to the 'true believer'!
You have NO understanding where I am comming from. And 'truth' means so little to you that you are even lying to yourself. You don't seek 'truth' you seek to support your 'beliefs'. This is delusion at its finest and I am running out of words for you. Sorry, no disrespect meant, but, at this point, you are incapable (apparently) of understanding the deeper concepts that I offer, yet you childishly argue while providing nothing to PROVE your 'belief'!


It only mildly satisfies my ego to defeat another in a debate,

I hope so as it must be a very rare occassion, and mentally challenged children must be difficult to engage...!

what is wrong with debate that you would hate it so?

I do not 'hate' it, I have discarded it as a useless tool. It is a 'competition. In a competition of that sort there must be attack and defence. Win and lose. All is egoic. There is no real communication. It is most difficult to 'contact' a mind that is enclosed in defence or emotionally involved in attack. Both are antithetical to a sharing of information. Which is MY purpose here..

You have never stated the words "your beliefs are invalid" but your assertion of truth and mine stand in opposition,

Perhaps it is just our EXPERIENCE that stand in apparent opposition. I have not 'seen', and you claim to have seen, yet seem to be unable to 'demonstrate' that which you claim to have seen.. Like in the 'spoon-bending' thread...
'Belief' seems to be antithetical to real thought!

"Valid in my universe"? We now exist in different ones? How then do we interact?

You still don't understand the homework from last year but want me to waste my time trying to provide post-grad concepts?
Not yet, Grasshopper...


Funny, considering QM relies on analysis through scientific methods...reason...and mystics would have us no better than apes.

I expected you to disregard the comments of one of the modern giants... Fundamnentalists do it all the time, when it upsets their fragile 'belief' systems.

"Delusions" of the senses? And what other avenue of thought and knowledge do we have but the senses? Intelligence depends on them.

And Mr. Magoo blinks.. albeit for only a microsecond but has no idea of what he saw...
Perhaps you caught a glimpse of the fictitious 'house of cards' that you are trying to live in?

However, if you have any particularly enlightening books on the subject, please list some off. I'll see about reading them sometime.

No you won't.


For again: Modern neuro-science overwhelming supports the notion of the mind in the brain alone. Unless you have some startling revelations?

Lots of 'startling revelations', but you don't want to hear them as they also 'trash' your very limited understanding. Everything that I have been talking about would be startling to a non-agendized, un-emotionally attached (to his 'beliefs') person.
And I don't 'believe' that you are familiar with cutting edge neuroscientific theories. Not at all. Don't blow smoke at me, my BS detector is functioning fine!

I do not want you to "think like I do" simply to satisfy my ego, but that I believe I have attained to truth.

Then offer your PROOF!

"Everything is fiction" "There is nothing to be proved"

I do no such thing.



I highly doubt that they would not say it is empirically proven.



A rather biased position, no? I have demonstrated through philosophy these things.

Whats with the 'disembodied statements'?



And how are we to attain to this "expansion of consciousness?"

If you have to ask, you aren't ready.

Moreover, simply because we are confined to the mind, does not mean we cannot again dive prove many a thing.

Fine, go ahead and dive prove something. Anything. All your words are evidence that you cannot!


Sure. Make a tree unstable, set up a recording piece, and wait for the tree to eventually fall. Or even better: Turn on a stero at a sound level too high for the human ear to pick up and point it towards a glass object.

Another disembodied statement.

Zen was used by the samurai to produce discipline, mental clarity, and a freedom from attachment necessary to kill and die for the sake of one's lord at any moment. Nothing too "mystical" about this.

Again you display your ignorance even of the terms that you use. You know nothing of Zen, you know nothing of 'attachment', you know nothing of mental clarity, and you know nothing of mysticism...

You never declare "I have truth" explicitly, but it is implicit in your assertion. All claims imply truth.

I 'claim' that I have not witnessed something. That is not an assertion nor a claim of 'truth'. This is getting tedious...

Definition of truth: Correspondence with reality/logic.

truth
1) Conformity to (objective -n) fact or actuality.

And this seems impossible to prove.

How so? Because I challenge you?

"Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See Synonyms at foolish." - First definition of "absurd" at www.dictionary.com

Who is the emotional and judgemental one now, hmm?

See above. Though I would laugh when you say I know nothing of "logic" when you do not believe in truth!

