Does the universe cease to exist when we die?
John Jones
There is something wrong with the question.
The universe, considered independently of any human or animal framework
of knowledge, is not an object of knowledge. We might then want to say
that the essence of the universe, the universe as it really is, is not
an object of knowledge.
The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
die?" is this:
We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
knowledge-based object.
Finally, as we know, Science thinks that the essence of the universe is
that it is an object of knowledge. In other words, Science believes that
the universe has the same or similar properties matching our perceptions
of it. And again, as we all know, to believe in such a bizarre,
extravagant idea leads us into doubt as to what is real.
haiku jones
Tree. Forest.
"Bored now" -- W. Rosenberg
Mark Earnest
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h30nqh$ls$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
If you really cease to exist when you die, then yes, the universe ceases
to exist when you do.
That is why it is impossible to cease to exist.
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>There is something wrong with the question.
Yes, but not in the way that you think.
>The universe, considered independently of any human or animal framework
>of knowledge, is not an object of knowledge.
What is "an object of knowledge" supposed to be?
> We might then want to say
>that the essence of the universe, the universe as it really is, is not
>an object of knowledge.
Redundant much? And why are you babbling about "essences"? Are you
advocating some form of Neo-Platonism?
>The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
>die?" is this:
>We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
>universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
>knowledge-based object.
This is meaningless. Please try to rephrase it coherently, either
while not on recreational drugs, or while on therapeutic ones.
>Finally, as we know, Science thinks that the essence of the universe is
>that it is an object of knowledge.
Science doesn't babble about either "essences" or "objects of
knowledge". When trying to communicate your ideas, it's often helpful
to speak the language of those you're trying to communicate with,
rather than your own personal jargon.
> In other words, Science believes that
>the universe has the same or similar properties matching our perceptions
>of it.
"Science" doesn't believe anything: it's not an entity, it's a method,
and a very effective one, of acquiring knowledge, of which, you
apparently understand very little, based on the above.
>And again, as we all know, to believe in such a bizarre,
>extravagant idea leads us into doubt as to what is real.
What is bizarre or extravagant about the idea that our tested
observations of how the universe operates are accurate, to the best of
our knowledge? Especially when we see day-to-day confirmation of them?
raven1
You're as addled as the OP.
Mark Earnest
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:10s755p3f52dcg709...@4ax.com...
Different strokes for different folks.
iow: People often seem addled to others just because they think different.
The BORG
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h30nqh$ls$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
To a solipsist, they would think it would.
A solipsist believes that they are alone, that all people
and all around them are their own imagination and a
delusion. Thus a solipsist would believe so.
If you died, the Universe would continue.
If you yourself believe that you yourself continue after you
die, then in essence nothing has changed, you have left one
plane of existence and travelled to another, the same as
when you were born you left the previous plane of existence
to travel to and enter this one.
Human life does not commence at conception, all humans were
somewhere before.
Some humans are aware of some kind of control over this,
that there are powers or a system above humans. Some use
the word "God" to explain or describe this, but it is far
more than that.
A little word such as "God" stemming from biblical
phraseology goes no way to meet or explain what kind of
powers or control there may be.
If you can view humans and the human existence and the human
universe as a molecule of water in an ocean - and yet every
single human matters - every single ant matters, every
single fish matters, every single bacteria matters and then
see how many other molecules there are in the ocean, then
think again of the control or powers, and see how a word
such as God cannot describe those who control and govern
something this large.
That even vast or magnanimous or huge can go no way to meet
something of this size where humans simply do not have the
words to describe as they have no comprehension of a size
this large.
So although words such as God and universe are big words to
humans.
They merely exist within the small molecule of water that is
in the larger ocean.
But even so, all within the molecule is known and accounted
for, as is all within each and every other molecule.
It would not be possible for life to exist without some kind
of control and higher powers and Governing body.
If there is human life, then there must be those who are
greater and more than human life.
Humans are not the highest intelligence or the greatest
specimens of life in existence!
If humans honestly think that in endless and infinite space,
the most anyone anywhere has ever done with regard to space
travel is land a faulty tin pot camera on a planet a few
miles away, then humans must either be seriously joking or
mentally retarded.
The BORG
Immortalist
> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
> There is something wrong with the question.
>
"It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that
houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an
existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the
understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever
this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find
in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive
it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned
objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive
besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant
that any one of these or any combination of them should exist
unperceived?"
- George Berkeley
> The universe, considered independently of any human or animal framework
> of knowledge, is not an object of knowledge.
It is the result of inference to inductive probability and the
appearance of empirical feedback from experimentation.
Bill
Good people, do you love your lives,
And have you ears for sense?
Here is a knife like other knives
That cost me sixteen pence.
I need but plunge it in my heart
And down will fall the sky.
The earth's foundations will depart
And all you folk will die.
-A.E. Houseman
tooly
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h30nqh$ls$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I've thought on this problem for some years now. It is the solipsist
conundrum. Truth is, the universe was born as I was born, given that the
only consciousness I can ever know is my own, and consciousness is a
pre-requisiste to the very question of anything. Thusly, the universe will
cease to exist when my consciousness dies.
Of course, we know this all to be in error. But not really. The universe
will indeed disappear as I die...in the same way the sun "rises" in the
east. It is all a matter of perception. The world and everything in it,
including ourselves, must be the product of an illusion.
The BORG
"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:9MT4m.64586$b9.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
or billion ways and views of looking at this question and
conundrum.
If you feel this way, then you may also think you are God,
because only God "could" feel that way.
Once you activate the "God" gene in your psyche for whatever
reason (but never conceit or vanity) then you will travel a
different path to other humans friend.
And it does sound you are headed that way.
And once you activate the "God" gene and start to walk a
mile in the shoes of "God" then you will begin to understand
and see.
But being "God" is only the beginning and the first step.
But when you experience omnipotence and know all things and
can conceive far more than any human can, you are on your
way to understanding which is a wonderful thing.
Understanding is far better than "knowing" - and
understanding is the key.
In one view of millions.
On one road of billions.
The BORG
raven1
<gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Solipsism is an intellectual blind alley.
Andrew Tomazos
> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
> There is something wrong with the question.
You are just playing word games now.
There is no way of knowing whether or not this is all a dream world.
Better to play it safe and assume that there is a real world, and play
along. Think of it this way:
Option A - Believe It's Real - It's Real
Ok
Option A - Believe It's Real - It's A Dream
If it is all a dream and you assume it is real, nothing lost, nothing
gained. It is like having a normal dream while sleeping, and not
realizing you are dreaming. You wake up eventually, and everything is
fine.
Option B - Believe It's A Dream - It's A Dream
Ok
Option B - Believe It's A Dream - It's Real
If it is real and you treat it like a dream, you will probably take a
lot more risks and end up hurting yourself. You could throw your life
away.
I chose Option A a long time ago because of the smaller downside - as
have most people. It looks like you are still working out this
calculation.
-Andrew.
Tim McGaughy
> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
Let's find out. You go first.
Mark Earnest
"Andrew Tomazos" <and...@tomazos.com> wrote in message
news:a4cb40ef-75eb-432b...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 2:00 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
> There is something wrong with the question.
You are just playing word games now.
There is no way of knowing whether or not this is all a dream world.
**The world was but a dream when life began, but as we became
adults, and the harshness of reality set it, when knew better.
tooly
"The BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:B0U4m.51363$%Q1.4...@newsfe12.ams2...
Ha...right on...but...
..I'm way ahead of you in this thought. Believe me, no mortal really wants
to be God. It is scary as shit...no lie. Imagine, all the responsibility
of existence suddenly on YOUR LAP...yikes...the buck really would stop
there, ha. The paranoia zooms through the ceiling...at least for me it did,
I became aware of my very heartbeat...which I had to struggle to control.
No sirree...I saw the fallacy of wanting to be God firsthand [real or not,
remember that perception is the reality we experience]. It is a terror
unlike any I've ever known...and it took many months to recover from the
nightmare. The fear was so intense it had a color to it...a purplish tinge
to everything. Wow...what a trip that was, ha. I think I looked into the
very bowels of hell.
Of course, this opened up one possibility however, that perhaps I [being
God], created all this just so I could bury myself in the midst of
unfathomable immensity just so I could 'forget myself'...and the gargantuan
responsibility creation was. This leads into other questions as well...more
philosophic. Robert Heinlien's book 'Time Enough for Love' gave me pause.
