The Totality

What you think about how you think.
Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:45 pm

As I have said before, my position is that the correct definition of a 'thing' is a 'solely self-inclusive form'. That is to say, a 'thing' is a form that does not include in it's own existence any other forms that lie beyond it's own physical boundaries.

However, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a conscious brain) can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not that conscious brain', and are necessarily comprised of 'other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other things', and are necessarily comprised of 'other other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present....and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, the 'conscious brain' in question could not possibly exist in exactly the way that it does without the ENTIRETY of 'not that conscious brain' (which is, in this context, most accurately defined as the all-inclusive and as such fundamentally singular and ultimately boundless presence that lies beyond that 'conscious brain') existing in exactly the way that it is.

In this way, 'the conscious brain' and 'not that conscious brain' are shown to be an absolutely inseparable pair of opposites, which (like ALL such pairs) is inextricably indicative of a 'deeper' (and MORE ACTUAL) Reality that is itself fundamentally seamless and as such completely devoid of BOTH. Therefore, it isn't actually true that there exists EITHER a 'conscious brain' OR 'not that conscious brain', that are intrinsically different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they SEEM to be. EXACTLY the same is true of ALL so-called 'particular things', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You').

In truth, both of these 'two' are absolutely equal. That is, equally non-existent. NEITHER are fundamentally Here. They are both 'apparent parts' of what IS fundamentally Here.

In truth, there are no REAL things (not even conscious or unconscious brains).

In truth, It's all one, and that one isn't 'something'. That one is the 'dynamic fractal asymmetry' that 'we' call 'the universe'.

The universe is the way it is because the structure that it has is the only possible structure that does not require energy in order to arise.

One way or the other, just as much as the universe naturally includes consciousness, consciousness naturally includes the universe.
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:37 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7643
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The Totality

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:27 am

Did I miss a question? I certainly hope not. All done here.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:24 am

.
Last edited by Angel on Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:51 am

Relinquish85 wrote:As I have said before, my position is that the correct definition of a 'thing' is a 'solely self-inclusive form'.
We clearly proved that your position was incorrect. Therefore there is no point continuing a discussion predicated on incorrect information.


"Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:37 am, edited 4 times in total."

It is clear you are making up stuff as you go. I strongly suggest you go talk to one of your personal friends and explain what you are claiming to them. Once you have formed a cohesive argument, that your own friend understands, then post it on this forum. To do otherwise is wasting our time.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:As I have said before, my position is that the correct definition of a 'thing' is a 'solely self-inclusive form'.
We clearly proved that your position was incorrect. Therefore there is no point continuing a discussion predicated on incorrect information.


"Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:37 am, edited 4 times in total."

It is clear you are making up stuff as you go. I strongly suggest you go talk to one of your personal friends and explain what you are claiming to them. Once you have formed a cohesive argument, that your own friend understands, then post it on this forum. To do otherwise is wasting our time.


The edits are just for the sake of clear wording.

What do you think the correct definition of a 'thing' is?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:12 am

Relinquish85 wrote: What do you think the correct definition of a 'thing' is?
It depends on what thing you are assessing, doesn't it?

A cubic centimetre of carbon would be 175 642 000 000 000 000 000 000 carbon atoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

Do you know what an atom is?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:26 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: What do you think the correct definition of a 'thing' is?
It depends on what thing you are assessing, doesn't it?

A cubic centimetre of carbon would be 175 642 000 000 000 000 000 000 carbon atoms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

Do you know what an atom is?


Yes Matt. I know what an atom is.

That's not what I'm asking though. I'm asking you how you would define the word 'thing', as in, the universe is a vast multiplicity and diversity of 'things'.

I've given my definition, and while you have told me it is incorrect, you are yet to explain why.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:48 am

Relinquish85 wrote:That's not what I'm asking though. I'm asking you how you would define the word 'thing', as in, the universe is a vast multiplicity and diversity of 'things'.


"Thing" : "some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described"


Relinquish85 wrote:I've given my definition, and while you have told me it is incorrect, you are yet to explain why.
"thing" already has a definition.

You have already destroyed your own claims. You claimed that your renamed "God" (Universal consciousness) cannot interact with the real universe or anything in it. Therefore, if your imaginary "God doesn't interact with anything in the universe........we don't have to worry about it.....because it doesn't exist.

Rather than continue to waste our time, I ask you to read this link. What is the difference between your non-interacting "God" and Bertrand Russell's teapot?

