Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 292 of 292
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: If you're dead, does the world exist?

  1. #201  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I'm just curious, how does someone who is not a mod lock a thread? Perhaps by pulling some "stunt" they would hope to get a thread locked?
    By the way, if life and the world were just some dream of mine, common berries that grew wild on roadsides would get people sooooo high, and I would drive a lime green Iroc Z with a 7/70 roots type blower. Just say'n.
    I guess he will ignore it
    Likewise Ill ignore your entering my manifold(?)
    of expertise: "what if once upon a time?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    If your dead....... remember? Your dead. but something that was you is in a black existance. Black. You realise thats where you have been when you are awakened once again and placed back into the Life stream. You come out of a nothingess blackness that is unknowable and unawareable and where Physics and time do not exist for you. You feel and know nothing until your new rebirth in an identity belonging to life in a form chosen for you by a perfectly natural process that can now use what you used to be in your former placement. How many placements have you experienced? hundreds-thousands- why? If you believe that the next text you read now is true than you are closer to the Creation than I am. Why? because some maniacal physics master is carrying out DNA experimentation on a grand scale, preparing and working on a Thesis for his/her next promotion. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4
    So none of you exist and I'm observing manifestations of my phones AI on a science forum.. Because im not actually observing anyone the comments must be coming from my phone(I'm on my phone not my computer).. Makes sense right

    This is for wiseman and mother/father
    Last edited by Gorgamemnon; August 31st, 2012 at 04:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4
    Or wait it does make sense because my observational reality is connecting with your observational reality via the Internet!!! Absolutely amazing
    sigurdW likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    OK I guess the thread has come to an end. I have not had much time lately and I don't have the luxury of not working so I do what I can. However I have read all the quotes and I see you guys are ready to jump on Wise Man because you believe you are so right and he does not know what he is about. I will tell you this life is all and everthing. I tried to use a peice of paper and a pen to bring a point that many people have not though about, sadly no one wanted to get involvenever the less the question is out there. Obviously you guys are having a hard time proving your own point much less the opinions of M/F and Wise Man. Most of you have not yet begun to realise how you have reached the point you are now occupying, you have not realised that you are the connection to this all and nothing. Your ideas are as important as it is unimportant and the universe was built on the same structure as you are built, namely unpredictable, perdictable, going somewhere into nowhere.


    I guess this thread can start at anytime in the future when someone or science has dug up a new answer.
    I would like to thank every one for the discussions, and I thank Wise Man for his inspirational topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    OK I guess the thread has come to an end. I have not had much time lately and I don't have the luxury of not working so I do what I can. However I have read all the quotes and I see you guys are ready to jump on Wise Man because you believe you are so right and he does not know what he is about. I will tell you this life is all and everthing. I tried to use a peice of paper and a pen to bring a point that many people have not though about, sadly no one wanted to get involvenever the less the question is out there. Obviously you guys are having a hard time proving your own point much less the opinions of M/F and Wise Man. Most have yet to realise how you have reached the point you are now occupying, you have not realised that you are the connection to this all and nothing. Your ideas are as important as it is unimportant and the universe was built on the same structure as you are built, namely unpredictable, perdictable, going somewhere into nowhere.

    I guess this thread can start at anytime in the future when someone or science has dug up a new answer. I would like to thank every one for the discussions, and I thank Wise Man for his inspirational topic.
    Wise Man likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorgamemnon View Post
    So none of you exist and I'm observing manifestations of my phones AI on a science forum.. Because im not actually observing anyone the comments must be coming from my phone(I'm on my phone not my computer).. Makes sense right

    This is for wiseman and mother/father
    Ha, Ha, Ha, if it makes sence to you I will go with that. Don't do that too often, it will draw attention especiall if you are not perceiving anymore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Prove that you're not dreaming now.
    Prove that the world is not a dream.
    Can you prove I am dreaming? Can you prove the world is a dream? Can you prove the world will magically cease to exist when you die?

    No. You know you can't and so you try and shift the burden of proof to others.

    As already stated, solipsism can be neither proved nor disproved. This is what makes it an utterly pointless philosophy. It does not make it true.

    Prove that there is not an invisible unicorn in my garden. You can't. Does that make it true?

    You are free to hang on to your childish notion, just as I am free to pretend there is a unicorn in my garden. But why would either of us do that? Is it because you think it sounds clever? Or because it satisfies some odd spritual belief? Or just because you like pointless arguments?

    Prove that the world exists, when you die, from you own reference frame, not from other's.
    You appear to be misusing the terminology of relativity here. What do you mean by "reference frame"?

    The only meaning of the term I am familiar with is from relativity. My reference frame when I am dead will be that of the place I am buried (or whatever). It does not require me to be alive or observing it. From that reference frame, and any other, the world will carry on its objective reality as it always has done.

    Please prove that it will not. (Preferably without simply making another assertion.)

    M / f left, everyone lost enthusiasm, I'll lock this soon.
    Ah, so it was just attention seeking after all.
    You're the one shifting people's attention from your own theory’s fault to other theory’s defect. You never directly answer my questions, but always ask me to answer yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Thanks you M/f for supporting my point of view.

    The fact that there's an objective world is the base of science, so naturally everyone disagrees. So lets end this arguement and shake hands. Let us not become enemies because of this arguement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    You're the one shifting people's attention from your own theory’s fault to other theory’s defect.
    You are the one asking for proof of something that is unprovable. You are the one making unsupported assertions that objective reality doesn't exist. When all the evidence shows it does.

    You never directly answer my questions, but always ask me to answer yours.
    As I said before, please tell me what questions I have not answered. I'm not aware of any.

    (I have ignored M/F's stupid paper trick until he explains why he thinks it is relevant. But as that is likely to be incomprehensible I haven't asked.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    As I asked:

    Prove that you're not dreaming now.
    Prove that the world is not a dream.

    Now when I go to sleep, I enter a dream world, or become unconscious, I then become completely unaware of this world. That is proof to why the world is a dream, when I do not observe it, to me, it ceases to exists.

    However you never proved how the world exists when you're not observing it, all you proved is that the world exists as long as you observe it. That's something we already know.


    Strange, don't you want to end this? I really don't want to argue anymore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by WM
    Prove that you're not dreaming now.
    Prove that the world is not a dream.
    You were the one to initiate the claim that reality is not subjective, hence you are responsible for proving that claim. We are not responsible for proving the inverse of your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by WM
    Now when I go to sleep, I enter a dream world, or become unconscious, I then become completely unaware of this world. That is proof to why the world is a dream, when I do not observe it, to me, it ceases to exists.
    Totally asinine and wrong. Events as simple as a sound can wake people who are sleeping.

    Quote Originally Posted by WM
    However you never proved how the world exists when you're not observing it, all you proved is that the world exists as long as you observe it. That's something we already know.
    Simples.
    1. Person A locates a timed explosive device inside a Lazy Boy recliner.
    2. Person B comes along and sits in the aforementioned Lazy Boy recliner.
    3. Person A goes to sleep, or maybe even dies.
    4. After person A is asleep or dead, the timed explosive in the Lazy Boy recliner detonates, turning person B(Who has been awake this whole time.) into red mist.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    As I asked:

    Prove that you're not dreaming now.
    Prove that the world is not a dream.
    And, as I already replied, this cannot be disproved. That is why this idea is of zero value and only appeals to children.

    That is proof to why the world is a dream, when I do not observe it, to me, it ceases to exists.
    No. You just cease to observe it. The world quite happily carries on without you. As the other 9 billion people will confirm.

    However you never proved how the world exists when you're not observing it, all you proved is that the world exists as long as you observe it.
    Wrong. That is your bogus claim. I used the logical method of induction to prove that it still exists. If you are incapable of understanding that, that is not my fault.

    Strange, don't you want to end this? I really don't want to argue anymore.
    Then simply concede that the world has an objective reality outside of your imagination. I can keep this up for years. It doesn't bother me at all to keep pointing out your logical fallacies and the obvious reality of the world.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    TO ME! when I'm asleep , TO ME TO ME TO ME: The world ceases to exist, I do not care how you observe it. YOU just don't get it do you?

    Your logical induction of what?


