Political Crossfire Forums

[Chingu]

The question I speak of is, in equal parts, the most explored and most avoided question in our history. We can run from it but we can not hide. We can attempt to explain it but we an not, in good faith, satisfy our curiosity with any answers. It is the cunundrum of life, origin and sentience. The question is intertwined with other inexplicable ideas that we are intelligent enough to consider while lacking the ability to fully realize the answers to.

Other inexplicable and intertwined questions would be the age old question of infinity. We can ask the question but not fully comprehend the answers. Time and space and gravity and dark matter and our ability to think of these things is all related to our everpressing question.

Atheism doesn't explain it. All Atheism does is deny any intervention outside of cold hard science. Atheism fails to explain the origins of science though and is therefor incomplete and based on an ignorant concept. There are no religions that adequately explain it either. They all fall far short on many counts - all relying on a personal dishonesty in order to justify a willingness to accept an incomplete conclusion. Are we so haunted by the idea that we simply do not know that we must explain away our existance through metaphore and story telling? Or, is religion based on some truth hidden within it's text? Can we even know?

I hold the principle of honesty in regard to my own beliefs. I can not honestly say I am a Christian because I can not honestly dismiss the investigation of our origin and the origin of everything by means of faith. Faith, to me, is a form of dishonesty in that I am being asked not to question something that my gut instinct tells me I am eager to discover. Similarly, I could not honestly claim to be an atheist because I haven't seen any evidence that science can explain the orgin of everything any better than religion can. So, to me, it is more the question itself that is the religion or belief that I follow. An endless quest surely?

But, in thinking these things, I've come to certain conclusions and a few instinctual ideas - or gut feelings, if you will.

I think about the origin of everything and infinity and life and sentience and gravity and time and space and matter and energy and I begin to get a strange sort of gut feeling that I'm starting to understand it all.

I'm not sure I can adequately explain - and maybe, in the world of philisophical thought, this is at the 101 level - but I'll chance being the fool for the sake of the question.

Infinity is typically thought of as forever or extending indefinitely. That is obviously only one simplistic way of defioning infinity. Infinity is a line, a plane, an arc, in angles, in space and in time. Infinity is as large as it is small. You know, you can take a half step toward something and you'll never get there? Begin at a point - a theoretical one of course for in the world of the infinite, there is no such thing as a point, a point being nothing more than a concept which is not provable through science. So, start at that point and go out infinitely in one direction. What do you have? You have an infinite theoretical line right? Yet, is it really infinite? Of course it is, it has no end in one direction - so it is inifinite. So is the point though, because as we approach the infinitely small, we never get to any real point - we just get closer and closer to it. Take the same line and point it in both directions infinitely. Now we have an infinite line. it is clearly just as infinite as the first line in that it has no ends. It is finite as well - as was the first line in that it is defineable as a line rather than a plane or a mass etc. So, we can therefor have degrees of infinity. Take a point and draw one line out infintely in one direction and then thirty degrees from it draw another and then connect them as a segment of a pie shape. You have a percent of an infinite plane. The idea expands omnidirectionally. You can have infinite angles. You can infinite variety of infinity. You can have infinity divided by 2 which is really the same as infinity itself. And, if infinity is as large as it is small - and science seems to be continually providing evidence that it is, then it is somewhat reasonable to imagine that everyything that we understand as everything might be, in some scale of everything, nothing at all.

I know - fairly rudimentary huh?

Take a balloon. Blow it up. You start with a certain amount of mass and you end with a certain amount of mass in and of the balloon itself. Prior to its being expanded with your breath, the balloon is a certain size - after expansion it is much larger. Imagine matter as a similar concept except, in the case of everything it is infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time.

Then, what is gravity? Is gravity the glue that holds everything together?

Ah, yes, concepts too big for us. Rudimentary surely. I'm sure many have thought of these things in far more detail - tried to explain them with quantum physics and such whereas I am but an amature tossing out softballs.

What if our entire concept of everything is initially flawed? What if we've been missing the forest for the trees? What if everything really is nothing at all - or at least nothing recognizable to us as we could possibly understand it? Just, what if everything that we think, we see and touch and know is a product of sentience rather than a reality. What if, in an extreme extension of this line of thinking, we are part of something so much larger in scale that our existence is simply a manifestation of a greater being, purpose or concept? perhaps our ability to think and dream and imagine and see and touch and feel is nothing more than some sensor in the larger it? Whatever IT might be? Could we be nothing more than nerve endings on some massively scaled being or concept? The sensors of some enormously scaled construction?

