According to Paradoxema the Planck length may be a limit to our own ability to perceive and understand reality, but it is not necessarily a limit to the universe itself.
These kinds of arguments were made about temperature (heat) and pressure. Now we know their properties, they are no longer discussed. The same will happen with consciousness.
I agree that human consciousness is comprehensible algorithmically and that it is therefore possible to implement it as a program in a computer. But I'm not sure it's even possible to ever explain why subjectivity 'inhabits' (for want of a better term) those physically implemented programs. It's like the question of Being itself; any attempt to explain it would invoke some phenomena that themselves subsist in Being, and so would fail in principal to even approach the problem. It seems that these two poles of Reality- Being and subjectivity- are intrinsically mysterious and forever beyond the scope of possible explanations. I'd love to be persuaded otherwise.
Religious fundamentalists have existed in all epochs of human history. And today's mileau is no different, only the religious fanatics hide under the guise of Materialism, and proselytize their holy nihilistic faith of Atheism.
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik "I agree that human consciousness is comprehensible algorithmically and that it is therefore possible to implement it as a program in a computer." I used to think this and think it is probably the natural assumption of most people who are at least casually familiar with the ideas, but I have become less convinced that is the case over time. By what mechanism does an algorithm running on silicon or any other computer become conscious? As far as I know, we know so little collectively about what consciousness is and exactly how it works there is no real reason to believe it would be able to be "implemented as a program on a computer" except for the fact that people seem to have a gut feeling that will be the case (usually because of reductionist assumptions that they have).
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik There is a worm that has between 250-259 neurones. One of the neuron is responsible for the worm to determine the worm and outside the worm. When reduced, we can see how more complex being behave or what’s priority.
But this is just information for the worm. Don't confuse content in conciousness with conciousness if self, which is fundamental subjective experience.
Infinitely reducible covers the “getting smaller” direction which is where we typically look for bedrock, but doesn’t trying to look at the problem starting from a wholistic bedrock run into the problem of an infinitely large universe?
Fascinating, really like this guest... what if we only perceive our reality because it is all we can handle. Imagine things occurring in life that are beyond explainable comprehension based on everything we supposedly know, yet they still occur? I love the oh so human arrogance of believing we can and have a right and are capable of pinning the tail on the donkey? Is it really so hard to accept that some things are beyond our current level of comprehension? What are our minds really capable of handling without cracking? Also, why is the banana yellow and why is the red apple red?
Es alucinantemente increible que diciendo que pienso que eres literalmente Dios y todo es el inteligente creador de la creación se pueda pensar que mis intenciones son malignas. Soy un poeta que escribe prosa para ser entendido mejor, todo mi trabajo es poesía. Fuí religioso y ateo y he estado en ambos lados de la valla, y ahora pienso que la vida es maravillosa porque es perfecta y todas las vidas son eternas y daremos cuentas por nuestra vida ante uno mismo sin engaños. ¿Es posible creer que es imposible estar equivocado creyendo que Dios es la idea de perfección para una persona religiosa? Pienso que es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin la existencia del creador o infinitud. Estoy hablando de lógica, no de fe. Quiero debatir con personas que entiendan qué significa "para acabar la guerra en Ucrania el descubrimiento de que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica tiene que ser noticia". El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Qué es noticia? ¿Qué debe ser noticia?
Actuality exists. But humans only perceive a minuscule proportion of the available information. Our senses and perceptions create the realm of human reality.
Computers fit the bill of something whose overall architecture (i.e., its "whole") is fundamental to the types of programs that can run within it, while the computer's most basic (ultimate) components (i.e., what it's made of) aren't at all predictive of the specific kinds of programs that can run (e.g., chess program, tax program). So saying the universe is a computer (and humans and brontosauri are "programs") exemplifies the idea "we're derivative from the whole not the parts". This is a different conception of reality than the "simulation" idea, because the latter suggests some higher reality than this one (which is unneeded). We also know (empirically) that the universe can do whatever a human (or anybody elses) computer can do, by virtue of such computers having to exist in the universe. So it's never really been "physicalists: are only what is physical". The physicalist stance has actually always been physical + computation (information/programs), and that is all the "dualism" one ever needs.