    From my reference frame, when others die, the world is still here. I have no idea what happends when I die, I just know that when others die the world is still here. REMEBER! YOu will die, not others, induction dows not fit in here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    The only way to prove it is to die now, got the courage? Death cannot be studied using science. That's my opinion.

    Others mean nothing, only your own observation counts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    TO ME! when I'm asleep , TO ME TO ME TO ME: The world ceases to exist, I do not care how you observe it. YOU just don't get it do you?
    And TO ME, unicorns exist. To me, magical singing blueberries exist. "To me" is absolutely meaningless when you're using it as an objective claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Your logical induction of what?
    The logical induction that if the world still exists given a minimum of 60 billion people have died, then it is highly unlikely that anything special will happen when you die.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    From my reference frame, when others die, the world is still here. I have no idea what happends when I die, I just know that when others die the world is still here. REMEBER! YOu will die, not others, induction dows not fit in here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    If others die and the world is still here, then inductively, when you die, the world will also still be here. You seem to be arguing for a "brain in a vat" existence with no evidence or reason to support that belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    The only way to prove it is to die now, got the courage? Death cannot be studied using science. That's my opinion.
    Death actually can, and has, been studied by science. It is studied all the time by neurologists, biochemists, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    TO ME! when I'm asleep , TO ME TO ME TO ME: The world ceases to exist, I do not care how you observe it.
    I do not disagree with the idea that when you are asleep (*) or dead you are unable to perceive the world.

    You appeared to be claiming earlier that this meant that the world had no objective reality and it actually ceased to exist because you are (temporarily or permanently) unable to observe it.

    Are you withdrawing from that position? Because, i have to say, it gets less and less clear exactly what your are arguing for.

    Your logical induction of what?
    Logical induction of the objective reality of the world, based on multiple people's experience of its continuity of existence.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I think that summarizes all that needs to said about that particular rant argument.

    The only way to prove it is to die now, got the courage?
    How does that prove anything about the objective nature of reality?

    Others mean nothing, only your own observation counts.
    Counts for what? As I say, it is very unclear what you are actually claiming any more.

    Counts for the continued existence of the world? Obviously not.
    Counts for your continued perception of the world? Obviously and trivially true. In fact a tautology.


    (*) Actually, I do disagree with the view that when you are asleep you are unaware of the world. It is well established that we continue to maintain some level of awareness and will even incorporate external stimuli into dreams.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    This is your induction:

    I see others die, the world exists after they die
    Thus, after I die, other will observe that the world exists.


    But note that this has nothing to do with how you observe it after you die, you're flaw is that you equate yourself ( the observer ) with other people ( the observation ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    This is your induction:

    I see others die, the world exists after they die
    Thus, after I die, other will observe that the world exists.


    But note that this has nothing to do with how you observe it after you die
    Obviously not. You don't observe it after you die. I think we all agree with that.

    you're flaw is that you equate yourself ( the observer ) with other people ( the observation ).
    Not at all. I am not talking about "observers" or "observation" at all. I am trying to make it clear that objective reality does not depend on me or any other observer. You seem to be confusing objective reality and an individuals perception of that reality. (Hence my earlier question as to whether you are able to distinguish what is inside your head from what is outside.)

    Can you please be explicit about what you are trying to say. For example, do you agree with this (a simple yes or no will do):
    I see others die, the world exists after they die
    Thus, after I die, other will observe that the world exists.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Let me get this straight, my point of view is:

    Object cannot come to being without a subject; Objects that are not observed by sential being ( subject ) cannot exist, for there's no evidence to support, in other words, it's not empirical, it's pure mental speculation. We say that an object exists according to our senses, when we fail to sense it, we say it doesn't exist.

    You may argue that other people who aren't dead continue on to observe the earth, but pay attention: Those people are not subjects, they're all objects according to the dead. The dead is the subject in this case, and the question is whether the world ( an object ) is included in the dead's observation. Obviously, the answer is no.


    Alright? Lets settle this: You're point of view is scientific, mine is metaphysical. Nether me nor you is right, it's just different interpretations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Object cannot come to being without a subject;
    Prove it.

    when we fail to sense it, we say it doesn't exist.
    No we don't. Well, maybe deluded idiots do. But I don't know any.

    Lets settle this: You're point of view is scientific, mine is metaphysical.
    I think you spelt I D I O T I C wrong.

    Nether me nor you is right, it's just different interpretations.
    No. You are wrong. The world exists.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Objects that are not observed by sential being ( subject ) cannot exist,

    Rubbish, as if the first half the universe didn't' exist, nor the first 4 billion years of Earth's history.
    ccoale427 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Objects that are not observed by sential being ( subject ) cannot exist
    I realise that this is not a semantic argument, but anyone accepting a concept like this would have awful trouble with words like ......

    ...... discover, find, lose, uncover, conceal, reveal, expose, camouflage, hide, cover, surprise, explore, infinitesimal, invisible

    Just like a baby, I suppose.
    Strange and ccoale427 like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Fine fine, if you may answer this: When you say something exists, what do you mean, what is your statement based on?

    P.S. If you continue to use vile words like 'idiot' then I won't argue anymore, for I detest people who finds offending people a way of proving them wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Fine fine, if you may answer this: When you say something exists, what do you mean, what is your statement based on?
    Do you have memory or reading comprehension problems? The world has an objective existence outside of your imagination. This is evidenced by the continuing existence of the universe before any humans existed, after any number of humans have died, and the fact we all share a common view of it. It can be measured and tested objectively and repeatedly. No one sane could ignore the objective reality of the universe.

    P.S. If you continue to use vile words like 'idiot' then I won't argue anymore, for I detest people who finds offending people a way of proving them wrong.
    Well, obviously I wasn't referring to you. But if you think the cap fits ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    That continuing existence of the universe is a mental image in your head, you cannot show it to me.

    Again: How do you define exist? By your sense right? How do you define 'real world'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    That continuing existence of the universe is a mental image in your head
    No it isn't. It is an objective reality shared by (almost) everyone on the planet. Apart from babies and the brain damaged.

    , you cannot show it to me.
    Apparently not. You seem to be divorced from reality. Or trolling. I'm still not sure. As the questions and claims get more ridiculous, I am more inclined to think you are just trolling. Or maybe 12 years old. Who knows? Who cares?

    Again: How do you define exist?
    Exist | Define Exist at Dictionary.com

    How do you define "the"?

    By your sense right?
    Wrong. As repeatedly explained, by objective evidence and induction. The fact you are not intelligent enough to understand is not my problem. Maybe when you grow up it will make more sense.

    How do you define 'real world'?
    It is all that solid stuff out there that carries on existing whether you like it or not.

    If you just want to play around with definitions to wheedle your way out of the fact that what you claim is patently idiotic, then feel free.

    But it would be more honest to admit you are wrong and what you said at the start of the thread was just stupid. Or admit you are just trolling (for the lolz).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    First of all, I am a grown up 18 year old high school student, ok? Secondly, I want to point out that you're the one that can't seem to understand my abstruse and unfathomable theory.


    Lets me ask you this professor strange: How did you obtain your 'objective evidence'? Through your observation right?????????? Are you insane?


    Quoted from wikipedia: A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.


    See for yourself!!! Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    I demand an apology for your multiple offences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
    Where's the requirement that it has to be observable by any one specific person's senses to be acceptable as evidence?

    Where's the requirement that anyone at all has actually observed the phenomenon in question?

    What's the role of microscopes or telescopes or satellites making observations by proxy for the people who use them?

    How does "empirically based" affect the notion that a particular person accepts as real (or not) something that is inferred or calculated by someone else?
    Strange and MrMojo1 like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    If noone ever observed the phenomenon, whatever you say about what happened back then is only in your head, you can never show it nor empirically prove it. Like the big bang, yes it seems very likely that the universe began like so, but I never observed it, so to me, it never happened. Besides, there are still arguements about the steady state theory being correct even nowadays, who knows how the universe really began? Just by seeing some redness in the sky?

    Since whether something exists or not is based on observation aka interaction, then a world that's non interactable can be said to not exist.

