Avengers Doomsday trailer makes reference to the After-life

[exchemist]

Existence must distinguish itself from its absence or non-existence in order to exist. That is why I say existence is an illusion.

The thing is that the mind is more than the sum of the parts. It is a field rather than limited to the confines of the brain. And it can influence reality.

The atheistic experience is a materialistic experience. I can assure you that spiritual experiences are the more valid than the atheistic/ materialistic experience. The spiritual experience is ineffable.

There is no denying that everyone has a metaphysical essence within them. This metaphysical essence is supreme, sacred and absolute.

The reason why the atheistic experience is inferior to the spiritual experience is because the spiritual experience connects one to a greater reality existing beyond the limited confines of the material.

These are merely empty assertions though. And none of them answers my question, which was why you think the universe being finite means that matter must be an illusion. Are you going to answer? Before you are banned again, that is.

 

[Sarkus]

Can you provide a reason why not?

To many, consciousness is just a process. One person "running", for example, is not linked to every other person or thing that is "running". So why should I accept that consciousness is a unified field. There is nothing in science to support it. It is just a metaphysical assertion on your part. It is not granted.

It is similar to arguments from Buddhism and monism that all is one. The logic of Buddhism is undeniable. My arguments draw on its concepts. I find your response lacking because of this. Given the extensive history of eastern philosophy.

Except Buddhism doesn't argue that "all is one". They typically reject the idea, or at least avoid it. They don't hold to there being any permanent fundamental thing (whether field, or particle, or energy), and instead favour a dynamic network of process that each arise and pass away. Everything is impermanent (see Anicca), including consciousness. So, maybe before spouting claims about Buddhism, do a little research.
As for the "logic of Buddhism is undeniable" - well, that's a lofty claim from someone who doesn't really seem to understand Buddhism.
But let's take this bit of logic, from Buddhism, that, roughly, goes as follows:

P1: if something is the true self then it must be permanent and under one's control.
P2: everything we can observe about ourselves is impermanent.
P3: these things also can not be fully controlled.
C: None of these things can be the true self, and thus there is no permanent self.

Now, how do you like them apples!

So, while you are trying to appeal to Buddhism, you are failing quite spectacularly, as it does nothing to support your idea but rather argues the opposite.

The reason a finite universe is an illusion is because it is merely emergent. Whereas that which is infinite and eternal is the only reality - non-existence or God.

The universe may well be infinite. We don't know. Our observable universe is finite, sure, but the total universe? Hmm.
And, again, you're merely making claims, none of which are granted. You are asserting that the "finite universe... is merely emergent", but there is nothing to support that in your argument.
The latter part is also just assertion. And is not granted.

Note, also, that the onus is not on us to explain why we do not grant your assertion, but it is on you to argue why it should be accepted. Ideally with more than just other ungranted assertions.

 

[Pinball1970]

If the universe were infinite then matter would be the only infinite and eternal reality.

But because the universe is finite it would follow that it is emergent.

The latter is the inevitable conclusion from quantum theory.

Word salad nonsense.

 

[C C]

Key word being "internally". As internal implies that the simulation is self-contained. Nothing(ness) exists outside of it.

??? Well, the non-biological affairs of a strictly material cosmos (no panpsychism involved) would exist "in the dark" of that particular mindless or non-conscious ontological system. But that's still having be-ing, even if not the "shown" variety exemplified by brain representations.

Given that we are not philosophical zombies devoid of experiences, any intelligence at a speculative prior-n-rank stratum responsible for generating this level would presumably not be such either. Although sapience and technology don't have to be involved. The brain was outputted by evolution (competence without understanding), and that resulting organ in turn produces its own dreams and hallucinations (unruly simulations).

Similarly, if this world was an intensely well-regulated simulation, then it could have fallen out of the equivalent of a competence without understanding scenario at the higher (exotically different) stratum that it is nested in. But for religious camps that desire afterlife, transmigration, etc... Sarcastic intelligence would seem to be required. (Difficult to conceive how poorly guided indifference would rescue the information of denizens abiding in the offshoot level and re-embody them, though perhaps I'm just not thinking or exploring "means" hard enough.)

Albeit, granted, if it was non-panpsychic materialism all the way up, with the manifestations of consciousness only being unique to certain relationships or interactions or whatever unknown alienness at each stratum, then... Figuratively both "in" and "outside" most items there would only be "dark existence".
_

 

[TheVat]

It is similar to arguments from Buddhism and monism that all is one. The logic of Buddhism is undeniable.

Careful using "logic" here. The intuitions of Buddhism are not about classical logic or arguments resting on Western epistemology. Schools like Zen seek to subvert logic in order to access the intuition of what the mind apprehends when it is putting aside language, self, subject/object, and relationships of time and causality. Buddhism critiques conventional cognition and formal Western ideas of validity.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Careful using "logic" here. The intuitions of Buddhism are not about classical logic or arguments resting on Western epistemology. Schools like Zen seek to subvert logic in order to access the intuition of what the mind apprehends when it is putting aside language, self, subject/object, and relationships of time and causality. Buddhism critiques conventional cognition and formal Western ideas of validity.

Almost every religion, if only in the esoteric or interpretive form, says you have to conquer the mind (or the ego or the mundane mind) to perceive reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because if the universe were finite then it has a terminal point at its boundary.

This is not true.

There are solutions that are finite yet have no boundary.

You are badly misinformed about the things of which you presume to speak.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you refering to the String theory version of a finite universe with no boundary?

No. Our current (finite) model of the universe which is finite yet has no boundary.

 

[Sarkus]

All consciousness' are identical,...

Not granted.

...which makes all consciousness one.

Does not follow from the premise. Certainly it is true that if two things are the same thing then they must be identical, but it does not necessarily follow that if they are identical that they must be the same thing. Leibniz, in his identity of indiscernibles states that if two objects/entities have all the same properties then they are the same thing, but there are plenty of challenges, not the least of which is that location itself distinguishes objects. So a consciousness in one location is thus different, and distinct, and not identical, to another.
So, no, the conclusion doesn't follow, but is instead a philosophical assertion.

That is why all conscious creatures perceive the same reality.

There are at least a couple of ways to reject this:
First, as a conclusion/explanation (from the "that is why..."). This is not granted. If we do perceive the same reality it needs to be more than merely asserted that this is because of the reason you claim. After all, if we do perceive the same reality, we do so whether your explanation is correct or not.
Second, the idea that "all conscious creatures perceive the same reality" needs unpacking: do you mean that they all share the same external world, or do you mean that they have the same perceptual content? Some animals see a wider range of colours than us. Some hear far more. Some are blind. So, what exactly do you mean, because meaning one thing and it simply defaults to the first error, and meaning the other would make it demonstrably false.

Because consciousness is the same in all lifeforms.

So you assert, but this is not granted.

The thought-generating mind is not at all unlike the universe being generated by a 2-dimensional information structure. It's all one grand thought man.

What do you think this means?

If my understanding is correct Buddhism holds that the entire material world is an illusion. There's a certain mystical component to the idea that all is one. Buddhism, make no mistake, may not have a creator-god, however it maintains that all is maya or illusion.

Okay, your understanding would seem to be wrong. Buddhism does not assert that it is all an illusion, at least not in the sense that it doesn't exist. They certainly think it exists, just not in the permanent way that others do. They teach that it is all impermanent, and made up of a network of impermanent processes, always changing, processes coming into existence and then fading out.

When Siddharta reached spiritual enlightenment he was offered the choice by the god of death to either stay in enlightenment or live as a normal human being. He chose the latter because he believed that one should not live in that state amidst the suffering of the many.

Relevance?

Again, consciousness is the only thing that is permanent. Not matter. If, as you say, Buddhism denies this, then it is Buddhism that is false/ illusion/ chimera/ appearance. However, if I am correct, then Buddhism and the Tao both hold that existence is an illusion.

First, Buddhism holds that consciousness, like all things and processes, are impermanent.
Second, it depends what you mean by "illusion". A mirage is an illusion, but that does not mean that it does not exist, only that we don't see it for what it truly is. Yes, Buddhism teaches that existence is an "illusion" but only in the sense that we don't perceive it correctly. They don't teach, for example, that nothing exists, and certainly not that nothing but consciousness exists.

A little logic would dictate that the universe is finite because of the non-existence or nothingness that permeates all things.

???
Feel free to set out that logic, by all means. At the moment it is word-salad.

Again, existence must distinguish itself from its absence or non-existence in order to exist.

This is muddled.
Distinguishing things is what processes, or concepts, or thinkers do. It is not something that existence itself does. A rock exists whether or not anyone distinguishes it from non-existence. So you're muddling ontology with epistemology.
You are also treating existence as something that performs actions. It isn't. It is a property, or a condition, of things.

Certainly one can say that one must be able to distinguish existence from non-existence to be able to talk about it meaningfully. But existence itself need not do anything.

That is why space and time only apply to existence as opposed to non-existence.

??? Given the muddled previous sentences, this can not be said to follow.

Consider it this way; if non-existence is infinite and eternal then spacetime would not qualify as the non-existence or nothingness. But since space and time break up into a seething quantum foam then space and time can be considered to be existence as opposed to non-existence.

Who said non-existence is infinite?
An empty set is an empty set, not one with an infinite elements.
The rest is word-salad.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Logos_1 has been banned, because he was another sock puppet of banned user Spellbound.