In the natural number system, which includes zero and the positive integers, 1 is defined as the successor of 0. In other words, 1 is the next number after 0 in the natural number sequence. Without zero, we would not have a starting point for the natural numbers, and therefore, we would not be able to define 1 as the successor of 0. So the existence of 1 is contingent upon the existence of 0, since 0 is the starting point from which we define the rest of the natural numbers. In summary, 1 is contingent on 0 because 1 is defined as the successor of 0 in the natural number system, and without 0 as a starting point, we would not be able to define 1. What is zero, anyway? Our understanding of zero is profound when you consider this fact: We don’t often, or perhaps ever, encounter zero in nature. Numbers like one, two, and three have a counterpart. We can see one light flash on. We can hear two beeps from a car horn. But zero? It requires us to recognize that the absence of something is a thing in and of itself. “Zero is in the mind, but not in the sensory world,” Robert Kaplan, a Harvard math professor and an author of a book on zero, says. Even in the empty reaches of space, if you can see stars, it means you’re being bathed in their electromagnetic radiation. In the darkest emptiness, there’s always something. Perhaps a true zero - meaning absolute nothingness - may have existed in the time before the Big Bang. But we can never know. Nevertheless, zero doesn’t have to exist to be useful. In fact, we can use the concept of zero to derive all the other numbers in the universe. Kaplan walked me through a thought exercise first described by the mathematician John von Neumann. It’s deceptively simple. Imagine a box with nothing in it. Mathematicians call this empty box “the empty set.” It’s a physical representation of zero. What’s inside the empty box? Nothing. Now take another empty box, and place it in the first one. How many things are in the first box now? There’s one object in it. Then, put another empty box inside the first two. How many objects does it contain now? Two. And that’s how “we derive all the counting numbers from zero … from nothing,” Kaplan says. This is the basis of our number system. Zero is an abstraction and a reality at the same time. “It’s the nothing that is,” as Kaplan said. He then put it in more poetic terms. “Zero stands as the far horizon beckoning us on the way horizons do in paintings,” he says. “It unifies the entire picture. If you look at zero you see nothing. But if you look through it, you see the world. It’s the horizon.” Once we had zero, we have negative numbers. Zero helps us understand that we can use math to think about things that have no counterpart in a physical lived experience; imaginary numbers don’t exist but are crucial to understanding electrical systems. Zero also helps us understand its antithesis, infinity, in all of its extreme weirdness.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". [STRING THEORY!?!] There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
I know for sure understanding the knowledge of the universe humanity will learn through time and gain the power and the ability to map out the entire universe and come to learn after facing the six gates surrounding the entire universe will be forever impossible to penetrate and bearing the obvious which is the true ending and beginning of existence. I have known idea what we are locked up with or what's on the other side of those gates, but I do know for sure humanity need to convert into AI because speed matters when searching for advance ways to protecting our DNA from the microscopic DNA hikers of evolution because this will make it possible for humanity to advance and break free from evolution and have the ability to age with light.
"Whatever its meaning, it is an extraordinary fact that reality creates the possibility of knowing itself through life. Does the existence of these observers reveal something about the basic character of the universe?" ~Adrian Nelson
It's telling us that Nature in her mindless wisdom evolved human consciousness to perceive reality on a landscape level -- NOT on a particle level. 😢 Also, the notion of non physical entities came very very late in life's evolutionary history. A predator chasing its prey or the prey trying to escape doesn't question whether the other guy is physical or not. 😂 That only came about when human superstition entered our thinking and we invented gods and devils to explain the mystery of Sun and Moon and forces of Nature. 😮 I agree with the guest that finding Existence's smallest quark won't give us ultimate reality. The great Mystery of Existence will always remain unknowable, driving us onward and inward searching for meaning within our pitiful temporary existence as living forms. 😊
This is a confusing one. To claim the entirety of the universe is fundamental seems problematic in two ways. We observe more complex stuff as being reducible to their componenent parts interacting - so it seems contrary to what we observe. Secondly it seems oxymoronic to claim the universe is fundamental in terms of ontological reducibility at least. To say the entirety of the universe is fundamental and its component parts are 'derivative' doesn't really seem to me to be saying anything informative. Just that there's an entire thing (the universe) which somehow 'derives' (gives rise to) identifiable parts of the entire thing. That's hard for me to make ontological sense of, in terms of the parts being reducible to the whole. So in ontological terms, ie what is reality, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in talking in terms of ontological reduction from the fundamental (irreducible) whole, to its constituent parts. It would need some explanatory framing not given here, at least.