Just some bizarre thoughts I felt like tossing out there - LOL

[Johannes]

Interesting ideas somehow lost in the immense (and sometimes overused) vocabulary that you exhibt. Again, they are some interesting theories.

[greeneye]

Chingu wrote: What if our entire concept of everything is initially flawed? What if we've been missing the forest for the trees? What if everything really is nothing at all - or at least nothing recognizable to us as we could possibly understand it? Just, what if everything that we think, we see and touch and know is a product of sentience rather than a reality. What if, in an extreme extension of this line of thinking, we are part of something so much larger in scale that our existence is simply a manifestation of a greater being, purpose or concept? perhaps our ability to think and dream and imagine and see and touch and feel is nothing more than some sensor in the larger it? Whatever IT might be? Could we be nothing more than nerve endings on some massively scaled being or concept? The sensors of some enormously scaled construction?

Just some bizarre thoughts I felt like tossing out there - LOL

I think what you're reflecting upon may touch a bit on the spiritual principles of Zen Buddhism.

The concept of "reality" humans have may indeed be flawed against the backdrop of another reality. Inasmuch as this may be the case, our reality, here in the physical world is the one we have to deal with -- the good and the bad.

We often ask why? Why life? Why are we here? Could it be that earth is just a school room and Shakespeare's words had some deeper meaning?

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,

[JackarooSundown]

What if... what if... what if we focused on we know to be reality. Instead of wasting time wondering if we are all bludering about in a big dream, stop dreaming and make the most of life.

[greeneye]

JackarooSundown wrote: What if... what if... what if we focused on we know to be reality. Instead of wasting time wondering if we are all bludering about in a big dream, stop dreaming and make the most of life.

making the most of life, for some, is the ability to "dream."

Hold fast to dreams for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly. Langston Hughes

[Phaedrus]

Chingu wrote:
I'm not sure I can adequately explain - and maybe, in the world of philosophical thought, this is at the 101 level - but I'll chance being the fool for the sake of the question.

Infinity is typically thought of as forever or extending indefinitely. That is obviously only one simplistic way of defining infinity. Infinity is a line, a plane, an arc, in angles, in space and in time. Infinity is as large as it is small. You know, you can take a half step toward something and you'll never get there? Begin at a point - a theoretical one of course for in the world of the infinite, there is no such thing as a point, a point being nothing more than a concept which is not provable through science. So, start at that point and go out infinitely in one direction. What do you have? You have an infinite theoretical line right? Yet, is it really infinite? Of course it is, it has no end in one direction - so it is infinite. So is the point though, because as we approach the infinitely small, we never get to any real point - we just get closer and closer to it. Take the same line and point it in both directions infinitely. Now we have an infinite line. it is clearly just as infinite as the first line in that it has no ends. It is finite as well - as was the first line in that it is definable as a line rather than a plane or a mass etc. So, we can therefor have degrees of infinity. Take a point and draw one line out infintely in one direction and then thirty degrees from it draw another and then connect them as a segment of a pie shape. You have a percent of an infinite plane. The idea expands omnidirectionally. You can have infinite angles. You can infinite variety of infinity. You can have infinity divided by 2 which is really the same as infinity itself. And, if infinity is as large as it is small - and science seems to be continually providing evidence that it is, then it is somewhat reasonable to imagine that everything that we understand as everything might be, in some scale of everything, nothing at all.

Then, what is gravity? Is gravity the glue that holds everything together?



Ahh, Chingu; that is an excellent line of thought you have opened up, here. I would like, first, to commend you for having the courage to voice these ponderings. Although there are others of us out here who have had similar lines of thought, one finds few indeed are those willing to express them. Again, kudos!

I especially liked the notion of "infinite varieties of infinity." A friend of mine once told me of an idea you may find interesting... we were all taught about the "number-line" in grade school; zero at the center, negative numbers to the left, positive to the right, both extending to infinity. Well, perhaps we might imagine this construct as a "number-circle" with zero at a given point (say, the very bottom) with its negative and positive integers extending to the left and right, but circling around to the opposite point on the circle (say, the very top) as infinity. It raises an interesting question: if, to add (from any point on the number-circle) is simply to "move counter-clockwise" and to subtract is to "move clockwise," it would seem to imply that Infinity-minus-one is an incalculably big positive number. Makes sense, but in the inverse; Infinity-plus-one would be an incalculably big NEGATIVE number. Zoiks.

:shock:

Just some munchies-for-thought. And thank you, again, for broaching the topic of The Infinite. I should hope to see more posts regarding both the phenomenon and the human-mind's capacity to consider it.

