What to make of reality

wizanda said:

One theory i have to the beginning of reality, is that the Matrix evolved through the Oneness of souls uniting together; before then there was just random chaos, as without any order, there is no reason for anything to formulate.

Click to expand...

So, the souls were not "order"?

Willamena said:

So, the souls were not "order"?

Click to expand...

We find this in many ancient religions, there was a time of chaos at the beginning...

Like within my NDE: Hell was like lots of strands without order; Heaven projected order (Dharma/Tao) into everything... with us being somewhere in-between

The CPU/Source/Singularity knows the order of everything, plus projects it.

It doesn't enforce its views, it is just maintainer of the Matrix (mathematical grid for things to exist within).

wizanda said:

We find this in many ancient religions, there was a time of chaos at the beginning...

Like within my NDE: Hell was like lots of strands without order; Heaven projected order (Dharma/Tao) into everything... with us being somewhere in-between

The CPU/Source/Singularity knows the order of everything, plus projects it.

It doesn't enforce its views, it is just maintainer of the Matrix (mathematical grid for things to exist within).

Click to expand...

But was a time when the souls were not order?

Nous said:

What physicists discover about empirical reality are mathematical relations--E=mc^2, F=ma, F=k(q1q2)/d^2 (Coulomb’s law), ∆S ≥ 0 (second law of thermodynamics), Schrodinger’s equation, the laws of conserved quantities, etc., etc. Thus, scientific realism entails mathematical realism: Scientific Realism Begets Mathematical Realism

Of course, reality consists of more than just empirical reality. You don't get to watch my private fantasies (and probably wouldn't want to).

Click to expand...

Science isn't math and as such don't treat all equations as if they are all equal. Mathematical realism would never stop introducing new string theories and dimensions.

Willamena said:

But was a time when the souls were not order?

Click to expand...

Theoretically there has to be a time before reality was given form (Matrix), where the souls weren't in an order.

The CPU allows us to play the game, without necessarily choosing all the moves we make; just nudging us a long in the right direction, by the options we are given.

idav said:

Nous said:

What physicists discover about empirical reality are mathematical relations--E=mc^2, F=ma, F=k(q1q2)/d^2 (Coulomb’s law), ∆S ≥ 0 (second law of thermodynamics), Schrodinger’s equation, the laws of conserved quantities, etc., etc. Thus, scientific realism entails mathematical realism: Scientific Realism Begets Mathematical Realism

Of course, reality consists of more than just empirical reality. You don't get to watch my private fantasies (and probably wouldn't want to).

Click to expand...

Science isn't math and as such don't treat all equations as if they are all equal. Mathematical realism would never stop introducing new string theories and dimensions.

Click to expand...

So you don't dispute these arguments (from that thread):

?

wizanda said:

Theoretically there has to be a time before reality was given form (Matrix), where the souls weren't in an order.

The CPU allows us to play the game, without necessarily choosing all the moves we make; just nudging us a long in the right direction, by the options we are given.

Click to expand...

I don't see it that way, as reality is given in each instance of consciousness.

But per my question, aren't souls an order in themselves?

Willamena said:

I don't see it that way, as reality is given in each instance of consciousness.

Click to expand...

'I' would see it that way, as 'I' is finite and individual...

Yet there are tons of clues, that as well as all each having our own individual consciousness, that there is a unified consciousness between everything...

Where people praying, meditating, thinking in unison, actually affects the things around us.

Then having had a NDE, to leave this individual physical shell, we can see everything is made of consciousness vibrating at different speeds.

We still have our individual consciousness; yet we're aware 'the sage's mind isn't our own', that it is influenced by all the other consciousnesses around us.

Willamena said:

aren't souls an order in themselves?

Click to expand...

Souls are naturally ordering themselves overall by weight, like the heavy separatist ego based ones fall lower within reality, by coming here or slightly lower to Hell; those who accept the Oneness of everything, can attain Heaven/Nirvana.

Then internally each soul is evolving within its self, it is placed along side other souls of the same color frequency, to help us all progress spiritually.

Souls order themselves by likes and dislikes, and then the Matrix also appears to have made up loads of religions, to sort the wheat from the chaff.

What is reality, and who's reality do we follow ?.

Nous said:

So you don't dispute these arguments (from that thread):

Thus, taking my cue from some of the characteristic claims of scientific realism--

“The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently.” Scientific realism - Wikipedia “The central terms of the best current theories are genuinely referential.” http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Encyclopedia entries/scientific realism.htm

--I wish to state an argument such as:

P1: All central terms of fundamental scientific laws are genuinely referential.
P2: All central terms of fundamental scientific laws are quantities (/mathematical relations).
C: Therefore, some quantities (/mathematical relations) are genuinely referential.
(AAI-3)

or

P1: All entities (/structures) discovered by physicists using the scientific method are objectively existing.
P2: Some mathematical relations are entities (/structures) discovered by physicists using the scientific method.
C: Therefore, some mathematical relations are objectively existing.
(AII-1)
​

?

Click to expand...

Why do the premises use 'all' followed by conclusions of only 'some'?
Yes some math is referencing the objective, not all.

psychoslice said:

What is reality, and who's reality do we follow ?.

Click to expand...

