Isn't death more wonderful than life!

[JohnChasWebb]

Isn't that why in Buddhism the ultimate release Parinirvana is only upon death.

There is physical death and ego death. Physical death keeps you on the wheel of life and death... ego death contains the keys to a more permanent release.
'Death' is (can be) also a description of a never ending process that can be a succession of diminishments of life force.... loss of fun, loss of creativity, loss of affection, loss of assets, etc., etc.

"Parinirvana", it seems, has very little, if anything, to do with physical death.

[divine focus]

Yet you say [Our current experience is only a fraction of what's actually there, physically] which contradicts ["universe" is all that can be perceived, all that can be experienced]

I'm saying that it's possible to see or hear or "sense" things that aren't included in our normal experience. The stimili are there even if we don't pick them up in experience or instrumentation.

[Rhett]

I think what divine focus is saying is that the scientists have a particular definition of "universe" which is limited to what they can detect with their current instrumentation.

But I have a different definition of "universe", since I define it to contain all things - and not just those we are currently aware of.

I agree with this treatment.

I hazard a guess that the word universe was historically created and used to refer to everywhere, basically along the lines of Kevin's preferred definition.

When i was in science class in primary school the term universe was presented as a quandry, as being that people don't know whether the universe has a boundary or is infinite. My mind flipped back and forth between thinking it as being infinite and wondering how it could possibly go on forever, that just seemed impossible, versus thinking it as being finite, which also seemed impossible because there is necessarily going to be outside of that and what do we call that and how do we conceive of it?

In recent time prominent scientists i have heard use the term in a definite limited way, meaning they have defined a boundary somewhere. Hopefully if that is the limit of instruments they won't move it as instruments improve, for the sake of reliable discourse.

Given this i would not state the universe as being infinite without explanation, indeed, in the absence of explanation the limited version would need to be used with most people to avoid disjunction.

[Rhett]

Regarding the headline topic, i can honestly say there has never been a moment where i would not have chosen to live forever. To me it's a really simple topic, you either value reality, or you don't. A case could be put placing value on a period of life, but if that period is valued, why would another period not be valued, or yet another, and so on.

[divine focus]

When i was in science class in primary school the term universe was presented as a quandry, as being that people don't know whether the universe has a boundary or is infinite. My mind flipped back and forth between thinking it as being infinite and wondering how it could possibly go on forever, that just seemed impossible, versus thinking it as being finite, which also seemed impossible because there is necessarily going to be outside of that and what do we call that and how do we conceive of it?

You could think of it as being infinite in terms of potential or possibility, but finite in terms of what's actually there. Beyond it there's a "structure" in place, but no space or time in any sense.

[Rhett]

When i was in science class in primary school the term universe was presented as a quandry, as being that people don't know whether the universe has a boundary or is infinite. My mind flipped back and forth between thinking it as being infinite and wondering how it could possibly go on forever, that just seemed impossible, versus thinking it as being finite, which also seemed impossible because there is necessarily going to be outside of that and what do we call that and how do we conceive of it?

You could think of it as being infinite in terms of potential or possibility, but finite in terms of what's actually there. Beyond it there's a "structure" in place, but no space or time in any sense.

I wouldn't have accepted that due to the rubber-logic. It was clear that wherever any boundary was placed, there would be outside of that. I accepted this truth. But it is also clear that due to the very act of conceptualising requiring conceptual boundaries, infinity cannot be conceptualised; though thankfully it can be defined and annotated.

What was similarly interesting and disappointing at that time was how little interest people had in this topic. My mind likes resolution, so it kept at it, while others slunk away to attend to their emotions.

[xerox]

...

[grub]

In reference to the maestros theory on the absolute ground of impermenance; Siddhartha :

"if life and death are illusion; then I, too, am merely illusion"

[grub]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add:

"Suck it up and quit yer bitchin'"
-Grub

(or, perhaps, I didn't forget; and this, too, is merely illusion)

[ZenMuadDib]

The teaching at this forum is basically the will to death, the will against life. You fit in well. "Life is suffering, therefore we should renounce all life because suffering is bad."

Isn't this basic nihilism?

[Imadrongo]

The teaching at this forum is basically the will to death, the will against life. You fit in well. "Life is suffering, therefore we should renounce all life because suffering is bad."

Isn't this basic nihilism?

Yes. They have no meaning in life, so they want to make life meaningless to rationalize their superiority over all the deluded ones.

[ataxas]

I have never understood the need to inject universal importance into one's life, and, what's worse, I am baffled by those who, having admitted this, conclude that personal importance is reflected universally.

[mikiel]

I think what divine focus is saying is that the scientists have a particular definition of "universe" which is limited to what they can detect with their current instrumentation.

But I have a different definition of "universe", since I define it to contain all things - and not just those we are currently aware of.

I agree with this treatment.

I hazard a guess that the word universe was historically created and used to refer to everywhere, basically along the lines of Kevin's preferred definition.

When i was in science class in primary school the term universe was presented as a quandry, as being that people don't know whether the universe has a boundary or is infinite. My mind flipped back and forth between thinking it as being infinite and wondering how it could possibly go on forever, that just seemed impossible, versus thinking it as being finite, which also seemed impossible because there is necessarily going to be outside of that and what do we call that and how do we conceive of it?

In recent time prominent scientists i have heard use the term in a definite limited way, meaning they have defined a boundary somewhere. Hopefully if that is the limit of instruments they won't move it as instruments improve, for the sake of reliable discourse.

Given this i would not state the universe as being infinite without explanation, indeed, in the absence of explanation the limited version would need to be used with most people to avoid disjunction.

Rhett,
I agree to the usage of "universe" as all there is, known and unknown. (Out of basic respect for language meanining... "uni" as one, whatever this one might include.) So "universes" is a commonly used oxymoron, especially in the scientific community. (Cosmi will do... like possible cosmi way "out there.")

Also, as to
""universe" which is limited to what they can detect with their current instrumentation"...
... The "cosmic event horizon" is scientifically established as "outta sight" because light can not get back to Earth from beyond the ever-expanding cosmic sphere of the big bang we know and love (more or less.)

So the "cosmic event horizon" is just the practical definition of "as far as we can see," given light's speed limit and the expanding nature of this cosmos.

But beyond such practical scientific limitation, of course there can be no limit to space! The mind's comprehension is finite, but space must be infinite. There can be no real boundary... beyond the linear mind-wall... nothingness... which means space without limit. Easy really... once linear thinking is transcended.

("But man's reach must exceed his grasp or what is heaven for"?... not to go theological here... just a favorite old philosophical quote.)

I have a theory that such transcendence is one of the indications of true "genius." ( my story is already told here.)
I've been in many "science" forums that can not comprehend the "obvious" infinity of space... no possible end, wall, or boundary.

Gotta run... no eloquent closure... good thread.
mikiel

[ataxas]

But beyond such practical scientific limitation, of course there can be no limit to space! The mind's comprehension is finite, but space must be infinite. There can be no real boundary... beyond the linear mind-wall... nothingness... which means space without limit. Easy really... once linear thinking is transcended.

This is absurd. The universe is a torus of space-time: a four-dimensional "doughnut". There is no boundary, because space-time itself curves and folds. "Without limit" does not mean that the universe is infinite.

To make this more clear: we perceive the Earth as flat, that is to say, we live our lives on what is effectively a two-dimensional plane, almost imperceptibly curved in a third dimension, making that two-dimensional plane "without limit". The Earth's surface is bounded as the universe is bounded: the universe seems limitless in three dimensions, but is almost imperceptibly curved in the fourth.

[mikiel]

But beyond such practical scientific limitation, of course there can be no limit to space! The mind's comprehension is finite, but space must be infinite. There can be no real boundary... beyond the linear mind-wall... nothingness... which means space without limit. Easy really... once linear thinking is transcended.

This is absurd. The universe is a torus of space-time: a four-dimensional "doughnut". There is no boundary, because space-time itself curves and folds. "Without limit" does not mean that the universe is infinite.

To make this more clear: we perceive the Earth as flat, that is to say, we live our lives on what is effectively a two-dimensional plane, almost imperceptibly curved in a third dimension, making that two-dimensional plane "without limit". The Earth's surface is bounded as the universe is bounded: the universe seems limitless in three dimensions, but is almost imperceptibly curved in the fourth.

"The fabric of spacetime" is worn by the "emporer", Modern Science, and admired by all who are intimidated by the "geniuses" who invented it and wish to avoid looking scientifically uneducated.
The "genius forum" is as good a place as any to debunk this myth, and I am not intimidated by genius.

Space is the no-thing-ness between and beyond all "things"... actual,manifestations of matter, energy and plasma. It is not itself an entity or malleable medium. It is obviously infinite, as there can be no boundary (save the cosmic event horizon as in my post above... a practical limit to seeing only).... Beyond all absurdly concieved boundaries is more space... with no possible "end." Only moron mentality will insist on such an end, and then, beyond that, the grinning face of infinity mocks the moron's mental wall... the limit of the finite mind.

Likewise "time." The window of observation chosen by the observer for any event. The seconds, minutes, hours, days and years are all human conventions of measurement applied to natural, unsegmented, often cyclical events.
"It" is always NOW... everywhere... regardless of the relativity of who sees what when as per lightspeed limit.

Between what has not yet happened (called future... not yet real and present) and what has already happened (called past... not still rreal and present), there is no "time." It is always Now... the present. "It" has been falsely refiied from a human concept into an actual entity, just like space... the same "it", btw as the one in "It is raining"... (rain is happening... "it" is a figure of speech.)

And together space and time are woven into the "fine fabric, spacetime" and admired by all pseudo-scientific hypocrits, like you, ataxes.

mikiel

[ataxas]

I find it unlikely that someone incapable of spelling a name when it is sitting right in front of his nose is capable of seeing insights that elude most of the scientific community.

You do realise that a near vacuum can be created inside any space? A vacuum simply means that there is no matter inside a given quadrant of space-time. Space is a near-vacuum. It could not be a total vacuum, otherwise, we would not exist. You are confusing the idea of "nothingness" with the idea of a bounded vacuum. Of course vacuums can have boundaries.

[mikiel]

I find it unlikely that someone incapable of spelling a name when it is sitting right in front of his nose is capable of seeing insights that elude most of the scientific community.

You do realise that a near vacuum can be created inside any space? A vacuum simply means that there is no matter inside a given quadrant of space-time. Space is a near-vacuum. It could not be a total vacuum, otherwise, we would not exist. You are confusing the idea of "nothingness" with the idea of a bounded vacuum. Of course vacuums can have boundaries.

Pretty lame comeback there, ataxass!
Starting with a little nit pick over a typo...
Then you move right on into some big technical point... in your mind...
(ignoring my whole post it seems)
on the technical properties of a true vacuum.
I cut my teeth on advanced science in special classes in grade school, so do not continue to bore me with this shit!

If there is a single atom of hydrogen in a given volume of "empty space"... granted, it is not, technically "empty space" Really good point!
I'll just re-run my post here and see if you can muster to address any of the several points I made.
If not.... (Where are the graphics when you need them!?)
m
btw:"It could not be a total vacuum, otherwise, we would not exist."
It would really be a kick for me if you could "connect the dots" on this statement!
Space is emptiness. Some stuff... cosmos... you and me... are actually playing around *in* this space. The places where there is *nothing* define local vacuum. The emptiness... wherever... dous no define or negate "what is" in the spacees not so empty.
(How did you find your way into the "Genius Forum"... just out of raw curiosity?
m
--------------

Rhett,
I agree to the usage of "universe" as all there is, known and unknown. (Out of basic respect for language meanining... "uni" as one, whatever this one might include.) So "universes" is a commonly used oxymoron, especially in the scientific community. (Cosmi will do... like possible cosmi way "out there.")

Also, as to
""universe" which is limited to what they can detect with their current instrumentation"...
... The "cosmic event horizon" is scientifically established as "outta sight" because light can not get back to Earth from beyond the ever-expanding cosmic sphere of the big bang we know and love (more or less.)

So the "cosmic event horizon" is just the practical definition of "as far as we can see," given light's speed limit and the expanding nature of this cosmos.

But beyond such practical scientific limitation, of course there can be no limit to space! The mind's comprehension is finite, but space must be infinite. There can be no real boundary... beyond the linear mind-wall... nothingness... which means space without limit. Easy really... once linear thinking is transcended.

("But man's reach must exceed his grasp or what is heaven for"?... not to go theological here... just a favorite old philosophical quote.)

I have a theory that such transcendence is one of the indications of true "genius." ( my story is already told here.)
I've been in many "science" forums that can not comprehend the "obvious" infinity of space... no possible end, wall, or boundary.
---------------

[ataxas]

There can be no real boundary... beyond the linear mind-wall... nothingness... which means space without limit. Easy really... once linear thinking is transcended.

My point about vacuums with boundaries is that "nothingness" is not necessarily space without limit. The fact that space is mostly a vacuum is really irrelevant to whether or not it has a boundary, as it is possible to create vacuums with boundaries in a laboratory. You simply cannot say that anything we term "nothingness" must have no boundaries.

My comment about how you mis-spelled my name was not intended as an attack; I certainly didn't feel the need to attack you. I meant only that I am less inclined to trust your argument, especially if that argument disagrees with the majority of the scientific community, if you do not display willingness to check your facts (one of the simplest being the names of those you quote).

Tell me, if you read a paper on physics, and it contains quotes that have been mis-quoted, or attributed wrongly, are you more or less likely to trust its method than a paper in which all of this basic information has been carefully checked?

On second consideration, your statement might be interpreted as: "We cannot personally see the entirety of the universe ourselves, therefore it has no boundaries," a statement I disagree with, on the grounds that I believe that if I make a statement like "Guam exists," then I am speaking a truth. I have never personally seen Guam. I presume that there was a time before the human colonisation of Guam, as humans did not originate there, and yet still, I can declare that Guam existed before humans discovered it. Likewise, I can declare that the universe is finite based on evidence that does not require direct observation, and be speaking a truth. On this point, I am basing truth on evidence rather than absolute certainty, but it is a necessity to judge truths about objects in the physical world based on evidence rather than certainty.

[mikiel]

ataxas,
I'm going to clarify a few concepts for you.
Cosmos is what went "bang," presently still acclerating in its rate of expansion. Space is the infinite emptiness into which cosmos is expanding. (Of course one can define a local space also and talk about how close to a vacuum it is... not the topic here.)

Scientifically, the cosmic event horizon is the limit to our ability to "see", by all means into the depth of space beyond the practical limits set by the speed of light (bringing images back) and the ever increasing distance to the farthest reaches of cosmos.

That said, if one proposes a real boundary to space... or "the universe" in its meaning as all there is, known and unknown (as per "uni" menaing one) then the burden of proof is on the one proposing the limit or boundary... to explain what exactly it is.

And that will be impossible, given the fact that whatever "boundary" is proposed, the question will always remain, what is beyond that boundary. If "nothing", this is the dedinition of space, so, "more space"... without "end" (a patently absurd concept) is the answer.

As I said, the finite, linear mind chokes on infinity, but that does not mean that the merely mental limit/boundary/wall is existentially real. It is merely erroneously reified by the finite mind.

mikiel

[ataxas]

It is my opinion that the bounded mind is much more likely to postulate an unbounded universe, as the bounded mind thinks in three dimensions. Your argument is invalid against the type of finite universe that I am detailing here, as the curvature does not exist in three dimensions, but in four. As the universe expands, so does the available space; it does not expand "into" anything, for it is everything. If you were able to travel from one end of the universe to the other, you could go in what you perceive to be a straight line, and end where you began, a journey in three dimensions that would seem very much like traveling around the earth in an aeroplane, over the "flat" plane that is the earth's surface.

[mikiel]

It is my opinion that the bounded mind is much more likely to postulate an unbounded universe, as the bounded mind thinks in three dimensions. Your argument is invalid against the type of finite universe that I am detailing here, as the curvature does not exist in three dimensions, but in four. As the universe expands, so does the available space; it does not expand "into" anything, for it is everything. If you were able to travel from one end of the universe to the other, you could go in what you perceive to be a straight line, and end where you began, a journey in three dimensions that would seem very much like traveling around the earth in an aeroplane, over the "flat" plane that is the earth's surface.

Your opinion is encapsulated in your bounded, finite mind, and it is "detailing" a "type of finite universe" ... that still does not transcend the *concept* of "finite space" (mistaken for finite cosmos *in infinite space*... which is beyond all boundaries inherent in the linear mind or any limit to a given, known cosmos.
The model of a spherical planet validating a spherical universe is totally bogus, considering the endless infinity of space.

Space can not be a finite "expanding" medium, because there can be be no possible end or boundary to it. As I challenged above... define the boundary... and beyond that... more nothingness, emptiness without any (preposterous) "end."
You are confusing space with the mass/energy/plasma of the cosmos which probably oscillates from bang to crunch, perpetually *into space.* (And the model "works" as the "missing matter" is found to make the "gravitational net" equations work... dark matter being the unknown, now being discovered by leading edge science... of which you have no clue.

You are blind and grasping a part of the "elephant" which some theorists say is a doughnut... "yes, that's the shape of the cosmos"...

....while others say, "no, its an expanding sphere"... a Big "Bang" expanding outward in all directions... until gravity brings it all back (crunch) for another cycle.

or... "no, its like a rope or tube made of many strands, like six different kinds of strings, forming membranes a zillionth of an mm apart operating in 11 dimensions" ...all defined by esoteric math without a referent in the manifest cosmos for actual scientific verification... sci-fi... not real science!
You make me laugh with your "factual" assertion that the universe is a torus, an all your equally "blind" assertions since.

Answer my points here, scientificically or shut up.
I have little patience with those who recite textbooks and think they are pretty smart... but still cannot respond intelligently to challenges such as I have presented to you. Get a handle on what "genius forum" might really mean... folks who can actually think in a way transcending "textbook learning"... and even "straight 'A' scholarship." (tho I doubt you qualify even in this realm of graded eggs!)
Consider the stastic here boldly shared again ( I am *radically honest*, careing nothing for standard protocol in such matters): That I am at the top one out of 600,000 in percentile ranking of IQ scores. Really!
I think you are "relatively" stupid. Prove me wrong!
mikiel