Elf

Elf asks: What is it that defines existence?

Elf:

Life, My loudly silent partner, watches itself through my eyes.

Life, in the thunder of silence, hears itself in my ears.

Life, in its formless form, feels its’ texture in my touch.

Life, in its’ awesome simplicity, thinks of itself in my mind.

I am Life… I am Love… I am the reason why.

Elf: I must agree. On this forum we use words to frame the ideas we wish to express, to build an epistemological consensus. All the words and the ideations behind them are held and interpreted in mind. All over the planet people are applying measurements of all sorts of phenomena, applying detail to what we collectively know about our existence and the physical universe it takes place in. All these measurements are an extension of our senses and are interpreted in mind. I agree with Hume that mind preceded matter. I agree with Kant that all that we perceive is made of consciousness. I believe that there may be some form of 'state of energy field' within space-time, but that unless a conscious observer is witness, it remains at most a field of energy, until the potentials are collapsed into reality by the observation of a conscious entity or entities. I follow what Hegel is saying with the idea that God expresses through physical creation, but disagree that the consciousness of God evolves with human consciousness. As far as G-d is determined, I hold to the Zen concept of "Tsu-jan"in Taoism this is interpreted as "that which is so of itself". Wiploc proposed, that there is nothing that exists outside of space and time. I also agree, but point out that G-d is no thing, but a state of pure consciousness, whose beingness is within dimensions we cannot yet comprehend.

Quote from malpensante:
"I don't know about big bang and steady state, but what do you think is more probable, one single universe, or a multiverse full of infinite parallel universes?"

Elf: Using Okam's razor, I believe in the single, perfectly intentioned universe

From all that we know in cosmology and physics, our universe began suddenly with a Big Bang of proto-energy forming an expanding universe into space~time. We are unable to speak of what might be before, (or other than) the Big Bang using the science we have.

All terms dealing with existence and reality are creations of the human mind, so far as we know. Many of the higher animals, primates, cetaceans, down to dogs, cats and even non vertebrates like cephalopods seem to exhibit some form of self awareness and curiosity. Some animals communicate in a
representative language using sound. I have heard the Golden Retriever down the hill from me declare, "I BARK LOUD! THEREFORE I AM! RIGHT HERE!"
I heard him clearly and understood his message, as did other species around him; Especially his cousins the coyotes, whose high pitched chorus of "We are many yelling, and WE are right here!" was also unmistakable in its message. Ornithologists studying bird calls as a form of language have identified many of the songs they sing and the purpose of their communication. Some have come to the conclusion that some bird songs are the pure expression of the joy of being. Who are we to say, "They are not philosophers, they are dumb animals."? They just have a more immediate practicality to their philosophical viewpoint. They love what wisdom they experience, and despite their, (perceived by us) limitations, they may be in touch with more reality than we are, by simplifying the abstract concepts they use to communicate and frame their experience of the universe they share with us.

I am still a ways from stating my main point and explaining my belief in G-d, but I am on the way there. I am presently depleted by grieving over the loss of the seven astronauts from our reality, and the lives of their families. I shall contribute more later. Peace, ~Elf~

Adrian Selby

Are you saying that consciousness is constructing the reality or just constructing a representation of reality as presented to the senses, fed into the brain?

It seems to me that because you can't see a planet it is only potentially there, rather than actually there and unseen. I'm sure the planet doesn't care one wit whether or not it is consciously perceived, the only issue is that we can't know it to be there until it is perceived.

Also, I do hope, along with the seven astronauts who voluntarily and bravely went up in Challenger, you'll be grieving for everyone else who died in painful, tragic circumstances in these last few days, for instance, in the bank in Lagos.

There are probably quite a few newborn babies thrown into cesspits in some parts of africa because they cannot be fed, but then, presidents do not weep for them on primetime tv.

malpensante

the ockham's razor, applied to the number of universes does tell us there must be only one. but, applied to the explanation of the universe we see, says there must be infinitely many in a multiverse. why? because the multiverse view is the only valid explanation so far for interference quantum phenomena.

John Page

... I was with you up "bark".
Cheers, John

Elf

Fascinating, can you tell us more about this theory, or provide a link to a paper on it? ~Elf~

John, yes I was using anthropomorphism describing english language interpretation to a dog's bark. I invite you over here to listen to him every evening before the coyotes. You may apply your interpretation if you wish.

The minor point I was making was that human language terms for existence may not be the only terms for existence. The year-long song of the Great Grey whale may also include deep poetry on the subject. Or for that matter, only a decsription of his eleven foot long sixteen inch diameter phallus, and the great passion that swims with it. Cheers ~Elf~

malpensante

this is the link to the author of the book i recently read on the topic of the multiverse, which fascinated me too:

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html

Elf

We each live in a personal reality shaped by our cultural and personal history, built with data from our physical senses, including the tricks our minds play to smooth out the edges, using confabulations to fill in the holes in our perceptions. This filtered data construction within our minds, is further shaped by our individual belief systems so that we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive, and ignore or rationalize away information anomalous to our paradigm. Our very minds filter and collimate the vast amount of subtle and not so subtle stimuli into what we consider reality to be.

Science is a system of examining our multiple realities trying to find patterns of replacability, that we can use to get a handle on a shared reality. What we would like to believe is an “Objective Reality”. This “Objective Reality” is the first myth of science. I ask again for someone to supply a workable definition of an actual “Objective Reality”.

We are aware of the truth of the vast emptiness that is before us in the intellectual sense. We know that atoms are made of protons neutrons and electrons, which are in turn made of quarks. We know that relative to the size and mass of protons neutrons and electrons most of what we call an atom is empty space. We don’t know what quarks are made up of but we have classified them using anthropomorphic terms we can relate to, i.e. charmed quarks, top quarks, bottom quarks; Terms that relate to how humans experience reality. We firmly believe in the tangibility of the reality we reach out and touch. Yet science shows us this is the interaction of atomic and molecular fields of magnetism. Invisible fields of force, binding other interbulated fields of force into what we call matter. The raw energy of the Big Bang having cooled itself down into patterns that begins to replicate more patterns etc. until these self replicating patterns change and adapt to recognize more patterns witch they cogitate to construct a shared reality.

Is there a reality aside from conscious constructs? Cheers, ~Elf~

malpensante

nominalism vs realism: is reality constructed or discovered?

John Page

Unconscious constructs, at least!

Cheers, John