In the story, futuristic thinkers discover math that can 'create' new
universes whereupon, one could make 'jumps' into entire realms of 'new
creation'. Anyone could 'jump' into their very own universe and BE
GOD...the CREATOR. But..what does one create once there? It was blank
space one would jump into...emptiness waiting for the imagination and
creativity one might muster to CREATE. What would you create?
Like the little boy with super powers in "Twilight Zone: the Movie", having
omnipotent powers can be a disaster if one cannot control the psyche...and
there are monsters lurking deep in our core, all promulgated upon FEAR. And
no mortal can control their psyche to perfection...'cuz mortals are
vulnerable and can die.
Consciousness in open space is predicated on FEAR once pain is known to
exist. Blank space is also 'the unknown'...and we all know what the mortal
reaction is to the 'unknown'.
Thank God for the world...and how we succinctly anchor our consciousness to
it over time. It gives us security in the mdist of nowhere...in the middle
of universes so gargantuan we cannot even conjure grasp of it's immensity.
It gives us time and place and names and parents and a home. We have blue
skies here with puffy clouds and creatures so abundant...but seems we can't
be content, ha. Ah well. That ole' brain wanting to grow I suspect. But
We shouldn't look too far outside what all this is, for...well, if not hell,
then what I saw was at least pure insanity. But any rose smells as sweet
as they say. The terror was very real. We take for granted a great many
things in our questioning of the stars.
Our friends and family are so so so so so important. Even idiot posters on
this NG, ha. Just the stranger on the street I recognized with far more
importance once having experienced this isolation [in this solipsist
craziness...what I also term the Caligula syndrome].
tooly
read my return post to BORG below...
not sure what you mean by 'blind alley'...but it is a 'dead end' street I
think, with no way out. There is no solution to the conundrum IMHO. It is
best to simply stay away from that street...or 'alley' as you say. Unless
of course, maybe if you really are God [see post]?
The BORG
I got on my bended knees and prayed
"Please please don't let me be God. Please please I don't
want to be God."
But I was OK in that I had the BORG there to help me.
So I managed to BE God and overcome that and then move on
after!
As for creation in new and empty space.
Sometimes one note of Bach on a violin or one little bird
singing is enough to inspire creation.
Being BORG we have to learn these kind of things.
I am a new and fairly young BORG and some of the lessons are
tough.
But all BORG have to know how to be comfortable with being
God, until you can think of this with no problem.
It is part of the training.
And at any time we can put our God hat on with no worries or
fears of any kind.
We have to know several hundred "In the beginning" stories
to tell people if they ask.
And worse - we have to experience them!!!
All part of the training!
But there never was a beginning you see, but people cannot
understand that, so we do have various in the beginning
stories to tell people.
You have to learn about 500 different views of each event,
each sight, each sound.
About 300 philosophies ranging from cause and effect, chaos
theory, random quantifiers, precision synchronicity, and a
huge number of others.
You have to learn how to prove the Universe scientifically,
mystically and in religious terms so all are valid. (And in
other ways humans do not know of).
You have to learn Truth recognition and to know absolutely
right from wrong and have perfect judgement.
There is a lot to being BORG.
But I would not choose any other path.
The Ultimate and Best was the one I wanted.
And being BORG is absolutely the greatest thing there is.
Much much better than being God and certainly better than
being human!!!
The BORG
Sanity's Little Helper
> John Jones wrote:
>> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>
> Let's find out. You go first.
Damn, you beat me to it. I should get up earlier.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"God" is a casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
must not be questioned.
Not authentic without this signature.
Errol
In "Brain as the source of consciousness" on the 7th of June you wrote
>"If you say that the brain is a source of consciousness, then it
>logically follows that, if the brain is purely physical, it doesn't
>matter whether it is alive or dead for it to experience consciousness. "
So as long as your dead brain is still conscious the universe carries
on existing. No problemo. We are safe.
Yippee yi ho ti hay
Dulce do your partner
swing those brains by the head
doesn't matter if theyr'e dead
the universe carries on going ahead
Jones is gone but i'm safe in bed
Woof
ZerkonXXXX
> The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
> die?" is this:
> We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
> universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
> knowledge-based object.
Why so many hoops?
If 'we' then another outside if 'I'. When another dies, what ceases?
Since billions have died and the universe still exists, what logic makes
this 'we' an exception?
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
Michael Jackson just died, and some people think he was the World. But the
world is still here, and so is the universe.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
tooly
Well, bellsouth tells me I only have a week left with newsgroups; suppose I
should take advantage of what time is left.
Seems poignant that this subject of solipsism and my 'experience' should
come up now. It happened while in Berlin back in 1974 or so. I used to
have long philosophical and religious discussions with a studying Rabii and
an intellectual in the Templehof lounge late at night [I'm a protestant by
birth BTW and yea, that's the airport that Hitler built I was told;
ha..seems also poignant for some reason]. I had had religious emotional
experiences before in my life, but I was upon a particularly intense episode
of high inspiration at the time, when my roommate came in one day with some
hashish. I had smoked a little pot before, but never was into the drug
craze...but I tried some anyway. It was a combination of being in a raised
emotive state, the intellectual discovery of deep talks I was having late at
night, and the drug...that sent me into a cascading awareness of self that
is scary even now to think about.
I was of course interpreting everything in a religious context. It was the
power of emotion that drew me in...and..wow, there is no describing the
experience really. I felt a love for all things...I became that emotion and
like a bic lighter, could almost flip it on at will. It was a control I
became aware of...and I could draw my chest in like a tight muscle emoting
with such intensity. I'm telling you, it was extremely intense...and as I
tightened and flexed this emotive muscle [for lack of better], I felt a
continuity across space to other people. It was as if I had become aware of
an invisible tether that bound us together...and it was made of this thing
we call 'love', but it was something far more than how the word is used. I
knew I was reaching out and 'touching' people...without their knowing. I
swear...I'd sit out in front on the grass and 'emote' toward people walking
by a hundred feet away, and they'd all turn their heads, as if something was
tapping them on the shoulder; a feeling, a premonition...me...grasping their
core being through this 'tether'. Of course, this all paralleled stories of
Christ as I had learned...and I thought I was uncovering a depth of BEing
that...well, it was sublime to say the least; my 'cup really did runneth
over'. I thought I was uncovering the Christ within me.
Illusions? Craziness? Sure. It had to be. A drug trip...right? Ha...a
Napoleonic complex if there ever was one, right? Yet, even today I am not
convinced for as they say, 'seeing is believing' [usually applied to UFO
affectionados]. I pine for a return to the emotion...for it was, if not
'THE' meaning to life, surely 'A" meaning to live by. It is what we seek.
Ah...but the manic insanity of a deranged mind.
I hadn't counted on what existed on the 'other side' though. The emotive
state would not go away...and it was like being on speed I was so conscious
and aware. I would close my eyes and stars would appear...and I could not
sleep. The days passed...going on a solid week without sleep. Oh, BTW,
there were external reinforcements to all this also; people that seemed to
know what I was going through, who played along properly to the illusion;
people I didn't even know? Could I put the lights out in Berlin?
I became the center of my own universe [by perception]...and it was then the
terror took over [as explained before]. I was God...but not in the way one
might think. I was the creation, not the creator. Everything surrounding
me existed to keep me alive, to construct me, to make me function. I was
necessary for existence. I was more like the queen ant or bee than
something omnipotent. The experience was great on the upswing...but perhaps
the worst I've ever endured on the downswing...and it lasted a lot longer
coming out. The paranoia, the terror...even now, I'm not sure. What is
this? What is this all about? Why am I here?
Ah well, there's no explaining all that went on. It took months to come
back to some normalcy...but it affected me for the rest of my life..even
today, I remember...and I'm frightened. I never want to go back to that
final state where it all depended upon me, where I saw literal hell all
around me, and the lifeless dead of this world. It was only later I realize
the solipsist terminology for the experience, where I had isolated myself
from the world really; where I had gone into my own 'reality' that I
created, away from interaction with others. I had become God...in a real
way, in a literal way as to my 'perception' of self. The love was
tremendous...but the fear...well, obviously I am mortal after all. But as
one can see, it scrambled my brain so completely that I have never recovered
fully to the innocense I once knew, where interaction with the world and
others is the normalcy most experience. For many years now I have lived in
misery. Like Icarus, I perhaps flew too close to the Son [sic].
