The origin of mankind

[Marblehead]

@MH

 

I can't tell if you are deliberately avoiding my question, being subtly evasive, or just not seeing it.

 

You said Dao was no-thing 'giving birth to' the one thing.

 

Then you said that the Dao was prior to the Big Bang, that Dao was not a thing.

 

You must see the logical issue with that premise bearing in mind your materialist views.

 

If the universe was created, given birth, the Dao prior to the singularity, then you are a creationist. Either the Dao was or it wasn't. If it was then you are giving an atheistic explanation but it's still mystic muscle. It deletes God and puts in place Dao.

 

Or the universe has always been- Big Bang or not-and therefore there was no creation event. If that's so then there is no Dao.

 

Unless your saying Dao is the universe, or Dao is causality within the universe.

 

As soon as you say the Dao cannot be known, surely you see the similarities that God can't be known. The Dao intrinsically imparts its 'way' as God intrinsically imparts the knowledge of 'him'. I cannot see a difference except in the practices that surround the base belief. No religious person these days describes God as a giant bearded character, it's described more as an ethereal kind of spirit in everything. That's what the Dao is.

Yep.  You still are not understanding my answer.  I have answered, believe it or not.

 

I will take a different approach.

 

Let us give Dao a different name.  Let's call it "The Laws of Physics".

 

The Laws of Physics are not things.  They are the processes of the universe.

 

The Laws of Physics caused Singularity to Bang.  This produced, initially, undifferentiated Oneness.  Immediately "things" came into being.

 

We can compare the Big Bang with a massive star going supernova.  Singularity (the massive star) became so dense that it could no longer contain itself and countered the force of gravity.

[Karl]

I'm not concerned whether one can see it , I cant see through the wall , but cars are still driving by.

Yes , we may still see light arriving from an exploded star long gone , and yes we may not see light arriving from the edge of the universe ,, both due a time lag. But negate the time lag , and either the universe does have an edge .. a maximum extent , or its not finite. If things are so far away , that light hasnt gotten to me yet from it , I cant know that its there, so , Im thinking an end to whats visible doesn't constitute a valid reason to say there isn't anything there. 

 

Finite, not fixed. Like a balloon it always is a balloon whether it's not blown up are about ready to pop.

 

Funny, but you are edging towards the other side of the philosophical argument which says we can't know reality because it is constantly changing.

 

A number sequence it potentially infinite, but that's an illusion. However big a number you count to, that is the present finite limit.

[Stosh]

Finite but boundless.

Dont believe that , I need convincing  on this. 

[Marblehead]

I'm not concerned whether one can see it , I cant see through the wall , but cars are still driving by.

Yes , we may still see light arriving from an exploded star long gone , and yes we may not see light arriving from the edge of the universe ,, both due a time lag. But negate the time lag , and either the universe does have an edge .. a maximum extent , or its not finite. If things are so far away , that light hasnt gotten to me yet from it , I cant know that its there, so , Im thinking an end to whats visible doesn't constitute a valid reason to say there isn't anything there. 

 

Well, based on the best evidence as I understand it, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.  That means it is getting bigger, larger, whatever, so all we can say is that it has not attained its maximum potential.

 

The favorite thought at the present is that it will continue to expand and eventually experience a cold death.  I don't like this one and opt for an eventual reversal into a Big Crunch, a new Singularity and then a new universe.

[Karl]

Yep.  You still are not understanding my answer.  I have answered, believe it or not.

 

I will take a different approach.

 

Let us give Dao a different name.  Let's call it "The Laws of Physics".

 

The Laws of Physics are not things.  They are the processes of the universe.

 

The Laws of Physics caused Singularity to Bang.  This produced, initially, undifferentiated Oneness.  Immediately "things" came into being.

 

We can compare the Big Bang with a massive star going supernova.  Singularity (the massive star) became so dense that it could no longer contain itself and countered the force of gravity.

 

Getting closer.

Right, the laws of nature are not things in themselves, they pertain to the nature of specific objects. I think I covered this in 101 when considering two billiard balls striking each other. The temptation is to remove the balls, but leave the path. Same with space, it describes the distance between specific objects-space isn't a thing in itself.

 

The Dao then is simply an abstract concept, but it has to be based on objects.

 

The laws of physics did not cause the Big Bang. The nature of objects caused the Big Bang.

[Marblehead]

Getting closer?  I'm spot on!

 

You changed my "Laws of Physics" to "laws of nature" so you could disagree with me.  That ain't gonna' work.

 

There were no objects prior to the Big Bang.  All was undifferentiated energy.

 

The nature of objects is governed by the Laws of Physics.

[Michael Sternbach]

Going back to Plato reveals that his view was of our universe being a pale imitation of the real universe- one of perfect forms. This for Plato was the origin of the universe. A place no man could know, but could only perceive by the weaker corrupted projections that he perceived in this universe. You see the sprouting of the glossing beginning here. Plato didn't know and so he just added a fudge factor like we often do with aether or dark matter.

 

I don't agree with this. I suppose that Plato had a direct perception of what underlies physical reality. He was one of those rare individuals who are able to step outside the cave.

 

That there must be something that created the universe we perceive, but we can't know it. Then the religious Mystics got a hold of this philosophy and substituted heaven and God for Platos perfect forms.

 

Deities, often including a Supreme One, and their realms were believed in already long before Plato. Platonism can be seen as a fairly rational interpretation of earlier mysticism, and it had an influence on later mystics in turn.

 

Finally the modern sophist (Kant/Hegel/Dewey/Descartes) has imparted the fully scientific universe in which many scientists have found themselves emulating philosophers and many economists also. This is the philosophy that man never steps in the same stream twice-which is essentially the Dao and why you are so attracted to it. If you get chance look up the works of the very earliest philosopher Heraclitus and you will see Daoism staring at you. Unfortunately scientist seem to be readily abandoning reason on which all science is based and are heading off into nebulous sophistry.

 

It's true that science has philosophical underpinnings which most scientist neglect to reflect on. They can mostly be categorized under reductionism and materialism, even though individual scientists of a certain influence startet transcending these "isms." Moreover, the scientific method requires to test hypotheses by experiment and/or observation. That side should actually quite appeal to you, Karl!

 

What scientists, and objectivists in general, don't understand is that observation will for the most part only reveal what the observer is ready to perceive.

 

I came up with sophistry myself almost completely by accident in a pub whilst working in Aberdeen. Seems funny to recount it because so much has happened since. I had an epiphany-or so I thought-that 0=1. You might see that I had already accelerated past Hawkins at that point. I had already discovered the erroneous theory that the universe was nothingness and nothingness was equal to somethingness.

 

You were correct at the time. To illustrate: Does a point exist? It's dimensionless; there is nothing. Yet it's, um, pointless to say that it doesn't exist. You simply can not arrive at any meaningful description of reality without those buggers. There you have your 0 = 1.

 

Atheism is not the denial of the supernatural. It is the denial of the spiritual supernatural. Atheism, in the sense you mean it, is the acceptance of the muscular supernatural. We have been bobbing along between these two mystic cults for so long we have created immense narratives of broadened fantasy. The supernatural muscular has nothing to do with science, it is pseudo science. It is science bereft of reason but like Aquinus did for religion, reason is tacked on in a supporting role for the inherent sophist mysticism that runs through it like raspberry ripple. Until you wallow in the philosophies you can't grasp the significance. They are not just some dusty old folks that gave lectures and wrote their thoughts on faded parchment, their philosophies are alive in all of us, they shape our every thought and action.

 

Agreed.

 

Science is totally inspired by philosophy, but it isn't philosophy, it's supposed to be reason and logic applied to observation. Once science began to believe it was philosophy it threw reason in the bin and fell into a religious self belief that it was the source of all knowledge. Our literature is filled with warnings about letting the tool become the artist.

 

Science is an attempt to explain the world of phenomena in a coherent manner, based on collected data. It assumes that nature functions due to a number of laws which are perfectly interacting to create the world that we perceive (by our own senses or with the help of instruments). So it has its own set of metaphysics.

 

The problem isn't that science has an underlying philosophy - which it could not exist without. The problem is always the kind of philosophy it follows.

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Right, the laws of nature are not things in themselves, they pertain to the nature of specific objects."

-----

 

Consider YinYang.

 

When we say "yin attracts yang, and yang attracts yin".

 

This is not about any specific object.

 

Is "gravity" about any specific object?

 

- or does "gravity" have effects that go beyond any specific object?

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Karl]

Getting closer?  I'm spot on!

 

You changed my "Laws of Physics" to "laws of nature" so you could disagree with me.  That ain't gonna' work.

 

There were no objects prior to the Big Bang.  All was undifferentiated energy.

 

The nature of objects is governed by the Laws of Physics.

 

That wasn't deliberate I was thinking nature as I wrote laws. Same thing just scrub out my use of laws of nature.

There were objects termed 'undifferentiated energy'. You just used a concept.

The nature of objects is the nature of objects, the laws of physics are abstracts of causality. That is your materialism speaking :-)

 

The nature of man is to reason. I could be a sod here and play devils advocate just to wind you up but I will refrain :-)

The nature of man to reason is not a law of physics. Mans consciousness is not the laws of physics. Man does certain things, things happen in his body, currents flow and from that we can abstract the observations into laws we can use.

 

It's good this discussion. Proper philosophical breakdance with a half materialist, half spiritualist.

 

 

[Karl]

I don't agree with this. I suppose that Plato had a direct perception of what underlies physical reality. He was one of those rare individuals who are able to step outside the cave.

 

 

 

Deities, often including a Supreme One, and their realms were believed in already long before Plato. Platonism can be seen as a fairly rational interpretation of earlier mysticism, and it had an influence on later mystics in turn.

 

 

 

It's true that science has philosophical underpinnings which most scientist neglect to reflect on. They can mostly be categorized under reductionism and materialism, even though individual scientists of a certain influence startet transcending these "isms." Moreover, the scientific method requires to test hypotheses by experiment and/or observation. That side should actually quite appeal to you, Karl!

 

What scientists, and objectivists in general, don't understand is that observation will for the most part only reveal what the observer is ready to perceive.

 

 

 

You were correct at the time. To illustrate: Does a point exist? It's dimensionless; there is nothing. Yet it's, um, pointless to say that it doesn't exist. You simply can not arrive at any meaningful description of reality without those buggers. There you have your 0 = 1.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

Science is an attempt to explain the world of phenomena in a coherent manner, based on collected data. It assumes that nature functions due to a number of laws which are perfectly interacting to create the world that we perceive (by our own senses or with the help of instruments). So it has its own set of metaphysics.

 

The problem isn't that science has an underlying philosophy - which it could not exist without. The problem is always the kind of philosophy it follows.

 

Now this is great and definitely coherent in respect of one single philosophy. I will argue with you at another time, but you are the bit about 'Dao' that MH has tacked on to materialism like a lump of weld.

[Karl]

Re:

-----

"Right, the laws of nature are not things in themselves, they pertain to the nature of specific objects."

-----

 

Consider YinYang.

 

When we say "yin attracts yang, and yang attracts yin".

 

This is not about any specific object.

 

Is "gravity" about any specific object?

 

- or does "gravity" have effects that go beyond any specific object?

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Gravity is the observation of the objects. Gravity does not go beyond specific objects it operates between them, but it isn't a thing in and of itself. If you read 101 I've got an example of billiard balls hitting each other. We cannot ignore the object that struck the ball, or the nature of the balls, table etc. We observe that motion is transferred from man to cue to ball to ball and then infer the causality by observation.

[Michael Sternbach]

That's very expansive of you Karl, but .. if could you take one baby step at a time , I could at least understand your view , though perhaps not share it. ( In fact I know I dont , but thats not important) ,,

 

Rather than going back to Plato, I have a beef with Hawking's show I saw last night , demonstrating to his confused underlings that since the universe was expanding , it must be concluded that the universe has no center .

Frankly, I dont believe that -this is what the demonstrations suggest. ( because you have to shift the trajectory of every star in the universe  !   in order to arrive at a different conclusion of where the nominate center of the universe would be. )

What they showed was just a quirk of perspective ,you have to distort the shape of the universe to make it work, and it doesnt negate that you can still find the center of an expanding circle by transecting from edge to edge. ( or if you use a simplified line of dots - you can still measure to that which is halfway from the ends )  It was like claiming the United states has no center because the earth is spinning. 

 

This indeed doesn't seem to make any sense as long as we are thinking of the Universe as being confined to only three spatial dimensions. To show what I mean, it is best to use an analogy: Think of a balloon being inflated; it expands in three dimensions. Its surface is expanding too - but for a flatland being inhabiting it, this expansion is happening in two dimensions only. For this being, it's impossible to say where the surface is expanding from, except from everywhere at once! The balloon has a center, of course, which however is not to be found on the surface, but out-there (or in-there) in three-dimensional space. The (curved) surface of the balloon is in fact finite but boundless.

 

Now step this analogy up by adding a fourth spatial dimension (no, not time - that's another story), and you arrive at the Universe of modern cosmology, at least in one of its versions.

[Michael Sternbach]

Now this is great and definitely coherent in respect of one single philosophy. I will argue with you at another time, but you are the bit about 'Dao' that MH has tacked on to materialism like a lump of weld.

 

I will wait for a full reply from you.

[Junko]

Where it is?

I don't know where.....does it matter where it is?

[Marblehead]

That wasn't deliberate I was thinking nature as I wrote laws. Same thing just scrub out my use of laws of nature. There were objects termed 'undifferentiated energy'. You just used a concept. The nature of objects is the nature of objects, the laws of physics are abstracts of causality. That is your materialism speaking :-) The nature of man is to reason. I could be a sod here and play devils advocate just to wind you up but I will refrain :-) The nature of man to reason is not a law of physics. Mans consciousness is not the laws of physics. Man does certain things, things happen in his body, currents flow and from that we can abstract the observations into laws we can use. It's good this discussion. Proper philosophical breakdance with a half materialist, half spiritualist.

"The nature of objects" is more abstract than is "the Laws of Physics" because different objects have different natures whereas "the Laws of Physics" explain how all things in the universe function.

 

I pretty much agree with you regarding "the nature of objects" though.  A frog doesn't fly but a bird does.  Some humans do not use reason.  Bad example.

 

I'm not gonna' talk about consciousness.

 

I am a Materialist.  I have never said I am not a spiritual person.

[Marblehead]

Gravity is the observation of the objects. Gravity does not go beyond specific objects it operates between them, but it isn't a thing in and of itself. If you read 101 I've got an example of billiard balls hitting each other. We cannot ignore the object that struck the ball, or the nature of the balls, table etc. We observe that motion is transferred from man to cue to ball to ball and then infer the causality by observation.

 

Gravity is the primal force.  Without gravity the initial hydrogen could not have accumulated to form other stuff.

[Marblehead]

I don't know where.....does it matter where it is?

 

Yes it matters.  I need to know where to look (to see what it really is).

[Michael Sternbach]

I pretty much agree with you regarding "the nature of objects" though.  A frog doesn't fly but a bird does.  Some humans do not use reason.  Bad example.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_frog

 

[Marblehead]

Good try Michael.  That is a gliding frog and there are a couple of those species.

 

There was another one that caught my attention recently, can't remember what, but it is called a flying (whatever) but it doesn't fly, it glides.

 

And really, the flying squirrels don't really fly, they glide.  A bat does fly though.

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Gravity is the observation of the objects."

-----

 

This seems a ridiculous assertion.

 

Are there sentences that read "the force of the observation of the objects" anywhere?

 

- in place of "gravity" like saying - "the force of gravity"?

 

They say thing like "Jupiter's gravity".

 

Which is gravity, but means specifically "the" gravity associated with Jupiter.

 

But when we say "gravity attracts" - we do not mean the gravity of Jupiter.

 

Western science looks at the gravity associated with things.

 

Because western science only sees things.

 

But is very poor at seeing what causes things.

 

Including "gravity".

 

Including "consciousness".

 

So in the west, Iching is also not understood.

 

YinYang is not understood.

 

5 phases is not understood.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Junko]

We are nothing but seekers.

[Michael Sternbach]

Personally, I still hold to the theory of Singularity and the Big Bang.

 

I also hold to the understanding that "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be.  Things just take different forms over time.

 

So where did Singularity come from?  It is my understanding that it was the accumulation of all Black Holes after they had consumed all matter in a previous universe.

 

This could actually be said to be the gist of Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology - condensed by you into a Singularity.

 

There is also Fred Hoyle's Steady State Universe, but it's not in vogue.

 

For me, Dao is the processes of the universe - all energy in the universe.  And we know that energy is the root of all matter (E=MC2).  And it is a law of physics that the total energy in the universe can never be reduced or added to.  Therefore the totality is static.

 

This only holds true if the Universe is indeed a closed system. In truth, it might be exchanging energy with a multidimensional structure which it is part of.

 

Philosophy and science work very well together.  At least those philosophies that remain in the material universe and don't go flying off into LaLa land.  Atheism is Materialism at its roots.  The denial of anything supernatural.  This includes all gods, ghosts, etc.

 

There is nothing supernatural, I agree. But Materialism is only taking in account a tinypart of nature.

 

The favorite thought at the present is that it will continue to expand and eventually experience a cold death.  I don't like this one and opt for an eventual reversal into a Big Crunch, a new Singularity and then a new universe.

 

Penrose's CCC is the only theory that reconciles the eternally expanding Universe with the cyclically reborn one. I talked about it already a number of times on this forum. In a nutshell, it says that, after most matter in the Universe has been swallowed by  Black Holes, and even the BHs have evaporated and turned into energy (along with the matter that was left floating around), space-time both expands infinitely and contracts to zero - hence a new Singularity is formed. This cycle repeats itself without beginning and end.

 

There were no objects prior to the Big Bang.  All was undifferentiated energy.

 

Incorrect in terms of the traditional Big Bang: There wasn't even energy prior to it.

 

Correct in terms of CCC: The former Universe had all turned into undifferentiated energy. Which led to the birth of a new Universe.

[Karl]

Re:

-----

"Gravity is the observation of the objects."

-----

 

This seems a ridiculous assertion.

 

Are there sentences that read "the force of the observation of the objects" anywhere?

 

- in place of "gravity" like saying - "the force of gravity"?

 

They say thing like "Jupiter's gravity".

 

Which is gravity, but means specifically "the" gravity associated with Jupiter.

 

But when we say "gravity attracts" - we do not mean the gravity of Jupiter.

 

Western science looks at the gravity associated with things.

 

Because western science only sees things.

 

But is very poor at seeing what causes things.

 

Including "gravity".

 

Including "consciousness".

 

So in the west, Iching is also not understood.

 

YinYang is not understood.

 

5 phases is not understood.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Apologies, I hurried it bcause I was in the middle of something. Jupiters nature is mass, Gravity is the observed effect on other objects. It's a reliable measure of the action between objects, but Gravity isn't a thing on its own in the same way consciousness needs a body. We can view the effects of consciousness internally and externally, but we can't find the consciousness.

[Karl]

Gravity is the primal force.  Without gravity the initial hydrogen could not have accumulated to form other stuff.

 

It's the force between objects, so it's the nature of the objects, in that case between hydrogen atoms.

[Karl]

"The nature of objects" is more abstract than is "the Laws of Physics" because different objects have different natures whereas "the Laws of Physics" explain how all things in the universe function.

 

I pretty much agree with you regarding "the nature of objects" though. A frog doesn't fly but a bird does. Some humans do not use reason. Bad example.

 

I'm not gonna' talk about consciousness.

 

I am a Materialist. I have never said I am not a spiritual person.

Your last sentence. :-)

I did say you were both, but that's the problem, you have an intractable dissonance between two opposing philosophies that don't meet in the middle. It's why you are fairly comfortable with myself, Brian and Michael. Brian and Michael have logically consistent and therefore valid philophical premises, but you have stitched two together, but the stitching is a virtual fog.

 

You are closest to an objectivist in many ways, but then you are a equally a mystic of both spirit and muscle. Drop the mysticism and they unite just fine. However....and I'm saying this whilst laughing at my own pessimistic outlook....if that happens, it won't be by me making that observation, that's for an absolute certainty.

 

It's not harming you in anyway, you seem to thrive on it, so why change anything ? Well, only to stop me pulling my hair out (not really, it's like a boxing partner that occasionally uses a foot and shugs when I complain .....

 

"what ?"

"You used your foot"

"So?"

"It's boxing, your thinking of kick boxing"

"They are both boxing so I don't see a difference"

"But ones kick, the others err just boxing"

"It doesn't say minus the kicking"

"No, but it's implied"

"Well if it doesn't say specifically I'm going to do it anyway"

"Well it's not right, but as your the only partner available I'm going to have to put up with it"

"Exactly, I'm an anarchist, that's just what we do"

Edited May 26, 2016 by Karl