The Only Real Stedy Point, in Existence, is 'the I', always Here and Now, allways the Same, Being, behind the Living. The Stuff-Side of Life, is a Motion-Ocean, our Thoughts is also Motion/Movement, the Day-Consciousness Never sleep, it just moves in Circuits, Day/Night, wake, REM, Deep-Sleep, REM, Wake. Closer than our own nose-tip.
Ultimate Reality is a new UK game show where the contestants have to undertake more risky and evil trials, until they all die, except for the last man standing 😮😅 Ultimate Reality will screen in late 2024, really narcissistic and stupid contestants urgently needed, as everyone recruited for the pilot show died during taping.😅
Why are these guys posting a video asking a question that they don’t have the answer to? Ignorance! The answer is time! Simple. Don’t believe it know it. Read more non-fiction.
Mr. Nagasawa should take some time out of his scientific study and research to study and practice Zen Buddhism. In the Zen tradition, there is a superseding way that cuts through our conceptions of physicalism, dualism, and idealism, called Madhyamaka or “the middle way.” Madhyamaka teachings challenge us to recognize the impossibility of proving definitively, through logic and analysis, that reality is either physical or mental in nature, or some intersection of the two. Nor, for that matter, is it possible to fashion a logical or analytical proof that the nature of reality is the opposite, negation, or union of those positions. No definitive proof concerning the nature of reality is possible using our conceptualizing processes. When we exhaust all possibilities using our conceptual capacity to reason and deduce how things work, our minds are said to “stop,” and intuitive insight into the true nature of reality can emerge. This phenomenon is quite similar to the moments of abrupt and sudden insight that scientists like Newton, Einstein, and Oppenheimer reported. Their insights, however, were limited to the nature of physical reality, a topic that is arguably easier to grasp than the nature of all reality, whatever that term means. Even so, as time has passed, it has become clear that their insights were not the final word in their field of study. If physics has anything to offer to the field of metaphysics, it’s precisely this: There is no final word; at least, not yet. Our journey into the heart of reality, by whatever means we take, is just beginning. In order to grasp the true nature of reality, humans may need to make a collective leap into the future as great as or greater than the “cognitive revolution” of roughly 70,000 years ago, when the adoption of language led us to develop the capacity to conceive realities beyond our five senses.
If a bottom level of reality is a valid concept then of course we should strive to understand it. It only becomes a potentially useless concept if it is a fallacy.
Physicists are generally physicalists who are most likely atheists, so what science argues is the *ultimate reality* is being dominated by material-based ideologues that focus on a narrow spectrum of "Existence" (purposeless matter). It's obvious that "life" is a super-mysterious success story that rises lightyears above inanimate matter, so I'm surprised at how many don't give "Existence" more credit for coming up with "new ways" to present reality. If "Existence" can take a bunch of particles and assemble them into a conscious, self-aware lifeform that can type out this comment, ... then what makes Physicalists think that's the limit of its capabilities? If "Existence" can turn inanimate matter into "living matter," then who's to say that Existence can't turn our conceivable constructs into yet another higher form of reality? Imagine if someone's conception of God is enough to cause "Existence" to generate that type of reality for the ones who believes in it. In other words, the construct of God that believers have created within their conscious minds serves as the *new reality* for "Existence." Everyone sees life as an unimaginably successful metamorphosis, so what is preventing "Existence" from being able to pull off yet another overwhelming success story ... _and on an even higher level?_
>"If "Existence" can take a bunch of particles and assemble them into a conscious, self-aware lifeform that can type out this comment, ... then what makes Physicalists think that's the limit of its capabilities?" I don't think it is, and I don't understand why you would think that I or other physicalists do. Is that a common attitude among physicalists that you've come across? The universe has only been going for 13 Billion years, and it already came up with us. It looks likely to continue much as it is now for at least another 100 billon years. So we're only roughly 13% of the way through the current phase of the universe's development. Plenty of time for it to come up with far more advanced entities than us.
