The HOW and WHY of it all

[blackfence]

All the eastern philosophies focus on the realization of one's true nature as, essentially, beyond the individual mind, and thus, beyond all questions of why.

 

In my opinion, however, they don't answer the why question -- they "transcend" it.

 

Is anyone else here actually curious about the why, though? Literally, looking around right now -- where does all this come from? Who invented "sound," for example... not a particular sound, but sound itself?

 

Clearly however sound was invented, it must have been in a workshop outside of the mind. It must be outside of time and space. That workshop created the mind itself. What is the nature of that workshop?

 

It creates all the specifics, all the particulars, from the largest to the smallest... but how does it do that and why??

Edited April 24, 2018 by blackfence

[wandelaar]

7 minutes ago, blackfence said:

It creates all the specifics, all the particulars, from the largest to the smallest... but how does it do that and why??

 

Because there can not have been tools and machines before there were material things and laws of nature there can not have been a "workshop" in which the world was made. The existence of a God will not help either because then you could ask where God came from. A smart guy might say God always existed and did not need anything else to exist. But then one could just as well suppose the world to have always existed. So that's no solution either. But modern cosmology supposed the universe to have started with the Big Bang, but then what started the Big Bang? And where do the laws of nature derive from?  

 

Long story short: the foundation of it all (Tao) escapes our understanding but can be seen at work literally everywhere. Studying nature or even you own mind gives an idea of the operations of Tao.

 

The "Why?" asks for reasons. But reasons presuppose a "someone" evaluating the pro's and con's of certain lines of action. So there can be no answer to the question of why there is something (or this world) rather than nothing because that would have involved the impossibility of a someone being present at a time when there was nothing to deliberate about whether to create something.

[Marblehead]

I stopped questioning "Why" a number of years ago.  I concentrate more on acknowledging the "what is" and determining how this might effect my life so that I can be prepared in the event of "What if?".

 

 

[blackfence]

5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Because there can not have been tools and machines before there were material things and laws of nature there can not have been a "workshop" in which the world was made. The existence of a God will not help either because then you could ask where God came from. A smart guy might say God always existed and did not need anything else to exist. But then one could just as well suppose the world to have always existed. So that's no solution either. But modern cosmology supposed the universe to have started with the Big Bang, but then what started the Big Bang? And where do the laws of nature derive from?  

 

Long story short: the foundation of it all (Tao) escapes our understanding but can be seen at work literally everywhere. Studying nature or even you own mind gives an idea of the operations of Tao.

 

The "Why?" asks for reasons. But reasons presuppose a "someone" evaluating the pro's and con's of certain lines of action. So there can be no answer to the question of why there is something (or this world) rather than nothing because that would have involved the impossibility of a someone being present at a time when there was nothing to deliberate about whether to create something.

You're assuming that the tools and machines of the workshop are anything like we can currently comprehend. Perhaps the gods work by logic and laws that are as different from our current notions of logic and law as humans' ideas are from ants, or perhaps bacteria. Perhaps in the gods' realm, it is possible for paradox to exist. Perhaps there are "not machine machines" and "up down black white" entities.

 

And anyhow this line of reasoning, which I've seen many times before, really works hard to explain the question away. Everyone knows in their heart that this question exists, however much we'd like to reason it away.

[wandelaar]

7 minutes ago, blackfence said:

You're assuming that the tools and machines of the workshop are anything like we can currently comprehend. Perhaps the gods work by logic and laws that are as different from our current notions of logic and law as humans' ideas are from ants, or perhaps bacteria. Perhaps in the gods' realm, it is possible for paradox to exist. Perhaps there are "not machine machines" and "up down black white" entities.

 

That doesn't solve the problem either. Whatever your hypothetical workplace would be, it would still have it's own characteristics. And than you can ask the same questions about those characteristics. Where did they come from, and so on.... ?

 

7 minutes ago, blackfence said:

And anyhow this line of reasoning, which I've seen many times before, really works hard to explain the question away. Everyone knows in their heart that this question exists, however much we'd like to reason it away.

 

Then further discussion is useless. Maybe there are people here who's heart feels the same, and they might be able to give you some more supporting answers.

[Fa Xin]

Why ask why?

[Lost in Translation]

3 hours ago, blackfence said:

You're assuming that the tools and machines of the workshop are anything like we can currently comprehend. Perhaps the gods work by logic and laws that are as different from our current notions of logic and law as humans' ideas are from ants, or perhaps bacteria. Perhaps in the gods' realm, it is possible for paradox to exist. Perhaps there are "not machine machines" and "up down black white" entities.

 

And anyhow this line of reasoning, which I've seen many times before, really works hard to explain the question away. Everyone knows in their heart that this question exists, however much we'd like to reason it away.

 

I've often wondered the same. If manifest reality conforms to the "laws of physics" then did these laws come into exist concurrently with manifest reality or did these laws exist extra manifest reality? In the latter case, what does it mean to have laws that exist independent of anything to operate upon?

[silent thunder]

Why is a question I no longer ask, and spend no energy to try and answer for others.