Reality is a combination of various inputs, pieces of a larger puzzle but each piece isn't really wrong.

idav said:

Reality is a combination of various inputs, pieces of a larger puzzle but each piece isn't really wrong.

Click to expand...

But how would you know that in reality ?, we can only know through our senses, and that is our reality, but in reality that isn't true.

psychoslice said:

But how would you know that in reality ?, we can only know through our senses, and that is our reality, but in reality that isn't true.

Click to expand...

It is not as if any method of observation is wrong, it is just a piece of a larger puzzle. We don't have to see like a bat to know we are gonna hit a wall.

idav said:

Why do the premises use 'all' followed by conclusions of only 'some'?

Click to expand...

When you do the Venn diagram for an AAI-3 (for instance), you see that not all of the Subject terms are included as a Predicate term. Syllogism - Wikipedia

Yes some math is referencing the objective, not all.

Click to expand...

The conclusions were these propositions: "some quantities (/mathematical relations) are genuinely referential," and "some mathematical relations are objectively existing." It is the mathematical relations that are discovered, not something that the mathematical relations supposedly symbolically refer to. As noted in the OP of that thread: "Structuralism or structural realism is a species of scientific realism that recommends that the mathematical relations described in physics reveal or represent abstract structures as the objective constituents of reality."

idav said:

It is not as if any method of observation is wrong, it is just a piece of a larger puzzle. We don't have to see like a bat to know we are gonna hit a wall.

Click to expand...

Yes and we are only one part of that puzzle, but in reality we are the whole puzzle.

Willamena said:

My only problem with this is that the concept "reality" is also of the Matrix, it was born in describing things of the Matrix. It is not applicable to anything outside the Matrix. The conclusions of Dr. Kaku are in the Matrix, the imagining of a giant conscious symphony and its conductor is in the Matrix--there is nothing we can put a word or thought to that isn't in the Matrix. Any "beyond" is unnamed and ineffable.

Click to expand...

Actually, you have it backwards. The Bible says that we live in the fallen world. If you want to compare the mateirial world to The Matrix movie, then this is the blue pill world. The red pill world is the true everlasting spiritual world. How do I know this is true? One, I've taken the red pill. Here is part of how it is described:

"The word fallen is used in the Bible to describe someone or something spiritually and morally degraded. Israel is described as “fallen” (Amos 5:2), as are angels (Isaiah 14:12; Revelation 12:4) and the glory of mankind (1 Peter 1:24). Each of these has fallen away from the heights of God’s good will for them, fallen into sin, and therefore fallen under the just wrath of God. Those in a fallen state suffer the degrading and deadly spiritual, moral, and social consequences of sinfulness.

Several Bible passages speak of this kind of downfall: 1 Corinthians 10:12 warns Christ’s followers, “Be careful that you do not fall.” Falling into sin is the opposite of growing up in righteousness. In Revelation 2:5, Jesus speaks to the church of Ephesus, which had left its first love: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first” (ESV).

The whole world of mankind has fallen:

• from friendship with God into proud estrangement from Him and enmity with Him; this leaves us diseased and dying in every part of our personalities and bodies (Genesis 2:16; 3:2–9; Exodus 15:26; Deuteronomy 30:15–20)

• from our full reflection of His likeness into shattered, distorted images, suffering the results of our brokenness (Genesis 6:5; Matthew 15:19; Romans 1:14—2:16; Romans 3:9–20)

• from joyful obedience to God’s rules so as to fulfill His superlative design for our lives into lawless rebellion and constant frustration and warfare at every level of society (Genesis 3:14–16; James 4:1–10)

• from the beauty, tranquility, and vitality of godly family life into a cesspool of sexual-identify confusion, domestic strife, and aimlessness (Genesis 3:16; Romans 1:14—2:16; Galatians 5:19–21)"

...

"To live in a fallen world means we struggle with sin on a daily basis. We experience heartache and pain. We witness natural disasters and staggering loss. Injustice, inhumanity, and falsehood seem to hold sway. Discord and trouble are commonplace. None of this was God’s original plan for humanity. We fell from our original position in the Garden of Eden. We now live in a fallen world, and all creation “groans” under the consequences of our sin (Romans 8:22)."

What does it mean that we live in a fallen world?

What are other evidence that what I say is true. God created heaven and the angels first. He gave the angels free will. The Bible states that these angels helped God create the heavenly world, that which Adam and Eve were born into. However, some of the angels led by Lucifer created another world except it had no God. They were able to do this because they had free will. Thus, Lucifer was able to say to God that he created a world just like God and thus wanted to be just like God. This started war in heaven between good and evil and the rest is history.

My material evidence is which group of people on RD believe only in the material world, i.e. fallen world? Which group of people of RF trust in the spiritual world? This is what the red pill and the blue pill signifies. That of salvation. Interesting backstory on the people who created The Matrix and the person who actually had the idea first. I can't confirm it's true, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The problem with reasoning "its made of x" is you can then reasonably ask "what is x made of?". Ad infinitum. Hence reductionism is bound to fail if youre asking for ultimate reality. Therefore, we have holism I suppose which it the opposite, where we have experience, and that is fundamental. And questions about what-is-it-made-of miss the point.