    I am sure you'll fight with me, but before you do so, answer this question: How do you define real world?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    If noone ever observed the phenomenon, whatever you say about what happened back then is only in your head, you can never show it nor empirically prove it.
    Yet again you have asserted something without evidence. Related known concepts such as radioactive decay and its rates are predicable external to an individual observer. It is the process of nuclear fusion which creates heavy elements (nuclei). The very fact that you are living on a rocky planet (composed of metal elements) which is the result of a gas giant that experience a supernova event is another example which refutes your baseless claim with empirical evidence. There was no human observer of the supernova event or the accretion of the resulting matter which became our present solar system. The chemical make up of the human body itself is another example of the formation of matter (the phenomenon) without an observer to validate its initial existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    I am sure you'll fight with me, but before you do so, answer this question: How do you define real world?
    The real world aka Objective Realty, is what continues to exist when you (an individual/observer) no longer perceive it. It exists external to the mind/s, thus the label OBJECTIVE REALITY.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    you can never show it nor empirically prove it.
    Not even with carbon dating?

    Just because this technique was unknown a century ago doesn't mean we can't work out how old various archaeological artefacts are.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    If noone ever observed the phenomenon, whatever you say about what happened back then is only in your head, you can never show it nor empirically prove it.
    Yet again you have asserted something without evidence. Related known concepts such as radioactive decay and its rates are predicable external to an individual observer. It is the process of nuclear fusion which creates heavy elements (nuclei). The very fact that you are living on a rocky planet (composed of metal elements) which is the result of a gas giant that experience a supernova event is another example which refutes your baseless claim with empirical evidence. There was no human observer of the supernova event or the accretion of the resulting matter which became our present solar system. The chemical make up of the human body itself is another example of the formation of matter (the phenomenon) without an observer to validate its initial existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    I am sure you'll fight with me, but before you do so, answer this question: How do you define real world?
    The real world aka Objective Realty, is what continues to exist when you (an individual/observer) no longer perceive it. It exists external to the mind/s, thus the label OBJECTIVE REALITY.
    Ok. Very good. So there's an objective reality out there, without an observer it still exists. Right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    as/re : "Real world"
    perhaps the perspective of the holy model rounders may help?
    The Holy Modal Rounders - Flop-Eared Mule (real world!) - YouTube

    (the real world is a flop eared mule)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Ok. Very good. So there's an objective reality out there, without an observer it still exists. Right?
    Right. It is what objective means it isn't subjective, and it (the event) can be measured, reasoned, or analyzed independent of a mind. For example you and I can argue that a particular color is bluish(e.g. royal blue vs light blue). If said bluish color is analyzed by a spectrometer and it determines that the wavelength is 380–450 nm at frequency 668–789 THz and there is a consensus to label visible light at those parameters violet, then the color is violet. The perceived color is light blue and the objective color is violet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Very well, does this objective realty have any other charcteristics besides not needing an obsever to be said to exist ( or not being sebjective is all )?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    IMO, the question is very simple.
    There is empirical proof that the universe exists physically. While this physical reality may be relativistic to each of us, there is no doubt that it exists, and we can create physical things based on observed universal elements, laws and constants
    During the existence of the universe billions of people have come and gone, yet the universe remains. When an organism dies it just changes form to simpler elements which are absorbed by the universe.
    When a person dies it is only a single organism which ceases to exist as sentient observer. That's all.
    Strange and MrMojo1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    First of all, I am a grown up 18 year old high school student, ok?
    Maybe that's the problem. From my perspective "grown up" and "18 year old" are not necessarily connected. Give it another 18 years or so...

    Secondly, I want to point out that you're the one that can't seem to understand my abstruse and unfathomable theory.
    I understand it perfectly. It is just a variation of solipsism, and therefore of no substance or value. To quote the Speaker of the House of Commons: you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But you do have the, not inconsiderable, disadvantage of being wrong.

    Lets me ask you this professor strange: How did you obtain your 'objective evidence'? Through your observation right??????????
    Through the recorded observations of millions of people.

    Are you insane?
    I don't believe so.

    See for yourself!!! Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I think adelady has summarized very well your failure to understand the nature of evidence and the scientific method. I do hope you are studying something harmless like art, and not anything where you might end up having any influence on the world.

    I demand an apology for your multiple offences.
    You are free to demand whatever you want, for any imagined slights. It does, however, make you sound even more like a spoiled child.

    I always imagine you writing your posts while lying on your back, waving your legs in the air, and scremaing, "no, I'm right, the world doesn't exist". Well, tough. The world doesn't care about your fantasies. It is going to carry on with its objective existence, whatever you say.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Very well, does this objective realty have any other charcteristics besides not needing an obsever to be said to exist ( or not being sebjective is all )?
    Well, it has all the objective properties we measure. The fact we all consistently measure them to be the same is part of the reason that any normal person accepts there is an objective reality.

    In your fantasy universe, where the world is an ad-hoc creation of individual minds, there would be no objective measurements. Two students in the physics lab would attempt to measure the boiling point of water. Student A says, "my thermometer reads 37 C, I thought it was supposed to be 100?". Student B says, "my thermometer alternates between 96 mph and 112 kg". A says, "show me ... no, look yours says 4 bananas", and A says, "Oh yes so it does."

    But no, that is what happens in dreams. As you may remember, they are what happen inside your head. I know that distinction is hard for you to grasp, to "get you head around" if you like, so here is a little reminder:

    Inside your head: dreams, imagination, unspoken thoughts, and your fantasies about that girl on the bus.

    Outside your head: reality, the rest of us, the things you say out loud (whether you meant to or not), and the girl on the bus who always ignores you.

    I know it is more comfortable inside your head, but you should get out more.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Ok. Very good. So there's an objective reality out there, without an observer it still exists. Right?
    Quick. Can we close the thread before Mother/Father gets back.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    The way I see it, when you die, time speeds up exremely fast until you exist again under another form. Notice how you don't feel the time passing when you sleep. When you're dead, time passes instantly until you gain awareness again. I see this as a very fast traveling train, so when you jump off the train and become aware, things slow down a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Firstly it's not true that you're not aware of time passing when you're asleep. There are lots of people who can decide to wake up at a specified time and do so correctly. Even people who don't do this, quite often wake up just before their alarm clock goes off.

    Secondly, if this thread degenerates into a rehash of reincarnation, it's destined for trash. Just a warning.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    The way I see it, when you die, time speeds up exremely fast until you exist again under another form. Notice how you don't feel the time passing when you sleep. When you're dead, time passes instantly until you gain awareness again. I see this as a very fast traveling train, so when you jump off the train and become aware, things slow down a lot.
    a) When you die, for you, time or anything else does no longer exist. You are brain dead.
    b) Time only appears to speed up or slowdown relative to gravity and movement.
    c) And in what form would we "exist again". Reincarnation into another brain? A mouse brain perhaps? Or a rock?
    d) Yes time slows down when jumping from fast moving train. Especially when you hit your head on a rail and splatter it into small bits and pieces scattered among the gravel of the train bed.
    e) Time does not exist for a non-existent object.
    f) Time is a result of quantum. Time is "required" for any physical change in spacetime coordinates.

    Reincarnation is woo. Your mind is the result of your brain functions in its particular configuration. Only your brain "knows" what it observes, but actually presents a limited subjective view (observer) at that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7
    If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, the fall of the tree still happened which triggered vibrations; which can be interpreted as sound. Does it make sound whether there is an observer or not?
    No, it made something that our brains interprets as "sound". However it still emitted that energy. You don't have to exist for the energy to be an actualisation, just interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Kway View Post
    If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, the fall of the tree still happened which triggered vibrations; which can be interpreted as sound. Does it make sound whether there is an observer or not?
    No, it made something that our brains interprets as "sound". However it still emitted that energy. You don't have to exist for the energy to be an actualisation, just interpretation.
    Right, and for interpretation one needs to be alive and sentient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Guess who's back!!! Strange you're fun is over

    When you die, there will be no way for you to justify that the world is in existence, thus it doesn't exist. All observation are made through our senses, even our logical deductions is done in the head, so when all ceases ( when you die ), to say whatever exists is meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    When you die, there will be no way for you to justify that the world is in existence, thus it doesn't exist.
    The world doesn't depend on me (or anyone else) justifying its existence. That is what "existence" means.

    The world is out there. It has an objective reality. Get over it. And grow up.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    Excuse me... I am fully grown up, a little childish humor does not mark as immaturity.

    The world is out there... hmmm... ok, who is saying this???

