materialism paradox

[ichneumon]

i'm studying materialism, which, to me, is alien and strange. this is my first overall question:

can there exist a universe which never spawns life? i mean a physical, material universe, one where there's only a first generation of stars, then contraction?

if so, then why can't god and other unobservable things exist, and if not, does that not say that consciousness is a fundamental requirement for the existence of a universe?

thanks for the input. honestly, i'm trying to grok this. also - where does gravity fit into this? it's not material or energy....

[bezdomni]

where does gravity fit into this? it's not material or energy....
Gravity is the RESULT of material existing.


can there exist a universe which never spawns life?
What is the point to asking this question?


It depends on the physics and development of the universe in question.
if so, then why can't god and other unobservable things exist, and if not, does that not say that consciousness is a fundamental requirement for the existence of a universe?
Consciousness is not a fundamental requirement for the existence of anything (aside from consciousness). Things exist regardless of whether or not they are perceived.

The world doesn't disappear when you blink your eyes.

God can't exist because god cannot be observed, measured or proven to exist.

[ComradeRed]

can there exist a universe which never spawns life? Why not?

What do you mean "a universe" though? A model universe? Or are you referring to "one of the universes" in quantum cosmology, many-worlds quantum mechanics, etc.?

If it's the latter, it goes against basic general relativity.


i mean a physical, material universe, one where there's only a first generation of stars, then contraction? Why would it start contracting then? Things don't randomly happen...especially at such a scale!

There has to be some sort of force that causes this contraction, which would be...?


if so, then why can't god and other unobservable things exist, and if not, does that not say that consciousness is a fundamental requirement for the existence of a universe? Well, god cannot exist since: god created the universe, everything that exists must exist somewhere at sometime, before the creation of the universe there was nowhere and no time, thus god cannot exist anywhere at any time unless he is nonmaterial...which is unscientific.

Consciousness is irrelevant for the existence of the universe (there is, mind you, only one universe; you seem to be thinking about some multiverse fiction - I would guess that you have been reading into String theory based on your questions on the Anthropic principle and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics). Further, what qualifies as consciousness?


also - where does gravity fit into this? it's not material or energy.... Gravity is the generation of spacetime (that's the answer from a general relativist; from a String theorist it is "the distortion of spacetime" - either answer is "correct" but the first is the view that Einstein held).

That is, suppose you remove matter from the universe, what is left? Most people will say space and time. With general relativity (the modern theory of gravity) the answer is: if you remove all the matter from the universe, you remove with it space and time.

[ichneumon]

Consciousness is not a fundamental requirement for the existence of anything (aside from consciousness). Things exist regardless of whether or not they are perceived.

such as god, the unobservable. right?

i did NOT claim that god created the universe. i was proposing a smaller universe that didn't spawn life - or just a universe that didn't spawn life. basically, must this universe have life? my answer is yes, of course, but i'm not a materialist (yet). on the other hand, i want to understand and believe materialism, as it seems sensible.


Consciousness is irrelevant for the existence of the universe (there is, mind you, only one universe; you seem to be thinking about some multiverse fiction - I would guess that you have been reading into String theory based on your questions on the Anthropic principle and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics). Further, what qualifies as consciousness?

so, you say, there can exist things that are never observed. like god. right? you are claiming that things which are inherently unquantifiable or even unqualifiable can exist. i have a probelm with that - it's silly. is this inherently a part of materialism?

and no, i've been reading wiki on materialism and dependent origination. the latter is winning, by a long shot.


Things exist regardless of whether or not they are perceived.

God can't exist because god cannot be observed, measured or proven to exist.

you really don't see the contradiction here?

[ComradeRed]

so, you say, there can exist things that are never observed. like god. right? I&#39;m not saying anything of the sort <_<

Besides, god doesn&#39;t exist. You&#39;re making the assertion he does exist, prove it.


you are claiming that things which are inherently unquantifiable or even unqualifiable can exist. i have a probelm with that - it&#39;s silly. is this inherently a part of materialism? What the hell are you talking about? How did you get that from what I just said?


i was proposing a smaller universe that didn&#39;t spawn life - or just a universe that didn&#39;t spawn life. basically, must this universe have life? my answer is yes And your reasoning is...?

