Atheism and Manifestation

[Fool]

To exist as an avowed atheist, didn't the "potential" always exist for self to be manifested? if not, then how did self come to exist without potential.

and if self potentially existed eternally for this form, is the potential for self to exist in some other form in the future, possibly?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

All forms of matter in the universe (including all life-forms) are objective proof that the matter of the universe inherently has the potential to take and support such forms.

As it necessarily arises only within matter-based organisms (as far as we can actually know or have witnessed), a "sense of self" (whatever "form" that takes) is also inherently possible as an extension of the matter of the universe.

Can it take other "forms?" Possibly. Can we know before those forms have actually been manifested in reality? No.

 

[Fool]

All forms of matter in the universe (including all life-forms) are objective proof that the matter of the universe inherently has the potential to take and support such forms.

As it necessarily arises only within matter-based organisms (as far as we can actually know or have witnessed), a "sense of self" (whatever "form" that takes) is also inherently possible as an extension of the matter of the universe.

Can it take other "forms?" Possibly. Can we know before those forms have actually been manifested in reality? No.

so this information exists as potential form somewhere? but doesn't necessarily manifest as an actual form anywhere except under the right environmental conditions?

 

[shunyadragon]

To exist as an avowed atheist, didn't the "potential" always exist for self to be manifested? if not, then how did self come to exist without potential.

and if self potentially existed eternally in this form, is their the potential for self to exist in some other form in the future, possibly?

From the atheist perspective 'possibilities' have little meaning. From the perspective of fallible humans and our objective knowledge of physical reality there is no reason to believe in possibilities.

 

[Fool]

From the atheist perspective 'possibilities' have little meaning. From the perspective of fallible humans and our objective knowledge of physical reality there is no reason to believe in possibilities.

without possibilities, then who would risk? take chances? search? question?

 

[LuisDantas]

May you perhaps elaborate a bit? I'm not certain that I can follow you.

 

[Fool]

May you perhaps elaborate a bit? I'm not certain that I can follow you.

how can a thing manifest, materialize, if there were no potential for that thing, self, to be actualized?


for example, E = M(c*c)

one side of the equation is the potential for the other side being actual. when one is actual the other is potential. when one is potential then the other is actual. both are but a manifestation of information being catalized, or realized.

 

[LuisDantas]

how can a thing manifest, materialize, if there were no potential for that thing, self, to be actualized?

It seems to me that there is at least one unsupported premise at work there.

Namely, that things need a potential for existence.

 

[Fool]

It seems to me that there is at least one unsupported premise at work there.

Namely, that things need a potential for existence.

so you believe things come into being from nothing, or have no cause?

 

[LuisDantas]

so you believe things come into being from nothing, or have no cause?

I see no reason to decide a priori that such is not the case, at least.

As a matter of fact, I would have to believe that to be the case were I to consider theism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

so this information exists as potential form somewhere? but doesn't necessarily manifest as an actual form anywhere except under the right environmental conditions?

I wouldn't call it "information" yet - there hasn't been an instance of it to have been witnessed/examined/recorded by anyone/anything. Information can be gleaned from just about anything, sure - but it doesn't mean that the information was placed there, waiting to be found/known. Even the fact that a space is completely devoid of any matter whatsoever is "information" about that space. But without someone to assess or react to the information, it is simply a property of the subject. If there is nothing for that property to have meaning to, then it is mostly meaningless. Even more so with something that hasn't even emerged yet and is only postulated.

I would say that information that has not yet emerged cannot be known (and therefore can't really be known as "information" at all) by a being who is bound temporally, as we are.

 

[Fool]

I wouldn't call it "information" yet - there hasn't been an instance of it to have been witnessed/examined/recorded by anyone/anything. Information can be gleaned from just about anything, sure - but it doesn't mean that the information was placed there, waiting to be found/known. Even the fact that a space is completely devoid of any matter whatsoever is "information" about that space. But without someone to assess or react to the information, it is simply a property of the subject. If there is nothing for that property to have meaning to, then it is mostly meaningless. Even more so with something that hasn't even emerged yet and is only postulated.

I would say that information that has not yet emerged cannot be known (and therefore can't really be known as "information" at all) by a being who is bound temporally, as we are.

i'm stating information exists. i'm not speaking of being captured, or found, or studied. i'm saying the information is encoded in the form as a material, actual thing. it goes from being a potential to an actual. like the blue print for a house. the blue print is a form of matter but the house is another form of that same blueprint. we can reverse engineer an actual thing to get it's blueprint, or it's abstract form.

 

[Fool]

I see no reason to decide a priori that such is not the case, at least.

As a matter of fact, I would have to believe that to be the case were I to consider theism.

so when a scientist reverse engineers an object they are studying, they aren't seeking it's abstract, information?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

i'm stating information exists. i'm not speaking of being captured, or found, or studied. i'm saying the information is encoded in the form as a material, actual thing. it goes from being a potential to an actual. like the blue print for a house. the blue print is a form of matter but the house is another form of that same blueprint. we can reverse engineer an actual thing to get it's blueprint, or it's abstract form.

And I'm saying I don't think it works like this. Do you picture that there is (perhaps in the "mind" of God) some kind of catalog of all possible configurations of matter that could be supported as living organisms?

Also, the base matter of the universe does not hold genetic information on its own. The base pairs within a DNA molecule, when taken together as a whole, construct the "information" you seem to be referring to. The phosphate group, sugar group and nitrogen base making up a nucleotide (portion of DNA), when taken by themselves, do not hold this "information" at all. Those are no more than groups of atoms of elements (sub-unit molecules) on their own.

 

[LuisDantas]

so when a scientist reverse engineers an object they are studying, they aren't seeking it's abstract, information?

I assume that some are, others are not. It is a very personal question, don't you think?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

so when a scientist reverse engineers an object they are studying, they aren't seeking it's abstract, information?

Of course they are. But you seem to be insinuating that all the parts taken individually BEFORE they are put together can tell you how to construct the whole.

 

[Fool]

And I'm saying I don't think it works like this. Do you picture that there is (perhaps in the "mind" of God) some kind of catalog of all possible configurations of matter that could be supported as living organisms?

Also, the base matter of the universe does not hold genetic information on its own. The base pairs within a DNA molecule, when taken together as a whole, construct the "information" you seem to be referring to. The phosphate group, sugar group and nitrogen base making up a nucleotide (portion of DNA), when taken by themselves, do not hold this "information" at all. Those are no more than groups of atoms of elements (sub-unit molecules) on their own.

i don't believe in a god separate from the materialized. i believe the consciousness to be inherent in the manifested.

 

[Fool]

I assume that some are, others are not. It is a very personal question, don't you think?

i would think the idea of understanding self and other is personally driven, yes.

 

[Fool]

Of course they are. But you seem to be insinuating that all the parts taken individually BEFORE they are put together can tell you how to construct the whole.

with all due respect, i've not insinuated parts are wholes or vice versa. i stated that potentials and actuals are the same things in different states of matter.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

with all due respect, i've not insinuated parts are wholes or vice versa. i stated that potentials and actuals are the same things in different states of matter.

Haven't you basically being proposing that the composition of the universe holds the blueprints for all beings emergent and not yet emergent?