• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Things about Everything

Br1ngTh3Ra1n

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
250
Day 1

The world is starting to look confusing to me.
Everything is different. I am different.
Nothing feels as it did before in this strange timeless universe. Not the taste of food, not the music I once loved entertain me anymore.
I don’t recognize my family anymore. They seem strange to me. Who are they? Who placed them here with me? Is there who?
I am everything that I once hoped never to become. I don’t trust my feelings anymore. I don’t have the slightest clue why I am here. No, not here, here.
Is He here? Is He watching? Are they all listening to my thoughts? Are they all staring at me?
How did it affect me? I was almost immune to it, I was safe against such thoughts. How did they reach me again? How did they find their way back to me?
Should I lose hope on life? Is someone looking after Me?
How could He be? How could He exist? Who made Him?
In the beginning, how can Something, that is Nothing, makes everything, including itself (or not) from the absolute nothing it was in? But then, It must have existed in something, some sort of other dimension, another reality, where other physical law would govern.
But then again, under who’s authority?
And before turning into something, does the Nothing exist in something or in nothing? And again, this Nothing, was it, or was it not, put in the absolute emptiness by a higher Something, Or n(N)othing?
Can nothing exist? Or can nothing not exist? Can something not exist in the non-existing, or existing emptiness of nothing?
Does this endless paradox exists? Or does it not?
Rather yet, how can infinity exists?
How could we go so much back in time that we will never have a beginning? Does infinity exist?

Day 2

Is there a beginning to an infinity? Or does it have neither a beginning nor an end?
Well there is probably no limit to how much we can count to. Or is there?
But shouldn’t we start counting from a number? Can there be an endless stick with only one end? Should they both not exists? Or am I just confusing between the physical world and the mathematical world? They must be identical, since we learned so much about one through the other.
Does the second endless end exists, but isn’t simply reachable? Or is it nothing by default?
Is our existing limited thoughts incapable of grasping the vastness and endless stream of nothing? Wow, so much thinking for nothing.
How can nothing trouble so much something? Should it not have no effect on the other?
Do we not, by pointlessly trying to build an image of nothing, trying to make something out of nothing?
Is this not the work of something smarter? The work of gods, maybe. Or the work of nothing, perhaps.

Day 3

Thinking and trying to solve nothing is everything to me. I have every nothing. I have everything. No, I mean nothing.
I have no idea, nothing, how this simple yet complicated idea, this enigmatic unsolvable paradox, this Pointless idea of nothing, one that have no beginning, no end, no middle and no nothing, I mean lots of nothing, could have been comprehended, mastered and created by the Nothing that created everything.
They say the answer is that it was here all along, so nothing had to be created by Nothing from nothing to make something and everything and to get us thinking about nothing in this something.
Hm, are we nothing?
This simple conclusion seems sarcastically easy for me.
But we can think. We can think about everything and nothing.
We are surely something.
Okay, let’s have this as our cornerstone.
We are Something.

Day 4

Now, before brought up to this world. Before we were born. Were we something, or were we nothing?
Is this related to the paradox of what are “we” in the first place?
Well, we are not atoms, surely not a temporary collection of them. But that’s another subject, I’ll explain that in another week.
We are neither the atoms that we eat, the star dust that made us in the first place, nor the continuing synapses that fuels our human feelings. Oh, and certainly not all the previous conditions combined.
We, we are something else. Something that thinks about everything, even nothing, inside the vastness of something that was once nothing, or was it? However, this something that we are in, is in no way related to us, to “we”, to something. Thus, we were either something somewhere else, something nowhere, nothing nowhere or nothing somewhere.
Something somewhere or nothing nowhere seem the most uplifting scenarios, and the most comprehensive ones. Nothing somewhere is poorly missing information about the existence of this somewhere, and something nowhere seems too complicated to even think about such thing.
Both look promising about finding our way back in time into nowhere and nothing.
But what about something everywhere?

Day 5

I used to think nothing is impossible, but now, something possible seems a bit harder to wrap my head around it.
Is nothing by something possible? Is something by nothing even harder? My 83 billion neurons have proven incapable of comprehending such complicated and mind twisting algorithm, The finite structure of nothing.
Something promising came to my mind while I was thinking about something, but nothing came and took it away.
Am I curving a cube into a sphere? Am I desperately trying to grasp the concept of infinity, one that is lost deep in the ocean of endless, continuous, perpetual incessant, bewildering, mystifying, perplexing, meaningless, impotent, paradoxes and mysteries?

Day 6

43 nothings, 28 somethings and a whole lot of hard thinking is not enough to comprehend, well, nothing.
How could such an obvious answer slip away every time I feel like getting close to the concept of the infinite nothing? That unadulterated unconditional unlimited boundless endless pointless timeless space less immaterial concept. Hm, this reminds me of Someone. Or Something.

Day 7

I guess, after this long and inevitable thinking, such confusions are unavoidable and necessary roots to uncover the secrets of everything, Nothing.
And, at the end of the day, we did not comprehend nothing, nor the beginning of everything, of something, or even nothing. Much less understood the concept of infinity, of the future, and of Nothing.
Well, maybe after all, we are here only to understand something. One thing and one thing only, nothing. We can understand nothing.
Wait, I mean we can’t.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, attempting to comprehend cosmic concepts within the confines of the conscious mind alone is akin to trying to stuff an Ocean into a juice box. The other energetic systems of the mind, heart, and body, need to be brought into the process in order to achieve a transcendental awareness that has considerably more room.
 
In my experience, attempting to comprehend cosmic concepts within the confines of the conscious mind alone is akin to trying to stuff an Ocean into a juice box. .

I agree it's quite hard to understand the mysteries of the cosmos with our currently limited yet free-thinking brains.

However, when looking back in the past, humans never thought they might understand thunder, gravity, the planets, the basic fundamental laws of the univers..
They thought space is way beyond their grasp and that it was impossible to get to the moon.

Most of that changed and the perspective of the universe was completely shifted in under 700years~. Not bad considering we evolved not too long ago, around 200k years.

My point is, I believe that's wrong.
Our mind alone can understand the universe. Everything about it. Maybe not today, not in a thousand years, but we will.
We'll just have to keep asking questions an searching for answers until there's none left to ask.
 
Last edited:
The tao te ching was always one of my favorites.

Chapter 11

Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room

Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality
 
^By saying that we will discover all the answers, aren't you limiting the universe? :)
 
Our mind alone can understand the universe. Everything about it. Maybe not today, not in a thousand years, but we will.

We haven't even begun to answer the questions pertaining to our species, or our planet... In all likeliness we will never visit every part of the universe, let alone completely understand it... It really depends on what you mean by understand... Are you talking about scientifically understanding every component of the universe or spiritually understanding the function of the universe?

What happens if our species becomes extinct before this time that you foresee, thousands of years into the future, when we've worked everything out?

Why do you want to believe that there will be a time when no questions remain?
That would be a sad day, indeed...
Curiosity motivates us to continue living.
I mean, we need something to do - don't we?

What happens when we know everything?
 
^By saying that we will discover all the answers, aren't you limiting the universe? :)

Knowing everything about the universe doesn't necessarily limit it. It limits the knowledge needed to understand it.
Even if it does limit the universe. Maybe it's finite after all.
 
Last edited:
We haven't even begun to answer the questions pertaining to our species, or our planet... In all likeliness we will never visit every part of the universe, let alone completely underQUOTEit... It really depends on what you mean by understand... Are you talking about scientifically understanding every component of the universe or spiritually understanding the function of the universe?

What happens if our species becomes extinct before this time that you foresee, thousands of years into the future, when we've worked everything out?

Why do you want to believe that there will be a time when no questions remain?
That would be a sad day, indeed...
Curiosity motivates us to continue living.
I mean, we need something to do - don't we?

What happens when we know everything?

You have a strong point, indeed, the day we have no more questions to ask may be a sad day,or maybe not.
However, concerning the fonction of the universe, I really see none. In fact Neil de Grasse Tyson once said it.
We are here by chance.
As for the rest, we actually answered most of the questions concerning our species, a contribution from Darwin and many more.
We have all our planet's history written down.
It is true, as you said, that curiosity motivates us to continue living, but I believe we have other motivations.
And, in the future, considering we know everything, and that we manage to keep it out of harmful hands, wonders could happen.
 
We have scraps of history written down (and those scraps are biased).
We understand very little about ourselves and the planet.
What we do understand, you are inflating.

We don't (really) know how the brain works.
We haven't even discovered all animal species on this planet.

Neil de Grasse Tyson once said it.
We are here by chance.

He doesn't know that, any more than you or I do.
In a couple of centuries, let alone a thousand years, nobody will care what he said.

If we do, indeed, survive for thousands of years... then, we'll look back at this moment in history as ignorant.
(Just like we do, when we look back two centuries from now.)

It is important, I think, to see beyond our times (as much as you can).
Otherwise, we might as well insist that Earth is flat.

However, concerning the fonction of the universe, I really see none.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a function.
What you're suggesting, logically, is: the unknown doesn't exist... ?
 
We have scraps of history written down (and those scraps are biased).
We understand very little about ourselves and the planet.
What we do understand, you are inflating.

We don't (really) know how the brain works.
We haven't even discovered all animal species on this planet.



He doesn't know that, any more than you or I do.
In a couple of centuries, let alone a thousand years, nobody will care what he said.

If we do, indeed, survive for thousands of years... then, we'll look back at this moment in history as ignorant.
(Just like we do, when we look back two centuries from now.)

It is important, I think, to see beyond our times (as much as you can).
Otherwise, we might as well insist that Earth is flat.



That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a function.
What you're suggesting, logically, is: the unknown doesn't exist... ?


Those scraps of the universe created a near perfect universe in an electronic simulation. We'll get the missing parts in the future.

Also, I'm not inflating what we do know now, but simply pointing out to it.
The same person whome you predicted already that his words will be worthless in the future, said we barely know 4% of all there is. Thomas Edison narrowed it down even further.

It's like You're telling me the earth flat, if you think about it, and I'm telling you we'll be sure of what it is in the future

You failed to understand my point, again, I'm not suggesting we know everything, because we don't, I'm pointing to the logical fact that we will in the future.

And, I'm not suggesting that the unknown doesn't exist. I can't disproove the of fonction of the universe, niether can I disproove Santa Clause. But similarly, unless you have strong evidence for it, I will consider it one without function.
 
You failed to understand my point, again, I'm not suggesting we know everything, because we don't, I'm pointing to the logical fact that we will in the future.

It's not a fact and you've provided no logical explanation, whatsoever, for your claims that one day we will know everything.
The statement, as it stands, is neither factual or logical... but, rather, unsubstantiated.

You could be right, of course. But you haven't clarified your statement. Do you mean, by understanding everything, that we will - at some point - have classified and deconstructed the functionality of all life in the universe; or, when you say we will understand everything one day, do you mean that we will understand the overall meaning of life (in general) and the functionality (if there is such a thing) of the universe? As it stands, it is unclear what the statement even means.

I can't disproove the of fonction of the universe, niether can I disproove Santa Clause. But similarly, unless you have strong evidence for it, I will consider it one without function.

The universe has no function, because we're not aware of it; that's like saying that the world is flat, until proved otherwise. Since we've been convinced of seriously erroneous facts, historically, we should assume that there are things we don't know and that what we think we know is probably wrong... (As Edison and Tyson indicated.) ((To assign a value, like 4% doesn't make much sense. Neither Edison or Tyson have any idea what the number will be.))

You should not, in my (often less than humble) opinion think that something doesn't have a function simply because we haven't found it yet. Similarly you shouldn't conclude that there is no God, simply because you haven't encountered "Him" yet.

You seem to have a sort of "atheistic" approach to science, whereas I think it should be agnostic.
Then again, I think that the atheistic approach has no value in any context, including discussions about spirituality.

unless you have strong evidence for it, I will consider it one without function

There isn't strong evidence that there is life on other planets.
So, do you assume there isn't?
Why not assume that there is?
Or remain wholly undecided?

Please provide a logical explanation as to why it is more likely that the universe has no function.
Otherwise shouldn't you assume that it does have a function?
In the absence of evidence, you're taking sides... Why?

In other words: given that there is no evidence that the universe has no function, why not assume that it does?
What you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me.
 
^Given there is no evidence that the universe has a function, why not assume it doesn't? Or better yet, assume that this function may be indecipherable and unrecognisable to the puny human-ant, to the extent of appearing absent entirely.

Overall, I agree with your idea about the finite nature of human knowledge. I think we have to concede that our senses give us a view of the world that is restricted, and that a lot of information is whirling around unperceived (infra-red, infrasound, magnetism, tadpoles) and there might plausibly be even more information/stuff that we will never perceive. Maybe.
 
Indeed, and I don't assume that it has a function.
Whether or not it has a function, for me, overlaps with my spiritual beliefs... (which are not absolute)
There is no evidence I can share with you that the universe has a function, but there is more evidence (for me) than there is for anything else.

I find it less plausible that the universe is without a function/purpose, no matter how obscure, given everything we've observed within it has a function. But, from a purely logical basis, there is no reason to assume either way.

This is hard to explain.
I feel like it might come across as if I'm using different rules for me, and excusing my hypocrisy by inserting something vaguely spiritual... but, given that I can't prove the existence of God to you, it's impossible to prove why I "assume" the functionality of the universe that I have observed (like observing a Beetle, and "assuming" it's functionality).

I might be wrong, re: my observations of God (or we might be wrong about their observations of Beetles)... But, I have personal evidence that sways me towards believing (as I said, it isn't absolute) a "meaning of life"...

In the absence of God, given that there is no scientific evidence to indicate that we will one day know everything that there is to know, I don't understand why people would sway one way or another... unless they're emotionally invested (pessimistic / optimistic) about a particular future scenario.
 
It's not a fact and you've provided no logical explanation, whatsoever, for your claims that one day we will know everything.
The statement, as it stands, is neither factual or logical... but, rather, unsubstantiated.

You could be right, of course. But you haven't clarified your statement. Do you mean, by understanding everything, that we will - at some point - have classified and deconstructed the functionality of all life in the universe; or, when you say we will understand everything one day, do you mean that we will understand the overall meaning of life (in general) and the functionality (if there is such a thing) of the universe? As it stands, it is unclear what the statement even means.



The universe has no function, because we're not aware of it; that's like saying that the world is flat, until proved otherwise. Since we've been convinced of seriously erroneous facts, historically, we should assume that there are things we don't know and that what we think we know is probably wrong... (As Edison and Tyson indicated.) ((To assign a value, like 4% doesn't make much sense. Neither Edison or Tyson have any idea what the number will be.))

You should not, in my (often less than humble) opinion think that something doesn't have a function simply because we haven't found it yet. Similarly you shouldn't conclude that there is no God, simply because you haven't encountered "Him" yet.

You seem to have a sort of "atheistic" approach to science, whereas I think it should be agnostic.
Then again, I think that the atheistic approach has no value in any context, including discussions about spirituality.



There isn't strong evidence that there is life on other planets.
So, do you assume there isn't?
Why not assume that there is?
Or remain wholly undecided?

Please provide a logical explanation as to why it is more likely that the universe has no function.
Otherwise shouldn't you assume that it does have a function?
In the absence of evidence, you're taking sides... Why?

In other words: given that there is no evidence that the universe has no function, why not assume that it does?
What you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me.


Scientists are currently researching and developing our knowledge, we are knowing more and more about the cosmos by the day. so I have no explanation to give when claiming that one day we will know everything. If you think something or someone has placed some sort of limit to our understanding of the universe and to how much we are allowed to know, I believe you (or any one else claiming it) should be the one stating the facts.

And by understanding everything, I mean we would have understood all the laws of physics, chemistry and everything else he might discover.

You are correct, because we are not aware of the function of the universe we can't be sure that the universe doesn't have one.

Tyson and Edison were simply pointing out the fact that there is a lot more to be discovered. They assume these numbers.
As much as I hate judging people by the by their labels, I sort of agree with your point of view about the atheistic approach in any sort of context. However I certainly am not one myself. I certainly respect their point of view, as much as I think you do, too.
I may tend to ask for lots of explanation and proof, because I think we wouldn't, we would be drwoning an ocean of useless arguments and statements.
Again you are right about the "GOD" "issue" which is why I'll tend to go to the third option that you've given me in your last quote. I would rather go undecided.
However, dealing with other issues with no proof, and ones whenre going undecided may tend to affect my abilities on other subject, I choose the most proven one as an option.

I cannot give a logical explanation why the universe has no function as much as anyone can't prove to me that there is. I have taken sides in the absence of evidence, indeed.
If you are talking about a spiritual function of the universe, it is lost between the many functions suggested by all types of religion, and which have generally poor proof backing up their claims.
However if I were to go undecided about the function of the universe, I would then have to consider someone or something responsible for this function, the one who placed it and then I would have to search for who created this and I will be lost, just like in my original post, in the same sort of the unproven religious beliefs.
Your last statement makes absolutely no sense to me, honestly.
In the end, I would like to point out, that you and I mostly share lots of common ideas, but we have been misunderstanding each other.
 
Top