Sorry, "can" was an unfortunate choice of words (English is not my first language). I did not mean to express that I "can" do that. Instead, I tried to say that there would be no moral problems whatsoever in doing these things.
I guess that makes most of your reply wasted effort, sorry again for that.
Why is it more plausible that more than me exists? How can the Universe exist if nothing exists but the Universe? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, I guess I agree with that. Both statements are axioms.
Solipsism is no more or less extraordinary than materialism in terms of plausibility or explanatory power. As some one else noted in this thread, the main problem of solipsism is that it is not testable at all. Not just in the strict sense of natural science, but neither in the less strict context of philosophy. As such, it explains everything and nothing, just like the "god" concept.
If everything is inside my mind, then everything has meaning and consequence to me. And meaning and consequence to me is the only sort that matters. I am with Russel on that. Nobody, not even those claiming they are solipsists, live like they really believe that everything is in their mind. I mean, it this were true this single existing mind would have invented/discovered _everything (physics, math), written every computer program in existence, etc. That should change one's view of oneself profoundly, but these people do not act in that manner. It did discover everything. Thats the point I've been making all along. The subtle difference however is that all along I said "OUR" mind is God, I never said "MY" mind is God. I never said that my mind alone is the mind of the entire universe. I said the sum of all minds is the universe.
I never said my ideas were completely new or alien, or had no basis in history. Ok, I made that up;) Or rather, it seemed to me that you did, because you emphasized your philosophical training so much, when in fact most bright teens go through a solipsistic phase and beleive they have found something astounding.
What I'm saying is that science seems to be proving that the solipsis was of thinking is simply the most reasonable. I don't think you have demonstrated this, at all.
I don't mean to discredit any other way or thinking, but no other way of thinking seems to be as reasonable. The other ways of thinking seem to rely on faith, we are supposed to believe that "stuff" can exist outside of our minds, which to me doesn't seem any more reasonable than believing in a God who lives in the sky who we can't see, or aliens in space, or angels, or the devil. I can't follow you at all. Believing that stuff can exist outside of our minds seems to me to not at all more crazy than thinking that all that exists is our mind. Both are basically axioms.
[...] The main different between what I'm saying and Solipsism is that Solipsism says that the individual mind "mine" is the only mind I know to exist, while I'm saying "our" as in the universal mind is the only thing I know to exist. Taoism and Buddhism have said the same for thousands of years.
Btw what are some of those philosophical problems with Solipsism? Why is it at all plausible that I am so fucking important that I alone exist? How can this mind of mine even exist if nothing exists but my mind?
And why exactly is it impossible to psychologically believe? Why should you believe anything exists outside of reality? I thought the Russel quote makes this very clear. If everything exists only within my mind, I can do whatever the fuck I please. I can rape a million babies and bathe in their blood, I can obliterate the entire world. Nothing at all has any meaning or consequences whatsoever. Who actually lives like that? You CAN do whatever you please. You can rape a million babies or set off a nuclear weapon in a crowded city. The problem is, we have minds too, and we will stop you. Your mind is not the only mind in the universe. But our minds are the universe.
The universe is just information in our minds. A far as self awareness goes, particles like electrons which flow in our brain are not exacly solid, in fact we aren't even sure if electrons are particles or waves or what they are. We just know that all thoughts come from neurons which are charged.
What you don't understand is, all of your science is based on your primitive perception yet you believe in it. But somehow when I tell you the entire universe is based on primitive perception you seem to think that this theory is impossible even when it's based on the same observation you use for scientific method?
As a vegetarian, I should say this is the sort of thinking that enables non-vegetarians to justify their desire for meat, even when their 'consciousness' raises questions about needless violence. I'm not endorsing eating meat. If you can get the same nutrition without eating meat, why would you need to eat meat?
What I'm saying is, not all lifeforms are equally self aware and so we cannot give all life form equal worth. It should be obvious that a life form that is more aware of itself is also more capable of feeling pain.
A life form that isn't aware of it's own existence feels no pain at all, like a plant. And a fish is someone between plant and mammal.
Non vegetarians don't need this sorta thinking to enable them to justify eating meat. All they need to justify eating meat is to prove that vegetarianism is less healthy for an individual that eating meat. It's only reasonable to put your health first.
Now, if vegetarians can somehow prove that being a vegetarian is more healthy, and so far you haven't proved this, then yes you can make a case why people shouldn't eat meat. The point is you aren't going to be able to make the case religiously or spiritually, because it's really not a spiritual or religious decision for most people.