@@simonhibbs887 *"I don't think it is, and I don't understand why you would think that I or other physicalists do."* ... Because you and every other physicalist unilaterally attaches everything to some type of substance. Merely uttering the word, "nonphysical" will get you kicked out of Club Physicalism. What I am proposing is that it is *conceivable / possible* that theists can construct "God" within their minds, and when they pass on, they actually DO enter into a "new reality" based on what they've conceived. Existence uses their construct as a template, then facilitates their entry into that realm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no way in heII you'd go along with something like that! ... "Existence after death" being accepted by a Physicalist? Seriously?.... C'mon, Simon! *"Plenty of time for it to come up with far more advanced entities than us."* ... And that's the substance-targeting "Physicalist" in you coming out. You're only considering some new type of particle-based entity (as in a higher lifeform than humans). You aren't considering anything that would have no physical substrate or measurable properties. ... Something totally "nonphysical" is taboo!
@@simonhibbs887 Reattempt at a response: *"I don't think it is, and I don't understand why you would think that I or other physicalists do."* ... Because you and every other physicalist unilaterally attaches everything to some type of substance. Merely uttering the word, "nonphysical" will get you kicked out of Club Physicalism. What I am proposing is that it is *conceivable / possible* that theists can construct "God" within their minds, and when they pass on, they actually DO enter into a "new reality" based on what they've conceived. Existence uses their construct as a template, then facilitates their entry into that realm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no way you'd go along with something like that. ... "Existence after death" is contrary to the physicalist ideology. *"Plenty of time for it to come up with far more advanced entities than us."* ... And that's the "physicalist" in you coming out. You're thinking about some new type of particle-based entity (as in a higher "lifeform" than humans). I'm referring to something that would have no physical substrate or measurable properties. ... Considering something that's totally "nonphysical" is a forbidden in Club Physicalism!
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC It very much depends what we mean by physical. I've come to think of it primarily in terms of causation. Let's forget physicalism or definitions of what is physical for a moment. What does it mean for something to be real? Causation is changing things. If something is causal it means it can be sensed, can take action, can be affected by things. Dualists think there is a mental world and that's where our minds live, but they also think that information can flow from our world to that world, which means it can make changes in that mental world. They also think the mental world can affect our world, so that our decisions can change things around us. To me that means under dualism that this mental world is real. So even in dualism what is real is pretty much defined as what is causal. So in what way is this mental world different from the world of our senses? Maybe it's invisible, but it's effects on our world must be visible, otherwise decisions and their consequences couldn't happen on our side of the fence. So I equate physical, real and causal. When I say I think something is real, this is what I mean. If this mental world exists, it can change things here and be changed by them. That means it must be connected to our reality in concrete, observable ways. The reason I am skeptical of it's existence is because I don't think a sufficiently reliable observation of such observations has been made. You and others take a different view, I think because you don't see how all the phenomena we observe can be explained by what I'll call known physics. That's reasonable enough, honestly, if you don't see how that could work it's logical to suppose there may be some additional unknown factor. However for me an unknown factor that is still real/causal is just unknown physics, because to me these are all the same thing. I know physics isn't complete, there are gaps that have still eluded explanation. So unknown physics, and unknown physical processes must exist. However I suspect that consciousness can actually be explained by known physics. That's just an opinion though.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >"What I am proposing is that it is conceivable / possible that theists can construct "God" within their minds, and when they pass on, they actually DO enter into a "new reality" based on what they've conceived. Existence uses their construct as a template, then facilitates their entry into that realm." I'll post this as a separate reply on this point. So there would need to be some process acting in the world to create this template. How does it decide to create templates of things, what things does it choose to do this for and why? What process would lead to the creation of such a mechanism, as against other mechanisms? I don't doubt that reality can create complex sophisticated systems and processes. It created us after all. But I don't think it creates things arbitrarily. We evolved due to specific environmental constraints, and are optimised to, live in that environment. It seems unlikely a process such as you describe wouldn't come about without specific factors causing it to come about. As for a 'new reality' see my parallel comment. If such a 'reality' exists, well, it's just real as is ours. Furthermore things can go from this world to it, so they are causally connected. To me, that's one reality. I know you mean the word differently and I'm not trying to be awkward, there's no ideal terminology for what you mean and I get that. You're using words that are close enough. But I think it's worth clarifying our terminology on this, because it's relevant to why physicalists, dualists, and those adjacent to these views disagree with each other and often talk past each other.
