Hi all, this is just a idea of how everything might work, it might be wrong or right, and what I want is for you to argue against it to see if the idea is water-proof (still if this is the case then I'm still open to the possibility that it may be wrong), just so that we understand eachother. Everything in the universe seems to be in opposites, my idea is that everything needs something to compare with in order for it to exist, this is pretty simple in some cases, like positive and negative, one cannot exist without the other, and there are similar ideas in the Theory of Relativity. Now, the brain also works this way, to the brain there is no difference if (for example) a moves one way and b is standing still, or b moves one way or a stands still, the only way it can know the difference is to use experiance, what is most likely, and in what relation you are to the movement. The opposite of you (the observer) is what you observe, everything that you see is made inside the brain based on outside information from the eyes, so the image you see that that represents the information of the outside world (the colors, forms and so on..) is mental, this means that if you (in your mind) go nearer to the image then the image get's bigger and you get smaller, the key is to find balance. In a similar way all of the universe tries to find balance between opposites. And in the middle of this are the mind, that is like the focus of the universe. Every mind is a middle point, between opposites, and the mind if infinity is the middle point of all middle points.
the basic parts of the tree itself is made by opposites, but the tree by itself has no opposite so for it to exist it needs observers, if someone observes the tree then the opposite to what is observed (the tree) is the observer, thus this enables existance, in a specific location (sure the basic parts of the tree still exists, but not in any specific location but every possible location at once), this has (at least in my view and opinion) been verified in the quantum non-locality experiments (the EPR experiments). The current view of the universe is that it is infinite but not infinitly large, but infinite as in going "round and round", that if you start at some point and moves straight ahead then you would end up at the starting point, this is what I want to call a "fake infinity" or a illusion of infinity. Cause this is really the only way that we can contain infinity without it taking up a infinity of space. One thing about "real infinity" as in infinitly large, is that everything smaller must be infinitly small, and thus real infinity has a opposite in itself, and could even contain two universes both depending on eachother, one infinitly large and one infinitly small, these should look almost the same (not sure what would happen to the laws though), cause infinitly small still is infinite and can contain a infinity of information, thus enabling it to contain everything that the "big infinity" universe can contain. As we can see in the quantum-world, it has no real existance, the only thing that exists are possibilities, so then I would think that the nature of the "small universe" is possibilities and the nature of the big universe is choosing from the possibilities. If we think of the brain, then scientists usually say that consciousness is a property of the complex patterns that are created in the brain, so if consciousness and awareness is a result of these pattern, then I don't think that it matters what scale they are in, and so in the world of possibilities where everything is everything and all possible ways are explored at once, a mind must have been formed. Take a deep breath, it ain't over yet... Ok, so then in this "world of infinite possibilities" the same pattern that represents you and me must have been formed also, so in a way we exists in that world also, so what I wanna say is that the "world of infinitly small" is the place where the mind is, not in any specific location, but just as one of the patterns that exists allways in every possible location (in the "small world of infinity"). The "world of small possibilities" exists in every point of "the big world". Since every point is infinitly small compared to infinity. Ok, this is no good if we have the current view of the universe with the "fake infinity" so why am I babbling alot of something that has no difference :m: no, not that... :bugeye: ..no I promise it's not that!! It's because I believe that "outside" our universe exists a real infinity that the universe is just one of infinitly many, the world of infinite possibilities exist in every point, and every point of every point, maybe one point is a real infinity and the points within that point is a fake reality then the points in the fake reality is a real infinity and so on ad infinitum...
middle is an artificial point which you can place anywhere you wish (eg. number 0 (in Celsius or Farnheid) ditto the mind)
Exactly, there is no such thing as nothing, as the word is used as negation of all things. Example, "nothing travels faster than the speed of light".
Good question! But a tree is an opposite: it's opposite is in the ground (roots). The vegetables that I know (onions, potatoes etc) sprout dowards first, before growing upwards. The top half grows towards the light, so the roots must grow towards water. No thing is no thing, as Beercules said, however there are no things. There is not a thing that is half-fish, and half-cow. This is not a thing, because it has no existence.
Rene Descartes walks into a pub and has a beer. The bartender asks if he'd like another. Rene says "I think not" - and disappears.
Good joke - and one that shows up the fatal error we often make in interpreting Descartes' axiom. He said 'I think therefore I am'. This does NOT entail that not thinking entails non-existence. It is generally agreed by everyone that the minimal conditions for the presence of consciousness do not include thinking. Cyperium - I think your ideas are muddled but correct. Forget 'reality' for a moment (whatever that is) and consider just our conception of reality. It is easy to see that we cannot conceive of anything that does not have an opposite. (The opposite of a tree, by the way, is 'not a tree'). This is to say no more than that all perception and conception is dual in nature, as non-dual philosophers assert. The conclusion seems logically irrefutable. As to reality itself if anything non-dual exists in reality then we cannot conceive of it in principle, so there can be no proof of its existence. Truth and falsity, existence and non-existence, are dual properties, they cannot be applied to something that we have defined as completely non-dual. An ontological solution to your idea that there are points within points in the space of all possible existences, where each point is somehow both infinitely large in one sense and infinitely small in another, is to assume that consciousness exists at all points, and that 'reality' is rather more subjective than we usually think it is. This is what Nietsche suggested, and it agrees with Leibnitz's proposed 'monads'. It also accords with Max Velman's suggestion that existence is 'ontologically monist'. Many people have said the same thing. However the hypothesis is unprovable in principle (since consciousness cannot be proved to exist by any scientific definition of proof) so don't knock yourself out trying to convince anyone else.
Not a tree is not the opposite of a tree. It's the opposite of the existance of a tree, which is not the tree itself. The tree should be independent of the fact that it exist, and so exist anyway. (the question is in what form, if any). Sure every perception is dual, but I believe that we can learn alot by looking at what we allready know, and since everything is somehow connected by principle to everything else, we can, if we learn the principle, understand how the principles works (sure every principle is dual that we know of, but principles must also have a "higher order" or a greater principle that defines them), and therefor we can learn what the principles look like that makes the principles. There should be a common truth to everything, but that shouldn't be dual, cause it won't need to define itself in any way, it should be the definition in itself. In another word, the truth should explain itself if it is true. Or the truth is a lack of definition, that duality is only in the mind, because there isn't another way of explaining it, without being it.
Cyperium I suppose the opposite of a 'tree' depends entirely on how you define 'tree' in the first place. However one fundamental property common to every tree is that it exists. In this sense it's opposite number is therefore 'absence of tree'. Still you're right, there are all sorts of opposites to a tree depending on how you look at it. Don't understand what you mean by "The tree should be independent of the fact that it exist, and so exist anyway." But agree with all rest.
Since there is a tree, then it exist, "no tree" doesn't exist, and therefor isn't a opposite, the opposite of existance, is non-existance but the opposite of a tree isn't the non-existance of a tree. The tree itself was in question, not the existance of the tree. The opposite of something that exists should be in existance, otherwize it's meaningless to ask the question, since we get the same answer allways. That is basically what I meant by what I said, existance wasn't in question, the tree was.
"Opposite" is a completely artificial concept created by humans as part of our compulsive need to categorize things. I can't conceive of there being an opposite to gravity, water, red light, or a radio wave, but I'm quite sure that they exist.
Agree with the first sentence but the second seems a bit unimaginative. Try defining any of those things. Then reverse the definition and bingo.
Gravity is the attractive force between all objects with mass. I suppose I could reverse that to 'the repulsive force between all object with mass,' but no such force exists. Water is two hydrogen atoms join to an oxygen atom. Red light is light with a wavelength of around 600 nanometers. I can't imagine how you could 'reverse' those. Looking back, I see that my last post was somewhat ambiguous. I meant to say that I was sure that the things I listed exist, despite having no opposite. I wasn't saying that I was sure that the opposites existed.
You may be right, at least on some points...since most opposites really isn't opposites at all, they are only experianced to be. Take heat and cold, opposites but on the same scale, cold is just less heat. If there are a opposite relation of heat and cold then it should be on a "opposite scale" which has only the property of opposites in common. But then again there are opposites, if we take matter and anti-matter, there aren't any scales in that (like less matter and more anti-matter) and the opposite relation is exact since they take out eachother exactly and releasing 100% of energy (there isn't a small piece of matter (for example) left that would show that there were more of the matter property). (there might be some technical faults (is matter really a property?) in that but nothing that would change the meaning...I think...) Most things have opposites, magnets and particles in the atom for example, and even if there aren't a "opposite tree" the parts of the tree is still made by opposites. However in the true nature of things, I believe that opposites doesn't exist, it's just a illusion, maybe though, a illusion that tries to be as close to the real reality as possible. I believe that since the "fake reality" can come so near the "real reality" then it can borrow some of the real realitys properties, like awareness and feelings of all kinds, in fact I believe that it can borrow any property that isn't physical by imitating it with physical means. That's basically how I believe the brain works, it is buildt by opposites as well, the left and right hemisphere that basically argues with eachother what is true.
