Try thinking of a pencil without thinking of it as a pencil.
That is do not think about the word ‘pencil’.
Do not think about any symbol associated with a pencil.
Do not think about the pencils structure,
dimensions,
texture,
size,
weight,
color,
material,
sharpness.
Don’t think about what constitutes a pencil.
Don’t think about the stick of graphite.
Don’t think about the wood or the metal.
Don’t think about the eraser.
Furthermore, don’t think about what constitutes the material.
Don’t think about the atoms building the wood.
Try zooming in as close as you possibly can into the pencil and its atoms. Where’s the end of it? Where do the objects forming the object end?
For your reading pleasure…
Don’t think about the elemental particles, electrons and protons forming the atoms.
Don’t think about what builds up these elemental particles. Don’t think about the quarks.
Can an object like a pencil, exist without other objects that create him?
The more scientific progress we make the better lenses we make for microscopes. We hope to find an elemental building block of the universe. For a long time it was believed to be the atom.
It’s not, we can zoom into the atom and find even smaller stuff. The more powerful the measuring device, the more stuff we discover. There’s stuff all the way down and I believe it will never end.
A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
It’s turtles all the way down.
If all you can think about is turtles all the way down, you’re objectifying.
If you cannot think about a pencil without thinking about its attributes you’re objectifying.
If you’re objectifying you’re disconnecting yourself from a deeper understanding of reality. Objectifying is one of the modes of thinking the brain can operate on. It is a good tool if you’re trying to read the manual to your DVD or build IKEA furniture, but other than that it creates misery, not only for you individually but for humanity in itself. People fight each other, because of the concept that we are different. That we are objects separate from one another.
The human mind works on symbols and abstractions. It cannot go beyond that. Would you ever know what a pencil was if you have not created appropriate symbols for it, like the word ‘pencil’ or a mental image of a pointy stick with graphite? This is why we can only see turtles all the way down. It’s just wood, erasers, colors, atoms. The more we look the more we see. Because all we want to see are objects.
Objects are just symbols that hide the truth.
Words are one of the most powerful symbols of all. We take words for granted and use them as if they were real things. Symbols are mistaken for reality.
A pencil is not THE pencil.
It’s hard to imagine that the pencil is actually not the pencil. It’s a fucked up linguistic trick that our brains play with us all the time.
There is a philosophical game you can play with yourself. Grab a pencil, look at it and start repeating to yourself loudly “pencil, pencil, pencil, pencil, pencil…”. Do this until the word pencil loses its meaning and becomes just a grunt coming out of your mouth. This excercize is magical and I recommend it.
Words have associations with everything we can think of. We use them for thinking. There is no escaping this. The question is what is the problem with this, why would you need to understand this?
Most people never question the symbols that are used in everyday life. Do you ever question the words you use and do they always mean what you want to say?
I never say what I truly want to communicate because most of the time I am lost for words. And even if I have the words, communication is a two way process and there is always something lost or distorted. This is why I know that whatever I write here isn’t ever going to be fully understood if you’re not in the same state of mind as I am (Chakra: I don’t smoke anything). But you will always understand something and take something from it, maybe use it. Maybe question my ideas, I have no problem with that, at least you’re trying to think. Just always think that you might be wrong too.
Are the symbols you use serve you? Or do they serve a social role?
Like think about the word ‘Muslim’.
What connotations does that have? Probably depending on the culture you live in it will have different meanings. Symbols are not universal. Muslim has a negative, positive or neutral meaning, depending on your background and context in which it is used. Let’s say you have a negative connotation with that word. Now, why would you think like that, is there a real threat here? Or did somebody impose a meaning to that word, for their own selfish reason, which you have taken without questioning?
Think of the word ‘bad’.
What if you say to yourself you’re bad – not good enough, not worthy. Now why would you use this symbol? What purpose does it serve you? Is it possible that thinking negatively about yourself serves a social function, like the pecking order of chicken?
So getting back to our pencil.
A lot of discussions here on this blog are about the existence of reality and what it is. There might be a confusion that says I do not believe in reality, sorry but far from it. I believe in the existence of an ultimate reality. It’s just that what we have in front of our eyes and especially in our minds is NOT IT. The world we confuse for reality, is the world of abstract symbols we create, obtain and manipulate for the purpose of living in an ultimate reality. So the pencil exists but does not exist. What we think of the pencil is not the pencil itself. So where does the pencil exist, in our minds, in reality, or both?
