Is it possible that reality is not what you think?...yes?/no?...lol

[cashmunny]

I have been thinking about thinking, but I think I may have over-thought the whole thing.
Ya think?

I like your thinking.

 

[southflorida]

Okay folks...

For my 1500th post figured I'd throw some more crazy stuff for you all to
read, just in case you find craziness your cup of tea. This time it
will be about the big illusion of time, which will point at the fact
that we are creating our reality with our thoughts and will point
at how we are doing it. Here goes:

The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist.
And that means the present doesn't exist either,
because it's dividing what doesn't exist from another thing
that doesn't exist. This is a paradox, and the only way
out of this is to look at time as a representation.
It is only a thought, a concept, which by itself has
no fundamental reality. It helps to organize stuff, and
has been created by thought to represent succession,
so that things can succeed one another in a certain order.

Okay, now here is the really tripped out part: sort of like when someone
pulls the rug from under your feet:

The past and the future are images contained in thought, that
really don't exist in reality, only in your mind, or wherever the hell
they exist, maybe in a universal thought bank

Thought ties those images together with the present to give a sense of
movement and continuity. Using the example of a film - a cinecamera
records a series of somewhat different images.

When played back they give a sense of motion. This happens because the
brain does not distinguish images that are more than, say, a tenth or so of
a second apart; so when a lot of these images are seen rapidly they are
sensed as continuity. Similarly, a lot of grains of flowing sand might look
like water, continuous.

You can clearly see and grasp that this sense of continuity arises from
thought, which puts it all together.

This is exactly what is happening right in front of us, or wherever this is all
happening (we don't actually know for sure obviously) - our perception sees
a bunch of images that have this sense of continuity, and it is our thoughts
that we are seeing (the bunch of images) that are coming one after the other.

Since these thoughts are all distinct, and only have very small differences,
and they are coming VERY, VERY FAST, to our perception it seems as if there
is time that is flowing perfectly, while in reality there is no time.

All there is - is consciousness driving this whole mind game, and it is aware
of this whole process as itself. In other words, except for
consciousness, there really is nothing else out there.

You are not observing anything, there is no one observing you, there is only
one fast stream of consciousness and a bunch of thoughts (data) that is
being picked up by your awareness and senses, which are really the same thing.

We are all swimming in a huge ocean of data, which basically what
consciousness is. Have a good Sunday everyone

 

[cashmunny]

I think this has gotten way too abstract. I think what is more relevant to the discussion of reality is how our beliefs, judgements, opinions, and just our sheer lack of paying attention shape our view of "reality". Because for most people reality isn't a question of "Is the sky really blue?" or "Does time exist?" It's more about unconscious assumptions about the human social world. Things like like "people are trustworthy", or "I'm not good at math" or "everyone is out for themselves I should be too".

Experiments in psychology have shown that there is a vast difference between the events that impinge on our senses and what we actually are aware of. And how our own preconceived notions about reality shape what we actually see or don't see.

There is a classic experiment they sometimes do in intro psych classes in college. You can see films on the internet of it. You have a bunch of guys wearing black shirts and a bunch of guys wearing white shirts. And they are passing a ball around back and forth between each other randomly. The object is for the students to count how many times the ball is passed from black shirt to black shirt. Unbeknownst to the students while they are doing this, a guy in a gorilla suit comes into class and walks through the room. Most people will not notice the gorilla AT ALL because they are so focused on the task at hand.

So the question arises, what are you not noticing in life by virtue of being focused on the task at hand, whatever that may be.

 

[HempKat]

I think this has gotten way too abstract. I think what is more relevant to the discussion of reality is how our beliefs, judgements, opinions, and just our sheer lack of paying attention shape our view of "reality". Because for most people reality isn't a question of "Is the sky really blue?" or "Does time exist?" It's more about unconscious assumptions about the human social world. Things like like "people are trustworthy", or "I'm not good at math" or "everyone is out for themselves I should be too".

Experiments in psychology have shown that there is a vast difference between the events that impinge on our senses and what we actually are aware of. And how our own preconceived notions about reality shape what we actually see or don't see.

There is a classic experiment they sometimes do in intro psych classes in college. You can see films on the internet of it. You have a bunch of guys wearing black shirts and a bunch of guys wearing white shirts. And they are passing a ball around back and forth between each other randomly. The object is for the students to count how many times the ball is passed from black shirt to black shirt. Unbeknownst to the students while they are doing this, a guy in a gorilla suit comes into class and walks through the room. Most people will not notice the gorilla AT ALL because they are so focused on the task at hand.

So the question arises, what are you not noticing in life by virtue of being focused on the task at hand, whatever that may be.

I'd have to say that this has been the most insightful post about the nature of reality that I've seen in this thread.

 

[sac beh]

I'd have to say that this has been the most insightful post about the nature of reality that I've seen in this thread.

I agree. Especially this part:

So the question arises, what are you not noticing in life by virtue of being focused on the task at hand, whatever that may be.

Immersion in our factical, daily lives requires that certain realities are tuned out in order to focus on what's at hand. The great lesson here is that reality and the people around us are always much more than what we see them to be at any time in our factical lives. This is transcendence, though people get confused by the word and give it religious/spiritual meanings. Transcendence is the fact that the full being of every person and of nature itself always eludes us when we're looking through the factical/everyday lens.

I can't remember if I posted this here or in a different thread, but this fundamental transcendent nature of the world is what demands respect from us. When we reduce the nature of reality or another being down to only a few facts we know about it or our view of it at a particular moment, we've done violence to it because we haven't been true, we've forgotten that it transcends. This forgetting is where racism, politics, and religion comes from.

This is summarized in what used to be my signature:

The possible ranks higher than the actual

 

[southflorida]

We can talk about whatever we want in this thread, because reality
is reality. If we are talking about the small picture reality, as
cashmunny suggested, it will be a reflection of the big picture
reality that I was trying to talk about.

The primary structure is basically the same. We as conscious beings
are trying to evolve to higher states of consciousness.

We are doing quite well in relation to how we lived in the past. Not
that long ago, a few hundred years ago, children were looked at as
if they were just property, like dogs. The parents could do whatever
they wanted with the child, even kill him or her, and that would be
just fine and dandy.

And look at what was happening in the USA before Martin L. King
and the whole human equality movement happened, people based on
their skin color had to go to different toilets, schools, and stand up
for white folks on the bus if there was no other seats. This was only
about 40 years ago. That is really a very short time in relation to human
history. So we are evolving, slowly, but surely!!!

 

[SpasticGramps]

Love the new avatar SF.

 

[southflorida]

Love the new avatar SF.

thanks, but it obviously can't come close to Yoda, my favorite
guru in the world, since I was around 10 when the first SW came
out, Yoda is in my subconscious as the Ultimate S.A.G.E.

We can even name a strain after him, if anyone ever crosses SAGE
with something interesting...and calls it YODA

----------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, this is for anyone reading this thread, and interested in reality
in the small picture. Here is a quote from Tom Campbell where he
talks a little about ego. Since FEAR is the primary driver of everything
we do in life, ego and intellect are the wonder-twins that do a really
good job at creating fantasies/delusions to hide those fears from
our immediate awareness, and btw, they are very good at their job.

If some words are strange in this article, they are all explained in
his Trilogy, and the link to it is in a previous post I made in this
thread. If you are not interested in the article, obviously what
these words mean won't matter anyway.

Anyway, enjoy, this article explains quite well what is ego and
how it works:

First some definitions: Ego (ego) -- the sense of self defined in terms of separation and differentiation from others -- is a result of fear. The sense of self defined in terms of oneness with others is not called ego and is not a result of fear. In our culture, a sense of self defined in terms of oneness with others and All That Is - is practically non-existent, both in fact and in concept, consequently, "ego" by common usage is the sense of self defined in terms of separation and differentiation from others. And, the sense of self defined in terms of oneness with others is not given a name since it does not exist in our collective reality.

This definition (the way I use the word, ego) subsumes the common psychological definition of ego -- the sense of "I" as a separate individual. The word "separate" logically implies "others", i.e., relative to, or contrasted/compared with, other individuals. Ego is the "I" in counterpoint to "you" and "them". The ego describes unique individual existence among other unique individuals in terms of relationship to those individuals.

Ego is about me -- me in juxtaposition/relation to others -- thus ego is represented by an inward pointing arrow (pointing toward me). How does that affect me? "Me" is the subject and object of ego. Love is about others. Thus Love is represented by an outward pointing arrow (pointing toward others). Ego is fear based. The unnamed antithesis of ego is love based. Ego is generated in reaction to fear (me in contention with them). Ego is a strategy, a device, to ensure that dealing with interactions with myself and others is positive for me - it is about what you get. Love is about what you give. Love, being about giving unconditionally to others, requires fearlessness. Conditions are needed to allay fears.

If it is about "me" (I love me), then it is ego, not love. Some fear and ego is more debilitating and dysfunctional than other fear and ego. Fear can even be "helpful" in some situations -- the fear of being caught and punished may prevent horrendous fear based crimes from being committed. Fear of wasting your precious time during this experience packet may push you to improve your consciousness quality. Fear of generating even more fear (and a more debilitating fear) by dwelling on your faults and thus damaging your self-esteem (positive assessment of "me") may lead you to look for what you define as the positive in yourself -- and you may call this "learning to love yourself" but it is all machinations of trying to transmute more dysfunctional fear and ego into less dysfunctional fear and ego in order to help pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Sometimes it is very helpful for leading in the right direction, and sometimes hurtful for leading toward greater dysfunction and greater and more destructive fear.

You are a complex being - the result of all previous intents and choices -- your day to day choices and strategies toward growth as you interact with others are not always so black and white and straightforwardly simple as the underlying fundamental principles. That is why understanding consciousness evolution - e.g., love, fear, and ego -- is so intellectually easy but so frustratingly difficult to actualize in the present moment.


The fear of rejection is actually a fear of being inadequate, unacceptable, unworthy, and not good enough. One fears rejection because one believes that one is inadequate and wishes to hide from that belief. The ego comes to the self's defense and convinces the self that it doesn't really want or need what might end up rejecting us and that those who might reject our self are flawed undesirable beings.

Rejection (feeling pain because of being rejected) is simply ego feeling sorry for itself -- such an ego will create convenient beliefs to prevent rejection from happening again.


Fear often does boil down to an avoidance of physical, emotional, and spiritual pain. For the most part, fear is a reaction to an imagined pain (imagined negative circumstances). That makes it doubly interesting that fear is the direct cause of almost all emotional and spiritual pain and is the major contributor to most of the world's physical pain as well. Consequently, it is our fear of pain that creates almost all of our pain.

Fear has the unusual property that it manifests itself into physical form. What you fear generally comes true sooner or later. For example, the fear of being unlovable or inadequate tends to make you act in such a way as to make you unlovable and inadequate. The stronger the fear the more likely that what you fear will manifest in your reality. The power of negative thinking

Love has the same power. That is why the more you give, the more you get -- and the more you take, the less you have. The lower your entropy, the more satisfying, happy, and joyful your life becomes. The higher your entropy the more miserable, unhappy, and unsatisfied you are.

When I said: "the more you give, the more you get -- and the more you take, the less you have". I was not talking about love directly but indirectly. Within this context, giving to others is an expression of love. The loving intent expressed as giving reaps its own rewards whether love is returned or not. The arrow of your caring is pointed from you toward others. Likewise, within this context, forcibly taking, tricking, demanding, wanting, or needing something from others is an expression of ego. Ego is an expression of fear. The arrow of your caring is pointed toward you from others.

Needs and fears are a fact of our lives. Some have their utility and serve a useful function within our imperfect world. All of us would be better off if we and the situations we have generated for ourselves found no utility or useful function for the fear in our lives.

The fear, needs, wants, and requirements of our ego as well as our embedded entanglements with the fear, needs, wants, and requirements of others is a large part of our daily lives. This is the stuff out of which our opportunities to be better flow. Simply rejecting your fearful self and surroundings and entanglements is not the solution, or the way of growth. Applying your intention and free will within the ego soup you swim in to improve your own quality of consciousness and to provide an environment that helps others improve theirs is the way of love. One does not succeed by dropping out, but by dropping in. One does not grow by disengaging from the fearful world or disentangling from the limited reality of others -- one grows by interacting wisely and lovingly within the environment one has created for oneself.

The fears and needs of our everyday existence represent the challenges we have to work with - one should not think of them a negative, evil, or bad things to be avoided, rather as challenges to be met. Dealing effectively with them, reducing them, and overcoming them for ourselves and for others define the PMR virtual reality game we are enrolled in. The point of being here is to learn and grow - not to be perfect. Feeling flawed or guilty because you are not perfect is counterproductive, useless and silly. That you have fear, needs, wants, and ego is not nearly as important as how you deal with them - how effectively you learn and grow from the opportunities they represent.

Specific ego issues and specific fears belong to the experience packet that generated them and thus disappear when one leaves that experience packet. However, one's consciousness quality is more or less continuous from one experience packet to the next. The level of that quality from the last experience packet generally determines how prone you are to developing new specific ego and fear interactions within the next experience packet.

 

[southflorida]

Okay, just one more for now. Here is a woman asking how are the
koo-koo monsters like Ted Bundy, etc...created, from the perspective
of the theory that we are all immersed in a virtual reality. In other
words, why isn't everything perfect here, and why these sick folks
are a part of our society.

...btw...PMR is Physical Matter Reality, it is this reality where we
exist as human beings. While NPMR is Non-Physical Matter Reality,
which is the place where our so-called over-soul is chilling, keeping
an eye on how we are playing the game in this virtual reality (PMR).

Lisa: My question is very specific. How would you, and your Big TOE, explain that 1/2 of 1%? How can the universe create people with a built-in desire to torture? How can a victim's soul grow spiritually by being chained, beaten, stabbed, and raped, sometimes for months or years on end? At some point, doesn't the universe say, "enough is enough?" These are really tough questions, and the best answers the experts can give seems to be "no one knows why." Please help me understand.

Tom: Such dysfunction is not one dimensional, there are many possible contributing factors. That it only happens to 1/2 of 1 % of the "bad guys" (a probability of 0.005 -- thus perhaps a probability of only 0.00005 within the general population) tells you that it is the result of an extremely unlikely combination of factors.

1) A large portion of our personality, how we interpret data, and what rings our bell (drives us to action, turns us on, upsets us, encourages our attitudes, set us off, piques our interest, captures our attention, makes us feel good or feel bad) is biologically influenced. A consciousness gets a body/brain that must exist and develop according to the PMR rule set. Within that physical process there is much randomness (notice 6 billion people and they are all different). There is interactive feedback between the environment and the body/brain -- each changing the other. The brain modifies how the entity interprets its reality while the environment causes the brain to modify itself in adaptation to the environment. In other words, the brain changes the perceived environment and the perceived environment [both experience based (love, trauma, fear, etc) and bio chemically based (drugs, pollution, food additives, allergens, glandular dysfunction, etc.) changes the functioning of the brain. Sometimes that randomness (which includes the possibility of combining just the wrong series of environment-brain interactions at just the wrong series of times) produces a dysfunctional being who has a much higher potential than normal to become a monster. Bottom line: it is not just a corrosive environment that raises one's potential to become a monster. The environment is usually not even the dominate influence. Environment, biology and chance conspire to only very occasionally produce a seriously elevated potential to become a monster. It is not surprising that some of these monsters come from what appears to be a very benign environment (at least it appears that way from a very coarse, after-the-fact examination that must necessarily miss (because of the passage of time) most of the important developmental detail). In fact, it would be very strange indeed if none of these monsters came from benign (good) environments.

2) The consciousness that inhabits the body/brain must work with what it gets from these random interactions -- once committed it is in for the duration of the experience packet -- however long or short that might be. If an entity gets dealt a bad hand by chance, then, all the more the challenge -- and at worse, hey, it's not often you will draw a 1 in 20,000 card .... and it's just one experience packet -- there are a thousand more of those where that one came from -- no big deal, just do the best you can with what you get, maybe next time you will get a piece of cake. In evaluating your score, the system allows for the difficulty of the game you are playing. You know, suck it up....cookies sometimes crumble. Now a more evolved consciousness will be able to deal more effectively with the challenge -- it might be able to reprogram the brain and apply great inner strength to resist and nullify the dysfunctional proclivities that come with the body/brain. Unfortunately, because of the elementary school nature of PMR, highly evolved consciousnesses are a rare breed and with a little more bad luck (more of that chance we were talking about in 1 above) a real weak low life individuated unit of consciousness (already failing to learn or perhaps de-evolving in previous packets) happens to get connected with this high monster potential. The environment may actually be all peace and light but this ill prepared puppy is all but doomed to go bad no matter how much "guidance" and help it gets. That's free will and chance in the PMR game -- you gotta let it unravel however it does and do the best you can. Outside interference in the game once the game has started is a no-no. Rules are rules.

3) So the 0.00005 (1 in 20,000 of the general population) monster is loose -- what about the rest of us? The fact is, such a person generates lots of lessons for hundreds if not thousands of the rest of us as he leaves destruction in his wake. And what about those hurt or destroyed? The answer is just the other side of that same crumbling cookie the perpetrator had to accept. For highly developed consciousnesses there is a difficult but high gain lesson to maintain fearlessness and a loving, caring intent and turn the encounter with the monster into something positive in the big picture. [Because that is hard to imagine, here is an example: read Victor Frankel's book, "Man's Search For Meaning". As a Jew in Auschwitz and other death-camps, he received an up close and personal encounter with a multitude of five star monsters as well as having to deal with the murder of his wife and family. He turned all that into a positive personal learning experience and eventually used that experience to help many others.] For less evolved individuated units of consciousness, the trauma is mitigated to the extent possible by those in NPMR so as to minimize lasting effects. Again, keep in mind that this is just one experience packet among thousands and it fades to dream status very quickly under normal circumstances and even quicker than that under the help received in NPMR. Being terminated from PMR by some monster would be similar to waking up from a barely remembered nightmare. It would be a little inconvenient (a minor waste of time) if one's experience packet was ended prematurely but, there's always another. Just like the perpetrator, the victim must also accept that sometimes the cookie crumbles, suck up the misfortune of drawing a 1 in 20,000 card, and go on. Jeez, for crying out loud, it's just a simulator for gaining experience. You are jarred to your bones by such a horrific tragedy because of your little picture PMR perspective -- which is good -- that's the perspective you are supposed to have while in PMR.

Now combine all three paragraphs in various amounts and degrees of each and you get a Big Picture of an unpleasant set of circumstances that must play themselves out because that is how PMR must work in order to be effective. After you have read all three books, this discussion will probably make more sense and be much clearer. Hope this helps.

Tom C

...anyway, after reading this reply she thanks him, and here is what he writes back.

Lisa,

I am pleased you found value in my answer -- that is the point. Knowledge is good but shared knowledge is much better. Actually, now that I think about it, there are several points. If one has the unmitigated gall and temerity to claim discovery, or at least knowledge, of a genuine theory of EVERYTHING then he/she had better be able to provide a good solid answer to EVERY question that can be asked. If he/she cannot, then that points to a failure of the theory and a need for that theory to accept its limitations or expand its understanding. Any good theorist is constantly searching for flaws and limitations in his/her theory - the only way to do that is to meet the challenge of providing good solid answers to all questions within a public forum.

Unfortunately, I am not always so responsive; you just happened to catch me at a good time. This past week I have been enjoying a short temporary lull in my day job at NASA. So, yes, I do make answering your question a priority in my life.. along with taking care of and interacting with my family, my day job, and preparing for lectures and workshops.

The point of all the above is to provide the context for addressing your request. You have a terrific idea - shared knowledge is useful knowledge -- and sharing creates more and more of those valuable questions. Though your request resonates strongly with where I want to go with MBT, the issue is time. Though I can parallel process within multiple reality frames, because of the psi uncertainty principle, I am more or less stuck with just me in this one. These MBT forums have the core material necessary for another book - a very helpful book that addresses people's individual questions and issues much better than the MBT trilogy does. Organizing and laying that book out initially in terms of a series of YouTube videos or audio segments is a wonderful idea. However, I will need to wait until the just-right someone steps forward to do much of the work required, or, more likely, wait until the MBT trilogy becomes successful enough to first break even and then eventually liberate me from the day job. All will unfold in its own time.

In fact, with the help of Carle, a forum participant, I hope to soon start work producing an audio version of MBT - those audio segments, a chapter at a time, would also make good posts on YouTube if someone could add some pictures and music like "duran08" did with my Coast to Coast AM radio interview.

The day is young yet - MBT, still largely unknown, is, at this point, just a baby barely able to toddle - more potential than actuality. Because truth is not only not fragile, but also difficult to suppress, I have high hopes that your request will be more than met in the months and years ahead.

Tom C

This dude is really trippy, and reading his Big Theory of Everything Trilogy was a series of insights.

The best part was that is was free, and you can read it before buying it. Obviously no one has to
buy it, but I'm going to order it in the future, just to have it in the library.

 

[Madrus Rose]

The Universe as a Hologram
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html#David

.... welcome to the Holodeck !


Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?

[SIZE=-1]In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Alain Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.[/SIZE]

 

[turbolaser4528]

Please....everyone knows The Matrix was true and machines took our asses over, the year is really 2199 !!

 

[MJBadger]

Is it possible that reality is not what you think?...

I`m usually too stoned to care .

 

[Easygrowing]

Whom must determine-what it,s the reallity or not ?
And would "You" belive,if some says to you-hey-thie is not that you looks ?

Cake !

 

[southflorida]

The Universe as a Hologram
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html#David

.... welcome to the Holodeck !

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities.

After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

Tuk-tuk-tuk...this makes sense to me, and I'm not even a physicist

Thanks for posting that article, that is really an interesting read.

 

[southflorida]

Okay, here's one for the cause-and-affect believers, which pretty
much defines the current scientific model believed in our culture.
Would like to hear what those think of the following statement:

The thought behind objective causality confirms that everything must
be preceded by its cause...right?

But, must everything have a cause? By this I am asking does our current
physical reality (the Universe) have a cause? And by this, I'm not talking
about the Big Bang, since it is not the cause, but only the consequence
of what was there before it sort of blew its top. By this, I'm talking about
the first thing that appeared, whatever the hell that was!

If the answer is NO, then one immediately leaps to invoking mystical
beginnings. If the answer is YES, then the beginning is a logical
impossibility.

There can, by definition be no beginning if everything must have a cause.

By the logic of causality, beginnings are illogical...period!

The logic of causality requires (because we do exist...right?) the
initial existence from which we are derived to erupt spontaneously
from nothing.

Clearly, the notion of objective causality must violate its own logic
in order to get started!

Now, if anyone has a logical answer to this, I would really like to
hear it. Because if there is no logical answer, then the cause-effect
belief is simply a false assumption

If it is false, and our beginning did not have a cause-effect behind
it, then where the hell did we come from?

Please take into account that saying everything has always been
and always will be is about as absurd, and reality can't be built
on top of something that is infinite and boundless.

This is simply running away from an answer. It is what religion mostly
uses saying God has always been and always will be, and now throw
that $20 in the freaking dish going around. Don't you know we do
have plenty of monthly expenses that we have to cover!!!

So, if both of these approaches are illogical, where did everything
come from, what is the true nature of reality???

This is an important question, because if you believe one of the
above, you are most likely basing your viewpoint on a false assumption,
which makes the foundation on which you are standing a little
shaky, at least when you read these kind of things.

Please notice, in both cases the beginning is mystical.

 

[sac beh]

Okay, here's one for the cause-and-affect believers, which pretty
much defines the current scientific model believed in our culture.
Would like to hear what those think of the following statement:

The thought behind objective causality confirms that everything must
be preceded by its cause...right?

But, must everything have a cause?

If the answer is NO, then one immediately leaps to invoking mystical
beginnings. If the answer is YES, then the beginning is a logical
impossibility.

I like this topic, southflorida. My question is, in order for your NO/YES options to be necessary, there is a certain definition of "beginning" necessary, right? So what are you referring to here as the beginning... the beginning of what?

Also, I believe most physicists would say that our current universe has beginnings in some version of the big bang. But the big bang itself is NOT necessarily the beginning of "everything", because quantum theories exist which postulate other universes along with the underlying mechanisms of universe creation. They also postulate that our laws of physics are contingent in such circumstances, that is, they exist in our universe and as a result of the processes which gave birth to our universe, but they do not necessarily exist outside of it.

This opens up the possibility that, while the laws of physics and the rule of causality you refer to exist and hold true in our universe, they do not necessarily before/outside of it. Thus its possible to hold to a law of causality without the logical impossibility of the "beginning" which you introduce, because the absolute beginning (if there is one) precedes the context in which causality has effect (our universe).

 

[southflorida]

I like this topic, southflorida. My question is, in order for your NO/YES options to be necessary, there is a certain definition of "beginning" necessary, right? So what are you referring to here as the beginning... the beginning of what?

Also, I believe most physicists would say that our current universe has beginnings in some version of the big bang. But the big bang itself is NOT necessarily the beginning of "everything", because quantum theories exist which postulate other universes along with the underlying mechanisms of universe creation. They also postulate that our laws of physics are contingent in such circumstances, that is, they exist in our universe and as a result of the processes which gave birth to our universe, but they do not necessarily exist outside of it.

This opens up the possibility that, while the laws of physics and the rule of causality you refer to exist and hold true in our universe, they do not necessarily before/outside of it. Thus its possible to hold to a law of causality without the logical impossibility of the "beginning" which you introduce, because the absolute beginning (if there is one) precedes the context in which causality has effect (our universe).

I made a correction there, and currently I'm talking about the
beginning of our physical universe, because from the point of
view of the currently accepted viewpoint of the masses, the
physical universe IS all there is.

So, if we are talking about the physical universe, what was the
first thing that existed in it, and where did it come from.

And this question takes into account the cause-effect approach
because this is what is currently the "masses" believe.

As I already pointed out in my previous post, this makes the cause-effect
illogical, because the FIRST THING that ever existed sort of popped
out of nowhere - which makes the beginning of cause-effect
MYSTICAL...right???

But, science does not like MYSTICAL STUFF, unless they have to use
it and then it becomes FACT, which is kind of absurd, don't you
think?

Basically, at this point the science that the masses believes
doesn't know what the first thing was, and where it came from,
because that would go against the cause-effect...false/belief.

This is why it has been swept under the rug, and they are wasting
their time with the Big Bang.

So, currently the honest answer where the Universe came from is
....WE DON'T KNOW.

At least, that is what the scientists that the masses believe would
say if they were being honest about it. Obviously they wouldn't
admit this straight out, but this is the obvious truth.

In other words, the current science accepted and believed by the masses
is really based on PSEUDO-KNOWLEDGE or what is really only beliefs/assumptions!!!

 

[sac beh]

So, if we are talking about the physical universe, what was the
first thing that existed in it, and where did it come from.

Well, like I said, there are explanations for this in for example string theory.

As I already pointed out in my previous post, this makes the cause-effect
illogical, because the FIRST THING that ever existed sort of popped
out of nowhere - which makes the beginning of cause-effect
MYSTICAL...right???

Not yet. If there are dimensions that exist which precede our space-time dimensions and thus our laws of physics, we have an answer to the logical inconsistency you propose. The fact that the source of the beginning of our universe is not commonly known doesn't mean it has to be mystical. Right? String theory/m-theory explain many parts of this puzzle which remove the problem your talking about.

I do wish H3ad was around to contribute here, as he has a greater knowledge of this issue than me.

But I do understand what you're saying, southflorida, and I'm just pointing out that for some physicists this is not a problem, because of the existence of other dimensions and mechanisms preceding our own.

 

[southflorida]

Well, like I said, there are explanations for this in for example string theory.

Not yet. If there are dimensions that exist which precede our space-time dimensions and thus our laws of physics, we have an answer to the logical inconsistency you propose. The fact that the source of the beginning of our universe is not commonly known doesn't mean it has to be mystical. Right? String theory/m-theory explain many parts of this puzzle which remove the problem your talking about.

I do wish H3ad was around to contribute here, as he has a greater knowledge of this issue than me.

But I do understand what you're saying, southflorida, and I'm just pointing out that for some physicists this is not a problem, because of the existence of other dimensions and mechanisms preceding our own.

You are talking about mystical stuff from the view of what the
masses of people currently believe. These beliefs are based on the
current scientific model that is believed/assumed to be a FACT.

Obviously the folks that believe these facts, don't think of it that
way, they think that they KNOW that these are facts.

Obviously the masses don't believe in dimensions, etc. This is currently
in the area of mystical, and not what I'm talking about.

At this time different dimensions are in the area of the Non-Physical,
and this is not widely accepted by the majority of scientists, and
obviously by the majority of the people in the Western World.

The current view is simple...all there is - is the physical...period!

And what I'm trying to point at is that besides theories we don't
really know where this Physical Universe that we are currently
living came from.

It is just as possible that none of this exists, as that it does exist,
because we simply don't know. This is the main point. Maybe we
are hallucinating this, very similar to our dreams, but we believe
that it is totally real and physical. This is not something that most
people are aware of, because they BELIEVE only in the physical reality.

And take this physical reality as an undeniable FACT. And it is NOT.

More or less, what I'm trying to say is that the majority of folks base
the things they think they know as fact on beliefs and assumptions,
not realizing that they are just beliefs/assumptions and might be false.

And then they wonder why they are unhappy and miserable!

Believing what others say is a risky business, but people seem to be doing it
by the billions.

We can say about science and government: BS...billions upon billions served,
and even though unhappy, keep coming back for more with their plates in front
of them asking for more!!!

 

[sac beh]

ok, southflorida, it's clear that you're going to be closed minded on this. I hoped for something different.

You stated that something was logically impossible. I gave an example of how it didn't have to be logically impossible. You changed the conditions of your original statement and tossed out my evidence because it didn't fit those conditions. And then you proceed to make extreme, absolute statements about science being BS and physical reality not existing, yet with no evidence of your own. Sounds like a game to me, not a discussion.