the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
We have a mind.
is that entity existing in its own right independent of conceptual designation?

no, because it is known by 'attributes'.
it has those attributes and cannot be equated with them.

nothing can be found that exists in its own nature independent of conceptual designation.

The physicist louis de Broglie recognised such when he wrote:

May it not be universally true that the concepts humans produce when formulated in a slightly vague form are roughly valid for reality, but that when extreme precision is aimed at, they become ideal forms whose content fades away.

We look at a table and believe tableness exists independent of conceptualising mind.
there is no table there.
there is an infinite array of causes.
Most physicists are a bit nutty however. Fading away is exactly what we expect from physics, because evolution built eyes, ears, and noses, and touch to communicate with particular atoms, and photons. We were not made to communicate with other particles. A fish does not want to see water, else it would be blind. fading away eliminates the noise. Just because something fades away does not mean that it becomes a nothing. Size isn't important, a particle could be as big as a Galaxy, and break down into smaller parts. We tend to think of the particles growing bigger, but Dinosaurs changed into smaller creatures.

There is not an infinite array of causes, because the butterfly effect breaks down to a meaningless state when it cannot penetrate our scale. I hit a mountain with a feather, it becomes meaningless, and the same thing happens to very small particles, they mean nothing to our universe, but still mean something to particles close to their own scale.

I think that a lot of confusion comes from stupid scientists. They create ideas that are like science fiction. The Big Bang, Time, Dimensions, Action At A distance, Waves. So people think that the Universe must be an illusion. The Universe is a simple fractal, and there is nothing clever about it. There are no time warps, Worm Holes, Bending of a vacuum, pull forces.

The illusion of a complicated spacetime comes from crazy scientists with delusions. I ignore them. Einstein was a bit crazy, and the craziness spread like wildfire. Newton was living in the 1700's and that craziness still lives on.

If you forget all of the complicated ideas that scientists have come up with over the years, there is nothing more than holes , and fillers.

The mind has to be using physics to think. It may be creating a completely false Universe, but the reality of where our mind exists will be made from a natural formation of particles.

You can never replace particles with anything else. Science uses waves to replace particles at the tiniest scales.. scientists are stupid.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:I am using it to delineate the object flower appearing.

can you attribute self-nature to flower,
that it produces itself?
that it is independent of influence?
a standalone entity?
Yes , i can use logic to show this .


1.Things are what they are because they are not what they are not.

2.The totality is the totality because it isnt not the totality.

but what is "not the totality"

3.simply parts of the totality

proving that for the totality to be the totality it must consist of an ontology of mereology of parts (ultimate things).

one could assert that the question what is "not the totality" is simply nothing.

The totality would then not be nothing, or rather be something, again establishing an ultimate thing namely the totality.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Dennis Mahar »

does 'the totality' exist intrinsically, or absolutely as we define it or conceive it.

if you say 'the totality' exists independent of concept then you say it exists intrinsically or absolutely.

does it depend on conceptualising?
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:does 'the totality' exist intrinsically, or absolutely as we define it or conceive it.

if you say 'the totality' exists independent of concept then you say it exists intrinsically or absolutely.

does it depend on conceptualising?
Thats just lame, Being has already gone there.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Hi Being

Is this doctrine strictly QRSian or does it have another philosopher as proponent. If the latter can you give me his name so i can do some research.

Thanx
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Thats just lame, Being has already gone there.
you haven't answered it.
yes or no without the bullshit bozo.

I don't give a shit about what exists.

How it exists.

Nothing exists independent of thought/thinker in the case of human being.

we perceive what there is language for and don't perceive what there isn't a word for.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

In other words, there is the manifestations and the differentiation/attachment to them, then there is how all those manifestations actually arise and what they consist of which is "How it exists. Nothing exists independent of thought/thinker in the case of human being."
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Dennis Mahar »

metaphorically,
universe is understood as formlessness,
a continuous flux and spread that consciousness cuts up and dissects conceptually..

as Pincho noted 'pulls rabbits out of a hat'.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:metaphorically,
universe is understood as formlessness,
a continuous flux and spread that consciousness cuts up and dissects conceptually..

as Pincho noted 'pulls rabbits out of a hat'.
not so fast...
Dennis Mahar wrote:
Thats just lame, Being has already gone there.
you haven't answered it.
yes or no without the bullshit bozo.

I don't give a shit about what exists.

How it exists.

Nothing exists independent of thought/thinker in the case of human being.

we perceive what there is language for and don't perceive what there isn't a word for.
Much of this debate depends on the way we use the words we use.
The line i highlighted.
could mean.
There is something;namely "nothing" that exists..even independantly...of thought/thinker ...even in the case of human being.

so something exists independant of thought/thinker in the case of human being.

you have even named it: "nothing".

Naming it is the same as identifying it so by that process "it" exists.

If it is then your position that "nothing" does exist objectively (nothing exists in and of itself), then by definition it is something.
Last edited by chikoka on Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Dennis Mahar »

we're restricted by having to use conventional language.

you have to 'get it'.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:we're restricted by having to use conventional language.

you have to 'get it'.
But what is "conventional language" if nothing exists? [never mind "what is to 'get it'"]

better yet what is conventional language if not "dependant on something that is not conventional language, a concept."

This is true since "not dependant on conventional language" is a concept.or in other words (rephrase) a concept is "not dependant on conventional language".

And "nothing" is a concept.

