Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Something I've spent a decade putting together and taking apart.

I'm a scientist. The Big Bang Theory, to me, is the idea that makes the most sense to me when I am feeling existential. Billions of years ago, the Universe burgeoned and created us from nothing; and from that explosion of nothing, we now have everything.

You and I, and trees--stars and planets--all came from this event; but even the air we breathe, the atoms that compose us, and the fabric of space came from this Big Bang. Now, if you can believe this, then the idea that we are separate from one another becomes more seemingly improbable.

And I don't just mean from one human to another--I mean, even space,empty space--is as much connected to my skin as it is connected to yours or a distant star. So, as ludicrous as it may sound, distance is an illusory perception we've developed. I think that's why, in part, we feel alone when I think we shouldn't. Kind of romantic for an INTJ, huh?

That's my idea of birth. For me, that just wasn't enough. If there's birth, then there's death. Now. I don't believe in the ecclesiastical God; Hinduism and Islam are, too, inadequate in explaining how things are. We pray, and tell God what to do--as if he didn't know. We speak to God, when we should be silent. To pray is to not know, I think.

In the Bible, God himself says, "You search the scriptures daily, for in them you think you have life." You can read the Bible front to back, but that never brings you closer to God. Because words are inept; even the best combinations of words can prove inadequate when matched with pure experience.

To me, Isaac Newton's Conservation of Energy made the most sense when I was thinking about death and the end of the physical mortal existence.

When we die, the Earth decays, and the stars all disappear--this energy,heat--will just flow towards wherever it needs to. And I mean, all of our energies will end up in the same place one day. Like how we all originated from the Big Bang. So, my idea that distance is illusory and that we are all connected made sense to me. 19th century hippies popularised the ideas that would boast "we are all connected" from modern 19th century idealists, but they never really told you why. They never made it tangible.

So there it is, from what I understand of it: Life and Death.

I was still pretty unsatisfied, I wanted to understand God himself. A few years ago I was a resident at a Buddhist temple in Kyoto. I stayed there for six months to contemplate. The tantric guru, Gauatama Siddhartha once said, "We suffer because we desire, and so, to end our suffering we must, too, end our desires."

It made me realise that much of what we understand about the Universe works as a paradox. With black there is white, with good there is evil. With soft, there is hard; If the Big Bang and the Universe represents everything then the thing that created everything is nothing.

It's difficult to accept this for a lot of people, because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Like, only reading the Bible doesn't make a lot of sense. You have to experience it. And so, I tried my best to. As I said, words are inept, but I hope these ideas will be able to help some people. If there's something I'm missing, please reply. I would be happy to change my perspective.
 

·
Heretic
ESI 9w8 5w4 2w1
Joined
·
10,672 Posts
Imagine the universe as a pool of water.
Matter is a small vortex in the pool.
We think this disturbance in the water is everything there is.
Yet it is just a small disturbance in a much larger invisible body.
Most stuff is just empty space anyway,
as everything is just made up of small particles spaces quite far apart from each other.
At least in a relative sense.
Hence most things are almost not really there.
The presence of the objects is just the forces acting upon each other.
We don't understand these forces very well anyway.
So we believe the make believe illusion our brain creates for us.
This seeming solid world is easier to navigate than the chaos that our theories tell us reality really is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
You should read Andy Weir - The Egg.
It's a short story (one sheet of paper) by the author of The Martian. It's about life, the universe and everything.

Here it is: The Egg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
i am a fan of the idea that a celestial being died and its essence became everything we know, what kind of sacrifice would have to be made to create such wondrous things? (stars, planets, cosmic events, Life, matter e.t.c)

My knee-jerk internal response to your thread title was " who cares? it is because it is..." but upon further reflection (and to just not be a total dick) the above answer is what i like to think about the most. It seems like a basic kinda method of explaining our existence/creation but i like it, why complicate things? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,442 Posts
My belief/view on existence is that all that can exist does exist. Anything that can't exist doesn't.

It's kind of like a math equation. 2+2=4 , 2+3 doesn't=4

2+2=4 exists 2+3=4 doesn't.

Everything in this universe is interconnected with everything else in this universe via causality.

There are infinitely many universes that exist. But that doesn't mean that any universe can and does exist.