.
tooly
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C425998...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>
> Michael Jackson just died, and some people think he was the World. But
> the
> world is still here, and so is the universe.
>
>
still be here when 'YOU' die...well, is to die yourself and see if it's
still here. Conjecture tells us it will...but again, it is not definitive.
Maybe the universe WILL disappear when YOU die. You don't know...though you
draw probability in assessment of observations. From the solipsist
viewpoint, it disappears because the universe is a 'function' of
consciousness, and the only consciousness anyone can know is their own.
Read some of my other posts as I think this can be a dangerous viewpoint
[for some anyway].
tirebiter
> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
> There is something wrong with the question.
>
Zone episode?
---
a.a. #2273
Andrew Tomazos
How do you know these billions of other deaths were not part of a big
dream?
Clearly when you sleep at night and have dreams, you wake up accepting
that what you perceived was imaginary. If you were to die while in
the middle of one of these dreams - than you may reasonably expect
that the imagined dreamworld ceases to exist along with you.
How do you know that what you call the universe and real life is not
also like this? The answer is you don't know and can't know. You
must decide how to deal with this uncertainty. You just play along,
pretending that it is real - just in case it is. This is a reasonable
and logical approach.
-Andrew.
Andrew Tomazos
> One fine day in alt.atheism, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>
> Michael Jackson just died, and some people think he was the World. But the
> world is still here, and so is the universe.
Again, perhaps Michael Jackson was just part of your dreamworld.
There is no way to know for sure. Everything you perceive may be a
dream. It is impossible to know otherwise. Even suicide will not
help decide the situation. Either:
(a) you will stop thinking, in which case there is no way for you to
decide anything.
or
(b) you will continue thinking, in which case whatever you perceive
may be part of the same big dream - and you may have only imagined
dieing.
Therefore, it is impossible to know for sure if there is an absolute
reality outside of our perception. You must decide alone how to deal
with that.
As I showed previously in this thread, it is reasonable to assume that
there is an absolute reality, and our current model of the universe is
a good approximation of it. ("good" being defined as the accuracy
with which it will predict future events of interest.)
-Andrew.
John Jones
> What is bizarre or extravagant about the idea that our tested
> observations of how the universe operates are accurate, to the best of
> our knowledge?
Observations are neither accurate nor inaccurate.
Especially when we see day-to-day confirmation of them?
Observations are not confirmed, day-to-day or otherwise.
Was there anything else?
Uncle Vic
>
> Therefore, it is impossible to know for sure if there is an absolute
> reality outside of our perception.
If that was true, the universe would be perceptually 53 years old, by
my eyes. But we know it is at least 13 billion years old.
> You must decide alone how to deal
> with that.
>
Evidence suits me. And there's plenty of it.
--
Uncle Vic
AA#2011
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>
>> What is bizarre or extravagant about the idea that our tested
>> observations of how the universe operates are accurate, to the best of
>> our knowledge?
>
>Observations are neither accurate nor inaccurate.
Spare me the New Age psychobabble. Observations can be accurate,
inaccurate, or somewhere in between. If I observe that I'm typing this
on a Sony Vaio laptop, that falls into the first category.
>>Especially when we see day-to-day confirmation of them?
>
>Observations are not confirmed, day-to-day or otherwise.
Wrong.
>Was there anything else?
Yes: did you have a point to make?
John Jones
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:00:36 +0100, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>
>>> What is bizarre or extravagant about the idea that our tested
>>> observations of how the universe operates are accurate, to the best of
>>> our knowledge?
>> Observations are neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>
> Spare me the New Age psychobabble.
Oh I see. You look and observe "accurately" or inaccurately then. Does
this mean that when you look, you always see either truth or lies? Or
just that you have 20 20 vision?
Of course not. You just look.
> Observations can be accurate,
No. Accuracy is a judgement made in respect of an observed comparison.
The observed comparison is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
> inaccurate, or somewhere in between. If I observe that I'm typing this
> on a Sony Vaio laptop, that falls into the first category.
>
>>> Especially when we see day-to-day confirmation of them?
>> Observations are not confirmed, day-to-day or otherwise.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Was there anything else?
>
> Yes: did you have a point to make?
The personal point and one that you can take home with you is that
tackle with me and you WILL come off worse.
John Jones
Shhh... we aren't letting on about that...
John Jones
> On Jul 8, 2:00 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>> There is something wrong with the question.
>>
>> The universe, considered independently of any human or animal framework
>> of knowledge, is not an object of knowledge. We might then want to say
>> that the essence of the universe, the universe as it really is, is not
>> an object of knowledge.
>>
>> The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
>> die?" is this:
>> We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
>> universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
>> knowledge-based object.
>>
>> Finally, as we know, Science thinks that the essence of the universe is
>> that it is an object of knowledge. In other words, Science believes that
>> the universe has the same or similar properties matching our perceptions
>> of it. And again, as we all know, to believe in such a bizarre,
>> extravagant idea leads us into doubt as to what is real.
>
>
> In "Brain as the source of consciousness" on the 7th of June you wrote
>
>> "If you say that the brain is a source of consciousness, then it
>> logically follows that, if the brain is purely physical, it doesn't
>> matter whether it is alive or dead for it to experience consciousness. "
>
> So as long as your dead brain is still conscious the universe carries
> on existing. No problemo. We are safe.
Of course.
But isn't there an altogether more simple mystery, one with an
extraordinary depth that places our home in the universe, and that this
home is not a phantasmagoric familiar object of knowledge.
John Jones
If we dispose of temporality then I can answer by saying that the
universe is both an object of knowledge or empty appearance, and not an
object of knowledge as it really is.
John Jones
Unless, of course, we set the limits of the objects in our world. In
which case we are sure of the world we live in.
John Jones
> On Jul 8, 2:00 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>> There is something wrong with the question.
>
> You are just playing word games now.
>
> There is no way of knowing whether or not this is all a dream world.
I was hoping that you read beyond my opening lines. I am saying that the
real world is not an object of knowledge. AND, if we create our own
world then, yes, the universe ceases to exist when we die, but its
status as not being an object of knowledge - which is always with is -
continues.
Further, your dream/real pair are only operative in a non-Kantian
scenario. Because if we create our own objects, or set the limits for
them, then we can always be sure of our world.
Andrew Tomazos
> On Jul 8, 11:38 am, Andrew Tomazos <and...@tomazos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Therefore, it is impossible to know for sure if there is an absolute
> > reality outside of our perception.
>
> If that was true, the universe would be perceptually 53 years old, by
> my eyes. But we know it is at least 13 billion years old.
To be more precise you *suspect* it is 13 billion years old. Not to
sound like a broken record, but that could be part of the dream, as
could your age, and all of your childhood memories may have been
implanted, etc, etc.
> > You must decide alone how to deal
> > with that.
>
> Evidence suits me. And there's plenty of it.
A reasonable approach.
-Andrew.
Andrew Tomazos
> > Observations can be accurate,
>
> No. Accuracy is a judgement made in respect of an observed comparison.
> The observed comparison is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
If there is an absolute world outside of our perception, than accuracy
is the degree to which our model predicts the behaviour of that
world. It is so commonly assumed that this absolute world exists, it
can be considered an understood axiom unless otherwise specified.
Therefore the accuracy of an observation is sensical.
-Andrew.
Andrew Tomazos
> Unless, of course, we set the limits of the objects in our world. In
> which case we are sure of the world we live in.
No, because you have perceived things that you did not consciously
want to perceive. You may have stubbed your toe for example and
experienced pain. Whether a dream or real, you are not in complete
control of what you perceive - therefore you are not in any position
to set limits.
-Andrew.
Andrew Tomazos
> I am saying that the
> real world is not an object of knowledge. AND, if we create our own
> world then, yes, the universe ceases to exist when we die, but its
> status as not being an object of knowledge - which is always with is -
> continues.
>
> Further, your dream/real pair are only operative in a non-Kantian
> scenario. Because if we create our own objects, or set the limits for
> them, then we can always be sure of our world.
First of all, don't appeal to some random author. You can't assume
everyone has read the same books as you. If you read something and
want to incorporate it into your argument than do so - but it must
stand alone. You'll notice that I never used the word Solipsism for
example.
