Jufa
Mighty mouse speaks: Can you be certain there is no logic for existence?
My brain aches from too much thinking and stinking. I'm concluding the logic for existence is to Let God!
There is no logic for existence
-
mensa-maniac
Re: There is no logic for existence
mensa-maniac wrote:"Humanity only exists by virtue of being caused to exist via process of evolution"
David,
Is the process of evolution proven? This statement speaks truth when written like this, Humanity only exists by virtue of being caused or created.
Jufa,
Although you make sense to me, your approach is overwhelmingly undisciplined!
-
IJesusChrist
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:42 am
Re: There is no logic for existence
1+David Quinn wrote:I'm sorry, but it's too difficult to have a conversation with you. Your words tumble and pour out as though you were constantly in a panic. You're also very hostile. A calmer, more open atmosphere is needed if communication is to take place.
Perhaps when you are a bit older and wiser, we can begin to talk. In the mean time, good luck to you.
-
To think or not to think.
Re: There is no logic for existence
David, can you explain to me why it's relative size must be fleeting? Why fleeting?David Quinn wrote:That would be its relative size - which, of course, is not set in concrete. Its relative size is fleeting, borne out of a momentary comparison.Loki wrote:The all (if it's finite) can be compared to the smaller parts it's made-up of.David Quinn wrote: Think of the ALL as being sizeless. Size is a relative term. Things only become large or small when compared to other things. Since the ALL has nothing else to be compared to, it is entirely without size.
Kind of like the biggest mountain in the world can be compared to all the rocks it's comprised of.
Its absolute size cannot be determined at all.
-
Re: There is no logic for existence
an electron can be huge. a mountain can be tiny. 'fleeting' could be taken many ways in that context, such as stated earlier, not concrete but changing comparatively. its mass is the same, but without smaller there is no taller, without slower there is no faster.
this reminds me of whoville. they live within snowflakes. man can understand logic. man can't understand life.
this reminds me of whoville. they live within snowflakes. man can understand logic. man can't understand life.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: There is no logic for existence
What Gurrb said.
Since a thing's size is relative in nature, it depends on whatever we decide to compare it to. It does not have any size of its own, but gains size through the momentary happenstance of other things.
Of course, Gurrb goes too far with his very last statement, in that he is articulating his own understandiing of life, causing him to fall into self-contradiction.
-
Since a thing's size is relative in nature, it depends on whatever we decide to compare it to. It does not have any size of its own, but gains size through the momentary happenstance of other things.
Of course, Gurrb goes too far with his very last statement, in that he is articulating his own understandiing of life, causing him to fall into self-contradiction.
-
Re: There is no logic for existence
Infinity [The All] is indeed sizeless, and therefore cannot be a relative term. So how can things become relative in infinity being things are the structure which make up the All?David Quinn wrote:
Think of the ALL as being sizeless. Size is a relative term. Things only become large or small when compared to other things. Since the ALL has nothing else to be compared to, it is entirely without size. ]
Should the immediate above opening statement by D. Quinn be true "thing's size is relative in nature," what things of infinity [The All] has a nature of small or large? This is asking what is the nature of The All? Is the nature of The All large here, and small there? And how can this be determined when All is All?David Quinn wrote:Since a thing's size is relative in nature, it depends on whatever we decide to compare it to. It does not have any size of its own, but gains size through the momentary happenstance of other things.
Of course, Gurrb goes too far with his very last statement, in that he is articulating his own understandiing of life, causing him to fall into self-contradiction.
What Gurrb has stated is not incorrect, because nothing of infinity:
becausedepends on whatever we decide to compare it to
Thus, when D.Quinn states:Since the ALL has nothing else to be compared to, it is entirely without size.
, Gurrb has done nothing more or less than D.Quinn. has done.Of course, Gurrb goes too far with his very last statement, in that he is articulating his own understandiing of life, causing him to fall into self-contradiction.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufahe is articulating his own understandiing of life, causing him to fall into self-contradiction.
Re: There is no logic for existence
In my experience this has been the case, and intuitively this seems to be the case. But I just can't make the leap into a sense that it is absolutely the case.David Quinn wrote:What Gurrb said.
Since a thing's size is relative in nature, it depends on whatever we decide to compare it to. It does not have any size of its own, but gains size through the momentary happenstance of other things.