Now, I'll say I agree with you that people should probably eat a less mammals, or maybe even stop eating mammals entirely, but I don't agree that people should stop eating fish, and I don't believe that people should stop eating meat entirely.
I don't like the way you conflate awareness/control/power.
So how about the human race being wiped out by an unaware asteroid? Where's the control there?
Or by a virus? How self aware is a virus? We have brains, we have awareness of planets, space and asteroids. We have he capability to save ourselves, to preserve our existence.
So it's our choice to be destroyed by asteroids or develop nuclear,biological,chemical weapons to help the asteroids destroy us. It's simple, humans might not have enough self awareness to survive, but we are fully capable of controlling our environment and fully capable of controlling anything in the universe if focus our collective minds on it.
It's a matter of focus and self awareness. As we become more self aware we will become more reasonable and rational, and our number # priority will become how to survive as a species instead of how to kill each other.
So what you are saying is that particles are self-aware, but (in your other post) you also say that not all mammals are self-aware. Rocks are not self-aware either, so they don't exist. But what are the mammals and rocks made of? Maybe particles could only be self-aware before the universe came into existance?
I'm not saying I know one way or another whether particles are self aware. If particles were self aware, they probably aren't aware on the 3d level until they enter the brain. Electrons are in the brain, but those electrons don't become self aware until you see the electrons in the double slit experiment. It's too complicated for me to explain all the quantum mechanics of it, but yes there are theories that explain how particles might be have a type of consciousness, or that consciousness itself might come from electrons.
You mention a 2d universe. Is there any evidence that supports the existence of such a thing? And if so, where did that come from? The 1d universe 'self-awared' the 2d universe in existence? Turtles all the way down? (0d universe? -1d universe?)
String theory. If there are 2d strings generating this universe then theres multiple dimensions. I'm not exactly sure how many dimensions there are but there are at least 5, and some say there are 10+ dimensions.
Maybe you found The Genuine Truth(c). It would be close-minded to dismiss you without examing your ideas, and I feel I might understand them better if you were to share with me the revalation that led to your philosophy.
The main revelation was when I saw the experiment on quantum entanglement. Once I knew information could teleport I knew distance was an illusion. The universe itself is just information, and the mind is simply the organizer of that information. Now I read they are developing quantum radar, soon there will be quantum telescopes which will be able to see anywhere in the universe, and eventually there will be a quantum internet.
Quantum entanglement changes everything. The double slit experiment proved that the observer influences the quantum world itself and that the particles might not even be particles prior to observation of them. If that is the case this again changes everything we thought we knew.
Now you're contradicting yourself. I thought the universe observed itself, so it doesn't need us to keep going, right?
We are a part of the universe. We are a part of the observer, because we are the observers, the eyes and ears of the universe.
Just curious, if I am hallucinating, then I perceive things, right? But they don't exist. So even if I perceive something I cannot know that it exists, since I could be hallucinating. And it's not limited to hallucination. An illusionist can make people see impossible things, this doesn't make those things real.
Suppose for a moment that the physical universe is an illusion, but you don't have the eyes to see it because your eyes are not good enough to see the real universe on the quantum level. Let's say you develop a microscope to allow you to see the atoms and quantum level, now you see that what you thought was solid really isn't, what you thought was real was really illusion.
What I'm saying is that because there are different levels of awareness, your awareness can be distorted, but the awareness of the universe is redundant, every being with eyes is perceiving stuff into existence. Lets take the double slit experiment as the example, what if the electron actually didn't exist prior to us observing it?
What if we observed the electron into existence? If we can observe something into existence, now you have to consider all the aliens that might exist in the universe if they observed most of this stuff into existence long before we evolved?
What if all that is real was simple observed into existence before we came along and with our science we continue to observe new things into existence, and what if quantum entanglement
But if you want me to make it simple, nothing exists outside of our minds. You only think that stuff exists but you have no way to actually prove anything exists prior to perception. Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe. You sound as if you thought that Solipsism was something new. In fact this line of thinking has existed since a few hundred years BC, along with a number of philosophical problems that come with it, and which it never could solve.
Quoting Wikipedia, Bertrand Russell wrote:
"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me."
-- B. Russel, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. I never said my ideas were completely new or alien, or had no basis in history. What I'm saying is that science seems to be proving that the solipsis was of thinking is simply the most reasonable.
