GENIUS FORUMS

First off, I just want to say, welcome everyone. Welcome to my intelligence

Now consider this:

Consider the claim that you and the entire rest of the universe came into existence exactly five mintues ago. Do you have any reason to think that this hypothesis is false?

Yes

Mr. Solway, this is a forum for genius, not for one word blips.

Does someone here have the courage to engage with me properly by giving me a reason is for thinking the hypothesis is false?

Solway, please try again.

Let me give it a go: No.

Yes, here and here.

Simon de Complexio wrote:First off, I just want to say, welcome everyone. Welcome to my intelligence

Now consider this:

Consider the claim that you and the entire rest of the universe came into existence exactly five mintues ago. Do you have any reason to think that this hypothesis is false?

There are two parts here that can be discussed, the five minutes ago part which is a temporal sequence, can be argued against using science and won pretty easily.

The part of the claim that says "you and the entire universe came into existence" can be argued using ones philosophy, definition of you, definition of universe, and how things don't just "Come into existence", specially the totality of the Universe.

So, this hypothesis isn't as significant as you thought, since people already have coherent points of view that don't allow for it, as well as scientific back up that doesn't allow for it.

Is this leading somewhere?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Is this leading somewhere?

I think so, but not necessarily too far.

The next step might be that Simon should point towards Matrix. That each and every information was fed in and all was switched on five minutes ago.

But then what about the ones that switched us on? Are they too in a Matrix, being fed with the information that they are switching us on? And what about further down the line? It necessarily ends up in a regress, and we can know otherwise only if we experience another world, but until then, this is it.

On the other hand, quite some time ago, a question what put forth.

A criminal faced with a definite ruling of imprisonment, told the judge that he wasn’t even there when the crime was committed although ten eye witnesses caught him red handed, because the world did not exist more than ten minutes ago, let alone five days ago when he is said to have committed the crime. He asked the judge to prove that the world existed more that tem minutes ago, and he will accept the crime and quietly go to prison. Since the criminal was caught after the release of the movie Matrix, which makes it a problem, so what will the judge do?

Well, my answer was that on the bases of the evidence the judge sentences him anyways, BUT, after ten years, on the day of the criminal’s release, the judge waits outside the prison to face an enraged and a furious face.

“How COULD you?” said the criminal.

“How could I what?”

“How could you sentence me to ten years imprisonment without proving what I asked you to prove?”

“What? What sentence? What imprisonment? What ten years? Prove to me that the world existed more that ten minutes ago!”

Dudh!

Simon wrote:

Consider the claim that you and the entire rest of the universe came into existence exactly five minutes ago. Do you have any reason to think that this hypothesis is false?

If by, "you and the rest of the universe", you mean the totality of all there is, then it cannot have come into existence five minutes ago, or indeed at any point in the past, because that would be tantamount to asserting that things can arise from nothing whatsoever, which is irrational.

If, however, you simply mean the observable universe that we currently reside in, the space-time bubble around us that scientists theorize might have come from a big bang event, then yes, there is no way to prove that it didn't arise five minutes ago.

For example, it is possible that what we are experiencing now is a computer simulation with all of our memories and the earth's geological evidence artificially inserted into it to make it seem, to us in the here and now, that the universe is very old. We have no way of challenging that possibility.

-

5 minutes ago is the same as now, just a different configuration.

The universe is permanently coming into finite existence on different spatial planes and going out of finite existence back into infinite existence on others (not so sure of this later point -other than black holes scientists have not observed this).

What do people think? Can the totality expand in thingness or not? What are the logics surrounding this question?

The problem is that as the totality is all there is, then there is nothing in which it can expand into. Secondly the concept of nothingness is logically unsound. Nothingness is definately an impossibility.

Perhaps the truth is that the Expansionary force is an finite existence creating entity, it transfers existence from the infinite to the finite, whereas the Contracting force is a finiteness devouring entity that sucks up existence and transfers it back into the realm of the infinite (eg black holes).

There could even be a dualistic Equal and Opposite evening out process, where the Expansionary force is expansionary in the finite world but contractionary in the infinite domain and vice versa for the Contracting force. There has to be an explanation as to why causal reactions involve equal but opposite reactions, cuasal reactions flow in a + then - then + then - chain reaction.

An image of this might be somewhat like an hourglass that turns upside down automatically when more than 50% sand has moved from one half to the other. The Universe Verus The Infinite hourglass can automatically switch poles, due to the progressive growth of inequality of causal relativity between the finite and the infinite.