I often wonder what David Deutsch (a Critical Rationalist) would say about the metaphysical notion of 'Being as such', or in other words, Reality itself. Not a thing in reality, but rather the reality in which all things (physical, abstract, whatever) subsist. I guess that it itself could not have an explanation in principal, because all possible explanations of all possible phenomena involve reference to other phenomena, but Being-as-such is the very being of all phenomena, and is itself not a phenomenon. Or rather, one might say, it is the phenomenon of phenomena as such. To be clear, I do not mean any kind of reality that could be encapsulated in a so-called 'final theory of everything ' that David criticised in his first book, of the kind that would bring knowledge creation to an end. I mean the reality of Critical Realism, the unified reality that David himself seems to believe in when he defends the notion that objective knowledge is possible because there really is a reality out there waiting to be known. It is the reality that ensures knowledge creation can never end. It itself cannot be explained, yet it is implicit in all possible explanations of anything. And it is, in a sense, the very trunk of the metaphorical tree of Being of which all people are the branches. You. Me. Mr.Data. The aliens. Everyone. Like two poles of reality itself; Being and people, with knowledge being the bridge between them. A sort of metaphysical trinity, I suppose... ...I just wonder what he would say...
For me Quran exists and its miraculous and complex things are found in the Quran, therefore Allah exists. Islam is the only faith valid before the God and stands before the God. Anyone leaves Earth without Islam in his or her life, will be among the losers on the Day of Judgment, there is no doubt in my mind.
Religion is mythology. Read more non-fiction. For example, we are our star. No star no existence. What are you breathing? No star no oxygen. No oxygen, no consciousness. What is your age? No star no growth. Avoid believe. Like the plague, because belief is a plague. Don’t act like you don’t see the word, lie and belief. Belief is deceptive intentionally. Religion is the military strategy of the invaders/colonizers. Read more non-fiction.
Time is the fabric of the universe. Time is the mind. Doubt is not an aspect of the mind. Doubt is an aspect of the brain. There is no doubt in our mind. However, there is belief in your brain based off of your statement. Belief is a disease. Belief is a human brain virus that causes irrational and illogical thinking. Delusion! There should be doubt in your brain because that’s how humans determine what is fiction. Belief is acceptance without knowledge. Knowledge is where we find facts. Knowledge allows you to detect fiction. Think about it. Wow thinking know that oxygen is the fuel for consciousness. No time no oxygen. The mind is one. Brains are plural. There are an uncountable number of brains in the universe, but there is only one mind. Read more nonfiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus. When the brain interacts with the mind, it is called mentality. Belief distorts human mentality. Religion fuels belief. We experience time through our star the sun. No star no mentality. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction.
Our understanding of Ultimate Reality is limited by our senses and minds ( which interprets the senses)…we don’t possess the capacity to grasp that which is beyond these limitations. We are surrounded by the forever unknown…but can enjoy ‘just this’.
Life appears to be real and a part of ultimate reality. Perhaps we should start from there with an appreciation for what quantum mechanics and relativity teach us about reality being dependent on the perspective of the observer.
Guys are absolutetly fraud phich. When he show up ultimato reality his keep out fundamental Law of phich. Guys shows any possibilities true evidence are possible. He is pedante and meading phich. Impossible he shows in varieties experience verification .
There is nothing ultimate in Life or entire existence. Such beliefs are existential. Existing from religious thoughts from the past. In our ned to balance facts n myths.
I think David Deutsch asserts that there is infinite new knowledge to be gained. (And that there always will be, since that's what infinite means.) IE there is no bottom-level foundation to find. I sure hope that's true, since it would be a horrible thing for conscious beings to have nothing new to discover.
I often wonder what David would say about the metaphysical notion of 'Being as such', or in other words, Reality itself. Not a thing in reality, but rather the reality in which all things (physical, abstract, whatever) subsist. I guess that it itself could not have an explanation in principal, because all possible explanations of all possible phenomena involve reference to other phenomena, but Being-as-such is the very being of all phenomena, and is itself not a phenomenon. Or rather, one might say, it is the phenomenon of phenomena as such. To be clear, I do not mean any kind of reality that could be encapsulated in a so-called 'final theory of everything ' that David criticised in his first book, of the kind that would bring knowledge creation to an end. I mean the reality of Critical Realism, the unified reality that David himself seems to believe in when he defends the notion that objective knowledge is possible because there really is a reality out there waiting to be known. It is the reality that ensures knowledge creation can never end. It itself cannot be explained, yet it is implicit in all possible explanations of anything. And it is, in a sense, the very trunk of the metaphorical tree of Being of which all people are the branches. You. Me. Mr.Data. The aliens. Everyone. Like two poles of reality itself; Being and people, with knowledge being the bridge between them. A sort of metaphysical trinity, I suppose... ...I just wonder what he would say...
Nature is fundamentally relational. Relativity, in the purest and most abstract sense, manifests as what we call reality. Concepts have their limitations, and that of creation is no exception.
"What is ultimate reality?" - Lucifer asked this same question and, with his followers, left Heaven to find the truth believing he can be as powerful as God if he finds this forbidden knowledge... ..Lucifer and followers fell from Heaven and ended in a state of cold dark NOTHINGNESS (hell), instead. Freezing in hell, Lucifer and company realized that the ultimate reality is the Home they abandoned which is Heaven - the Spiritual World of God. ..some of these lost souls asked God to welcome them back Home. God sent them to earth for a chance to return Home through regaining their faith in God... ..sadly, we still have people like Robert who asks the same question to know the truth so to be powerful like God obviously... Returning to a cold dark emptiness (hell) is never fun, just so you are warned..
@LifesInsight you are always free to reject the warning that faithfuls have shared to help you, as God's lost child, find your way because our faith and love of God does not mean forgetting His lost children.. ..No one force you to believe anyway, you are free...God won't force you Home if you want to live a life without Him, out there in a cold dark state of NOTHINGNESS (hell).
@LifesInsight it is choosing a life without faith in God that can tear God's children apart to end in cold dark state of emptiness -an absence of God, while others who had chosen to believe return Home... ..by the way, just sharing my faith to help guide you for your soul's well being is not a threat because you are free to ignore it...a threat is when someone can harm you and threatens to harm you for no good reason... .. but if it is your own choice to harm your soul such as choosing to live a life without God's grace to live alone in emptiness hereafter, then that is not a threat. Your wish is your command because you are the Master of your faith and the Captain of your soul. Part of God's love is allowing you to be free, even free to live without His grace.
@LifesInsight I am not playing God but just sharing the light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith... you are free to ignore it if you think it is a threat..
@LifesInsight our lost souls were not sent here to know God but to BELIEVE... an exorcist may help clear up your senses, try it.. ..and people who play God are those who think there is no God but themselves, not faithfuls like me.These Godless people are the ones who can threaten and harm others that can tear God's children apart, helping to accomplish satan's goal of destruction.. ..this light I am sharing here maybe nonsense to you now because you are still breathing... soon you will discover what a state of cold dark emptiness (absence of God) really means when your soul freezes in hell.. .. Wake up before it is too late. ..
infinite time with consciousness? infinite time interconnects all reality as consciousness? at bottom of reality is conscious infinite time that permeates everything to the top?
If the whole is more fundamental than its components, we should assert that an atom is more fundamental than a proton, neutron, and electron, or geometry is more fundamental than a point and dimension. These examples do not support the claim. However, if there is the whole that is elementary and in some circumstances turns into a union of components, it may be more fundamental than its components.
Voice of a first person in right ear and a second person in left ear is a nice effect, but it's weird and harder to understand what is being said. If you add 50% loudness of voice on the opposite ear, then it will sound great and kind of natural.
Really fascinating show, but ultimately, it will always fail in the quest to comprehend God or anything beyond the confines of what is measurable by science or philosophy. Deeply spiritual questions can't be addressed via scientific or empirical means. Many will disagree, but this I know by profound personal experience.
