by Sad emo 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I am still of the opinion that cultswatter's comment is technically correct from the viewpoint of a person on earth referring to their own mass and the gravitational pull of the earth.
Yea, mass exists whether there is external gravitational force acting on it or not. So yes.
I was thinking the other way, ya know :)
I can see this thread on my computer, but is it really anything or nothing?
Is there a tangible thing that I can put in my hands, or is the thread just made of
light and electricity and electromagnetic stuff? Do the words here exist in real
space anywhere?
Seriously, I am not the deep philosopher, but you might give some value to the
things that atomic particles are made of, and give value to the electromagnetic
forces. They are SOMETHING. Muscles have a hard time lifting large quantities
of them.
The little I've read about Quantum theory is freaky-deaky. Instead of absolutes, we're held together by probability. When we get to the smallest elements it's like you say, it's not even matter. It's energy. And it might just as easily zig than zag and we all fall down.
Makes you wonder how we all hold together, doesn't it?
jgnat, you summarised what I'm thinking - minus all the meanderings!! Having taken a brief (well, long but not long enough!) look at 'mass', 'binding energy', the theory of relativity, plus a few other words and theories I'm wondering whether we're all walking nuclear bombs!! There's another weird thought for exploration - how can so much potential be 'locked up' in something apparently so small? Maybe when I finish the theology degree (it's partly my current digging into Ecclesiastes which got me started on this!), I'll start on quantum physics"Utterly absurd, said Qohelet, utterly absurd. All is absurd" Ecclesiastes 1:2
Sad emo:
About colour, yes red wavelength is red wavelength but perception does vary - that was the point I was making.
Agreed. Many men have a genetic abnormality that makes them unable to distinguish between red and green, and on a less physiological level, some people love the colour red while some hate it. But red is still red. The colour-blind man may have to use a scientific instrument to confirm that but the redness of an object is independent of any observer.
(Interesting aside: bees cannot see red but have a similar level of colour vision to us, theirs being shifted into the ultra-violet end of the spectrum. Some flowers have patterns that reflect ultra-violet light and thus are invisible to humans but can be seen by bees.)
"Colour helps to express light, not the physical phenomenon, but the only light that really exists, that in the artist's brain." Henri Matisse, 1945.
It would be churlish of me to point out that very little light ever gets to our brain, but it's important to note the distinction between the metaphorical "light" Matisse is talking about, which is essentially a complex set of reactions by a biological machine to the physical phenomenon of light; and that phenomenon itself.
The fact that humans (and other animals) all perceive light and colour in different ways is indeed very interesting but all it tells us is that we are imperfect instruments for measuring the universe. Fortunately we have developed better instruments that can tell us things about the universe that are independent of our limited perceptions.
About vapourisation, yes I did mean that - sublimation.
Another point worth noting: while a sublimating solid may appear to us to disappear, in reality the molecules are all still there, they just behave in a different way when energy is introduced into the system. Again, our perceptions on their own are inadeqaute for measuring this low-level physical phenomenon.
On the first law - what constitutes energy? The very first moment the universe came into existence defies that law - unless it's not really here of course! Otherwise, where did all the energy and matter come from?
All the energy and matter in the universe was contained in the singularity that began it. Beyond that, we don't really know. It's a question that lies on the absolute limits of human knowledge.
What if there is nothing to be created or destroyed?
Then there should be as much antimatter in the universe as matter. If there is, we haven't found it. But I don't really know. Quantum physics is horrendously complicated and I've given up pretending to understand it.
You miss my point here and above about 'solids' - molecules so tiny that they are invisible to the human eye, with large areas of space and held together only by electrical forces.
Again, this is just another way in which our senses are inadequate for measuring certain physical phenomena. At our level of perception, solid things really are solid. The forces that hold the molecules together are the forces that make things seem solid to us (who are held together by the same forces).
They only have mass because of the gravitational pull of earth's core - more electromagnetic forces.
No, they only have weight because of the gravitational pull of the entire earth - their mass is independent of their location in the universe and is a measure of how much matter they contain. I may be mostly empty space but I still contain around 65kg of matter. And gravity is not an electromagnetic force - or at least can't currently be reduced to one.
They are merely interacting.
Merely? The whole universe is made up of these interactions. The way in which the different forces in the universe interact is the whole subject of discussion.
Yesss!!! But what IS the 'stuff'???!!! 'Electromagnetic forces - waves, collisions, magnetism - that's what's holding the 'stuff' together. Not the other way around where solid 'stuff' pre-exists and then becomes animated (whatever that means to various 'forms') by the electromagnetic force.
We might have expected to see a universe made up of tiny Lego blocks rather than the probability clouds, forces and superstrings that we find (or hope to find!). But we're just apes with big brains. Why should the universe conform to our expectations? Our brains aren't evolved to deal with what we find there, and even our analogies and metaphors break down.
But our 'perception' is governed by electrical signals sent between the receptors and the brain.
Yes, our brains are electrochemical machines. They approximate and interpret the limited signals that get to them. They manage to cobble together a very workable approximation of the universe, and at our scale, a mostly accurate one.
Methinks science and philosophy don't mix too well!!
Philosophy unconstrained by science can take us almost anywhere - but these journeys are mostly fanciful if not tethered to the real world by science. It's also important to note that taking a reductionist approach to everything isn't very helpful either. Back to your Matisse quote, a discussion of his paintings, the inspiration behind them, the feelings they engender and so on should probably not be conducted by analysing things at the subatomic level. The strange and wonderful forces that are the building-blocks of the universe have unexpected (our inadequate brains again) emergent properties when they interact in certain configurations and these emergent properties are better studied at the levels on which they occur.
How do we know there will be no perception - what IS perception? Who is to say that the perception will not merely change?
Perhaps it will - but this is where we need to bring some science in to constrain our philosophical musings. As you say, what is perception? Well, it seems to be a biological machine receiving inputs from its environment and interpreting them according to its programming. We know in some detail how this is done and it appears to require a working brain. If the brain stops working as they do on death (if not before) then there is no known way for perception or consciousness to continue. So without some strong evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that the ability to perceive ceases when that which is capable of perceiving ceases to function.
What constitutes an 'entity'? What is existence?
In this sense, it's a life form or biological machine. While it's component atoms may leave on virtually forever, the emergent properties of the machine itself can cease to function when damaged or decayed.
I'm not giving weight to anything a all here - I'm questioning and seeking and formulating my own ideas.
That's commendable - but some ideas deserve more weight than others. Those supported by the evidence should be considered more likely than those for which there is no evidence, and more likely still than those at odds with the available evidence.
When the first man believed that humans would one day fly - did it not begin with 'idle and untestable speculation'?
Yes, but so did man's attempts to turn lead into gold. Some ideas will work and some won't and it's not always possible to tell which ones.
Partly correct - I'm redefining my philosophy. What's so unhealthy about that.
Nothing at all. It's a necessary part of life. More people should do it. My concern was that you were redefining words so they didn't mean anything anymore. If, when you say "nothing", what you actually mean is "something", then how can you be understood?
As for an afterlife, that's neither here or there to me.
Apologies for assuming otherwise. It's often the case that people construct a view of the universe as they wish it to be rather than how they find it. I applaud your efforts to make sense of a complex universe. Just bear in mind that our brains weren't designed to deal with this stuff. Trust me, it makes you feel a lot better when you find yourself out of your depth!
Just bear in mind that our brains weren't designed to deal with this stuff.
And yet they attempt to.
Paradoxical.
That's commendable - but some ideas deserve more weight than others. Those supported by the evidence should be considered more likely than those for which there is no evidence, and more likely still than those at odds with the available evidence.
And yet imagination is more important than knowledge, someone said. For a time, no one could understand the molecular structure of benzene. Then a chemist had a fanciful dream of a snake swallowing its tail. Little carbon atoms all lining up in a ring.
I think therefore I am
Descartes had it backwards. One doesn't exist because he thinks, he thinks because he exists. "Amness" comes first, and out of that arises thinking. Part of that thinking coalesces into a central thought of "me", and that "me" becomes that basis for how life is viewed and experienced. That is the reason people suffer, because they identify with and believe themselves to be the content of their mind rather than realizing their essential nature to be "amness"/consciousness. "I think therefore I am" delineates this most basic error, which is the very root of suffering.
Descartes had it backwards. One doesn't exist because he thinks, he thinks because he exists. "Amness" comes first, and out of that arises thinking. Part of that thinking coalesces into a central thought of "me", and that "me" becomes that basis for how life is viewed and experienced. That is the reason people suffer, because they identify with and believe themselves to be the content of their mind rather than realizing their essential nature to be "amness"/consciousness. "I think therefore I am" delineates this most basic error, which is the very root of suffering.
Well, Descartes formulated that statement as part of his epistemology. It was the foundational principal. He could perhaps doubt the "Amness" of all other things, but he felt that he could not doubt his own, because he could think. The Amness of other things could be an illusion, but not his own, since he had first experience of that.
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.
Cogito ergo sum.
Burn
I don't know... seems like there's an awful lot of stuff in that nothingness.
Everything physicists observe and everything mathematicians can calculate demand that it is impossible for there to be nothing. Even when a vacuum is formed new particles boil into existence to fill the void.
You need to read the book called: "Zero" by Charles Seife.
So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.
One "knows" that one exists, and it doesn't take a conclusion to arrive at this "knowing" - it is obvious, and takes no thought at all for this to be realized. Consciousness and "knowing" go hand-in-hand. Only later does thought come in and try to make sense of things, and look at the result of that - separation, confusion, disagreement, suspicion, hatred, and ultimately violence. The sense of one's existence (which can't be isolated as anything in particular and can be said to be "nothingness") is the basis of peace, oneness, and wholeness. It is only in the mind that duality arises, and with the arising of duality come "problems" and suffering.