This hourglass process could exist inside atomic or sub-atomic material. The smaller a thing is the stronger its relative gravitational strength is. Gravity or the contracting force sucks existence in one end of the hourglass, contracting the space around it, thus contracting the entire universe to a miniscule degree, however what is sucked in goes out the other end and it goes out the other end in an opposite form, it goes out as the expansionary force in the form of electromagnetic material like light. Atoms seem to have a virtually inexhaustable amount of gravitational pull and ability to produce light. Mind you the "other end" of the hourglass would not have to even be in the same spatial area -infinity has no spatial form. Hence the destruction of a photon, may cause a change in something a zillion miles away, depending entirely on where finite/infinite ratios are in that moment closest to 1:0.

In this manner the Totality could be a permanent flowing entity that did not require any form of overall growth.

Alright! Thanks a bunch folks.

Mr. Quinn hit the jackpot.

He wrote:

If, however, you simply mean the observable universe that we currently reside in, the space-time bubble around us that scientists theorize might have come from a big bang event, then yes, there is no way to prove that it didn't arise five minutes ago.

yes, this is what I mean.

For example, it is possible that what we are experiencing now is a computer simulation with all of our memories and the earth's geological evidence artificially inserted into it to make it seem, to us in the here and now, that the universe is very old. We have no way of challenging that possibility.

Did everyone get that? Now what does it imply? What it implys is:

Empiricism, sense experience, (academically speaking) 'a posteriori synthetic judgements'..........these can only give us mere evidence. And emprical evidience doesnt give us absolute certainty, for the potential source of this empirical evidence (for instance, another outside world where we are just brains in vats a la matrix) could totally undermine the truth that our emprical evidence seems to support!

Mere empiricism leaves us with problems like the 5min hypothesis, doesnt it?

actually, we shant blame it on empiricism - - thats just the way it is - - -but I do find it funny how empiricism is the first thing that people earnestly reach for when they encounter this problem.

Simon de Complexio wrote:emprical evidience doesnt give us absolute certainty

Yes, and it's for that reason that we tend not to be interested in empirical evidence on this forum. We focus more on absolute truths.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Simon de Complexio wrote:emprical evidience doesnt give us absolute certainty

Yes, and it's for that reason that we tend not to be interested in empirical evidence on this forum. We focus more on absolute truths.

Absolute truths eh? Alright then Solway. Can you give me a lesson?

Here's the scenario:

I Simon, am just an average fellow, who has dabbled in philosophy, and am familiar with many arguements, however, I do find my self confused. I would like to built a rock solid foundation. I want to learn the most fundamental absolute truths and build from there.

It's seems like all I have is sense perception. That's why I'm interested in problems having to do with empricisism. Given that all I feel I have is my sensory perception, what would you say is the first absolute truth that I should think about? Not only that, but what relationship does this first absolute truth have with sense perception?

Thanks,

Simon

Simon de Complexio wrote:Given that all I feel I have is my sensory perception, what would you say is the first absolute truth that I should think about?

You could start with "Empirical evidence doesn't give us absolute certainty."

That is an absolute truth.

All other absolute truths are arrived at in the same way that you arrived at this one.

What relationship does this first absolute truth have with sense perception?

None.

Simon: What relationship does this first absolute truth have with sense perception?

Kevin: None.

That doesnt sound quite right, because we wouldnt have anything to think about if it wasn't for sensory experience.

Sensory experience is where we begin. It's the essence, its the root.

There is this sense of existing. Isn't this sense of existing the root of rational reflection? Or isnt rational reflection the fruit of sense experience?

Isnt it the flame burning from the wood of sense experience?

Kevin Solway wrote:

You could start with "Empirical evidence doesn't give us absolute certainty."

I agree that empirical evidence doesn’t give us absolute certainity, however I would say that empirical evidence gives us truths about the nature world/universe that we can be fairly certain of.

For instance: what is more likely? That this universe is a simulation of the real where our sensory perceptions are being manipulated by meddlesome beings or machines…

Or that the universe is simply the way it appears to be, and is not being manipulated by evil forces.

I would tend to assume the latter as it is more plausible because it is not as outlandish and it takes less effort. When systerms require alot of effort to maintain, there should be occasional errors and glitches in the simulation that cannot be observed by studying the natural laws of emprical sciences or the daily affairs of human beings.

There are also other logical arguments that can be used to make the probability of the outside manipulation theory highly unlikely.

Therefore I would say that the natural sciences do provide us with truths of the world that we can be fairly certain of, they provide us with useful maps that we must have some degree of confidence in the sciences are to progress at all, so I think it is more practical to assume that the universe is the way it appears to be, and not the result of some sort of science fiction fantasy.

so this level of certainty is derived from many scientific disciplines coming up with similar data to support the same conclusion – namely that the universe is somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old.

Therefore I can be fairly certain that the statement: “the universe is five minutes old” is false.

Simon de Complexio wrote:Given that all I feel I have is my sensory perception, what would you say is the first absolute truth that I should think about? Not only that, but what relationship does this first absolute truth have with sense perception?