    To a blind person, no matter how much you describe to him the view in front of him, to him, it doesn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Excuse me... I am fully grown up
    Then why are you still indulging in this schoolboy philiosphy that most people grow out of at about age 14?

    The world is out there... hmmm... ok, who is saying this???
    Everyone except you (and m/f and a few schoolboys).

    To a blind person, no matter how much you describe to him the view in front of him, to him, it doesn't exist.
    Of course it does. They can put there hand out and feel things, use a stick, hear the world around them, smell it. Interact with things. Fall in love. Have stupid ideas. The real world still exists. Even if the only thing in the universe was non-sentient rocks, it still exists.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    The way I see it, when you die, time speeds up exremely fast until you exist again under another form. Notice how you don't feel the time passing when you sleep. When you're dead, time passes instantly until you gain awareness again. I see this as a very fast traveling train, so when you jump off the train and become aware, things slow down a lot.
    a) When you die, for you, time or anything else does no longer exist. You are brain dead.
    b) Time only appears to speed up or slowdown relative to gravity and movement.
    c) And in what form would we "exist again". Reincarnation into another brain? A mouse brain perhaps? Or a rock?
    d) Yes time slows down when jumping from fast moving train. Especially when you hit your head on a rail and splatter it into small bits and pieces scattered among the gravel of the train bed.
    e) Time does not exist for a non-existent object.
    f) Time is a result of quantum. Time is "required" for any physical change in spacetime coordinates.

    Reincarnation is woo. Your mind is the result of your brain functions in its particular configuration. Only your brain "knows" what it observes, but actually presents a limited subjective view (observer) at that.
    Incarnation can occur because you are standing flesh and bones now right? So it is a non zero probability event because it has happened at least once. I meant that time appears to be slowing down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Oxycodone
    Incarnation can occur because you are standing flesh and bones now right? So it is a non zero probability event because it has happened at least once. I meant that time appears to be slowing down.
    I am afraid I am not following you. Time appears to be slowing down for whom? My body will decay and change back to simpler molecules which may be used in any manner by my natural environment. I am confident that I have molecules in me that once belonged to Genghis Khan. Does that mean time slowed down for the Kahn organism as it decomposed and was absorbed by the natual environment and redistributed around the world, finally ending up asa miniscule part of my current organism?

    As to "incarnation", I should call it "conception" (without the suggestion of a supernatural God). My intelligence and sentience was a "emergent" property of my brain as it grew and learned. Some of my genetic instructions may be present in my children, but that was a deliberate act of sharing my DNA.
    We pass on physical properties (growth codes), but no "thoughts".

    And, IMO, the conept of "reincarnation" is just wishful thinking. A fom of self delusion. There is only molecular change, unrelated to my brain or its sentience.

    As I stated before, I may change into a lump of moss on a rock, or become part of a rock. How is a mind going to help me? Contemplate being a rock? Does time slow down for a rock or is its half-life proof that a rock itself is in a constant state of change?

    IMO, without change there is no time at all and incarnation of any kind would not be possible.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 18th, 2012 at 01:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Oxycodone
    Incarnation can occur because you are standing flesh and bones now right? So it is a non zero probability event because it has happened at least once. I meant that time appears to be slowing down.
    I am afraid I am not following you. Time appears to be slowing down for whom? My body will decay and change back to simpler molecules which may be used in any manner by my natural environment. I am confident that I have molecules in me that once belonged to Genghis Khan. Does that mean time slowed down for the Kahn organism as it decomposed and was absorbed by the natual environment and redistributed around the world, finally ending up asa miniscule part of my current organism?

    As to "incarnation", I should call it "conception" (without the suggestion of a supernatural God). My intelligence and sentience was a "emergent" property of my brain as it grew and learned. Some of my genetic instructions may be present in my children, but that was a deliberate act of sharing my DNA.
    We pass on physical properties (growth codes), but no "thoughts".

    And, IMO, the conept of "reincarnation" is just wishful thinking. A fom of self delusion. There is only molecular change, unrelated to my brain or its sentience.

    As I stated before, I may change into a lump of moss on a rock, or become part of a rock. How is a mind going to help me? Contemplate being a rock? Does time slow down for a rock or is its half-life proof that a rock itself is in a constant state of change?

    IMO, without change there is no time at all and incarnation of any kind would not be possible.
    You focus too much on the material aspect of life, such as atoms and molecules in your body. Those are entirely irrelevant when it comes to explaining awareness and incarnation. I will give you a quick example. Imagine you create a super complicated artificial intelligence program on your computer called Alex that is fully aware and wants to remain alive within a New York town simulation matrix. As the AI interacts with the environment, it changes its programming code and so the size of the file on the hard drive increases.

    Now, imagine saving the latest version on that file onto a disk and burning down the computer with the AI kicking and screaming! You then go to another computer and activate the program. The AI will not seem to remember what happened in the last half hour. According to your theory, every "molecule and "atom" of that computer and AI have vanished in smoke. They are...contemplating nature elements! However...is the AI you copied on the drive not Alex? Is it Alex #2 or #2231341? Do you think the molecules you got rid of really have ANYTHING to do with what Alex is? ANYTHING?

    The molecules are building blocks...they are material. Alex, me or you are not that. We may be made of material but we are not material, we are a connection. When you get rid of the material, you get rid of the connection ONLY TEMPORARELY but that doesn't mean that further connections are forbidden, even your exact own connection. Now, assume you have 2 computers and you copy Alex on each of them and activate both copies while erasing the disk you used to copy Alex. You present them to one another, hi Alex this is Alex hi! And after you tell them that one of them will be degaussed with a magnet. So both Alexes will be pointing at eachother when it comes to that! Because once you have made a life, human like connection, it wants to hold on!

    From the point of view of an outsider, it doesn't make a dick of a difference which Alex you burn. The only bad thing that can happen is to burn both and thus permanently lose Alex. But from Alex's point of view, things are quite different. From the point of view of Alex who dies, the world ends, stops existing. My point is, AND SO WHAT? What's the big deal about it? It's not that important. I personally don't think death is something to worry about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Now, imagine you have a transistor which, every 0.1 seconds saves Alex, erases it, re-copies it and activates it, all done instantly, under 1ns. Technically, the transistor commits murder every 0.1 seconds and so, after 2 months of operation, the program would have killed more people than Hitler himself! What if you set the transistor to perform the operation every 5 nanoseconds? What would Alex look and sound like? Well, it wouldn't, from each Alex perspective, but from your perspective, alex would operate normally, with a +1ns lag in processing! So, would that be Alex? Why do you think that is? And what if you have 1,000 transistors doing the same on 1,000 Alexes? Who's Alex?

    You see how death doesn't matter? It's human delusion coming from the primitive cortex of the caveman striving for survival. Your own perspective of reality, simply doesn't matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Oxycodone
    Incarnation can occur because you are standing flesh and bones now right? So it is a non zero probability event because it has happened at least once. I meant that time appears to be slowing down.
    I am afraid I am not following you. Time appears to be slowing down for whom? My body will decay and change back to simpler molecules which may be used in any manner by my natural environment. I am confident that I have molecules in me that once belonged to Genghis Khan. Does that mean time slowed down for the Kahn organism as it decomposed and was absorbed by the natual environment and redistributed around the world, finally ending up asa miniscule part of my current organism?

    As to "incarnation", I should call it "conception" (without the suggestion of a supernatural God). My intelligence and sentience was a "emergent" property of my brain as it grew and learned. Some of my genetic instructions may be present in my children, but that was a deliberate act of sharing my DNA.
    We pass on physical properties (growth codes), but no "thoughts".

    And, IMO, the conept of "reincarnation" is just wishful thinking. A fom of self delusion. There is only molecular change, unrelated to my brain or its sentience.

    As I stated before, I may change into a lump of moss on a rock, or become part of a rock. How is a mind going to help me? Contemplate being a rock? Does time slow down for a rock or is its half-life proof that a rock itself is in a constant state of change?

    IMO, without change there is no time at all and incarnation of any kind would not be possible.
    You focus too much on the material aspect of life, such as atoms and molecules in your body. Those are entirely irrelevant when it comes to explaining awareness and incarnation. I will give you a quick example. Imagine you create a super complicated artificial intelligence program on your computer called Alex that is fully aware and wants to remain alive within a New York town simulation matrix. As the AI interacts with the environment, it changes its programming code and so the size of the file on the hard drive increases.