I don't mean to discredit any other way or thinking, but no other way of thinking seems to be as reasonable. The other ways of thinking seem to rely on faith, we are supposed to believe that "stuff" can exist outside of our minds, which to me doesn't seem any more reasonable than believing in a God who lives in the sky who we can't see, or aliens in space, or angels, or the devil.
Sure it's all possible, but I'm more likely to believe that it' all in our minds. The main different between what I'm saying and Solipsism is that Solipsism says that the individual mind "mine" is the only mind I know to exist, while I'm saying "our" as in the universal mind is the only thing I know to exist.
Btw what are some of those philosophical problems with Solipsism? And why exactly is it impossible to psychologically believe? Why should you believe anything exists outside of reality?
Are your thoughts real? If they are, then you are self aware. If you aren't sure whether or not your thoughts are more real than some sand, then perhaps you feel disconnected from nature because of this.
I propose a simple experiment. You say the universe exists only inside one's awareness.
In other words, you believe in magic. But we can easily experimentally verify this state of affairs.
I put you inside a dark room, completely and utterly dark, so that most of your perception is disabled. What you don't know is that there is a hole in the floor of the room : but no worries, nobody is aware of the hole, and it isn't aware of itself : so you won't fall through it. If the universe were not self aware, there would be no such thing as a hole. The example you give depends on some God like being creating a concept called a room, creating a hole, and putting us in that room. The simple fact is, if nothing ever perceives the hole then there simply is no such thing as a hole.
The same argument athiests use to try and explain how there isnt a God because we can't collectively perceive of a God, is the exact argument I'm using to prove that nothing exists without being perceived into existence.
If you believe a hole can exist without anything perceiving it, then you believe the universe exist independently of perception, and if you believe that then you are relying completely on faith.
Obviously it's not. The world exists independantly of you. No the world does not exist independent of perception. I never claimed "I" was God. I said God was the self awareness of the universe, this means all of the collective perception and self awareness combined.
What I'm saying is, if there is nothing in the universe to perceive of a room, there will be no such thing as rooms, or holes. You just assume these ideas exist outide of the mind we think with on pure faith alone. You assume the physical universe can exist outside of the mind even when there has never been any evidence of anything existing outside of universal perception and thought.
If pink unicorns are the one self aware force in the universe, then the pink unicorns are God.
The universe only exists in peoples minds. Scientists who study the universe are actually only studying their own perceptions and to interpret perceptions without any meaning behind it is to just function as a knowledge gatherer collecting meaningless data and organizing it using the scientific method.
Just because I believe in a God, it doesn't mean I believe the universe was created in 7 days.
I believe in an intelligently designed universe. I'm not a creationist. Science can explain how a universe could be intelligently designed.
But I guess you don't see that science is neutral and only explains how the universe was designed and you have a choice to choose whether to believe it was designed intelligent or randomly.
I believe the athiest randomized universe to be pseudo-science and just as much of a myth as the theory of God creating the universe in 7 days.
No. Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather. Thats not exactly what I was saying. But Mass is energy in another form, just as all things in the universe are.
As far as there being no such thing as death, thats up for debate, I'm not that much of a true believer.
What is the basis for your core assumption ? I base my core assumption on pure reason. Can you agree that your thoughts are the most real thing in this universe? If you agree that nothing can be more real than your thoughts, then you can see that self awareness is the universe.
Most mammals ? Which ones are unlucky enough not to make the cut ? Who decides ?
Where do reptiles and fish fit into your scheme ? Or, aren't they cute enough to have feelings ? Do the poor old insects get a raw deal as well ? If a mammal can look at itself in a mirror and recognize itself, its self aware. The more self aware it is, the closer to God it is. A mammal is closer to God than a fish, but a chimp or a human is even closer to God than the fish or most mammals.
Some aliens in the universe may be closer to God than us. The simple fact is, the closer to God you are, the more control you have over nature, the more control you have over that which is less aware of itself. So because that fish is unaware of itself, and it's environment, you can go fishing and or put them in a fish tank or whatever and the fish just isn't capable of being aware of what you are doing. To that fish, you are God.