How about "don't be too attached to your perceptions as they may need revision - but even then are only distinctions that we make"

Simon:
I rarely need to go very far beyond two maxims:

'whatever is, is'
and
'every change has a cause'

Jointly, these allow me to create and use definitions, and to comprehend all possible ordered universes (and hence, the ultimate nature of the universe).

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I would say that empirical evidence gives us truths about the nature world/universe that we can be fairly certain of.

There's a huge difference between "certain" and "fairly certain".

In fact I think the idea of being "fairly certain" is unnecessary. For example, we can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow - with a high degree of probability based on past experience - without being fairly certain that it will.

There's a huge difference between "certain" and "fairly certain".

In fact I think the idea of being "fairly certain" is unnecessary. For example, we can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow - with a high degree of probability based on past experience - without being fairly certain that it will.

Well, you've just made 3 distinctions:

1) fairly certain 2) 99.9% and 3) 100% certain.

If this is a program being run, like some matrix, then the sun could easily be halted. Or perhaps the earth may get flung out of orbit.

Plus, Kevin, your knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on empirical experience/perception, no?

Kevin, I'd also like you to address this:

Simon: What relationship does this first absolute truth have with sense perception?

Kevin: None.

Aaron: That doesnt sound quite right, because we wouldnt have anything to think about if it wasn't for sensory experience.

Sensory experience is where we begin. It's the essence, its the root.

There is this sense of existing. Isn't this sense of existing the root of rational reflection? Or isn't rational reflection the fruit of sense experience?

Isnt it the flame burning from the wood of sense experience?

Aaron makes a good point - - do you agree with his logic?

Truths = Rationality
Rationality = The pure use of logic
Logic is an dualistic system based on absolute values, A (True) and Not-A (False).

True and False, or Truth and Delusion are assessed values.

Values are emotionally and ego based, that is how they are assessed. Basically, is something emotionally positive for me or is it not?

Emotions are senses, internal senses, essentially no different from sight touch and so on; in that they provide coded material to the brain, they instruct the brain, they cause the brain to do things. All your true existence exists in this brain, as it is the thing that causes consciousness (in the most directly relevant causal sense).

All existence is caused by "knowing". Existence is the flow of knowing within the brain. Nothing that would otherwise exist, actually exists to you when you are not consciously thinking about it. The process of evolution has caused additional memory reservoirs to deal with this. We cannot conceptually think without things, though we can have emotional thoughts.

Knowing has been caused by the internal and external senses. Senses provide the basic data for the calculation of the value of things. Things or mental concepts are that portion of qualia that has been defined by via bodily experiences, and stored in memory so as to assist in speedy mental action when new experiences occur (an aid to survival). A value of a thing at any time is dependant on the present experience relative to values previously stored in memory.

A love of truth develops because negative values on important things cause emotional pain, negative values cause suffering. People form different ego's depending on how they are caused to deal with these negatives. Some focus on training the conscious brain to ignore certain negative values, some attempt to make the negative values into positive one's, some, no everyone to some extent, are caused to try and take one's mental focus off the negative values by externally based stimulation, which can include academic filling their brains with neutrally valued memories (though it these neutrals assist the wants of the ego, then they are actually positive values). Dealing with negatives is where the Will to Power stems from.

Those who focus the brain to alter negative values into positive ones, find that it requires rationality to do so. Each negative valued thing must be assessed in consciousness and some things, like experiencing starvation, have no overall rational positive value that could be attached.

Philosophically minded folk, are people who seek ways to neutralise negatives. Enlightenment involves the conscious removal, not of the self, but of one's value system, by utilising certain rational truths relating to the nature of the totality. Absolute truths of cause and effect and that everything is interconnected, lead one to realise that one is not self-caused, that one does not have an inherent nature - and also to know that one's value system is caused and relative to personal experience only, all provide the rational foundation for the neutralisation of values stored in memory. In knowing this one has the freedom to make one's value system relative to something else. Wisdom comes from using rationality to select what the relativities between the something else's should be, from a holistic viewpoint, rather than subjectively to oneself. A holistic viewpoint can include ensuring one's future - it is irrational to be a martyr to any circumstances.

The process is difficult, in actively seeking to remove negative values, one must bring them into conscious attention. This causes suffering in the now. One's established ego is very strong, and the longer one has been alive the more negative memories will be firmly established, in other words they are likely to be strengthened by accumulation. Rational truths have to be lived, not just known conceptually, that is they must be utilised time and time again to break down the egotistical delusion of value. I'm not enlightened because my ego enjoys the stimulation of emotions far too much, it is too ingrained. For too many years I have focused on external stimulation to alleviate the pain of negative experiences.