    Now, imagine saving the latest version on that file onto a disk and burning down the computer with the AI kicking and screaming! You then go to another computer and activate the program. The AI will not seem to remember what happened in the last half hour. According to your theory, every "molecule and "atom" of that computer and AI have vanished in smoke. They are...contemplating nature elements! However...is the AI you copied on the drive not Alex? Is it Alex #2 or #2231341? Do you think the molecules you got rid of really have ANYTHING to do with what Alex is? ANYTHING?

    The molecules are building blocks...they are material. Alex, me or you are not that. We may be made of material but we are not material, we are a connection. When you get rid of the material, you get rid of the connection ONLY TEMPORARELY but that doesn't mean that further connections are forbidden, even your exact own connection. Now, assume you have 2 computers and you copy Alex on each of them and activate both copies while erasing the disk you used to copy Alex. You present them to one another, hi Alex this is Alex hi! And after you tell them that one of them will be degaussed with a magnet. So both Alexes will be pointing at eachother when it comes to that! Because once you have made a life, human like connection, it wants to hold on!

    From the point of view of an outsider, it doesn't make a dick of a difference which Alex you burn. The only bad thing that can happen is to burn both and thus permanently lose Alex. But from Alex's point of view, things are quite different. From the point of view of Alex who dies, the world ends, stops existing. My point is, AND SO WHAT? What's the big deal about it? It's not that important. I personally don't think death is something to worry about.
    I don't think your comparison is valid.
    a) Your example speaks only of material things such as a computer keeping its memory on a HD, an electronic back-up, which is then physically transferred into another physically identical computer. If you break the HD down to its molecules, scattered them to the wind, is the integrated "knowledge" maintained?
    The only bad thing that can happen is to burn both and thus permanently lose Alex.
    There you go, we agree.

    September 18th, 2012, 12:35 PM,

    Now, imagine you have a transistor which, every 0.1 seconds saves Alex, erases it, re-copies it and activates it, all done instantly, under 1ns. Technically, the transistor commits murder every 0.1 seconds and so, after 2 months of operation, the program would have killed more people than Hitler himself! What if you set the transistor to perform the operation every 5 nanoseconds? What would Alex look and sound like? Well, it wouldn't, from each Alex perspective, but from your perspective, alex would operate normally, with a +1ns lag in processing! So, would that be Alex? Why do you think that is? And what if you have 1,000 transistors doing the same on 1,000 Alexes? Who's Alex?
    All physical stuff and not relevant to the question. The point is that humans or any other sentient organism do not keep a back up disc, other than our DNA. But DNA does not transfer "knowledge". It just builds another computer (if you will), not reconstruct its memories.

    The question is if the universe keeps a recond of every individual thought and then somehow can transfer this complete package of metaphysical experiences into another brain and create another you.
    Moreover, if these memories are a chronological account of a person's life, how can you even transfer a memory of an event which happened 50 years into a person's life, into the brain of a newborn child? Conversely, when a child dies early, will its memories be retained to be used by another child?

    Every incarnationist seems to conveniently forget certain aspects of memory. If the universe does indeed retain "information", it retains ALL information, including the timeline of when this information was posited into the cosmic hologram. Thus logically any information which falls outside the timeline of a specific memory is not accessible unless you want to add that we can magically mine the metaphysical "future" for information pertinent to ourselves. Worse even if we were able to metaphysically travel back in time and mine the entire metaphysical history of the universe for pertinent information. We would instantly explode into another BB.

    The only concept we have of metaphysics is in string theory at the Planck scale where we encounter "virtual" particles, which pop into and out of existence. A soup of reinforcing or cancelling harmonics. At this level there is no information other than randomness. According to spiritualists, this would be the metaphysical world where all information is contained.

    This is where we enter the metaphysical world, a dynamic zero state of pure Potential (latent energy) or as David Bohm calls it, the Implicate, some of which may become Explicate in reality. But it has no memory of anything. Nothing is real yet. But any manifestation in reality is physical and we are back to square one.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 18th, 2012 at 07:10 PM.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Yes I admit, it's hard to explain. I don't believe in re-incarnation either because I don't believe in the conservation of information once you die. The way I see it, as long as there's children being born all the time, you should not fear death. You'll have you place, because when you are no more, you become what is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Yes I admit, it's hard to explain. I don't believe in re-incarnation either because I don't believe in the conservation of information once you die. The way I see it, as long as there's children being born all the time, you should not fear death. You'll have you place, because when you are no more, you become what is.
    Part of you becomes what is, I agree. This is part of the evolutionary process. We pass on physical information which then acquires it's own emergent qualia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Yes I admit, it's hard to explain. I don't believe in re-incarnation either because I don't believe in the conservation of information once you die. The way I see it, as long as there's children being born all the time, you should not fear death. You'll have you place, because when you are no more, you become what is.
    Part of you becomes what is, I agree. This is part of the evolutionary process. We pass on physical information which then acquires it's own emergent qualia.
    You either exist or you don't exist, you can't partly exist, you keep referring to matter. In my view, matter is nothing, but the connection it forms is. It's like the processor of a computer. Matter itself, like silicon, achieves nothing. If you take a piece of silicon rock and wire it, it doesn't process information! But the 90nm spacing geometry connection does.

    The matter which forms your body is not yours, nor is it you. What YOU are is the connection, or geometrical arrangement that that matter forms. You are simply borrowing matter in order to form and sustain that connection, and you give it back when you die. It's like when you're tired and you go to sleep, you become rested, similarly, when you're sick and you die, you become what is. It is a transition from what was, to what is, and also the most misunderstood and hard to quantify transition of them all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Yes I admit, it's hard to explain. I don't believe in re-incarnation either because I don't believe in the conservation of information once you die. The way I see it, as long as there's children being born all the time, you should not fear death. You'll have you place, because when you are no more, you become what is.
    Part of you becomes what is, I agree. This is part of the evolutionary process. We pass on physical information which then acquires it's own emergent qualia.
    You either exist or you don't exist, you can't partly exist, you keep referring to matter. In my view, matter is nothing, but the connection it forms is. It's like the processor of a computer. Matter itself, like silicon, achieves nothing. If you take a piece of silicon rock and wire it, it doesn't process information! But the 90nm spacing geometry connection does.
    Yes, every atom in a piece of silicon rock does have a physical "connection" or "spacetime coordinate" in the fabric of spacetime. But the only information it processes is at the quantum level and the only information being processed is that which makes it a silicon rock. In that respect a rock "knows" it is a rock, but this has nothing to do with sentience or self-awareness.

    The matter which forms your body is not yours, nor is it you. What YOU are is the connection, or geometrical arrangement that that matter forms. You are simply borrowing matter in order to form and sustain that connection, and you give it back when you die. It's like when you're tired and you go to sleep, you become rested, similarly, when you're sick and you die, you become what is. It is a transition from what was, to what is, and also the most misunderstood and hard to quantify transition of them all.
    I disagree,
    You seem to confuse universal functions with sentience. The laws of nature govern the universal constant of cause/effect. A thought is not a causality in and of itself, it is an effect. I could wish for a million dollars, but that does not make a million dollars appear.
    OTOH, my wish for a million dollars may be causal and be realized by physical hard work, frugality, and smart investment. There is your conversion from thought to reality. A physical process.
    Aladdin's lamp does not exist, there is no genie that can be ordered to produce something in reality. It would be contrary to the universal constant of cause/effect and the physical function of natural laws.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 18th, 2012 at 09:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Yes I admit, it's hard to explain. I don't believe in re-incarnation either because I don't believe in the conservation of information once you die. The way I see it, as long as there's children being born all the time, you should not fear death. You'll have you place, because when you are no more, you become what is.
    Part of you becomes what is, I agree. This is part of the evolutionary process. We pass on physical information which then acquires it's own emergent qualia.
    You either exist or you don't exist, you can't partly exist, you keep referring to matter. In my view, matter is nothing, but the connection it forms is. It's like the processor of a computer. Matter itself, like silicon, achieves nothing. If you take a piece of silicon rock and wire it, it doesn't process information! But the 90nm spacing geometry connection does.
    Yes, every atom in a piece of silicon rock does have a physical "connection" or "spacetime coordinate" in the fabric of spacetime. But the only information it processes is at the quantum level and the only information being processed is that which makes it a silicon rock. In that respect a rock "knows" it is a rock, but this has nothing to do with sentience or self-awareness.
    Exactly, it does have a connection but it's meaningless! You see now? Sentience or self-awareness occurs when the connection is meaningfull, such as, the brain of a human being. That arrangement of atoms forms the awareness. A rock does not know its a rock because to "know" you must be aware, so you must be a meaningful connection of atoms.