You can assert this, and indeed you have, but you have not demonstrated this.

There is no basis to suppose this were the case.


such as god, the unobservable. right? Suppose god exists. Is there any difference than if god didn&#39;t exist? No. Therefore until there is proof of the existence of god, he does not exist.

Your assertion that god exists is like asserting little green men in space ships exist...it makes no difference if it were true or not.

Worse, god cannot be shown to exist. You are relying on blind faith alone, a rather unscientific way to go about things <_<

[Lynx]

The existence of God (He does or He doesn&#39;t) is not falsifiable.

[ichneumon]

Suppose god exists. Is there any difference than if god didn&#39;t exist? No. Therefore until there is proof of the existence of god, he does not exist.

Your assertion that god exists is like asserting little green men in space ships exist...it makes no difference if it were true or not.

Worse, god cannot be shown to exist. You are relying on blind faith alone, a rather unscientific way to go about things dry.gif

i&#39;m not doing that - you are. you assert that perception is irrelevant to existence. i find that laughable.

either a)things can exist that are never observed or b)perception is a prerequisite for something to exist. which is it?

my point of view:


What the Buddha awakened to (Bodhi means ‘to awaken’) was the truth of dependent origination.

This is the understanding that any phenomenon ‘exists’ only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in an incredibly complex web of cause and effect covering time past, time present and time future. This concept of a web is symbolized by Indra&#39;s net, a multidimensional spider&#39;s web on which lies an infinite amount of dew drops or jewels, and in these are reflected the reflections of all the other drops of dew ad infinitum.

Stated in another way, everything depends on everything else. For example, a human being&#39;s existence in any given moment is dependent on the condition of everything else in the world (and indeed the universe) at that moment but, conversely, the condition of everything in the world in that moment depend in an equally significant way on the character and condition of that human being. Everything in the universe is interconnected through the web of cause and effect so that the whole and the parts are mutually interdependent. The character and condition of entities at any given time are intimately connected with the character and condition of all other entities that superficially may appear to be unconnected or unrelated.

this is not religious dogma - it&#39;s an inductive understanding of reality that is paradox free and has tremendous implications about our immediate existence. it seems to be totally incompatible with materialism, which i find unfortunate, because materialism seems to associate with orthodox communist thought. well, too bad? i dunno.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:13 pm
There has to be some sort of force that causes this contraction, which would be...?

I believe he&#39;s talking about the entropy of the universe, but he&#39;s putting it rather vaguely.

Is that what you mean? :huh:

In either case, I believe you&#39;re trying to make a case for spirituality...? Mysticism...? Heaven forbid ( :lol: )... Religion? :unsure:

If that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying, I&#39;m inclined to disagree...

Strongly.

[ComradeRed]

i&#39;m not doing that - you are. you assert that perception is irrelevant to existence. i find that laughable. Irrelevant.

You are straw manning my entire point: YOU assert that god exists, YOU have to prove it. That&#39;s elementary logic&#33;


either a)things can exist that are never observed or b)perception is a prerequisite for something to exist. which is it? This is a complete generalization of my point.

It makes no difference if god exists or not, so we can safely reason god doesn&#39;t exist.

Look, you&#39;ve completely ignored every point I&#39;ve made thus far, and you&#39;ve straw manned my points completely in order to avoid the contradictions that present itself from the existence of god.

There is no way to observe if god exists, thus we can reject the proposition that god exists as unscientific. That&#39;s how science works: you look at stuff and explain it. Sorry your voodoo doesn&#39;t fit in there.

I&#39;ll keep repeating myself you are relying on blind faith rather than basic reasoning faculties. You can continue to ignore me <_<

LovelyShadeofRed:

I believe he&#39;s talking about the entropy of the universe, but he&#39;s putting it rather vaguely.
Well, entropy wouldn&#39;t cause the universe to contract in on itself...only a force could do that, like gravity. But the strength of gravitational pull compared to electromagnetic repulsion at that scale would be so small that there would be no way the universe could contract in on itself.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:22 pm



I believe he&#39;s talking about the entropy of the universe, but he&#39;s putting it rather vaguely.

Well, entropy wouldn&#39;t cause the universe to contract in on itself...only a force could do that, like gravity. But the strength of gravitational pull compared to electromagnetic repulsion at that scale would be so small that there would be no way the universe could contract in on itself.

Entropy is the cohesion -awkward term usage?) of all matter to the point of unifomity right? That&#39;s what I meant, I guess. :wacko: I&#39;m more a social scciences person. :D

[ComradeRed]

Entropy would be the number of configurations that the universe would be in given a partition and a way to figure out microstates...

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:02 pm
if so, then why can&#39;t god and other unobservable things exist, and if not, does that not say that consciousness is a fundamental requirement for the existence of a universe?

I don&#39;t think you can say that something that can&#39;t be observed can&#39;t exist, but if we see no evidence for something, we have no reason to believe it exists.

I mean, even those who beliee in God will tend to argue from observable phenomenon. They will claim that there is evidence that we can see that indicates the presence of God. Even if they use a purely metaphysical rationalist argument for God, at some point or another they are going to have to concede that there is something that makes us suspect the existence of God in the first place.

Of course scientifically speaking nothing that has been cited as evidence of there being a God actually suggests there is oe, no more than thunder and lightning suggests that Zeus is in a bad mood, but people will still believe in God based on these sorts of things.

Of course despite the fact that we certainly cannot observe God, that in itself does not mean that there definitely isn&#39;t one. I mean God could exist, in much the same way as a celestial teapot or giant Spaghetti monster could exist. But it doesn&#39;t seem very likely, does it? The burden of proof is going to be on whoever happens to be suggesting that there is a God.

[Oedipus Complex]

Of course despite the fact that we certainly cannot observe God, that in itself does not mean that there definitely isn&#39;t one. I mean God could exist, in much the same way as a celestial teapot or giant Spaghetti monster could exist. But it doesn&#39;t seem very likely, does it? The burden of proof is going to be on whoever happens to be suggesting that there is a God.

While I definitely agree that the burden of proof is completely on the one&#39;s suggesting God&#39;s existence, I can think of no way in which one could claim that the God&#39;s existing could be known on any probability level whatsoever. Since God&#39;s existence, is inherently unknowable because it is outside observable, testable phenomena. There is no empirical standard by which you can compare it to therefore placing it outside human knowledge. However I am not saying that actions which can be tested through observable phenomena our unknowable, let&#39;s your Zeus example for instance; it can be demonstrated using scientific instruments, and empirical data that lightning is not a result of the temperament of Zeus, but rather has a scientific basis.

My claim is very negligible hyowever, only relating to the existence of god and doesn&#39;t hinder me from accepting a materialist universe at all.

[KC]

Since this thread is based on a ridiculous roundabout way to justify the existence of god, it should be moved to religion.

Second, since you are asserting that god exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove that god exists. There is a thread in the religion forum regarding the burden of proof, and if you would like to contribute to that then go for it; otherwise, stop posting irrelevant shit.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Oedipus [email protected] 10, 2007 03:30 am
I can think of no way in which one could claim that the God&#39;s existing could be known on any probability level whatsoever.
Yeah, you would certainly be very inwise to try and scientifically come up with a probability level for the existence of God. But I think we can be justified in saying that it doesn&#39;t seem very likely, purely because we have no adequate evidence to suggest that there is a God. It could be one day a voice from heaven will tell us we are wrong and we need to re-evaluate that position, but again, if I were to put a bet on it I would be going against that happening.

Being the empiricist I am, I think we can only know things based on what we haveexperienced and as we have seen no evidence there is a God we can say that we know no God. If there is a God, he is damn good at hiding&#33;

[KC]

If there is a God, he is damn good at hiding&#33;

A male god implies the existence of a female god, which goes against the Christian idea of "one true god". Even if god is a being, it isn&#39;t a particular biological sex; because of this, it&#39;s inaccurate to refer to god as "he" or "she" and logical to refer to god as "it".

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 10, 2007 03:54 am

If there is a God, he is damn good at hiding&#33;

A male god implies the existence of a female god, which goes against the Christian idea of "one true god". Even if god is a being, it isn&#39;t a particular biological sex; because of this, it&#39;s inaccurate to refer to god as "he" or "she" and logical to refer to god as "it".
I know, but if you want to personify the concept for dramatic and humerous effect, it looks better to call it he or she. For patriarchal reasons people tend to refer to God as "he" so I did too out of convenience.

Given we are discusing something that in all likelihood doesn&#39;t exist anyway, I don&#39;t think it hugely matters though.

On another note if you are ever debating some God botherer, refer to God as "she" throughout the argument. The effect can be quite funny.

[Oedipus Complex]

Yeah, you would certainly be very inwise to try and scientifically come up with a probability level for the existence of God. But I think we can be justified in saying that it doesn&#39;t seem very likely, purely because we have no adequate evidence to suggest that there is a God. It could be one day a voice from heaven will tell us we are wrong and we need to re-evaluate that position, but again, if I were to put a bet on it I would be going against that happening.

Being the empiricist I am, I think we can only know things based on what we haveexperienced and as we have seen no evidence there is a God we can say that we know no God. If there is a God, he is damn good at hiding&#33;

For something that can&#39;t be tested scientifically (existence of god), I see no reason why a lack of scientific evidence would cast any doubt on its existence. In my view the existence of god can never be known because as I have stated before it is inherently outside of human knowledge or human testing, observations, or any kind of induction. I see it the same way for the existence of god, that it can&#39;t possibly be proven since it is still unknowable, so whether talking about proving or disproving its existence it will remain unknowable.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Oedipus [email protected] 10, 2007 04:08 am
For something that can&#39;t be tested scientifically (existence of god), I see no reason why a lack of scientific evidence would cast any doubt on its existence. In my view the existence of god can never be known because as I have stated before it is inherently outside of human knowledge or human testing, observations, or any kind of induction. I see it the same way for the existence of god, that it can&#39;t possibly be proven since it is still unknowable, so whether talking about proving or disproving its existence it will remain unknowable.
It is quite correct to say that you cannot know this for sure. I can&#39;t say for certainty that there is no God, because to be able to do that I would need to know everything, which obviously I can&#39;t.

I can only talk about what I can reasonably suspect, and as I see no evidence of a God I have no reason to believe in one. It would be silly, wouldn&#39;t it, to believe in everything that I do not have evidence to reject?

Of course, we are dealing with something we cannot be sure of, for all I know there could be a God sitting laughing at me for being wrong, but for all practical purposes I am simply going to have to go with presuming that in the absence of proof there isn&#39;t a God.

[Oedipus Complex]

I can only talk about what I can reasonably suspect, and as I see no evidence of a God I have no reason to believe in one. It would be silly, wouldn&#39;t it, to believe in everything that I do not have evidence to reject?

Absolutely, of course it is ridiculous to give credence to anyone who claims they know god exists, or think it exists.



Of course, we are dealing with something we cannot be sure of, for all I know there could be a God sitting laughing at me for being wrong, but for all practical purposes I am simply going to have to go with presuming that in the absence of proof there isn&#39;t a God.

I will surely accept that practically it is easier to presume a god doesn&#39;t exist based on the absence of proof, and I don&#39;t really have a problem with it. However logically, I consider it to be incorrect to assume there is no god or that it is probable that god does not exist based on a lack of evidence, because the existence of god can&#39;t be understood through scientific observations.

Really though I don&#39;t see much reason to pursue this anymore because i don&#39;t have a problem with your reasoning except on a real technical level. As long as one doesn&#39;t believe in a god, or a god that intervenes in the world, then I don&#39;t really care if your a strong atheist, weak atheist, strong agnostic, or weak agnostic.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Oedipus [email protected] 10, 2007 04:31 am
I will surely accept that practically it is easier to presume a god doesn&#39;t exist based on the absence of proof, and I don&#39;t really have a problem with it. However logically, I consider it to be incorrect to assume there is no god or that it is probable that god does not exist based on a lack of evidence, because the existence of god can&#39;t be understood through scientific observations.

Of course, but I am not saying there definitely is no God, simply that I see no reason to believe there is one. Like you say, I suspect we are largely in agreement here and only disagree on my point about God being improbable.

[RevMARKSman]

Quickie:
such as god, the unobservable. right?
No, things are only existent and unobservable (I think that&#39;s not a very good word, a better one would be "nothing existent in the universe can observe it") - if no consciousness exists to observe them. If living creatures were not here, the universe would be unobservable because we are the only beings that can observe it. But we exist, making everything observable because we are capable of observing.

And since we&#39;ve been trying to observe an interfering-with-material-reality "god" for, well, our entire existence, and haven&#39;t found one, either no gods exist or one exists that is completely irrelevant to material reality - and therefore there is no use worshiping it, doing rituals, etc, etc. And, really no reason to believe in it as it would be an entirely irrelevant entity.

[ichneumon]

GOD WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. DAMMIT

i could have said "little green men on the surface of jupiter"


If living creatures were not here, the universe would be unobservable because we are the only beings that can observe it.

thus an unoccupied universe can&#39;t exist? or, rather, meaningfully exist?

i say: reality requires both an objective existing phenomenon and an observer. neither can exist without the other. an observer, cut off from all sensory input (including memory), is not conscious. things that are not observed have no meaningful existence (like unicorns). thus, "reality" is neither 100% objective (independent of consciousness) nor 100% subjective (a figment of the imagination).


The concept of emptiness (Skrt: śūnyatā) is central to Yogachara. As one Buddhologist puts it, ..."Yogacarins [śūnyatā] means &#39;absence of duality between perceiving subject and the perceived object.

does this conflict inherently with materialism?



if materialism allows for the existence of things independently of observation/awareness, then it cannot support the nonexistence of god/unicorns/whatever. which, i thought, was the whole point of materialism. i am NOT positing the existence of things immaterial.

[ichneumon]

GOD WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. DAMMIT

i could have said "little green men on the surface of jupiter"


If living creatures were not here, the universe would be unobservable because we are the only beings that can observe it.

thus an unoccupied universe can&#39;t exist? or, rather, meaningfully exist?

i say: reality requires both an objective existing phenomenon and an observer. neither can exist without the other. an observer, cut off from all sensory input (including memory), is not conscious. things that are not observed have no meaningful existence (like unicorns). thus, "reality" is neither 100% objective (independent of consciousness) nor 100% subjective (a figment of the imagination).


The concept of emptiness Skrt: śūnyatā means &#39;absence of duality between perceiving subject and the perceived object.

does this conflict inherently with materialism?

if materialism allows for the existence of things independently of observation/awareness, then it cannot support the nonexistence of god/unicorns/whatever. which, i thought, was the whole point of materialism. i am NOT positing the existence of things immaterial.

[KC]

thus an unoccupied universe can&#39;t exist? or, rather, meaningfully exist?

There&#39;s no such thing as an "unoccupied universe". This question is completely pointless.


i say: reality requires both an objective existing phenomenon and an observer. neither can exist without the other.

Uh, no. If nobody is observing a forest, the forest still exists. Reality doesn&#39;t require someone to observe it.


things that are not observed have no meaningful existence (like unicorns).

There&#39;s no such thing as "meaningful existence". Things either exist or they do not. Unicorns don&#39;t exist.


thus, "reality" is neither 100% objective (independent of consciousness) nor 100% subjective (a figment of the imagination).

Uh, yes, it&#39;s 100% objective. Reality exists regardless of whether or not we perceive it. The fact that you think that things can "disappear" if nobody is observing them is just fucking nuts.



if materialism allows for the existence of things independently of observation/awareness, then it cannot support the nonexistence of god/unicorns/whatever.

Uh, yes it can. It&#39;s called logic.

[ichneumon]

Uh, yes, it&#39;s 100% objective. Reality exists regardless of whether or not we perceive it. The fact that you think that things can "disappear" if nobody is observing them is just fucking nuts.

no, that is subjectivism, which i agree to be nuts. on the otherhand, objectivism is equally useless. perception and consciousness, and their effects, are atemporal. there only has to be one observer in the universe during it&#39;s span of existence.


Uh, no. If nobody is observing a forest, the forest still exists. Reality doesn&#39;t require someone to observe it.

so unicorns can exist?


There&#39;s no such thing as an "unoccupied universe". This question is completely pointless.

EXACTLY&#33; consciousness is a prerequisite of reality. welcome to buddhism. nemaste&#33;

e e
_/ &#092;_

(that was a joke)


Uh, yes it can. It&#39;s called logic.

logic does not map to reality. science does that. logic is a tool for constructing hypotheses, which, fyi, are often completely incorrect.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Here is the answer to all of your questions ichneumon



any question which cannot be defined can not be answered by science and is therefore either nonsensical or is not worth asking, on the grounds that only empirically answerable questions make sense and are worth attention.

[ichneumon]

any question which cannot be defined can not be answered by science and is therefore either nonsensical or is not worth asking, on the grounds that only empirically answerable questions make sense and are worth attention.

agnostic, much?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Do you accept it is fundamentally accurate ichneumon?

[ichneumon]

yes, completely. i&#39;m an agnostic anti-theist. and a science phd student. science, to me, is very limited and doesn&#39;t make statements about the nature of the universe. that&#39;s fine. science doesn&#39;t describe Reality&#33; or anything like that. nonscientists don&#39;t get that - having lost God, they want something else to tell them How It Is. that bugs me.

likewise, logic is a tool for analyzing language and thought constructs. it, also, has nothing to do with absolute reality in that it is NOT predictive. furthermore, logical analysis of reality always leads to nonsense, paradox or contradictions.

however, pondering Reality&#33; is fun. debating it is fun. i&#39;ve already found the key to ending personal suffering, i&#39;m working on universal suffering, so it&#39;s okay for me to wonder about weird pointless things.

i&#39;m finding materialism, as a philosophy, to be as full of holes as a buckshot sponge. which is amusing. i&#39;m ready to give up on it now and not be a materialist. which means that most folks will thereby assume i&#39;m some spiritualist theist whatever, because the are stuck in dualistic mode. yes, i often take the devil&#39;s advocate and argue for the existence of a god(s) that i don&#39;t care about. my own core philosophy (reality is transparent to analysis) supports this - i expect all such debates to end in paradox and nonsense. that&#39;s part of the fun.

[apathy maybe]

Just to jump in on Unicorns...

Unicorns exist in the same way that God does, or little green men on the surface of Jupiter. In other words, they don&#39;t.

When we say that reality doesn&#39;t have to be observed to exist, it does not follow that something we cannot observe exists.

If Earth was destroyed (say to make way for an intergalactic hyperway bypass), and there exited no other life in the universe (I guess the intergalactic hyperway bypass was caused by some random quantum effects...), the universe would not stop existing.

If a tree falls in a forest, it does make a sound, even if no one is around to hear it. This is because sound is simply pressure waves...

[ichneumon]

If Earth was destroyed (say to make way for an intergalactic hyperway bypass), and there exited no other life in the universe (I guess the intergalactic hyperway bypass was caused by some random quantum effects...), the universe would not stop existing.

if say, there was some quantum bomb that killed all life in the universe, and made it impossible for more life to evolve, the universe would become a unicorn.


When we say that reality doesn&#39;t have to be observed to exist, it does not follow that something we cannot observe exists.

but it does follow that something that cannot be observed can exist. *can* being the operative word. i find that illogical. materialism does not support atheism.


Unicorns exist in the same way that God does, or little green men on the surface of Jupiter. In other words, they don&#39;t.

have you been to the surface of Jupiter? how do you define the possible (extrasolar planets with life) from the impossible (unicorns)? ten years ago, extrasolar planets didn&#39;t exist. now they do. it is perfectly possibly that some of them harbor unicorns. in fact, given the size of the universe, there are almost certainly unicorns, gods, and little green men somewhere. your philosophy (materialism) does not support such absolute negations. my philosophy (dependent origination) has no problem with this. when you look through your lens, at the core of being, you expect an answer. i expect a mystery.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

ichneumon

are you a Buddhist mate?


if say, there was some quantum bomb that killed all life in the universe, and made it impossible for more life to evolve, the universe would become a unicorn.

Your making "life" in the universe to have superior qualities than non-living or just matter and energy.

The reality is though, the universe would still exist even if all "life" went away, just like it would still exist even if 1000 random stars went away.

Life has no importance above that of non living things.


materialism does not support atheism.

:lol: Er, no it really does.

[ichneumon]

yes, buddhist

consciousness is not like matter. a universe that never spawns consciousness is a unicorn. it doesn&#39;t exist meaningfully. how can you say otherwise? what use is the proposition of a universe without awareness, and how can you prove it can exist? it obviously doesn&#39;t. scientists wonder: why are the universal constants just the way they are, so that life happens? any twinge, and there would be no planets, just stars...why? obviously, because such universes can&#39;t exist.

it is fundamental that an event in reality requires both an observer and an object to have meaning (ie, not be a unicorn). it follows that conscious is meaningless with objectively existing phenomena to observe, and that something that objectively exists is meaningless without an observer.

there is a difference between the unobservable and the unknown: an object that by definition is unobservable, i will grant, does not exist. an object that is not being observed most certainly can.

in this, gods can exist. they likely don&#39;t, but still, they might. i&#39;m assuming they are material, only abrahamists really think these silly things about their God, such as immaterialness and ineffability. the rest of the world thinks of them more as very powerful non-humans who prefer to be hidden.

materialist seem to be objectivists in that they say that there is an objective reality that exists utterly independent of awareness or consciousness. they also seem to say that since all of this objective reality is material, that gods can&#39;t exist, which i take to be culturally biased and inaccurate.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

consciousness is not like matter. a universe that never spawns consciousness is a unicorn. it doesn&#39;t exist meaningfully

It does though, or otherwise EVERY universe with consciousness will have "meaning" and every universe without consciousness will be meaningless. Thats a trap&#33;&#33;

So, i would propose, that humans (or life) are simply seeing themselves as something special in the universe when we are just another feature of the universe in the same way as stars and planets are.


why are the universal constants just the way they are, so that life happens? any twinge, and there would be no planets, just stars...why? obviously, because such universes can&#39;t exist.

this too is another trap.

For, you can only make this assertion since you do live in a universe which is able to support your being alive.

If there was a "twinge" you wouldn&#39;t be able to make that assertion because the universe wouldn&#39;t be inhabitable (presumably).

The fact life exists is not proof the universe suits us, its just proof that we (after unimaginable time) sprung out of the universe.



it is fundamental that an event in reality requires both an observer and an object to have meaning

I would like to ask you what you mean by "meaning". do you mean like, what is the point of the universe without life?

[ichneumon]

It does though, or otherwise EVERY universe with consciousness will have "meaning" and every universe without consciousness will be meaningless. Thats a trap&#33;&#33;

So, i would propose, that humans (or life) are simply seeing themselves as something special in the universe when we are just another feature of the universe in the same way as stars and planets are.

meaningful = not inherently unobservable. universes that don&#39;t spawn consciousness do not exist. they are inherently unobservable. for someone to argue that such can exist, then that god can&#39;t, is nonsense. choose.


For, you can only make this assertion since you do live in a universe which is able to support your being alive.

If there was a "twinge" you wouldn&#39;t be able to make that assertion because the universe wouldn&#39;t be inhabitable (presumably).

The fact life exists is not proof the universe suits us, its just proof that we (after unimaginable time) sprung out of the universe.

such a universe would not, cannot, and, in fact, does not exist. this is MUCH more rational that says that god doesn&#39;t exist. god is merely hard to find. uninhabited universes, are, well, unknowable by definition.

you are, i take it, aware that there are experiments that prove that observers are nondual with quantum phenomena? even on a large scale with visible results? this is not hocus-pocus.

[ComradeRed]

you are, i take it, aware that there are experiments that prove that observers are nondual with quantum phenomena? even on a large scale with visible results? this is not hocus-pocus. Do you even know what this means? :huh:

[ichneumon]

pray tell...

[Hiero]

Earth is around 4.567 billion years old. I don&#39;t really know my natural sciences but I am pretty certain that consciousness, especially some form of human consciousness in that time frame is relatively new. This is based on studies of earth and fosils. Now by your standards, Earth would be about 200 000 years old, because around that time Humans develop. However you base this on, really nothing more then trying to make a philosophy sound cool.

You are purposely trying to muddle materialism into some twisted idea.
Materialist philosophers did not actually say some where "unicorns do not exist". Unicorns can exist indepently of human observation (this is theoretical), just as everything else can. However natural science tells us they do not exist based what we know about Earth&#39;s animals (this is scientific fact). Even if there are places unexplored, there is no point in evolution where there is a possibility of horses with horns on their head.

I belive you have taken a very basic theoritical idea straight to a literal idea without any science, or common sense. The statement, "everything can exist indepently of human observations" does not conclude with "everything then exists".

[ichneumon]

Earth is around 4.567 billion years old. I don&#39;t really know my natural sciences but I am pretty certain that consciousness, especially some form of human consciousness in that time frame is relatively new. This is based on studies of earth and fosils. Now by your standards, Earth would be about 200 000 years old, because around that time Humans develop. However you base this on, really nothing more then trying to make a philosophy sound cool.

the effect of consciousness is atemporal. humans have indirectly witnessed the beginning of the universe. we see light from galaxies millions of light years away


You are purposely trying to muddle materialism into some twisted idea.
Materialist philosophers did not actually say some where "unicorns do not exist". Unicorns can exist indepently of human observation (this is theoretical), just as everything else can. However natural science tells us they do not exist based what we know about Earth&#39;s animals (this is scientific fact). Even if there are places unexplored, there is no point in evolution where there is a possibility of horses with horns on their head.

to be picky, i would disagree with this. unicorns are not necessarily equinoid. "unicorn" here represents the invisible pink unicorn of philosophy. ie, something that is defined as being unobservable.


I belive you have taken a very basic theoritical idea straight to a literal idea without any science, or common sense. The statement, "everything can exist indepently of human observations" does not conclude with "everything then exists".

i said "everything CAN exist", which is entirely different. i&#39;m saying that materialism does not support atheism.

[bezdomni]

From Earth, we can observe that a universal god does not exist. However, we can only observe that unicorns don&#39;t exist on Earth.

God is fundamentally different from a unicorn.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:15 am
pray tell...
Well, I can&#39;t tell because your use of technical terms here is ambiguous.

Observers are nondual? You mean antiself-dual? Or not hodge dual? Or...what?

I assume your using the string theoretical use of dual, which can refer to anything.

But since you are referring to an observer that makes it hard to say.

Further, your appeal to the mesoscopic scale kind of contradicts the use of quantum mechanics.

This isn&#39;t "hocus pocus" here.