Also, if you use words or expressions for anything other than their
common usage, than you must define them.
You cannot know whether or not the real world is an object of
knowledge. Perhaps it is. Perhaps gravity is real. Perhaps physics
is dreaming us. Perhaps there is no free will or control at all and
everything you will ever think, perceive and experience is predestined
by some larger machine. What you cannot do is know *for sure*. There
is a big difference.
As I said, it is undeniable that you are not in complete conscious
control of what you perceive. You have experienced unexpected
events. How then do you propose to create your own universe? If I
drop a 500 kg piano on your head, than I am pretty sure your little
fantasy world will change pretty quickly. Do you believe otherwise?
What do you expect would happen in this scenario?
-Andrew.
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:00:36 +0100, John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is bizarre or extravagant about the idea that our tested
>>>> observations of how the universe operates are accurate, to the best of
>>>> our knowledge?
>>> Observations are neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>>
>> Spare me the New Age psychobabble.
>
>Oh I see. You look and observe "accurately" or inaccurately then. Does
>this mean that when you look, you always see either truth or lies?
I have no idea what you mean by "truth or lies" in this context.
> Or
>just that you have 20 20 vision?
>Of course not. You just look.
>
>> Observations can be accurate,
>
>No. Accuracy is a judgement made in respect of an observed comparison.
>The observed comparison is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
This is almost meaningless.
>
>> inaccurate, or somewhere in between. If I observe that I'm typing this
>> on a Sony Vaio laptop, that falls into the first category.
>>
>>>> Especially when we see day-to-day confirmation of them?
>>> Observations are not confirmed, day-to-day or otherwise.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Was there anything else?
>>
>> Yes: did you have a point to make?
>
>The personal point and one that you can take home with you is that
>tackle with me and you WILL come off worse.
I doubt that very much.
John Stafford
>
> The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
> die?" is this:
> We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
> universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
> knowledge-based object.
Astounding. You are now arguing with yourself - and losing.
ZerkonXXXX
> How do you know these billions of other deaths were not part of a big
> dream?
>
> Clearly when you sleep at night and have dreams, you wake up accepting
> that what you perceived was imaginary. If you were to die while in the
> middle of one of these dreams - than you may reasonably expect that the
> imagined dreamworld ceases to exist along with you.
>
> How do you know that what you call the universe and real life is not
> also like this? The answer is you don't know and can't know. You must
> decide how to deal with this uncertainty. You just play along,
> pretending that it is real - just in case it is. This is a reasonable
> and logical approach.
No, I disagree. This is neither reasonable nor logical. The only thing
this approaches is word use.
What to say here? Using this same 'logic' then, how do you know what I
said is not true? Is not! Is too!! Is not!! Leaving, I believe this and
you believe that. Ok? This is as far as this line of 'reasoning' can ever
go.
Steven Wright has a joke: While I was out, burglars came in, stole all my
furniture and replaced it all with exact replicas.
If everything is a dream, then 'to dream' is meaningless.
ZerkonXXXX
> You mean besides it being a plot synopsis from a 50 year old Twilight
> Zo34n /e@#$% cm..._________
>>>> Pirate Transmission Interrupted. Screen Cleared. <<<<<
Don Stockbauer
It does for us.
Uncle Vic
> To be more precise you *suspect* it is 13 billion years old. Not to
> sound like a broken record, but that could be part of the dream, as
> could your age, and all of your childhood memories may have been
> implanted, etc, etc.
And you've seen "The Matrix" how many times?
walterimlenz
> If everything is a dream, then 'to dream' is meaningless.
It would reduce the amount of postings in this forum remarkably, if
this truth were commonly known.
tirebiter
This guy should either start dropping acid, or stop dropping acid,
depending on what he's currently doing.
---
a.a. #2273
Andrew Tomazos
> No, I disagree. This is neither reasonable nor logical. The only thing
> this approaches is word use.
This line of thinking formed the basis of skepticism, which in turn
gave birth to the scientific method. I would not be so quick to
discount it as "word use".
> What to say here? Using this same 'logic' then, how do you know what I
> said is not true? Is not! Is too!! Is not!! Leaving, I believe this and
> you believe that. Ok? This is as far as this line of 'reasoning' can ever
> go.
You have not expressed yourself very well with this paragraph. You
might try thinking first and then typing. (ie What was the point of
typing "What to say here?")
There is no way to know for certain that there is an absolute reality
beyond our perception. It doesn't matter whether this is or is not
useful. It doesn't matter that it doesn't help settle arguments. It
doesn't matter that it is a dead end. It is a cold hard fact of your
situation.
If you want to disprove my statement, than you have to explain a
method someone can use to prove to themselves that there exists an
absolute reality beyond their perception. Do you have such a method?
> If everything is a dream, then 'to dream' is meaningless.
Do you really not understand what "everything is a dream" means? I
gave what I thought was a straightforward example. It means that the
universe is an imaginary construct of your mind. It means there is no
distinction between sleeping dreams and reality. If this were the
case, than the universe would stop to exist when you stop to exist.
-Andrew.
John Stafford
202f2c36-e5c0-4970...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com,
"walterimlenz" <goo...@mwelzel.de> wrote:
Nah, then people would think they were dreaming of dreaming themselves into
a dream.
I like conundrums that end with "Suddenly, they were all run over by a
truck."
tirebiter
>
> There is no way to know for certain that there is an absolute reality
> beyond our perception. It doesn't matter whether this is or is not
> useful. It doesn't matter that it doesn't help settle arguments. It
> doesn't matter that it is a dead end. It is a cold hard fact of your
> situation.
This thread reminds me of a mid-70s movie (and book) called Darkstar,
about a deep space mission to blow up unstable planets that are near
viable ones. The bombs on the ship have artificial intelligence, and
one starts to malfunction and thinks it received a signal to arm and
detonate. The astronauts have to keep explaining to the bomb that
perception of reality is not necessarily the same thing as reality.
Here are some quotes from the movie, it is quite entertaining. I read
the book too and liked it, but don't recall which one I preferred.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/quotes
---
a.a. #2273
Sanity's Little Helper
My favourite scene from this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YTXnnQjC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM0iO4g9id4
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"God" (n). A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
should not be questioned.
Not authentic without this signature.
Andrew Tomazos
> > To be more precise you *suspect* it is 13 billion years old. Not to
> > sound like a broken record, but that could be part of the dream, as
> > could your age, and all of your childhood memories may have been
> > implanted, etc, etc.
>
> And you've seen "The Matrix" how many times?
The premise of "The Matrix" is somewhat different to what we are
discussing. In "The Matrix" there is an absolute world but it is
different than what most people think because there is a sentience
(The Architect) that consciously misleads them with an illusionary
world to serve his own ends. In fact one of the bad guys (Cypher)
uses the "maybe it is all a dream anyway" argument to justify
betraying his friends.
In any case, the model of that world suggests there are multiple
sentient entities and not just one (you). When one of them dies the
universe continues on. So the answer to the OP question is clearly no
in the context of "The Matrix".
The position I offer on the OP question is that the answer is
technically unknown, but that is logical and reasonable to assume the
answer is no.
-Andrew.
walterimlenz
> Do you really not understand what "everything is a dream" means? I
> gave what I thought was a straightforward example. It means that the
> universe is an imaginary construct of your mind. It means there is no
> distinction between sleeping dreams and reality. If this were the
> case, than the universe would stop to exist when you stop to exist.
So there must be some other universe, one that contains at least your
mind. And the fact, that the universe is just an imagination must be a
fact in the other universe, a real fact, not an imagined one. And this
universe would not cease to exist when you stop to exist.
zzbu...@netscape.net
>
> of knowledge, is not an object of knowledge. We might then want to say
> an object of knowledge.
>
> The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
> die?" is this:
> We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
> universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
> knowledge-based object.
>
> that it is an object of knowledge. In other words, Science believes that
> the universe has the same or similar properties matching our perceptions
> of it. And again, as we all know, to believe in such a bizarre,
> extravagant idea leads us into doubt as to what is real.