I'm always plagued by the idea of these little 1 dimensional points that form the basis of all things. These little points of energy or matter have no discernible thickness, they are just point-like, and they are the very basis of all things. They are the foundation of the microcosm. It doesn't get any smaller than these things. You can't zoom in on them, the laws of reality won't allow it.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: There is no logic for existence
You mean 0 dimensions, don't you? A 1-dimensional entity is a line.Loki wrote:I'm always plagued by the idea of these little 1 dimensional points that form the basis of all things. These little points of energy or matter have no discernible thickness, they are just point-like, and they are the very basis of all things. They are the foundation of the microcosm. It doesn't get any smaller than these things. You can't zoom in on them, the laws of reality won't allow it.
-
Re: There is no logic for existence
Ok, not 1 dimensional, but not zero either. Somewhere in between. These are inherently ambiguous specks of energy, they have no discernible dimension, yet they somehow exist. It doesn't get any smaller than these guys.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: There is no logic for existence
jufa wrote:Should the immediate above opening statement by D. Quinn be true "thing's size is relative in nature," what things of infinity [The All] has a nature of small or large? This is asking what is the nature of The All? Is the nature of The All large here, and small there? And how can this be determined when All is All?David Quinn wrote:Since a thing's size is relative in nature, it depends on whatever we decide to compare it to. It does not have any size of its own, but gains size through the momentary happenstance of other things.
That's right, it can't be determined. Indeed, the very notion of the All possessing size has no meaning.
In the same way, the fundamental nature of the All cannot be determined, as the very notion of the All possessing a nature also has no meaning.
This is what is meant in Buddhism by "emptiness" or "void". The fundamental nature of reality is no-nature.
jufa wrote:Thus, when D.Quinn states:, Gurrb has done nothing more or less than D.Quinn. has done.Of course, Gurrb goes too far with his very last statement, in that he is articulating his own understandiing of life, causing him to fall into self-contradiction.
D.Quinn differs in that he is not advocating that life cannot be understood, and thus, when he does express his understanding, he doesn't fall into self-contradiction.
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: There is no logic for existence
I dunno, Loki, it sounds a bit vague to me.Loki wrote:Ok, not 1 dimensional, but not zero either. Somewhere in between. These are inherently ambiguous specks of energy, they have no discernible dimension, yet they somehow exist. It doesn't get any smaller than these guys.
What if we were to shrink our perspective down and zero in on these little entities, would they, from our perspective, grow larger in size?
-
Re: There is no logic for existence
Agreed, size has no meaning pertaining to Infinity.That's right, it can't be determined. Indeed, the very notion of the All possessing size has no meaning.
In the same way, the fundamental nature of the All cannot be determined, as the very notion of the All possessing a nature also has no meaning.
This is what is meant in Buddhism by "emptiness" or "void". The fundamental nature of reality is no-nature.
What nature are you speaking of here, being the "nature of the All cannot be determined"? Why then do you state reaity has a fundamental nature if there is "no-nature"?In the same way, the fundamental nature of the All cannot be determined
Being The All is all and all, what is the void or emptiness within the All which Buddhism proclaim? Can it be reality is full, and Buddhism has done what you have done concerning size?
But D.Quinn, you are not expressing how life can be understood which places you in the same boat as Gurrb. What you are expressing is your personal opinion, as Gurrb expressed Gurrb's personal opinion. Different opinion yes, and also self-contradictory being you, as Gurrb are expressing personal conditions of living life, but neither of you are expressing what life is or isn't.D.Quinn differs in that he is not advocating that life cannot be understood, and thus, when he does express his understanding, he doesn't fall into self-contradiction.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
Re: There is no logic for existence
That's the charming thing with these little guys, when you shrink your perspective down to zero in on them, they do not grow larger in size. There are laws governing them that always keep them as point-like specks. You can see them, but it's impossible to discern any shape or width. That's just their nature.David Quinn wrote:I dunno, Loki, it sounds a bit vague to me.Loki wrote:Ok, not 1 dimensional, but not zero either. Somewhere in between. These are inherently ambiguous specks of energy, they have no discernible dimension, yet they somehow exist. It doesn't get any smaller than these guys.
What if we were to shrink our perspective down and zero in on these little entities, would they, from our perspective, grow larger in size?
-
I realize this is a rather unlikely hypothetical, but it's purpose is to show you that we can't be absolutely certain about whether or not reality is infinite.
*
Last edited by Loki on Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
IJesusChrist
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:42 am
Re: There is no logic for existence
This is great, I definitely agree with this. In order to understand, you must let go of emotion, but it is even wiser to use emotion after understanding, atleast in my experiences.Nick S wrote:Understanding the nature of existence would be such an easy thing to do if people didn't get so caught up in appearances and emotional attachment, but that's exactly what makes it the most difficult thing to do. It goes against everything we are taught in life and even millions of years of evolution, making it oh-so-easy to lose touch with, and cripple our ability to ever have a shot at understanding.
@Loki
If you're not going to be studying quantum mechanics, I would make the extremely odd statement that you should not believe it.
I don't believe q.m. is the 'smallest' of all things, nor do I believe in quantization (in all cases). If I'm wrong - and planck's constant is everything it has been said to be, I will be flabbergasted.
To think or not to think.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: There is no logic for existence
jufa wrote:What nature are you speaking of here, being the "nature of the All cannot be determined"? Why then do you state reaity has a fundamental nature if there is "no-nature"?In the same way, the fundamental nature of the All cannot be determined
It is like saying that the fundamental size of the All is no-size, which you say you understand. You just need to apply the same kind of reasoning to the fundamental nature.
As with size, a thing's nature is a relative quality. A thing doesn't possess a nature in and of itself.
We can't talk about reality being empty or full, just as we can't talk about it being large or small. That is how "empty" it is.Being The All is all and all, what is the void or emptiness within the All which Buddhism proclaim? Can it be reality is full, and Buddhism has done what you have done concerning size?
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: There is no logic for existence
Loki wrote:That's the charming thing with these little guys, when you shrink your perspective down to zero in on them, they do not grow larger in size. There are laws governing them that always keep them as point-like specks. You can see them, but it's impossible to discern any shape or width. That's just their nature.David Quinn wrote:I dunno, Loki, it sounds a bit vague to me.Loki wrote:Ok, not 1 dimensional, but not zero either. Somewhere in between. These are inherently ambiguous specks of energy, they have no discernible dimension, yet they somehow exist. It doesn't get any smaller than these guys.
What if we were to shrink our perspective down and zero in on these little entities, would they, from our perspective, grow larger in size?
What if we were to shrink our perspective down indefinitely? I presume these entities would also have to shrink indefinitely as well, in order to maintain the appearance of a constant size. Which would mean that your thought-experiment here doesn't really negate the idea of reality being infinite, after all.
-
-
IJesusChrist
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:42 am
Re: There is no logic for existence
David the definition of 1-dimension would immidiately mean that no, you could never shrink down so that the 1-dimensional point 'grows'.
It's odd, but quantum mechanics says there is an ultimate small distance - a quanitfiable measurable distance that can not be broken up in any smaller peices - the planck length. Go figure.
It's odd, but quantum mechanics says there is an ultimate small distance - a quanitfiable measurable distance that can not be broken up in any smaller peices - the planck length. Go figure.
To think or not to think.
Re: There is no logic for existence
D.Quinn wrote
And being
What then is fundamental size which you state I need to apply reasonable to nature? And what is the nature of The All? Is The All fundamental in size and nature? Please explain.It is like saying that the fundamental size of the All is no-size, which you say you understand. You just need to apply the same kind of reasoning to the fundamental nature.
As with size, a thing's nature is a relative quality. A thing doesn't possess a nature in and of itself.
And being
what is natures relative quality concerning things? whenwith size, a thing's nature is a relative quality
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufaA thing doesn't possess a nature in and of itself.
Re: There is no logic for existence
You mean zoom out? What happens when we zoom out? Well, the reason these little particles appeared to begin with was because we zoomed in on the microcosm to the point where we reached a threshold, and once this threshold is reached, these little specks blink into existence. So when you zoom back out, it's just a matter of zooming out to a certain point (the threshold) at which these specks just disappear - they don't shrink, they just blink out of existence. They don't shrink indefinitely, it's either they appear or they don't appear. It's very black and white with these guys. They are there, or they are not there. There is no shrinking or anything like that.David Quinn wrote: What if we were to shrink our perspective down indefinitely? I presume these entities would also have to shrink indefinitely as well, in order to maintain the appearance of a constant size. Which would mean that your thought-experiment here doesn't really negate the idea of reality being infinite, after all.
-
Last edited by Loki on Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: There is no logic for existence
Science will end up finding out that one can delve endlessly into anything, and were they to shrink to the same relative size the universe would appear the same. Within an atom there are stars and worlds, and so on for quarks, strings or whatever might be called a smaller part. This is because the universe and time are both infinite, and such things are merely older forms of what we now see from our observation point in time. It is like a hologram wherein the form of any segment is approximately the same as the whole.Ok, not 1 dimensional, but not zero either. Somewhere in between. These are inherently ambiguous specks of energy, they have no discernible dimension, yet they somehow exist. It doesn't get any smaller than these guys.
To think that there are smallest absolute particles of matter that are not caused, is not logical. If they are caused then they must consist of even smaller parts. If they always existed then they could not be subject to ANY change, which would make them incapable of interacting with anything else and evolving into larger things (no part within them could merge with the outside).
If the universe is infinite in an outward sense, then by default it must also be infinite in an inward sense, albeit that there will be a mobius strip/entanglement situation occurring. Delving into an electron on this earth may lead you to an "non-electron" somewhere else in space.
The universe is like an infinite tree, that has only one (non-locatable) root, namely (past) time, and one trunk that is Space. One branch just leads to another older branch, not to the trunk or roots, as these are hidden inside every part of the tree. The tree’s energy source and food for further growth is present time, which is akin to energy of the sun. Like light, what present time does is to break apart the past, allowing it to reform in different ways, just as a tree uses water, wind and nutrients and its current evolved form, in concert with sun’s light to grow.
Re: There is no logic for existence
The Buddhist doctrine of emptiness does not imply that reality is without nature, but merely that things are devoid of any intrinsic reality (self-inhering self); that is to say, that which is real and underlies the appearance of a thing does not abide within the thing, but within the cognizant awareness of the mind that perceives it. From a Buddhist perspective (mind-only school), the nature of reality is essentially cognizant.David wrote:This is what is meant in Buddhism by "emptiness" or "void". The fundamental nature of reality is no-nature.
Re: There is no logic for existence
To say it in a different way is to say Consciousness does not exist in the mind, the mind exist in Consciousness. Thus, the nature of reality is invisible to the mind, because the mind cannot peer into the invisibility of itself. There is no self to peer. All is the substance and essence of Consciousness, and Consciousness is invisible and cannot be grasped by the mind. This is saying there are no things, no nature, no fundamental comprehension of a reality which self can find logical existence for. This is why The Buddha, and Jesus has to eliminate themselves from the visible to obtain Nirvana, and ascend to the Father.The Buddhist doctrine of emptiness does not imply that reality is without nature, but merely that things are devoid of any intrinsic reality (self-inhering self); that is to say, that which is real and underlies the appearance of a thing does not abide within the thing, but within the cognizant awareness of the mind that perceives it. From a Buddhist perspective (mind-only school), the nature of reality is essentially
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: There is no logic for existence
What you posit here is contradictory in nature, beause after affirming that all things are devoid of any intrinsic reality, you then immediately change tack and affirm that at least one thing possesses intrinsic reality - namely, cognizant awareness.Jehu wrote:The Buddhist doctrine of emptiness does not imply that reality is without nature, but merely that things are devoid of any intrinsic reality (self-inhering self); that is to say, that which is real and underlies the appearance of a thing does not abide within the thing, but within the cognizant awareness of the mind that perceives it. From a Buddhist perspective (mind-only school), the nature of reality is essentially cognizant.David wrote:This is what is meant in Buddhism by "emptiness" or "void". The fundamental nature of reality is no-nature.
The teaching of no-nature is a standard principle in Buddhism, from the early texts, such as the Diamond Sutra, to the later sayings and writings of the Japanese Zen Masters.
Of course, keep in mind that no-nature doesn't mean nothingness .....
-
Re: There is no logic for existence
The concept of things lacking inherent existence itself lacks inherent existence. That solves the dilemma.