Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Gotcha. At the very least we may be the universe experiencing itself. The very very very very least.
|
Why? We are consciousness experiencing the universe. Human consciousness experiencing life in human form on a planet.
Quote:
|
I don't know your background so forgive me if this is too simple. And Here is the time for me to be honest with what I don't know. When explaining events that I know nothing about I can only use what we know.
|
Metaphor.
Quote:
|
So whatever "we" are it would seem the universe has more of. I am not really talking about "things" and "form" here. I think you can see past that. There is no "things" at any level. That's your brain, be bla bla, you know how the story goes.
|
There are no 'things' but there are 'brains'?
Quote:
|
So, the events that made you ... bla bla ... you know the story. Why couldn't, if we are only events, the universe have been created by a confluence of events also?
|
well we do know that things don;t just appear from nowhere. So it is natural that the universe was either created from something or has always existed.
Quote:
|
Do you see the difference in how I asked. It was based on what we do know. Religion, 1000's of years ago did the same thing. Genius aint bad for what they knew. I am very impressed. I just don't understand why they need to hold so tight to it today. That's emotional beliefs for ya I guess.
|
I can't even think what beliefs are not produced on a foundation of emotion, regardless of whether the beliefs are religious or not.
But anyway, it all gets down to fear. When people are told to believe things which sound plausible and for that matter which confront the establishment, they flock. People bounce from religion to secularism as a matter of course. What they don't seem to understand is that whichever way does not particularly bother the establishment.
Perhaps Earth is a kind of loony bin of the galaxy?
Quote:
I can't. We are information stored in states of matter and life presents itself when these states go through a series of state changes. For us it really is only at the valance shell level right? We made computers that do the same thing.
If it is a simulation then it as real as it gets and we keep going. If it is a "simulation" then something wrote the code.
|
Correct. Someone wrote the code if it is a simulation. That someone just as likely might have been us, but not 'us' as we are within the simulation. Obviously 'someone' beyond our present capacity to understand or explain very adequately, due to our position within the simulation.
But it is not 'as real as it gets' because even within the simulation we (consciousness) experience things which we cannot consign to being of this reality but we experience them in this reality anyway.
Quote:
|
But for me. If you make the claim of " we are in a simulation", then you have show why I should think about it past "just a possibility". My stance on this is exactly what that dud's arg stance is with religion. Its just that some have emotions distorting the truth using anti-religion (or strong thiest) as the only focal point. They aren't all wrong ... just so woefully incomplete. I am not anti-simulation.
|
I don't have to show anything really. I never made that claim. All I said was that it is possible but how would we know, and that was in answer to some other thing, and perfectly acceptable as an argument.
We could be, but how would we know? That was my point.
And it is relevant. What it does for me is show me that I don;t know enough to say anything much for sure. I can;t say 'there is a god' or 'there isn't'. I can say that their are a lot of ratbag humans and even that there are a majority of rat bag humans.
I mean, I also said that this planet could be a kind of loony bin of the galaxy. I could also say the universe could be some kind holding cell for wayward consciousness. It 'could be' a lot of things in relation to us being here. Would you expect me therefore to "show why I should think about it past "just a possibility"?
The thing about consciousness is that it does not just stay within the parameters of what science knows or what religion believes. It explores possibilities, because it can. To suppress that is to suppress the self.
Quote:
|
"more real than reality"? I think you may mean a more complete picture than most people's picture of reality. Yes, I would agree if you say it that way. Bell curve understanding. Many people in the 70% bracket think they see enough to starting tell others what's it is all about. Thats the trouble you and I have talking to them. Those pretty writers pushing shallow beliefs. non or otherwise.Can you tell me what you think was more real? Go straight into it with as minimal explaining, I should be versed enough to understand if it science based. I'll ask for more explanation when need.
|
No I don't mean that. Apparently it has been done in the lab as well, stimulating some area of the brain which makes the one experiencing reality to actual experience reality as being 'more real the real.' I don't know to what degree or how much study has been put into such experimentation, but no I don't mean 'a more complete picture of reality.'
The experience for me had to do with OOB and in being free of the body (or under the impression I was - depending on whether it was an actual event or a simulation in itself) the experience was more real than real - not because it was unusual but because everything about what was usual was experienced in a heightened manner but more to the point - the experience itself left the indelible impression that what was experienced was indeed more real than real.
Words (whether mine here or those in a controlled experiment) cannot adequately express what was experienced, and 'more real then real' is about as good as it gets.
Quote:
I can't. But I will say, a film strip like universe is a logical conclusion when we look at the universe as a series of "now's". I don't think so. But again I don't know what I don't know here.
Again, you made the claim so you would have to show the "how's". I think if we know the present state of very particle in a region of space I can reliably predict the near future and as we move further from the "now" our prediction will degrade. I just don't know what I don't know here so I can't predict the rate of degradation. That would, or could, produce the illusion of a "film strip" too.
|
No you misunderstand. I made a statement about a possible position, not a claim that it WAS actually the position.
Indeed, the 'how do we know' was the pertinent bit of the statement. We don't know, but we do know that it might be possible, but how can we know if it is in fact true? We can't know. What instruments of science are even designed to investigate the possibility? What instruments of science could possibly be created to investigate the possibility?
So in that, whether we are or are not, we are stuck with what is. Now that we can predict with some chance of maybe being correct? What can human consciousness DO within its position? What can the species achieve in relation to the universe (reality) and is anything we DO really rational or simply 'whatever'? We do it because it can be done.
A prisoner behaves as the prison dictates.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