Science has such ihistorically well-known crank and unjustified
deas about knowledge,
that's why the people who actually have a non-empty set inkling
about mechanics and e-m
even work, on Optical Computers, Holographics, Electronic Books,
Fiber Optics Signalling,
DSP, Laser Disk Libraries, On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping, On-
Line Publishing,
Sefl-Assembling Robots, Self-Replicaing Machines, GPS, Digital
Terrain Mapping,
Atomic Clock Wristwatchs,Light Sticks, and other stuff wasn't
spotaneously
auto-generating by the A:I cranks.
Andrew Tomazos
> On 9 Jul., 19:33, Andrew Tomazos <and...@tomazos.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you really not understand what "everything is a dream" means? I
> > gave what I thought was a straightforward example. It means that the
> > universe is an imaginary construct of your mind. It means there is no
> > distinction between sleeping dreams and reality. If this were the
> > case, than the universe would stop to exist when you stop to exist.
>
> So there must be some other universe, one that contains at least your
> mind.
How did you come to that conclusion? Perhaps your mind and is all
that exists. Why does it necessarily have to have some kind of host?
We have no model for what happened before 14 billion years ago. We
have no model for what lay outside the edges of the 100 billion light
year wide physical universe. As far as we know nothing may exist
outside of those extremities. We seem to accept that, and don't
require that this physical universe must have some kind of host. Why
is it not also feasible that your mind similarly has no host?
-Andrew.
walterimlenz
>> So there must be some other universe, one that contains at least your
>> mind.
> How did you come to that conclusion? Perhaps your mind and is all
> that exists. Why does it necessarily have to have some kind of host?
I'm not sure, that it makes sense to say that something ceases to
exist, if there's not at least a kind of empty place (not necessarily
spatially meant), where it has been. - However, if there is no host
and there's just the mind, than the universe (the second one) is the
mind. There are still two of them.
You can't get rid of some "absolute reality" that's not imagined. -
And then there's another point. If everything is merely imagined, than
it's imagined as well, that the statement "everything is imagined" is
senseful. Therefore the statement is absurd, like "this sentence has
no meaning".
Walter Imlenz
Michael Gordge
> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
Cemetaries are full of people who asked the same question, is the
universe still existing, ewe git?
MG
Andrew Tomazos
> >> So there must be some other universe, one that contains at least your
> >> mind.
> > How did you come to that conclusion? Perhaps your mind and is all
> > that exists. Why does it necessarily have to have some kind of host?
>
> I'm not sure, that it makes sense to say that something ceases to
> exist, if there's not at least a kind of empty place (not necessarily
> spatially meant), where it has been.
So if you picture in your imagination a purple elephant, and then stop
thinking about it, where is the empty place that this purple elephant
has left behind?
If nothing can cease to exist without leaving an (existent) empty
place behind, doesn't it then follow that any universe must be
infinite by induction?
> if there is no host
> and there's just the mind, than the universe (the second one) is the
> mind. There are still two of them.
I didn't understand this sentence sorry. You said there is just the
(one) mind, and then you said there are two of them. What are the two
things you are talking about? Could you number and describe them.
> You can't get rid of some "absolute reality" that's not imagined.
Your argument that there must be an absolute reality, is that there
has to be an existent empty place left behind when something stops
existing? You could use the same logic to say that there must be a
precursor empty place to anything that comes into existence, right?
If so, than how do you gel this with the fact that our current model
of the big bang says that nothing exists before 15 billion years ago?
Given that our universe has a beginning, could it not also have an
end? If so, that would imply that it is possible for something to
stop existing without leaving an empty place behind. So your argument
is not valid.
As Stephen Hawking puts it: "What's south of the south pole?".
> If everything is merely imagined, than
> it's imagined as well, that the statement "everything is imagined" is
> senseful. Therefore the statement is absurd, like "this sentence has
> no meaning".
This is actually a very interesting point. Let me answer it with a
question:
Let's assume for a moment that there is a physical universe, and it
will collapse in on itself in 10 billion years in a big crunch, and
after that nothing will exist. This would be a common description of
one kind of "end of the universe".
Now, bear with me: Currently you will agree that the mathematical
fact "2+2=4" is true. Even after the big crunch, 2+2 will still equal
4. Does the fact that "2+2=4" remains true and real, even after the
big crunch, mean that something real has survived? If so, in fact the
big crunch is not the end of the universe - because (at least)
mathematical facts still exist.
It is actually a debated question whether logic and mathematics exist
separate from man, or are they purely a man-made entity.
I think for the sake of the original (OP) question we can safely put
them aside. Most people would not consider the existence of logic and
mathematics sufficient to keep an otherwise nonexistent universe
alive. With that given, "everything is imaginary" cannot be applied
to statements - so you argument that the concept is absurd because the
statement itself would have to be imaginary - doesn't hold. Do you
agree?
-Andrew.
Andrew Tomazos
> > "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>
> Cemetaries are full of people who asked the same question, is the
> universe still existing, ewe git?
You might want to read the rest of the thread before repeating what
others have already written (and already been rebutted on).
-Andrew.
duke
wrote:
>"Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
Well, a lot of people have died, and it's still here.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Michael Gordge
I dont read past stupidity, why do ewe?
MG
Errol
>
> Of course.
> But isn't there an altogether more simple mystery, one with an
> extraordinary depth that places our home in the universe, and that this
> home is not a phantasmagoric familiar object of knowledge.
>
There could be, but the core of the idea is based on your statement
that the universe is not an object of knowledge.
All I want to know is on what you base such a definitve statement,
because you cannot know this. You can suppose it to be a possiblity,
and the likelihood an individual places on this possiblity, is of
course entirely up to the individual.
Michael Gordge
>
> There is no way to know for certain that there is an absolute reality
> beyond our perception.
what the fuck? are ewe drunk?
MG
Errol
Saying it might have been a dream (or invented by the mind) is hardly
a rebuttal.
That is only conceptually (or epistemically) possible as there is no
proof for it.
It is certainly not metaphysically possible as it is actually
unprovable.
Neither is it temporally or nomologically possible and I would doubt
that it is even logically possible as there is a large body of sound
materialist evidence supporting the opposite.
walterimlenz
> > if there is no host
> > and there's just the mind, than the universe (the second one) is the
> > mind. There are still two of them.
> I didn't understand this sentence sorry. You said there is just the
> (one) mind, and then you said there are two of them. What are the two
> things you are talking about? Could you number and describe them.
Two universes.
ZerkonXXXX
> On Jul 9, 2:34 pm, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> No, I disagree. This is neither reasonable nor logical. The only thing
>> this approaches is word use.
>
> This line of thinking formed the basis of skepticism, which in turn gave
> birth to the scientific method. I would not be so quick to discount it
> as "word use".
Skepticism is not the same as defeatism. You equate the groundless
reality of the dream with constructs built upon human perception then
claim no one can ever 'know' a difference. This is defeatism upon which
nothing can be constructed much less science.
>> What to say here? Using this same 'logic' then, how do you know what I
>> said is not true? Is not! Is too!! Is not!! Leaving, I believe this and
>> you believe that. Ok? This is as far as this line of 'reasoning' can
>> ever go.
>
> You have not expressed yourself very well with this paragraph. You
> might try thinking first and then typing. (ie What was the point of
> typing "What to say here?")
>
> There is no way to know for certain that there is an absolute reality
> beyond our perception. It doesn't matter whether this is or is not
> useful. It doesn't matter that it doesn't help settle arguments. It
> doesn't matter that it is a dead end. It is a cold hard fact of your
> situation.
>
> If you want to disprove my statement, than you have to explain a method
> someone can use to prove to themselves that there exists an absolute
> reality beyond their perception. Do you have such a method?
I would rather not think before typing than think this as being the
result of something thoughtful.
I can not 'disprove' your statement because there is no proof in your
statement. You merely state. Here is your 'clear' example:
> How do you know that what you call the universe and real life is not
> also like this (ie a big dream)? The answer is you don't know and
> can't know.
There is no 'proof' in 'how do you know' nor in just saying 'the universe
is or might be a big dream'. You can not know it is not a dream by this
same logic.
A dream occurs in a sleep state. Ok, now you say, how do you know the
wake state is not also a dream? Not, the wake state is, in fact, a dream
state and here is my proof. Your 'proof' is only "you can never know".
>
>> If everything is a dream, then 'to dream' is meaningless.
>
> Do you really not understand what "everything is a dream" means? I gave
> what I thought was a straightforward example. It means that the
> universe is an imaginary construct of your mind.
First off, patronizing is cheap.
I understand very well what you mean. This argument has been made many
times before. A favorite of the Wicca crowd. I hope you do not think you
are stating something new here that is so advanced with mind numbing
brilliance and insight that you and your like minded few are alone
crying out in some desert of lessers. If so, sorry. Very stale stuff.
> It means there is no distinction between sleeping dreams and reality.
> If this were the case, than the universe would stop to exist when you
> stop to exist.
We can leave this with this, your 'logic'.
walterimlenz
> So if you picture in your imagination a purple elephant, and then stop
> thinking about it, where is the empty place that this purple elephant
> has left behind?
My imagination.
> If nothing can cease to exist without leaving an (existent) empty
> place behind, doesn't it then follow that any universe must be
> infinite by induction?
The cessation of an item is an event, and an event is something where
it is senseful to ask "what comes after the event?". So at least the
timeline on which the event took place, must continue. That's a matter
of logic.
But - so you might say - according to certain physical theories time
has had a beginning (the Big Bang or so) and it will find an end. - I
don't know how to interprete the concept "time" as it is used in
physics. I'm not even sure, that science knows it. Maybe to map the
physical concept onto the common concept of "time" has been a kind of
stopgap, since people like me, whose understanding of physical
theories is insufficient, wanted to know what those theories are
about, and so the researchers had to tell something. Of course, I
believe some of those theories are well grounded. But their connection
to reality is the fact, that you can conclude reliable predictions
from them. No physical theory could convince me, that time has had a
beginning, because it's logically impossible.
In this sense - insofar as the timeline must continue, no matter what
events are happening - and presupposed, that a universe can be empty,
the universe is actually infinite.
> Your argument that there must be an absolute reality, is that there
> has to be an existent empty place left behind when something stops
> existing?
No. My argument that there must be an absolute reality rests on the
fact, that a snake can't make itself disappear by eating itself. If
the snake has been eaten, there must be something, which has eaten it.
- If everything is an illusion, than at least the fact, that
everything is an illusion can't be an illusion. If every existence is
illusionary, the illusion itself can't be illusionary too. Its
existence must be absolute.
----------------------------
> Most people would not consider the existence of logic and
> mathematics sufficient to keep an otherwise nonexistent universe
> alive. With that given, "everything is imaginary" cannot be applied
> to statements - so you argument that the concept is absurd because the
> statement itself would have to be imaginary - doesn't hold. Do you
> agree?
I agree that 2+2=4 is true, even if every thing in the world is
annihilated. But I don't think that the same can be applied in our
case. - In two hundred years the digit "2" can mean "3" and vice
versa. Nevertheless it wouldn't be true to say, that 2+2 will be 6 at
this time. - Why? Because the assertion is done in our language and
not in the language of this future. It is not self-contradictory to
say that 2+2 is 4 at a later time when "2" will have another meaning
or at a later time, when language has totally disappeared.
But the things are not the same in the case of the assertion
"Everything is imaginary." If everything is imaginary, it is currently
imaginary. There is no language and no meaning and no statement. (And
2+2=4 is meaningless as well.) You cut the branch you are sitting on.
Walter Imlenz
ZerkonXXXX
> If we dispose of temporality then I can answer by saying that the
> universe is both an object of knowledge or empty appearance, and not an
> object of knowledge as it really is.
If we dispose of both object and thought of object as not 'having' any
other definition than their own existence, know or not, what still must
be accounted for is action or energy. A thing in absolute separation can
not act upon or be acted upon without something outside itself.
In the case of humans and (only) their thoughts about things, it is
pretty safe to say that without ingesting forms of dirt and water, there
would be no 'thoughts about things'. Even the thoughts change in
relationship to the dirt and the water and the plants and the animals and
the fungus and the bacteria and the sun and the planets, electro-chemical
forces on and on, in short all these things and more make up the human
life, thoughts or no thoughts, as only one thing of XXillions 'made up'.
Somehow after all this, 'knowing' becomes the central aspect in the
relationship with all these things we actually live, not live with or
live next to but things that are in us and go through us constantly as
they do each other. This is as 'spiritual' and 'mysterious' as a drink of
water and is unknown to people of science only until after they get out
of about 7th grade maybe.
The difficulty, I believe, is being conditioned in deep ways of thinking
we have become used to yet at least sense these need some base
adjustments. Metaphor comes to the fore as both gate keepers and openers.
It is taken for granted as new discoveries are made new thought just
rides in with it. The thoughts being as new as the discovery and the ways
of thought just auto-adjust. Not so simple especially when it comes to
the "I".
ZerkonXXXX
> The only way to prove the universe will still be here when 'YOU'
> die...well, is to die yourself and see if it's still here.
The "only way to prove" a ball will drop is to drop it.
If the ball is not dropped, there is no proof it will? If there is
'really' no proof it will, 'proof' becomes valid only by the self-
evidence in each single event. Proof then does not serve a reasoned
outcome.
Andrew Tomazos
> Skepticism is not the same as defeatism. You equate the groundless
> reality of the dream with constructs built upon human perception then
> claim no one can ever 'know' a difference. This is defeatism upon which
> nothing can be constructed much less science.
Why should how useful something is have bearing on whether it is true
or not? You're assuming a positivist approach is the only reasonable
way. Normally this is a safe assumption, but in the context of the
OP, we can't make such a leap - because the positivist answer to the
OP is trivially and obviously no.
> > How do you know that what you call the universe and real life is not
> > also like this (ie a big dream)? The answer is you don't know and
> > can't know.
>
> There is no 'proof' in 'how do you know' nor in just saying 'the universe
> is or might be a big dream'. You can not know it is not a dream by this
> same logic.
>
> A dream occurs in a sleep state. Ok, now you say, how do you know the
> wake state is not also a dream? Not, the wake state is, in fact, a dream
> state and here is my proof. Your 'proof' is only "you can never know".
My argument is that it cannot be proven either way. One way to show
that this is wrong is to prove one of the two cases. Noone in history
has succeeded in doing this.
> I understand very well what you mean. This argument has been made many
> times before. A favorite of the Wicca crowd. I hope you do not think you
> are stating something new here that is so advanced with mind numbing
> brilliance and insight that you and your like minded few are alone
> crying out in some desert of lessers. If so, sorry. Very stale stuff.
The concept of Solipsism dates back to 500 BC. It is a precursor to
most of modern philosophy.
> > It means there is no distinction between sleeping dreams and reality.
> > If this were the case, than the universe would stop to exist when you
> > stop to exist.
>
> We can leave this with this, your 'logic'.
This is quoted out of context, I was defining what the expression
"everything is a dream" means. I did not state that I believe that it
is true, merely that is conceivably possible and cannot be disproven.
-Andrew.
Andrew Tomazos
> But - so you might say - according to certain physical theories time
> has had a beginning (the Big Bang or so) and it will find an end. - I
> don't know how to interprete the concept "time" as it is used in
> physics. I'm not even sure, that science knows it.
>
> events are happening - and presupposed, that a universe can be empty,
> the universe is actually infinite.
It has been scientifically proven that time is not some absolute
quantity. Einstein proposed early last century several theories about
how time, space and gravity are interconnected. The upshot is that
what you perceive as time depends on your your relationship to space
(your so-called "inertial reference frame"). There is no absolute
order of events. That is to say - you may perceive events in order A-
B-C, whereas I might see A-C-B, and we are *both* correct. This has
been shown to be accurate by experimentation using lasers, mirrors and
atomic clocks. It is taught all over the world as fact in undergrad
physics. See Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity.
Given this already counter-intuitive property of time, isn't it
presumptuous to say that time must continue infinitely into the past
and into the future? Just because we perceive it locally as linear,
doesn't mean it is that way on the whole. Locally the world looks
flat, it doesn't follow that it is flat.
> > Your argument that there must be an absolute reality, is that there
> > has to be an existent empty place left behind when something stops
> > existing?
>
> No. My argument that there must be an absolute reality rests on the
> fact, that a snake can't make itself disappear by eating itself. If
> the snake has been eaten, there must be something, which has eaten it.
> - If everything is an illusion, than at least the fact, that
> everything is an illusion can't be an illusion. If every existence is
> illusionary, the illusion itself can't be illusionary too. Its
> existence must be absolute.
Ok, than answer me this. When a piece of matter and anti-matter
collide and mutually annihilate in a vacuum (considered something that
is physically possible), what is left behind?
