Two Questions

How I can tell you've not been through a hurricane or two.

Seeing the aftermath of a car-tugboat collision...a plastic barricade floating by, a freeway under water, a city shut down...trees toppling, wind howling, rain that just won't stop, water everywhere...

There's nothing like watching a natural disaster in progress to let you know that you are not exactly in charge...that while sometimes your plans will come to great fruition, sometimes you get clocked, no matter how hard you work or how skilled and brilliant you are.

Make your plans, but remember shit happens.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We can master subsets, sure. But in doing so you will only master it within the confines of the larger whole. To master the whole you need to be outside of the whole...

The universe is (according to all of science) a closed system. We can not escape a closed system.... else it is not closed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Possibly so - but you would need to show how it does prohibit and that it is indeed possible to understand the whole. Otherwise it is just conjecture.

Not sure of the relevance, to be honest, as noone is yet laying claim to understand the whole, and dualism can serve a purpose in extending the limits of our understanding.

Agreed.

I don't disagree, but it is the "in absolutum" that you will struggle with here: what is it to master a subset / anything "in absolutum"?

Hmmm - given that I consider free-will to be an illusion, I don't see there is actually a difference - other than in how we subjectively perceive them.

So now apply this to the universe... how is one to step outside of the universe? Or even entirely "in absolutum" out of whatever it is one is trying to master?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The ironic thing about this is that we could be doing it all the time as part of our ability to percieve motion from a position of absolute non motion [ - unconsciousness - inside our heads when awake]

I forget the name of the scientist that offerred logical proof of this. [Peter Lynds I think - contraversial I might add] The end result is that we could be, indeed, "aloof" to the universe as a natural part of our perception [ and will ]

The point is that there may be considerably more to how this universe functions than what science currently understand and one of those things is the intractibility of an essential paradox where by a system can be both closed and open simultaneously.
Which affords the human mind the ability to consider himself at any time as aloof to the universe [ The God persepctive I call it and is indicated and exampled by the evolution of all major God(s) premised ideologies and theologies]
I only offer the above as a point of interest and do not see it as significantly furthuring the debate but merely opening minds to possibility. The contention being that one can be master yet slave unto himself simultaneously. [re: Buddhism and the Will to Power - Friedrich Nietzsche - common - God Complex]

 

Both.
Now we are slaves.
But we are a very young specie.
I wonder, what does the evolution over a million years? Or a billion years.
We could become the masters.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But to be master of the subset, you don't necessarily have to be outside of it. The nervous system controls the body. What's the difference?

That's fair enough. Why does one have to be outside of it to control it?

 

Philosophically speaking is man a slave or a master of the universe?
Ans: Is the Slave To GOD.
To what extent are we in control of our own destiny?
Ans: We Control our destiny but up to certain extent like Prayers and effort can change the man's destiny.

 

Huh?

How do prayers change "destiny"?

 

If you show me a way how to pray to win the lottery, I will admits that God exists. :worship:

 

This presumes the universe thinks.

 

define thinking? eh...

 

The answer is slave, because we have to "obey the laws of physics." bah-dump-che..

 

Rather a gross generalisation to say the nervous system "controls" the body... when it needs the rest of the body to actually have any useful function. In and of itself it can do nothing. It is part of a system that, as a whole, controls the whole. As an individual part it can do nothing.

Because inside it we are bound by its laws.

 

So? The word physics notates a system. It can do plenty as an individual part.

Why einstein respects those who think outside the box.

 

Irrelevant.

 

point?

 

The point is that "thinking outside the box", and Einstein's opinion of such, has nothing to do with the fact that we are, inevitably and irretrievably, constrained within the "box".

The phrase "thinking outside the box" is NOTHING to do with the "box" that Sarkus was referring to.

 

He referred to a "closed system"... Nothing In physics says we can't make a closed system for ourselves.

Using that logic... thinking outside the universe is thinking inside the box.

 

So what? We are in a closed system.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We can't get outside of the universe. That was the point.
I'm not at all sure why you used the phrase "using that logic" since you appear to be incapable of recognising logic. Or using it.

 

So? We can get inside the universe.

Possibilities may arise that we can expand out intelligence on the universe.

Neither way refutes your inside the box thinking.