Is life an illusion?

[Pudding]

Your Reality Is an Illusion

 

[Nous]

No one here has explained how it would be possible that there is no such thing as life in the universe. In a universe where there are no living organisms, what is it that is experiencing the alleged illusion? Obviously only conscious entities can have illusions. Rocks don't have illusions or hallucinations or false beliefs.

I take it that those here claiming or suspecting that life is an illusion deny the facts of evolution. Natural selection only works on living organisms that reproduce. How in the hell did the alleged falsehood of natural selection arise in a world where there are allegedly no living organisms?

 

[idav]

It is all an illusion, very convincing but illusory. There isn't even anything that is solid matter, what we perceive are really various forces of waves pushing and pulling independent of time t.

Lecture 1: Wave Mechanics | Video Lectures | Quantum Physics II | Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare

 

[Nous]

what we perceive are really various forces of waves pushing and pulling independent of time t.

So, obviously non-living matter does not have illusions, or false perceptions. Rocks and rivers never hallucinate.

 

[shunyadragon]

The fact is that more and more scientists subscribe to this idea.

Here is one link: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html<

I consider the article as describing the universe in terms of the concept of a holographic model as having holographic properties, and not that the universe is actually a hologram.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would say illusionary. There's certainly reality, but one by which dynamics ensures our perception of reality remains incorrigibly elusive.

That does not seem quite right to me. You and a bee can look at the same flower and see it wildly differently. But that has nothing to do with the flower exists or is illusory, but rather everything to do with the facts that, first, both you and the bee exist and, second, you both have wildly different sensory abilities. You see aspects of the flower that the bee misses, while the bee sees aspects of which you know nothing -- and yet it's all unquestionably there.

 

[Valjean]

Very very unlikely. Nonetheless there is no evidence that this is the case.

Who would be in control of the technology of the hologram?

There is evidence that the reality we perceive is not the case. A holographic universe is just one of the possibilities that physics holds to be more likely than our current perception.
Who is in control? I guess the same operating system programming any of the other laws of physics or mathematics.

I know life is not an illusion because of sex. Sex ain't no illusion!

You're dreaming, get over it.

 

[Valjean]

I take it that those here claiming or suspecting that life is an illusion deny the facts of evolution. Natural selection only works on living organisms that reproduce. How in the hell did the alleged falsehood of natural selection arise in a world where there are allegedly no living organisms?

But evolution and natural selection -- all the systems we experience in waking-state -- are part of the dream.
How did the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park arise on a flat white screen?

That does not seem quite right to me. You and a bee can look at the same flower and see it wildly differently. But that has nothing to do with the flower exists or is illusory, but rather everything to do with the facts that, first, both you and the bee exist and, second, you both have wildly different sensory abilities. You see aspects of the flower that the bee misses, while the bee sees aspects of which you know nothing -- and yet it's all unquestionably there.

But both examples are operating on the same level of consciousness. From another LOC you're dreaming both both the flower and the bee.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But evolution and natural selection -- all the systems we experience in waking-state -- are part of the dream.
How did the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park arise on a flat white screen?
But both examples are operating on the same level of consciousness. From another LOC you're dreaming both both the flower and the bee.

Are you sure? You say that "I" (you said 'you're' of course) am dreaming both the flower and the bee -- but do you really suppose that's "me" in some way? In what way?

 

[Grandliseur]

I consider the article as describing the universe in terms of the concept of a holographic model as having holographic properties, and not that the universe is actually a hologram.

Even the article I quoted wasn't the only single viewpoint of various scientists. Some believe that even in its present form, the entire universe is a holograph.

I don't say it is, or isn't; however, I do say that it is virtual, created, artificial.

Some decade or two ago, a starfish was discovered with a finger cut off that survived and became a copy of its original. The funny part was as the copy grew to mirror its first instance of self, when manipulating one of its fingers, the other first instance, or second instance mirrored the forced movement of the mirrored individual's movement. This was found true even when removed to a large distance.

This discovery of the two instances of a life-form that functioned as one, close up, and at distance to me - tells me that this surely seems to fit a hologram with a database of all life. Since life is so diverse, the database is able to handle lifeforms that consist of separate units, but still function as one.

There are many things that do not fit a material universe. Here is one that I cannot explain since my worldview is different, but I cannot deny the events. I just have no explanation for it. If you should like to go on a tangent, look at this video: (Those events do not fit within a material universe.)

 

[Nous]

But evolution and natural selection -- all the systems we experience in waking-state -- are part of the dream.

What does that mean? Who--that is, what--is dreaming?

Again, how does natural selection work except when there are actual living organisms that actually reproduce?

How did the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park arise on a flat white screen?

Dinosaurs did not "arise on a flat white screen". What you saw was a film of computer-generated images and animatronic machines.

 

[Willamena]

So, obviously non-living matter does not have illusions, or false perceptions. Rocks and rivers never hallucinate.

What makes you say that? They may be hallucinating us.

 

[Nous]

What makes you say that? They may be hallucinating us.

Cite the evidence by which to logically infer that rocks and rivers are hallucinating, and I will consider the proposition.

 

[Willamena]

Cite the evidence by which to logically infer that rocks and rivers are hallucinating, and I will consider the proposition.

Humans are naught but minerals and water, and we hallucinate.

 

[idav]

So, obviously non-living matter does not have illusions, or false perceptions. Rocks and rivers never hallucinate.

Just cause an animal might be oblivious to its plight doesn't mean it isn't there. Everything that is nature is part of that system, there is no need to separate the chemicals, we are completely made of water and other things of nature. Anyhow I'm theist, not nihilistic, life exists because this isn't a nihilistic universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even the article I quoted wasn't the only single viewpoint of various scientists. Some believe that even in its present form, the entire universe is a holograph.

I don't say it is, or isn't; however, I do say that it is virtual, created, artificial.

'Some believe?' You will have to be more specific. I responded to the article cited as to how I believe most scientists make computer models using the concept of holography to model particularly the early history of the universe. I have read the work of a number of scientists, and yes they do model our universe on the hologram concept, but they believe the universe has natural origins.

You need to cite specific scientists who believe that the universe is a hologram, artificial and not natural.

Some decade or two ago, a starfish was discovered with a finger cut off that survived and became a copy of its original. The funny part was as the copy grew to mirror its first instance of self, when manipulating one of its fingers, the other first instance, or second instance mirrored the forced movement of the mirrored individual's movement. This was found true even when removed to a large distance.

This discovery of the two instances of a life-form that functioned as one, close up, and at distance to me - tells me that this surely seems to fit a hologram with a database of all life. Since life is so diverse, the database is able to handle lifeforms that consist of separate units, but still function as one.

The above is commonly known property, the regeneration of the animal from a part of starfish, and related marine invertebrates that can regenerate from parts broken or cut off. Nothing new and perfectly natural, with a scientific explanation of the physiology of marine invertebrates.

There are many things that do not fit a material universe.

Like what? Nothing you have presented means anything significant.

Here is one that I cannot explain since my worldview is different, but I cannot deny the events. I just have no explanation for it. If you should like to go on a tangent, look at this video: (Those events do not fit within a material universe.)

This is interesting, but the possible existence of the soul, based on this evidence has nothing to do with whether our universe is a hologram, artificial or not. Careful 'arguing from ignorance' to explain the unknown.

I believe in Creation and God Created our physical existence naturally by the scientific evidence. I also believe in the soul, but what you have cited so far is insufficient to claim the falsification of such beliefs.

 

[Grandliseur]

that can regenerate from parts broken or cut off. Nothing new and perfectly natural, with a scientific explanation of the physiology of marine invertebrates.

It wasn't the regeneration that was the amazing part; rather, the fact that the new copy and its original both responded as one when one finger on one was moved whether the distance was close or far. It was as if the two copies were bound by one set of neural brains, nets, or what word you want to give it.

You didn't comment on the events in the video!

 

[shunyadragon]

It wasn't the regeneration that was the amazing part; rather, the fact that the new copy and its original both responded as one when one finger on one was moved whether the distance was close or far. It was as if the two copies were bound by one set of neural brains, nets, or what word you want to give it.

This is well understood in science as with identical twins in humans. no problem. The genetics are exact copies and will continue the same as the original animal.

You didn't comment on the events in the video!

I did!

This is interesting, but the possible existence of the soul, based on this evidence has nothing to do with whether our universe is a hologram, artificial or not. Careful 'arguing from ignorance' to explain the unknown.

I believe in Creation and God Created our physical existence naturally by the scientific evidence. I also believe in the soul, but what you have cited so far is insufficient to claim the falsification of such beliefs.

Your argument is 'arguing from ignorance' that claims, because we cannot at present explain a phenomenon therefore . . .

Nonetheless this does not address the issue of holography and the nature of the universe, and the question as to whether our physical existence is an illusion.

 

[Nous]

Humans are naught but minerals and water, and we hallucinate.

When I challenge you to "cite the evidence by which to logically infer that rocks and rivers are hallucinating," it doesn't mean for you to just make another goofy (obviously false) claim that you can't show is true.

Imagine if someone said, "Cite the evidence that Willamena killed Roger," and the reply is "John was in Cleveland."

 

[Nous]

Just cause an animal might be oblivious to its plight doesn't mean it isn't there. Everything that is nature is part of that system, there is no need to separate the chemicals, we are completely made of water and other things of nature. Anyhow I'm theist, not nihilistic, life exists because this isn't a nihilistic universe.

I don't have a clue as to what (if any) relevance your assertions here are supposed to have to my comment that "obviously non-living matter does not have illusions, or false perceptions. Rocks and rivers never hallucinate." If you ever come across any evidence by which to conclude that my statement is false, be sure to cite it.