    "Aladdin's lamp does not exist, there is no genie that can be ordered to produce something in reality. It would be contrary to the universal constant of cause/effect and the physical function of natural laws. "

    And yet we got an entire Universe for free. How great is that?
    Last edited by Oxycodone; September 18th, 2012 at 11:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Look at it like this, if I type this Java code:

    blpi g[]duic atstic mavo in(Starrings)

    I get compilation error...the connection I am trying to make using these letters has no meaning, it's like the rock you mentioned, a random arrangement. Is it harmful if I disturb the code, or , break the rock? No. If I disturb the code, it just gives another random meaningless arangement! But if I write:

    public static void main(String[] args)

    I use the exact same material, same letters but I arrange them to form a meaningful connection. The code works and I obtain something, just like a human brain would work. So in this case, if I disturb the code, it's bad, because I will likely go from something meaningful to something meaningless due to the incredibly higher number of meaningless mathematical combinations compared to the meaningfull ones, which, make only be one in trillions.

    The letters I use to type the code are spaces in the memory, so I borrow those spaces to make the connection, and then the connection is deleted, the memory is cleared and so, I give back the space I used to write it. It just turns out that, unlike an AI, humans don't evolve by writing in memory, they evolve by eating food and growing brain cells to store information. But is it that different? It's just a flawed system of awareness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    I think the world can be separated into two major things: order and disorder. A rock, like you mentioned is a disordered system. It lacks order, or meaning. It is a random arrangement. A book however, is a little more ordered in the sense that there's pages with writing inside, but it contains little information so it's a low level of order. A hard drive is a much more ordered system and of course the human brain is by definition the most ordered system ever seen. One of the reason we want to stay alive is because we like that order...we want to keep it, we don't want to become a rock again and lose the order that we imposed through our DNA to the matter around us such as food.

    When you die you go back from a high level of order, to disorder. The atoms in my body are no longer controlled by my DNA, they are now free and can decompose and fall apart in random ways, a bit like when you have an iron powder held in spikes by a magnet and falling apart into dust once the magnetic field is removed. Just like a magnetic field imposes a certain level of order onto an iron powder, our DNA imposes a high level of order onto the matter that binds us. My point is, don't look at the iron dust and be passionate about what becomes of it...look at the magnetic field that makes it rise. It's all that matters.

    Ok I am officially NOT getting enough pussy LOL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    You keep referring to physical things in order to prove a metaphysical concept. Thoughts and emotions are metaphysical symbolic constructs of the individual's mind. They are not causal to the physical universe.

    There is no physical analogy that can be applied. Perhaps one could draw a mental picture of a cloud (a construct of water vapor) which dissipates and disappears as a cloud. What is left are individual water molecules, none with a memory of having been part of a cloud. The universal structure would remember only the existence of atoms occupying cetain spacetime coordinates for a series of single quantum events in time, not how the aggregate (the cloud) appeared to us.

    Unless you are prepared to assert that the universe itself is sentient (god), the incorporation of sentient imagination as a property of the universe is like saying that a rock is sentient.

    I like my right to privacy...
    Last edited by Write4U; September 19th, 2012 at 04:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    And yet we got an entire Universe for free. How great is that?
    It was inevitable in a metaphysical, but dynamic zero state of pure potential (latent excellence) which is independent of time.
    I am humbled by the thought of how lucky I am existing as a sentient organism in a hospitable place...

    I might have been an algae growing at the mouth of a 400 C sulphur vent in the deep ocean....
    Last edited by Write4U; September 19th, 2012 at 05:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    You keep referring to physical things in order to prove a metaphysical concept. Thoughts and emotions are metaphysical symbolic constructs of the individual's mind. They are not causal to the physical universe.
    You mean you cannot create thoughts with atoms, ions and electrons? So you believe in the existence of spirits?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    You keep referring to physical things in order to prove a metaphysical concept. Thoughts and emotions are metaphysical symbolic constructs of the individual's mind. They are not causal to the physical universe.
    You mean you cannot create thoughts with atoms, ions and electrons? So you believe in the existence of spirits?

    I never said that.

    I said that our mental symbolic representations and emotions, caused by the functions of atoms, etc. are non-physical and have no influence on physical reality. They are illusions, metaphysical constructs.

    Did you not mention when we are asleep it is like being dead? That our dreams have no particular meaning ?
    Where then is the difference? Must we be awake in order to be connected?

    Visualize two points in space , then connect them with a straight line. Does this line exist in reality or in my imagination? This line is a metaphysical mental construct without occupying any spacetime coordinates other than the neurons which are firing without having any awareness of what it is they are doing.

    This falls in the realm of Potential, the inherent latent ability to draw a straight line between two points. But evaluating the potential of a thing does not make this potential exist in reality. It remains a latency, until I take pencil and paper and actually draw a line between two points. Thoughts are not physical. A thought itself does not consist of atoms and molecules, even though it is created by physical means.

    As to the concepts of metaphysics vs spirituality.
    a) Spirituality (The Sentience) advances the concept that there I an aspect to the universe which is sentient and can act independent of natural law.
    b) Potential (The Implicate) advances the concept that the universe has a virtually infinite capacity for expressing itself in Reality (The Explicate), as long as it follows certain mathematical universal constants.

    Potential (n), look it up!
    It's fundamental definition is "That which may become Reality".

    The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal
    It is a very pofound word and the prima faci causality to the very existence of the universe and its ability to evolve an organism as complicated as we are.

    But never forget, our intelligence comes from the fusion of two chromosomes in our hominid ancestor during the combination and recombination of Ape DNA. This does not make us any more connected to the universe than a Chimpanzee. We are just smarter and acquired the ability for "abstract" imagination.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 19th, 2012 at 07:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Did you not mention when we are asleep it is like being dead? That our dreams have no particular meaning ?
    Where then is the difference? Must we be awake in order to be connected?
    Yes exactly. Like with Alex, Alex can be saved on a hard drive but if he's not activated, he doesn't exist, despite the fact that his entire construct is valid on existant. When you sleep you're not entirely unexistant because of the human nature, like you said, you still hear sounds and can wake up. The the connection of atoms might be there, but another connection must be made to activate the whole thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Did you not mention when we are asleep it is like being dead? That our dreams have no particular meaning ?
    Where then is the difference? Must we be awake in order to be connected?
    Yes exactly. Like with Alex, Alex can be saved on a hard drive but if he's not activated, he doesn't exist, despite the fact that his entire construct is valid on existant. When you sleep you're not entirely unexistant because of the human nature, like you said, you still hear sounds and can wake up. The the connection of atoms might be there, but another connection must be made to activate the whole thing.
    Yes, the potential for Alex exists on the HD. Or one might say that this particular HD has the potential to program an Alex. Alex is implied on the HD.
    But at this stage Alex is not expressed as Reality (Connectedness). The implication of a sentient Alex is not sentient in and of itself.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 19th, 2012 at 07:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    You keep referring to physical things in order to prove a metaphysical concept. Thoughts and emotions are metaphysical symbolic constructs of the individual's mind. They are not causal to the physical universe.
    You mean you cannot create thoughts with atoms, ions and electrons? So you believe in the existence of spirits?
    No, I mean that you cannot create or control atoms, ions and electrons with thoughts or spirits (sentient entities)

    When you die you can "live" on in your recorded legacy. There is your HD. But your thoughts, poof.
    Actually it is very much like music, unless a "recording" is made, the harmonic waves temporarily affect the observer, but then fade and finally disappear.

    Someone said, "we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent"
    Don't know if that belongs here, but I like it!
    Last edited by Write4U; September 20th, 2012 at 02:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Stupid question with an easy answer.

    Subjectively: No.
    Objectively: Yes.