More disembodied statements. No context, in other words...

I assume you will accept both empirical and logical proofs? And you will read my "Argument Against Idealism" as it is a starting point for the theory I shall present?

I'm still waiting for your 'proofs'... Lets see your empirical proof. After all, you claim to be able to 'prove' objective materiality, and empiricism is made for just such an occasion. Your 'logic' leaves too much to be desired, your word games are just that, games...
And no, I'm not interested in your 'theories', as your reasoning and knowledge is juvenile and confused and unfounded and emotionally related...

Why don't you go ahead and make the thread? I'd be glad to move.

No, the next time that I shall attempt to communicate with you is to respond to your empirical proof of the existence of an objective material (or any other kind of) 'reality!
Until then...
peace

 

[nameless]

Motion, too, is merely an 'illusion' of the senses and exists solely as a 'mental construct', just like time, space, matter, light, odors, energy, gravity, 'seperation', etc... Everything that the senses deliver to a rather uncritical brain...
*__-

 

[TruthSeeker]

Not if all the the universes already exist......or better said the static-experiencial-fields.....which leads us into the definition of infinity. One of the definitions of Infinity is everything has already happened.

That is in fact one of the solutions for the paradox of God.
Here's somewhat how it goes (sorry I don't have much time. I have more then 20 threads to atend to ):

1) God is omniscient
2) God is omnipresent. AND, here's the tricky thing, His presence is not only on this universe, but throughout the multiverse. That's the reason why he is omniscient, because He has a presence throughout history, and He sees things that already happened, eventhough we cannot perceive those things yet. He lives in a continuous and infinite "now", just like us, but He can perceive it all.

So... if anyone wants to discuss that, maybe we should open a new thread. I think it is an interesting thought....

 

[nameless]

An interesting read. I don't agree with everything, but this can at least open some eyes a bit.

QUANTUM MAGIC ~
REALITY AS DESCRIBED BY QUANTUM MECHANICS

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat..

Now we're gettin somewhere. Very, very....very good point. You've taken it to the next step. Possibility that there actually is no such thing as movement. Which then now starts to take it to the next challenge....is their actual -space-? Cause without movement, space cannot exist.

I don't see movement as a general concept being eliminated in the many
worlds theory. I do see it as being redefined... potentially as a cross section
of ordered states where permutation is linear. I would view space in this
model as the size, properties, and relationships of any give state.

I think the really fun implication is that the quantity and quality of states
are infinite which means that the concept of 'nothing' doesn't exist in reality.

 

[TruthSeeker]

An interesting read. I don't agree with everything, but this can at least open some eyes a bit.

QUANTUM MAGIC ~
REALITY AS DESCRIBED BY QUANTUM MECHANICS

Ever whatched "What the Bleep Do We Know?"....

 

[nameless]

Of course!
Shouldn't it be required viewing for all participants here? *__-

It is difficult holding communicative conversation when one is barreling down the tracks at full contemporary intellectual speed, and others are crawling along in a hand cart!

 

[Prince_James]

Infinitethoughts:

Not if all the the universes already exist......or better said the static-experiencial-fields.....which leads us into the definition of infinity. One of the definitions of Infinity is everything has already happened.

Since when does infinity require that everything has already happened?

These infinite parallel static-experiencial-fields are all there waiting. Every time you make a decision, based on your decision you move into the corresponding static-experiencial-fields.

Proof of this being valid? Each choice also requires a different static-experiencial-field. Multiply this by how many choices for everything and every combination...Moreover, one would also have "other selves" which exist in other static-experiencial-fields through this.

So then what kind of place is this? Where everytime you make a decision you move into parallel static-experiencial-fields. Where everything revolves around you ? (Each person feels as if "they are the center of".)

It's obvious that "Time" is the measuring standard of someone's invention.....the clock. That's it. Nothing more.

How do you get from that to time?

I started this thread to really push the boundaries of knowledge. I've just encountered people obsessed with high school level Science 101.
Except for Nameless and Onefinity.

What an arrogant statement.

And Prince James just takes this damn thread and spins it round and round going frikkin nowhere ! Good job "Prince".

I debate all things which I think are not truth. I'm not interested in simply "moving the thread along".

You're wasting my point-of-focus so I consider it done going round and round in circles with your fundamental views of existance. (On almost every single Newsgroup, you gotta have someone that fills that role seems like.)