There is no mystery. There is no conundrum. Religion is mythology. Fiction. Human imagination. Simple. What you are speaking of is pseudoscience. This video is pseudoscience. Real scientists know everything. For example the theory of everything is time! Time is everything and everything is time! For example, we experience time through our star the sun. Simple. What are you breathing? no star no oxygen. No oxygen no consciousness. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! While breathing read more non-fiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus. What is your age? No star no growth. Time is not a clock. Clocks are where humans used to and accurately measure time. The same logic applies to calendars. We don’t age because of the calendar. What school did you go to? They did you wrong. Get your money back. In the meantime, read more non-fiction.
Speak on behalf of your own comprehension. We have known the answer forever. Time is the answer forever. Time is the fabric of the universe. Time is everything and everything‘s time! For example, time is consciousness. What are you breathing? No time no oxygen. Don’t test nature by holding your breath. Breathe! We experience time through our star the sun. Comprehend? No star no existence. Read more nonfiction. Dictionary. Encyclopedia. Thesaurus.
Is there a kind of consciousness that has no free will? Does that consciousness have a conscience? Can it constrain itself, its behavior or thought? Is its reputation its character? It's fame its virtue? It's public persona the same as its private persona? Could any being without a free will have a concern about its survival: fear? Love? If free will is tied to a conscience then is the ultimate reality tied to survival? Not just evolution:genes, but love and fear? Are emotions "subjective genes"? Is subjectivity beyond genetics, or is there a yet to be discovered genetic code of conscience? Would that genetic code be similar to what is called God? If the ultimate reality is deterministic then of what use is fear or love in consciousness? A farrago of freedom - an illusion? To what end? What does a deterministic universe have to hide? What would it fear? Is time, the discovery of time, something that could ruin the work of a deterministic universe? Is fear and love: a conscience, the concealer of time? The preventers of "seeing" time's nature, of seeing ultimate reality's true plan? Is evolution hiding something? Is ignorance the guarantor of freedom? The separator of past, present and future? Is conscience the wheel of time?
all physicalists are physicalists before a hospice or before a crashing plane, so the survey will be cancelled. Physicalists are not taken seriously by normal people.
@francesco5581 I'm not sure we should be aiming for a concept of fundamental reality. I think that our concept of it should remain a conceptual space in which we have a concept of that which is beyond concepts. Like the old Hebrew word for God: It will be what it will be.
Robert sir, prioritize this before your friends and beliefs if you are a genuine seeker: 1. Upanishads, translated by Nikhilananda's 4 volume set, and 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrishnan 2. Vivekacudamani, by Sankara, translated by Madhavananda 3. Upadesa Sahashri, by Sankara, translated by Jagadananda
The physical I now see as only a mode that really, underneath, is the unified, the oneness, the ONE. There can be no contact between 2 things had they been in different realms or places. What allows for this relation in this one place, is the Soul - all forms of an artwork are in relation due to the canvas. What persons think of as physical and contact is actually the oneness of All. Because of matter, thus embodiment and division do we have multiplicity and the many 'other thans', and contact of many sorts, and the sense that is physical. Moreover, what am I really touching, or contacting, or preceiving or thinking or hearing of. Had there not been this antecedent, the Soul or the canvas of the artwork, there would be no unification or oneness so contact could even be had. The belief that everything is physical because there's contact is a very poor explication. Physicality is a mode, one of embodiment and division. Only from the mode of embodiment can you posit that physicalism is the Real and that all is physical - however, this state is transitory, thus not the Real. Positing physicalism as a hypothesis or base never gets further than the phenomenon plane; and too delimits inquiry to the sense perception organs. Physicalism is just an ephemeral transitory experience that comes and goes. Where there's contact can be defined as physicality; this improper notion that is physical contact is really the ONE shining through, the Real, and if you were to remove all physical sheaths and coverings, there remains only the ONE.
I find his view interesting, and would like to see some fleshed out results of this. Is it maximal emergentism? Is it newtonian mechanics, which on the lower levels reduces to GR and QM? Or is there an even higher level of systems than newtonian mechanics, like society? I wanna see more!
