What Is Anything?

NirvAnamation

Well-Known Member
What is Anything? What is God? Is there a God? Extraterrestrial Life?

I've always considered myself an atheist, I generally listen to science, but what is science?
There are so many opinions and beliefs on this planet of ours, probably so many opinions in our galaxy, our universe. How big is the place we live in? Is there more than one universe? More than one space? More than one dimension? Fuck if we know. For all we know we are just an experiment, for all we KNOW our entire universe is one. The fact is, we dont KNOW. There is the possibility for so many things out there. Maybe theres another universe with a white sky a blue stars, fuzzy suns and planets made of who knows what. Theres probably a civilization out there who knows way more about this existence than we do, and theres shit they don't know.

Maybe there is no existence. Maybe what we see and feel and hear is all a fake game, and when we die, we look back on it and laugh. Or nothing happens when we die. Maybe our universe is just one of the smallest denominators in something we don't and can't understand. Maybe everytime I hit a key I kill trillions of universes, and 2 seconds to me is a millinia. MAYBE there is life that can live in space. MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE. The key word is MAYBE. None of us, and i mean NONE of us no anything. So MAYBE is the only fact. Maybe theres is an entire universe of united aliens, and we are on the outskirts, i third world planet or universe or galaxy.

All i've typed here is MAYBEs and questions, cause maybe in reality, thats all there is.
 

BongTokinAlcoholic420

Well-Known Member
Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?
[SIZE=-1]In 1982 a remarkable event took place.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]At the University of Paris a research team led byphysicist Alain Aspectperformed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believesAspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image.Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion.He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds,we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".[/SIZE]​
 

fulbright

Member
So MAYBE is the only fact.
Or MAYBE not... See what I did there. Saying that there is no objective truth is a paradox -- A statement that contradicts itself.

The belief of, or the actual existence of (depending on your views) objective truth is quit useful. It's what allows us to make decisions and affect the world around us in the ways that we do. If we could really know nothing at all, then how could we make decisions with any kind of confidence? The reality is that we live based on the assumption that what we sense about the world around us is true. (although you might disagree that this is reality) And this makes perfect sense. After all, the greater the difference is between what you sense and what is actually there, the less chance you have of success in this world. So after millions of years of evolution, I have the utmost confidence that our senses do match what's really there, or is at least match close enough to be useful. So, due to a collective consensus of what reality is, ie. Science, we can measure reality and define the boundaries of the things we can sense. So we assume that we can know some kind of objective truth, and the more we act on the basis of this assumption, the more it works in our favor and proves out our theory.

I once struggled with this, thinking that I could never know anything, and that objective truth did not exist. But how useful is this really? All it seems to do, if you internalize it (as I did for some time), is stop your personal progress in life. Even if this were all a lie, it is all we know. I would make the best of it. You could spend years agonizing over the possibility of your existence being a lie, or that nothing is real, etc. But what does that you get you? From my perspective: a whole lot of nothing.
 

Mr.KushMan

Well-Known Member
I believe, as others have said, philosophy is the act of preparing to die.

So philosophy 101:

1. Nothing exists.
2. If something does exist, nothing can be known about it.
3. If something can be known about it, nothing about it can be communicated others.

Quite schizophrenic and neurotic sounding, <maybe theres something to that. But even the best that science can show us, is that reality possesses internal paradoxes, and the best theories to date have the most startlingly enlightening ideas.

Those moments of divine revelation, and meaningful coincidence is one of the most conclusive facts in my opinion.

But beyond that, lets look at neurotransmitters. Certain ones possess as certain chemical makeup, and produce a consistent result based on that makeup. You can tweak the make up slightly and get a slightly different result, or alot and got a considerably different result. So what this says to me is that each chemical pass a geometric identity onto the neuron, which passes down through the network as a specified electric signal along a specific path, even within the neuron there is coding at the atomic and molecular levels. So I propose that the chemicals, like DMT, 5-HT, Dopamine, and norepinephrine produce the daily experience, them being is constant flux between each other, producing a fairly evenly dimensional, consistent experience. When you introduce strong chemicals, exogenous DMT or LSD or MDMA, they seriously change the way that information is processed. Which comes back to, is this experience only for you.

We know there are probably at least 11 dimensions, of which we have observed 4 and somewhere between 2 and 3 (computer generated fractals, depending on their roughness). And there is likely an ocean of universes, maybe an infinite amount, all infinite in size and indivisible, and only 5% of our universe is physical matter. So we must understand consciousness, before we make a bunch of assumptions.

I am nineteen in june and have found happiness in neuroses, mainly cause I don't like peoples stupid bullshit. "really low tolerance for it." It is a new time in history and people need to see that there are no standards on societal change, it takes place with in. I don't mean to make people unmotivated to participate, I believe knowing is everything, I want to quote Arthur C. Clarke :

"I wanted to kill myself. I would have done it, too, if I had owned a gun. I was considering the gruesome alternatives &#8212; pills, slitting my wrists with a razor blade, jumping off a bridge &#8212; when another student called to ask me a detailed question on relativity. There was no way, after fifteen minutes of thinking about Mr. Einstein, that suicide was still a viable option. Divorce, certainly. Celibacy, highly likely. But death was out of the question. I could never have prematurely terminated my love affair with physics."

Peace
 

fulbright

Member
1. Nothing exists.
2. If something does exist, nothing can be known about it.
3. If something can be known about it, nothing about it can be communicated others.
I find it baffling that you would attempt to communicate with anyone if you truly believed this.

As said by Bertrand Russell: "As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." :lol:
 

immaking3

Well-Known Member
i dont care wat anyone one says i believe their hasto be a higher power wether it is jesus or allah i dont knw but there is somethig cuzhow else would the first living thing get here.also when we die i think we have another life we must complete on the right path and if we coose the wong path we get sent back to our past life.
 

Mr.KushMan

Well-Known Member
There are scientific concepts to explain that, and I read that article regarding solipsism, but being a incontrovertible piece of philosophy, you must accept it. But accepting it doesn't make it true. I would describe myself as more of a cynic with exploratory drives.

I often regard my atheistic tendencies as lunacy, when in comparison to the vast number of holy ghost believers. So lets not get ahead of our selves here.

Peace

EDIT: Like any ism, it is fallible because it attempts to explain something that the human mind can't grasp.

Surely you read my discourse on the science of neuropharmacology, I am an avid follower of all trains of thought.
 

fulbright

Member
There are scientific concepts to explain that, and I read that article regarding solipsism, but being a incontrovertible piece of philosophy, you must accept it. But accepting it doesn't make it true. I would describe myself as more of a cynic with exploratory drives.
I indeed must accept that it is incontrovertible, as like God, it cannot be disproven. But, again like God, it cannot be proven either. It leaves us no better off than we were before. Let's say that yours' is the mind thats running this whole show. Even if you could know objective truth, you could never communicate it to us. But you can communicate relative truth to me. And if you try your utmost best to be clear, and I try my utmost best to understand, we can probably get close enough to be satisfied. It's like mathematical limits. We can never reach objective truth, but we can get infinitely close to it.
 

Mr.KushMan

Well-Known Member
Right, but not really. Because words are open to interpretation because they end up depending on our initial perception, and the strength of our other definitions. Words need more words, check out the infinite regression problem.

I would never assume that I have the ability to know everything, although I won't discount the possibility. And to say thinking about it is useless is just as inane.

Peace

Edit: The doctrine provided by some native americans and eastern asian philosophy describes much of quantum theory. Coupled with the idea of DMT being released at the moment of death, and during dreaming. One could describe a reality that is indeed subjective.

Some, it would seem, are more suited to thought than others.

I will reiterate, "That to philosophize is to learn how to die." Montaigne.
 

Jack747

Well-Known Member
I believe theirs indefinitely more to reality then the material world... There have been thousands of religions in the human history. Society has always shaped our reality. Still existence as a whole is all of a mystery. If their are other enlightened divine beings and they do have a connection with our reality they certainly wouldn't "watch" another being suffer. What would be the point of tests.

I take to heart the experience of having an "ego-death" state of mind and finally being able to see past our emotions. We see the inter-connectedness of everything, a higher concept of reality than the normal ritual we play out with each other everyday. The same "truth" consciousness has been found by many other people through meditation. The theory's are always dismissed by most people. But I see something obviously of higher meaning in this reality and we're all connected with it or we are it. All opinion of course.
 

fulbright

Member
Right, but not really. Because words are open to interpretation because they end up depending on our initial perception, and the strength of our other definitions. Words need more words, check out the infinite regression problem.
Uhhh.... no. Language is a COMPROMISE between speakers. We're trained to associate the meanings of these words to objects and ideas already set down by those who teach us. Look at the color of this text: BLUE The color of the text does not match the color the text names. You and I can look at that and know the same thing. Maybe your' associations with the word blue is slightly different than mine; Maybe the shade you see as red is slightly different than the shade I see, but we both have come to associate those shades with the symbol: red.

Because language is a compromise, we can never, as I agreed with you earlier, know the objective meaning of someone else's words. And indeed, as you say, people can-- and often do-- misinterpret what others are saying. (I could possibly doing that right now, but hope that I am not.) We can, however, as I said earlier, come closer and closer to the true meaning others are pointing to. That's how you and I are communicating right now!

If I say: "I fucking love cinnamon rolls!" You will probably be a little fuzzy on what I mean, as love could be interpreted as having a romantic connotation, or I could simply be using "love" to more emphatically say "like" as it holds a greater emotional weight. "I fucking love cinnamon rolls!" is a relative truth. "I really enjoy the taste of cinnamon rolls! The sweetness in my mouth is simply orgasmic! The delicious weight of them in my stomach is satisfying. The fond memories of my childhood that they bring back are delightful. Like a true friend, they envelop me with their warmth and I bask, as though under the sun, after eating one." That paragraph is far more specific, and thus closer to my objective truth. It is still relative truth, of course, but a much closer one to my objective experience. You may still be fuzzy on whether I want to make love to a cinnamon roll, and I assure you that I do not, but it's closer nonetheless.

Indeed, this whole reply has been developed to give more clarification to my point, and thus bring you closer to understanding my point. Or so I hope. :-P

If I have misunderstood your position on the points I have addressed, please clarify them for me, so that I might better understand what you mean.

I will reiterate, "That to philosophize is to learn how to die." Montaigne.
This is, of course, only an opinion.
 

Mr.KushMan

Well-Known Member
Yes we are in agreement, because we use language to describe the world we can only get so close, to the perfect, and consequently the experience we have is much more accurate.

Peace
 
Top