So I'm just gonna discuss the cutting edge ideas out there. I'm not interested in high school. Hated it anyway, boring as hell. BORING, BORING ! !

You sir, are interested then only in beliefs, not in truth. Go, conjecture as you may.

All hail InfiniteThoughts: One who can't take challenges to his precious beliefs! Intellectual cowardice. Pathetic.

nameless:

No! An argument 'argues', a proof 'proves'. Perhaps this is where your confusion lies.

An argument against something which comes to conclusions certainly proves.

My statement was that nothing has yet been proven. The evidence (evidence is not proof) validates this statement.

You did not quantify it with a "yet" in your original statment. Ontop of that, you asserted proof of many things, through implying that they were true.

No, a 'revelation' is not a 'proof'. Your non-understanding the meaning of the terms that you use (or have your own 'personal' meanings) make this conversation very difficult, and I seem to be repeating myself much too often.

If you realize something to be true, and have proven it through your argument, then how can you not be said to have had proven something?

The simple truth is that you can refute my observation and hypothesis by providing one single 'proof'. I'm thinking that all this wordy BS is a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact that you have no 'proof' to support your 'beliefs'.
Come back when and if you ever do. No more silly wordplay.

I have presented many both here and elsewhere, your inability to debate or provide proof for your assertions, however, is another thing all together.

Hmmm, first you say that you 'desire' truth, and then claim to 'abandon' that which is not 'true'. That you desire 'truth' says that you do not 'have it', but you seem to have some sort of fantasy of it to use to discard that which conflicts with your BELIEFS! Irrational and contradictory.

Yes, I am such a hardline believer, straight from the mouth of the Ayatollah.

I do not hold the full summa of truth, I have never claimed this, but I do have portions of truth which I can provide basis for to show this truth to others. I don't rely on simply pronouncing and asserting such as you.

This is purposeless.. I'm not here to 'beat you (your sophomoric understanding) up and leave you bloody' (and you don't even realize that is what is happening!). Sad. Of course the bloody mess can look up from the ground and, responding to the question, "Have you had enough?", say that he is just wearing you down as as he is again kicked in the ribs and vomits blood...
I'm a peaceful guy...

And you prove yourself an irrational dimwit again. I am getting tired of this very fast. Make more baseless assertions, why don't you? I so love them.

Saying that I have never witnessed something is not a claim, but an observation. Saying that science has not found any proof of the independent existence of time, and, yes, past high school science, actually hypothesizes its non-existence. Except for the emotional 'believers' of course..

So Einstein, who formulated the modern -basis- for spacetime, is 'highnschool physics" now? Stephen Hawking is "highschool physics" now? Come on, Ayatollah. Denigrate my scientific background if you must, but do so whilst providing rigiorous proof of your assertions. You say, but do not back up. I'm not a hot air balloon, Nameless, so I'd prefer if you didn't blow so much hot-air at me, thank you. Moreover, you have never said "I have never observed time", you have asserted "time does not exist".

Such nonsense. If I say that I have never seen an angel, and therefore have no reason to incorporate angels into my world-view and understanding, and you 'believe' in angels and 'challenge me to prove that they do not exist (when I only said that there is no evidence to convince me) is the most bass-ackward mental blasphemy I can imagine.

I am not claiming you prove a contingent being's non-existence. I am claiming you disprove a concept which has been held since time immemorial and validated by modern physics (in interesting ways, but validated, such as the unexpected claims of Relativity). You claim that QM and various other things disproves it, but you never present the proof. If it is because you're intellectual incapable of arguing a point, or presenting a theory, just say so. We'll end it on that.

The onus of proof is on you!
Put up or shut up!

You're simply trying to switch the argument around because you now realize you're incapable of proving a thing. That's fine. But admit it.

Time is proved by: 1. Memory. 2. Relativity. 3. Causality. 4. Movement in 4d spacetime. 5. Thermodynamics (Hawking in "A Brief History of Time").

Nice quote:

"Time is currently one of few fundamental quantities (quantities which cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present)." - Wikipedia.

No, Gr asshopper, you cannot refute my EXPERIENCE. This is ridiculous...

Of course I can't refute your experience. I can only refute your beliefs.

All 'beliefs' are 'sacred' to the 'true believer'!

You should know that well, right Ayatollah?

You have NO understanding where I am comming from. And 'truth' means so little to you that you are even lying to yourself. You don't seek 'truth' you seek to support your 'beliefs'. This is delusion at its finest and I am running out of words for you. Sorry, no disrespect meant, but, at this point, you are incapable (apparently) of understanding the deeper concepts that I offer, yet you childishly argue while providing nothing to PROVE your 'belief'!

Sure, Ayatollah. What's next? A fatwa against me? Claim that it is the duty of all religious faith to jihad against me? I'm waiting for the froth at the mouth. Seriously. You're disappointing me without it.

I hope so as it must be a very rare occassion, and mentally challenged children must be difficult to engage...!

Yes, I'm finding that out right now, speaking with you.

I do not 'hate' it, I have discarded it as a useless tool. It is a 'competition. In a competition of that sort there must be attack and defence. Win and lose. All is egoic. There is no real communication. It is most difficult to 'contact' a mind that is enclosed in defence or emotionally involved in attack. Both are antithetical to a sharing of information. Which is MY purpose here..

SHaring information is all well and good, but what of truth? I am not suggesting that we do not come to see that we are both lacking and come to truth together, but if one of us is right, and another wrong, and this becomes manifest to us both, surely one ought to concede and embrace that which is real.

Perhaps it is just our EXPERIENCE that stand in apparent opposition. I have not 'seen', and you claim to have seen, yet seem to be unable to 'demonstrate' that which you claim to have seen.. Like in the 'spoon-bending' thread...
'Belief' seems to be antithetical to real thought!

You claim that time does not exist, I claim it does exist. You do not give proof, I have attempted to do so, and have summarized my arguments above.

You still don't understand the homework from last year but want me to waste my time trying to provide post-grad concepts?
Not yet, Grasshopper...

Wow, are you sure you know science, Nameless? Because I am pretty sure that MASSIVE head of yours is nearing the point of critical collapse into a blackhole. Please, be careful with that. That's really very dangerous.

I expected you to disregard the comments of one of the modern giants... Fundamnentalists do it all the time, when it upsets their fragile 'belief' systems.

Disregarding Feynman's nonsense is perfectly acceptable without refuting his QM studies. I am not suggesting that Feynman isn't a fine scientist, but simply that he doesn't understand what mysticism is about. Mysticism is about nonsense, plain and simple. "Trust in God and let the camel roam free!" says the Sufi. Says the wiseman, "Trust in God! But tie your camel tight."

And Mr. Magoo blinks.. albeit for only a microsecond but has no idea of what he saw...
Perhaps you caught a glimpse of the fictitious 'house of cards' that you are trying to live in?

Right, Ayatollah. Right.

No you won't.

You'd be suprised what's on my bookshelves as it stands.

Lots of 'startling revelations', but you don't want to hear them as they also 'trash' your very limited understanding. Everything that I have been talking about would be startling to a non-agendized, un-emotionally attached (to his 'beliefs') person.

I'd be more "startled" if you didn't assume that you're the prophet of the new age, with direct revelation from God, needing no proof to back up his statements, and believing as he might because his God of irrationality has told him so.

And I don't 'believe' that you are familiar with cutting edge neuroscientific theories. Not at all. Don't blow smoke at me, my BS detector is functioning fine!

O! Ayatollah, do enlighten us to these "cutting edge neuroscientific theories" that I apparently have no idea about, then?

Then offer your PROOF!

I have throughout this thread done so, but you won't even read prior threads by me when I have asked you to. And I am the "true believer"?

Whats with the 'disembodied statements'?

What disembodied statements? They were in reply to the ones which I quoted. Perhaps something was wrong in your browser in which you did not see the quote boxes? Because I just checked and they are there.

If you have to ask, you aren't ready.

A true mystic garbage answer. O please enlighten me, Ayatollah?

Fine, go ahead and dive prove something. Anything. All your words are evidence that you cannot!

Sorry, that was a bit of a typo. I was going to write "dive into reality and prove" but forgot to return to that.

Another disembodied statement.

It had a quote box, too...

Again you display your ignorance even of the terms that you use. You know nothing of Zen, you know nothing of 'attachment', you know nothing of mental clarity, and you know nothing of mysticism...

I actually happen to know quite a deal, actually. I am/was enamoured with the samurai and have studied in depth many aspects of it, including from primary sources written by Miyamoto Musashi and Yamamato Tsunetomo ("The Book of Five Rings" and "Hagakure" respectively) as well as secondary sources of all varieties. Similarly, I have also studied Zen very extensively for many years, and at one point, fell just short of considering myself a Zen Buddhist.

Even funnier: Throughout the time I have been writing to you, I've been watching a lovely little show on PBS about the samurai, due to the above mentioned love of them.

I 'claim' that I have not witnessed something. That is not an assertion nor a claim of 'truth'. This is getting tedious...

You have hardly claimed "I have never experienced time" you have claimed "time does not exist" as well as many other claims. Ontop of this, if you have never experienced time on atleast in the sense of what most people call time, I must question your sanity.

truth
1) Conformity to (objective -n) fact or actuality.

And this seems impossible to prove.

I won't ask you to read something you won't again. I am tired of offering you a chance to read an interesting argument which you won't. However, let me go over a few things with this.

If reality is objective: There is an extremely high possibility that we can demonstrate our perception corresponds to it. If we cannot, then Transcendental Idealism can be an acceptable concession

If reality is subjective: Truth is whatever we want it to be and the actuality would be what we subjectively will it.

Truth holds true in both.

More disembodied statements. No context, in other words...

I provided quote boxes. Am I not being clear enough?

I'm still waiting for your 'proofs'... Lets see your empirical proof. After all, you claim to be able to 'prove' objective materiality, and empiricism is made for just such an occasion. Your 'logic' leaves too much to be desired, your word games are just that, games...
And no, I'm not interested in your 'theories', as your reasoning and knowledge is juvenile and confused and unfounded and emotionally related...

Who is the believer now?

I have no time for you, Nameless. You simply aren't worth it anymore. You refuse to read what I write, judge it as false, and then call me the believer. Your inconsistancy is almost as startling as your stupidity and/or ignorance.

Truthseeker:

1) God is omniscient
2) God is omnipresent. AND, here's the tricky thing, His presence is not only on this universe, but throughout the multiverse. That's the reason why he is omniscient, because He has a presence throughout history, and He sees things that already happened, eventhough we cannot perceive those things yet. He lives in a continuous and infinite "now", just like us, but He can perceive it all.

What paradox is this supposed to resolve?

 

[nameless]

And you prove yourself an irrational dimwit again.... stupidity and/or ignorance.

Doesn't say much for someone like you, then, who has spent so much time arguing with me here, in all my loominous stoopidity and/or ignerunce .....and losing said argument! Muahahahahahahaa!

 

[infinitethoughts]

Let me ask: If there is movement because it is thought to be so, is implied that it should be unthought? Is not movement a description for a perspective and if so, is that perspective invalidated by the realization of itself?

That's an interesting point. What exactly is movement and how far does it hinge on perspective? I think thats what you were saying?

An interesting read. I don't agree with everything, but this can at least open some eyes a bit.

QUANTUM MAGIC ~
REALITY AS DESCRIBED BY QUANTUM MECHANICS

Cool. I'm gonna look at it later.

(Oh by the way, I'd suggest putting Princy on your ignore list. Arguing with him is a waste of time. It's obvious he likes to get validation by disagreeing.)

I think the really fun implication is that the quantity and quality of states
are infinite which means that the concept of 'nothing' doesn't exist in reality.

Agreed and actually a very powerful concept....that the state of nothingness really does not exist. If you have infinity, seems like theres' no "room" for nothingness. Come to think of it, to say that nothingness exists...is a damn oxymoron
Thats like saying "This hat on my head, is not there"
Seems in this civilization all these oxymoron's exist, cause nobody really questions them. We accept all these concepts and never ever really think them thru.

Also the idea of infinity is a fun way to spend your afternoons trying to wrap your mind around that concept.

1) God is omniscient
2) God is omnipresent.

What is this word "god"? I don't understand, explain it to me please.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Of course!
Shouldn't it be required viewing for all participants here? *__-

It is difficult holding communicative conversation when one is barreling down the tracks at full contemporary intellectual speed, and others are crawling along in a hand cart!

Indeed....

I second the motion!
All in favour? :m:

 

[TruthSeeker]

What paradox is this supposed to resolve?

God

 

[TruthSeeker]

What is this word "god"? I don't understand, explain it to me please.

I suppose the definition of God can be simplified to "an infinite living being".