The Meaning of Life

[Russell Parr]

This is a faulty conclusion on your behalf. Strong logic yields the same conclusion.i.e. an infinite, boundless omniverse, You completely missed that point.

Calling something a "theory" is not a conclusion at all. Scientists call the omniverse a theory only because there isn't enough empirical evidence to absolutely "prove" it.

Remember, logic goes beyond science/empirical evidence.

Only through logic can you come to a truly absolute conclusion.

[Carmel]

bluerap:
Calling something a "theory" is not a conclusion at all. Scientists call the omniverse a theory only because there isn't enough empirical evidence to absolutely "prove" it.

Carmel:
Scientists don't deal in "absolutes", they leave that to the religionists.

bluerap:
Only through logic can you come to a truly absolute conclusion.

Carmel:
logic and faith, faith in the consequences of "logic".

[Russell Parr]

Scientists aren't able to deal with absolute truths because it is beyond their spectrum.

[Carmel]

Yes, if by that you mean "absolutes" aren't in the job description. It's open-ended and experimental in that sense, but keep in mind that scientific "laws", i.e. laws of relativity, are, in essence, absolutist in nature as are quite a few scientific "theories".

[cousinbasil]

The important thing to remember is that it is the mechanism of logic which yields the same conclusion.

Yes, philosophers do not have a patent on logical thinking.

[psychoactive]

Given that a thing can only come from what is not itself, where else can the present come from but from what is not itself?

Can you elaborate on this? at face it looks like an infinite regress.

[psychoactive]

If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.
-

But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case?

[David Quinn]

David:
Don't be fooled. Modern cosmologists don't have any evidence at all that the Universe began at the Big Bang. It is simply an assumption they insert into the current theory.

Carmel:
That's not the whole truth, either. Keeping in mind that due to the dynamic of the space-time continuum, when scientists look out into space, they can literally see the conditions of the Universe back in time. Based on this, they know quite accurately what the conditions of the
Universe were within one minute after the Big Bang occured. The Big Bang Theory entails far more than "an assumption they insert into current theory".

That the Big Bang represents the very beginnning of Nature itself is the assumption that is inserted. This is a separate issue to whether the space-time bubble in which we live is expanding or not, or whether it came from a singularity or not. You do see the difference, don't you?

This assumption that there is nothing beyond the space-time bubble - that our space-time bubble represents all there is - is wholly non-scientific in nature. It's an arbitrary decision made purely to stroke the vanity of cosmologists. It allows them to feel that their work is of fundamental philosophical importance, that they are not just common scientists studying a localized phenomenon.

David:
You really need to be clear about this. When it comes to these fundamental issues, science has absolutely nothing to say. It is wholly beyond the power of science to resolve these issues, one way or the other.

Carmel:
I still don't understand why you seem to display what appears to be an anti-science bias, when, in fact, modern scientific theory seems to confirm your philosophies at every turn.

I'm not anti-science. Just anti-sloppy thinking. And boy, when it comes to scientists speculating about the philosophical implications of their work, there is an awful lot of that.

"The Omniverse", a term which is gradually replacing "universe", acknowledges a boundless, infinite universe(omniverse), not unlike your version of "The Totality".

That's good to hear, but I doubt that such a change of perspective has come from solid philosophical reasoning. More probably it has come about because the previous assumption (i.e. that the Big Bang initiated Nature itself) threw up too many intractable problems within the framework of the theory.

Scientists, as a rule, have no interest in philosophic knowledge and philosophic wisdom. So any progress they make on that front is invariably produced by accident than design.

-

[David Quinn]

The important thing to remember is that it is the mechanism of logic which yields the same conclusion.

Yes, philosophers do not have a patent on logical thinking.

There is a world of difference between keeping logic contained within the borders of science, effectively hamstringing it, and that of pushing logic beyond science into the realm of absolute truth.

-

[David Quinn]

Given that a thing can only come from what is not itself, where else can the present come from but from what is not itself?

Can you elaborate on this? at face it looks like an infinite regress.

It is an infinite regress, but this is not so much a comment on beginninglessness, but on the dangers involved in treating things as abstract entities. As soon as we conceptually break up the continuum of Nature into "things" and treat them as identical, infinite regressions immediately spring into being as a natural consequence. They are products of abstracting away from the uniqueness of every situation.

If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.

But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case?

I'm not sure I'm following your line of thought here.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

logic is an activity of thoughting, an arrangement of thoughts in a certain pattern that is meant to identify apparently correctly a thing and that things relationship to other things...

It is thingifying or naming.

Is what a thought labels really there in the way that a thought says it is?

Isn't a thought really just a story?

How does a thought come to be?

Can you look at a thought and notice the space in which a thought arises and notice the wonderful play of thoughts, the playfulness of thoughts...

Notice the space necessary for this playfulness to happen in?
Notice how a thought in and of itself has a horizon that limits what is limitless...
How a thought can only perceive its own projection and immediately announces its own inadequecy as it forms..

Can you notice the emptiness of a thought?
Can you notice the fullness of the space in which a thought arises?

Just a thought...one that points.

[Carmel]

David:
That the Big Bang represents the very beginnning of Nature itself is the assumption that is inserted.

Carmel:
Yes, it represents the very beginning of the Universe, but not the beginning of the Omniverse, Totality or whatever you want to call it. The only reason I brought it up was because you seemed to be trivializing the Theory itself, when, in fact, it is a very well established Theory.

