WHY does anything exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least we have also identified through our experiments here that strong emotion can have a direct and separate path into consciousness, completely bypassing any rational and logical portions of the brain.

We have performed a lab test and a cat scan on an emotional squirrel person.
 
Dywyddyr said:
If something cannot be shown to be true then it's not fact.
Click to expand...
subjective to perspective of state of being.
it is a fact that i think 'has squirrel lost his nuts?'
it is a fact that i feel that 'he is nuts'
it is a fact that i know that he isn't.
it is a fact that i believe i like him anyway..


"I feel it to be true" is an opinion. One's feelings about a proposition do not decide (i.e. they neither confirm nor deny) the veracity of it.
Click to expand...

this be true.
 
NMSquirrel said:
subjective to perspective of state of being.
it is a fact that i think 'has squirrel lost his nuts?'
it is a fact that i feel that 'he is nuts'
it is a fact that i know that he isn't.
it is a fact that i believe i like him anyway..
Click to expand...
Close.
"it is a fact that i know that he isn't." Isn't correct. (Or at least it's conditional).
It can't be a fact that I know you're not UNLESS it is also a fact that you aren't*. One cannot know something if it isn't true (if it's not true then all you can do is believe).

And the fourth one is a bit weird.
"I believe I like him"? :eek:
You mean it's possible I could be under the impression that I like you but am mistaken? And that I (could) actually dislike you at the same time as being unaware that this is so?

* With regard to you actually being nuts or not... We'll leave that, as they say, as an exercise for the student. :p
 
Well love and hate evidently exist, but thier nature is somewhat transient and etherial. They appear to be conditional on our existence whereas most physical phenomena can exist independently of us.
 
Rav said:
There is no problem there at all. When no measurement is taking place the photon (or electron if that's the version we're doing) may very well sniff out every possible path in the entire universe on it's way through but that's very different from saying that the photon (or electron) doesn't exist at all when no measurement is taking place. Everything in the universe always exists, in one form or another. Measurement simply forces definite outcomes.
Click to expand...

Measurement simply forces definite outcomes.
That's the problem.
Why should that be so?
 
I didn't see this one 'til now.
dwivedys said:
Let me ask you and Dywyddyr this:
In a deep dreamless sleep - we are NOT *aware* of *anything*. Even though you guys would kill me if I were to say that absolutely *nothing* exists in deep dreamless sleep - even though when you wake up, everything is intact and we all go about our daily lives as usual.

My point is however this: Though the waking up on the next day proves it beyond a shadow of doubt that we existed while we were perceiving *nothing* - tell me one simple way to determine the truth of our existence whilst we were in that deep sleep state.

It's only upon waking up and getting the possession back of our bodies as it were - does the rest of the worldly play come back in full force. So the world is seen only when the body is seen and not in deep dreamless sleep. If the world were real - it should have been perceivable even in that deep dreamless sleep.
Click to expand...
This is a circular argument based on an unproven (and unsupported) premise.
How do you know that the world is not perceivable when we're asleep? This seems to be a construct designed entirely to support your argument that there must be "one changeless entity".
You're conflating "lack of awareness of X" (which you correctly pointed out is the case when we sleep) with "impercetibility of X" (which is an a priori assumption on your part).
 
Dywyddyr said:
Oh dear. assumptions. Again.
Would you care to refute my points rather than make unfounded claims about my person?
An ad hom doesn't go far toward supporting your contention, sorry.


So either you included "continuous" extraneously (as NMSquirrel pointed out), since you seem to think it means the same as "eternal", and you're unaware of the definition of the word:

OR you know that "eternal" is not the same as "continuous", and are now being disingenuous at minimum.
Either way, you fail.

Now, do you dispute my illustration of true yet not "continuous, eternal and unbroken"?
If so, on what grounds?


In other words you're also unaware of what a "fact" is.

Please show where my previous argument is either (or both, it's up to you) "inane" or an example of "downright brazenly stupid reasoning".
If you cannot then I at least expect an acknowledgement that you were wrong, if not an actual apology.
Click to expand...


I will apologize for using inappropriate words. I shouldn't have said what I said in a civilized forum - for that matter - anywhere. I usually don't react. But - that wouldn't change my stance towards the matter eitherways. In fact if you had noticed - I had not replied to some of your earlier posts and that was deliberate.

However - I will review your posts in detail and see if I find something worthwhile to respond with.

I am sorry for using inappropriate language. I mean it.
 
Dywyddyr said:
I didn't see this one 'til now.

This is a circular argument based on an unproven (and unsupported) premise.
How do you know that the world is not perceivable when we're asleep? This seems to be a construct designed entirely to support your argument that there must be "one changeless entity".
You're conflating "lack of awareness of X" (which you correctly pointed out is the case when we sleep) with "impercetibility of X" (which is an a priori assumption on your part).
Click to expand...


How do I know that the world is not perceivable? Might I qualify that this is in context of the "sleeper" not the "others" who are awake. If you are pointing that the world remains perceivable to those who are awake - I will grant you that. But that wasn't what I was pointing to. But then given that you so like to win arguments - I can see how you could have missed this one.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Out of sync with life?
You state that after I showed that you would come up with what I said you would?
Would you care to provide a link to the dictionary that supports your (peculiar) interpretation of "out of sync"?
Click to expand...

The dictionary is not the answer my friend... learn to understand humans a bit more and you'll perhaps be able to "see".
 
So either you included "continuous" extraneously (as NMSquirrel pointed out), since you seem to think it means the same as "eternal", and you're unaware of the definition of the word:

OR you know that "eternal" is not the same as "continuous", and are now being disingenuous at minimum.
Either way, you fail.
Click to expand...

No I don't fail. Understand this one carefully. A "thing" can be "continous" in an interval. A thing which is continous regardless of any intervals would be *eternal*.

Tell me what in the above sentences you find contentious? I am not disputing your definition of continous as it relates to continuity over a specific period of time. You could have spared the trouble of digging out the dictionary definition. In case it's not apparent to you, I understand English though may not be as proficient as you.

For me a thing not conditioned by space or time is eternal. If you deny the truth of this - Let's have an open debate on this very subject.


Now, do you dispute my illustration of true yet not "continuous, eternal and unbroken"?
If so, on what grounds?
Click to expand...

I have three strands of white hair on Jan 1, 2011. On Jan 2, 2012 I have five strands of white hair on my head. During the relevant timespans both statements were true and I appeared to have had three white strands of hair *continously* for that one year period.

Truth in my opinion (once again) - is continous, unbroken and eternal beyond the conditioning of space and time. Please get this argument once and for all and tell me if you dispute it.


In other words you're also unaware of what a "fact" is.
Click to expand...

All I can say to this is that you are mistaken and please don't start talking semantics with me.

Please show where my previous argument is either (or both, it's up to you) "inane" or an example of "downright brazenly stupid reasoning".
If you cannot then I at least expect an acknowledgement that you were wrong, if not an actual apology.
Click to expand...

Acknowledged and apologized. I had lost my sense for a moment.

Regards
 
Last edited:
SciWriter said:
Has existence sunk to a new low?
Click to expand...


How can existence sink to any *low* (or be elevated)? Thoughts may create a feeling of low and high. Existence is unconditioned by space. Time it may be conditioned by perhaps - for instance a thing may exist today but not tomorrow. But the eternal existence admits of no conditioning of space and time.

SciWriter: No offence: I understand the figurative sense in which you put your sentence. But, really, it offered me a chance to explain the eternal nature of that entity which I have been painfully trying to highlight in all my posts and which is continously being refuted.

Thanks
 
Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

subjective to perspective of state of being.

it is a fact that i think 'has squirrel lost his nuts?'
it is a fact that i feel that 'he is nuts'
it is a fact that i know that he isn't.
it is a fact that i believe i like him anyway..
Click to expand...

Dywyddyr said:
Close.
"it is a fact that i know that he isn't." Isn't correct. (Or at least it's conditional).
It can't be a fact that I know you're not UNLESS it is also a fact that you aren't*. One cannot know something if it isn't true (if it's not true then all you can do is believe).

And the fourth one is a bit weird.
"I believe I like him"? :eek:
You mean it's possible I could be under the impression that I like you but am mistaken? And that I (could) actually dislike you at the same time as being unaware that this is so?

* With regard to you actually being nuts or not... We'll leave that, as they say, as an exercise for the student. :p
Click to expand...

I don't know if others can see this - but look at the point Squirrel is raising and look at how Dyw is responding to it.

That's the reason why I said Dyw - you simply like to have something to say -no matter what the argument. Of course you would want me to substantiate.

Squirrel clearly says -

subjective to perspective of state of being ---- which I might rephrase a bit ----- From the perspective of state of being ----

it is a fact (he is using *fact* in the sense I had used)
that i think (here the *fact* and *i think* are the same)
'has squirrel lost his nuts?' (the thinker's contention --- which may or may not be accepted as *the truth* --- but is a *fact* of *thought* occurring to the thinker)

What do you respond the above assertion with? More Rigmarole which skirts the basic issue entirely and somewhat regretfully.
 
Last edited:
ULTRA said:
Well love and hate evidently exist, but thier nature is somewhat transient and etherial. They appear to be conditional on our existence whereas most physical phenomena can exist independently of us.
Click to expand...


Most physical phenomenon (indeed ALL) can/may exist independently of us - but yet they too are transient and ephemeral --- even if they *seem* to last centuries --- yet they all have a beginning and will most certainly have an end. So to that extent love and hate are no different than any other phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
Measurement simply forces definite outcomes.
That's the problem.
Why should that be so?
Click to expand...

Quantum weirdness is what it is. But it doesn't become a random mess of chaotic uncertainty when we are not looking at it. Feynman's sum over histories shows that there is still a measure of control. As Hawking has said:

"The probability of a particle going from A to B is found by adding the up the waves associated with every possible path that passes through A and B."

So even though the undisturbed quantum world exhibits behaviour that may seem strange to us, the fundamental laws of physics still hold and therefore the universe still functions. Consciousness is not required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top