The same would happen to us if we came into contact with aliens which are so much more self aware than we are that they could wipe us out easily. Humans are self aware on the individual level, but we have very little species level awareness. We may no survive a species because we don't put survival of the species as the first priority. But if you remember, the first law of nature is self preservation, and if you are reasonable you'd want to be a self aware as possible just so you'd be capable of surviving an alien attack or an attack by plagues, viruses etc.
PErhaps self awareness existed on the particle level before the 3d universe big banged itself into existence. Perhaps the existence of the 3d universe was a result of self awareness of the 2d.
And since you believe all new age philosophy to be crap, you are probably a closed minded athiest so why does it matter how I came up with my opinion?
But if you want me to make it simple, nothing exists outside of our minds. You only think that stuff exists but you have no way to actually prove anything exists prior to perception. The latest experiments in quantum mechanics prove that the observer is what causes existence.
The double slit experiment is one example of this, and if you look it up on Google you'll see it.
Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe.
He never said self-aware, nor did he suggest anything about how it was created. That's more Hawking's department, anyway. His theory proves the universe is self aware. Mass is simply energy like everything else, and energy is never created or destroyed. It's his theory that allows people today to say that the universe is self aware.
So while there might not be a personal God, we do know that time is relative. If you travel at a faster speed time slows down, because distance shrinks. Now we have discovered non-locality and we see that distance itself is the illusion and that when an object is on the quantum level, distance ceases to exist.
And you know pretty much nothing about atheists. Athiests have faith in the idea that a God doesn't, and shouldn't exist. How they rationalize it is their business, but these beliefs are the core of athiesm.
No, in fact, he said just the opposite. He ignored quantum mechanics because of that. If there is no randomness in the universe, then everything in the universe is deliberate, and this is the entire basis for intelligent design. The only way to logically dispute intelligent design is by proving that randomness exists somewhere in the universe.
You can't say the Big bang was random if nothing in the universe was an accident. If all events are caused, then even the big bang had to have a cause.
However, the fact that he recognized a symmetry in the Universe in no way suggests that he believed in a creator, or that the "God" he believed in was even sentient. He claimed to believe in Spinoza's God. [wikipedia.org] Quoting that Wikipedia article: I'm a philosopher myself. Nature is self aware. So if he believed in Spinoza's God, then his God is self aware and "alive" just as nature is self aware and alive. Whether or not that self awareness has a personal relationship with humans is another question.
Sounds to me like Spinoza's God created nothing, but is everything. You could almost say that Spinoza was very much an atheist -- he believed in nothing more than matter, the physical world that we see. But he believed that this was what the Jewish God really is -- kind of like the world being created in six days has to be a metaphor, because we know it wasn't. No, thats panthiesm not athiesm. Nature is not nothing because life is nature. Space is nothing, the void is nothing. The universe however is self aware, and I say Einstein believed this based on everything you just said.
If the universe is nature, and nature is just self awareness, then the universe is self aware. Nature is not "nothing" or "space".
Physicists don't usually think about why things are, they only think about how things work.
So a physicist can explain the math behind quantum entanglement but a physicist cannot explain why math is capable of solving all the mysteries of the universe.
I'm getting a degree in philosophy so I can explain.
And if you think you can challenge my philosophy go ahead.
1. God is self awareness.
2. When an entity, individual or species becomes more self aware, they become closer to God. As a result, their science gets better, their math gets better, and their self awareness allows them to organize all the information of the universe, thus they become the programmers of the universe.
3. The universe only exists in the minds of the self aware. Self awareness perceived the universe into existence, and this was the cause of the big bang.
4. The universe cannot exist independently of self awareness. Self awareness is existence, and when the universe becomes more self aware it becomes more real. When you become more self aware you become more real.
5. All which is not self aware, is not real, it's junk information, it's noise, it's fake, it's illusion.
This means, life is real if it's aware of itself. Humans and most mammals are real. Rocks, dirt, sand, dust, mud, minerals and all which is not self aware, is the junk/noise of the universe. It's simply information which wouldn't exist at all without our perception to perceive it into existence and classify it.
This means the observer is the universe. This means that due to non-locality, distance and space are illusions. This means time/change is energy. And energy is conciousness/self awareness.
The eye/ears/brain simply organizes that energy so that it can become aware of itself. But there is no universe outside of that energy of awareness.
It's as simple as this. The universe is completely in our collective minds. When I say our, I do not mean humans, I mean the collective self awareness of the universe.
That collective self awareness of the universe perceived the universe into existence. The big bang was the beginning of the universe(self awareness), becoming aware of itself.
