God Discovered!

[MagickMonkey]

"We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." - Carl Sagan

Sagan was awesome. He inspired me. I thought his Cosmos series was first class when I was a kid.

 

But I disagree with him here. This is how I'd phrase it...

 

"We wish to obtain understanding, and the potential of that understanding is ALL around us. But to see it, we'll have to ask bold questions, framed in the proper way, then we'll need to have the humility it requires to seek answers instead of assuming we already have them."

 

Something like that anyway.

 

But what if we already do have some answers? And does what you say really contradict what he said?

[Legion]

But what if we already do have some answers?

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and again to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." - Bertrand Russell

 

And does what you say really contradict what he said?

Uh, I think it's certainly a modification. I guess I'd have to talk to Sagan about it.

 

Anybody got a Ouija board?

[MagickMonkey]

But what if we already do have some answers?

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and again to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." - Bertrand Russell

 

 

Challenging one's assumptions is always a healthy thing. (Is that an assumption. ) It's a big part of what lead me to where I'm at, and probably a big part of why I won't stay where I'm at. BTW, for those who remember my political postings several months ago (or maybe more than a year ago? Hmmm) I'm not nearly as libertarian as I once was.

 

 

And does what you say really contradict what he said?

Uh, I think it's certainly a modification. I guess I'd have to talk to Sagan about it.

 

Anybody got a Ouija board?

 

Well, a modification isn't the same as a disagreement.

[Legion]

Well, a modification isn't the same as a disagreement.

Yeah... but, I don't know. I think certain words get too much airtime, so to speak. These days I generally avoid speaking the word "truth" outside of a mathematical context. An understanding is not the same thing as a truth in my assessment.

 

I try not to say "truth" I just try to speak it.

I try not to say "importance", I just try to be relevant.

I try not to say "love" I just try to demonstrate it.

I try not to say "humor", I just fall flat on my face when I attempt it.

etc...

[badpuppy]

Do you accept multiverse theories as legit? It seems a lot of them assume that our laws of physics are not the only laws that can exist, but just the ones in our universe specifically.

 

No, if for no other reason than semantics. If if the universe is the absolute sum of everything, then what people call multiverses would simply be additional dimensions or additional sets of dimensions or forking timelines within the universe.

 

Okay then let's crawl over the semantics. Do you accept theories of additional dimensions as legit? The problem with calling it "additional dimensions" (that we can't see, interact with, or empirically prove to be real) is that it starts sounding VERY much like spirituality, just with less dogma attached.

 

The word "multiverse" can somehow still be used while pretending it's all "materialism" LOL!

 

Yeah, the additional dimension thing can perhaps be considered part of the philosophy of physics rather than the science of physics. It's certainly nothing that's been proven, but seems to fit mathematical models of how the universe might work. If we can make testable predictions, maybe we can make some confirmations, but it's obviously just educated guessing at the moment.

 

Something else I’m thinking about in all this... one “problem” you or others may see with my philosophy is that it isn’t falsifiable using the scientific method. I said sort of tongue-in-cheek in my last post that pretty much nothing science comes up with can upset my apple cart cause I’m on a different grid. But saying that, I recognize some can see that as the “problem” with it.

 

As has already been addressed, science has its own domains and philosophy has its own domains. While I think people shouldn’t just “accept something” just because someone said it if it’s not even falsifiable by the scientific method, I also don’t think it follows that something not falsifiable by that method of inquiry somehow can’t nevertheless be true.

At the same time, I don’t make a truth claim. Not only do I not SAY, I’m right and other people just don’t see it, I don’t even THINK that. It’s what makes the most sense to me, but I also understand I’m limited by my perception and my intellect. (Not saying I’m stupid. I’m saying everyone has a certain level of individual potential in these areas and where it ends is where it ends. You can’t get a person with a 70 IQ to understand ANY of this conversation, for example.) So just because something is illogical to me doesn’t make me right and them wrong. It’s the limits of my perception and intellect. Likewise the same works for others. I “may” be right or “close to right” and someone else will be limited by certain things in their ability to “grasp” that... which would be an arrogant position to have if I thought it somehow just applied to you with regard to my worldview. I think it also applies to me with regard to the worldview of others. But, in spite of that, I pick the working framework that makes the most sense to me.

 

I also understand why “science” is highly resistant to any theory or idea that sounds like “woo”. Science is right to guard its domain like that. Otherwise ANYTHING can call itself a “scientific theory”. And that can lead us right back into the dark ages. I acknowledge and respect that side of things and why there is such a fervent need to hang on to materialism. Without it, it feels like we could accept “anything”.

 

I absolutely don’t want to be lumped in with people who believe in homeopathy. *shudder*. And the “New Age Movement” irks me in many of it’s forms. Often because bizarre truth claims are being made while saying: “Oh, but we aren’t asking you to ‘believe’ in anything... experience it for yourself and see.” That’s all fine and good except that with their “truth claim”, they are trying to control your interpretation of your experience and exploration. And that’s just not okay with me. (I flipped my shit last night and wrote a rant in the rants section about a new age christian book I read... not realizing when I picked it up that it was new age christianity.)

 

Frankly this is the problem I have with ALL forms of fundamentalisms (i.e. I’m right and you’re wrong... just experience it or look at the facts.) Religious people have NO right to interpret your reality for you. Likewise materialists have no right to interpret reality for anyone.

 

What we have is a set of observable facts and experiences. Each person is going to take those and use their own reasoning and their own intuition to determine what makes sense to them. Science can give me a list of facts they’ve gleaned about the consensus reality. Spirituality can give me tools for experience. But only *I* have the right to interpret what any of it means to me.

[badpuppy]

with regards to theories like multiverse, m-theory, string theory, parallel dimensions, holographic universe, etc... most of them are largely mathematical models about realities we cannot personally interact with, perceive, or really "know" to be real. And yet, even if every scientist doesnt' accept them, they are considered "legitimate" inquiries in science.

 

IMO it feels like a bunch of scientists got together and just created some extra universes to put off having to deal with a reality that isn't as boiled down to chemicals as they thought... not realizing these theories themselves aren't exactly "hardcore materialism". It's as if nonmaterialism can now be called materialism as long as we attach lots of theoretical math to it.

Here's my suspcion. It's not that mathematical models are doomed to failure. Science requires mathematical models. But if the math they are using is too impoverished in implication then it won't have much (if any) value in modeling the complexity of nature.

 

I agree. My issue isn't with the math per se. It's that suddenly science is getting highly theoretical (above and beyond the general scientific usage of that term.), to the point that it looks like spirituality using different language. And yet, anytime science and spirituality OPENLY seem to intersect, it's called pseudoscience, but when quantum physics does it, it's called theoretical math.

 

That's my only objection.

 

Of course, to be fair, a lot of what's out there being labeled pseudoscience IS pseudoscience... i.e. the "What the Bleep" nonsense.

 

Also, I can pretty much theoretically accept anything science comes up with. It's impossible to upset an apple cart operating on an entirely different grid. Not that I feel like I have to even resort to that seeing the weird rabbit hole science seems to be dropping us down. Whee. I'm excited for the ride.

 

Well, it's not spirituality. It's simply educated guessing. It's "here's what we see. Let's see if we can try to make sense of it, and then only regard it as proven truth when we can confirm it experimentally".

 

"We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." - Carl Sagan

 

My point was merely that it seems like much of theoretical physics and much of spirituality are describing the same perceptual reality with different vocabularies.

[Legion]

Badpuppy, I believe ( as you seem to know) in an objective reality. And I'm extremely curious about nature. HOWEVER... I think curiosity is a desire. And I do spend time nearly everyday in quiet stillness and acceptance, in which I try to drop all judgements and desires.

[Legion]

Badpuppy, I believe ( as you seem to know) in an objective reality. And I'm extremely curious about nature. HOWEVER... I think curiosity is a desire. And I do spend time nearly everyday in quiet stillness and acceptance, in which I try to drop all judgements, desires and expectations.

[badpuppy]

Badpuppy, I believe ( as you seem to know) in an objective reality. And I'm extremely curious about nature. HOWEVER... I think curiosity is a desire. And I do spend time nearly everyday in quiet stillness and acceptance, in which I try to drop all judgements and desires.

 

Hmmm, maybe I should clarify my point. I do think there is likely to be some "objective reality". I just don't believe we are living in it.

[Rev R]

Where else could you possibly be living?

[Legion]

Hmmm, maybe I should clarify my point. I do think there is likely to be some "objective reality". I just don't believe we are living in it.

Huh... now I find that interesting. I firmly believe that my body exists in the objective world. Therefore I have serious concern about what goes on there.

[badpuppy]

Where else could you possibly be living?

 

HA! Good point, but I "think" you know what I meant. But maybe not. Don't go all zen on me now! What I mean is... I don't think the world we're surrounded by is as "objectively physical and solid and 'real' as we seem to think it is" and that there is little justification for saying that the waking reality we inhabit isn't another layer of dream reality. i.e. if right now we're living in the objective reality... then we're living in it when we dream at night, too. Except almost no one sees their dream world as that "real". Why is this "more" real?

[Legion]

Why is this "more" real?

My schlong makes it more real.

 

Feel like getting real Badpuppy?

[badpuppy]

Hmmm, maybe I should clarify my point. I do think there is likely to be some "objective reality". I just don't believe we are living in it.

Huh... now I find that interesting. I firmly believe that my body exists in the objective world. Therefore I have serious concern about what goes on there.

 

For the purposes of remaining in this consensus reality, I agree. I can't go jump off a building unless I want to exit this reality. I don't. I like it here. I have people I love here and things I want to explore and learn here. And even if I didn't feel that way, unless I was "extremely" depressed, I don't think I would just "opt out" because I'm not a solipsist. I don't think my mind is the only mind and I wouldn't want to cause those I love pain and suffering by my absence.

 

I find the "realness" of the illusion extremely fascinating. And I'm not saying I'm not experiencing something "real". I just don't think it is what we often think it is. But I also think dreams are "real experiences". I don't automatically value what happens in this reality over what happens in nighttime dream reality for experiential value. I just have more personal attachment to this one because it's more linear/continuous and I'm attached specifically to other beings in this one. And the consequences are different. Dream world is always transient. Nearly (and I say nearly because of recurrent dreams or dreams that pick up where the last dream left off so sometimes there is a continuity) every "life" i briefly experience in that world happens and then passes by when I wake up with little consequence. If I die in that world, oh well, I'll dream up another one the next night. But I'm attached to this one because, while also transient... it's more in-depth, more linear, etc. So i'm going to obviously acknowledge the consequences of certain behaviors in the consensus reality. I don't think this is the movie "The Matrix". Like I can't suddenly jump off my roof and fly. Just because I see the nature of reality as a little different than many people doesn't mean I've disconnected from the consensus reality (And I know you aren't implying such. I just wanted to clarify the point). I fully understand the consensus rules and follow them so I can stay here.

 

When I'm dreaming at night... when I'm not having a lucid dream, I believe that's reality at the time it's happening. I believe my "body" there is a solid and real, physical body, but when I wake up, I realize it wasn't. When I wake up inside a dream (i.e. am lucid), I realize it's a dream but I still stay in it and follow the rules of that reality to explore and experience and learn. A lot of times I go through my day to day life in "this" layer of reality not giving much thought to "Maya" (to use a Buddhist term), but other times I'm more lucid and can't help but feel the song is right: "Row row row your boat gently down the stream...merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream."

 

Recently I've been very lucid in "this dream". But I'm sure i'll go back to ignoring it and just participating in the consensus reality because I fluctuate back and forth just like in nighttime dreaming. And sometimes I think it's healthy to just let it unfold and not overly analyze it all.

[badpuppy]

Why is this "more" real?

My schlong makes it more real.

 

Feel like getting real Badpuppy?

 

hmmm I was going to have midniterider's babies. This would just make me a slut.

[Rev R]

Sorry, I can't choose when to "go zen" on someone, it's just me.

 

You appear to ask:

Does Chuang Tzu dream of being a butterfly, or does the butterfly dream of being Chuang Tzu?

 

What is one left with when the duality of Chuang Tzu/ butterfly is dropped? What is one left with when the dichotomy of waking/ dream dropped?

[badpuppy]

Sorry, I can't choose when to "go zen" on someone, it's just me.

 

You appear to ask:

Does Chuang Tzu dream of being a butterfly, or does the butterfly dream of being Chuang Tzu?

 

What is one left with when the duality of Chuang Tzu/ butterfly is dropped? What is one left with when the dichotomy of waking/ dream dropped?

 

 

hehe. That's a good question. I don't think I'm yet prepared for the answer. At this time I need my "brilliant theories" ... or more likely "adorably naive conceptualizations".

[Legion]

hmmm I was going to have midniterider's babies. This would just make me a slut.

Well... maybe... But would you be a "real" slut?

 

I'll still respect you in the morning.

 

What Midniterider doesn't know won't hurt him.

 

You have pretty eyes.

 

Shit. Who am I kidding?

[badpuppy]

hmmm I was going to have midniterider's babies. This would just make me a slut.

Well... maybe... But would you be a "real" slut?

 

I'll still respect you in the morning.

 

What Midniterider doesn't know won't hurt him.

 

You have pretty eyes.

 

Shit. Who am I kidding?

 

 

That's a good point. dammit, caught up in my own framework. My slut nature would be mere illusion...but.. I'd still have to deal with the social consequences in the consensus reality. Decisions decisions.

[Legion]

...consequences... Decisions decisions.

There you are.

[badpuppy]

Okay, guys this was very stimulating. Thanks for the convo. I have now wasted the bulk majority of my day on the internet, haha. I need to get some work done. I'm really going to "try" to be mostly AFK for the next few days to get some work done. (If I can manage the self-control.) But I'm happy to continue the discussion when I get back if anyone has more to say on the matter. I got some interesting things out of it... namely a new reincarnation metaphor/idea. But probably other stuff as well. I now also have the emergence concept to look into further.