And, also... yeah... what actually IS gravity? I know we have plenty of equations to describe HOW gravity functions, but what about the fundamental nature of the phenomenon, itself. I guess the question might be, "why" is gravity(?).

[mojo]

Chingu wrote:

Infinity is typically thought of as forever or extending indefinitely. That is obviously only one simplistic way of defioning infinity. Infinity is a line, a plane, an arc, in angles, in space and in time. Infinity is as large as it is small. You know, you can take a half step toward something and you'll never get there? Begin at a point - a theoretical one of course for in the world of the infinite, there is no such thing as a point, a point being nothing more than a concept which is not provable through science. So, start at that point and go out infinitely in one direction. What do you have? You have an infinite theoretical line right? Yet, is it really infinite? Of course it is, it has no end in one direction - so it is inifinite. So is the point though, because as we approach the infinitely small, we never get to any real point - we just get closer and closer to it. Take the same line and point it in both directions infinitely. Now we have an infinite line. it is clearly just as infinite as the first line in that it has no ends. It is finite as well - as was the first line in that it is defineable as a line rather than a plane or a mass etc. So, we can therefor have degrees of infinity. Take a point and draw one line out infintely in one direction and then thirty degrees from it draw another and then connect them as a segment of a pie shape. You have a percent of an infinite plane. The idea expands omnidirectionally. You can have infinite angles. You can infinite variety of infinity. You can have infinity divided by 2 which is really the same as infinity itself. And, if infinity is as large as it is small - and science seems to be continually providing evidence that it is, then it is somewhat reasonable to imagine that everyything that we understand as everything might be, in some scale of everything, nothing at all.

I know - fairly rudimentary huh?

Take a balloon. Blow it up. You start with a certain amount of mass and you end with a certain amount of mass in and of the balloon itself. Prior to its being expanded with your breath, the balloon is a certain size - after expansion it is much larger. Imagine matter as a similar concept except, in the case of everything it is infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time.

Then, what is gravity? Is gravity the glue that holds everything together?

Ah, yes, concepts too big for us. Rudimentary surely. I'm sure many have thought of these things in far more detail - tried to explain them with quantum physics and such whereas I am but an amature tossing out softballs.

What if our entire concept of everything is initially flawed? What if we've been missing the forest for the trees? What if everything really is nothing at all - or at least nothing recognizable to us as we could possibly understand it? Just, what if everything that we think, we see and touch and know is a product of sentience rather than a reality. What if, in an extreme extension of this line of thinking, we are part of something so much larger in scale that our existence is simply a manifestation of a greater being, purpose or concept? perhaps our ability to think and dream and imagine and see and touch and feel is nothing more than some sensor in the larger it? Whatever IT might be? Could we be nothing more than nerve endings on some massively scaled being or concept? The sensors of some enormously scaled construction?

Just some bizarre thoughts I felt like tossing out there - LOL

You have brushed against the underlying question that really is posed. The underlying question is that is an expression of some form of a "universal truth". That truth is that all things are related and work in perfect harmony. Which is an amazing concept in itself. All things work in perfect harmony and seem to work towards one universal constant.

Infinity can be best described through mathematical theory. If you take a simple curve and zoom out it will be basically going in either a positive or negative direction. But if you zoom in you may find many various relative maximums and minimums. But calulus teaches us that small actions that may only affect groups of points in a very small area affect the outcome of the entire graph. Small instances can change the overall direction of the graph. This is an amazing concept that Issac Newton developed. He theorized that all human progress adheres to the principal of "thinking globally acting locally".

That is why I have taken a considerable interest in Christianity as of late. The times leading up to the Christ's birth were filled with worldly peril. Many ascribed to the philosophy of an eye for an eye. But Christ in an area that roughly affected a space about the size of delaware was able to change the couse fo human events. He was a man which made this concept even more pertinent to human civilization.

Newton saw this and understood that humans are just expression of mathematical equations. Their are roughly 6 billion mathematical equations currently on this planet. How each one deals with its own set of circumstances when working together all combine to make a more prosperous direction of the world.

The main point I am driving at is that infinity is a process. It can cannot be decribed as a constant but rather a reflection of universal truth whatever that truth may be.

[mojo]

greeneye wrote: Chingu wrote: What if our entire concept of everything is initially flawed? What if we've been missing the forest for the trees? What if everything really is nothing at all - or at least nothing recognizable to us as we could possibly understand it? Just, what if everything that we think, we see and touch and know is a product of sentience rather than a reality. What if, in an extreme extension of this line of thinking, we are part of something so much larger in scale that our existence is simply a manifestation of a greater being, purpose or concept? perhaps our ability to think and dream and imagine and see and touch and feel is nothing more than some sensor in the larger it? Whatever IT might be? Could we be nothing more than nerve endings on some massively scaled being or concept? The sensors of some enormously scaled construction?

