Existence

[lifegazer]

The existence of some tangible entity or entities is ascertained, I should think. Who here will argue that 'nothing', fundamentally, does exist?
So, existence is. There is a reality of something, and not nothing.

We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever.
A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. "Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself. A singularity of existence.
Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing. Therefore; 'something' has always existed. Existence is also eternal.
Whatever does exist is its own cause... is an effect of no-thing else. Therefore; this 'thing' is the primal-cause of every effect which proceeds it. Every thing which we perceive in existence, is actually caused/created by whatever existence actually is. Existence is real... therefore an entity, at least, forms the basis of this existence. We cannot ascertain that existence is real and then argue that existence has no definite identity. I mean, it may have no identity due to our ignorance of its identity... but in truth, we can know that a tangible existence has a definite identity.

... In spite of our disagreements and ignorances in identifying the essence of reality of all perceived existence, we must surely agree that a definite existence has a definite identity.
When we acknowledge the existence of something real, we must also acknowledge that it cannot be embraced by nothing. Therefore, we can conclude that existence is boundless - a singularity of existence.
At singularity, space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness. I.e., space and time are seen within the mind... but in the reality of a singularity, they do not exist.

Everything occurs within an omnipresent Mind. There is nowhere else for it to occur.

edit: I apologise to the mentors - realise now that I should post this in the religion & philosophy forum.

[Ed]

Can you understand that none of this matters to me in the slightest? I am not being rude, I am simply stating a fact.

Matter, no matter, being and nothingness, I and Thou, I see no point to discussing it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ed
Can you understand that none of this matters to me in the slightest? I am not being rude, I am simply stating a fact.

Why did you tell me that Ed? I only want to talk to people who are interested in philosophical analysis of 'reality'. Your indifference tells me nothing.

Matter, no matter, being and nothingness, I and Thou, I see no point to discussing it.
Then don't Ed.

[Beleth]

Yeah, this is totally the wrong forum.

Things can be boundless and yet finite. The surface of a ball, for instance.

That existence is eternal is not something that can be scientifically verified. There does in fact seem to be a time where existence started, before which we can know nothing about.

Your last sentence does not preceed from your previous sentences. There was a great deal of time in which the universe existed before there were any minds (capitalized or otherwise) to perceive it.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Ed
Can you understand that none of this matters to me in the slightest? I am not being rude, I am simply stating a fact.

Matter, no matter, being and nothingness, I and Thou, I see no point to discussing it. ...and yet one cannot see no point in discussing nothing, one must see no point in discussing something. Therefore, lack of desire to discuss something, is really a desire to discuss nothing.

Furthermore, since to discuss, we must discuss something; to discuss nothing means that nothing is, in fact, something. By simple identity, ergo, something is nothing.

When we acknowledge the existence, or rather non-existence, or something, or rather nothing, we acknowledge nothing other than our own existence (or perhaps lack thereof), and the lack of omnipresent mind, or even mind at all.

Having disproven mind, or rather having demonstrated that it does not matter, we progress to whether matter minds. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. That is to say, it (nothing) could be (but is not) further from the truth. Therefore, the truth is that there is a lot of nothing out there. And that is just the nothing that we can't see from where we are. The nothing we can see may very well be infinite.

We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever.As I demonstrate here, we can say virtually anything. Doesn't mean it means anything. It may mean nothing.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mercutio said:Furthermore, since to discuss, we must discuss something; to discuss nothing means that nothing is, in fact, something. By simple identity, ergo, something is nothing.
This is incoherent. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Mercutio said:
This is incoherent. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

~~ Paul Read it again...it actually works...

"peace, peace, Mercutio, peace!
thou talk'st of nothing!" R&J I.iv.95-96

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The existence of some tangible entity or entities is ascertained, I should think. Who here will argue that 'nothing', fundamentally, does exist?
So, existence is. There is a reality of something, and not nothing.
You've got a bit of semantics going on.

For instance, a person like me would more likely say the word "nothing" does not fundamentally exist, it would probably be better represented with "absense of existence".

We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever.
I dont understand what the means.

A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility.
More semantics? Or I am generally confused.

A real "finite existence" is irrational, but this does not limited my options enough to suggest "infinite existence" within nothing is rational or not... I dont know what to make of it.

Also, you seem to be equating something abstract (the word "exist") to be something which exists concretely in reality, that would be a logical error.

"Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself.
That assumption is inherently flawed, "nothing" is the absense of objective existence.

I dont understand what you mean by "existence is boundless and infinite, in itself".

A singularity of existence.
Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing.
Not according to quantum physics... :D

Therefore; 'something' has always existed.
Yes, stuff has existed since the beginning of time.

Nothing could have existed before the big bang because the big bang represented t=0. Its not possible for anything to exist before time.

Existence is also eternal.
Also true... unless the universe collapses upon itself.

Whatever does exist is its own cause... is an effect of no-thing else. Therefore; this 'thing' is the primal-cause of every effect which proceeds it.
I'm again unclear on what you define as existence.

Every thing which we perceive in existence, is actually caused/created by whatever existence actually is.
What?

Existence is real... therefore an entity, at least, forms the basis of this existence.
That is logically inconsistant with the way you described existence (and I have no idea where you pulled "therefore an entity" from).

We cannot ascertain that existence is real and then argue that existence has no definite identity.
Semantics. Existence is a concept to describe "objectively real in reality", you appear to be defining it as some kind "entity" which would be incorrect.

I mean, it may have no identity due to our ignorance of its identity... but in truth, we can know that a tangible existence has a definite identity.
Existence is a concept blah blah (what I said above).


... In spite of our disagreements and ignorances in identifying the essence of reality of all perceived existence, we must surely agree that a definite existence has a definite identity.
Try explaining that to a Nihilist.

When we acknowledge the existence of something real, we must also acknowledge that it cannot be embraced by nothing. Therefore, we can conclude that existence is boundless - a singularity of existence.
At singularity, space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness. I.e., space and time are seen within the mind... but in the reality of a singularity, they do not exist.
Space does exist.

Time is a word used to describe "the passing of events from one to another". I would be insane to say time stands still (it would be a logical contradiction to percieve something if time were to stand still).

Everything occurs within an omnipresent Mind. There is nowhere else for it to occur.
Incorrect.

I dont know where you pulled "omnipresent Mind" from.

Also, existence is not limited to what we percieve in the mind, that would defeat the purpose of "existence".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Beleth
Things can be boundless and yet finite. The surface of a ball, for instance.

This is incorrect. The surface of the sphere is bounded by something perpendicular to its plain (both sides)... Otherwise, it cannot have existence as a spherical-plain.

That existence is eternal is not something that can be scientifically verified.

The limits of science are not limits to reason. Something cannot come from nor exist within absolutely-nothing. Therefore, since something exists, something has always existed = existence is eternal.

There was a great deal of time in which the universe existed before there were any minds (capitalized or otherwise) to perceive it.
Particles only exist where minds see them. Before minds, nothing existed in definite form, because only minds see reality as 'things' within space & time.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Particles only exist where minds see them. Before minds, nothing existed in definite form, because only minds see reality as 'things' within space & time.
Incorrect.

Unless I dont understand your definition of existence, I will have to say that things can and do exist without ever having been percieved. I do happen to have a brain, I've never seen it but I'm fairly sure its there.

Others would argue that we cannot trust our senses to give us an accurate view of reality. For instance, when I am asleep, and I'm dreaming of... kittens... those kittens dont really exist (which, by what I understand of how you related perception and existence, the kittens should exist as I did in fact percieve them), they only remain a dream.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
You've got a bit of semantics going on.

For instance, a person like me would more likely say the word "nothing" does not fundamentally exist, it would probably be better represented with "absense of existence".

Existence of something real/definite is ascertained unless you want to argue that 'nothing' is reality. Be my guest.

"We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever."

I dont understand what the means.

Existence as a whole is not finite. For example, existence doesn't stretch across a finite length.

"A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility."

More semantics? Or I am generally confused.

This is simple language. Existence as a whole cannot be embraced by nothing, since this would reduce existence to nothing. And we've already ascertained that existence is not nothing.

Also, you seem to be equating something abstract (the word "exist") to be something which exists concretely in reality, that would be a logical error.

Either 'something' has definite existence, or 'nothing' is the state of reality. You are evading reason by avoiding this necessity of affairs.

""Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself."

That assumption is inherently flawed, "nothing" is the absense of objective existence.

Exactly. In which case, 'nothing' cannot embrace the surface of a finite object... can it?

I dont understand what you mean by "existence is boundless and infinite, in itself".

Existence is a singularity of being. Without beginning or end, without space or time. Yet boundless in its potential to see such things.

"Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing."

Not according to quantum physics... :D

Physicists only deal with matter/energy. If you tell a physicist that there was once a time when matter/energy did not exist, he automatically assumes that 'nothing' preceded it. But there is not one iota of proof that such an assumption is real.

Why don't you ask one of those smart physicists where a 1-dimensional string or a 2-dimensional plane has existence, except in the mind.

Nothing could have existed before the big bang because the big bang represented t=0. Its not possible for anything to exist before time.

The big-bang represents time [= change] for the present order of existence. That there was once a moment when t = 0, does not infer that 'nothing' existed before this state of change.

Space does exist.

You know this, how?

Time is a word used to describe "the passing of events from one to another". I would be insane to say time stands still (it would be a logical contradiction to percieve something if time were to stand still).

Not if that thing never really changes, but has existence.

[ImpyTimpy]

Sock attack? I mean, does anyone else recognise the "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist" pattern. Or did our other "mystic" simply vanish once nobody paid attention to him in the R&P forum.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Beleth
Yeah, this is totally the wrong forum.


*Nods*

Can some mod please move this thread where it belongs?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[quote]
--------------------------------------------------
You've got a bit of semantics going on.

For instance, a person like me would more likely say the word "nothing" does not fundamentally exist, it would probably be better represented with "absense of existence".
--------------------------------------------------

Existence of something real/definite is ascertained unless you want to argue that 'nothing' is reality. Be my guest.
Completely misrepresenting my position to make it easier to attack me, that doesnt constitute as a strong arguement.


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
"We can say that existence cannot be finite or bounded in any way whatsoever."

I dont understand what the means.
--------------------------------------------------

Existence as a whole is not finite. For example, existence doesn't stretch across a finite length.
Semantics. Existence is defined as "being actual in objective reality".

"Existence" is an abstract concept, you are trying to treat it as something which is concrete. You are trying to give existence physical characteristics, this is a logical error.


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
"A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility."

More semantics? Or I am generally confused.
--------------------------------------------------

This is simple language. Existence as a whole cannot be embraced by nothing, since this would reduce existence to nothing. And we've already ascertained that existence is not nothing.
Well, I think I understand now.

And you would be correct, something that "exists" cannot also be "nothing", that would be a logical contradiction.

The question is now, what's the point you were trying to make (aside from making the obvious more "obvious-er")?


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Also, you seem to be equating something abstract (the word "exist") to be something which exists concretely in reality, that would be a logical error.
--------------------------------------------------

Either 'something' has definite existence, or 'nothing' is the state of reality. You are evading reason by avoiding this necessity of affairs.
I am in no way being evasive.

I would agree, things that exist do exist, no confusion there.


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
""Nothing" cannot embrace a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence is boundless and infinite, in itself."

That assumption is inherently flawed, "nothing" is the absense of objective existence.
--------------------------------------------------

Exactly. In which case, 'nothing' cannot embrace the surface of a finite object... can it?
If I understand correctly (and I'll tell you I am have plenty of difficulty), then the answer is "No".


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
I dont understand what you mean by "existence is boundless and infinite, in itself".
--------------------------------------------------

Existence is a singularity of being. Without beginning or end, without space or time. Yet boundless in its potential to see such things.
I dont know what you are talking about when you use the word "singularity".

However, something cannot exist outside of time and space. First, it is logically impossible. Second, it is physically impossible. Third, that would cause it to stop existing (which would contradict the original notion of "existing outside of space and time").


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
"Also, something cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing."

Not according to quantum physics...
--------------------------------------------------

Physicists only deal with matter/energy. If you tell a physicist that there was once a time when matter/energy did not exist, he automatically assumes that 'nothing' preceded it. But there is not one iota of proof that such an assumption is real.
Without proof, what are left with but logic?

Why don't you ask one of those smart physicists where a 1-dimensional string or a 2-dimensional plane has existence, except in the mind.
Those things are purely the work of the imagination, they do not exist objectively.

0-dimension = point
1-dimension = line, 2 points are required to make a line
2-dimension = plane, 1 line and a point, or 3 points is required to make a plane
3-dimension = space, 2 planes are required to make space
(Welcome to 8th grade Geometry, kids!)

By the way, there are an infinite number of hypothetical spatial n-dimensions, they only "exist" (not in a literal sense) in theoretical mathematics. <--- That's what one of those smart physicists would say.


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Nothing could have existed before the big bang because the big bang represented t=0. Its not possible for anything to exist before time.
--------------------------------------------------

The big-bang represents time [= change] for the present order of existence. That there was once a moment when t = 0, does not infer that 'nothing' existed before this state of change.
Actually, it infers nothing (for lack of better words) could exist before the big bang (unless you want to talk about previous "bangs" and "crunches"). Where T=0, that's the beginning. Nothing can come before T=0, otherwise it would be something like T=-1 which is a logical contradiction. (I would be like trying to measure a negative distance.)

Nothing I've stated so far has been out of the grasp of a 15 year old.


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Space does exist.
--------------------------------------------------

You know this, how?
Do you understand the relationship between space and time? If not, you're making Einstein cry.

Also, without space, time could not logically occur (this ties into why nothing could exist before the big bang).


--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Time is a word used to describe "the passing of events from one to another". I would be insane to say time stands still (it would be a logical contradiction to percieve something if time were to stand still).
--------------------------------------------------

Not if that thing never really changes, but has existence.
Sorry, that's chemistry you're referring to.

Glad to see you havent lost your sense of humor, Franko.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
"Existence" is an abstract concept, you are trying to treat it as something which is concrete. You are trying to give existence physical characteristics, this is a logical error.

Something is real. Are you going to deny this and state that 'nothing' is the true state of affairs, or are you going to accept it, at last?

Well, I think I understand now.

And you would be correct, something that "exists" cannot also be "nothing", that would be a logical contradiction.

Exactly. So existence is "concrete" in the sense that something has definite existence - not to be confused with physical existence. That's just your bias playing havoc with reason.

The question is now, what's the point you were trying to make (aside from making the obvious more "obvious-er")?

If you agree that existence is definitely real, you must also agree that existence cannot be finite in length or volume - since it cannot be embraced by nothing. Thus, by a simple process of reasoning, you have come to discover that existence is infinitely boundless.

I dont know what you are talking about when you use the word "singularity".

A singularity is a realm of indivisible existence. A place where time and space have no meaning... as do 'beginning' and 'end'. There are no bounds within a singularity.

However, something cannot exist outside of time and space. First, it is logically impossible.

It is only logically impossible if you associate existence with space and time. Yet it is simple to show that existence, as a whole, is a singularity where space and time are fundamentally non-existent. Your objection is unreasonable.

Second, it is physically impossible.

Well I never said that existence was, fundamentally, physical.

Third, that would cause it to stop existing (which would contradict the original notion of "existing outside of space and time").

No. It would simply mean that existence, essentially, is not a finite physical-object embroiled within space and time.
What's happening here is that your awareness refuses to accept the notion that existence can be anything other than what is perceived. The problem with this stance, is that things which are perceived are all finite and embroiled within spacetime. Yet I have clearly shown that Existence is neither finite nor embroiled within spacetime. I.e., what's in your awareness represents the illusion of existence.

0-dimension = point
1-dimension = line, 2 points are required to make a line
2-dimension = plane, 1 line and a point, or 3 points is required to make a plane
3-dimension = space, 2 planes are required to make space
(Welcome to 8th grade Geometry, kids!)

By the way, there are an infinite number of hypothetical spatial n-dimensions, they only "exist" (not in a literal sense) in theoretical mathematics. <--- That's what one of those smart physicists would say.

Exactly. So how does a physicist reconcile string-theories to 'reality'? How can reality emanate from concepts of the mind?

[Suezoled]

Dear God,

I do believe your follower Lifegazer is an Animist at heart. Please make him/her stop, as it makes all Animists who properly believe in the spirits of objects, items, people, and ancestors, look bad.

Also, Lifegazer is using the same tired old argument of intelligent design, the concept of beginning and end, and yet also argues for eternity in your existence. Lifegazer also presumes to force a wavering description of existence itself, puts words in people's mouths, and then procedes to refute those words.

Also, thanks to Lifegazer to posting links about the existence of god. Oh, wait, it hasn't happened yet.

Suezoled

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Dear God,


Also, thanks to Lifegazer to posting links about the existence of god. Oh, wait, it hasn't happened yet.

Suezoled

I'm the closest you are going to come, kiddo.

[hammegk]

LOL. A sock? Or new meat?

[lifegazer]

It's very simple reasoning really...

1. Existence is.
2. Whatever existence is (note that the identity of existence is irrelevant to the proceeding conclusion), we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence cannot be finite in nature.
3. If we acknowledge that existence as a whole is boundless, existence is reduced to a mathematical singularity.
4. Also, since existence cannot emanate from nor be embraced by 'nothing', we can say that existence is eternal and that time is a concept which only applies to things perceived within existence - but not to existence itself.
5. Hence, existence is a singularity of eternal-being, without beginning or end.

Spare me future nonsense - you either want sincere debate or you do not. Those that do not are just littering my threads.

[Suezoled]

Dear Ed,

I think you should get a better mouthpiece. The one called Lifegazer seems to be getting a bit irate. Something about he/she doesn't like it when people clutter "his/her" threads. Anyway, teaching him/her a bit about patience would be a good thing. When you want to teach them a lesson, don't you do stuff like slaughter firstborn sons, demand animal sacrifice, turn people out of their homes, and/or turn them into salt?

And finally, Lifegazer, where are your d*mn links?

[Suezoled]

Really... since when is LIFEGAZER'S thread? Since when does Lifegazer have the right to tell other people what to post?

Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter

wow I'm in a strange mood...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Dear Ed,

I think you should get a better mouthpiece. The one called Lifegazer seems to be getting a bit irate. Something about he/she doesn't like it when people clutter "his/her" threads. Anyway, teaching him/her a bit about patience would be a good thing. When you want to teach them a lesson, don't you do stuff like slaughter firstborn sons, demand animal sacrifice, turn people out of their homes, and/or turn them into salt?



I'm pretty much past that. I'm into more quirky stuff now like sending anorexic, lesbian, bitchy supermodels to people.

Generally I ignore everything. I have no specific plan, after all this "universe", as you call it, was the result of a hangover after a night out with some of my sub-diety buds (boy, that Allah, he can toss 'em down). I am always amused when you guys try to figure stuff out. It invariably is incomprehensible, which is the way I designed it.

[Suezoled]

Dear Ed,

You're still the malicous, fun loving deity I would love to believe in if I believe in god.
Thanks.

[lifegazer]

Do theists have any power to activate mentors here, or would I be wasting my time by complaining about morons?

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do theists have any power to activate mentors here, or would I be wasting my time by complaining about morons?

Is English your second language?

[Ed]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do theists have any power to activate mentors here, or would I be wasting my time by complaining about morons?

Unfortunately, I guess, there is a pretty strong support here for free speech which transcends your need for a quiet venue.

Somehow, I get the impression that you take yourself pretty seriously.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's very simple reasoning really...

2. Whatever existence is (note that the identity of existence is irrelevant to the proceeding conclusion), we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence cannot be finite in nature.

This is a huge leap. How can you know this? Why can't "existence" (whatever that is) be finite? I don't see this as any sort of self evident truth. You can say it, it doesn't make it true.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Thanz

This is a huge leap. How can you know this? Why can't "existence" (whatever that is) be finite? I don't see this as any sort of self evident truth. You can say it, it doesn't make it true.

Help me out here. How do you envision the boundary between "existence" and "non-existence"?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by hammegk


Help me out here. How do you envision the boundary between "existence" and "non-existence"?
Arrr, tis marked on the map - here there be dragons, arrr....

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Thanz
"2. Whatever existence is (note that the identity of existence is irrelevant to the proceeding conclusion), we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence cannot be finite in nature."

This is a huge leap. How can you know this? Why can't "existence" (whatever that is) be finite? I don't see this as any sort of self evident truth. You can say it, it doesn't make it true.

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course. Hence, if we are talking about existence as a whole, we have no choice than to accept that existence is of non-finite nature. By default, existence has to be at a singularity - boundless... without beginning or end.
Existence as a whole simply cannot be finite.

[Suezoled]

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course. Hence, if we are talking about existence as a whole, we have no choice than to accept that existence is of non-finite nature. By default, existence has to be at a singularity - boundless... without beginning or end.
Existence as a whole simply cannot be finite.

So in short, "nothing" can't exist. "Something" must always exist. If it exists, "someone" made it. Someone infinite, that has seen and always been and will see all things to the end from the beginning OR:

It either exists or it doesn't. It's either a passive verb or it's not. It's either's Lifegazer's way or it's a way Lifegazer cannot possibly conceive. Once again, I find the reasonings and logic here as infinite as the whole in a Life Savers Fruit Flavored Candy.

For the nth time, Lifegazer, no links, huh?

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course. Hence, if we are talking about existence as a whole, we have no choice than to accept that existence is of non-finite nature. By default, existence has to be at a singularity - boundless... without beginning or end.
Existence as a whole simply cannot be finite.
I've looked through the thread, and I apologize, but I must be completely missing your definition of existence, because I don't understand why accepting that existence is real necessarily sentences it to be finite. Can you give me a clearer defintion of what existence is as you're using it here?

And forgive what may be a silly question, but when you say "embraced by 'nothing'", do you me bounded? Or are you using 'embraced' to mean to adopt? Supported? Hugged?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course.
Why not? You are just repeating the same assertion, not explaining anything. You must also think in terms of time, not just space.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Phil
I've looked through the thread, and I apologize, but I must be completely missing your definition of existence, because I don't understand why accepting that existence is real necessarily sentences it to be finite. Can you give me a clearer defintion of what existence is as you're using it here?

Initially, the definition of 'existence' is irrelevant to the argument, except to confirm that it is not 'nothing'.
And if something has true being, then that being can either be of finite form, embraced/surrounded by something greater than itself; or else existence can said to be at singularity, where there are no boundaries of form imposed upon its being.
This latter case mirrors the reality of existence as a whole, since because it has true being (and is not nothing), it must be of unbounded form.

And forgive what may be a silly question, but when you say "embraced by 'nothing'", do you me bounded? Or are you using 'embraced' to mean to adopt? Supported? Hugged?
'Enveloped' might be a better word. And surely it is clear to see that a real finite entity cannot be enveloped by 'nothing'. How can 'nothing' have extension around something?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
For the nth time, Lifegazer, no links, huh?
Show me where I mentioned links.
What I did say, was starting this week I will be presenting some ideas to suggest that 'reality' is God. This thread is the first of those ideas.

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Initially, the definition of 'existence' is irrelevant to the argument, except to confirm that it is not 'nothing'.
And if something has true being, then that being can either be of finite form, embraced/surrounded by something greater than itself; or else existence can said to be at singularity, where there are no boundaries of form imposed upon its being.
This latter case mirrors the reality of existence as a whole, since because it has true being (and is not nothing), it must be of unbounded form.

'Enveloped' might be a better word. And surely it is clear to see that a real finite entity cannot be enveloped by 'nothing'. How can 'nothing' have extension around something?
So then I will ask again: why is accepting that existence is real automatically sentencing it to be finite? What exactly is the rub of your 'singularity', other than the fact that accepting the notion disqualifies your initial assertions?

I guess I'd like to know if these are hypothetical scenarios that you've concocted, or do you know something about existence and being that we don't? Please share.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Thanz
"If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course."

Why not? You are just repeating the same assertion, not explaining anything. You must also think in terms of time, not just space.
Look closely at that statement again. In the question I pose, resides the explanation for what I say.

I'm not sure why you don't understand that 'nothing' cannot have extension around the surface of something.
Tell me, how can the various points of existence along the surface of a sphere, for example, touch different points of the 'nothing' which embraces it?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm not sure why you don't understand that 'nothing' cannot have extension around the surface of something.
Tell me, how can the various points of existence along the surface of a sphere, for example, touch different points of the 'nothing' which embraces it?
It doesn't. The surface of the sphere is touching nothing, therefore there are no "different points" to touch. There is nothing. The idea of different points of nothing, or of some big expanse of nothing "embracing" something is non-sensical. You are assuming that the nothing is something, or at least you are applying 'something' style rules to it. Nothing is nothing - there is no expanse, and no different points.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Phil
So then I will ask again: why is accepting that existence is real automatically sentencing it to be finite?

You've misunderstood me. It is my contention that existence as a whole cannot be finite. A finite existence is an impossible scenario in that 'nothing' cannot envelope such an entity. Therefore, something else must. Yet "existence as a whole" is considering all things together. And I contend that existence as a whole cannot be finite, since reason cannot accept the existence of a real volume of space within and enveloped by 'nothing'.

What exactly is the rub of your 'singularity', other than the fact that accepting the notion disqualifies your initial assertions?

What does it disqualify? A singularity of being is a being without beginning or end. Unbounded by anything, including nothing.

I guess I'd like to know if these are hypothetical scenarios that you've concocted, or do you know something about existence and being that we don't? Please share.
There's nothing hypothetical about this. I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It is my contention that existence as a whole cannot be finite. A finite existence is an impossible scenario in that 'nothing' cannot envelope such an entity.Why must existence be enveloped by anything? It's not like you fall off the edge of the earth into nothing, why think you would fall off the edge of the universe into nothing?

Therefore, something else must. Yet "existence as a whole" is considering all things together. And I contend that existence as a whole cannot be finite, since reason cannot accept the existence of a real volume of space within and enveloped by 'nothing'.People have already used a sphere as an example. From the standpoint or the surface of the sphere the entire universe seems a slighly curved plane. If you walk far enough you end up back where you started. If there is no way off the sphere then it is a self contained exististance without being bounded by anything but the surface of the sphere, which exists.

So if the universe operates the same way, and we sent a probe out to the edge of the universe and it ends up coming back to us from the other direction, what does that show? (mind you the distances involved make this rather less than feasible as an actual experiment)

There's nothing hypothetical about this. I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument. ... they're both assumptions, and while it's possible to form an argument from them it seems many people in this thread dispute the second one. As far as I know it is not a "fact" as for it to be a fact it needs to be verifiable, and I don't believe there's a way to verify it. Perhaps someone else has an idea on that.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Thanz
It doesn't. The surface of the sphere is touching nothing, therefore there are no "different points" to touch. There is nothing. The idea of different points of nothing, or of some big expanse of nothing "embracing" something is non-sensical. You are assuming that the nothing is something, or at least you are applying 'something' style rules to it. Nothing is nothing - there is no expanse, and no different points.
If a finite object is to be considered "real", then there must be a distinction to be made between the points existing within its surface and those points of existence upon its surface. For it is true that the points within the surface are completely enveloped by its own being, whereas those upon the surface are not. Indeed, it is clear that those points-of-existence upon the surface are also in contact with another reality that is different to itself.

At the end of your statement, you actually seem to concur that nothing can have no expanse around a point of being. I'm not sure why you are complaining about my reason.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Why must existence be enveloped by anything?

I never said it must. Indeed, it is my contention that existence is boundless because a finite whole-existence within nothing is an irrational concept.

People have already used a sphere as an example. From the standpoint or the surface of the sphere the entire universe seems a slighly curved plane. If you walk far enough you end up back where you started. If there is no way off the sphere then it is a self contained exististance without being bounded by anything but the surface of the sphere, which exists.

The surface of a 3-dimensional sphere is bounded upon its surface, by another medium. In our case, space. We are kept upon the surface by gravity. We are not constrained by dimensional limits.

So if the universe operates the same way, and we sent a probe out to the edge of the universe and it ends up coming back to us from the other direction, what does that show?

It shows me that a force exists which prevents us becoming free of spacetime. It does not show me that nothing extends around existence.

"I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument."

... they're both assumptions, and while it's possible to form an argument from them it seems many people in this thread dispute the second one. As far as I know it is not a "fact" as for it to be a fact it needs to be verifiable, and I don't believe there's a way to verify it. Perhaps someone else has an idea on that.
It's an assumption to declare that 'something' has definite/true being? Surely not, for that leaves us with nothing, otherwise.
And I have no idea how reason can argue against the second one either. How can reason accept the notion of true being within nothing and embraced by nothing? Let us remember the distinction which exists between points-of-existence upon the surface of an object, and those p-of-e's within that object. Those upon the surface are only partially enveloped by other points of existence. So what else completes the envelopment of this definite object?

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You've misunderstood me. It is my contention that existence as a whole cannot be finite. A finite existence is an impossible scenario in that 'nothing' cannot envelope such an entity. Therefore, something else must. Yet "existence as a whole" is considering all things together. And I contend that existence as a whole cannot be finite, since reason cannot accept the existence of a real volume of space within and enveloped by 'nothing'.

There's nothing hypothetical about this. I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument.
I'm sorry, I've read your posts more closely, and I was mistaken. But now that I'm a little clearer on what you were asserting initially, I have to ask why even a finite existence would be enveloped by something? Other people have suggested scenarios comparable to the surface of a sphere, where existence is bound by nothing, yet finite.

And it seems that you are making some assumptions by saying that at what you're calling a 'singularity', "space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness". If you have some way of showing this to be true, I'd love to see it.

Now, I'll admit that I've heard that in a singularity, as it relates to a black hole, physics, and therefore space and time, become meaningless. But it seems you are using 'singularity' to mean not an instance of infinite gravity and infinite curvature, but an infinite existence, or simply a universe without bounds. Within that definition, I don't think that space and time are meaningless. I think quite the contrary, especially to an observer of that universe.

And if that is the case, your assertion that "space and time are seen within the mind . . .Everything occurs within an omnipresent Mind. There is nowhere else for it to occur" does not stand up to scrutiny.

edited: Site went screwy for a while. No idea how many posts have slipped in before me.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Phil
And it seems that you are making some assumptions by saying that at what you're calling a 'singularity', "space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness". If you have some way of showing this to be true, I'd love to see it.


Yes, please, or quit wasting our time.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Phil
I'm sorry, I've read your posts more closely, and I was mistaken. But now that I'm a little clearer on what you were asserting initially, I have to ask why even a finite existence would be enveloped by something? Other people have suggested scenarios comparable to the surface of a sphere, where existence is bound by nothing, yet finite.

A finite existence cannot be enveloped by nothing = a finite object must be enveloped by something else which also has real being. And like I said, we are considering existence as a whole - in which case there is no other things left to envelope it. That leaves nothing. But nothing cannot have the ability to envelope
things. Hence, existence as a whole is non-finite = a singularity. And the existence of finite beings is something which occurs within existence. But existence itself is not a finite-being. It just embraces such things within itself.
This is where 'perception' becomes an issue. At singularity, space and time are meaningless. Thus, the existence of beginnings/ends/space/time is something which can only occur within awareness, as an illusion.

And it seems that you are making some assumptions by saying that at what you're calling a 'singularity', "space and time become meaningless except as concepts within awareness". If you have some way of showing this to be true, I'd love to see it.

A singularity of being is actually indivisible, in itself. Hence, the appearance of divisibility within a singularity, must be as an illusion within awareness.

Now, I'll admit that I've heard that in a singularity, as it relates to a black hole, physics, and therefore space and time, become meaningless. But it seems you are using 'singularity' to mean not an instance of infinite gravity and infinite curvature, but an infinite existence, or simply a universe without bounds. Within that definition, I don't think that space and time are meaningless. I think quite the contrary, especially to an observer of that universe.

If existence as a whole has no bounds, then what can fragment it into parts with boundaries separating those parts? Only the mind.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
--------------------------------------------------
"Existence" is an abstract concept, you are trying to treat it as something which is concrete. You are trying to give existence physical characteristics, this is a logical error.
--------------------------------------------------
Something is real. Are you going to deny this and state that 'nothing' is the true state of affairs, or are you going to accept it, at last?

Lots of stuff is "real". In fact, everything that objectively exists is real.

Exactly. So existence is "concrete" in the sense that something has definite existence - not to be confused with physical existence. That's just your bias playing havoc with reason.
That's exactly what I did not imply. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

If you agree that existence is definitely real, you must also agree that existence cannot be finite in length or volume - since it cannot be embraced by nothing. Thus, by a simple process of reasoning, you have come to discover that existence is infinitely boundless.
Absolutely wrong.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "existence"?

How about the word "concept"?

How about the relationship between "things that are real" and "things that are abstract"?

Would you explain what "infinitely boundless" means?

Do you realize the obvious flaw with suggesting space is infinite (which would imply infinite bounds of existence)? You cannot have an infinity, you can always add "1" to the number infinity, therefore "existence is infinitely boundless" is inherently flawed.

The universe includes all the space that exists, the universe is finite, therefore space is finite. From that you can rationally conclude "nothing" exists beyond the boundaries of the universe. Of course "nothing" is the absense of existence, therefore you can say existence is finite but not "enveloped" by anything. Good, I just described how "nothing" (I cant find any better words... semantics are bound to be confused sooner or later) envelopes existence (what a waste of my day)...

A singularity is a realm of indivisible existence. A place where time and space have no meaning... as do 'beginning' and 'end'. There are no bounds within a singularity.
Mixing cosmology and Philosophy, not a good thing.

First, you intial claim "realm of indivisible existence" is flawed, you are again trying to treat "existence" as a physical entity. That would be like saying "suction" exists.

"A singularity is a realm of indivisible existence" and "there are no bounds within a singularity" are mutually exclusive phrases. Your "reasoning" is logically inconsistant.


--------------------------------------------------
However, something cannot exist outside of time and space. First, it is logically impossible.
--------------------------------------------------
It is only logically impossible if you associate existence with space and time. Yet it is simple to show that existence, as a whole, is a singularity where space and time are fundamentally non-existent. Your objection is unreasonable.

Mixing Philosophy with cosmology is not a good idea...

I am beginning to doubt if you have any idea what you are talking about... (I'm beginning to think you are just making this stuff up as you go along...)

Well I never said that existence was, fundamentally, physical.
Existence is defined as "is real in objective reality", therefore the only things that exist are limited to being physical, the rest do not exist, they are just human-defined abstract concepts (such as numbers, colors, smells, speed, plenty of other things).


--------------------------------------------------
Third, that would cause it to stop existing (which would contradict the original notion of "existing outside of space and time").
--------------------------------------------------
No. It would simply mean that existence, essentially, is not a finite physical-object embroiled within space and time.

There is no way you could have made that conclusion with my above response.

What's happening here is that your awareness refuses to accept the notion that existence can be anything other than what is perceived.
I am inclined to ask "what the f**k?".

I have in no way suggested that, that is exactly what I was not saying, in fact, I believe I stated exactly the opposite. Dont you remember when I stated, from my second post in this thread, the following:
"Unless I dont understand your definition of existence, I will have to say that things can and do exist without ever having been percieved. I do happen to have a brain, I've never seen it but I'm fairly sure its there."

The problem with this stance, is that things which are perceived are all finite and embroiled within spacetime.

The problem with your above statement is the fact that perception does not alter objective reality. Also, things which exist are "embroiled" within space and time (I understand what you mean when you used the word "spacetime", unfortunately you used it in a bewildering "completely-unrelated-to-the-rest-of-the-sentence" fashion).

Yet I have clearly shown that Existence is neither finite nor embroiled within spacetime.
I dont believe you've done any such thing.

I.e., what's in your awareness represents the illusion of existence.
Ok, unless I dont understand correctly, you just disastrously contradicted yourself. You accept that things exist, but then you called it an illusion, those two claims are contradictory with one another. Your reasoning is inconsistant.

Exactly. So how does a physicist reconcile string-theories to 'reality'? How can reality emanate from concepts of the mind?
From everything you've stated, I cannot in any way gather that you have any working knowledge of String Theory, Philosophical Identity, basic Physics, an understanding of "semantics", or the Philosophy of Existence. If any of that is true, then you are obviously speaking out of your field of expertise (what is your field of expertise?) and you havent understood a single thing I've written.

Am I avoiding answer the questions? Of course not, your questions are incomprehensible and a good lot of them are hardly logically consistant. I've addressed everything you've had to say, you ask the same questions with brand new orders of words (at least when thinking optimistically), I dont like the circularity.

Unless I see something I havent answered already, I wont be responding to another of your posts from this thread.

[Suezoled]

Says Lifegazer in this thread

Show me where I mentioned links.
What I did say, was starting this week I will be presenting some ideas to suggest that 'reality' is God. This thread is the first of those ideas.

Says Lifegazer in the Skepticism thread:
I shall present a thread or two tomorrow, to link perceived existence to this state of being - 'God' - which is the true reality behind everything.

So I says, "Show me the d*mn links you were saying where everything is in relation to god." There's not a dang thing you've said so far to link the two.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is incorrect. The surface of the sphere is bounded by something perpendicular to its plain (both sides)... Otherwise, it cannot have existence as a spherical-plain.
Nope. The surface of a sphere has no bounds. You never come to the edge of a sphere. "Boundless" and "infinite" are not interchangeable.

The limits of science are not limits to reason. Something cannot come from nor exist within absolutely-nothing. Therefore, since something exists, something has always existed = existence is eternal.
Why not? Why can't something come from nothing? The only evidence you have that something doesn't come from nothing is that you have never observed it happen, and, like you said, the limits of science (observation) are not the limits of reason.

Particles only exist where minds see them. Before minds, nothing existed in definite form, because only minds see reality as 'things' within space & time.
Does the Andromeda Galaxy exist? Did it exist 200 million years ago? There were no minds to see it 200 million years ago, yet by our observations, we know that it did indeed exist then.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Lots of stuff is "real". In fact, everything that objectively exists is real.

What's real? Try proving to me, using reason, that anything you perceive within awareness actually exists by itself, beyond your awareness. I.e., prove that there is an existence beyond anyones awareness. It cannot be done, I promise you.
In fact, the only 'reality' we are actually aware of, is one of awareness, sensation, reason, and feeling. Our knowledge is deduced via the reasoning of sensations. Thus, it is clear to see that all knowledge relates to an internal-reality, not an external-reality. Every known object should really be qualified as being within awareness. For example, the dog in my awareness made a barking noise in my awareness at the cat in my awareness. All happens within awareness. Not external to it. That information has been assumed.

Do you realize the obvious flaw with suggesting space is infinite (which would imply infinite bounds of existence)?

Actually, I implied that existence was totally boundless. I did not infer from this that existence was 'space' or that existence is comprised of infinite space. In fact, I've stated that existence is a singularity of being. A singularity of being is indivisible in truth. Hence, 'space' is a nonentity... as is "infinite space". It's my argument that space and time can only exist as thoughts and concepts within the mind.

"A singularity is a realm of indivisible existence" and "there are no bounds within a singularity" are mutually exclusive phrases. Your "reasoning" is logically inconsistant.

I disagree. Both state that there is no divisibility within a singularity.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by lifegazer
you must also agree that existence cannot be finite in length or volume - since it cannot be embraced by nothing.
You keep saying this over and over. But it is merely an usupported assumption. Why can't it be embraced by nothing? It's not logically impossible, and we don't evidence one way or another. So how can you assert it as obvious?

A singularity of being is indivisible in truth
Ok, now you're just making word salad. Frankly, Mercutio's was much better. Yours is a little dry and kind of boring.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahzi
You keep saying this over and over. But it is merely an usupported assumption. Why can't it be embraced by nothing? It's not logically impossible, and we don't evidence one way or another. So how can you assert it as obvious?

You really believe that 'nothing' can be displaced to allow the existence of something? You really believe that nothing can stretch around the surface of a finite object?

[RussDill]

Sorry, it was too much for me, I had to create an account in an attempt to make it stop.

Any-who, lifegazer, you are a victim of your perceptions that have been molded to fit this reality. In your mind, you see a sphere in three dimensional space, and quite clearly, its 2d surface is surounded by nothing.

So you counter, you think, but the space around me has no limits, it cannot have limits, and unlike the surface of a sphere, is clearly not surrounded by nothing.

But there is a problem, you are comparing the 2d surface of a sphere, to the 3d space you live in. For this comparison to be fair, you need to compare a 2d plane, to a sphere. Is one more surrounded by nothing than the other? no. Both are mearly a mathematical concept that can help show us what the space we live in is like. These models have limits. Also, note that we can increase the dimensions of these models as high as you want.

You don't have to imagine a closed, but boundless space with a sphere, just imagine it as ever repeating mirrors, or a giant pac-man game.

Just please realize this, your reality shapes your perceptions, mankind has had a lot of great breakthoughs as of late that break though our preceptions and show us reality, even though it doesn't make a whole lot of sense with our day to day interactions (Atomic structure of matter, empty space, relativity, quantum theory, etc).

If nothing else, read the book, "Nothingness", by Henning Genz. Its just a book on the science and history of empty space, but it shows how our perceptions reality gives us really mess with science, and how they are slowly overcome. Its a real eye-opener for how one thinks.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
But there is a problem, you are comparing the 2d surface of a sphere, to the 3d space you live in. For this comparison to be fair, you need to compare a 2d plane, to a sphere. Is one more surrounded by nothing than the other? no. Both are mearly a mathematical concept that can help show us what the space we live in is like. These models have limits. Also, note that we can increase the dimensions of these models as high as you want.

I'm not sure what your point is. Our existence is within 3 spatial dimensions, and if you are advocating the finiteness of this existence, then at some point you have to explain what resides beyond this existence. A finite existence must be enveloped by something else - not necessarily more space as we know it, but definitely 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'. This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion.

[asthmatic camel]

I could be mistaken, but my highly trained nasal receptors appear to have detected the delicate fragrance of my favourite perfume, Eau de *****.

[Suezoled]

This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion

Even a rock is mainly empty space in between its molecules.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
I could be mistaken, but my highly trained nasal receptors appear to have detected the delicate fragrance of my favourite perfume, Eau de *****.
I don't mind constructive criticism. But I abhor moronic cynicism. Say something intelligent or stay out of my threads.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Even a rock is mainly empty space in between its molecules.
'Space' is not empty. Indeed, space is negative-energy.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't mind constructive criticism. But I abhor moronic cynicism. Say something intelligent or stay out of my threads.
Your Threads? What a concept.
And "Space is negative energy"?
What in Ed's name is that supposed to mean?

[Suezoled]

'Space' is not empty. Indeed, space is negative-energy.

Woo woo alarms going off! Everyone run for the exits!

[Suezoled]

I don't mind constructive criticism. But I abhor moronic cynicism. Say something intelligent or stay out of my threads.

Round 2!

Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm not sure what your point is. Our existence is within 3 spatial dimensions, and if you are advocating the finiteness of this existence, then at some point you have to explain what resides beyond this existence. A finite existence must be enveloped by something else - not necessarily more space as we know it, but definitely 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'. This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion.

wow, you compeletly ignore everything I say, and then argue with me on a point I did not make. Astonishing.

I did not argue that space is finite, I just argued that by your logic, its just as likely finite as infinite.

Like I said. A finite space would be a 3d volume stretching to inifinity, a finite space would be a 3d volume that has the properties of a hypersphere.

Viewing either is difficult to do, so we'll step it down to 2 dimensions. A plane, and a sphere. Again, I ask, how is a plane any less surrounded by nothingness than a sphere (when placed in three dimensions).

(the argument is then expanded for a 3d plane and hypersphere in 4 dimensions) Add another dimension to *any* space and its "bounded by nothing".

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Woo woo alarms going off! Everyone run for the exits!

Space has negative energy? Maybe, I'll listen if he can explain *why* space has negative energy. Otherwise, its just regurgitation.

[lifegazer]

I stated that space is a negative-energy because it works against universal-unification. There is an energy/force within space which opposes gravity.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I stated that space is a negative-energy because it works against universal-unification. There is an energy/force within space which opposes gravity.

You can't define terms with other undefined terms.

Lifegazer, you're just making all this up without any evidence. That's perfectly alright, but don't expect to sway any skeptics with your baseless claims.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Your Threads? What a concept.
And "Space is negative energy"?
What in Ed's name is that supposed to mean?

I warned you all.

A miasma of meaningless gibberish.

It ain't your thread, kiddo.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I stated that space is a negative-energy because it works against universal-unification. There is an energy/force within space which opposes gravity.

lifegazer, you are truly further off the deepend than I thought. You debate only because you know you are right, and "we" are wrong. You may not always understand why we are wrong, but you know we are wrong. You have finally found vindication for your beliefs, and because your beliefs are vindicated, they are right, and because your beliefs are right, the reasons for believing them must be right.

Realize the loop that you've gotten yourself into.


Being new to this board, I'm still compelled to argue with you logically, even though you are already convinced that I'm wrong.

Just because there apears to be a yet unmeasured force that apears to push matter apart at very great distances, does not mean that space has a negative energy.

Also, what is universal-unification? Is that when all the life in the universe comes together, understands the spirit world, no longer hates, and signs cumbiya? Because the way you say "universal-unification" makes it seem like something happy. Whereas in an infinate universe where a force counters gravitiy and works against "universal-unification" it would seem to me that this universal-unification would be matter accelerating towards matter at extremely high velocity, eventually forming massive black holes, and destroying all matter and life as we know it. Otherwise, explain how a force that acts on matter on scales that make our galaxy seem infentesimal has an effect on whether or not beings on this planet we call earth choose to love or hate.

[Jeff Corey]

This thread has a superstring of negative-energy binding its bowels.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
This thread has a superstring of negative-energy binding its bowels.

I fear that the binding energy has dissipated.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Just because there apears to be a yet unmeasured force that apears to push matter apart at very great distances, does not mean that space has a negative energy.

Question: How does the space between matter expand (the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, apparently), unless:
(a) There is 'something' in space (space is not nothing).
(b) There is a force/energy in this 'thing' which opposes the gravity which is pulling matter together?

The force/energy of space opposes that of the force within matter. So in this sense, I feel justified in stating that there is a negative energy in space.

Also, what is universal-unification?

Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.

Is that when all the life in the universe comes together, understands the spirit world, no longer hates, and signs cumbiya?

Mankind is also returning to unity. But that's a different matter altogether, best left for other threads.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.

The very opposite of evidence. You'll get nowhere here lifegazer; quit while you're behind.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Question: How does the space between matter expand (the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, apparently), unless:
(a) There is 'something' in space (space is not nothing).
(b) There is a force/energy in this 'thing' which opposes the gravity which is pulling matter together?


you assume a classical view of space. You also assume that the force must be in this thing we call space. Its a matter of great study and debate that has nothing (from what I can tell) to do with your point. It even seems to point to an expanding universe, which would indicate a finite, but most likely boundless, universe.


The force/energy of space opposes that of the force within matter. So in this sense, I feel justified in stating that there is a negative energy in space.


Simply because a force is attractive instead of repulsive has nothing to do with energy levels. In fact, with a repulsive force, and a lot of matter close together, that would be a positive potential energy. To say there is a negative energy, you have to define your zero-point, not discuss the direction of forces.


Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.


unity? seeking? there is no evidence that matter can have wants and desires. There are a number of forces that act on matter. Electromagnetic, gravitational, strong/weak, etc. Different forces push matter in different directions. It has nothing to do with seeking, wanting, or unity. Please explain further what you mean and why you "know that it is true"



Mankind is also returning to unity. But that's a different matter altogether, best left for other threads.

hooray for that, too much hate and ignorance in the world. In the same day, one leader says the jews control everything by proxy, and another says muslims are controlled by the devil.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN


The very opposite of evidence. You'll get nowhere here lifegazer; quit while you're behind.
Have you heard of gravity? It draws matter towards singularity. That's why black-holes occur.
The only reason why the universe doesn't collapse upon itself is because of the energy which exists in space, pushing matter apart and enforcing the expansion of the universe. It is space which is expanding - not matter.
To state that my statement opposes the evidence seems absurd.
Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making threats?

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making threats?

I made no threat. I simply pointed out that the statement "I know it's true" will get you nowhere in this forum.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
you assume a classical view of space.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I have assumed nothing of space that isn't supported by scientific-knowledge. If it wasn't for a force occuring within space, the universe would be at singularity.

You also assume that the force must be in this thing we call space.

Well it is the space which is affected. Therefore, the force is in space.

Simply because a force is attractive instead of repulsive has nothing to do with energy levels. In fact, with a repulsive force, and a lot of matter close together, that would be a positive potential energy.

Gravity would win the day in such a scenario.

To say there is a negative energy, you have to define your zero-point, not discuss the direction of forces.

Okay, this is semantics I feel. At the end of the day, I can still show that space is 'something' (not 'nothing') and that there is energy within that space. Those are the essential points.

unity? seeking? there is no evidence that matter can have wants and desires. There are a number of forces that act on matter. Electromagnetic, gravitational, strong/weak, etc. Different forces push matter in different directions. It has nothing to do with seeking, wanting, or unity. Please explain further what you mean and why you "know that it is true"

All matter is being forced to gather together and we label this force 'gravity'. If it wasn't for the opposing-energy in space, matter would collapse to singularity. So whether 'matter' seeks it or not, something seeks to bring matter back to singularity. This 'thing' is the source of that force.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by TLN


I made no threat. I simply pointed out that the statement "I know it's true" will get you nowhere in this forum.

Oddly enough, I know that's true...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN


I made no threat. I simply pointed out that the statement "I know it's true" will get you nowhere in this forum.
Well my knowledge of physics is adequate to state that matter seeks singularity, through the force of gravity. Rather, the source of the force seeks matter to move towards singularity.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well my knowledge of physics is adequate to state that matter seeks singularity, through the force of gravity. Rather, the source of the force seeks matter to move towards singularity.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.

This is belief, not physics. Matter "seeks" nothing. Saying you know it's true isn't science, it's blind belief.

You're ill equipped to debate here.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion.
You say we're avoiding an obvious conclusion?

You know there's no higher compliment you can give a skeptic, right?





Here's a rule of thumb. Call it Beleth's Law of Complex Questions if you like.

If you have answered one of the world's great questions (the four-color theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, the Goldbach Conjecture, the existence of God, the existence of free will, etc.) in less than one screenful of text, then you have either
1) not explained yourself thoroughly enough, or
2) have Done Something Wrong.

And of the two, #2 is far more likely.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by TLN


This is belief, not physics. Matter "seeks" nothing. Saying you know it's true isn't science, it's blind belief.
Have you ever heard of "gravity"? Is that a blind belief?


You're ill equipped to debate here.

At least he's putting up something for smart guys like you to throw stones at.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The only reason why the universe doesn't collapse upon itself is because of the energy which exists in space, pushing matter apart and enforcing the expansion of the universe. It is space which is expanding - not matter.

What? I always thought that the expansion of the universe is a result of the big bang, there being nothing in the way of the matter to stop it from moving away.

People other than lifegazer - is my thought ridiculous? Am I making a Jedi Knight gravity explanation type error here?

[TLN]

Originally posted by hammegk
Have you ever heard of "gravity"? Is that a blind belief?

Claiming that matter "seeks" anything is anthropomorphizing. Matter "seeks" nothing.

Originally posted by hammegk
At least he's putting up something for smart guys like you to throw stones at.

This is a rough place that's not for the timid. Go weep elsewhere.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by lifegazer
All matter is being forced to gather together and we label this force 'gravity'. If it wasn't for the opposing-energy in space, matter would collapse to singularity. So whether 'matter' seeks it or not, something seeks to bring matter back to singularity. This 'thing' is the source of that force.

Are you sure you understand gravity? It's a fundamental but weak force. The latest theories don't think that there's enough matter in the universe to reverse the expansion of the universe and lead to the "Big Crunch". Which may be this state of singularity you keep talking about.

You seem to think this "opposing energy" is keeping gravity at bay. Why can't it be that gravity is a weak force in the first place. After all, it takes the whole planet to keep a nail on the ground but a little magnet is all it takes to counteract it and lift it into the air.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I have assumed nothing of space that isn't supported by scientific-knowledge. If it wasn't for a force occuring within space, the universe would be at singularity.


Classical as in not taking into account non-ecludian nature, relativity, and quantum physics. By the way, "because I know its true" is non-scientific knowledge, also, assigning desires to matter also has no basis in science.


Well it is the space which is affected. Therefore, the force is in space.


I'm not sure what you mean by "in space" or why you assume that for space itself to expand, there must be a force. All space is warped by the presence of matter and energy though.


Gravity would win the day in such a scenario.


Doesn't matter, the potential energy is still there. Think of a hill with a depression in the middle. Something in the middle of the depression has potential energy, but it just needs to get over the hump to release it. Once an expansive force took control of matter in an infinate universe, the kinetic energy may approch infinity depending on the nature of that force. A far cry from your "negative energy".

I'm suspicious of your use of the term negative energy. I'm thinking you don't know why someone would mention negative energy in relation to a repulsive force. Prove me wrong.



Okay, this is semantics I feel. At the end of the day, I can still show that space is 'something' (not 'nothing') and that there is energy within that space. Those are the essential points.


You are right in saying there is energy in space, but not for the reasons you'd like to be. Because nothing can every reach zero energy, empty space never reaches zero energy. There are constantly particles apearing and being annilated, fields roving around, etc (see: Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

However, I'm a little doubtful by what you mean by space containing energy. Please, tell me the nature of this energy, and how it can be measured, or even better yet, extracted.


All matter is being forced to gather together and we label this force 'gravity'. If it wasn't for the opposing-energy in space, matter would collapse to singularity. So whether 'matter' seeks it or not, something seeks to bring matter back to singularity. This 'thing' is the source of that force.

Actually, there are a great number of other factors preventing gravity from crunching everything. Momentum is one, many massive objects orbit eachother for eons rather than smash into eachother. Also, various other forces often blow apart what gravity has pulled together (supernova). Also, at this point, it is still unclear whether the expansion of the universe is due to a force exerted on matter, or by the expansion of space.

Something seeks to bring matter back to signularity? really? Does it sit in its den, eat its breakfast, and then wonder aloud...hmm...this universe thing is a mess, I need to bring it back to a singularity...A-HAH, why don't I make matter atttract other matter, it seemed to help yesterday, I'll do it again today!

Its part of the physical nature of matter, not part of some diety's dream to see a big kaboom. And here is the part of these arguments that really irks me. If there is something outside our universe, causing matter to do things, then whatever that thing is is not outside our universe, but part of it. But again, really, an all powerfull thing with nothing better to do then cause attraction between bits of matter?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by TLN


This is a rough place that's not for the timid. Go weep elsewhere.

Right after you go f*ck yourself. Me weep? You should get out more.

Originally posted by TLN

Matter "seeks" nothing.

Nice assertion; why don't you bring your evidence to the table.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by hammegk
Nice assertion; why don't you bring your evidence to the table.

You are such a total @$$. Tell me what the staple remover on my desk is "seeking". After all, it is matter.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


You are such a total @$$. Tell me what the staple remover on my desk is "seeking". After all, it is matter.

Don't forget, photons are seeking too, they all seem to want the same thing though, follow the curve of space...what an odd thing that. All the matter in the universe, all has their own wants and desires, but then all does the exact same thing...odd that.

Oh, maybe they get together and form things, like a car, er wait, a bunch of factory and steel working did that forming, but that doesn't matter, because all the matter is seeking unity. And now, as a car, has a spirit, a soul you see. The car loves you, you love the car. So I have to ask, what will it take to get you to drive this car off the lot today? It is after all seeking you.

(BTW, I know what your stapler wants to do, and I have to agree with your stapler, it would make it a lot quiter and more peaceful around here)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
I'm not sure what you mean by "in space"
or why you assume that for space itself to expand, there must be a force. All space is warped by the presence of matter and energy though.

It would appear that there is a tug-of-war occuring between space and matter. Thus, this indicates the existence of two opposing forces.

Doesn't matter, the potential energy is still there. Think of a hill with a depression in the middle. Something in the middle of the depression has potential energy, but it just needs to get over the hump to release it. Once an expansive force took control of matter in an infinate universe, the kinetic energy may approch infinity depending on the nature of that force. A far cry from your "negative energy".

You're just using another term to define the same thing. Where does this expansive force exist, except within the space which separates matter? That's what's important here.

You are right in saying there is energy in space, but not for the reasons you'd like to be. Because nothing can every reach zero energy, empty space never reaches zero energy. There are constantly particles apearing and being annilated, fields roving around, etc (see: Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

Actually, space reaches zero-point energy at singularity. There are no points of existence at a singularity. But there is being.
Zero-point energy is actually the source of all forces and consequent events. I would advocate that space and matter are different (opposite) aspects of the same original essence.

However, I'm a little doubtful by what you mean by space containing energy. Please, tell me the nature of this energy, and how it can be measured, or even better yet, extracted.

It's impossible to measure except through the matter it affects. Exactly like gravity, in that respect. Exactly like all forces. You cannot catch a force. You can only see its effects.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But there is being.

Oh, for the love of Jeff, what the f*ck are you talking about?

Define "being" in this context please.

[lifegazer]

You're all making a big-deal out of the word "seek". In the first place, I wasn't really implying that matter makes concious choices.
I would however, argue that the origin of those forces (through matter) conciously seeks for matter to unify.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN


Oh, for the love of Jeff, what the f*ck are you talking about?

Define "being" in this context please.
Existence is. There is a reality of something. Something has real being - as opposed to conceptual being. At singularity.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


You are such a total @$$.
Everyone gets one free cheap shot. I may let you have several. :D


Tell me what the staple remover on my desk is "seeking". After all, it is matter.

Move it off the edge of the desk, and I'll bet you it "seeks" to get closer to the center of the earth.



Originally posted by RussDill


(BTW, I know what your stapler wants to do, and I have to agree with your stapler, it would make it a lot quiter and more peaceful around here)

You & hexx should get together & see who likes it up there the most. (Hmm, I guess everybody doesn't get a free shot after all.)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
You seem to think this "opposing energy" is keeping gravity at bay. Why can't it be that gravity is a weak force in the first place. After all, it takes the whole planet to keep a nail on the ground but a little magnet is all it takes to counteract it and lift it into the air.
That's good enough to repeat!

:)

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence is. There is a reality of something. Something has real being - as opposed to conceptual being. At singularity.

More nonsensical pseudo philosophy with absolutely no science.

Look, believe whatever you want, but don’t think you can prove it and don’t expect us to buy it. You're simply wasting your time here. As am I it seems...

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You really believe that 'nothing' can be displaced to allow the existence of something? You really believe that nothing can stretch around the surface of a finite object?
Ummmmm... yes. See, since nothing is nothing, it doesn't have to be displaced or stretched. It just isn't there.

But now I see where you are coming from: you just can't stand the idea of nothing. Dude, you're 2000 years late. Those crazy Assyrians already invented zero. It's here to stay.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It would appear that there is a tug-of-war occuring between space and matter. Thus, this indicates the existence of two opposing forces.


Give this guy a medal. Apposing forces, in the universe, no way. Its not a tug of war though, there is no competition. One force can't try harder than another. However, I have no idea where you jump from apposing forces to a competition between space a matter...Sunday Sunday Sunday!!!!! its the biggest battle you've seen yet, Space the great expanse, versus matter, who will win!...right


You're just using another term to define the same thing. Where does this expansive force exist, except within the space which separates matter? That's what's important here.


It exists somewhere now? huh? Just a litte bit down you claim "You cannot catch a force". I'm completely unsure of which meaning of "exist" you are using here. Again, you assume that some force is causing the expansion of space and that that force acts on matter. Lets do a thought experiment and test that...matter causes space to expand...so more matter, more expansion, the more massive the objects, the more they are pushed apart. Bzzzzt, wrong, doesn't seem to matter how big or how dense matter is for this expansion.


Actually, space reaches zero-point energy at singularity. There are no points of existence at a singularity. But there is being.
Zero-point energy is actually the source of all forces and consequent events. I would advocate that space and matter are different (opposite) aspects of the same original essence.


once again, you are using terms that you've heard used, but don't understand what they mean.

Please, explain to me the process and mathmatics from which the electromagnetic force eminates from zero-point energy. By they way, don't let the fact that zero-point energy is the STATE of a system, not a thing, or a force, or an enegy, or a spirit.

I don't think anyone would argue that space and matter are not related, however, I fail to see how it proves any of your points.


It's impossible to measure except through the matter it affects. Exactly like gravity, in that respect. Exactly like all forces. You cannot catch a force. You can only see its effects.

again, give this man a medal. But we were talking about space containing energy. And what that energy is, not forces. Again, you say you can see its effects, so tell me how to measure this energy. By the way, if energy is effecting matter, its excerting a force, if its exerting a force, it could be doing work and could be extracted.


You're all making a big-deal out of the word "seek". In the first place, I wasn't really implying that matter makes concious choices.
I would however, argue that the origin of those forces (through matter) conciously seeks for matter to unify.


so, zero-point energy has a desire to unify all matter....so, there is a physical system, and we've set a point for it where it contains zero energy. And this point we set is concious?

Perhaps you speak of thermodynamics? That all systems "seek" (use your words here) the state of lowest energy? There is no evidence of anything concious about that.

Please, give your definition of zero-point energy below:

[asthmatic camel]

It's a pity Interesting Ian isn't around, he could have explained everything.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
It's a pity Interesting Ian isn't around, he could have explained everything.

Like you sensing an odor that doesn't actually exist? :D

[LFTKBS]

Lifegazer's new book . . .

[lifegazer]

The level of my physics knowledge is irrelevant here, especially as no physicist knows what gravity is, as of yet. Not to mention 'space'.

The force which is opposing the gravity between matter must obviously be affecting the space between matter. Space is impelled to expand by a force that affects that space to do so, preventing gravity from attaining universal collapse to a singularity, via the implosive force of gravity.

Existence is 'something'. As a whole, it must be finite in body, or infinite. I.e., it must be boundless or bounded.
All of this nonsense about spheres with a boundless surface is irrelevant. Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence, it is possible to state that existence cannot be finite... and that it must, therefore, be absolutely boundless.

Absolute boundlessness is a singularity of being.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The level of my physics knowledge is irrelevant here, especially as no physicist knows what gravity is, as of yet. Not to mention 'space'.

The force which is opposing the gravity between matter must obviously be affecting the space between matter. Space is impelled to expand by a force that affects that space to do so, preventing gravity from attaining universal collapse to a singularity, via the implosive force of gravity.

Existence is 'something'. As a whole, it must be finite in body, or infinite. I.e., it must be boundless or bounded.
All of this nonsense about spheres with a boundless surface is irrelevant. Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence, it is possible to state that existence cannot be finite... and that it must, therefore, be absolutely boundless.

Absolute boundlessness is a singularity of being.

You understand that this is philosophy and not science, correct?

[Phil]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The level of my physics knowledge is irrelevant here, . . .
All of this nonsense about spheres with a boundless surface is irrelevant. Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence, it is possible to state that existence cannot be finite... and that it must, therefore, be absolutely boundless.

Absolute boundlessness is a singularity of being.

Lifegazer, I've been having a good time following this thread, but I think there is a disconnect that will prevent it from progressing any further. The idea of the 'shere' is one that many skeptics with a physics background have presented to counter some of your statements, but now you seem to want to treat it as irrelevent. And that's going to bring us all to an impass.

I hate to make judgements on what you might be thinking, but it appears you're not understanding the concept others are offering. A boundless sherical existence as it has been presented in the vein of physics is not the sphere I think you're thinking of.

RussDill said earlier in the thread:
But there is a problem, you are comparing the 2d surface of a sphere, to the 3d space you live in. For this comparison to be fair, you need to compare a 2d plane, to a sphere. Is one more surrounded by nothing than the other? no. Both are mearly a mathematical concept that can help show us what the space we live in is like. These models have limits. Also, note that we can increase the dimensions of these models as high as you want.

If you do not increase the dimensions to account for the concept of a sherical existence, as we are suggesting as an example of a boundless yet finite universe, we're just going to go back and forth; your 'singularity' philosophy and our physics.

The thing is, science demands such close scrutiny. If a concept is countered, revisions are made, and the concept is scrutinized again. Philosophy does not work the same way. We've countered your concept, now you're refusing to either revise it or abandon it altogether.

And if that continues to be the case, the discussion is over.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN


You understand that this is philosophy and not science, correct?
Of course.

[Suezoled]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN


You understand that this is philosophy and not science, correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course.



Really? You realize philosophy is subjective and won't convince anyone here whatever your message might be, right?

According to Lifegazer something is always keeping things in motion. You know what would really suck? If Ed had to concentrate on the function of everything, from planetary motion to the functioning of white blood cell cells in rabbits. And he sneezed once. Cuz then we'd all be screwed. (Don't ever sneeze Ed, okay?)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Really? You realize philosophy is subjective and won't convince anyone here whatever your message might be, right?

According to Lifegazer something is always keeping things in motion. You know what would really suck? If Ed had to concentrate on the function of everything, from planetary motion to the functioning of white blood cell cells in rabbits. And he sneezed once. Cuz then we'd all be screwed. (Don't ever sneeze Ed, okay?)

Good news: I don't sneeze
Bad news: I have psychcotic breaks occasionally

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by hammegk


Like you sensing an odor that doesn't actually exist? :D

Good point well made.:D I'd enjoyed the thread until it became a discussion about nothing and the properties of nothing. Talk about an empty conversation ......

Regards,

AC.

[Ed]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Good point well made.:D I'd enjoyed the thread until it became a discussion about nothing and the properties of nothing. Talk about an empty conversation ......

Regards,

AC.

It's like a Sienfeld plot.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Really? You realize philosophy is subjective and won't convince anyone here whatever your message might be, right?

Correction: Most philosophy is subjective. Some statements can be made with absolute authority.
Example: Something has existence.
This statement is unquestionably correct regardless of whether I define this thing that has existence or not.

Reason has the capacity to know things about existence.
The behaviour of perceived-existence, for example, can be understood so well (by reason) that humanity has been able to manipulate his environment for his own benefits. Science - through reason coupled with observation - has been able to determine much understanding about existential behaviour.
Emphasis added to 'behaviour' as opposed to actual causality. No scientist knows the absolute-cause of anything. Scientists can only tell us about forces and consequences that exist - but not where those forces of order come from.

You guys have given too much trust to science. 'Things' (perceived) are the consequences of forces - not the cause of those forces. A thing is the sum of the forces and charges which constitute to make that thing occur in spacetime.
I want all of you skeptics to realise how precarious your faith rests upon the shoulders of science. For science cannot bring you an explanation for universal-forces via any thing seen within perception. Those forces emanate from a source which is not a 'thing' as we know 'things' - through perception. The source is necessarily different from those things. Beyond perception.
And only philosophy can reasonably carry you across the threshold of perceived reality, and talk about things similar to the things I like to discuss.
You've got one life. You owe it to yourself to be sincere in your quest for truth (if you have such a desire). Mocking me might be fun for you. But I actually feel sorry for you because the door of your mind is closed so tight, it would literally take a miracle to wake you up.
Nobody owes you a miracle.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Correction: Most philosophy is subjective. Some statements can be made with absolute authority.

Yes. We call those statements science. What you're engaged in is philosophy, which is a fun pastime, but gets us no closer to facts.

Everything you assert is your opinion and has no empirical truth to it.

You can quit now. Come back when you have some science to discuss.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN
Yes. We call those statements science. What you're engaged in is philosophy, which is a fun pastime, but gets us no closer to facts.

I have engaged in reason. So has science. Even you should know that science, like mathematics, is a product of philosophical enquiry.
In the case of science, we are talking about the philosophical (reasonable) enquiry into existential (universal) behaviour. Hence, science is the philosophy of existential order, as seen through the perceptions.
To consider science as greater than philosophy is akin to considering ones arms as greater than the rest of the body & mind. For philosophy emanates from reason. And reason begat mathematics... begat science... begat languages... begat politics... begat religion even.
This is not to say that all reason is true. Some is built upon the back of assumed premises. That's why there's a diversity of religions. And that's why there are materialists.

Everything you assert is your opinion and has no empirical truth to it.

I had a hunch you were intelligent. Please tell me you read & understood my previous post. Now please tell me why this statement of yours bares any resemblance to intelligent thought in response to that post. Or are you not really interested in responding to a challenge to your own ideology?

You can quit now. Come back when you have some science to discuss.
Squire, I have little interest in discussing behaviour here. Rather, I want to discuss behavioural-origin.
Enter the rationalists.

[TLN]

Let's try this again...

lifegazer, philosophy is a nice pastime, but it cannot bring us facts. Not "truth" or some other vague philosophical construct, facts. Science can and does. Let me know when you have some science to discuss instead of your speculations.

All your words are pure speculation. They've nice poetry, but they have no ability to bring us closer to facts.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TLN
Let's try this again...

lifegazer, philosophy is a nice pastime, but it cannot bring us facts. Not "truth" or some other vague philosophical construct, facts. Science can and does. Let me know when you have some science to discuss instead of your speculations.

All your words are pure speculation. They've nice poetry, but they have no ability to bring us closer to facts.
Science brings us facts about universal-behaviour, as explained in my previous post.
Only philosophy can bring us facts about existence beyond her behaviour.

In this thread, I bring facts about beyond-behaviour-existence, derived from reason.

Feel free to discuss those facts or continue to be fooled by the establishment about the ability of science to answer questions which only philosophy can answer. But you cannot fool me. I know the limits of science.

[Suezoled]

Science brings us facts about universal-behaviour, as explained in my previous post.
Only philosophy can bring us facts about existence beyond her behaviour.

In this thread, I bring facts about beyond-behaviour-existence, derived from reason.

Feel free to discuss those facts or continue to be fooled by the establishment about the ability of science to answer questions which only philosophy can answer. But you cannot fool me. I know the limits of science.

Who said only philosophy can bring facts about existence beyond behavior? Whose reason? Your reason, Lifegazer?
And who are you tell God what to do? <------(Swiped from Niels Bohr)
Oh sure, I'm pretty certain you'll say you don't tell god what to do, but you seem pretty dang confident to the point where you're willing to spread a message about truth that no one but you seems to believe. It's your reasoning, your conclusion, and in that way, you are telling your god what to do.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Science brings us facts about universal-behaviour, as explained in my previous post.
Only philosophy can bring us facts about existence beyond her behaviour.

In this thread, I bring facts about beyond-behaviour-existence, derived from reason.
Funny thing about those facts. Everybody seems to have a different set, all derived from reason. If your "facts" conflict with my "facts", how do we decide whose are right?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tricky
Funny thing about those facts. Everybody seems to have a different set, all derived from reason. If your "facts" conflict with my "facts", how do we decide whose are right?
The argument is simple. It's founded upon the realisation that Something has a definite existence. And I have argued why existence cannot be bounded - meaning that existence is boundless. This means that existence is a singularity.

Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

[TLN]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

You have no foundation in empirical data. Your reasoning is not science, but worthless philosophy.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The argument is simple. It's founded upon the realisation that Something has a definite existence. And I have argued why existence cannot be bounded - meaning that existence is boundless. This means that existence is a singularity.

Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

What definition of "singularity" are you using? It certainly doesn't match any that I have ever seen.

I also am not sure what you mean by "existence". But let me just say that in my philosophy, existence is bounded, because it all eminated from the big bang at a single point. That is a fact. Now, how do we go about proving whose "fact" is correct?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tricky
What definition of "singularity" are you using? It certainly doesn't match any that I have ever seen.

A singularity is a realm where there are no distinctions to be made anywhere or anywhen within that realm. Otherwise, it cannot be a singularity.

I also am not sure what you mean by "existence".

Reality is not 'nothing'. We can know that an entity or entities has definite being. Something definitely exists and is the source of all known forces and effects.

But let me just say that in my philosophy, existence is bounded, because it all eminated from the big bang at a single point. That is a fact. Now, how do we go about proving whose "fact" is correct?
You say that existence occured at a single point. So do I. The point I see is bounded by a Mind at boundless-singularity.
But if you want to believe that existence can be real and enveloped by nothing, then you have alot of explaining to do to me...
"Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere (a point can be considered a sphere) has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence"

There is no reason which can support the notion of a real point of existence and enveloped by nothing. That nothing can be stretched along the sphere's own surface gives life to that nothing. It too becomes something real. Existence has to be boundless because it cannot be embraced by non-existence.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The argument is simple. It's founded upon the realisation that Something has a definite existence. And I have argued why existence cannot be bounded - meaning that existence is boundless. This means that existence is a singularity.


I've stated many times why and how your reasoning is flawed, you never respond. Also, it makes no sense to attempt to derive fact about reality be using the definitions of english words. It makes no sense to attempt such a feat. "Something", "Existence", etc, are all just english words with a generally western infulence on meaning.


Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

I have, you haven't responded. I know many disagree with materialists because we assume that nature does follow a pattern, and that there isn't some omniprecent being controlling our carefully though out experiments. However, I would ask you to look at the scoreboard of accomplishments and predictions (religion 0, science...well, I think its uncountable)

Anywho, if you really want to understand what I'm talking about with meaning of words, worldview influence, etc, I highly recommend nothingness, ISBN 0-7382-0061-1
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738200611/qid%3D1066768109/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-8880319-2432933
you can get the paperback for a little more than 5 dollars, it discusses the history of exactly what you are talking about, the philosophy, the religion, etc, etc, etc.

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
You have no foundation in empirical data. Your reasoning is not science, but worthless philosophy.

Lizegazer, do you have any empirical data to offer, yes or no? Please, just yes or no.

[hgc]

lifegazer's worldview:Originally posted by lifegazer
The level of my physics knowledge is irrelevant here, especially as no physicist knows what gravity is, as of yet. Not to mention 'space'.Translation: "No one knows anything, so my random arrangement of words and phrases is just as good as any other knowledge."I have engaged in reason. So has science. Even you should know that science, like mathematics, is a product of philosophical enquiry.Translation: "What I do is the same as science, and I know what I'm doing, so science be damned!"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A singularity is a realm where there are no distinctions to be made anywhere or anywhen within that realm. Otherwise, it cannot be a singularity.


by your definition, a sigularity is actually nothing.


Reality is not 'nothing'. We can know that an entity or entities has definite being. Something definitely exists and is the source of all known forces and effects.


you are using engilsh definitions to attempt to prove points. Then you just do saying that something is the soure of all known force and effects, which makes no sense of the face of it. There is no need for a source of force and effects. They can just "be". Just as the equations that describe them just "are". No one has to turn the crank. There is no crank.


You say that existence occured at a single point. So do I. The point I see is bounded by a Mind at boundless-singularity.


umm...right. ok, so where did you come up with this evidence? What is this mind made of? By what mechanics does it process information?

By the way, quantum mechanics points to there not being a single point. More of a bowl, less of a cone. Time and space being blurred just as the time and position of particles are blurred as we attempt to look closer and closer at them.


But if you want to believe that existence can be real and enveloped by nothing, then you have alot of explaining to do to me...


really, what is this "mind" enveloped by? If this mind is the something that causes forces, what causes the mind? There is no need to define a bound to reality and assume there is something outside it.


"Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere (a point can be considered a sphere) has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence"


ok, since you aren't willing to give up your silly notions, I'll start at the beginning. At the beginning, reality wasn't viewed as a sphere, or a plane, or anything, it just was.

Ecluid came up with this mathmatical description of reality. He assumed that the corners of a triangle would always add up to 180.

Then, someone else thought, what if they don't, what if we live in a reality where the angles don't add up to 180, if they add up to less than or more than that. Its an equally valid asumption. In fact, its been found that this is true in regions of space that have a lot of matter in them (ie, stars, black holes). Living in non-ecludian space is already a reality.

Most people vizualize this space with a rubber mat and weights on it. Its a good tool, however, you have to understand. There is no mat, there is no external force pulling weights down on the mat, it just *is*. Space and time warp around massive objects and it just *does*.

In the same way, if on average, angles on triangles in space add up to greater than 180, we would live in what could be described as a hypersphere. However, there is no hypersphere, again, its just a model, there is no elephant holding up space.

You write down the equations that describe this space, and lo and behold, there is no need for a boundry, or something outside, or a "mind". It just *is*


There is no reason which can support the notion of a real point of existence and enveloped by nothing.


if something envelops existence, its part of existence. Its a logical falacy to say that something can envelop existence. If you describe existence by a single point, then it is, there is no nothing, you described no nothing.


That nothing can be stretched along the sphere's own surface gives life to that nothing. It too becomes something real. Existence has to be boundless because it cannot be embraced by non-existence.

again, the sphere is a model, you only see a boundry because you placed the sphere in an existence with more dimensions than its own. No matter what reality you describe, if I place it in an existence with more dimensions than its own, it will be bounded.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A singularity is a realm where there are no distinctions to be made anywhere or anywhen within that realm. Otherwise, it cannot be a singularity.
Well, then existance is definately not a singularity. Existence is nothing if not diverse. This "truth" does not even pass the test of being internally consistant.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Reality is not 'nothing'. We can know that an entity or entities has definite being. Something definitely Okay so far.
Originally posted by lifegazer
...and is the source of all known forces and effects.
BZZT! But you blew it in the final inning. You cannot say with any authority what the source of all known forces and effects is. Your conclusion does not follow your premises. Bad logic again.

Originally posted by lifegazer

You say that existence occured at a single point. So do I. The point I see is bounded by a Mind at boundless-singularity.
But if you want to believe that existence can be real and enveloped by nothing, then you have alot of explaining to do to me...

You have a real hang-up on this "enveloped by" stuff. You cannot show that it is enveloped by anything. This is pure speculation on your part base on nothing more than your feeling that it must be. However, if existence started at a single point and continually spreads outward, then it has an edge, ergo, it is bounded. Another key assumption of your scenario is shown to be logically inconsistant.

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere (a point can be considered a sphere) has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence"

There is no reason which can support the notion of a real point of existence and enveloped by nothing. That nothing can be stretched along the sphere's own surface gives life to that nothing. It too becomes something real. Existence has to be boundless because it cannot be embraced by non-existence.
Or perhaps your mind is just not equipped to handle such a complex notion. You simply cannot grasp the concept of nothingness. You could just as well argue that "zero" does not exist, yet it is an important part of mathmatics. If you wish to check me on this point, solve for X in this equation.
1 - 1 = X