Why is utterly relative and purely subjective and so any answer can be as right and wrong as any other, at any time, in any situation.

Why is meaningless aside from what meaning we assign.

 

How can still intrigue me... a bit.  But soon, it goes the way of why and I am back to release and beingness.

 

I spend my energy in abiding in beingness... now.  Presence and awareness, now.

Releasing all outcomes and accepting a Universe that is what it is and cannot have been another way.

 

This is it. 

 

 

[thelerner]

hmmnn, sound- a wave of energy caused by friction. 

Who invented it?  Some say the Beatles, but I say it's older. 

 

but if it was the Beatles, they probably left clues in there music:

and all we have to do is listen. 

[Hannes]

Why is a question that can only be answered in causality.

To answer that question you should answer what lays at the base of causality.

 

First causality has a time component; so you would ask the first time segment or where the origin of time begins.

At some point in the past (in terms of clock time); space-time manifested from the unmanifested. 

Some would call this point the singularity or naked singularity (since it lacked an event horizon) and everything has expanded from here.

 

On a more abstract level; the laws in this space-time continuum create causality and the answer to the question "why" is so the question why could be asked".

 

On a deeper level the question why becomes answered by "because we wanted/want/will have wanted it this way"; considering the we exists outside of time. -or some form of us

 

On a deepest level the question simple is answered by "because it is possible" and we are asking this question from within that possibility. Our wanting is what makes it possible; the rest is just a translation.

So we wanted it and it was possible.

 

Who is we? :-)

 

 

[doc benway]

6 hours ago, blackfence said:

All the eastern philosophies focus on the realization of one's true nature as, essentially, beyond the individual mind, and thus, beyond all questions of why.

 

In my opinion, however, they don't answer the why question -- they "transcend" it.

 

Precisely correct

 

 

Quote

 

Is anyone else here actually curious about the why, though? Literally, looking around right now -- where does all this come from? Who invented "sound," for example... not a particular sound, but sound itself?

 

Asking "who" invented sound implies that sound was invented and that an inventor was involved.

This is a gratuitous assertion that is a consequence of our tendency towards anthropocentric thinking.

There is no requirement that sound was invented, at least none that I've come across.

Sound is a consequence of the existence of ears that are attached to brains, otherwise there is only vibration in air.

 

 

Quote

 

Clearly however sound was invented, it must have been in a workshop outside of the mind. It must be outside of time and space. That workshop created the mind itself. What is the nature of that workshop?

 

What evidence or requirement is there that a workshop is involved?

Why must there be a beginning?

 

 

Quote

 

It creates all the specifics, all the particulars, from the largest to the smallest... but how does it do that and why??

 

I reached the conclusion that the demands for how and why are a side effect of language and rational thought.

If the mind can grasp a how and why, it can feel a bit more secure.

I'm not sure the premise that "how" and "why" can always be found is an inherent part of the mystery of existence.

 

On the other hand, questions are far better than answers... 
Questions have limitless potential, they are alive and stimulate growth.

Answers on the other hand indicate an end to growth, answers tend to be dead.

Keep asking the questions but don't get too hung up on having to find an answer.

At least that's my approach.

Edited April 24, 2018 by steve

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

Because there can not have been tools and machines before there were material things and laws of nature there can not have been a "workshop" in which the world was made.

 

You have to ask Slarty Bartfast about that one

 

 

 

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

 

 

 

The existence of a God will not help either because then you could ask where God came from. A smart guy might say God always existed and did not need anything else to exist. But then one could just as well suppose the world to have always existed. So that's no solution either. But modern cosmology supposed the universe to have started with the Big Bang, but then what started the Big Bang? And where do the laws of nature derive from?  

 

Yes.   I can explain what air is .... but if you keep asking deeper and penetrating questions about my 'knowledge' of air , we will get to a place where eventually I will have to confess  'I dont know'    - what is a 'particle' without mass?  or a 'charge' ?  ... or light even ....  how does gravity 'work' ...

 

blah  blah blah     (  couldnt be bothered using all the technical terms )   .

 

 

 

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

Long story short: the foundation of it all (Tao) escapes our understanding but can be seen at work literally everywhere. Studying nature or even you own mind gives an idea of the operations of Tao.

 

YES!   Even though we may not understand the indepth 'why'   we can learn to operate and navigate through it all .

 

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

The "Why?" asks for reasons. But reasons presuppose a "someone" evaluating the pro's and con's of certain lines of action. So there can be no answer to the question of why there is something (or this world) rather than nothing because that would have involved the impossibility of a someone being present at a time when there was nothing to deliberate about whether to create something.

 

 

Ummm   ....    sure ,   why not   

 

The how and not the why .  It a bit like my approach to magic  .....    if I 'for example'    invoke a spirit to assist me to get something done ... and it gets done remarkably well and in short time , I dont bother with the 'was it a spirit or unconscious reinforcement that released my inner potential '  ?  - issue .  It doesnt matter , IMO its the result that mattered .   Perceptions are just different ways of looking at things , methods  (ways) that seem valid at the moment ... might just be 'fashion'  ?