Just some bizarre thoughts I felt like tossing out there - LOL

I think what you're reflecting upon may touch a bit on the spiritual principles of Zen Buddhism.

The concept of "reality" humans have may indeed be flawed against the backdrop of another reality. Inasmuch as this may be the case, our reality, here in the physical world is the one we have to deal with -- the good and the bad.

We often ask why? Why life? Why are we here? Could it be that earth is just a school room and Shakespeare's words had some deeper meaning?

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,

The concept of realtiy may in fact be tied into our thoughts. Even crazier the concept of existence may connected to our thoughts. How can be deternmine existence without the mind.

[libertynow]

Phaedrus wrote:

And, also... yeah... what actually IS gravity? I know we have plenty of equations to describe HOW gravity functions, but what about the fundamental nature of the phenomenon, itself. I guess the question might be, "why" is gravity(?).

Ah, Phaedrus, salutations! :hi:
The why of gravity, :cool: that's good stuff my friend...
Could it be that gravity, being conducive to existence as we know it, is the reason itself? Does this imply a beneficence or will behind it?
From what I've read of the much debated Big Band theory, according to modern cosmology there was a time before gravity as we know it.
During the The Planck epoch (10-43 seconds after the initial bang), gravity was apparently inseparable/indistinguishable from the other known forces (electromagnetism and the strong/weak nuclear forces). It wasn't until The Grand Unification Epoch (10-33 seconds after the initial bang), that gravity became something unique and separate.

It seems to me if there was no gravitic force, the universe would look and feel very different indeed. Now there is a theory out there that claims our local universe is but one of many, and that it likely was spawned by another universe and inherited some of it's physical laws, not unlike a lifeform inheriting physical characteristics.
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/living-universe.html
So therefore the question of the why of gravity, would be similar to "why do I have blue eyes?". Inheritance. I rather enjoy this theory.

I'm very interested to hear other opinions on this topic. :)

[thefranzkafkafront]

Infinity is a nifty mathatical concept, but whever it really exists is another matter all together.

As for orgins which you breifly touched on.


Is not that certain things 'need' a cause an assumption?

[mojo]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Infinity is a nifty mathatical concept, but whever it really exists is another matter all together.

As for orgins which you breifly touched on.


Is not that certain things 'need' a cause an assumption?

Cause and Effect is the one absolute universal constant. The law of causality verifies God's existence more than any other philosohical premise.

[Ellron]

politicalmojo wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Infinity is a nifty mathatical concept, but whever it really exists is another matter all together.

As for orgins which you breifly touched on.


Is not that certain things 'need' a cause an assumption?

Cause and Effect is the one absolute universal constant. The law of causality verifies God's existence more than any other philosohical premise.

Ya accept you can say the same for anything else.

I believe a big cloud that doesnt think started it all. IT doesnt need an explanation because it explains itself.

Now replace "big could that doesnt think" with god and you have the arguement for cause and effect for god.

EVen with that it doesnt get around that time is infinite in both directions.

[THEXRATED]

Chingu wrote:
Atheism doesn't explain it. All Atheism does is deny any intervention outside of cold hard science. Atheism fails to explain the origins of science though and is therefor incomplete and based on an ignorant concept. There are no religions that adequately explain it either. They all fall far short on many counts - all relying on a personal dishonesty in order to justify a willingness to accept an incomplete conclusion. Are we so haunted by the idea that we simply do not know that we must explain away our existance through metaphore and story telling? Or, is religion based on some truth hidden within it's text? Can we even know?

Atheism is disbelieve in gods. Nothing more and nothing less. Most atheist I know are perfectly well aware that there are many things we still do not know about the universe and even nature, but that does not relate to atheism itself. Philosophically they might have completely different set of opinions about larger concepts.

I hate when people use atheism as a point of argument and twist its very meaning.

Quote: I hold the principle of honesty in regard to my own beliefs. I can not honestly say I am a Christian because I can not honestly dismiss the investigation of our origin and the origin of everything by means of faith. Faith, to me, is a form of dishonesty in that I am being asked not to question something that my gut instinct tells me I am eager to discover. Similarly, I could not honestly claim to be an atheist because I haven't seen any evidence that science can explain the orgin of everything any better than religion can. So, to me, it is more the question itself that is the religion or belief that I follow. An endless quest surely?

Again. I think your argument is ok, but the use of atheism is not. What you really mean here is that you do not trust science to answer your metaphysical questions.

Quote: But, in thinking these things, I've come to certain conclusions and a few instinctual ideas - or gut feelings, if you will.

I think about the origin of everything and infinity and life and sentience and gravity and time and space and matter and energy and I begin to get a strange sort of gut feeling that I'm starting to understand it all.


Wihtout meaning to sound patronising. this is what is called the cap between objective thinking and emotional thinking. The thing is that emotional thinking gives you easier results and thus pleasure and happiness. Whereas objective thinking often can result in negative emotions. Also the reason why the other is more present in metaphysics and another in natural philosophy.

Quote: What if our entire concept of everything is initially flawed? What if we've been missing the forest for the trees? What if everything really is nothing at all - or at least nothing recognizable to us as we could possibly understand it? Just, what if everything that we think, we see and touch and know is a product of sentience rather than a reality. What if, in an extreme extension of this line of thinking, we are part of something so much larger in scale that our existence is simply a manifestation of a greater being, purpose or concept? perhaps our ability to think and dream and imagine and see and touch and feel is nothing more than some sensor in the larger it? Whatever IT might be? Could we be nothing more than nerve endings on some massively scaled being or concept? The sensors of some enormously scaled construction?

The Observer Effect. Human mind can imagine many things.

You ask a class room of scientist to tell you what the universe is and you will mostly get different answers. You ask same from a class room full of artists and get again different answers.

For me is it no longer that important to know why universe exists, but how it exists. Science is looking answers to the latter. In other words, why does the milk taste like milk.

There's the story of a group of philosophers who were sitting around debating how many teeth were in the mouth of a donkey. A kid sitting nearby suggested they simply go out and count the teeth. They booted him out and went back to speculating in a vacuum because somehow that was purer.

But history has shown who was truly the ass in that discussion.

[Doc Holiday]

I would like to comment on the things said about Atheism. You have claimed that it does not explain everything and leaves many questions regarding many things.
While this may true, it is almost as obvious as using the word “Atheism” it self. The whole idea of Atheism is, unlike in god fearing religions - complete and total refuse to accept absolutes while constantly searching for them.

Perhaps in this way, Atheism is more likely to ever comprehend the idea of infinity as it does not deal in absolutes, it only searches for them. Atheism and Science can not and perhaps never will be able to answer everything.
It is admitting to that sometimes harsh inability where Atheisms reaches its strongest point “If I’m always wrong, and no body is ever right, we will always have something to learn….”

I think no religion I know of, can describe mans relation to infinity in a better way with out bringing in concepts from the Devine, which by nature, limit infinity.

[Zarathustra]

deleted

[mojo]

Ellron wrote: politicalmojo wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Infinity is a nifty mathatical concept, but whever it really exists is another matter all together.

As for orgins which you breifly touched on.


Is not that certain things 'need' a cause an assumption?

Cause and Effect is the one absolute universal constant. The law of causality verifies God's existence more than any other philosohical premise.

Ya accept you can say the same for anything else.

I believe a big cloud that doesnt think started it all. IT doesnt need an explanation because it explains itself.

Now replace "big could that doesnt think" with god and you have the arguement for cause and effect for god.

EVen with that it doesnt get around that time is infinite in both directions.

God according to my beliefs resides within existence itself. He could create existence because he lives outside the boudaries in which he created. I am not one of those creationist wackos.

[hemlock]

Infinity is like a negative measurement it goes no where but still has length. When we try to find its measurement we find nothing.

[Robingoblin]

I think that we need to take a step back and look at the idea of infinity again before working on toward more intricate concepts. So many people have this problem of looking at infinity as something other than a definite thing which can be divided. Trying to divide infinity invalidates the concept, because it looks at it as a finite number, so basically you're still left trying to imagine two tens inside the number ten.
I think the thing to remember about infinity is that it must validate and invalidate every concept.
Two contradicting thoughts and one ultimate conclusion.
Thought One: There is no true time, only relative observations of cause and effect. Because if the universe is truly infinite than all things must exist an infinite number of times in an infinite number of times, which seems to say that all events take place in a single moment.
Thought Two: If thought one is true and there is no true time, than the universe is not really infinite and thought one is false.
Conclusion: In order for everything to exist, than everything must have a paradox to invalidate it, or a nothing - Cosmos and Chaos.

Do I really believe any of this? Yes and no.
Or does it mattre?

[hemlock]

This are good points. My opinion on time, it is only a measurement. Saying there is no time is like saying a foot is not 12 inches. Time is merely a measurement of our existence in this life. Also if the universe is infinite then there are merely mirror images of itself. Its like looking into a mirror with another mirror behind you. There are infinite mirrors event though you cant see them.