-Andrew.
walterimlenz
> It has been scientifically proven that time is not some absolute
> quantity.
Time is not some "absolute quantity", but a logical scheme in our
language. It means, e.g. that you can always ask for the events that
occured before one particular event or the events that will occur
after it. Because of this, time is infinite, and science cannot prove
that it's not, as little as it can prove that square circles are
possible. - If science would tell you, that certain black holes are in
the shape of square circles, you don't need to believe it. If the
theory makes nevertheless some sense, the involved concept
"circle" (or the concept "square", anyway) cannot be the usual
concept. It must be an abstract concept that has its sense merely in
the context of the theory, and which is misleadingly associated with
the common concept by using the same word. - The same with "time".
-------------------------
> > No. My argument that there must be an absolute reality rests on the
> > fact, that a snake can't make itself disappear by eating itself. If
> > the snake has been eaten, there must be something, which has eaten it.
> > - If everything is an illusion, than at least the fact, that
> > everything is an illusion can't be an illusion. If every existence is
> > illusionary, the illusion itself can't be illusionary too. Its
> > existence must be absolute.
> Ok, than answer me this. When a piece of matter and anti-matter
> collide and mutually annihilate in a vacuum (considered something that
> is physically possible), what is left behind?
Do you really think, that I've used the snake example to demonstrate,
that no thing can disappear completely?
Walter Imlenz
Andrew Tomazos
> > It has been scientifically proven that time is not some absolute
> > quantity.
>
> Time is not some "absolute quantity", but a logical scheme in our
> language. It means, e.g. that you can always ask for the events that
> occured before one particular event or the events that will occur
> after it. Because of this, time is infinite, and science cannot prove
> that it's not, as little as it can prove that square circles are
> possible.
Sorry, but I suspect your "time is infinite" belief is based on faith
and intuition. Science has found convincing evidence that the
observable universe began 15 billion years ago. Perhaps time began
then too, and there were no events before that. Here watch this
video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM
Regards,
Andrew.
Gene Ledbetter
beings. Let's consider how we know that the universe exists now and
whether it existed before we did.
Our knowledge of the universe depends upon our physical ability to
perceive it with our five senses and upon our mental ability to
understand what we perceive. We see, hear, feel, smell, and taste our
environment, and we are able to develop a logical picture of that
environment using reason. Science has helped us in the endeavor to
refine our understanding of the universe.
But did the universe exist before we did? We see that both we and our
animal friends have sensory organs, especially eyes and ears, that
enable us to perceive our environment. In order for us to develop the
ability to perceive the universe, the universe must already have
existed. Otherwise, why would we have developed organs to perceive
something that didn't exist?
Now if the universe existed before we did, then the universe can exist
without us. And if the universe can exist without us, it can surely
exist after we die.
Gene Ledbetter
John Jones
> On Jul 9, 1:24 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Observations can be accurate,
>> No. Accuracy is a judgement made in respect of an observed comparison.
>> The observed comparison is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>
> If there is an absolute world outside of our perception, than accuracy
> is the degree to which our model predicts the behaviour of that
> world.
Yes, and that degree is a matter of our own judgement.
> It is so commonly assumed that this absolute world exists, it
> can be considered an understood axiom unless otherwise specified.
> Therefore the accuracy of an observation is sensical.
> -Andrew.
Yes, it is derived through the senses, if you like, but the judgemnt
made upon it is not.
John Jones
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:24:40 +0100, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:00:36 +0100, John Jones
>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is bizarre or extravagant about the idea that our tested
>>>>> observations of how the universe operates are accurate, to the best of
>>>>> our knowledge?
>>>> Observations are neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>>> Spare me the New Age psychobabble.
>> Oh I see. You look and observe "accurately" or inaccurately then. Does
>> this mean that when you look, you always see either truth or lies?
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "truth or lies" in this context.
You are saying that observation is based always on what is real.
Otherwise, we could not claim accuracy. But the claim or judgement of
accuracy is not based on what we see.
>> Or
>> just that you have 20 20 vision?
>> Of course not. You just look.
>>
>>> Observations can be accurate,
>> No. Accuracy is a judgement made in respect of an observed comparison.
>> The observed comparison is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>
> This is almost meaningless.
We can judge a comparison as accurate. But we cannot judge an
observation as being accurate.
>>> inaccurate, or somewhere in between. If I observe that I'm typing this
>>> on a Sony Vaio laptop, that falls into the first category.
>>>
>>>>> Especially when we see day-to-day confirmation of them?
>>>> Observations are not confirmed, day-to-day or otherwise.
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> Was there anything else?
>>> Yes: did you have a point to make?
>> The personal point and one that you can take home with you is that
>> tackle with me and you WILL come off worse.
>
> I doubt that very much.
John Jones
> On Jul 9, 1:35 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I am saying that the
>> real world is not an object of knowledge. AND, if we create our own
>> world then, yes, the universe ceases to exist when we die, but its
>> status as not being an object of knowledge - which is always with is -
>> continues.
>>
>> Further, your dream/real pair are only operative in a non-Kantian
>> scenario. Because if we create our own objects, or set the limits for
>> them, then we can always be sure of our world.
>
> First of all, don't appeal to some random author.
I was appealing to what he said which I indicated for your pleasure.
> You can't assume
> everyone has read the same books as you.
I described the Kantian argument immediately after I mentioned Kant.
> If you read something and
> want to incorporate it into your argument than do so -
I did, please check.
>
> Also, if you use words or expressions for anything other than their
> common usage, than you must define them.
I know.
>
> You cannot know whether or not the real world is an object of
> knowledge. Perhaps it is. Perhaps gravity is real.
Only if what is real is knowledge.
> Perhaps physics
> is dreaming us. Perhaps there is no free will or control at all and
> everything you will ever think, perceive and experience is predestined
> by some larger machine. What you cannot do is know *for sure*. There
> is a big difference.
There's good arguments against that.
> As I said, it is undeniable that you are not in complete conscious
> control of what you perceive.
There's a problem there with the philosophy of the grammar you use (the
conscious/perceive distinction, for example). You don't have to look to
what philosophers say to feel that something is fishy. You go by gut
instinct.
> You have experienced unexpected
> events. How then do you propose to create your own universe? If I
> drop a 500 kg piano on your head, than I am pretty sure your little
> fantasy world will change pretty quickly. Do you believe otherwise?
> What do you expect would happen in this scenario?
> -Andrew.
I can use your example to make my point. My point is that without a
human agency you could not use the examples of a piano and a changing
fantasy world. The human agency describes the physical limits of the
objects that exist physically.
John Jones
> On Jul 9, 1:31 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Unless, of course, we set the limits of the objects in our world. In
>> which case we are sure of the world we live in.
>
> No, because you have perceived things that you did not consciously
> want to perceive.
That never happens. You are talking about being "surprised".
You may have stubbed your toe for example and
> experienced pain. Whether a dream or real, you are not in complete
> control of what you perceive - therefore you are not in any position
> to set limits.
> -Andrew.
>
The limits are the limits that I decree for the objective world. Without
these limits there are no "toes" etc.
Andrew Tomazos
> Andrew Tomazos wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 1:24 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>> Observations can be accurate,
> >> No. Accuracy is a judgement made in respect of an observed comparison.
> >> The observed comparison is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>
> > If there is an absolute world outside of our perception, than accuracy
> > is the degree to which our model predicts the behaviour of that
> > world.
>
> Yes, and that degree is a matter of our own judgement.
Not necessarily. Assuming there is an absolute physical universe, if
I predict two different objects in the absolute world have the same
width (within some given margin of error), than that statement is
either accurate or not. Judgement has nothing to do with it in this
case.
-Andrew.
John Jones
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:30:46 +0100, John Jones wrote:
>
>> If we dispose of temporality then I can answer by saying that the
>> universe is both an object of knowledge or empty appearance, and not an
>> object of knowledge as it really is.
>
> If we dispose of both object and thought of object as not 'having' any
> other definition than their own existence, know or not, what still must
> be accounted for is action or energy. A thing in absolute separation can
> not act upon or be acted upon without something outside itself.
Yes, that's the major gripe with Kant. The gripe is how can things in
themselves affect us? Objects affect us but the affection is merely an
appearance. So we must really be affected by something else.
