Indivisibility

[Upchurch]

If you don't yet understand the distinction between sensed-space within whatever it is that I am, and real space beyond whatever it is that I am, then you're never going to get very far in a discussion like this.

It's actually your misunderstanding of the dependence between sensed-space and real space (that is, there is none) that is keeping the discussion from going anywhere.

 

[Z]

Sorry, folks, I've been hard at work lately so I missed my chance to jump on this chimera when it first appeared...

LG will be thrilled to see me return, I'm sure...

I thought it was pretty obvious:-

A real universe
If a real universe exists beyond the sense of one, then "things" really do exist and are really separated from one another by space & time.

Fine, up to this point.

The universe has no purpose or meaning, and neither does humanity. In fact, 'self-awareness' is some kind of brain-generated illusion - there is no 'self'. It's a free-for-all where you should grab as much money and have as much fun as you possibly can before you melt away into the irrelevant end.

This does not logically follow. The universe may well have been created, even with a purpose (though the majority of evidence says otherwise) by God. God may very well be a creator external to its creation; it may also be a creator whose very body is the universe as well, or even an unreal entity whose properties are unknowable to us as of yet.

However, skipping whether or not the universe has purpose - why do people tend to categorize self-awareness into 'soul' and 'non-existence' in such a dichotomous manner? Self-awareness obviously does exist for each of us - the 'self' is the totality of the dynamic brain/body existence of each of us. The 'self' is the completion of the brain, its senses, its body, what the body is wearing, etc. 'Self' is a dynamic state - something continuously redefined from moment to moment - connected to previous self-states through memory.

Further, the theory that a lack of spiritualism infers a state of moral anarchy is also, clearly, false reasoning. Humans, for whatever purpose, feel such things as love, respect, honor, etc. Even without a 'supreme morality' at work, each person finds reasons to make life as decent as possible - or they don't, even with morality. Many, MANY followers of faith are miserable cusses who do anything to further their own goals and desires; many, MANY atheists work hard on humanity-oriented issues, positive causes, etc. For my own part, I work hard to ensure that the world I leave for my children is in some way better than the world I inherited. Now, does that help everyone on Earth? No, of course not - and sometimes, what I want for my children may conflict with what someone else needs or wants somewhere else; but we each of us do the best we can, within those limits we set for ourselves.

An illusory universe
'You' are God. You are not the "thing" you perceive yourself to be within the illusion. Fundamentally, 'You' created this illusion for a purpose and all of your choices are meaningful.
Nobody else but God exists. This is truly significant and your future should be devoted to eradicating all selfishness, war and injustice.

This does not follow from any reason or logic. If the universe was created at all, it either was created for a purpose, or it wasn't; whether it is an 'illusion' or not is irrelevant. And certainly, not every choice made by every entity is relevant; most don't mean diddly-squat in the universe. Besides, if your future should be devoted to eradicating these things, why bother creating the illusion with such things in the first place? Are you claiming that God first creates the source of his suffering, then relies on his ignorant avatars to end his suffering? Ridiculous and unreasonable.

Those, briefly, are the primary differences.

They make no sense at all.

 

[Wudang]

Also, I asked you to explain to this forum which aspects of quantum physics I fail to understand which will affect anything I have said in recent posts. You have failed to do this.

A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.
Deal with this very credible response or go away. I'm tired of you ignoring everything I say to you.

Now, what happened to the other BS you were preaching about my argument being 2400 years out of date? Could you not find an argument the same as mine from 2400 years ago? Thought not. Just another example of the way you make things up and lie.

Are you just here to wind me up? And how low will you go to do it?

To clarify your obfuscation and evasion

1 - I do not need to identify which parts of QM you have a problem with because you fail to understand all parts of QM. If there is some nuance of the word "all" you fail to understand please let me know.

2 - I said the so-called science you were preaching here was 2400 years old and when I first did so I referred to one of the founders of the Atomist school who flourished around 440BC - Leucippus.

Funny - reviewing this can anyone see a lie of mine or just lies of yours?

And you cannot use dreams as proof of anything as you have not established dreams as real beyog our memory of them, which must be regarded as on much less firm footing than our immediate sensations of an external world, by "logical default".

 

[RussDill]

QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.
If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread.

If its so central to your argument, why can't you even explain what it means?

Now, what happened to the other BS you were preaching about my argument being 2400 years out of date? Could you not find an argument the same as mine from 2400 years ago?

indivisibility at the ramifications thereof are very old ideas. While its true that no one has used indivisibility to attempt to prove the universe does not exist, they have used it to point out many inconsistencies. Unfortunately, the ideas that bring about these eventualities, and the ones you use for your agument, are outdated, and supplanted by QM.

 

[lifegazer]

1 - I do not need to identify which parts of QM you have a problem with because you fail to understand all parts of QM. If there is some nuance of the word "all" you fail to understand please let me know.

You've just made that up too. You don't know what I know or don't know about QM. Since I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject and since I've had a fair few discussions about it, your judgement that I know "nothing" is clearly a load of tripe.

2 - I said the so-called science you were preaching here was 2400 years old and when I first did so I referred to one of the founders of the Atomist school who flourished around 440BC - Leucippus.

The problem here is that you're too dense to understand my argument.
QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.

I made a specific request of you, relating to this:
"If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread."

Now, will you please stop posting as it is clear you lack both the intelligence and sincerity to progress any further here.

And you cannot use dreams as proof of anything as you have not established dreams as real beyog our memory of them

For the third time:-
A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

There is only whatever it is that I am and the dream of this world that I am having.

We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.

 

[lifegazer]

If its so central to your argument, why can't you even explain what it means?

Sorry, teaching you simple English is not one of my objectives here.

are outdated, and supplanted by QM.

QM relates to sensed-things NOT "real things".
Since the argument ponders the actual reality of things, QM is not even relevant.
In other words, whoever told you that such arguments are "outdated" because of QM is a complete blunderpuss.

 

[Z]

We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.

Prove it.

In order to do so, you must truly prove that our sensations are abstract - that they, in fact, represent no real thing. If, however, our sensations represent real things, then we are truly experiencing real things. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove, completely and logically, that real things do not exist beyond our sensations of those things.

In order to do this, you must further prove that no individual human experience exists - that is, that confirmation of the external nature of things through communication with other individuals is in some way faulty or flawed. Further, you must also prove that there is a flaw or error in the ability to predict new things in real-space based on information gained through our senses, dealing with things which we cannot sense.

Further, you must be able to explain, logically and consistently, how this 'dream' continues if the singular experiencer ceases to exist - OR you must concede that each experiencer does exist, and therefore that the experiences had by each, if consistant and confirmable, constitutes evidence of an external reality. Further, you must disprove that external reality can in any way affect or influence an experiencer without being in any way sensed - that there are no effects caused by external things whereupon the thing itself cannot be sensed.

So far, you've failed, quite miserably, in doing so.

 

[Z]

Sorry, teaching you simple English is not one of my objectives here.

QM relates to sensed-things NOT "real things".
Since the argument ponders the actual reality of things, QM is not even relevant.
In other words, whoever told you that such arguments are "outdated" because of QM is a complete blunderpuss.

According to you, all science relates to 'sensed things' and not real things.

However, if those sensed-things are, in fact, representative of real things, then QM does, in fact, relate to real things.

Since the argument starts with the premise that real things exist, and since the only things that we can be aware of are the things we sense or infer, then all that applies within our sensed-awareness of things also applies to real-things; else, you MUST demonstrate how science, physics, and QM do NOT relate to real things; in which case, you must ALSO demonstrate how they CANNOT relate to sensed-things; else, you must demonstrate, clearly and logically, how real-things CANNOT be represented by sensed-things.

I sense another LG failure coming on...

 

[Anathema]

I sense another LG failure coming on...

Cue the music --- the inevitable "Dance of the Salted Slug" is about to commence.

 

[KingMerv00]

If reality doesn't exist...do i have to go to work tomorrow?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The problem here is that you're too dense to understand my argument.
QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.

No. The problem is that you can't be bothered to explain what you mean. "The energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations." This is not the language of quantum mechanics. It's bibble.

I made a specific request of you, relating to this:
"If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread."

Now, will you please stop posting as it is clear you lack both the intelligence and sincerity to progress any further here.

Way to dodge hard questions!

For the third time:-
A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

There is only whatever it is that I am and the dream of this world that I am having.

We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.

Good enough to go in my sig for a while.

There'll be a small prize for anyone who can explain the connection between any part of this post and the OP... apart from the person making it, and that it's rubbish. Cheers.

 

[lifegazer]

Prove it.

In order to do so, you must truly prove that our sensations are abstract - that they, in fact, represent no real thing.

Representations of reality are distinct from and not the same as 'reality' itself.
Any experience of something that is not real is, by logical default, a dream.

If, however, our sensations represent real things, then we are truly experiencing real things.

So, by your reasoning, representations of a real war on the TV means that the TV-viewer is truly experiencing war.

In order to do this, you must further prove that no individual human experience exists

It does not matter whether you assert it forever - a sensed-thing is not a real thing... and there is a distinction between what is sensed and what is real.

The sensed-universe exists within the awareness of whatever it is that I am ("in here").
Whereas a reality of things must, obviously, exist beyond and separate from whatever it is that I am ("out there").

It's basic philosophy Z. If you cannot comprehend this then you shouldn't be here.

 

[lifegazer]

No. The problem is that you can't be bothered to explain what you mean. "The energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations." This is not the language of quantum mechanics. It's bibble.

Way to dodge hard questions!

Good enough to go in my sig for a while.

There'll be a small prize for anyone who can explain the connection between any part of this post and the OP... apart from the person making it, and that it's rubbish. Cheers.

Are your stupid ramblings somehow disguised as intelligent participation?
Please go away and join a Mork & Mindy forum, or something.

 

[uruk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we die, is that when we realise we were God all along?

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


'We' don't live or die. God lives and cannot die except to the sense or perception of being somebody else.

Then what is lost when "we" kill each other or cause suffering to others? Surly nothing "real" is dieing or suffering.
If god is omni-everything, then why can't he stop all this sufferng and evildoing. If god is "lost" in the dream, then he is not omni-anything, at least while dreamin. So god becomes ineffectual.

Anyhoo, that puts right back where we started. What's the difference?

 

[uruk]

Representations of reality are distinct from and not the same as 'reality' itself.
Any experience of something that is not real is, by logical default, a dream.

So, your saying there is no difference between our wakeing experiance and our dream experiance. Then why do our dream experiance have no effect on our waking experiance? Why does our wakeing experiance have a consistancy that is beyond our controll and our dreaming experiance follows no logical sequence or consistancy?

 

[monkboon]

A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

Once again stated without evidence. And once again I ask, what convincing argument do you have beyond it's not necessary do you have that what I experience, what appears to me to be a real universe, is not in fact a real universe?

 

[Wudang]

You've just made that up too. You don't know what I know or don't know about QM. Since I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject and since I've had a fair few discussions about it, your judgement that I know "nothing" is clearly a load of tripe.

But the discussions have all been:
L: QM doth showeth that (whatever)
All: Oh no it doesn't!
I've been in those threads and read them and watched you avoid Russ' and others comments and explanations.

The problem here is that you're too dense to understand my argument.
QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.

I made a specific request of you, relating to this:
"If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread."

Now, will you please stop posting as it is clear you lack both the intelligence and sincerity to progress any further here.

No. I do possess the intelligence to understand that you are completely wrong about the fundamentals of QM and its implications and I have the sincerity to argue with anyone who calls me a liar.

For the third time:-
A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

There is only whatever it is that I am and the dream of this world that I am having.

We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.

But for the umpteenth - you can only prove dreams occur by reference to memory which is logically weaker than the senses. You keep avoiding this and just restating your assumptions with no attempt to engage.

Here's another clue - calling people "plonkers" is not generally regarded as clever past the age of 6.

 

[RussDill]

Are your stupid ramblings somehow disguised as intelligent participation?

Ah, feign ignorance when it comes to longstanding questions that you have no answer to. He is asking you to define your tems, just as I have been asking....over...and over...and over again.

Please go away and join a Mork & Mindy forum, or something.

..Wait? There is a mork & mindy forum? Really? Does Williams make personal apearences?

 

[Z]

Any experience of something that is not real is, by logical default, a dream.

Again, with your misuse of logic? Any experience of something that is not real may also be an illusion - Dreams can be seen as a type of illusion, or they can be seen as general brain activity. There are many theories, of course. But there is no 'logical default' there. Also, you have yet to prove that our sensory experiences are not of something real.

So, by your reasoning, representations of a real war on the TV means that the TV-viewer is truly experiencing war.

If one is watching a video of real war, then one is experiencing the sights and sounds of war. There is an obvious translation due to the limitations of television, just as there is an obvious translation due to our limited senses. For example, we cannot see in the ultra-violet or infrared, nor hear many sounds; but we are, nonetheless, experiencing part of the world around us. There are parts we don't experience, just like the television viewer isn't getting the experience of touch or taste or smell; but unlike your television experience, the real experiencer is interacting with his environment. Truly experiencing war, for a human being, would mean INTERACTING and experiencing with every available sense; so IMO one would not be experiencing war through television; but this is in no way relevant to sensory experience of the real world. You aren't merely WATCHING the world go by; you are INTERACTING with said world. This is the key difference between your weak pseudo-philosophical analogy and actual fact.

It does not matter whether you assert it forever - a sensed-thing is not a real thing... and there is a distinction between what is sensed and what is real.

Actually, you are the one asserting it forever. All we are saying is, disprove that sensed-things are not accurate representations of true things... and what the functional distinction is. Sensed-fire represents real fire, and real fire will burn and damage me just the same. The fact is, for us, there IS no distinction between a sensed-thing and a real-thing.

The sensed-universe exists within the awareness of whatever it is that I am ("in here").

Wrong - YOUR sensed-universe exists within your awareness. MY sensed-universe exists within MY awareness. There is limited overlap. And the vast majority of the universe exists beyond either of our awarenesses.

Whereas a reality of things must, obviously, exist beyond and separate from whatever it is that I am ("out there").

Yes - the 'sensed-universe' within you is a representation of the real universe out there.

It's basic philosophy Z. If you cannot comprehend this then you shouldn't be here.

If we base attendance on one's ability to understand, you'd have never gotten in the door. Considering the faulty nature of your reasoning and the complete lack of understanding you have of other disciplines, you'll have to excuse me if I place no trust in your 'understanding' of philosophy.

 

[H'ethetheth]

If you don't yet understand the distinction between sensed-space within whatever it is that I am, and real space beyond whatever it is that I am, then you're never going to get very far in a discussion like this.

Only when you will understand that these two situations are exactly identical to whatever it is I am, we will be able to move forward in this discussion.
There is a difference between these two views, but none of these can be observed from within the resulting universe. I refer you to something I asked you earlier:

What is a space? I.e. what do you think a space is?
[...]
In my head a space is a thing that offers the possibility to its occupants to differ in some respect.
If the dimensions of a space are length, the difference is in position.

Do you agree with view of space? If not, why? If so, what is the difference beween 'God space' and 'real space'? And I mean differences observable by occupants.