Empirical observation is required at all stages. Essentially empirical observation can be boiled down to "comparison". Firstly we require it to define experiences, then we require it to determine the nature of this definition - is this thing like something in memory or not? If it is like something already defined, and all things are to an adult, then what values should be placed on what differences this present instance of this thing may have. To determine the values we have to determine how it is relative, which can include determining an approximate causal chain.

It is not that empirical observation is irrelevant, but that scientific experimentation is not needed - one just searches through what is already stored in one's head. At the same time empirical observation forms part of the content of memories. It is the pure data part of a memory, rather than the value part.

[lol, before I started writing this I was really sad, as result of watching a sad movie, but now I'm as happy as Larry, bless my bloated ego :) ]

Simon de Complexio wrote:Well, you've just made 3 distinctions:

1) fairly certain

I say that this distinction is unnecessary.

2) 99.9%

There are probabilities, based on past experience.

and 3) 100% certain.

Just "certain".

If this is a program being run, like some matrix, then the sun could easily be halted. Or perhaps the earth may get flung out of orbit.

That's right. Any probabilities we come up with that are based on past experience might not be useful at all if the future follows a different course to the past.

Plus, Kevin, your knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on empirical experience/perception, no?

I don't have a knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is only a probability that it will, based on past empirical experiences.

Kevin, I'd also like you to address this:

Aaron: That doesnt sound quite right, because we wouldnt have anything to think about if it wasn't for sensory experience.

Any thought that occurs to us is a kind of sensory experience if we include the brain itself as a sense organ.

For all we know it might be the only sense organ, since we may not have any other senses. All other senses (such as sight, smell, etc) may be simply creations of the brain.

We can be certain of all things that are created by the brain. If the brain creates an appearance of say, a person, then that appearance is certain. That is, there is no chance that it is not the appearance of a person.

There is this sense of existing. Isn't this sense of existing the root of rational reflection? Or isn't rational reflection the fruit of sense experience?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. The brain creates the appearance of existing, so you can be sure of this appearance. It doesn't matter what your sense experiences are.

Isnt it the flame burning from the wood of sense experience?

One of its causes is certainly the ability to make distinctions - like "self" and "other", if that's what you're saying.

Is it as scientifically correct that the universe came into existence 13 billion years as it didn't 5 minutes ago?
How? It didn't come to happen 5 minutes ago cause it had a predecessor(something we know happend before it). But what was the universe's predecessor 13 billion years ago?
Must it have always existed or what created the universe?

David Quinn wrote:Simon wrote:

Consider the claim that you and the entire rest of the universe came into existence exactly five minutes ago. Do you have any reason to think that this hypothesis is false?

If by, "you and the rest of the universe", you mean the totality of all there is, then it cannot have come into existence five minutes ago, or indeed at any point in the past, because that would be tantamount to asserting that things can arise from nothing whatsoever, which is irrational.

If, however, you simply mean the observable universe that we currently reside in, the space-time bubble around us that scientists theorize might have come from a big bang event, then yes, there is no way to prove that it didn't arise five minutes ago.

For example, it is possible that what we are experiencing now is a computer simulation with all of our memories and the earth's geological evidence artificially inserted into it to make it seem, to us in the here and now, that the universe is very old. We have no way of challenging that possibility.

-

It is true that things cannot arise from nothing whatsoever, and the same is true for a Matrix too for that too did not arise from nothing whatsoever, but if all that we experience is a flawless Matrix and we have no way to prove that it is not an induced simulation, then all the truths we arrive at are necessarily derived from experiencing a Matrix. How else does one arrive at causality or totality?

So, if logical truths can be arrived at through experiencing a Matrix, then the fact that it MAY be induced is irrelevant, for this is all that we can go by. In fact, it makes us read the logical foundations of any and all worlds that may be beyond this particular Matrix.

Eventually, consciousness itself may be a Matrix in the real sense of the word, with causality pulling the strings, ultimately. Hence the word ‘empirical’ doesn’t really mean much, and yet it holds an important place in the progress towards logical truths. This logically means that no experience could be taken lightly, nor should one hold on to any particular thing or thought, for the same reasons.

Trevor:

'whatever is, is' and 'every change has a cause'

Absolutely, but we should not forget for a moment that we arrive at this by logically deducing the effects.

Simon: There is this sense of existing. Isn't this sense of existing the root of rational reflection? Or isn't rational reflection the fruit of sense experience?

Kevin: I'm not sure what you are asking here. The brain creates the appearance of existing, so you can be sure of this appearance. It doesn't matter what your sense experiences are.

I think what he means is that “the brain creates the appearance”, as you mention, and that if “it does not matter what your sense experiences are”, then how is “the brain creates appearances” not involve any sense experience? And give “appearances” a magical existence?

However, he can question it more eloquently. So never mind me.