    /Thread.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Stupid question with an easy answer.

    Subjectively: No.
    Objectively: Yes.
    Right, the question needs to be asked in context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Forum Freshman Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19
    Did the world exist before you were born? Is the world/universe really as old as it is because we weren't there to see it formulate? Or is it only as old as the time you began observing it? Consciousness is sort of a tool developed to be used for temporary observation and understanding. Without it, the world becomes virtually non-existent personally, but still contains physical properties. However, it still takes consciousness to be able to 'know' of existence, but it's not necessarily necessary for existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    Pardon my primitive thought and idealism. There is certainly an objective reality, and each of us, most likely, possess a distortion or perspective of this objective reality --- much like cameras observing a precious jewel. Our subjective reality constitutes of our interpretations of our objective reality through means of language, thought and reasoning; thus, should we die, our foundations for our capacity to hold a subjective reality or image (which is, I repeat, language, thought and reasoning) collapse... inevitably, causing this singularity --- or an inability to distinguish one's self, or anything else for that matter, with the world.

    So, my very blurry and dreamy conclusion is that when we die, the world does not disappear; rather, we become the (subjective) world. Again, pardon my primitive thought and idealism. (The objective world doesn't disappear when you die, seriously. I know that this is a science forum, but we're in the "philosophy" section. Tee hee.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Meta-physics is a science and a generalized statement such as "everything in the universe is connected" cannot be immediately dismissed without context and response. I was trying to answer logically
    One might argue that when we die we leave the subjective reality and sentience and become objective reality, a decaying organism breaking down to its very molecules without memory.
    Spirituality (the mind) is a subjective reality, and when the mind dies the metaphysical state of "being" ceases to exist.

    Objective reality needs no defense....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    32
    YES!!!!

    BECAUSE THE WORLD WAS HERE BEFORE WE WERE EVOLVED INTO HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS. So why would the earth stop revolving around the sun when you die? Or do you think that the sun revolves around you until you decide to kick the bucket?



    If your mother dies, do you and the world still exist?
    It's your own Solipsism playing tricks on you.
    You are going Descartes but with the following angle: I am dead, therefore I do not think, therefore I am dead, therefore the world does not exist.
    But when you are dead people still think about you. Sure, that does not make you undead, but when you die you will not take the world with you.
    I dont even see why this is a question of importance.

    Some people deem the world the island in the dead sea on which dead people wash ashore for having a living holiday.

    When you die you are still in this world, though, be it in scattered atoms. And soon enough someone will drink or eat one of those molecules.
    If you worry about weather the world will still exist when you die you are actually emphasizing on your own importance. Thats not selfish, thats human eschatology between Eros and Thanatos.

    This question really belongs to the rethorical realm of philosophy and is one of the reasons why the latter is deemed dead.
    Since solipsism is unfalsifiable this question is flawd. Maybe not, when you replace "i" for "all people".
    What if ALL people died en went extinct, would the world still exist then?

    why would it cease to exist right after homo sapiens sapiens went extinct?

    This is when solipsism becomes plural and we call that: Anthropic principle

    But still, where the latter is a wrong principle, solipsism remains unfalsifiable. But we all know that we are not the crown on the evolution.
    So if the entire human race vanishes, be it by monotheistic fairytale (R)apture, or by its own nucleair winter: there will be succeeding species feeding on our carcas.
    As for your question weather the earth will still be here: the earth is not an object you perceive in human eyes, its like you, merely a collection of glued together atoms. When you die you your body melts back into its surface, unless you decide to jettison your remains to mars. Atheists shouldn't worry about the life of the world after their own demise. It makes no sense, because they can't anyway.

    you should really ask yourself the question: when the earth dies, will we still be here?
    Popular science magazines always bring up this question: what happens to us when the sun dies?

    DUDE!! there is no US when the sun dies. Thats billions of years from now and by that time, at best, we have evolved to a new species, and that species or the next will eventually be hit by a comet or a supervulcano...new round, new prices.

    Your question: is there still a world when "i" die. Its easy to answer it while alive: yes, because there are more dead people than alive on earth today. Everyday people die, and they are not eating up the world as they go.

    Your question, unless reversed, makes no sense. There is no "I" in death or earth.
    Last edited by Steve555; October 2nd, 2012 at 08:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    344
    I don't have time to argue, I'll be back by 2013 summer. See you guys then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    I don't have time to argue, I'll be back by 2013 summer. See you guys then.
    If the world still exists then ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276 If Your're Dead Does the World Exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8
    As Einstein once said 'is the moon still there when you're not looking'. The world will still exist once you're dead but I do not believe in a 'god' of any kind, therefore, I think when you're dead it's the same as is was before you were born and you don't know about it. Think about it logically, you didn't spend an eternity worrying about things before you were born, so it stands to reason that you won't when you're dead. QED.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevetoka View Post
    As Einstein once said 'is the moon still there when you're not looking'. The world will still exist once you're dead but I do not believe in a 'god' of any kind, therefore, I think when you're dead it's the same as is was before you were born and you don't know about it. Think about it logically, you didn't spend an eternity worrying about things before you were born, so it stands to reason that you won't when you're dead. QED.
    good to know there are people who realize Einstein was actually an atheist. He knew pretty damn well that Buddhism isnt really a religion unlike many stupid people believe who worship Buddha as a deity and believe in ancestors. As you see in Catholisism and buddhism: people have a tendency to augment even their own god's precepts to suck up to their heavenly tormentor. Like Himmler brownnosed Hitler by killing all jews, where Adolf only asked to Buddha is not a god and he clearly stated that no one should worship someone else but their own self. So when you think of buddhist people today: monks holding up rice bowls begging to willing people to provide them with food.....thats a fraud, like Lance Armstrong is a fraud.
    Why do people get excommunicated/exiled from church when they say they are allergic to the body of christ? Why are there not gluten free bodies of christ in the catholic church? Must be tough to be deemed a satan simply because you are gluten intolerant.
    Transsubstantiation is like the holy trinity a farce invention, like the limbo of aborted kids in Dante's echelons of hell.
    Why are religious christian people still religious? Well, this is for one sentence only. Namely: blessed are thou who does not see but still believe.
    Such a childish way of lying, bending the truth. But it works, and it always ejaculates in feeble minds, in order to nest their and spawn.
    Last edited by Steve555; October 11th, 2012 at 06:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Irbid, Jordan
    Posts
    7
    Hello
    Though my reply is late... But you're not crazy !! what you're thinking is just true !!
    how could we prove that ?!! We can't !! but obviously, we all believe in another world after this world... and though no one can proves it or even tells about it... we believe in it somehow,,, especially the religious of us ...
    )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilham Ahed Al-Khatib View Post
    we all believe in another world after this world...
    Do we? I don't think we all do.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Irbid, Jordan
    Posts
    7
    yes not all of us do,,, cuz this is related to the religious part inside of our spirit... it has to be found somewhere there... Some people were born and found no religion on their ID,,, and Life has got them away of searching that ... but consequently, if we were in isolated place or some where away from people,,, we'd reallize such things and we'd believe there's something in the afterworld... and we can deduce this by knowing why people follow a religion, regardless of their belief... We have to take time to think of such these ponderings but we have to get answers even if not to all questions but at least we'd know what's enough... !!
    Thank you... )
    When you are able to differentiate between the logic of dancing and that of shaking...You may know the logic and secrets of so much beauty every corner... ~By Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    if we were in isolated place or some where away from people,,, we'd reallize such things and we'd believe there's something in the afterworld
    How does living in isolation, barring hallucinations, causes an individual to believe in a afterworld? What is an afterworld?

    we can deduce this by knowing why people follow a religion, regardless of their belief
    Please explain the deductive reasoning which leads someone living in isolation, belief, religion, leading to knowing a afterworld.

    How does one get answers from a belief?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    if we were in isolated place or some where away from people,,, we'd reallize such things and we'd believe there's something in the afterworld
    How does living in isolation, barring hallucinations, causes an individual to believe in a afterworld? What is an afterworld?
    I would argue that living in isolation produces hallucinations. And that is the same type of thought as theism. For some its demons, for some it is god.

    When we see pink elephants and hear voices its a hallucination (madness), when we see god and hear his voice its divine inspiration (ecstasy).

    we can deduce this by knowing why people follow a religion, regardless of their belief
    Please explain the deductive reasoning which leads someone living in isolation, belief, religion, leading to knowing a afterworld.

    How does one get answers from a belief?
    IMO, one can receive answers from any induced state of ecstasy or madness, the problem of course is determinining if these thoughts are valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    No not even time existed. You're zero, check that you're not even zero, check that. who are you, you're not you're. what does you're mean.. It's all basically non existent no physics nothing. No soul, no afterlife. That's called physics. When you are terminated the entity that is you isn't terminated within the universe, the universe is terminated, all is terminated.

    You can talk about you're body leaving radiation or the fact that you're here and time can exist so you're existing for an eternity, shut up stupid, You're way off of line advanced answer in few words above.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    No not even time existed. You're zero, check that you're not even zero, check that. who are you, you're not you're. what does you're mean.. It's all basically non existent no physics nothing. No soul, no afterlife. That's called physics. When you are terminated the entity that is you isn't terminated within the universe, the universe is terminated, all is terminated.

    You can talk about you're body leaving radiation or the fact that you're here and time can exist so you're existing for an eternity, shut up stupid, You're way off of line advanced answer in few words above.
    Talk about egocentricity. "The sun shines just for me. When I die it stops shining for everyone on earth"....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    No not even time existed. You're zero, check that you're not even zero, check that. who are you, you're not you're. what does you're mean.. It's all basically non existent no physics nothing. No soul, no afterlife. That's called physics. When you are terminated the entity that is you isn't terminated within the universe, the universe is terminated, all is terminated.

    You can talk about you're body leaving radiation or the fact that you're here and time can exist so you're existing for an eternity, shut up stupid, You're way off of line advanced answer in few words above.
    Talk about egocentricity. "The sun shines just for me. When I die it stops shining for everyone on earth"....
    You're the observer, once your gone. Theirs nothing that can be observed. Am I right?
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    No not even time existed. You're zero, check that you're not even zero, check that. who are you, you're not you're. what does you're mean.. It's all basically non existent no physics nothing. No soul, no afterlife. That's called physics. When you are terminated the entity that is you isn't terminated within the universe, the universe is terminated, all is terminated.

    You can talk about you're body leaving radiation or the fact that you're here and time can exist so you're existing for an eternity, shut up stupid, You're way off of line advanced answer in few words above.
    Talk about egocentricity. "The sun shines just for me. When I die it stops shining for everyone on earth"....
    You're the observer, once your gone. Theirs nothing that can be observed. Am I right?
    No.

    a) I am not the only observer
    b) When I die I don't go anywhere, I just change form from observer to the observed.

    You are positing a false equivalency between subjective perception and physical existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man;346256
    Anyway, if you are in a boat, and the boat is in uniform rectilinear, without interacting with the outer environment, you cannot deduce whether you are moving or not. Analogously, if you do not interact with the world, [B
    to you[/B] it is unknown whether the world exists or not. When we speak of a phenomenon, we must assume there's an observer, they are relative. Thus making any claims about an unobserved phenomenon is meaningless (i.e. a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound)
    You see, here is where I always laugh at Philosophy. Why, because in Quantum Philosophy we have the same questions, yet instead of endless discussion and opinions. We do not form an opinion, but we form an experiment and let reality give us an answer.

    In this specific case, and this particular philisophical question has been asked and answered definitively but John Wheeler. He Pondered in his Delayed choice experiment. It's literary quoted in an old essay of mine:
    Extraordinary lives of Bison: Metaphysical physics

    I'll restate it here:
    ...the past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. (...) we would seem forced to say that no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. The universe does not 'exist, out there' independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe” --- John Archibald Wheeler

    In other words, does the world still exist when you are gone? The problem of the question is that one relates two scheme's. A scheme with the Universe + You, with the Scheme of no You. As the above stated one can state that a universe without observations doesn't exist. However since the act of simultaneously is rather broad. We can only conclude that as long as there are other observers left (and observers is a broad term, not at all just humans but any entity that can decay wavefunctions) the Universe still exists.

    Then te question reduces to which observer wins? (Wigner's Friend paradox)

    Either way, why would you care, you no longer exists, and the result is completely irrelevant for you. Once it becomes relevant, you can interact with it, and hence observe.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by webmaster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    This is continued from 'Classical Question'.

    If I were to be put in a cage, I would think of a way to escape, not give lectures to university students.

    Anyway, if you are in a boat, and the boat is in uniform rectilinear, without interacting with the outer environment, you cannot deduce whether you are moving or not. Analogously, if you do not interact with the world, to you it is unknown whether the world exists or not. When we speak of a phenomenon, we must assume there's an observer, they are relative. Thus making any claims about an unobserved phenomenon is meaningless (i.e. a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound)

    If you are dead, and your mind ceases to function, you cannot possibly even come up with the thought: where's the world? How can you prove that you are not dreaming right now? Maybe when you die you simply wake up and find yourself in another world?

    I am not crazy, I am just pondering these.
    Hello,
    As per my knowledge if we are die then nobody can prove that he/she is dreaming an all.
    Tell you frankly you frankly your thought are freaking me out...
    My name is BUGRAH and my want and have fun with you guy today. Frankly thought frankly freak out and me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it.
    OK. I can't resist this.

    Do you realise you have gone from "you can't know if you are not looking" (which might entertain an intelligent 12 year old) to "it doesn't exist" (which is ludicrous).

    So I have to ask: how do you know it doesn't exist if you are not observing it?

    Secondly, when you walk down a busy road, all the people you pass cease to exist when they are behind you. Does this make you a mass murderer?

    Finally, that is why I keep a dog: to make sure that my house hasn't turned into a bowl of petunias when I get hom.
    Who would have thought that Ostriches have it right. When stalked by a lion, just stick your head in the sand and poof the lion will disappear. We're safe now!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    It is actually very simple. When I die, the universe does not cease to exist, I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The United States
    Posts
    65
    Wise Man, you seem to be gathering together significantly different issues and putting each one under the same heading. In fact, you have answered one of your questions without even realizing it. You ponder how we can be sure that we're not dreaming as we speak, yet point out that the mind no longer has a purpose upon death. Dreams are products of the mind, not reality. Of course we need to be alive in order to dream, but living is not dreaming. Due to the fact that our bodies and minds have unique states utilized only when we sleep, there is a distinct difference between sleep and waking life, which is why we always instantly know when we leave the former and enter the latter. Consider that no human can live without sleep and then it's even easier to see that if only those who are in between the period of birth and death can dream, then only those who are in the same period can wake up as well. If the death of one person resulted in Armageddon, humans would not have existed for the past twenty centuries. Earth is only for living creatures: when you die you immediately leave this planet and move on to another realm. In light of these, there is no doubt that we are awake if we are sitting at our computers communicating with each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by webmaster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Man View Post
    This is continued from 'Classical Question'.

    If I were to be put in a cage, I would think of a way to escape, not give lectures to university students.

    Anyway, if you are in a boat, and the boat is in uniform rectilinear, without interacting with the outer environment, you cannot deduce whether you are moving or not. Analogously, if you do not interact with the world, to you it is unknown whether the world exists or not. When we speak of a phenomenon, we must assume there's an observer, they are relative. Thus making any claims about an unobserved phenomenon is meaningless (i.e. a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound)

    If you are dead, and your mind ceases to function, you cannot possibly even come up with the thought: where's the world? How can you prove that you are not dreaming right now? Maybe when you die you simply wake up and find yourself in another world?

    I am not crazy, I am just pondering these.
    Hello,
    As per my knowledge if we are die then nobody can prove that he/she is dreaming an all.
    Tell you frankly you frankly your thought are freaking me out...
    My name is BUGRAH and my want and have fun with you guy today. Frankly thought frankly freak out and me
    Oh uh --, what?
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Do they know he's dead?
    By Wolf in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 31st, 2008, 10:06 PM
  2. define dead
    By dejawolf in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 13th, 2008, 05:14 PM
  3. End of the Old World: Beginning of the New World
    By gailem in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2008, 06:57 AM
  4. When is one dead?
    By DaBOB in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 04:51 PM
  5. Been dead long?
    By petkusj in forum Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 29th, 2006, 12:37 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •