"you only know the words and not the meaning!"

[C T]

For many Buddhists everything is nothing.  I don't agree with this but that doesn't matter.

Its sensible to disagree with that because its an inaccurate view anyway. Buddhists who understand the teachings correctly will never posit that everything is nothing. 

[Marblehead]

Hi Karl,

 

I was going to quote and respond to each of your paragraphs but changed my mind because we have been through this before.

 

The roots of our "philosophy of life" differ so it is understandable that many of the branches will look different.

 

Some-thing comes from no-thing.  (Not talking about existence here.) 

 

Order comes from chaos.

 

Consciousness comes from form.

 

Awareness comes from Consciousness.

 

With awareness we function within our environment.

 

Then we die.

[Karl]

Hi Karl,

 

I was going to quote and respond to each of your paragraphs but changed my mind because we have been through this before.

 

The roots of our "philosophy of life" differ so it is understandable that many of the branches will look different.

 

Some-thing comes from no-thing. (Not talking about existence here.)

 

Order comes from chaos.

 

Consciousness comes from form.

 

Awareness comes from Consciousness.

 

With awareness we function within our environment.

 

Then we die.

I don't understand the 'some-thing comes from no-thing', or that not being a reference to existence. Some-thing is existence. No-thing is non existent and isn't a negative/zero in the sense of a numbering/counting system, it is literally the end of consciousness and therefore identity. Like you said. When we die, for the deceased there is neither identity, or identification because there is no conscious form. That doesn't mean existence ceases, but that with no consciousness to percieve it, then there is no-thing that can perceive it.

 

There is something strange here. Are you personalising it to you, as MH, or as a wider categorisation. If it's the former then we may have agreement, or at least I agree with the Tao.

 

So, now, something (existence/consciousness) comes from no-thing, because we are talking about axiomatic twins. They cannot be further broken down as they are fundamentals but they are uncreated, as is the universe.

 

Order then does arise from chaos, in the sense of form bringing individual consciousness.

 

Awareness is identification of existence through consciousness of it.

 

Of course that leads to function within the universe.

 

And of course we die and then there is no-thing for the dead individual. It is as if they never existed from their point of view (which is impossible because they are no-thing).

 

Is this what you mean ? If it is, then that is objectivism, but taken from a very discreet, personal perspective instead of a broader sheet. It functions fine in light of that viewing angle. What we are left with is what objectivism is really about and that's the 'functioning' part, the ethical, moral man. Interestingly Rand also came upon objectivism by Nietzche, but he had a philosophy of a malevolent universe in which man was want to take from other men, which is anti-reason.

 

Anyway, if I'm reading this right, then we can dispense with 'the universe of big bangs' and all the rest, because these are scientific and not philosophical questions. We can begin on a new sheet. The universe exists and I exist because I am conscious of myself and the universe I reside within.

 

Thus: existence is identity; consciousness is identification

Edited June 9, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

I think you are finally grasping my understanding.  (You don't have to agree with it.  Understanding is all I am shooting for.)

 

True, we don't need science when talking about philosophy.  But then, our philosophy should agree with reality as it is best understood at the moment.  And we can use science to support our philosophical understandings.  Verifiable data is always good support for a philosophical concept.

 

We still might have lack of understanding regarding the words:  Something, Nothing, and No-Thing

 

Something - the Manifest (physical) universe

 

No-Thing - empty space  Hehehe.  No such thing as empty space.  There is lots of energy in empty space.  But it is not manifest so we cannot detect it.  But E-MC2 still applies.

 

Nothing - no such thing, really.  Yes, there is Absolute Nothingness but that exists (does not exist) only beyond the outer boundaries of the universe.

 

Yes, everything I say is from my perspective.  I cannot see the universe as Karl sees it.  And that is why I cannot speak from the perspective of the objectivist even though you suggest that I likely am one.

 

And I will state again, we cannot have consciousness before we have existence (form).  Else you are reifying the processes of nature.

 

Nietzsche made a lot of great observations.  But by no means is he an easy person to read and especially understand.  He was a "realist" and perhaps even an Objectivist.

 

I see nothing in your last post to disagree with.  Sure, we use different words.  But the concepts are there.

[Karl]

When you say "empty space" then you slip back into scientism. I do not mean that "empty space" contains energies even though it probably does, I'm saying that space is relational, it is a product of our conscious understanding of the universe and so it is something from that perspective, not simply the chemical/energetic properties of the stuff that is between planets.

 

There are no 'beyond the outer boundaries" otherwise the universe wouldn't be the universe and would have to expand to include all those things you consider external. Here you are creating a dichotomy, much as Plato did.

 

You perceive the universe as I do. You may not contemplate the universe as I do. :-)

 

Did you think I said the primacy of consciousness ? I most certainly didn't. I pointed out that it's possible that you do hold this to be partially true.

 

Nietzche was certainly no objectivist, completely the opposite, but people get confused about that, even objectivist can be drawn into seeing similarities because of the hero characters in both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, but they are not Neitzcshian supermen ;-)

Edited June 9, 2016 by Karl

[Miffymog]

I'm enjoying these posts.

 

The edge of the universe. If you get a balloon and draw a load of dots on the surface and then blow up the balloon, then measure the distance between the dots, across the surface, all the dots are moving away from each other, with the furthest ones moving away the fastest.

 

Now, this is a 2D example of what is happening in our 3D universe. Like the spider on the surface of the balloon, if I travel in any direction from where I am now, eventually I will always come back to where I started. I CAN NOT CONCEPTUALISE THIS, I just have to accept it, so what is the universe expanding in to?

 

 

 

Another emptiness is a vacuum. Where, due to 'uncertainty' lot of particles are allowed to 'borrow energy' and briefly appear and then disappear into and out of existence. So this emptiness if full of activity.

 

 

Is the universe getting more or less ordered? I'm still thinking about that one. As a whole it should be getting less ordered with local variations. But it's strange that we started virtually uniformity with no order, so why have we now got some?

 

 

Conscious Identity? Still thinking about that too.

 

 

What was here before the big bang? There's an argument that we might be the first planet in the universe that has life, so similarly, we might be the first universe? Coming out of, well, nothing

Edited June 9, 2016 by Miffymog

[Karl]

I can only answer that it's not expanding into anything. It's the universe, it expands and contracts and has always done so.

 

Consciousness has identity. It is something and not no-thing. We each have individual identity of which consciousness is an integral part. It is impossible to know what consciousness is, only that it is.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Karl

[Miffymog]

Consciousness has identity. It is something and not no-thing. We each have individual identity of which consciousness is an integral part. It is impossible to know what consciousness is, only that it is.

 

 

I'm going to go the other way here slightly. Consciousness IS identity. 

[Marblehead]

When you say "empty space" then you slip back into scientism. I do not mean that "empty space" contains energies even though it probably does, I'm saying that space is relational, it is a product of our conscious understanding of the universe and so it is something from that perspective, not simply the chemical/energetic properties of the stuff that is between planets.

Well, considering that the observable is only 4% of what is thought to be the "entire" universe, there is a lot of stuff that we cannot observe.  Where is all this stuff?  In empty space, of course.

 

There are no 'beyond the outer boundaries" otherwise the universe wouldn't be the universe and would have to expand to include all those things you consider external. Here you are creating a dichotomy, much as Plato did.

I did like Plato's cave.  A nice place to hide.

 

That's the point I was making.  There cannot be a "beyond the outer boundaries" because if we try to observe such a point, that point becomes part of the universe.

 

You perceive the universe as I do. You may not contemplate the universe as I do. :-)

I think we can sat that that is a given.

 

 

Nietzche was certainly no objectivist, completely the opposite, but people get confused about that, even objectivist can be drawn into seeing similarities because of the hero characters in both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, but they are not Neitzcshian supermen ;-)

I'll take your word for that.  You are the objectivist here.

 

Well, even though the spellchecker doesn't like the word "physicalist" I still like to call myself one.

[Marblehead]

I'm enjoying these posts.

 

The edge of the universe. If you get a balloon and draw a load of dots on the surface and then blow up the balloon, then measure the distance between the dots, across the surface, all the dots are moving away from each other, with the furthest ones moving away the fastest.

 

Now, this is a 2D example of what is happening in our 3D universe. Like the spider on the surface of the balloon, if I travel in any direction from where I am now, eventually I will always come back to where I started. I CAN NOT CONCEPTUALISE THIS, I just have to accept it, so what is the universe expanding in to?

Yeah, just a couple nights ago while watching a documentary they used the balloon as their example.

 

The universe is expanding into Absolute Nothingness.  Karl doesn't accept this but that's okay.

 

Another emptiness is a vacuum. Where, due to 'uncertainty' lot of particles are allowed to 'borrow energy' and briefly appear and then disappear into and out of existence. So this emptiness if full of activity.

Yeah, I think that total vacuum is very rare if there is even such a thing except in Absolute Nothingness.

 

Is the universe getting more or less ordered? I'm still thinking about that one. As a whole it should be getting less ordered with local variations. But it's strange that we started virtually uniformity with no order, so why have we now got some?

Yes, Singularity is Oneness but total chaos.  I have no idea if it is becoming more or less chaotic.  Life on planet Earth is becoming more chaotic.  Blame it all on Yin and Yang.

 

What was here before the big bang? There's an argument that we might be the first planet in the universe that has life, so similarly, we might be the first universe? Coming out of, well, nothing

Only problem with that is that you cannot get something from nothing.  There has to be at least potential.  That's what Singularity was.  So Karl is correct in this regard - the universe has always existed and will always exist.

[Karl]

I'm going to go the other way here slightly. Consciousness IS identity. 

 

Has identity, is identification.

[Karl]

Well, considering that the observable is only 4% of what is thought to be the "entire" universe, there is a lot of stuff that we cannot observe.  Where is all this stuff?  In empty space, of course.

 

 

I did like Plato's cave.  A nice place to hide.

 

That's the point I was making.  There cannot be a "beyond the outer boundaries" because if we try to observe such a point, that point becomes part of the universe.

 

 

I think we can sat that that is a given.

 

 

 

I'll take your word for that.  You are the objectivist here.

 

Well, even though the spellchecker doesn't like the word "physicalist" I still like to call myself one.

 

:-) Rand would probably have called her philosophy existentialism had it not been taken.

 

If the stuff is in empty space then it isn't empty. :-)

[Marblehead]

If the stuff is in empty space then it isn't empty. :-)

Yeah, I think I have been saying that all along.

[3bob]

I think the following quote completely clears up all speculations along these lines:

 

"there is a beginning. There is no beginning of that beginning. There is no beginning of that no beginning of beginning. There is something. There is nothing. There is something before the beginning of something and nothing, and something before that. Suddenly there is something and nothing. But between something and nothing, I still don't really know which is something and which is nothing. Now, I've just said something, but I don't really know whether I've said anything or not..." Chuang Tzu

 

try reading it over again if it isn't clear at first :-)