Being is way ahead of you.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Dennis Mahar »

nothing
no thing
not finite
no thingness

you think quantitively
think qualitively

you probably think 'short' and 'tall' are true identities concerning height or quantity of height.

the fact is they exist conceptually, conventionally, as an agreement between people, and have no absolute truth,
they are essentially meaningless,
that is their quality.
they exist relatively, only in relation to each other, imputed by human being.
they lack inherent existence.
beliefs.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:nothing
no thing
not finite
no thingness

you think quantitively
think qualitively

you probably think 'short' and 'tall' are true identities concerning height or quantity of height.

the fact is they exist conceptually, conventionally, as an agreement between people, and have no absolute truth,
they are essentially meaningless,
that is their quality.
they exist relatively, only in relation to each other, imputed by human being.
they lack inherent existence.
beliefs.
But everything is a concept meaning a concept is everything including a pile of horse excrement, but your passage above is also a concept so it must of necessity be a pile of horse excrement.........aaah but all that depends you see....
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

I will ask you guys to just pause the neverending dependancies to consider that only what i posit in this post is true and that it is not dependant.

Being persuaded me with his reasoning that "is independant of mind" is meaningless but that same reasoning shows that its is a concept so is meaningful...but that all depends .......

All these never ending dependancies mean there is no meaning but again ....that depends....

this should show that the Axiom of identity exists only in mind and not in reality....but that depends.....


In short nothing can be said or denied about this theory....but really all that depends...


*sigh*

*i know that i asked us not to consider the never ending dependancies at the top of my post but never considering the never ending dependencies also depends.....*


*SIGH*
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

lol

i could really have used these arguments to argue that all your veiws are wrong but the meaning of that would depend on what i ate for breakfast since "what i ate for breakfast" is "a concept" and all you arguments depend on "a concept."
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

chikoka wrote:This should show that the Axiom of identity exists only in mind and not in reality....but that depends..... In short nothing can be said or denied about this theory....but really all that depends...
The notion "in reality" is something from the mind, which does not invalidate it. The mind is perfectly able to know itself. Actually all wisdom is based on self-knowledge.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Dennis Mahar »

facing up is terribly emotional and overwhelming chikoka,
start with 'short' and 'tall' and stick with that for 20 years before you go any deeper.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
chikoka wrote:This should show that the Axiom of identity exists only in mind and not in reality....but that depends..... In short nothing can be said or denied about this theory....but really all that depends...
The notion "in reality" is something from the mind, which does not invalidate it. The mind is perfectly able to know itself. Actually all wisdom is based on self-knowledge.
So i am you and i am also dennis , since all knowledge e.g knowledge of being dennis , is self knowledge?

I guess then that:
Dennis Mahar wrote: facing up is terribly emotional and overwhelming chikoka,
Is also terribly emotional and overwhelming for you dennis.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Dennis Mahar »

settle petal.

are short and tall relative only.

breakfast depends on hunger.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

lol

"and you guys let me troll here for all this time"....no?


is equivalent to :

"and I let you guys troll here for all this time. "

since "i" and "you guys" must mean the same thing.

Am i missing something in this analysis of yours dennis.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Seriously Dennis

You need to meet the challenge that by the identity of indescernables I am You and everyone else in the (perhaps) Mind.

I dont think you can face up to this , go ahead prove both of us wrong.

See that last cant even make sense .

This is a direct refutation of this whole thesis proved by reducto absurdum.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by Pincho Paxton »

chikoka wrote:I will ask you guys to just pause the neverending dependancies to consider that only what i posit in this post is true and that it is not dependant.

Being persuaded me with his reasoning that "is independant of mind" is meaningless but that same reasoning shows that its is a concept so is meaningful...but that all depends .......

All these never ending dependancies mean there is no meaning but again ....that depends....

this should show that the Axiom of identity exists only in mind and not in reality....but that depends.....


In short nothing can be said or denied about this theory....but really all that depends...


*sigh*

*i know that i asked us not to consider the never ending dependancies at the top of my post but never considering the never ending dependencies also depends.....*


*SIGH*
Depends doesn't work for me. My brain has a sort of trigger.. (I don't know how to explain it..) That tells me when something is wrong. The use of 'depends' triggers 'wrong use of word'.

I feel that you are trying to explain something using a word which needs replacing. And dependencies needs replacing.

My trigger is never wrong.

So what are you trying to say?

Probably something about feedback. So the word 'depends' should probably be replaced by 'requires feedback' or input.
I will ask you guys to just pause the never-ending inputs to consider that only what I posit in this post is true and that it is does not require input.

Being persuaded me with his reasoning that "is independent of mind" is meaningless but that same reasoning shows that its is a concept so is meaningful...but that all requires input from other places .......

All these never ending inputs mean there is no meaning but again ....that requires input....

this should show that the Axiom of identity exists only in mind and not in reality....but that requires input.....


In short nothing can be said or denied about this theory....but really all that requires input...
...something like that?

Whatever it is that you are trying to say, I can't read it.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Hi pincho

these considerations are on much more solid grounds, Objective truth to be precise
chikoka wrote:Seriously Dennis

You need to meet the challenge that by the identity of indescernables I am You and everyone else in the (perhaps) Mind.

I dont think you can face up to this , go ahead prove both of us wrong.

See that last cant even make sense .

This is a direct refutation of this whole thesis proved by reducto absurdum.
i will state what the meaning of objective truth is once someone explains why the consequence of the meanigfulness or meaninglessnes of that notion does not mean that there is only one mind.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Err....

Dennis???
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: the universe doesnt have to be infinite

Post by chikoka »

Dennis Mahar wrote:settle petal.

are short and tall relative only.

breakfast depends on hunger.
Actuality the concepts above are synonymous with the infinte regress of dependancies
I posited earlier only its circular "regress" which is strictly also infinite to all the different minds that are all relatively real
And stating that relation is "identity" would not be a particularly attractive solution for you..neither would not ...but i guess that depends (defn. is relatively real)...

So dennis maybe not "breakfast depends on hungry" then...

The boy sure did come back...
Locked