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, blackfence said:

You're assuming that the tools and machines of the workshop are anything like we can currently comprehend. Perhaps the gods work by logic and laws that are as different from our current notions of logic and law as humans' ideas are from ants, or perhaps bacteria. Perhaps in the gods' realm, it is possible for paradox to exist. Perhaps there are "not machine machines" and "up down black white" entities.

 

Perhaps they do ... are you familiar with this lady ?

 

 

 

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

 

 

6 hours ago, blackfence said:

 

And anyhow this line of reasoning, which I've seen many times before, really works hard to explain the question away. Everyone knows in their heart that this question exists, however much we'd like to reason it away.

 

I dont think it is banishing the question ... it is giving insight into the context in which the question is posed, which is  an important realisation - if you can get it .

[KuroShiro]

1 hour ago, steve said:

On the other hand, questions are far better than answers... 
Questions have limitless potential, they are alive and stimulate growth.

Answers on the other hand indicate an end to growth, answers tend to be dead.

Keep asking the questions but don't get too hung up on having to find an answer.

At least that's my approach.

 

Well said but I wouldn't be so harsh on answers as sometimes lead to new questions.

[blackfence]

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I've often wondered the same. If manifest reality conforms to the "laws of physics" then did these laws come into exist concurrently with manifest reality or did these laws exist extra manifest reality? In the latter case, what does it mean to have laws that exist independent of anything to operate upon?

Exactly... that's some of what excites me. There must be some realm that's not a normal realm. An Alice in Wonderland "place" where all the laws are "made," if you can use that word.

 

In certain psychedelic experiences, I've asked this question about what the meaning of it all is and gotten the answers that:

a) basically to know the answer to that you have to step out of "this game" -- you can't simultaneously be in the game and know how and why the game is created

b) there is something about this question that IS the meaning of this game we are playing, that enables it at all.

c) that there is something about the concept of repetition... it all being a repetition. And it all being "by design" -- an artistic object

d) that it is all about images... "THIS IS WHY"--all the images in consciousness

Edited April 25, 2018 by blackfence

[blackfence]

4 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

Why ask why?

Why ask that?

[blackfence]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Perhaps they do ... are you familiar with this lady ?

 

 

 

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

I'm not familiar with her... I see that she's the Egyptian goddess of order... does she have something to do with paradox, too?

[blackfence]

The Rig Veda had this to say on the topic thousands of years ago:

 

Quote

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the Devas (gods) themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by blackfence

[wandelaar]

So you found in the Rig Veda what I already told you in a rational way. Does it make more sense now?

 

[blackfence]

Just now, wandelaar said:

So you found in the Rig Veda what I already told you in a rational way. Does it make more sense now?

 

They're actually quite different. The Rig Veda admits ignorance and looks at it struck with wonder... you were suggesting the question is incoherent and/or pointless.

[Lost in Translation]

51 minutes ago, blackfence said:

Exactly... that's some of what excites me. There must be some realm that's not a normal realm. An Alice in Wonderland "place" where all the laws are "made," if you can use that word.

 

I believe this is where the limits of human understanding are found. Since you cannot have time without space, and since the "Big Bang" created space, the "Big Bang" also created time. Thus there is no "before". The concept is meaningless to our understanding of cause and effect.

 

It seems reasonable to apply this pattern to all things. The "Laws of Nature", in all likelihood, also sprang into existence when everything else did. Lacking a "before", and lacking an "outside" - the entirety of manifest reality just "is". Yes, it's a serious mindf*&k, but we don't always get to know the answers to questions. That's just how it is.

 

I have spend countless hours meditating on these, and similar, questions. In the end I always come back to faith. You just gotta accept it. Sorry.

[wandelaar]

 

25 minutes ago, blackfence said:

They're actually quite different. The Rig Veda admits ignorance and looks at it struck with wonder... you were suggesting the question is incoherent and/or pointless.

 

Well if you rather "admit ignorance and look at it struck with wonder" instead of disposing of the question as being senseless and impossible to answer, that is your choice. I rather wonder about the universe as such than punish my brain with philosophical pseudo-problems. I have wasted enough time on the latter when I was young and eager to think about almost anything.

[Fa Xin]

1 hour ago, blackfence said:

Why ask that?

I don’t know, why?

[KuroShiro]

28 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I believe this is where the limits of human understanding are found. Since you cannot have time without space, and since the "Big Bang" created space, the "Big Bang" also created time. Thus there is no "before". The concept is meaningless to our understanding of cause and effect.

 

"Big Bang" is only a theory.

Why do you say you cannot have time without space? And no time before "Big Bang"?

[Lost in Translation]

10 minutes ago, KuroShiro said:

 

"Big Bang" is only a theory.

Why do you say you cannot have time without space? And no time before "Big Bang"?

 

E=mc squared

 

Special relativity posits a relationship between time and space (acceleration) such that at the speed of light there is no time. Without space you cannot have time. Tests have suggested this is true. Obviously we can't 100% prove it.