David:
This is a separate issue to whether the space-time bubble in which we live is expanding or not, or whether it came from a singularity or not. You do see the difference, don't you?

Carmel:
yup

David:
This assumption that there is nothing beyond the space-time bubble - that our space-time bubble represents all there is - is wholly non-scientific in nature.

Carmel:
What? You lost me. Who is saying that there is nothing beyond our space-time bubble?

David:
It's an arbitrary decision made purely to stroke the vanity of cosmologists.

Carmel:
Again, what? Why are you arbitrarily assigning the motive of vanity to cosmologists? This is just plain silly.

David:
You really need to be clear about this. When it comes to these fundamental issues, science has absolutely nothing to say. It is wholly beyond the power of science to resolve these issues, one way or the other.

Carmel:
They're not necessarily resolving issues, they're exploring them...Do you not see any value or benefit in exploring our natural world?

David:
I'm not anti-science. Just anti-sloppy thinking. And boy, when it comes to scientists speculating about the philosophical implications of their work, there is an awful lot of that.

Carmel:
I'm anti-sloppy thinking too, but I see much more of that from religionists than from scientists, why not blow some spitball in their direction for a change and let the scientists be. :)

David:
Scientists, as a rule, have no interest in philosophic knowledge and philosophic wisdom. So any progress they make on that front is invariably produced by accident than design.

Carmel:
Yes, so next time I want to learn about current cosmological theories, I'll just read "The Wisdom of the Infinite". :) ...My point being that there's nothing wrong with exploring different conceptual models of "reality". One doesn't detract from the other, quite the opposite, from my experience.

[Dennis Mahar]

Science, Education, Politics is owned by the Military/Industrial complex...

and that is only interested in the construction of a reality that is conducive to it's survival and dominance...
that's why you've got nuclear bombs.

Science is not interested in Reality as such.

Science is useless.

Get it?

[m4tt_666]

Science, Education, Politics is owned by the Military/Industrial complex...

and that is only interested in the construction of a reality that is conducive to it's survival and dominance...
that's why you've got nuclear bombs.

Science is not interested in Reality as such.

Science is useless.

Get it?

as much truth as that may hold, there are always those revolutionaries fighting their own people within any given field of study, i hold it to be truth a revelation will soon befall us, or you could call it wishful thinking on my part.

[Blair]

A revelation pertaining to what...

[m4tt_666]

our humanity.

like i said, i could live for the next 60 years in hopes of seeing such a change and never observing such, but its also possible something completely fucked up and awesome is going to happen pertaining to Mars and uncovering some ancient knowledge. i look forward to it but i'm not holding my breath.

[psychoactive]

If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.

But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case?

I'm not sure I'm following your line of thought here.

-

It may be necessarily the case that all things have causes, however if cause entails both temporal sequences and present conditions, then can it just be so that initially things were caused by present conditions, which would not necessitate that the universe be beginningless?

[Carmel]

Dennis:
Science is not interested in Reality as such.

Carmel:
Neither are you, apparently.
The natural world is a part of "reality", as are all things.

Dennis:
Science is useless.
Get it?

Carmel:
irony...as you type on your computer which was invented by scientists. This message will travel to you at the speed of light empowered by electricity, which was discovered by scientists.

Get it?

[Carmel]

Dennis:
Science, Education, Politics is owned by the Military/Industrial complex...

and that is only interested in the construction of a reality that is conducive to it's survival and dominance...
that's why you've got nuclear bombs.

Carmel:
I'm loathe to even address this level of nonsense. This is just plain quackery and reeks of paranoid conspiracy theories. I'm only pointing this out so as to possibly dilute the effects of poisoning young minds with this sort of blatant bullshit.

Science and education are not owned by the military/Industrial complex. Some fringe minority of politicians(&scientists) are involved in that, but even there, if you're going to make outrageous claims like this, you need to back it up with some evidence, otherwise, it's just a mass scale character assassination.

[m4tt_666]

ignorance in the fact he failed to support either side with evidence.

further ignorance in the fact he ended it with a closed statement as if there was something to get in the first place by way of his mere imaginings out of his personal convictions.

stuns me how people can grasp and regurgitate such a one dimensional mindset...

[Dennis Mahar]

Carmel,
You'd have to follow Nietschke and Heideggers line of thinking about construction of Worldhood and what happened after the pre-socratic Greeks...
about the forgetting of Being.
Wake up dear.

[Carmel]

Dennis:
You'd have to follow Nietschke and Heideggers line of thinking about construction of Worldhood and what happened after the pre-socratic Greeks...
about the forgetting of Being.

Carmel:
non sequitur

It's quite clear to me that you don't want to participate in any discussions in a logical manner, using well reasoned arguments as per the goals of this forum.

Dennis:
Wake up dear.

Carmel:
This statement merely confirms the supposition I've had about you for quite some time now. You're a pompous ass. :)

Get it?

[Dennis Mahar]

It's quite clear to me that you don't want to participate in any discussions in a logical manner, using well reasoned arguments as per the goals of this forum.

You mean quarrelling?

[Carmel]

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to participate, then don't. It's no big deal...

...but if you do decide to toss random, illogical crap into the ring, like your post to me about science, then you should fully expect that it will be confronted by me or others.

[Dennis Mahar]

QRS are trying to deliver a message to you guys that will blow your minds.
the patience, kindness they display
the insults they suffer,
is beyond me..
Why they give a fuck is beyond me...

You won't get it till you get it
if you get it
it'll be clear

a minimum requirement for posters to have already grokked emptiness would work better.