So if only empty appearances affect us, and things in themselves don't,
then we are left hanging as to the ontological status of change.
>
> In the case of humans and (only) their thoughts about things, it is
> pretty safe to say that without ingesting forms of dirt and water, there
> would be no 'thoughts about things'. Even the thoughts change in
> relationship to the dirt and the water and the plants and the animals and
> the fungus and the bacteria and the sun and the planets, electro-chemical
> forces on and on, in short all these things and more make up the human
> life, thoughts or no thoughts, as only one thing of XXillions 'made up'.
It's strange how "thought" drops out of consideration as an independent
entity.
John Jones
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:00:16 +0100, John Jones wrote:
>>
>> The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
>> die?" is this:
>> We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
>> universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
>> knowledge-based object.
>
> Astounding. You are now arguing with yourself - and losing.
I would like to think that someone read it. READ it.
John Jones
> On Jul 9, 7:08 am, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:00:16 +0100, John Jones wrote:
>>
>>> The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
>>> die?" is this:
>>> We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
>>> universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
>>> knowledge-based object.
>> Astounding. You are now arguing with yourself - and losing.
>
> depending on what he's currently doing.
>
> ---
> a.a. #2273
TRy it bro cool hanging dumbro
Andrew Tomazos
> > You cannot know whether or not the real world is an object of
> > knowledge. Perhaps it is. Perhaps gravity is real.
>
> Only if what is real is knowledge.
If someone flips a hidden coin, and I guess it is heads and it is
heads - what I believe is true despite the fact that I did not know it
to be so.
> > Perhaps physics
> > is dreaming us. Perhaps there is no free will or control at all and
> > everything you will ever think, perceive and experience is predestined
> > by some larger machine. What you cannot do is know *for sure*. There
> > is a big difference.
>
> There's good arguments against that.
Saying that good arguments exist, without making them, is rather
pointless.
>You go by gut instinct.
You can't appeal to gut instinct. I can justify anything by saying
that it is a point of faith or intuition. It is of no use to me, and
certainly not appropriate for a logic and philosophy forum.
> I can use your example to make my point. My point is that without a
> human agency you could not use the examples of a piano and a changing
> fantasy world. The human agency describes the physical limits of the
> objects that exist physically.
I don't know what you mean by human agency. What is the difference
between a "human agency", "human agent" and a plain old "human"?
-Andrew.
John Jones
> On Jul 7, 8:00 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>>
>> The universe, considered independently of any human or animal framework
>> of knowledge, is not an object of knowledge. We might then want to say
>> that the essence of the universe, the universe as it really is, is not
>> an object of knowledge.
>>
>> The mistake in the question "Does the universe cease to exist when we
>> die?" is this:
>> We can have a universe that is not an object of knowledge even if that
>> universe doesn't exist, for "existence" only pertains to a
>> knowledge-based object.
>>
>> that it is an object of knowledge. In other words, Science believes that
>> the universe has the same or similar properties matching our perceptions
>> of it. And again, as we all know, to believe in such a bizarre,
>> extravagant idea leads us into doubt as to what is real.
>
> Science has such ihistorically well-known crank and unjustified
> deas about knowledge,
> that's why the people who actually have a non-empty set inkling
> about mechanics and e-m
> even work, on Optical Computers, Holographics, Electronic Books,
> Fiber Optics Signalling,
> DSP, Laser Disk Libraries, On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping, On-
> Line Publishing,
> Sefl-Assembling Robots, Self-Replicaing Machines, GPS, Digital
> Terrain Mapping,
> Atomic Clock Wristwatchs,Light Sticks, and other stuff wasn't
> spotaneously
> auto-generating by the A:I cranks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
itoohavetroublewithwritinglegibly
John Jones
> On Jul 8, 9:00 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Does the universe cease to exist whescumbagarsehole
John Jones
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:00:16 +0100, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>
> Well, a lot of people have died, and it's still here.
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
May we live forever.
John Jones
You started well but fell at the hurdle.
YES, we create the limits of the physical world that we call 'objects'.
NO, the objects of the physical world aren't already present because the
limits of all objects are defined by us.
John Stafford
It is a wait game.
I am in for $10,000US that it does not.
John Jones
But there are some instances when we might want to say that identical
objects are not the same, for example if they were twins, or
stereo-isomers. What counts as the criteria for sameness is a judgement
we must make ourselves.
John Jones
> On Jul 12, 1:53 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> You cannot know whether or not the real world is an object of
>>> knowledge. Perhaps it is. Perhaps gravity is real.
>> Only if what is real is knowledge.
>
> If someone flips a hidden coin, and I guess it is heads and it is
> heads - what I believe is true despite the fact that I did not know it
> to be so.
>
I just reread what I wrote and I can't follow what I mean by "Only if
what is real is knowledge."
I think I meant it as a criticism of "real". Are we take what is real as
what is physically knowable?
>>> Perhaps physics
>>> is dreaming us. Perhaps there is no free will or control at all and
>>> everything you will ever think, perceive and experience is predestined
>>> by some larger machine. What you cannot do is know *for sure*. There
>>> is a big difference.
>> There's good arguments against that.
>
> Saying that good arguments exist, without making them, is rather
> pointless.
>
>> You go by gut instinct.
>
> You can't appeal to gut instinct. I can justify anything by saying
> that it is a point of faith or intuition. It is of no use to me, and
> certainly not appropriate for a logic and philosophy forum.
Not sure about that. Sometimes you can feel when something doesn't look
right. In fact, wouldn't that be a necessary prerequisite for examining
it further?
>> I can use your example to make my point. My point is that without a
>> human agency you could not use the examples of a piano and a changing
>> fantasy world. The human agency describes the physical limits of the
>> objects that exist physically.
>
> I don't know what you mean by human agency. What is the difference
> between a "human agency", "human agent" and a plain old "human"?
> -Andrew.
As humans we define human objects, like piano's etc. We know how to draw
limits in physical reality to make these objects. Other animals would
not see these objects. Cats do not see a piano.
duke
wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:00:16 +0100, John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Does the universe cease to exist when we die?"
>>
>> Well, a lot of people have died, and it's still here.
>>
>> The Dukester, American-American
>> *****
>> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul VI
>> *****
>
>May we live forever.
You're booked to go the same way the rest of us are.
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:24:40 +0100, John Jones
>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:00:36 +0100, John Jones
>>>> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is bizarre or extravagant about the idea that our tested
>>>>>> observations of how the universe operates are accurate, to the best of
>>>>>> our knowledge?
>>>>> Observations are neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>>>> Spare me the New Age psychobabble.
>>> Oh I see. You look and observe "accurately" or inaccurately then. Does
>>> this mean that when you look, you always see either truth or lies?
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean by "truth or lies" in this context.
>
>You are saying that observation is based always on what is real.
>Otherwise, we could not claim accuracy. But the claim or judgement of
>accuracy is not based on what we see.
Please rephrase the above so that it actually means something.
>>> Or
>>> just that you have 20 20 vision?
>>> Of course not. You just look.
>>>
>>>> Observations can be accurate,
>>> No. Accuracy is a judgement made in respect of an observed comparison.
>>> The observed comparison is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
>>
>> This is almost meaningless.
>
>We can judge a comparison as accurate. But we cannot judge an
>observation as being accurate.
Why not?
John Jones
An observation, if it just means looking, isn't accurate or inaccurate.
Acciracy is a jusdgement made in respect of a model or concept.
raven1
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
The words you're using are English, and your sentences are
grammatically correct, yet you still manage to convey absolutely no
information. Try rephrasing the above so that it actually means
something
John Jones
When we look we aren't being accurate about anything. We just look. If
we want to be accurate about something then we have to look AND compare
what we see with what we expect to see, or could see.
Marshall
>
> The words you're using are English, and your sentences are
> grammatically correct, yet you still manage to convey absolutely no
> information.
You have captured the very essence of John Jones.
Marshall
polymer
Reading too much Jacques Derrida --
Jones contracted verbal Diarrhea.
John Stafford
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> When we look we aren't being accurate about anything. We just look. If
> we want to be accurate about something then we have to look AND compare
> what we see with what we expect to see, or could see.
Or?
walterimlenz
Does your odd view concerning cats amount to the claim that a being
without language can't see things? What draws those "limits" in the
case of humans which does not draw them in the case of the cat?