I don’t know, but if I stick it in your ass you’ll feel it.
In before bigbossSNK.
Your 4chan writing style is fucking annoying.
“if I stick it in your ass you’ll feel it”
I’m gonna try this philosofical aproach right now.
Do you think that an other creature could evolve to never use objects?
programmers are fucked up in every direction we use objects!
In before BigBossSNK too, where is he? he usually gets a dig in before I reply…
you say “It’s just that what we have in front of our eyes and especially in our minds is NOT IT.” but I disagree how could it not be it… an interpretation of what IT IS, sure there are thing that are there that we cannot see but it is there… maybe you have some weird distorted view on what the matter around you is but that is what IT IS in some shape or other it may not be what it is in it’s entirety but it is still it nonetheless.
unless you are trying to say it is not what you think it is, like “it is wood” instead of “it is mostly carbon blah blah… millions and billions of little electrons orbiting there protons and neutrons some electrons are being shared blah blah…” yes that IS definitely what it is maybe there are a lot things we don’t know about them but it doesn’t change it, it changes our peception slightly, now stop being so metaphysical about it. Metaphysics is good but when your telling people to start chanting pencil that’s a little too far.
looking at that video I thought hmmm… maybe we will one day be able to use layers of sheets of electrons to make hover cars haha
also I personally don’t believe that light speed is the fastest speed
C’mon bigbossSNK…
Sorry.
“Sorry”
BigBossSNK doesn’t say sorry, bitches! [sic]
“If all you can think about is turtles all the way down, you’re objectifying.”
“Turtles all the way down” is an arbitrary idea, a joke more than anything, by people who can’t differentiate between physical reality and random thoughts.
“Objects are just symbols that hide the truth.”
No. Symbols are representations of physical objects that match the truth, depending on their 1:1 correspondence to physical reality.
Your use of the word “object” is beyond its definition.
“We take words for granted and use them as if they were real things”
You take words for granted and use them as if they were real things. I don’t. People with a grasp of basic concepts like “physical reality”, “mental representation” and “1:1 correspondence” don’t mistake one for the other.
“communication is a two way process and there is always something lost or distorted”
That’s why we have definitions for words. So we can eventually trace them back to a physical reality we can agree upon. Google has a definition link to most words you search for.
“Symbols are not universal.”
As I’ve said before, the meaning of symbols, the correlations you create that link ideas together, is governed by social programming and introspection.
If you live in the US, where the media rampage over the “Muslim threat”, i.e. employing social programming to influence the audience, there’s a good chance you’ll think of Muslims as threats. But you can always use introspection to sort what is true and what is not, on your own.
In other parts of the world, where there is no such social programming, the word “Muslim” bears the same connotation it always had.
“Is it possible that thinking negatively about yourself serves a social function?”
If your berating is arbitrary (not based on physical facts), you’re just being controlled by your emotions, and in the absence of logical thinking, your decisions aren’t guaranteed to be logical. A social function isn’t served coherently.
If your berating is based on facts, you are training yourself to follow a specific social programming, which you either copied from other people or arrived at on your own. In this, a social function is served indirectly.
“So where does the pencil exist, in our minds, in reality, or both?”
The pencil exists in physical reality, as a physical object irrespective of your knowledge.
There is also a neuronal representation of that physical reality in your brain, hence the pencil “exists” in your brain as well.
These are two distinct applications of the definition “to exist”.
One pertains to physical reality, the other to the representation of a physical reality.
Holy crap are u doing drugs now MM?
robolee: All I’m saying is that there is no wood, and there are also no atoms, protons etc. All these things are as you say INTERPRETATIONS. And an interpretation is never the real thing.
I’m just saying this is how our brains work, there is nothing metaphysical about it.
bigbossSNK:
“physical reality” is a symbol you use. Now you match that in 1:1 correspondence with physical reality. What is that physical reality? You matched it with a symbol again.
The pencil exists in physical reality, as a physical object irrespective of your knowledge.
There is also a neuronal representation of that physical reality in your brain, hence the pencil “exists” in your brain as well.
Yes I agree. But how do you know there is a physical pencil, when all you experience is the neuronal representation?
“how do you know there is a physical pencil, when all you experience is the neuronal representation?”
You don’t only experience neuronal representations. You are hardwired to recieve signals from physical reality, in the form of pressure sensitive, warm, cold, pain etc. receptors on your body.
Which boils down to : you can touch the pencil, smell it, feel how cold it is etc.
You know, interacting with physical reality, not the representation of it in your brain.
Yeah and the first question, what is reality besides what our brains tells us it is, how can we go beyond that?
Uh, *asplode*
Heh, the moment i got into the word “muslim”, the music
started the agressive phase. Creepy.
Blah, just remember that the “brain” is only a symbol of ours
to link our mind and the suspected reality.
“What is reality besides what our brains tells us it is?”
Let’s define physical reality as the sum of physical manifestations (whether the brain is aware of them or not). Your brain is only aware of a small subset of these manifestations, and it creates representations of them to deal with them efficiently.
If you want to expand the set of physical manifestations your brain is aware of, interact with the physical world.
If you want to “go beyond” physical reality, you’re jumping over the fence and into metaphysics, arbitrary territory.
What is reality? If you keep this mind expanding shite up, your reality will be blowing the symbolic representation of a black man’s cock for his emblematic spare change just to feed your desire for some allegorical crack to smoke, you fucking stoner.
Symbolic? Symbollocks more like.
robolee: There’s maybe something faster then light but I cant understand why it would. wen an object with mass ex: a Ball aproches the light speed is mass grows a 10% of light speed the ball will weight +0.5 time is weight at 90% it’s something like +1.5 or +2.5 (dont remember) so if the ball want’s to reech speed of light at 100% of light speed it will have an infinit mass and to propuls a infinit mass object you need infinit energy.
////////////////////////////////////////
How can you know that what you see is what it is your eye could see only some dots in space and the brain would transform it to you as a pencil.
lol Chakra.
This seems a bit like the Matrix thought process again…
“There is no spoon.”
@Chakra: LoL.
@Michal: It is truly as you say, a pencil can only be perceived by us as signals we get that are interpreted by the brain. BUT. If there really should be more to reality than we, using our senses, can perceive, what good would that be to us?
Why should I try imagining things as they “REALLY” are, when actually I need them defined, as symbols and shapes, for me to be able to use them in REAL LIFE anyway? I dont wanna fucking “know the truth” and live in a tree and eat grass. I like the ability of man of building houses, and making tools and preparing food and so on.
I see a higher scope in man’s WISH to define everything. I see it usefull for man to name everything that hasn’t yet got a name. I dont see a logic in “trying to see everything without name and shape”.
Besides, after you die maybe your wish is granted, in case nothing else happens after death. Since then you can’t see and feel anything, thus knowing the true truth. What do Buddhists call it again? Nirvana.
So the question is: Maybe what you say is true, but what good would that be to us humans living in a world we can see and feel and use for our sake?
Can an object like a pencil, exist without other objects that create him?
No. A pencil exists because the elements that comprise it exist. The less elements that comprise the pencil there are, the less of a pencil it is. A pencil without the graphite is less of a pencil than a complete one. Our perception operates on fuzzy logic, however we speak in binary terms. If we called an object a pencil once, that object would have to change very much for us to stop calling it a pencil. It’s because we associated a tag with this object and for lingual simplicity we keep calling it so.
I think the easy way to demonstrate this is by stabbing you in the leg with a pencil which does have it’s atoms, and one which doesn’t. A simple experiment you see – if a pencil could exist without it’s atoms, you would feel a second prick in the leg, not just one. That would mean the two objects are equal and confirm your theory.
If you’re objectifying you’re disconnecting yourself from a deeper understanding of reality.
It isn’t deeper, it’s abstract. You know what deep understanding of reality means? The ability to tie together seemingly unrelated facts, predict future events with a high degree of accuracy, think of working “out of the box” (not theoretical, but working) solutions to problems. According to you, a person with a deeper understanding of reality, when reading a book, would ponder upon the existential qualities of a rolled up condom somewhere in the middle of the book, while in my understanding a person with deep understanding of reality would notice the subtle allegories to the global or local events that were transpiring when the author wrote the book.
Objectifying is one of the modes of thinking the brain can operate on. It is a good tool if you’re trying to read the manual to your DVD or build IKEA furniture…
We’re surrounded by IKEA furniture, most of our body weight is TESCO mineral water and biedronka-brand bread. You’re reading this on a computer, while sitting on a chair. You’re surrounded by objects, by atoms, by physical reality. But that’s not just it – you ARE the atoms, an object.
We think in terms of physical items because in essence that’s all there is. There is nothing apart or beyond physical objects. We have feelings, concepts, but all they are are the electrical impulses in a half-sphere of fatty goo. Just as data on a hard drive, the data can not exist without the physical matter. So in fact, the data IS the state of physical matter, because, should you remove all the physical manifestations of the data, the data would no longer exist as a concept.
but other than that it creates misery, not only for you individually but for humanity in itself.
And who said humanity should live in happiness and joy? Happiness is a reward our brains give to us after a job well done. After we’ve done something that increases, as we perceive, our chances of survival and reproduction. We’re never truly happy and we never will be. We weren’t designed to be happy – we were designed for a different world than the one we have today. And please, compare the living conditions of people 10000 years ago and the conditions today. They improved so much so, yet people are probably sadder than ever. It’s because no matter how much we have, we will never have enough, we will never be happy with what we have. If you want people to be happy, override their brains and give them heroin. They’ll be happier than ever. But as a race, is happiness our common goal?
People fight each other, because of the concept that we are different. That we are objects separate from one another.
So you say we’re not separate objects. Pardon this question, but does mean that when I’m getting laid I’m actually masturbating?
Whenever a interpretation makes more sense than the actual reality, I’ll choose the interpretation, but only when it comes to objects and as said only if it makes more sense. There’s indeed a lot of stuff in this world we simply agreed upon looking at in a certain way. The color blue will always be defined as blue, just like a spoon will always be defined as a spoon. Obviously unless we somehow loose this information (think of archaeologists finding ancient tools in the future not knowing what they once were).
What sense does it make to think of a spoon as a bunch of atoms or whatever together making a fancy shape, when what really matters is how we can use it?
I think the only way we can know that our reality is real is by interacting with it on all levels, but since we can only use our senses to perceive, what’s the point of wanting to rationalize or define ‘what’s beyond that’. I have to agree with bigbossSNK on this point.
And what’s the point in living and interacting with objects? What’s the sense of building new things using interpretations?
hello mister marcinkowvski. from your posts I can say that you must read Douglas Hofstadter’s book GEB if you haven’t already. it will blow your mind:
http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567
Cosmin: I also like mans ability to build houses on trees. What I’m saying is that this is not the only reality. After a day of work you can stop thinking like this and just chill. I just believe the world would be a better place if people stopped using unnecesary symbolism and objectification.
archont: Gonna read that in a minute.
Daniel: Absolutely no point, that’s the funny part:).
xo, Bo: Yeah I know that book and I know it will blow my mind, I just cant find it anywhere other than on amazon :).
bigbossSNK : there is a primary misconception here.
If you are making a 1:1 correspondence function, you are making it between 1 object and another. The relation between a neural network and something in ultimate reality is only true in an objectifiable universe. The universe is objectified by the brain. There might but probably aren’t any objects in physical reality, everything is more like a soup of energy, but that’s also an interpretation. What I want to say is that you are making a correspondence function between 1 MENTAL object and another MENTAL object.
Where’s your so called physical reality?
Chakra: I smoke purely symbolic weed.
archont: And who said humanity should live in happiness and joy?
I didn’t say that, all I’m saying is that humanity shouldn’t suffer, absolutely no reason for it, it’s not the same as happiness.
And please, compare the living conditions of people 10000 years ago and the conditions today. They improved so much so, yet people are probably sadder than ever. It’s because no matter how much we have, we will never have enough, we will never be happy with what we have.
Thank you for expanding my point. This sadness is there exactly because people think about the world in terms of objects, in terms of having them and not having. What if there are no objects, everything just is, you can’t have anything because there is nothing to obtain. You are born, you die. Dust to dust. The world you were experiencing was a temporal illusion in which you were fooled into thinking there were “things”. Not only things like the computer in front of you, but stuff like happiness and suffering.
So you say we’re not separate objects. Pardon this question, but does mean that when I’m getting laid I’m actually masturbating?
If that’s what you like :p
Thank you for expanding my point.
That’s the problem at hand, and I’m glad we agree on it. Now, what’s the solution?
I’ll expand on it even more. Our society is jumping into the abyss of liberalism. Being free in the “do whacha wanna do” meaning of the word doesn’t create happiness. It leads to the destruction of values that hold society together and eventually nihilism.
But your thinking? Saying there is nothing? No happiness? No objects? Nothing to have, nothing to feel, and that all this is an illusion?
There are two ways a man can react. The optimist will see endless opportunities, see this as a chance to play a game that will not matter in the end, such a man will shrug off failure and laugh at all drama. The pessimist will see no sense in playing an illusion, knowing that in fact, it is all but an illusion, and fall into nihilism.
“you are making a correspondence function between 1 MENTAL object and another MENTAL object.”
You are making a correspondence between sensory input (temperature of the pencil) and a neuronal structure.
If you don’t believe your senses are truthful, I’ve told you again, crosscheck between multiple sensory methods. Hallucinations and illusions operate under a single sensory structure. If you can smell the pen AND see it AND feel pressure when pushing it AND cold AND hear it scratch the surface, your senses are not lying about the pencil.
“What if there are no objects, everything just is, you can’t have anything because there is nothing to obtain.”
In this scenario, you doom yourself to stagnation. Associating a value with a goal and reaching for it is a high level function, something that phenotypically seperates you from an animal. If people fail to use this tool correctly, it’s their own fault, not the tools’.
Without object recognition, you’ll pass through life without changing anything, without affecting anything.
Pathetic.
Hmmm, but I’m starting to see where this is headed, and I really believe that what it’s all about is really another stage of evolution, which probably will never be reached but would be the optimal being: a being without primitive necessities, where you do not need to have sex or to eat or to possess things (which is really nothing more than the finding of methods to get your needs fulfilled, like having a great sportscar to attract women and be able to get layed every night or to feel the adrenalin rush).
So maybe it wouldnt be pathetic really, since maybe the real ending of misery would occure when people will stop fighting for stuff they need, since they wont have any needs anymore. So they’d just hang around in a state in which they could be considered drugged and stoned and high and whatever… and they’d just be happy…
What if that’s the actual solution for happiness? The abolishing of the feeling of needing something…
No, that’s just being lobotomized.
As drugged and happy as you are, you are always at risk of losing your life, because it’s tied to your physical body.
Having a physical body means that physical body can be damaged.
And since you’ll always be tied to a physical body (there is no metaphysics, kids), you might as well have as much fun as you can in it. If that means you have to compete with other people for some resources, so be it.
The next level of evolution is apathy. There are two distinct routes here however. Spiritual apathy as in pure wisdom, and logical apathy, as in cold, calculating, perfect logic. As a civilization, we are without a shade of doubt heading towards logic, increase of IQ.
Apathy means you don’t have a driving force. Apathetic contestants don’t invest in the proceedings, and as such are outperformed by driven participants.
Michal, I’ve read Prometheus Rising and The Four Agreements. Are there any other good books you recommend?
archont: There are two ways a man can react. The optimist will see endless opportunities, see this as a chance to play a game that will not matter in the end, such a man will shrug off failure and laugh at all drama. The pessimist will see no sense in playing an illusion, knowing that in fact, it is all but an illusion, and fall into nihilism.
Yes exactly. Now make your decision. I have made mine.
bigbossSNK: You are making a correspondence between sensory input (temperature of the pencil) and a neuronal structure.?
As I said I don’t believe that there is nothing there. Something is providing this sensory input, but you have no way of saying that it is the pencil. The pencil is just the output in your awareness. But ultimately what is this “pencil” that made these electric signals in your brain? A 1:1 function between sensory input and a neuron structure doesn’t tell us anything about reality, because these two objects are already in the brain. We just know that there is a stimulus.
Cosmin: What if that’s the actual solution for happiness? The abolishing of the feeling of needing something…
I believe that is not the solution for happiness, but for peace. Good enough for me.
Anonymous : Michal, I’ve read Prometheus Rising and The Four Agreements. Are there any other good books you recommend?
Lately I’ve been into the talks of J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, fascinating stuff. Although I’d recommend understanding them both separately first.
bigbossSNK: And since you’ll always be tied to a physical body (there is no metaphysics, kids),
I don’t know if we should go into this :D, but who is it that is tied to a physical body? (assuming there are no metaphysics).
The first definition of apathy from google:
an absence of emotion or enthusiasm
Your driving force may be emotion – knowing that if you don’t finish your work you will be fired, the fear of being fired. However you would be a fool to claim that only pure emotions such as fear of being fired make you do anything.
As for you Michał, you were going to great lengths to prove that we are but backseat drivers of our lives, and the decision isn’t ours at all. So in my fatalistic spirit, the decision isn’t really mine to make.
“The pessimist will see no sense in playing an illusion, knowing that in fact, it is all but an illusion, and fall into nihilism.”
Life isn’t an illusion. As explained above.
“Something is providing this sensory input, but you have no way of saying that it is the pencil”
It’s an answer that provides a 1:1 correspondence. The theoretical structure is both complete and correct. This means it’s a logical proof, and as such you need to attack one of the above elements to disprove it, or deny logic altogether.
“who is it that is tied to a physical body?”
Life.
“You would be a fool to claim that only pure emotions such as fear of being fired make you do anything.”
True, because apathy isn’t about emotions alone. A quick trip to Wikipedia is more informative.
That aside, strip a man of any sense of drive, of accomplishment, of goals, and you get an apathetic man.
i reckon eventually youll go so deep into something you will find something so pure it is made up of nothing but itself.
bigbossSNK:
This means it’s a logical proof, and as such you need to attack one of the above elements to disprove it, or deny logic altogether.
I don’t need to disprove logic. It’s like with the god thing, you can’t disprove its existence cause that doesnt mean anything, maybe you dont have enough data to know for sure. So prove to me that logic is correct.
“who is it that is tied to a physical body?”
Life.
Is my mouse that I’m holding in my hand tied to life cause I’m holding it?
archont: As for you Michał, you were going to great lengths to prove that we are but backseat drivers of our lives, and the decision isn’t ours at all. So in my fatalistic spirit, the decision isn’t really mine to make.
Yes, you can’t will yourself into deciding something. But you can gain more knowledge and once you know certain things there will be no other way than to make a certain decision (or a decision to be made)
kizza: I like that:).
“prove to me that logic is correct.”
Sure. Logic provides a 1:1 correspondence between (what you speculate isn’t) physical reality and the mental structure you’ve created for it. Hence it is the correct theory. It might not be the only correct theory, another equivalent theoretical structure (that also ends up being complete and correct) can exist, but I have better things to do than reinvent the wheel, when the wheel I have already suits all my needs.
“Is my mouse that I’m holding in my hand tied to life cause I’m holding it?”
Life isn’t transmitted by touch.
“You can’t will yourself into deciding something”
Sure you can. You have control over most of your decisions. You might choose not to exercise that control, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have control.
“prove to me that logic is correct.”
Sure. Logic provides a 1:1 correspondence between (what you speculate isn’t) physical reality and the mental structure you’ve created for it. Hence it is the correct theory. It might not be the only correct theory, another equivalent theoretical structure (that also ends up being complete and correct) can exist, but I have better things to do than reinvent the wheel, when the wheel I have already suits all my needs.
You have better things to do? Like try and break other peoples wheels? Maybe your wheel doesn’t suit everybody’s needs.
“You have better things to do?”
Yep.
“Like try and break other peoples wheels?”
Separating truth form fallacy isn’t breaking other people’s wheels.
“Maybe your wheel doesn’t suit everybody’s needs.”
It suits needs pertaining to physical reality. If you want to go beyond physical reality and into metaphysics, that’s a need of yours I’m not interested in.
bigbossSNK : Logic provides a 1:1 correspondence between (what you speculate isn’t) physical reality and the mental structure you’ve created for it.
I don’t get it, so? That is your mental structure, it doesn’t fit mine, mine does not fit yours. Where is the truth?
“Where is the truth?”
That thoroughly depends on what truth you’re talking about.
You claim to agree with the existence of physical reality. I’ve proposed science as a tool that explains / predicts it, within self defined limitations, from how you do your taxes to how stars are formed.
Claiming naivety over science’s efficiency isn’t winning your argument any points.
And, as science has cornered the market on physical reality, you’re free to go beyond it, into metaphysics, just like ignorant people several thousand years ago.
Im am the only reality, and everything else is the product of my imagination trying to fool me from realising this truth.
OMG erh i mean
Nooooo !!!!
[i]Im am the only reality, and everything else is the product of my imagination trying to fool me from realising this truth.[/i]
Nope, you are only a product of MY imagination. Get over with it.
So if we look deeper and deeper in atoms and eventually notice, that everything is based on nothing, 0.
If we look from this nothing, 0, it can create atoms and everything, to infinite. But no matter how many 0’s you add to 0, you can’t get to infinite. Not even to 1.
So if nothing, 0, is real, everything is an illusion, not real, based on nothing, 0.
But if nothing, 0, is not real, then everything is real.
So the big question is: Are we real or illusion?
Did I get it right?
Nope. Going deeper and deeper in the structure of reality doesn’t lead to 0.
The most acceptable scientific approach is that eventually you reach a probability wave-function. Wave-functions then interact to create reality.
So your premise is incorrect.
bigbossSNK: wait, wait. You are working on an assumption that there is a physical reality (me too but I’m not devoted to this idea). Now you construct ways of thinking like logic and scientific reasoning that are built and restrained within the system, a system of thought. That system exists on the assumption that there is a physical reality and we can discover what it is. Now, you can’t prove its existence using a method created within the system. You can’t prove reality by logic because logic exists based on the assumption that you’re trying to prove! Nonsense. So how do you prove something for sure?
Espressokuppi: The question is, what is nothing? Surely it is something?
“probability wave-function”
Me dumb. Me use google.
->
Quantum physics? I haven’t studied that (I know just a little basic stuff about it). Could you please use some more common terms? Not all in this blog understand too sophisticated words.
Trying to search more…
“The question is, what is nothing? Surely it is something?”
I’ll think about it.
Nothing is… Something we call as nothing? Like object? Argh. I am still in the system.
Espressokuppi> google string theory
Thank you Daniel! Dimensions… Fascinating.
Lots of info in wikipedia, but one line caught my eye:
“Usually, the term string theory includes a group of related superstring theories and a few related frameworks such as M-theory, which seeks to unite them all.”
M-theory… And in this blog we have MM-theory, which does not seem to unite us… At least yet
“That system exists on the assumption that there is a physical reality and we can discover what it is.”
No. Logic isn’t ontologically linked to any physical reality. Much like abstract math doesn’t necessarily refer to a physical reality, or super string theory predicts more than four dimensions.
As such, logic is a tool of prediction for reality, and upon the actualization of that prediction, both reality AND logic are validated.
“So how do you prove something for sure?”
Logic.
So logical proof about reality is:
X and Y implies Z
Z = physical reality exists
X and Y are objects from the physical reality or not. But you don’t know if they exist in the first place because that is exactly what you’re trying to prove! You can’t prove something not being sure if that is true, if you’re not sure you are using an assumption. An assumption that you can’t prove to me.
“So logical proof about reality is:”
Logical tools applied upon a subset of the (physical) world are complete and correct in predicting it.
Logical tools applied upon the whole of the (physical) world are complete and correct in predicting it.
Having run out of places to hide (as I’ve encompassed the whole set), logic is enough to predict and explain the world. Logic also predicts that it’s a physical world we’re talking about.
QED
“You can’t use the existence of logical statements as a premise, because that is the premise you want to prove”
I’m not using their existence (within a physical world) as a premise. Only their ability to make correct and complete predictions.
I’m not disagreeing that you can’t predict using logic. But prediction doesn’t tell us anything about the nature of existence.
Logic and scientific reasoning always work until there is an exception. This exception is usually ignored, but I see this as a fault of the entire system.
For example mathematics: everything is fine and dandy, we can add, multiply, divide any number except making a division by 0. Now why is that? I thought mathematics is supposed to be beautiful, a rule like that is just ugly. It’s like saying you can do whatever you like, but you can’t eat the forbidden fruit. The system is useful, mathematics predicts a lot of phenomena, but in its essence it is a mind construct, and time will tell that it is faulty, just like the mind. This might happen in a 1000 years but it will prove itself insufficient and plainly wrong. That is why I don’t believe in anything, because everything is a mind construct, exceptions are everywhere, just learn to question not to ignore.
“Why can’t I divide by zero?”
You can divide by zero. It’s just that the answer to that question is undefined within basic algebra. Some flavors of abstract algebra provide a value for the operation. Where one formal system is faulty, other formal systems can be useful.
“That is why I don’t believe in anything, because everything is a mind construct that will fail”
If one formal system fails, use another formal system. Disavowing all formal systems because one of them has limitations is a logical mistake.
“just learn to question not to ignore.”
Scientists don’t ignore. If they do, they aren’t operating as scientists.
bigbossSNK,
You can’t prove your senses are real using only your senses.
Not beliving in anything doesn’t mean disavowing all formal systems. You can play a game knowing (or believing) it’s not real.
Supposing one day people make a perfect reality simulator and put someone into this, it will appear to the person that his world is real and even if there are some bugs in it he will find an equation or system that will make it reasonable for him. But will his world be real?
“You can’t prove your senses are real using only your senses”
That’s why I also told you to use your frigging noggin.
“Not believing in anything doesn’t mean disavowing all formal systems”
True. And as I never contested this, superfluous.
“You can play a game knowing (or believing) it’s not real”
Your belief has no control over the existence of physical reality.
“Supposing one day people make a perfect reality simulator”
A perfect simulator of reality can not exist, as I’ve explained elsewhere on this blog. Feel free to trump my argument against the possible existence of the Matrix.
“A perfect simulator of reality can not exist, as I’ve explained elsewhere on this blog.”
What if the “real” world is more complex than this one and we are only it’s simple simulation or something?
simplified*
“What if the “real” world is more complex than this one and we are only it’s simplified simulation?”
Even if a universe were to exist, in which physical laws are completely different than our universe’s, you are still only tied down to the laws of our universe.
Without proof of the two universes interacting, your claim is arbitrary and can convince no thinking man.
I’m not trying to convince anyone, just trying to show you that you can’t be sure that physical reality is real. It could be dream, simulation or whatever you call it.
And I’ve explained why reality isn’t a dream, an illusion, a delusion or a simulation.
Search for those words within the blog if you want to learn the truth about reality. Else, remain ignorant.
bigbossSNK: If one formal system fails, use another formal system.
I disavow all formal systems because they are a product of the human mind. The human mind is faulty by nature and I believe it can’t even approximate reality.
And I’ve explained why reality isn’t a dream, an illusion, a delusion or a simulation.
Your arguments did not convince anyone, except yourself. Try a different approach.
Scientists don’t ignore. If they do, they aren’t operating as scientists.
The scientists that don’t ignore have their funds cut off because they come up with contradictory or simply outrageous conclusions and theories. If you want to stay in the business of being a scientist you must follow the mainstream. It is like everything, money-driven.
“The human mind is faulty by nature and I believe it can’t even approximate reality.”
If you start off on an arbitrary basis, you are arbitratily excluding a subset of reality.
Consider this. If you arbitrarily convince yourself there are only positive numbers, you are automatically excluding negative numbers. You can still do basic algebra, but you limit your scope unnecessarily.
“Your arguments did not convince anyone, except yourself. Try a different approach”
Complete and correct logical arguments fail to convince only blockheads. I’m not about to change my methods for the emotional validation of blockheads.
“The scientists that don’t ignore have their funds cut off because they come up with contradictory or simply outrageous conclusions and theories”
As clearly evidenced by Newton, Einstein, Curie, Schroedinger, etc. etc. That kind of outrageous I can live with.
“If you want to stay in the business of being a scientist you must follow the mainstream.”
I am being partially funded for my research. If I can get the full fund for my PhD, that would be kick ass.
Einstein was intelligent enough to know that his own theory is wrong that is why for the rest of his days he tried to make a unified theory of everything. But the world sort of picked his theory up as if it was the holy grail and the answer to all cosmological events. It is like this with every scientific theory. The deeper you study science and question it, the deeper into the rabbit hole you go. Show me any scientific theory that doesn’t have holes in it, doesn’t have certain aspects that are simply ignored. Our understanding of the world is a clever faccade hiding the truth. What is your area of interest, your research?
“Einstein was intelligent enough to know that his own theory is wrong, that is why for the rest of his days he tried to make a unified theory of everything.”
No. He knew it was incomplete, because quantum mechanics was formulated. His theory is deterministic, whereas the latter is probabilistic.
“Show me any scientific theory that doesn’t have holes in it, doesn’t have certain aspects that are simply ignored.”
What you call “ignoring” is part of the formulations of science. The boundaries within which theories work are part of the theory itself. Certainly, there are holes in theories, but that just means a better theory needs to be found, it isn’t proof that one doesn’t exist.
“What is your area of interest, your research?”
That’s personal information, and you haven’t earned the right to it yet.
I don’t have to earn anything from you, I was just making conversation. Goodbye.
Don’t get your panties all in a twist. I’m not being a snob, I just told you I don’t convey personal information until I’ve got something to gain from it (a closer to 1:1 correspondence to reality)
jesus christ mm get back to making games
Seems to me Michal’s goal is not ultimately to undermine what we know as physical reality. Rather, he’s trying to get down to truth. If what we think of as reality is just a creation of our minds, rather than absolute reality, there can be no truth.
Truth is the relationship between thought and reality, and if thought creates reality, there is no absolute truth. And if there is no absolute truth, there is no standard against which good and bad, right and wrong, can be judged.
Judgment is a very unpopular notion these days, and this post is a good illustration of the lengths to which people will go to avoid it.
Do not think of sticking the pencil in your ***. I AM THE GREATEST.