Does anything actually exist?

[Gnostic Bishop]

It's sort of a navel gazing question that doesn't really matter, to be honest.

Things are either seemingly happening or actually happening, but you don't have control over it either way, so?

That would depend on what is happening.

You cannot stop the rain, but you can stop it dripping on your head with an umbrella.

Like freedom. We are limited by physics but otherwise quite free.

Free to humans is a useless word as we cannot live free of the tribe.

Regards
DL

 

[woyzeck]

It's sort of a navel gazing question that doesn't really matter, to be honest.

Things are either seemingly happening or actually happening, but you don't have control over it either way, so?

You might say everything is an illusion, but I like to think control is in what you make of it, whether motivated by perception, accord or intention.
I love the line from Hitch-Hiker's Guide: "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so".

 

[TripSitterNZ]

“Consciousness is life; life is consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no life. Without life, we can't find any consciousness. There is a consciousness which is omnipotent,
omniscience, and omnipresent. It can exist beyond our existence. It is in every atom, every molecule, every cell, and every leaf. We may call it universal consciousness or atomic consciousness. When, we as a conscious being, learn the abilities to harmonize different levels of consciousness, we attain a state called higher consciousness.”
― Debasish Mridha

 

[Pickledlemons]

It is a fun thought experiment, maybe all the objective truths we think we know are just a well coordinated illusion and all human consciousness is just a little spark out there somewhere.

 

[rpm]

How can you prove it to me? How can you prove to me that anything in this world actually exists? What if this is all a simulation?

We can never know. Therefore science is false!

Something must exist because of Cognito Ergo Sum, right? I know that there is a thinker. I used to really like Decart's response to the sceptic. Minds must exist, and from there you can work backwards to concepts and bodies. However, he never quite resolved it satisfactorily as he had to appeal to the existence of a just God. I would express it differently, but I quite like this idea, that we need a leap of faith, as it leaves a place for spirituality. TripSitterNZ's quote basically sums it up. I think consciousness is the divine spark that turns the world from formless chaos to order. Obviously, it's not a logically coherent argument, but it keeps me sane and radical scepticism just doesn't really impact things enough for me to think more about it.

However, Nick Bostrom came along and ruined it by making it all applied and cosmological, with real-life consequences. And rather starkly depressing proposed solutions. like the futility of our species, space exploration or reality itself. Apparently, we seriously may be in a simulation. My get out clause is basically that there probably are other alien civilisations and they don't all kill themselves, it's just a civ that is advanced enough to travel across the universe would not be recognisable by us, and would have any interest in contacting us. And the reason there isn't a multiverse of simulations is that to build an accurate simulation of the universe you are basically god, or near enough. And surely a godlike entity wouldn't torture us right?

Science on the other hand exists and has no truth value

 

[Snafu in the Void]

TripSitterNZ's quote basically sums it up. I think consciousness is the divine spark that turns the world from formless chaos to order.

But isn't existence itself entropic chaos?

However, Nick Bostrom came along and ruined it by making it all applied and cosmological, with real-life consequences. And rather starkly depressing proposed solutions. like the futility of our species, space exploration or reality itself. Apparently, we seriously may be in a simulation. My get out clause is basically that there probably are other alien civilisations and they don't all kill themselves, it's just a civ that is advanced enough to travel across the universe would not be recognisable by us, and would have any interest in contacting us. And the reason there isn't a multiverse of simulations is that to build an accurate simulation of the universe you are basically god, or near enough. And surely a godlike entity wouldn't torture us right?

Agreed

Science on the other hand exists and has no truth value

Hard truth no. But science is a civilization's best guess at a soft truth. It has value, it's a guide.

 

[rpm]

But isn't existence itself entropic chaos?

Well, I guess what I was getting at is that in my opinion god is all consciousness (if such a thing as god even exists). Without our minds, there is no meaning just chaos, and possibly only quantum suppositions of possibilities if you believe the Copenhagen interpretation. So it would be fair to say that god as the observer creates meaning and order from the raw chaos of quantum soup?

To be honest, I was kind of riffing, and I regret saying this as I am a card-carrying Discordian who is aware the one true divine is of course Eris, goddess of chaos. Fnord!

Hard truth no. But science is a civilization's best guess at a soft truth. It has value, it's a guide

So I agree, scientific statements probably don't point to anything in the world to create a truth value. But none the less they have value as a model or metaphor. However, I don't see how the possibility that all our measurements are drastically wrong changes that. If we are in a simulation, we still have science that doesn't point to a state of affairs in the universe, just like before. And just like before it has value

 

[jasperkent]

Pain is the only thing out there that makes me doubt this logic.

I hurt; therefore I am.

 

[FuckinAcidMan]

........how can we be sure?

What if life is a dream? Or simulation?

It's a pretty convincing simulation

 

[Lil'LinaptkSix]

only to the obervers perspective and the resulting vibraton

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

There is a spoon in my hand.

But... How do I really know for sure? I can see it in my hand. I can feel the weight of it in my hand.... But how do I really know, with the truest of perfect certainty, that there is actually a spoon in my hand?

How can you prove it to me? How can you prove to me that anything in this world actually exists? What if this is all a simulation?

We can never know. Therefore science is false!

I also consider it possible that there is no actual material reality and that maybe something is the case like the brain in a vat theory, however, science has some correlation to what reality is, either it being a material world or not, since technology manufactures all kind of apparatus that functions in the uttermost precise way by using science, meaning science is able to with the greatest accuracy predict how things will behave in certain situations to the extent being able to manipulate the outcome of an otherwise unpredictable outcome...

Something has to exist, otherwise we wouldn't even be able to ask questions.

The spoon in your hand may not actually be a spoon, it could be an alien disguising itelf as a spoon, or some kind of computer code. Whatever it may be, you interact with the spoon and it interacts with you, neither of you would be the same without each other.

But where do spoons come from anyway? Someone had to make the first one, but where and how did he/she get the idea?
Were spoons somehow destined to pop into existence as soon as we (humans) showed up?

I've said the word spoon so many times that it's starting to sound weird in my head.

Your reasoning reminds me of the metaphysical philosophy Descartes explores in his Meditationes De Prima Philosophia II with the overly famous cogito ergo sum, I think therefor I am (tho if you dont know what he meant by that its far more logical imo to say I am therefor I think, which of course is a naturalistic notion), by which he meant that it seemed that we could not be certain about anything, however one thing after all seemed sure to him: that he was able to think therefor I (something) must exist...

I find this to be a very solid notion - and quite an obvious one - with regards to the existing of something however not that this Implies an I or a self and also not, like you state, that it means there is a material world, that there actually is a spoon, the weigth of the spoon in your hand and so on could very well all be strictly mental (to use a notion we can to some extent comprehend).

There are definetely things of which we can say they seem to be illusions, like (I cant think of the correct word) that the world would consist out of a plurality, since its quite obvious to me everything is one, everything is made up out of the same elements and all in existence constantly interacts with each other... Yet we believe our selves to be ultimately individual, separate entities, this imo due to the modern notion of the ego (in the middle ages its supposed to have been different, ppl didnt so much think in terms of I but more in terms of us...).

 

[-=SS=-]

Dodgy question.

The physical universe may be no more valid than a dream, it could quite well be all just a mental projection. I lean in that direction personally, and the non-dual concept resonates as truth to me. Therefore there is an Absolute, sort of like a singularity, from which all the relative emanates like rays of the Sun. Although that is a poor metaphor because it would probably be more akin to a singularity intersecting itself infinitely than something going outwards from it.

Something that is Absolute has no opposite or anything beyond it. It just is. So therefore there is only existence and non-existence is impossible. Just pure undiluted infinity.

 

[Mjäll]

Dodgy question.

The physical universe may be no more valid than a dream, it could quite well be all just a mental projection. I lean in that direction personally, and the non-dual concept resonates as truth to me. Therefore there is an Absolute, sort of like a singularity, from which all the relative emanates like rays of the Sun. Although that is a poor metaphor because it would probably be more akin to a singularity intersecting itself infinitely than something going outwards from it.

Something that is Absolute has no opposite or anything beyond it. It just is. So therefore there is only existence and non-existence is impossible. Just pure undiluted infinity.

That got me thinking. Can infinity be diluted? Is that what homeopathy is about?

 

[-=SS=-]

That got me thinking. Can infinity be diluted? Is that what homeopathy is about?

Diluted with what though? There is nothing to dilute itself with because there is nothing else besides itself. My head hurts thinking about it to be honest lol.

 

[Mjäll]

Diluted with what though? There is nothing to dilute itself with because there is nothing else besides itself. My head hurts thinking about it to be honest lol.

Yeah! What a mindfuck. I bet you snuck that word in as a vague descriptor but now i couldn't help taking it seriously!

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

It's sort of a navel gazing question that doesn't really matter, to be honest.

Things are either seemingly happening or actually happening, but you don't have control over it either way, so?

I do not see that as a true statement.

Have you never tested yourself to insure you have a free will to exercise?

If not, do so now by giving up your free will to mine.

The proof of your free will is your ability to give it up.

Give it up to me by beginning your reply with the letter X.

Even your refusal is proof of your free will so this test is irrefutable proof of your free will.

You cannot give up what you do not have.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

There is nothing to dilute itself with because there is nothing else besides itself.

I would not curse any entity with such a condition.

This enlightened one knows for a fact that the opposite is true.

You see a stagnating never changing God while I know that God evolves along with us.

God came out of us, not us out of God.

Jesus indicated this and he was correct.

Regards
DL

 

[xtcgrrrl]

I can’t even contemplate this topic while coming off my mental blinders, my brain mufflers (in the form of dumbing-down med topiramate, amongst others)

That way lies insanity

The void is too close

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I also consider it possible that there is no actual material reality and that maybe something is the case like the brain in a vat theory, however, science has some correlation to what reality is, either it being a material world or not, since technology manufactures all kind of apparatus that functions in the uttermost precise way by using science, meaning science is able to with the greatest accuracy predict how things will behave in certain situations to the extent being able to manipulate the outcome of an otherwise unpredictable outcome...

Your reasoning reminds me of the metaphysical philosophy Descartes explores in his Meditationes De Prima Philosophia II with the overly famous cogito ergo sum, I think therefor I am (tho if you dont know what he meant by that its far more logical imo to say I am therefor I think, which of course is a naturalistic notion), by which he meant that it seemed that we could not be certain about anything, however one thing after all seemed sure to him: that he was able to think therefor I (something) must exist...

I find this to be a very solid notion - and quite an obvious one - with regards to the existing of something however not that this Implies an I or a self and also not, like you state, that it means there is a material world, that there actually is a spoon, the weigth of the spoon in your hand and so on could very well all be strictly mental (to use a notion we can to some extent comprehend).

There are definetely things of which we can say they seem to be illusions, like (I cant think of the correct word) that the world would consist out of a plurality, since its quite obvious to me everything is one, everything is made up out of the same elements and all in existence constantly interacts with each other... Yet we believe our selves to be ultimately individual, separate entities, this imo due to the modern notion of the ego (in the middle ages its supposed to have been different, ppl didnt so much think in terms of I but more in terms of us...).

I like your points.

I do not think morals have changed at all, even as we might express things somewhat differently thanks to modernity.

Regards
DL

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

This thread doesn't actually exist. You just believe it does. In fact you don't actually exist, you just believe you do.

Go away now... (why is there no Scott "smiley icon" ?)