A universe that looks identical to this one except where I am currently wearing a hat( I'm not currently wearing a hat) doesn't exist because in order for such a universe to exist there would need to be events leading up to me having a hat on my head as well as all the events that result from that. And all the events leading up to someone identical to me having a hat on their heading and all the events resulting from that would make that parallel universe vastly different from this one. In other words, any parallel universe that do exist probably don't look anything like this... it's not the tv/sci trope where there is an alternative universe where we all have dopplgangers with some slight difference... any parallel universe everything in that universe is interconnected and dependent upon one another. And that interconnectedness would make any parallel universe completely different because everything in that universe would have to make logical sense with every single little thing that exists in that universe. Simply put, whatever can exist does exist. And whatever can't doesn't. To exist simply means it makes logical/mathematical sense. It doesn't mean there is some magical substance to it. You're not really here. You're made up of cells.. which are made up atoms... which are made up of electrons and quarks and other subatomic particles... which are made up of smaller stuff ad-infinitum... nothing exists but as as an abstract. The essence of the universe is simply mathematical and what exists is simply what makes mathematical sense. There is no beginning or end. No center or edge... things go on ad-infinitum. And to exist just means it makes mathematical sense.

At least that is what my logic and my gut feelings tell me ..and I don't believe there is anyway for us to ever know whether such beliefs are true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,442 Posts
It made me realise that much of what we understand about the Universe works as a paradox. With black there is white, with good there is evil. With soft, there is hard; If the Big Bang and the Universe represents everything then the thing that created everything is nothing.
I think that's something that is touched upon a lot in both philosophy and religious spirituality ... the concept that the only things which exist are actually just relationships between things, not things in themselves. For example lightness only exists as a contrast to darkness, male to female. ....even an object only exists by means of its interactions with other things.

I don't know if it's so much that it's a concept that people are reluctant to embrace embrace because it doesn't make sense... so much as it's just too intense because it's kind of overwhelming . To me it makes sense... I feel like it's more a matter of I guess disorienting. Nothing truly exists in the sense that we tend to refer to things as existing is a bit a bit overwhelming experience like cliff diving into water filled bottomless chasm .. not the sort of thing people who don't like to get their feet wet would prefer talking about the Kardashians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
You should read Andy Weir - The Egg.
It's a short story (one sheet of paper) by the author of The Martian. It's about life, the universe and everything.

Here it is: The Egg
Reminds me of the Persian Story Alan Watts once told.


There once was a Persian man who dies and goes to heaven.
At heaven's gate's the man knocks and from behind the voice of God calls out and says "Who is there?"
The man replies, "It is I." So God says, "In this home there is no room for you and I."

So the man wanders off to meditate on this for 10 years. He returns one day and knocks again. And again God asks, "Who is there?"

The man replies "It is me." And the gate remains closed with no reply from God. The man leaves yet again and returns in another 10 years. He knocks and God demands again, "Who is there?"

The man cries out, "It is thyself!" And the gate opens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I think that's something that is touched upon a lot in both philosophy and religious spirituality ... the concept that the only things which exist are actually just relationships between things, not things in themselves. For example lightness only exists as a contrast to darkness, male to female. ....even an object only exists by means of its interactions with other things.

I don't know if it's so much that it's a concept that people are reluctant to embrace embrace because it doesn't make sense... so much as it's just too intense because it's kind of overwhelming . To me it makes sense... I feel like it's more a matter of I guess disorienting. Nothing truly exists in the sense that we tend to refer to things as existing is a bit a bit overwhelming experience like cliff diving into water filled bottomless chasm .. not the sort of thing people who don't like to get their feet wet would prefer talking about the Kardashians.
Similar to my thoughts. Many things that exist must exist in relationship to another thing. No such thing that exists exists alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,442 Posts

In this clip Roger Penrose talks about how there are three aspects to reality ( the Physical world, mental/spiritual world, and mathematical world) and that people disagree on which is the true nature of reality.

He doesn't argue which if any, he views as the true nature of reality, more just pointing out that people should be aware of these different viewpoints.

My belief/view is that the mathematical world is the only one that truly "exists" and the true nature of reality. Nothing exists in any physical sense anymore than variables in a math equation. Everything in this universe can just be considered variables and the universe is simply the math equation that all those variables are a part of. The physical world is simply the result of mathematics, and our thoughts are simply the result of the physical world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #13

In this clip Roger Penrose talks about how there are three aspects to reality ( the Physical world, mental/spiritual world, and mathematical world) and that people disagree on which is the true nature of reality.

He doesn't argue which if any, he views as the true nature of reality, more just pointing out that people should be aware of these different viewpoints.

My belief/view is that the mathematical world is the only one that truly "exists" and the true nature of reality. Nothing exists in any physical sense anymore than variables in a math equation. Everything in this universe can just be considered variables and the universe is simply the math equation that all those variables are a part of. The physical world is simply the result of mathematics, and our thoughts are simply the result of the physical world.


While thinking about this, I couldn't help but think about a snake eating its own tail; if the physical world is the expression of the mathematical world, we could argue that the perspective in which different lifeforms with different neurological processes are bias in determining reality. If the word 'man' means 'middle,' then every incarnation of life believes that their middle perspective is the truth.

If math is used as the isomorphic language to prove existence in the universe, I would say that math--like any spoken language--is terribly clumsy. I.E "I think therefore I am.." Define "I."

And now if we define math, we have the same problem even if we were dealing with mathematical proofs; because proofs deal with objectivity in terms of its relationship with the universe--if math cannot exist independently without its counterpart, I can't say that it is the objective truth.

It's a boring contradiction to simply say that "everything is real" but 'everything real is also fake.' But at the same time, in my first post, when I said that nothing created everything, it makes sense that way to me. Just as I am to think that 'everything and nothing' cannot be explained in terms of a sole objective perspective; those being verbs, nouns, mathematics, etc.

I enjoyed thinking about this tonight. Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Ah. Taoism deals with reincarnation and how to live life. I don't believe in reincarnation..unfortunately lol. So, when I was younger, I learned more zen buddhism from my teachers and parents.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,042 Posts
It made me realise that much of what we understand about the Universe works as a paradox. With black there is white, with good there is evil. With soft, there is hard; If the Big Bang and the Universe represents everything then the thing that created everything is nothing.
The existence of one thing doesn't necessitate its opposite. For what is the opposite of a human? please don't say it's an animal, nor a God, because neither fit. Things just are. Black and white are two separate colors that appear to be the opposites. Good doesn't give birth to evil, both notions have to be separately established. What created everything is not its contrary. We just don't know what created the universe, as simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,442 Posts
If math is used as the isomorphic language to prove existence in the universe, I would say that math--like any spoken language--is terribly clumsy. I.E "I think therefore I am.." Define "I."

And now if we define math, we have the same problem even if we were dealing with mathematical proofs; because proofs deal with objectivity in terms of its relationship with the universe--if math cannot exist independently without its counterpart, I can't say that it is the objective truth.
I'm confused by what you're trying to say here. I don't know why you think that "that math--like any spoken language--is terribly clumsy. I.E "I think therefore I am.." Define "I."" ...Math to me doesn't seem clumsy at all. I don't understand why you would have that perception. Math is very orderly logical and entirely objective etc.

and I don't understand why you would think "math cannot exist independently without its counterpart" do you mean the physical universe as it's counterpart?

To me math appears to be an objective truth that would exist the same in any universe and regardless of what universe and physical reality exists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,442 Posts
The existence of one thing doesn't necessitate its opposite. For what is the opposite of a human? please don't say it's an animal, nor a God, because neither fit. Things just are. Black and white are two separate colors that appear to be the opposites. Good doesn't give birth to evil, both notions have to be separately established. What created everything is not its contrary. We just don't know what created the universe, as simple as that.
Words are complex things and contain many aspects and symbolism... the word human encompasses and triggers many symbolism- what it is that makes something human. The concept of an abstract human-ness or humanity certainly has an opposite and only exists in in relation to it's opposite for which we use the word "inhuman".

As far as thinking about a human begin as a specific organism: A human as a specific organism is a complex concept that is composed of many more basic concepts which at their core when you break them down only exist in relation to their opposite. Alive vs dead, organic vs inorganic, warm blooded vs cold blooded, lactating vs non lactation, sex reproducing vs non sex reproducing, etc.

It might seem like a cop-out to list simple negations as opposites like non-lactating ... but that what opposites are, the negation of something.

The idea that everything at it's core is the result of relationships does not mean that every concept has per say an opposite because concepts can be complex composed of large combinations of more basic aspects, but at their core are all aspects when you break them down just describe relationships and nothing in themselves by themselves.

No man is an island ... nor is any concept.

Also black and white aren't just colors. Black is the absence of light and white is the presence of all wavelengths of light... arguing that they're not opposites is like arguing that "all" and "none" aren't opposites... also other colors have opposites as described by the color wheel.


...actually to be honest I don't know how much I believe all the opposite shiz. I think things do only exist in relation to other things.. in terms of physical reality and the existence of objects and physical phenomena is just the interaction between them. But I don't know about the whole opposite stuff. The whole concept of opposites seems a kinda of subjective thing to be doing. I think it could potentially work for anything by breaking down any concept into components that have opposites... but just because it works for some stuff doesn't mean it works for all stuff... I don't think you could come up with any proof that it works for all stuff... and a lot of the the opposites and ways you break down stuff might seem weak and debatable ... but perhaps most significantly is what is the point of describing everything in terms of opposites? I don't know if this actually gives any real insight into anything. I think the insight people have taken away from this sort of thing in the past is less any insight into physics and such and rather just helping them to take the good w/ the bad and better live in harmony.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The existence of one thing doesn't necessitate its opposite. For what is the opposite of a human? please don't say it's an animal, nor a God, because neither fit. Things just are. Black and white are two separate colors that appear to be the opposites. Good doesn't give birth to evil, both notions have to be separately established. What created everything is not its contrary. We just don't know what created the universe, as simple as that.
I can see what you're trying to say. But I also must point out the dichotomy of saying that. Using your examples: I don't think the opposite of a human is a dog--that's my perspective. But you never defined what a human was. If we reduce a human as an anthropomorphic image, I could simply say a rock is the opposite of a human. It's a little silly to ask that; kinda like asking what the opposite of toilet paper is. We all know what the opposite of toilet paper is.

As for color, and good and evil: I can say hate is the opposite of love, while also stating that the opposite of love is apathy, and have both statements be correct.

Black is in-fact the opposite of white, which would automatically make white the opposite of black. The fact the different colors can be considered the opposite of black if you define black as the absence of color, and the other colors in the spectrum as the presence of color, doesn't mean that white is not the opposite of black, it just means multiple things can be the opposite of black. That's just what happens when our views as human are anthropic and if what we know is relative(which seems to be your understanding of the universe.)

What I am trying to describe is not exactly what you think it is. You're talking about what we know and what we don't know. I'm trying to say what is--just as mathematical proofs neither use inductive or empirical reasoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I'm confused by what you're trying to say here. I don't know why you think that "that math--like any spoken language--is terribly clumsy. I.E "I think therefore I am.." Define "I."" ...Math to me doesn't seem clumsy at all. I don't understand why you would have that perception. Math is very orderly logical and entirely objective etc.

and I don't understand why you would think "math cannot exist independently without its counterpart" do you mean the physical universe as it's counterpart?

To me math appears to be an objective truth that would exist the same in any universe and regardless of what universe and physical reality exists.
I'm thankful for this. In my previous post I mentioned some components of mathematics: deductive and empirical arguments. I think what's interesting are mathematical proofs, because they state objective truths.

What I mean is that proofs describe everything in the container, but they don't describe the container itself. Hopefully that makes what I tried to say more clear. I'd love to talk about this some more, though.

I once was taking an UBER home from Los Angeles to Orange County. The ride was about 50 minutes long and I hailed the ride at about 2am. The driver was a Caucasian man in his 50s or so. His Hyundai had an unsavory smell, he drove a dreadful 50 miles an hour on the highway and he was meekish when communicating--never using more than one or 2 syllable words in his short sentences--he was odd. But I struck up conversation with this man anyway and asked him if he were a math teacher--just a feeling I had at the time. He said he was. He started to talk about how beautiful proofs were and how maths exists in the Universe as a extension of language. I never took math too seriously when I was younger and regret it. I was more into language and writing for some reason.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,042 Posts
...actually to be honest I don't know how much I believe all the opposite shiz. I think things do only exist in relation to other things.. in terms of physical reality and the existence of objects and physical phenomena is just the interaction between them. But I don't know about the whole opposite stuff. The whole concept of opposites seems a kinda of subjective thing to be doing. I think it could potentially work for anything by breaking down any concept into components that have opposites... but just because it works for some stuff doesn't mean it works for all stuff... I don't think you could come up with any proof that it works for all stuff... and a lot of the the opposites and ways you break down stuff might seem weak and debatable ... but perhaps most significantly is what is the point of describing everything in terms of opposites? I don't know if this actually gives any real insight into anything. I think the insight people have taken away from this sort of thing in the past is less any insight into physics and such and rather just helping them to take the good w/ the bad and better live in harmony.
You're right in thinking that I deem it all a cop out. And this last paragraph you've written, the fact that it provides no insight whatsoever, is the deal breaker for me. Not only does this idea require us to change our definitions of things only to grant them opposites, it also doesn't show us anything valuable by doing so. And to go to such lengths as to apply this idea to accrue the origins of the universe is an outright insult to universe firstly and then to science.

@danielshole

If you wish to speak only of 'what is', then that by itself excludes the notion of all things having opposites. In any case, this mystical mode of thinking is beyond me. If I want to know the origins of the universe, then I know I have decades, maybe centuries, of scientific work in front of me rather than finding analogies as shortcuts to my goal. If I wish to know about life and death, those again are very broad topics that cannot be done justice to in a few lines, or with the help of a few analogies. Bottom line is, there's still too much we have to learn before we can go anywhere with these musings.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top