Existence is self awareness. That which is self aware is all that is real in the universe. Everything else is just junk information, noise. If all self awareness in the universe dies, the universe itself will cease to exist.
Basically the universe only exists because there are self aware beings capable of perceiving it. The only thing real in the universe are the self aware beings. And God is the collective self awareness of the universe, the universal awareness, or universal soul, or universal mind, however you want to think about it.
The only way to interpret that statement is to believe Einstein was a man who believed in intelligent design. Intelligent design has nothing to do with Christianity.
I believe in an intelligent self aware universe. I don't believe in a personal God. And I'm not an athiest, and many other people agree with me.
The pagans, buddhists, and panthiests tend to see a similar view of the universe. People assume buddhists are athiest, but it's simple, you can believe consciousness is God and that the universe is self awareness.
To put it simply, this is to believe that the universe exists only if there is a self aware force to perceive it into existence. No self awareness, no perception, no universe.
The existence of the universe depends entirely on the ability of self awareness being able to perceive it and outside of self awareness, nothing is real.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that makes most of your reply wasted effort, sorry again for that. Why is it more plausible that more than me exists? How can the Universe exist if nothing exists but the Universe? As I noted elsewhere in the thread, I guess I agree with that. Both statements are axioms. Solipsism is no more or less extraordinary than materialism in terms of plausibility or explanatory power. As some one else noted in this thread, the main problem of solipsism is that it is not testable at all. Not just in the strict sense of natural science, but neither in the less strict context of philosophy. As such, it explains everything and nothing, just like the "god" concept. If everything is inside my mind, then everything has meaning and consequence to me. And meaning and consequence to me is the only sort that matters. I am with Russel on that. Nobody, not even those claiming they are solipsists, live like they really believe that everything is in their mind. I mean, it this were true this single existing mind would have invented/discovered _everything (physics, math), written every computer program in existence, etc. That should change one's view of oneself profoundly, but these people do not act in that manner. It did discover everything. Thats the point I've been making all along. The subtle difference however is that all along I said "OUR" mind is God, I never said "MY" mind is God. I never said that my mind alone is the mind of the entire universe. I said the sum of all minds is the universe.
I said everything is in our MINDS. I never said my theory says everything is in my individual mind.
I believe our collective minds are the universe, not my individual mind.
Every mind is actually part of the same mind.
If I see something with my eyes, it instantly becomes a part of our mind, because we have such a thing as communication.
The problem he made is that he thinks I believe that everything is in "MY" mind when I said everything is in "OUR" minds.
The universe is just information in our minds. A far as self awareness goes, particles like electrons which flow in our brain are not exacly solid, in fact we aren't even sure if electrons are particles or waves or what they are. We just know that all thoughts come from neurons which are charged.
What you don't understand is, all of your science is based on your primitive perception yet you believe in it. But somehow when I tell you the entire universe is based on primitive perception you seem to think that this theory is impossible even when it's based on the same observation you use for scientific method?
Look up Quantum Entanglement on Google and see how.
What I'm saying is, not all lifeforms are equally self aware and so we cannot give all life form equal worth. It should be obvious that a life form that is more aware of itself is also more capable of feeling pain.
A life form that isn't aware of it's own existence feels no pain at all, like a plant. And a fish is someone between plant and mammal.
Non vegetarians don't need this sorta thinking to enable them to justify eating meat. All they need to justify eating meat is to prove that vegetarianism is less healthy for an individual that eating meat. It's only reasonable to put your health first.
Now, if vegetarians can somehow prove that being a vegetarian is more healthy, and so far you haven't proved this, then yes you can make a case why people shouldn't eat meat. The point is you aren't going to be able to make the case religiously or spiritually, because it's really not a spiritual or religious decision for most people.
Now, I'll say I agree with you that people should probably eat a less mammals, or maybe even stop eating mammals entirely, but I don't agree that people should stop eating fish, and I don't believe that people should stop eating meat entirely.
So how about the human race being wiped out by an unaware asteroid? Where's the control there?
Or by a virus? How self aware is a virus? We have brains, we have awareness of planets, space and asteroids. We have he capability to save ourselves, to preserve our existence.
So it's our choice to be destroyed by asteroids or develop nuclear,biological,chemical weapons to help the asteroids destroy us. It's simple, humans might not have enough self awareness to survive, but we are fully capable of controlling our environment and fully capable of controlling anything in the universe if focus our collective minds on it.
It's a matter of focus and self awareness. As we become more self aware we will become more reasonable and rational, and our number # priority will become how to survive as a species instead of how to kill each other.
So what you are saying is that particles are self-aware, but (in your other post) you also say that not all mammals are self-aware. Rocks are not self-aware either, so they don't exist. But what are the mammals and rocks made of? Maybe particles could only be self-aware before the universe came into existance?
I'm not saying I know one way or another whether particles are self aware. If particles were self aware, they probably aren't aware on the 3d level until they enter the brain. Electrons are in the brain, but those electrons don't become self aware until you see the electrons in the double slit experiment. It's too complicated for me to explain all the quantum mechanics of it, but yes there are theories that explain how particles might be have a type of consciousness, or that consciousness itself might come from electrons.
You mention a 2d universe. Is there any evidence that supports the existence of such a thing? And if so, where did that come from? The 1d universe 'self-awared' the 2d universe in existence? Turtles all the way down? (0d universe? -1d universe?)
String theory. If there are 2d strings generating this universe then theres multiple dimensions. I'm not exactly sure how many dimensions there are but there are at least 5, and some say there are 10+ dimensions.
Maybe you found The Genuine Truth(c). It would be close-minded to dismiss you without examing your ideas, and I feel I might understand them better if you were to share with me the revalation that led to your philosophy.
The main revelation was when I saw the experiment on quantum entanglement. Once I knew information could teleport I knew distance was an illusion. The universe itself is just information, and the mind is simply the organizer of that information.
Now I read they are developing quantum radar, soon there will be quantum telescopes which will be able to see anywhere in the universe, and eventually there will be a quantum internet.
Quantum entanglement changes everything. The double slit experiment proved that the observer influences the quantum world itself and that the particles might not even be particles prior to observation of them. If that is the case this again changes everything we thought we knew.
Now you're contradicting yourself. I thought the universe observed itself, so it doesn't need us to keep going, right?
We are a part of the universe. We are a part of the observer, because we are the observers, the eyes and ears of the universe.
Just curious, if I am hallucinating, then I perceive things, right? But they don't exist. So even if I perceive something I cannot know that it exists, since I could be hallucinating. And it's not limited to hallucination. An illusionist can make people see impossible things, this doesn't make those things real.
Suppose for a moment that the physical universe is an illusion, but you don't have the eyes to see it because your eyes are not good enough to see the real universe on the quantum level. Let's say you develop a microscope to allow you to see the atoms and quantum level, now you see that what you thought was solid really isn't, what you thought was real was really illusion.
What I'm saying is that because there are different levels of awareness, your awareness can be distorted, but the awareness of the universe is redundant, every being with eyes is perceiving stuff into existence. Lets take the double slit experiment as the example, what if the electron actually didn't exist prior to us observing it?
What if we observed the electron into existence?
If we can observe something into existence, now you have to consider all the aliens that might exist in the universe if they observed most of this stuff into existence long before we evolved?
What if all that is real was simple observed into existence before we came along and with our science we continue to observe new things into existence, and what if quantum entanglement
Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe. You sound as if you thought that Solipsism was something new. In fact this line of thinking has existed since a few hundred years BC, along with a number of philosophical problems that come with it, and which it never could solve.
Quoting Wikipedia, Bertrand Russell wrote: -- B. Russel, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. I never said my ideas were completely new or alien, or had no basis in history. What I'm saying is that science seems to be proving that the solipsis was of thinking is simply the most reasonable.
I don't mean to discredit any other way or thinking, but no other way of thinking seems to be as reasonable. The other ways of thinking seem to rely on faith, we are supposed to believe that "stuff" can exist outside of our minds, which to me doesn't seem any more reasonable than believing in a God who lives in the sky who we can't see, or aliens in space, or angels, or the devil.
Sure it's all possible, but I'm more likely to believe that it' all in our minds. The main different between what I'm saying and Solipsism is that Solipsism says that the individual mind "mine" is the only mind I know to exist, while I'm saying "our" as in the universal mind is the only thing I know to exist.
Btw what are some of those philosophical problems with Solipsism? And why exactly is it impossible to psychologically believe? Why should you believe anything exists outside of reality?
Are your thoughts real? If they are, then you are self aware. If you aren't sure whether or not your thoughts are more real than some sand, then perhaps you feel disconnected from nature because of this.
In other words, you believe in magic. But we can easily experimentally verify this state of affairs.
I put you inside a dark room, completely and utterly dark, so that most of your perception is disabled. What you don't know is that there is a hole in the floor of the room : but no worries, nobody is aware of the hole, and it isn't aware of itself : so you won't fall through it. If the universe were not self aware, there would be no such thing as a hole. The example you give depends on some God like being creating a concept called a room, creating a hole, and putting us in that room. The simple fact is, if nothing ever perceives the hole then there simply is no such thing as a hole.
The same argument athiests use to try and explain how there isnt a God because we can't collectively perceive of a God, is the exact argument I'm using to prove that nothing exists without being perceived into existence.
If you believe a hole can exist without anything perceiving it, then you believe the universe exist independently of perception, and if you believe that then you are relying completely on faith. Obviously it's not. The world exists independantly of you. No the world does not exist independent of perception. I never claimed "I" was God. I said God was the self awareness of the universe, this means all of the collective perception and self awareness combined.
What I'm saying is, if there is nothing in the universe to perceive of a room, there will be no such thing as rooms, or holes. You just assume these ideas exist outide of the mind we think with on pure faith alone. You assume the physical universe can exist outside of the mind even when there has never been any evidence of anything existing outside of universal perception and thought.
If pink unicorns are the one self aware force in the universe, then the pink unicorns are God.
The universe only exists in peoples minds. Scientists who study the universe are actually only studying their own perceptions and to interpret perceptions without any meaning behind it is to just function as a knowledge gatherer collecting meaningless data and organizing it using the scientific method.
If you believe nature is dead, do you believe you are any more real than a rock or some sand?
Just because I believe in a God, it doesn't mean I believe the universe was created in 7 days.
I believe in an intelligently designed universe. I'm not a creationist. Science can explain how a universe could be intelligently designed.
But I guess you don't see that science is neutral and only explains how the universe was designed and you have a choice to choose whether to believe it was designed intelligent or randomly.
I believe the athiest randomized universe to be pseudo-science and just as much of a myth as the theory of God creating the universe in 7 days.
No. Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather. Thats not exactly what I was saying. But Mass is energy in another form, just as all things in the universe are.
As far as there being no such thing as death, thats up for debate, I'm not that much of a true believer.
Where do reptiles and fish fit into your scheme ? Or, aren't they cute enough to have feelings ? Do the poor old insects get a raw deal as well ? If a mammal can look at itself in a mirror and recognize itself, its self aware. The more self aware it is, the closer to God it is. A mammal is closer to God than a fish, but a chimp or a human is even closer to God than the fish or most mammals.
Some aliens in the universe may be closer to God than us. The simple fact is, the closer to God you are, the more control you have over nature, the more control you have over that which is less aware of itself. So because that fish is unaware of itself, and it's environment, you can go fishing and or put them in a fish tank or whatever and the fish just isn't capable of being aware of what you are doing. To that fish, you are God.
The same would happen to us if we came into contact with aliens which are so much more self aware than we are that they could wipe us out easily. Humans are self aware on the individual level, but we have very little species level awareness. We may no survive a species because we don't put survival of the species as the first priority. But if you remember, the first law of nature is self preservation, and if you are reasonable you'd want to be a self aware as possible just so you'd be capable of surviving an alien attack or an attack by plagues, viruses etc.
God is the mind of the universe. Is that better?
Or, God is the collective mind of all beings in the universe. Is this more clear?
And this mind intelligently designed the universe.
PErhaps self awareness existed on the particle level before the 3d universe big banged itself into existence. Perhaps the existence of the 3d universe was a result of self awareness of the 2d.
And since you believe all new age philosophy to be crap, you are probably a closed minded athiest so why does it matter how I came up with my opinion?
But if you want me to make it simple, nothing exists outside of our minds. You only think that stuff exists but you have no way to actually prove anything exists prior to perception. The latest experiments in quantum mechanics prove that the observer is what causes existence.
The double slit experiment is one example of this, and if you look it up on Google you'll see it.
Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe.
He never said self-aware, nor did he suggest anything about how it was created. That's more Hawking's department, anyway. His theory proves the universe is self aware. Mass is simply energy like everything else, and energy is never created or destroyed. It's his theory that allows people today to say that the universe is self aware.
So while there might not be a personal God, we do know that time is relative. If you travel at a faster speed time slows down, because distance shrinks. Now we have discovered non-locality and we see that distance itself is the illusion and that when an object is on the quantum level, distance ceases to exist. And you know pretty much nothing about atheists. Athiests have faith in the idea that a God doesn't, and shouldn't exist. How they rationalize it is their business, but these beliefs are the core of athiesm. No, in fact, he said just the opposite. He ignored quantum mechanics because of that. If there is no randomness in the universe, then everything in the universe is deliberate, and this is the entire basis for intelligent design. The only way to logically dispute intelligent design is by proving that randomness exists somewhere in the universe.
You can't say the Big bang was random if nothing in the universe was an accident. If all events are caused, then even the big bang had to have a cause. However, the fact that he recognized a symmetry in the Universe in no way suggests that he believed in a creator, or that the "God" he believed in was even sentient. He claimed to believe in Spinoza's God. [wikipedia.org] Quoting that Wikipedia article: I'm a philosopher myself. Nature is self aware. So if he believed in Spinoza's God, then his God is self aware and "alive" just as nature is self aware and alive. Whether or not that self awareness has a personal relationship with humans is another question. Sounds to me like Spinoza's God created nothing, but is everything. You could almost say that Spinoza was very much an atheist -- he believed in nothing more than matter, the physical world that we see. But he believed that this was what the Jewish God really is -- kind of like the world being created in six days has to be a metaphor, because we know it wasn't. No, thats panthiesm not athiesm. Nature is not nothing because life is nature. Space is nothing, the void is nothing. The universe however is self aware, and I say Einstein believed this based on everything you just said.
If the universe is nature, and nature is just self awareness, then the universe is self aware. Nature is not "nothing" or "space".
Einstein and God are family members.
If God were self awareness, then Einstein believed in God.
Physicists don't usually think about why things are, they only think about how things work.
So a physicist can explain the math behind quantum entanglement but a physicist cannot explain why math is capable of solving all the mysteries of the universe.
I'm getting a degree in philosophy so I can explain.
And if you think you can challenge my philosophy go ahead.
1. God is self awareness.
2. When an entity, individual or species becomes more self aware, they become closer to God. As a result, their science gets better, their math gets better, and their self awareness allows them to organize all the information of the universe, thus they become the programmers of the universe.
3. The universe only exists in the minds of the self aware. Self awareness perceived the universe into existence, and this was the cause of the big bang.
4. The universe cannot exist independently of self awareness. Self awareness is existence, and when the universe becomes more self aware it becomes more real. When you become more self aware you become more real.
5. All which is not self aware, is not real, it's junk information, it's noise, it's fake, it's illusion.
This means, life is real if it's aware of itself. Humans and most mammals are real. Rocks, dirt, sand, dust, mud, minerals and all which is not self aware, is the junk/noise of the universe. It's simply information which wouldn't exist at all without our perception to perceive it into existence and classify it.
This means the observer is the universe. This means that due to non-locality, distance and space are illusions. This means time/change is energy. And energy is conciousness/self awareness.
The eye/ears/brain simply organizes that energy so that it can become aware of itself. But there is no universe outside of that energy of awareness.
It's as simple as this. The universe is completely in our collective minds. When I say our, I do not mean humans, I mean the collective self awareness of the universe.
That collective self awareness of the universe perceived the universe into existence. The big bang was the beginning of the universe(self awareness), becoming aware of itself.
Existence is self awareness. That which is self aware is all that is real in the universe. Everything else is just junk information, noise. If all self awareness in the universe dies, the universe itself will cease to exist.
Basically the universe only exists because there are self aware beings capable of perceiving it. The only thing real in the universe are the self aware beings. And God is the collective self awareness of the universe, the universal awareness, or universal soul, or universal mind, however you want to think about it.
The only way to interpret that statement is to believe Einstein was a man who believed in intelligent design. Intelligent design has nothing to do with Christianity.
I believe in an intelligent self aware universe. I don't believe in a personal God. And I'm not an athiest, and many other people agree with me.
The pagans, buddhists, and panthiests tend to see a similar view of the universe. People assume buddhists are athiest, but it's simple, you can believe consciousness is God and that the universe is self awareness.
To put it simply, this is to believe that the universe exists only if there is a self aware force to perceive it into existence. No self awareness, no perception, no universe.
The existence of the universe depends entirely on the ability of self awareness being able to perceive it and outside of self awareness, nothing is real.