Bertrand Russell's Teapot / Scientific logic
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Totality

Postby Gord » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:11 am

Relinquish85 wrote:However, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a conscious brain) can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not that conscious brain', and are necessarily comprised of 'other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other things', and are necessarily comprised of 'other other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present....and so on, ad infinitum.

Let me get this straight: If I have an apple (a 'particular thing'), then that apple can ONLY exist if ALL other things ALSO exist? So, if I eat this banana, does that apple cease to exist?

Relinquish85 wrote:What do you think the correct definition of a 'thing' is?

A 'thing' is a human constructed definition of a section of reality which may or may not have regularly defined parameters. For instance, an 'apple' is a 'thing' because it appears to be an object to the human mind. A 'thought' is also a 'thing' for the same reason. We categorise 'things' in this way so that we can understand the reality around us in our own unique human ways. We find it necessary to define edges so that we can manipulate 'things' around us, whether physically or mentally. For instance, when an 'apple' is growing on a 'tree', we perceive a boundary edge between the 'apple' and the 'tree' even though the two 'things' are connected in a way which we might otherwise consider to make them a single object. We do this because we perceive different uses for an 'apple' and a 'tree'. Likewise, we perceive a 'thought' as a 'thing' so that we can discuss it, consider it, or otherwise involve ourselves with it as a mental construct.

Also, the Thing is a big orange guy made out of rock who likes to shout, "It's clobberin' time!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8DTgLhUdc

I think it's important to make that distinction.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:That's not what I'm asking though. I'm asking you how you would define the word 'thing', as in, the universe is a vast multiplicity and diversity of 'things'.


"Thing" : "some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described"


Relinquish85 wrote:I've given my definition, and while you have told me it is incorrect, you are yet to explain why.
"thing" already has a definition.

You have already destroyed your own claims. You claimed that your renamed "God" (Universal consciousness) cannot interact with the real universe or anything in it. Therefore, if your imaginary "God doesn't interact with anything in the universe........we don't have to worry about it.....because it doesn't exist.

Rather than continue to waste our time, I ask you to read this link. What is the difference between your non-interacting "God" and Bertrand Russell's teapot?

Bertrand Russell's Teapot / Scientific logic
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


Believe it or not, Bertrand Russell is one of my favorite philosophers, so I'll definitely give that a read.

With this thread, however, I've completely shifted gears. Universal Consciousness is NOT the focus here.

I'm trying to get at what a 'thing' (whatever the thing is) ACTUALLY is, in reality.

To say that a 'thing' is "some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described" is really saying nothing at all, because these all just different kinds of 'things'.

Any particular form that has been categorized as a entity, object, or creature is treated as a form that does not include in it's own existence any other forms that lie beyond it's own physical boundaries. However, as I showed in the OP, this simply isn't the case for any form in the universe.

In Reality, there AREN'T any 'things'. That doesn't mean to say that Reality is perfectly featureless blank.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:39 am

1) "God"
Relinquish85 wrote:Believe it or not, Bertrand Russell is one of my favorite philosophers, so I'll definitely give that a read.
You didn't answer my question. What is the difference between Bertrand Russell's teapot and your re-named "God" Universal consciousness? Obviously there is no difference because neither the teapot or your "God" exists, nor does either interact with the Universe. :D



2) "Things"
Relinquish85 wrote:I'm trying to get at what a 'thing' (whatever the thing is) ACTUALLY is, in reality.
What were the very first things to exist in the universe?
Protons, Neutrons and Hadrons.

What are the four forces that allowed these things to interact with other things in the universe?
gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear

Now describe your "god" or definition of "things" using these actual real tangible things at the first hundredth of a second of the Universe's existence.

Relinquish85 wrote:In Reality, there AREN'T any 'things'.
No. You now know that is 100% wrong. :D

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7643
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The Totality

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:36 am

Damn... that thing is still here. :cry:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:53 pm

.
Last edited by Angel on Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Totality

Postby Lausten » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:59 pm

A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:20 pm

Gord wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:However, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a conscious brain) can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not that conscious brain', and are necessarily comprised of 'other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other things', and are necessarily comprised of 'other other things', ALL of which can ONLY exist if the right conditions are present....and so on, ad infinitum.

Let me get this straight: If I have an apple (a 'particular thing'), then that apple can ONLY exist if ALL other things ALSO exist? So, if I eat this banana, does that apple cease to exist?

Relinquish85 wrote:What do you think the correct definition of a 'thing' is?

A 'thing' is a human constructed definition of a section of reality which may or may not have regularly defined parameters. For instance, an 'apple' is a 'thing' because it appears to be an object to the human mind. A 'thought' is also a 'thing' for the same reason. We categorise 'things' in this way so that we can understand the reality around us in our own unique human ways. We find it necessary to define edges so that we can manipulate 'things' around us, whether physically or mentally. For instance, when an 'apple' is growing on a 'tree', we perceive a boundary edge between the 'apple' and the 'tree' even though the two 'things' are connected in a way which we might otherwise consider to make them a single object. We do this because we perceive different uses for an 'apple' and a 'tree'. Likewise, we perceive a 'thought' as a 'thing' so that we can discuss it, consider it, or otherwise involve ourselves with it as a mental construct.

Also, the Thing is a big orange guy made out of rock who likes to shout, "It's clobberin' time!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8DTgLhUdc

I think it's important to make that distinction.


The only way to make your apple OR banana cease from having ever existed is to make the entire universe cease from having ever existed (no small feat).

I agree 100% with the rest of your post, as that is PRECISELY what I was trying to say. I would suggest that your apple tree analogy can be directly applied to the entire universe, in the following way;

For instance, when a 'conscious brain' is growing in the 'universe', we perceive a boundary edge between the 'conscious brain' and the 'universe' even though the two 'things' are connected in a way which we might otherwise consider to make them a single object.

The only changes I would make is to substitute the word 'things' for the word 'processes' and the words 'single object' for the words 'single process'.

You can also substitute 'conscious brain' for any other 'thing' you can conceive, and the statement will remain true.
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:55 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:1) "God"
Relinquish85 wrote:Believe it or not, Bertrand Russell is one of my favorite philosophers, so I'll definitely give that a read.
You didn't answer my question. What is the difference between Bertrand Russell's teapot and your re-named "God" Universal consciousness? Obviously there is no difference because neither the teapot or your "God" exists, nor does either interact with the Universe. :D



2) "Things"
Relinquish85 wrote:I'm trying to get at what a 'thing' (whatever the thing is) ACTUALLY is, in reality.
What were the very first things to exist in the universe?
Protons, Neutrons and Hadrons.

What are the four forces that allowed these things to interact with other things in the universe?
gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear

Now describe your "god" or definition of "things" using these actual real tangible things at the first hundredth of a second of the Universe's existence.

Relinquish85 wrote:In Reality, there AREN'T any 'things'.
No. You now know that is 100% wrong. :D


The three elementary particle types and four forces that you named were (and are) just different facets of the single process we call the universe. None of them could have existed without all the others existing. Each one includes the existence of all the others in it's own existence. They are not 'things'. That is to say, they are not 'soley self-inclusive forms'.

Most fundamentally, the single (apparently multi-faceted) process is all that is REALLY there.

As 'word salady' as we ALL know it sounds, I would describe the process as a whole as a 'dynamic fractal asymmetry'.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: What were the very first things to exist in the universe?
Protons, Neutrons and Hadrons.

What are the four forces that allowed these things to interact with other things in the universe? : gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear

Now describe your "god" or definition of "things" using these actual real tangible things at the first hundredth of a second of the Universe's existence.


Relinquish85 wrote:The three elementary particle types and four forces that you named were (and are) just different facets of the single process we call the universe.
The universe is not a single process. Try again.

Relinquish85 wrote: None of them could have existed without all the others existing.
Complete crap. They were individual quarks that could no longer exist once the universe underwent the process of cooling down.

Answer my question. What is the difference between Russell Bertrand's Teapot and your "god" (universal consciousness)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:33 am

Relinquish85 wrote:You can also substitute 'conscious brain' for any other 'thing' you can conceive, and the statement will remain true.
I conceive a hydrogen atom.

Now explain how this hydrogen atom is a conscious brain?

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: What were the very first things to exist in the universe?
Protons, Neutrons and Hadrons.

What are the four forces that allowed these things to interact with other things in the universe? : gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear

Now describe your "god" or definition of "things" using these actual real tangible things at the first hundredth of a second of the Universe's existence.


Relinquish85 wrote:The three elementary particle types and four forces that you named were (and are) just different facets of the single process we call the universe.
The universe is not a single process. Try again.

Relinquish85 wrote: None of them could have existed without all the others existing.
Complete crap. They were individual quarks that could no longer exist once the universe underwent the process of cooling down.

Answer my question. What is the difference between Russell Bertrand's Teapot and your "god" (universal consciousness)


The human mind conceptually divides the universe (the dynamic fractal asymmetry) into multiple processes with different names. These divisions are simply not present outside of conceptualization.

All those individual quarks were different facets of the one process. The process of cooling down was a particular phase of that one process.
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:You can also substitute 'conscious brain' for any other 'thing' you can conceive, and the statement will remain true.
I conceive a hydrogen atom.

Now explain how this hydrogen atom is a conscious brain?


It isn't, and I didn't say that. I used 'conscious brain' as an example of a form that isn't 'soley self-inclusive' in reality. It, along with all other forms, is one of the many different facets of this one, fundamentally undivided 'dynamic fractal asymmetry' we call the universe.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Answer my question. What is the difference between Russell Bertrand's Teapot and your "god" (universal consciousness)
Relinquish85 wrote:The human mind conceptually divides the universe (the dynamic fractal asymmetry) into multiple processes with different names. These divisions are simply not present outside of conceptualization.


That claim is complete gibberish. :lol:

Firstly, humans are only 195,000 year old. Are you now claiming your "god" is only 195,000 years old?

Secondly, the universe is not fractal and I have no idea what "dynamic fractal asymmetry" is regarding physics and the universe. Can you link me to any science paper that claims that?

Thirdly, you haven't conceptualised anything. A concept, like a hypothesis requires that you offer some sort of mechanism, which you have avoided doing, since joining the forum.

In summary, you are simply a religious person who is asserting that there is a god that can't be detected and cannot interact with the universe on any level. You may as well assert that there is a flying teapot, like Bertrand Russell. :lol:

I strongly suggest you relocate to a religious forum.

teapot.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: Answer my question. What is the difference between Russell Bertrand's Teapot and your "god" (universal consciousness)
Relinquish85 wrote:The human mind conceptually divides the universe (the dynamic fractal asymmetry) into multiple processes with different names. These divisions are simply not present outside of conceptualization.


That claim is complete gibberish. :lol:

Firstly, humans are only 195,000 year old. Are you now claiming your "god" is only 195,000 years old?

Secondly, the universe is not fractal and I have no idea what "dynamic fractal asymmetry" is regarding physics and the universe. Can you link me to any science paper that claims that?

Thirdly, you haven't conceptualised anything. A concept, like a hypothesis requires that you offer some sort of mechanism, which you have avoided doing, since joining the forum.

In summary, you are simply a religious person who is asserting that there is a god that can't be detected and cannot interact with the universe on any level. You may as well assert that there is a flying teapot, like Bertrand Russell. :lol:

I strongly suggest you relocate to a religious forum.


Where are these divisions in the actual universe, OUTSIDE of conceptualization?
Last edited by Relinquish85 on Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:45 am

Relinquish85 wrote:Where (are ?) these divisions in the actual universe, OUTSIDE of conceptualization?

There are no "divisions" in the universe. There are particles and waveforms caused by inflation in the nano seconds after the big bang.

These particles and waveforms are not "gods", nor are they conscious. You keep avoiding that basic fact.


"Gods" and "God" are a fictional invention from the evolved species, homo sapiens, that only occurred over the last 20,000 years. The universe is 14 billion years old.

Teapot 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:51 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:Where (are ?) these divisions in the actual universe, OUTSIDE of conceptualization?

There are no "divisions" in the universe. There are particles and waveforms caused by inflation in the nano seconds after the big bang.

These particles and waveforms are not "gods", nor are they conscious. You keep avoiding that basic fact.


"Gods" and "God" are a fictional invention from the evolved species, homo sapiens, that only occurred over the last 20,000 years. The universe is 14 billion years old.

Teapot 2.jpg


I accept all that. Where are all these 'things' that you are so sure really exist in the actual universe, OUTSIDE of conceptualization? Where are all the different processes?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:24 am

Relinquish85 wrote: Where are all these 'things' that you are so sure really exist in the actual universe, OUTSIDE of conceptualization?
Like what? An electron? A proton? There are thousands of scientific experiments confirming that these particles exist and interact with other particles and waveforms in the universe.

( Do you know what the Large Hardon Collider collides?.) :D

There is no evidence or even a conceptualised hypothesis, that your "God" (Universal Consciousness) exists or even interacts with the universe. You may as well say "Bertrand's teapot" or "invisible green cosmic monkey".

Relinquish85 wrote: Where are all the different processes?
OK. Let's start with heat (thermal energy). Do you know what causes heat? It is atoms and molecules in motion.

That is just one process going on in the universe. How is that established and proven process connected to your "God" if you claim your "God" doesn't even interact with the universe? Can you see how flawed your logic is? :D

tea pot 3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:55 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote: Where are all these 'things' that you are so sure really exist in the actual universe, OUTSIDE of conceptualization?
Like what? An electron? A proton? There are thousands of scientific experiments confirming that these particles exist and interact with other particles and waveforms in the universe.

( Do you know what the Large Hardon Collider collides?.) :D

There is no evidence or even a conceptualised hypothesis, that your "God" (Universal Consciousness) exists or even interacts with the universe. You may as well say "Bertrand's teapot" or "invisible green cosmic monkey".

Relinquish85 wrote: Where are all the different processes?
OK. Let's start with heat (thermal energy). Do you know what causes heat? It is atoms and molecules in motion.

That is just one process going on in the universe. How is that established and proven process connected to your "God" if you claim your "God" doesn't even interact with the universe? Can you see how flawed your logic is? :D

tea pot 3.jpg


If "there are no "divisions" in the universe" as you correctly assert, then how can there be different things and processes in the universe?

How is an undivided universe NOT a single process?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:24 am

Relinquish85 wrote:If "there are no "divisions" in the universe" as you correctly assert, then how can there be different things and processes in the universe?
The universe is not divided. The universe is homogeneous. The various particles and wave-forms, that exist within the universe, behave in exactly the same way, in all parts of the universe. This is really basic science.

Now stop avoiding my question : What is the difference between Bertrand Russell's teapot and your "God" you renamed "Universal Consciousness"?

If you don't directly answer this question this time I will stop responding in this thread and assume you are simply a religious person spreading nonsensical religious propaganda on a science forum. .

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:35 am

Relinquish85 wrote:How is an undivided universe NOT a single process?
Is the process of curved space (gravity) the same process as thermal energy (heat) ?

Are the various different valencies of different atoms ( chemistry) the same process as kinetic energy of particles with mass (momentum)?

Is special relativity ( speed of light) the same process as iron oxidation (rust forming)?

Stop making up crap and wasting my time.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:09 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:If "there are no "divisions" in the universe" as you correctly assert, then how can there be different things and processes in the universe?
The universe is not divided. The universe is homogeneous. The various particles and wave-forms, that exist within the universe, behave in exactly the same way, in all parts of the universe. This is really basic science.

Now stop avoiding my question : What is the difference between Bertrand Russell's teapot and your "God" you renamed "Universal Consciousness"?

If you don't directly answer this question this time I will stop responding in this thread and assume you are simply a religious person spreading nonsensical religious propaganda on a science forum. .


Ok. The reason I started this new thread on a different track (not referring to any form of divinity) is because I have actually taken your point that since I can't meet my burden of proof, it's entirely pointless to assert that it exists at all, especially since this is, after all, a science forum.

Now, back on topic.

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:17 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Relinquish85 wrote:How is an undivided universe NOT a single process?
Is the process of curved space (gravity) the same process as thermal energy (heat) ?

Are the various different valencies of different atoms ( chemistry) the same process as kinetic energy of particles with mass (momentum)?

Is special relativity ( speed of light) the same process as iron oxidation (rust forming)?

Stop making up crap and wasting my time.


Can you give me a good reason not to view all these as different facets and phases of a single process? I realize they are all different, but none of them could possibly go on outside of the context in which they are found, which includes all the others going on.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Totality

Postby Lausten » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:44 pm

Relinquish85 wrote:Can you give me a good reason not to view all these as different facets and phases of a single process? I realize they are all different, but none of them could possibly go on outside of the context in which they are found, which includes all the others going on.

You can view the universe however you want. But you can apply properties of separate things to it. It doesn't function like those other things. You asked about things and you avoided the answers. You are also avoiding questions about viewing the universe as something by avoiding using certain words, but now you're trying to slip back into that.

We only have the one universe to observe. We can't see outside of it. But you want to treat it as if you have it in a jar somewhere. How do you know what laws there are outside the universe? How do you know what is possible outside of "the context in which they are found"?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:33 pm

Does natural light have memory &
consciousness ?

I was looking into the sun. Yes ~ right
into it with my bare eyes. I can do that.
hehe The colour and all that matter goes
away. I saw the pure white light. There
was nothing there so I looked up light.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
Where does white light become matter
in the universe? In the water? Water defies
Gravity so is the light loosing it's pressure?
What is the sun really made of? Is it like
the stars ~ already all gone except the fire?
Is there light in the black holes?
Where does the ~ new heaven and the new
earth come from?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Are the various different valencies of different atoms ( chemistry) the same process as kinetic energy of particles with mass (momentum)?

Is special relativity ( speed of light) the same process as iron oxidation (rust forming)?
Relinquish85 wrote:Can you give me a good reason not to view all these as different facets and phases of a single process?
Yes. They are not part of "one" process and you have completely failed to set out what this "one" process is, that you claim all these things belong to.

Secondly, all these known individual processes, can be measured, defined or turned into pragmatic predictive tools (functions or equations) that actually work. You are religiously claiming a banana and special relativity are all the same process simply because they exist in one universe created by your "God".

You really need to relocate to a religious forum. :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:15 am

Angel wrote:In God I Trust.
.....go away and stop trolling our science forum.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:47 am

Angel wrote: Water defies gravity so is the light loosing it's pressure?
Water does not defy gravity.
Angel wrote: What is the sun really made of? Is it like the stars?
The sun is a star.

Science for five year olds : What is a star?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FB0rDsR_rc

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:38 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Water defies gravity so is the light loosing it's pressure?
Water does not defy gravity.
Angel wrote: What is the sun really made of? Is it like the stars?
The sun is a star.

Science for five year olds : What is a star?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FB0rDsR_rc


Where does rain come from then?
Water goes up then comes down.
Does no water leave our atmosphere ever?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: The Totality

Postby Angel » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:40 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:In God I Trust.
.....go away and stop trolling our science forum.


What use is your posting this?
U know I am perrrrsisTant. :-)
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10532
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The Totality

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:25 pm

Angel wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Water defies gravity so is the light loosing it's pressure?
Water does not defy gravity.
Angel wrote: What is the sun really made of? Is it like the stars?
The sun is a star.

Science for five year olds : What is a star?
[


Where does rain come from then?

The sky. Water vapor condenses on airborne particles of dust. When enough has condensed that it loses its ability to stay up, it comes down.
Water goes up then comes down.

Water vapor circulates with air currents. Up down this way that way.
Water itself doesn't (except for a bit of windblown spray). The difference between water and water vapor is the speed of the molecule. Water vapor molecules move fast enough to overcome van der waals forces and can therefore go every which way, while in the liquid form, van der waals forces keep them close together, but not so tightly that they form a crystal lattice.
Does no water leave our atmosphere ever?

Probably some does. It is a heavy molecule, as gas molecules go, so not very much.

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Relinquish85
Poster
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: The Totality

Postby Relinquish85 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:59 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Are the various different valencies of different atoms ( chemistry) the same process as kinetic energy of particles with mass (momentum)?

Is special relativity ( speed of light) the same process as iron oxidation (rust forming)?
Relinquish85 wrote:Can you give me a good reason not to view all these as different facets and phases of a single process?
Yes. They are not part of "one" process and you have completely failed to set out what this "one" process is, that you claim all these things belong to.

Secondly, all these known individual processes, can be measured, defined or turned into pragmatic predictive tools (functions or equations) that actually work. You are religiously claiming a banana and special relativity are all the same process simply because they exist in one universe created by your "God".

You really need to relocate to a religious forum. :D


Well....I HAVE said that all these different 'things' and 'processes' are actually different facets and phases of the universe, which I'm saying is actually one fundamentally undivided process. The big question is "what IS the universe, REALLY?".

The answer to this question can't ever REALLY be put into any symbols (words or numbers) whatsoever. Any attempt to to do this by science, philosophy or religion is utterly doomed to fail. One DOES, however, directly experience the answer to this question every time one is not looking at the universe through the 'lense of the mind'.

I would say the very act of measurement and the assigning of working definitions to the different facets and phases of the universe is precisely what makes it SEEM to be a vast multiplicity and diversity of different things and processes.

From the online etymology dictionay;

Science; from the Latin scientia, present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, to split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate".

I am REALLY NOT religiously claiming that a banana and special relativity are all the same process simply because they exist in one universe created by a "God".

That's just a lie, Matt. Please stop lying. :)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Totality

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:53 am

Angel wrote: Water defies gravity
No it does not.
Angel wrote:Where does rain come from then?
Clouds
Angel wrote: Water goes up then comes down.
No, H2O in gas form goes up and H2O as water comes down. Look up the word "evaporation" and the word "humidity".


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest