Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:47 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But that’s just it: what makes the original statement interesting is the read of it that, at worst, can seem like a “wooey” sort of nonsense. But as soon as you start explaining that you merely mean there’s a universe where a twig and the moon and some dead fish are each part of that universe, it’s an uninteresting statement.

Now, you can create some interest by saying that the twig is figuratively the moon or metaphorically those dead fish or whatever — because that makes it seem like you’re on the brink of saying it’s literally those things. It’s as if you’re about to say each of those is, literally, the universe. That would be an interesting claim, as it’s the sort that’d normally be followed by a guy noting that no, that’s not literally true.

But if we start by slowly and patiently saying, no, it’s not literally true, then a guy can already roll his eyes and tap his foot and check his watch as “more scientific terms” get trotted out to support a claim that, again, is blandly uninteresting.
Did you read the links? It starts by saying that atoms aren't discrete solid objects but excited states.
  #152  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:14 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Did you read the links? It starts by saying that atoms aren't discrete solid objects but excited states.
I saw the bit that goes: “Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field.” I thought, to myself:

1) Uh, so what?

2) Say a woman is wearing a golden ring that’s made of, y’know, atoms; some folks may think of those gold atoms as discrete balls floating in space, but think instead of them as point-like excitations. Say, too, that some ice is on Mars; and think that each hydrogen atom and oxygen atom there is point-like, rather than a discrete ball. Say the ice gets broken, while the gold ring on another world remains unbroken. Say that woman then removes the ring and heats it until it melts as she watches, while the ice she’s unaware of neither heats up in general nor melts in particular. First, think of the atoms in the ice and the ring and the woman as point-like. Then, think of those atoms as discrete balls. Then ask: so what?

3) ...no, that’s pretty much it: so what?
  #153  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:48 AM
burpo the wonder mutt's Avatar
burpo the wonder mutt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Slow-cala, Florida
Posts: 24,544
If only we'd listened to that boy, instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven.
  #154  
Old 07-09-2019, 09:47 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Additionally I think it’s rooted in that you don’t exist independently of anything else, hence being connected to everything or in this case being an expression of the universe. There is no you just the “one”, or so they say.
Saying I am connected to the universe, or an expression of it, does not establish that there is no "me". Just the opposite, in fact. Different aspects of the universe are different, therefore I am not the universe - I am an aspect of the universe that is different from individual atoms or whatever.

Plus, I don't see how any of this matters. Suppose I give up the idea of happiness or utility, and thereby avoid samsara. So what? It can't make me happier or a better person, or more in tune with the universe - I have already given up happiness and utility. Now I am just like waves on the ocean. Before, I was just like waves on the ocean. It's a distinction without a difference.

They are trying to sneak in the idea of happiness without admitting it. I become detached, and thereby avoid suffering. That's utility under a different name.

If everything is pointless, then saying "everything is pointless" is pointless, and everything about enlightenment and realizing you are the universe is pointless, and saying changes nothing.

It refutes itself. Either enlightenment is real, and the enlightened are different from the rest of the universe, because they are enlightened and the rest of the universe is not. Or enlightenment is not real, and happiness and utility are real - and the universe has not been proven to be pointless.

OTOH, and to be honest, I don't think the problem is that this kind of thing hasn't been refuted. It's that you tend to fret over nonsense even when you know it is nonsensical. Of course, if the universe wants to observe itself fretting over nonsense, who am I to complain?

Regards,
Shodan
  #155  
Old 07-09-2019, 11:54 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Saying I am connected to the universe, or an expression of it, does not establish that there is no "me". Just the opposite, in fact. Different aspects of the universe are different, therefore I am not the universe
yes and no.

If by "I" you refer to yourself in the 1st person singular, which is certainly the default assumption when a person uses "I", you're making a truthful statement when you say "I am not the universe".

If on the other hand being connected to and/or an expression of the universe is compatible with a sense of self that is all-inclusive (universal, if you will), a correct answer to "are YOU the universe" could authentically be "yes", just not in the first person singular sense.

You're 100% correct in asserting that there is still a "me", that however real this universal sense of self might be, it doesn't contradict the existence of your individual self.

That is also true in the other direction though. The undeniable realness of the "me" level of self doesn't mean the other can't be real as well.

Last edited by AHunter3; 07-09-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #156  
Old 07-09-2019, 01:44 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I saw the bit that goes: “Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field.” I thought, to myself:

1) Uh, so what?

2) Say a woman is wearing a golden ring that’s made of, y’know, atoms; some folks may think of those gold atoms as discrete balls floating in space, but think instead of them as point-like excitations. Say, too, that some ice is on Mars; and think that each hydrogen atom and oxygen atom there is point-like, rather than a discrete ball. Say the ice gets broken, while the gold ring on another world remains unbroken. Say that woman then removes the ring and heats it until it melts as she watches, while the ice she’s unaware of neither heats up in general nor melts in particular. First, think of the atoms in the ice and the ring and the woman as point-like. Then, think of those atoms as discrete balls. Then ask: so what?

3) ...no, that’s pretty much it: so what?
Because if there are no discrete units then there is no "me" and if there is no "me" then there is no other. It everything is just "one" then that renders all actions pointless. Because any achievement or thing you would want to do would essentially be "done" because you are the universe. My wanting to climb the mountain would not matter because I "am" the mountain and I "am"already there. Wherever you go, there you are.

It's a scary prospect for me.
  #157  
Old 07-09-2019, 01:46 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Saying I am connected to the universe, or an expression of it, does not establish that there is no "me". Just the opposite, in fact. Different aspects of the universe are different, therefore I am not the universe - I am an aspect of the universe that is different from individual atoms or whatever.

Plus, I don't see how any of this matters. Suppose I give up the idea of happiness or utility, and thereby avoid samsara. So what? It can't make me happier or a better person, or more in tune with the universe - I have already given up happiness and utility. Now I am just like waves on the ocean. Before, I was just like waves on the ocean. It's a distinction without a difference.

They are trying to sneak in the idea of happiness without admitting it. I become detached, and thereby avoid suffering. That's utility under a different name.

If everything is pointless, then saying "everything is pointless" is pointless, and everything about enlightenment and realizing you are the universe is pointless, and saying changes nothing.

It refutes itself. Either enlightenment is real, and the enlightened are different from the rest of the universe, because they are enlightened and the rest of the universe is not. Or enlightenment is not real, and happiness and utility are real - and the universe has not been proven to be pointless.

OTOH, and to be honest, I don't think the problem is that this kind of thing hasn't been refuted. It's that you tend to fret over nonsense even when you know it is nonsensical. Of course, if the universe wants to observe itself fretting over nonsense, who am I to complain?

Regards,
Shodan
The point they are getting at is that you are the ocean, not the wave. If you are the ocean then nothing you do matters because it's all "you". There are no friends, good, bad, anything because it's just "one". It renders life utterly pointless if there is no "you" or "Actor" doing deeds.
  #158  
Old 07-09-2019, 02:58 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
It renders life utterly pointless if there is no "you" or "Actor" doing deeds.
And we're back to the same place as every single one of the OP's threads. Life is meaningless, nothing matters, woe is me.
  #159  
Old 07-09-2019, 03:00 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,693
Woe is the universe.
  #160  
Old 07-09-2019, 03:15 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Because if there are no discrete units then there is no "me" and if there is no "me" then there is no other. It everything is just "one" then that renders all actions pointless. Because any achievement or thing you would want to do would essentially be "done" because you are the universe. My wanting to climb the mountain would not matter because I "am" the mountain and I "am"already there. Wherever you go, there you are.

It's a scary prospect for me.
Well, now you know why the entirety of That Which Is, the universe, bothered to be all this other shit and have diverse experiences.
  #161  
Old 07-09-2019, 03:23 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
The point they are getting at is that you are the ocean, not the wave. If you are the ocean then nothing you do matters because it's all "you". There are no friends, good, bad, anything because it's just "one". It renders life utterly pointless if there is no "you" or "Actor" doing deeds.
Again, this is meaningless. If I am the universe, then I am the wave too.

Being part of the universe doesn't mean "I" don't exist. Being part of the universe means "I" do exist. Read what AHunter3 says.

The fact that we are connected means we both exist. Because we are connected - not the same thing, connected.

'I am connected to the rest of the universe, therefore I don't exist, and therefore everything is pointless' contains too many logical errors to be useful. Yes, I am connected to the universe. Therefore, both I and the universe exist.

If there is no difference, then there is no difference between enlightenment and samsara, and any discussion of the difference is wrong from the outset. If the universe is enlightened, then I am enlightened. If the universe is samsara, then if I become enlightened I will no longer be part of the universe.

I guess I am done with the thread. If you want to be miserable, go ahead. Just don't blame it on the Buddhists - they already got enough troubles.

Regards,
Shodan
  #162  
Old 07-09-2019, 08:54 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again, this is meaningless. If I am the universe, then I am the wave too.

Being part of the universe doesn't mean "I" don't exist. Being part of the universe means "I" do exist. Read what AHunter3 says.

The fact that we are connected means we both exist. Because we are connected - not the same thing, connected.

'I am connected to the rest of the universe, therefore I don't exist, and therefore everything is pointless' contains too many logical errors to be useful. Yes, I am connected to the universe. Therefore, both I and the universe exist.

If there is no difference, then there is no difference between enlightenment and samsara, and any discussion of the difference is wrong from the outset. If the universe is enlightened, then I am enlightened. If the universe is samsara, then if I become enlightened I will no longer be part of the universe.

I guess I am done with the thread. If you want to be miserable, go ahead. Just don't blame it on the Buddhists - they already got enough troubles.

Regards,
Shodan
Actually that's not right because the point being made is that there is no I or self, or ego. That's what the second paragraph was illustrating. There is no "you' just the universe, which is what is being said here. Saying there is a "you" implies a sort of separate independent existence. So when you are using "I" and "you" in your explanation you are missing the point. My problem is that I don't know a way around that part.
  #163  
Old 07-09-2019, 08:56 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
Well, now you know why the entirety of That Which Is, the universe, bothered to be all this other shit and have diverse experiences.
None of what I said really explains the "why" all that much. A this gets at some point about being mistaken if you believe you are an individual consciousness: https://anandbhatt.skyrock.mobi/3289...html?success=1

Last edited by Machinaforce; 07-09-2019 at 08:59 PM.
  #164  
Old 07-09-2019, 09:04 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Actually that's not right because the point being made is that there is no I or self, or ego. That's what the second paragraph was illustrating. There is no "you' just the universe, which is what is being said here. Saying there is a "you" implies a sort of separate independent existence. So when you are using "I" and "you" in your explanation you are missing the point. My problem is that I don't know a way around that part.
That is, as you say, your problem. It’s not, as I say, a problem for me.

Which makes perfect sense, if you and I aren’t one. But if you and I are one...?
  #165  
Old 07-09-2019, 09:08 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Actually that's not right because the point being made is that there is no I or self, or ego. That's what the second paragraph was illustrating. There is no "you' just the universe, which is what is being said here. Saying there is a "you" implies a sort of separate independent existence. So when you are using "I" and "you" in your explanation you are missing the point. My problem is that I don't know a way around that part.

That is profoundly idiotic. It is like saying that there is no such thing as a tire because it is a part of a car, or there is no such thing as a spring because it is a part of a clock, or there is no such thing as a finger because it is a part of a hand, or there is no such thing as a star because it is a part of a galaxy
  #166  
Old 07-09-2019, 10:25 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
That is profoundly idiotic. It is like saying that there is no such thing as a tire because it is a part of a car, or there is no such thing as a spring because it is a part of a clock, or there is no such thing as a finger because it is a part of a hand, or there is no such thing as a star because it is a part of a galaxy
BEcause it is fundamentally"cut from the same cloth" and doesn't exist independently of anything else. There is a saying among people who believe that where they call it "there is no death just the passing of form" (calling death an illusion). As for the finger part, the argument there is that human make arbitrary cutoff points for body "parts". That annblat link goes on about it (though his story involves two birds).
  #167  
Old 07-09-2019, 11:34 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
BEcause it is fundamentally"cut from the same cloth" and doesn't exist independently of anything else.
I have two articles of clothing that are, in fact, literally cut from the same cloth.

Sometimes I wear one. Sometimes I wear the other. I’m neither of them. If one gets destroyed, it’d be no big loss to the other one — or to me. I also have some articles of clothing that aren’t cut from the same cloth; losing one wouldn’t be a big deal to me. Now, if I lost one of my fingers, that’d be a big deal to me...

Quote:
As for the finger part, the argument there is that human make arbitrary cutoff points for body "parts". That annblat link goes on about it (though his story involves two birds).
...but if someone else, on another continent, lost a finger, I may never even find out; but, depending on who it is, I may even say, what is that to me?
  #168  
Old 07-10-2019, 01:20 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I have two articles of clothing that are, in fact, literally cut from the same cloth.

Sometimes I wear one. Sometimes I wear the other. I’m neither of them. If one gets destroyed, it’d be no big loss to the other one — or to me. I also have some articles of clothing that aren’t cut from the same cloth; losing one wouldn’t be a big deal to me. Now, if I lost one of my fingers, that’d be a big deal to me...



...but if someone else, on another continent, lost a finger, I may never even find out; but, depending on who it is, I may even say, what is that to me?
What I guess they mean is probably rooted in the no-self stuff from Buddhism. That things are made of and dependent on other parts for their existence and such have no inherent essence. In the case of humans there is nothing you can point to that is a self because it came from somewhere else. Your tastes, likes, dislikes, they aren't inherently you they are the result of other things. "you" are a collection of parts but none of those parts are inherently you, so there is no essential "you". There was some Koan about "what was your original face before your mother and father were born". By original face they mean nonduality, whatever that is. My guess is that it has something to do with the universe before it expanded.

The only saving grace I think I have here is that applying quantum physics findings to the macro world doesn't work, but even then I don't think that's what it is.
  #169  
Old 07-10-2019, 05:08 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
What I guess they mean is probably rooted in the no-self stuff from Buddhism. That things are made of and dependent on other parts for their existence and such have no inherent essence. In the case of humans there is nothing you can point to that is a self because it came from somewhere else. Your tastes, likes, dislikes, they aren't inherently you they are the result of other things. "you" are a collection of parts but none of those parts are inherently you, so there is no essential "you".
Again: so what?

You say that I have various “tastes, likes, dislikes”. And you, presumably, have different “tastes, likes, dislikes”. And let’s say that someone else, somewhere else, differs from both of us when it comes to “tastes, likes, dislikes”. What is that to a fourth person, who (a) while knowing not us, (b) announces that he’s always been roaming with a hungry heart, summing his situation up with a declaration like, say, ‘much have I seen and known, cities of men, and manners, climates, councils, governments — myself not least, but honored of them all — and drunk delight of battle with my peers; for I am a part of all that I have met, yet all experience is an arch wherethrough gleams an untraveled world’, or some such?

Let’s say two people, who know of one another, are quite alike: they’ve had similar experiences, they have similar “tastes, likes, dislikes”; they make similar decisions and lead similar lives; some would say They’re Cut From The Same Cloth. Say two other people, who also know of one another, are very dissimilar: they have vastly different experiences, and vastly different “tastes, likes, dislikes”; they make vastly different decisions, and lead vastly different lives, and maybe on occasion they ask each other for advice; some would say They’re Not Cut From The Same Cloth. And let’s say that two other people, neither of whom knows the other exists, live through and learn from their own experiences while making their own decisions in light of their own tastes and likes and dislikes — which, in many cases, are exact opposites.

What, in your opinion, would have to change for one of them to look at himself and at someone else and meaningfully draw a distinction between “I” and “You”?
  #170  
Old 07-10-2019, 06:29 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
What I guess they mean is probably rooted in the no-self stuff from Buddhism. . . .
And this is why you fail.
Your guesses are wrong, and you expect us to validate them.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #171  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:34 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
How do you know that my guesses are wrong? It seems like you guys haven’t read anything I linked or posted here which is why you aren’t getting what they are saying:

Quote:
What it means?

Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field. (Think of standing waves in a body of water.)

There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole. You are not a small and lonely being lost in a foreign universe; you are a direct expression of the whole of the universe as it currently is; you (as everything else) is a brief movement in the dance of nature. You do not exist independent of the perceived outside; outside and inside are two sides of the same coin.

The seed is no different from the tree. They are the same thing viewed from different perspectives in time. Birth and death are really no different; waking life is really no different from dreamless sleep.

The nature of the human perspective is experience. This is why we say that we are the universe experiencing itself: A dark cloud is the universe clouding itself; the sun is the universe lighting itself; the rotating planet is the universe spinning itself.

The ocean waves; the planet rotates; the sun shines; the heart beats; the stomach digests; the brain thinks; the body acts. These events are no different in nature. The thinker of thoughts is the waver of oceans, not a little man behind the eyes of the body; the waver of the ocean is spontaneous, as is the thinker of thoughts. Nature is not being moved; nature flows without direction; nature is not concerened with tomorrow, for it is dancing today.

Look at a tree, see how it moves in the wind.

Notice your thoughts arising, even the thought "I am thinking."

Notice that the movement of the tree and the movement of thought are two expressions of the same thing.

Stop labeling the tree and yourself; notice that all separation is a consequence of the labeling process; allow all boundaries to dissolve.

Feel the swaying of the tree as much as you feel the arising thoughts and the other bodily sensations.

Feel intuitively that what you refer to as I is a form in the universe experiencing itself.
  #172  
Old 07-10-2019, 11:38 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
How do you know that my guesses are wrong?
Because your history here has shown that all of your guesses are always wrong. Many of your simple declarative sentences are wrong as well.
  #173  
Old 07-10-2019, 07:58 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Because your history here has shown that all of your guesses are always wrong. Many of your simple declarative sentences are wrong as well.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Like I said, people haven't really addressed what the links or paragraphs are saying here. This isn't me saying it, I'm just showing you details about it.
  #174  
Old 07-10-2019, 08:25 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
This isn't me saying it, I'm just showing you details about it.
You also have demonstrated an inability to realistically evaluate sources, or even show a modicum of discrimination in latching onto nonsensical ideas. Your links are, for the most part, garbage.
  #175  
Old 07-10-2019, 08:43 PM
ioioio's Avatar
ioioio is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: stuck inside a mobile
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Past performance is not indicative of future results. . . .
How do you come up with this stuff?
  #176  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:36 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
You also have demonstrated an inability to realistically evaluate sources, or even show a modicum of discrimination in latching onto nonsensical ideas. Your links are, for the most part, garbage.
But why are they? I can't just dismiss something without a reason
  #177  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:43 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But why are they? I can't just dismiss something without a reason
You'll be a much happier and less annoying poster if you do.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #178  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:55 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But why are they? I can't just dismiss something without a reason
If you can accept premises without reason, you can dismiss them without reason.
  #179  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:52 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If you can accept premises without reason, you can dismiss them without reason.
“It is not a book to be lightly thrown aside. It should be thrown with great force.”

-- Sid Ziff
  #180  
Old 07-11-2019, 07:51 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If you can accept premises without reason, you can dismiss them without reason.
But it isn't entirely without reason, the paragraph I posted on this page explains it yet people keep telling me it's just nonsense without saying why. I mean scientifically it seems like it makes sense since everything is made of the same atoms at the base level, everything contains the atoms present at the start of the universe. Then heavier elements formed and we have what we see today. So how is everything not the universe then? People keep saying no but they don't explain to me how.
  #181  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:04 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But it isn't entirely without reason, the paragraph I posted on this page explains it yet people keep telling me it's just nonsense without saying why. I mean scientifically it seems like it makes sense since everything is made of the same atoms at the base level, everything contains the atoms present at the start of the universe. Then heavier elements formed and we have what we see today. So how is everything not the universe then? People keep saying no but they don't explain to me how.
Say there’s a lump of ice in a bucket. Say there’s a lump of steel in another bucket in another room. Say a deaf woman puts a magnet on the lump of ice and then picks the magnet back up with no trouble at all. Say a man with perfectly good hearing puts a magnet on the lump of steel and notes an odd effect when he picks the magnet back up. Say they heat the ice and the steel up to the same temperature: half of the ice promptly melts away into a puddle of liquid, but the steel remains solid.

You apparently say the ice is the steel. You apparently say the man is the woman. You apparently say the people who disagree with you are you. Sure, in every case they’re apparently in different places, and they apparently react to stuff in vastly different ways; and we can apparently determine whether they differ in mass and volume, and after we ask the man and the woman whether they’re aware of one another we can spot the difference upon comparing their answers; and so on.

So let’s see if you’re right. Say the buckets are put on a table in front of me. Say you see me offer a short guy some remarkable amount of money to hand me a lump of ice; say he peers into the buckets, and he picks up the lump of ice and the lump of steel, and he hands me the lump of ice from Bucket #1, and I pay up. Say you see me place the ice and the steel back in their buckets, and make a tall guy the same offer; say he picks up the lump of ice and the lump of steel, and he hands me the lump of steel from Bucket #2, and no money changes hands.

Say I then put the ice and the steel back in their buckets and offer you that deal; can you tell the difference between the lump of ice and the lump of steel, and casually make a fortune in less time than it takes to tell it? Or do you look puzzled, and say I haven’t explained how they’re not the same thing — adding that you also can’t tell the difference between the short guy and the tall guy? Or do you, perhaps, wind up handing one lump or another to the deaf woman from earlier in this post, claiming that you honestly can’t tell the difference between her and me?
  #182  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:02 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But it isn't entirely without reason, the paragraph I posted on this page explains it yet people keep telling me it's just nonsense without saying why. I mean scientifically it seems like it makes sense since everything is made of the same atoms at the base level, everything contains the atoms present at the start of the universe. Then heavier elements formed and we have what we see today. So how is everything not the universe then? People keep saying no but they don't explain to me how.
If you enjoyed reading that, then I believe Seb Pearce will provide you with endless hours and days of contemplative entertainment.

Enjoy.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #183  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:28 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Say there’s a lump of ice in a bucket. Say there’s a lump of steel in another bucket in another room. Say a deaf woman puts a magnet on the lump of ice and then picks the magnet back up with no trouble at all. Say a man with perfectly good hearing puts a magnet on the lump of steel and notes an odd effect when he picks the magnet back up. Say they heat the ice and the steel up to the same temperature: half of the ice promptly melts away into a puddle of liquid, but the steel remains solid.

You apparently say the ice is the steel. You apparently say the man is the woman. You apparently say the people who disagree with you are you. Sure, in every case they’re apparently in different places, and they apparently react to stuff in vastly different ways; and we can apparently determine whether they differ in mass and volume, and after we ask the man and the woman whether they’re aware of one another we can spot the difference upon comparing their answers; and so on.

So let’s see if you’re right. Say the buckets are put on a table in front of me. Say you see me offer a short guy some remarkable amount of money to hand me a lump of ice; say he peers into the buckets, and he picks up the lump of ice and the lump of steel, and he hands me the lump of ice from Bucket #1, and I pay up. Say you see me place the ice and the steel back in their buckets, and make a tall guy the same offer; say he picks up the lump of ice and the lump of steel, and he hands me the lump of steel from Bucket #2, and no money changes hands.

Say I then put the ice and the steel back in their buckets and offer you that deal; can you tell the difference between the lump of ice and the lump of steel, and casually make a fortune in less time than it takes to tell it? Or do you look puzzled, and say I haven’t explained how they’re not the same thing — adding that you also can’t tell the difference between the short guy and the tall guy? Or do you, perhaps, wind up handing one lump or another to the deaf woman from earlier in this post, claiming that you honestly can’t tell the difference between her and me?
I remember trying a similar argument (though not that detailed) against someone who told me about being the universe. The answer kept coming back to "what is X made of"? The argument being that such appearances are just the illusion of separation but that fundamentally everything is made of the same basic elements. That fundamentally its all an "expression of the universe" which is what the quoted paragraph was saying. The other part was about believing yourself to be an individual consciousness (which is what that annablat guy was on about in the link to his blog), though that one is a little harder to buy into since evidence shows that consciousness is the result of biological processes and not a feature of the universe. Granted our senses don't show what is, only what they take in, but that doesn't make consciousness magical.

The other bit they mentioned was that you are not a lonely being but connected to a great whole, again in the paragraph. Personally I just get this nagging sense in the back of my mind that there is something wrong about that, like it's not the whole truth.

In the case of humans the idea was similar to being born a blank slate and that our tastes, dreams, etc are largely based on where we grew up an raised, that there is no enduring core or soul or aspect you can claim to be a you. Though recent research does show that humans are not born blank slates and that our genes have an influence in aspects of who we are. I don't know about dreams or wants though, that seems to be culture but there are some exceptions. But the idea is that if you cleared all of that away then we aren't that different, that the differences between us are largely the result of our own inventions.
  #184  
Old 07-12-2019, 06:22 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I remember trying a similar argument (though not that detailed) against someone who told me about being the universe. The answer kept coming back to "what is X made of"?
To the best of my knowledge, the lump of ice is made of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms, while the lump of steel isn’t — there are, uh, iron atoms in there instead, which helps explain why magnets affect them differently and why the ice becomes a liquid at a temperature where the steel remains solid, like I’d just said.

I think I also said a golden ring, which has different properties than ice or steel, is, y’know, made out of gold atoms instead. And so on.

Quote:
The argument being that such appearances are just the illusion of separation but that fundamentally everything is made of the same basic elements.
Uh, okay. But I don’t care if they’re made of the same basic elements — which, again, steel and ice and gold aren’t, are they? — because, well, that doesn’t interest me. Say that I appear to be hungry. Say, too, that food which will apparently nourish me, and to all appearances will be delicious, is locked up where I can’t readily get at it. Say as well that I have a steel key that’ll unlock that door.

If there’s a coin near that steel key, I don’t care whether it’s made out of tin or out of brass or even out of steel: it’s not the key, is all.

What about you? If you were so hungry that death was on the way, and the steel key in my left hand would let you get to that delicious food, and there was some sand in my right hand, and I handed you the sand, you’d say — what?

Quote:
I don't know about dreams or wants though, that seems to be culture but there are some exceptions. But the idea is that if you cleared all of that away then we aren't that different, that the differences between us are largely the result of our own inventions.
Uh, okay. So there are differences between us? And we invent stuff?
  #185  
Old 07-13-2019, 12:46 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
To the best of my knowledge, the lump of ice is made of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms, while the lump of steel isn’t — there are, uh, iron atoms in there instead, which helps explain why magnets affect them differently and why the ice becomes a liquid at a temperature where the steel remains solid, like I’d just said.

I think I also said a golden ring, which has different properties than ice or steel, is, y’know, made out of gold atoms instead. And so on.



Uh, okay. But I don’t care if they’re made of the same basic elements — which, again, steel and ice and gold aren’t, are they? — because, well, that doesn’t interest me. Say that I appear to be hungry. Say, too, that food which will apparently nourish me, and to all appearances will be delicious, is locked up where I can’t readily get at it. Say as well that I have a steel key that’ll unlock that door.

If there’s a coin near that steel key, I don’t care whether it’s made out of tin or out of brass or even out of steel: it’s not the key, is all.

What about you? If you were so hungry that death was on the way, and the steel key in my left hand would let you get to that delicious food, and there was some sand in my right hand, and I handed you the sand, you’d say — what?



Uh, okay. So there are differences between us? And we invent stuff?
I would normally agree with all of that. But then there was that post make about atoms not being discrete units and just excited states, which I think is an indication of there being nothing "Solid". I don't think this has anything to do with atoms being empty space mostly.

But I still think that the major point being argued is where things came from. Gold just doesn't exist independently on it's own, it came from something else, same with steel and water. What I am getting at is that the bulk of what I hear used against me tends to be that "what is it made of and where does it ultimately come from", to which their answer would be the universe. I mean there is SOME truth to that in that the Big Bang had mostly atoms of hydrogen and carbon and all the stuff we have now is born from those elements. Yet I still feel like they are missing something.

Because you are right, not everything is made of the same atoms. I don't have gold atoms, and likely a few others as well so saying I am gold would be utterly wrong. My guess is that the sages of the past didn't know about atoms as we do today so it would appear that everything is fundamentally the same.
  #186  
Old 07-13-2019, 12:48 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I can't just dismiss something without a reason
Says who?
  #187  
Old 07-13-2019, 01:41 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
I would normally agree with all of that. But then there was that post make about atoms not being discrete units and just excited states, which I think is an indication of there being nothing "Solid". I don't think this has anything to do with atoms being empty space mostly.

But I still think that the major point being argued is where things came from. Gold just doesn't exist independently on it's own, it came from something else, same with steel and water. What I am getting at is that the bulk of what I hear used against me tends to be that "what is it made of and where does it ultimately come from", to which their answer would be the universe. I mean there is SOME truth to that in that the Big Bang had mostly atoms of hydrogen and carbon and all the stuff we have now is born from those elements. Yet I still feel like they are missing something.

Because you are right, not everything is made of the same atoms. I don't have gold atoms, and likely a few others as well so saying I am gold would be utterly wrong. My guess is that the sages of the past didn't know about atoms as we do today so it would appear that everything is fundamentally the same.
I still don’t get why you care whether it’s made of the same stuff.

I meant what I’d said, and still want to hear your answer: say you’re locked in a jail cell or whatever, and you’re hungry and maybe on the brink of dying of thirst, and you’re staring at food and water that’s right over there on the other side of the bars, and that’s when I walk up to said bars to cheerfully greet you.

And say I have, in my pocket, the steel key that’d unlock the door.

And so you can stride out of imprisonment, and over to delicious nourishment, about as fast as I can hand you the steel key in question. And say I reach into my pocket and hand you — a steel coin. And then a gold coin. And then some sand.

Now, the sand and the gold aren’t made of steel; but put that aside for a moment. What do you say, upon handling the steel coin? Do you say, “hey: while this coin is made of the same stuff as the key — unlike the gold coin — I don’t care whether this coin is made of the same stuff as the key; neither gold coins nor steel coins are that steel key; death is approaching, and these coins are as useless to me as a handful of sand; can you please just hand me the steel key?”
  #188  
Old 07-13-2019, 02:24 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,017
Depending on how you define things I could answer the question in the OP in an affirmative. The universe I inhabit contains all sorts of things. It contains atoms, Donald Trump, Moscow, quantum mechanics, Alpha Centari, and a giant black hole at the center of the galaxy. None of these I have experienced first hand, but I have been told they exist, I believe they exist, and I can imagine their qualities. Now I'm not a solipsist so I suspect strongly that all of these ideas in my head actually correspond to some sort of reality outside of me. But for me, all that Moscow truly is what I have seen in pictures, and read about. Not all of what I imagine Moscow to be is likely to be correct, but for all intents and purposes for me, Moscow is what I imagine it to be. I get some new insight that suggests my belief is wrong, then my universe will change. Of course everyone has a different understanding of the universe so each person is his own universe.
  #189  
Old 07-13-2019, 03:19 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Says who?
Because that would be confirmation bias, or just bias of any kind really.
  #190  
Old 07-13-2019, 03:25 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I still don’t get why you care whether it’s made of the same stuff.

I meant what I’d said, and still want to hear your answer: say you’re locked in a jail cell or whatever, and you’re hungry and maybe on the brink of dying of thirst, and you’re staring at food and water that’s right over there on the other side of the bars, and that’s when I walk up to said bars to cheerfully greet you.

And say I have, in my pocket, the steel key that’d unlock the door.

And so you can stride out of imprisonment, and over to delicious nourishment, about as fast as I can hand you the steel key in question. And say I reach into my pocket and hand you — a steel coin. And then a gold coin. And then some sand.

Now, the sand and the gold aren’t made of steel; but put that aside for a moment. What do you say, upon handling the steel coin? Do you say, “hey: while this coin is made of the same stuff as the key — unlike the gold coin — I don’t care whether this coin is made of the same stuff as the key; neither gold coins nor steel coins are that steel key; death is approaching, and these coins are as useless to me as a handful of sand; can you please just hand me the steel key?”
I kind of see your point, but I guess I am concerned with trying to reconcile whether or not what I was taught in my science classes isn't exactly how reality matches up.

Like physics seems weirder than I remember it:

Quote:
Particles aren't solid little pieces of anything until you look at them. Before that they act like a superposition of possible states with a specific probability distribution that they will be found at specific locations. They are like a wave, until you stare at them, after which they act like a little solid piece of something.

Atoms are made up of these wave-particle things, as is everything. They are mostly empty space, even if you treat the particles in the atom as solid little pieces of stuff.

Or:

Quote:
The even more interesting thing is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.


In effect, set up a more complicated experiment where the information from the sensor looking at which slit the electron goes through is gathered after the electron would hit the screen. Even if the information is acquired AFTER the electron would hit the screen, if it is acquired (again, more complicated experiment that allows for multiple things to happen), the distribution changes, even though technically your acquisition happens AFTER it should hit the screen.

If the information is acquired, then erased (by means of adding two beams together that destructively interfere, if I recall), then even if information is at one point received, the pattern will revert to the expected pattern as if no information was observed, even if all of these observation end erasing events happen after the stuff hits the screen.

Effectively it tells us that time plays no real part in how matter works on that scale. Forward and backward in time are analogous, and quantum mechanics works consistently regardless of time based experiments that would seem like a paradox.
I don't know quantum physics that much but the idea of nothing solid because actually "solid" is a head trip for me. And again I'm still trying to get over their argument of "what is X made of" which they take ALL the way back to the beginning
  #191  
Old 07-13-2019, 04:13 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Because that would be confirmation bias, or just bias of any kind really.
Bias against stupidity is no vice.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #192  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:45 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Bias against stupidity is no vice.
yet it is still being close minded, so it labeling something stupid without a reason.
  #193  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:03 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 22,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
yet it is still being close minded, so it labeling something stupid without a reason.
Keep your mind open, but no so open that your brains fall out.
  #194  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:13 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
yet it is still being close minded, so it labeling something stupid without a reason.
How long am I required to contemplate foolishness before I am permitted to dismiss it without bias? Should I obsess over it like you do? Or should I value my time and energy towards things that improve my quality of life rather than detract from it.

N.B.: The irony of taking time to read and respond to your repeated posts is not lost on me.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #195  
Old 07-14-2019, 11:32 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
How long am I required to contemplate foolishness before I am permitted to dismiss it without bias? Should I obsess over it like you do? Or should I value my time and energy towards things that improve my quality of life rather than detract from it.

N.B.: The irony of taking time to read and respond to your repeated posts is not lost on me.
But my question is how do you determine what is foolishness and what isn't?
  #196  
Old 07-15-2019, 06:32 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
But my question is how do you determine what is foolishness and what isn't?
Experience.
But if you have been unable to gain that experience yourself, store bought is fine.
First, find people whose opinion you trust. That is clearly not us, so I fail to understand why you continue to ask.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #197  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:36 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Experience.
But if you have been unable to gain that experience yourself, store bought is fine.
First, find people whose opinion you trust. That is clearly not us, so I fail to understand why you continue to ask.
I've never seen Machinaforce accept anybody's argument, opinion, or suggestion here about anything.

Apparently what some random guy said on some random Buddhist website is more convincing 100% of the time.

This is not really about Buddhism, or the nature of reality, or anything like that. It's about serious OCD, or some other mental health issue.
  #198  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:23 PM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
I've never seen Machinaforce accept anybody's argument, opinion, or suggestion here about anything.

Apparently what some random guy said on some random Buddhist website is more convincing 100% of the time.

This is not really about Buddhism, or the nature of reality, or anything like that. It's about serious OCD, or some other mental health issue.
Because the replies here aren't addressing what I say is the base level of their argument. That since nothing exists independently of anything else because it depends on other things that preceded or surround it to exist there is no "essence" or in the case of people "you", it's all the same thing, the universe.
  #199  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:45 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinaforce View Post
Because the replies here aren't addressing what I say is the base level of their argument. That since nothing exists independently of anything else because it depends on other things that preceded or surround it to exist there is no "essence" or in the case of people "you", it's all the same thing, the universe.
I asked you before; I’ll ask you again: say you’re locked up, behind bars, ravaged by hunger and thirst, and I stroll over with the steel key that’d let you swing the cell door open. And for a good long while, I look real hard at that steel key in my hand; and then, as if something had only just now dawned on me, I look up at you and ask: should I give you that steel key, or should I instead give you the steel coin that I’ve been holding in my other hand? I also have a handful of sand right here, if you’d rather I give you a handful of sand; it’s your call all the way.

Do you say, “oh, well, it’s all the same thing, isn’t it?”

Do you say, “they depend on other things that precede and surround them, so, hey, each one is the universe; handing me the coin is handing me the key — and handing me the sand is handing me the coin and the key, right?”

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 07-16-2019 at 03:45 PM.
  #200  
Old 07-17-2019, 12:40 AM
Machinaforce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,539
The last line is what they are trying to say, yes. Like the guy I linked when he said you realize you are the tiger and you metaphorically kill it. Or that large paragraph I linked to about atoms and the like.

The more times that I read you analogy the less I'm convinced that it has anything to do with what it being said. It doesn't really disprove their point or what they are saying.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017