Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What a bizarre non sequitir. Care to elaborate?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Imaginary Friends
- Thread starter Samantha Rinne
- Start date
No, it is energy that is an attribute of the particles, not the other way around. Charge, for example, is not an attribute of energy, but rather an attribute of a particle.
Yazata
Active Member
Samantha doesn't seem to me to be suggesting solipsism. Solipsism is basically the idea that I can only know my own experience, so why should I believe that any of the rest of you have experience of your own if it's forever unknowable by me, and more strongly, why should I believe that anything apart from me is anything but my own experience or my own inferences from it.
Samantha is asking why we should be so certain that we are real and not just figments of the experience of another (superior) being. Samantha's version is a common idea in philosophical theology, not just in Christianity but in Hinduism, in classical antiquity and all over. Many religious thinkers have (and continue to) think this way.
Yes, that's one of the fundamental questions in all this. What does "more real" mean in speculations like these?
My own tendency is to interpret the phrase in terms of ontological dependence. If you have A and B, and A depends on B for its existence while B doesn't depend on A, we can say that A is ontologically dependent on B. It's still an active subject of discussion and controversy in metaphysics.
A bare outline --
Ontological priority - Wikipedia
A much more technical discussion more appropriate for advanced philosophy students --
Ontological Dependence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
If we are figments of God's imagination, then at least one of the things we can say is that our existence is dependent on God's existence. While God's existence wouldn't be dependent on God imagining us.
I think that all monotheistic religious traditions have ideas of ontological dependence. It's one of the things that creation myths are intended to set out. Creation, including the humans within it, is dependent on God its creator. But the existence of God isn't dependent on the existence of his creation. (Atheists reverse that asymmetrical relation.)
I'm not totally convinced that science has entirely gotten away from the kind of idea that Samantha is suggesting. Physical reality is seemingly dependent on the laws of physics (in the sense that what can and can't exist/happen is determined by these relationships), which in turn seem to be dependent somehow on mathematics (the relationships consist of the kind of formal structures described by mathematics). So we are arguably right back at a Platonic-style realism with this reality a projection of a higher reality of abstract forms.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
and what constitutes a particle?
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
just to dive in here, if I may, non-sense, means that such do not possess the faculties to sense this, thus it is non-sense....like such people are blind to those who can fathom such depths, but it is like explaining color to the blind...in the end futile since the typical response is rejection , since they cling so hard to only what they can sense [and can such be blamed, since they really have no experience of what is being discussed]
Salty Booger
Royal Crown Cola (RC)
"How is it going?"
"Living the dream."
Fortunately we don’t have to prove that we’re real.
Reality is just that which, when we stop believing in it, it doesn’t go away.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I like your use of the word "disturbed".
The dynamic/logical nature of that which exists is a disturbance driving new states.
Imagine if you were "everything" in as simple a state as possible... and you eventually became self aware (able to model self in memory as if looking in a mirror). You then reverse-engineered yourself to the point of being able to make a perfect model of that which you are thus far.
One of the first things which would "disturb" you on a psychological level (still based on the most basic) at that point would be whether there could be others. The complete model would show there are not others, but could also reveal how there could be others.
If God is the sum of all, then others could only exist by subdivision. In other words, a multiple personality ORDER.
We would literally be composed of "God" -and would exist as a logical separations granted the power of decision.
If "of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end" then it would indicate that the most basic nature of reality allows for INFINITE subdivision in some way.
One of the first major ideas expressed in the bible is that ....it is not good that ____ should be alone"
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Reality is that which stands scrutiny.
I see no point in arguing about what you think is in our future. Until such time we can read read thoughts in brain scans, any debate on the matter is futile. I'm not going to waste time arguing over what you are predicting.
Testable? Maybe. Provable? Doubtful. Two people can share the same experience and demonstrate very different behaviors.
Remember, you stated previously that something has to be testable and provable to be considered not nonsense.
Last edited:
By demonstration of authoritative finality.
Through objectively observable evidence.
The phrase was a play on the wording in one of our rules, and offered it as little more than a tongue-in-cheek comment, hence the quotation marks that surrounded it and the wink that followed.
I imagine you had some sort of a point in asking these questions?
Not if you've already written it off as a "bizarre non sequitir." Why waste my time elaborating on a statement you've already concluded doesn't follow logic?
While I give you mad props for creativity, I'm confident your definition wasn't the intention of the initial use of the word in this thread.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Being not aware of reality is really sleeping.life is but a dream, so it seems ...one would have to be asleep to believe it.
Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan
Just saying: the technology is closer than many think.
As they say, proof is for alcohol and mathematics. You don't get proofs of general propositions about the real world. Instead, you have testability. Anything not testable is ignored for good reason.
I believe I said it needed to be testable. Provability is an unreachable goal in general. It is available in math only due to its being a formal system.
Which excludes the 'ineffable', yes?
That the notion of 'fact' doesn't fit well with the notion of 'untestable'.
Yes. But as I mentioned previously, 'ineffable' was a unfortunate choice of words, and I deleted the post prior to your quoting it.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The criteria for tests have to be decided. Would you test macro or micro?
In the Hindu slang, would you test Vyavaharika or Paramarthika?
NB: Vyavaharika Satya (Pragmatic truth), Paramarthika Satya (Absolute truth).
That I am Aupmanyav is pragmatic truth; and that I am Brahman, that which constitutes all things in the universe, is absolute truth.
Last edited:
