Accidently conjured up some extraterrestrials

[fink]

On the other end of your same statement, does that mean that there's a claim no other world exists outside our perspective or that we just can't know anything about it enough to make statements about it (moving towards solipsism of sorts)?

I don't think it even has to get that deep. We are hallucinating constantly. Some of us hallucinate approximately the same things and agree with each other that it is reality. There are subtle differences but to feel accepted into the culture's group hallucination is also hard wired into us for survival.

So we don't usually argue over the minor discrepancies.

Within each culturally accepted hallucination appear a multitude of splinter trips, both solitary and group populated. The splinters are however still attached to the main body. Things run along smoothly. The solitary hallucination that breaks away completely from any agreement or group belief becomes isolated. Sometimes we lock those people in padded cells on a steady cocktail of chemicals. To help them.

War is a perfect example of a culturally accepted hallucination. One human crouches in a trench about to die while I lie here in a hot bath typing gibberish to my friends. To me, what that unfortunate person is doing is absolute nonsense. But it would appear that enough of us subscribed to that hallucination and so that is the hallucination some people are having right now.

Another one that always makes me laugh is the economic excuse hallucination. Yes, we could do this thing that would benefit all of humanity and advance us to the next level of existence.

But who is going to pay for it?

We almost all of us subscribe to the culturally accepted trip that humanity cannot achieve something without paying humanity for doing it.

99.999% of us humans accept economics as reality. But it is no more real than the little green men who come to converse with the lunatic in the asylum.

I'll get out of the bath now, with the hallucination of being clean.

 

[MAGMA17]

I think the problem is that you use a single word, which is "hallucination", to talk about many things that have nothing to do with each other.
That of the war is not a hallucination. That person who is dying in the trench is mentally manipulated with the aim of making him have at the top of his list of priorities and ideals what is necessary for the instigators of the war. It is simply mental manipulation. Very replicable.

For the economy, it is real. We, as humanity, have needs. Centuries ago it was mainly the primary ones that were satisfied, now also the secondary ones (and we continue to invent new ones). Barter was used to meet these needs first. We now have money, which is a much more flexible system than bartering. Economics is what governs money.

There isn't anyone behind the scenes wanting us to step away from our true being. They were choices made by the human elites of past centuries. Interchange was chosen as a system to satisfy basic needs. The other choice was generosity, giving without wanting anything in return. The economy is a (very real) consequence of that choice.

I know that I am boring...

As for the bathroom (and here I understand well the melancholy-poetic vein), after it you are certainly cleaner than before. Then, I don't know the conditions in which your tub pours :lol:

 

[Voidmatrix]

Hehehe Like I said, I was just being a troublemaker. :twisted:

For clarity, I'm not arguing that things are not an illusion, but more specifically I am providing some food for thought in exploring the claim.

I could've done something similar if you had made a contradictory statement to the one being discussed initially.

I don't think it even has to get that deep.

Well, first, you're talking to me :lol: Second, it does for what I am highlighting and exploring.

We are hallucinating constantly.

How are you defining hallucination?

What is the standard that is the basis for this assertion? Would one not need to be made aware of what is not a hallucination in order to discern between what is an illusion and what isn't?

If everything and everyone is hallucinating, then wouldn't it be appropriate to say that no one is since the hallucinatory state would be the default and normalized?

Some of us hallucinate approximately the same things and agree with each other that it is reality

Intersubjective verifiability.

Within each culturally accepted hallucination appear a multitude of splinter trips, both solitary and group populated. The splinters are however still attached to the main body. Things run along smoothly. The solitary hallucination that breaks away completely from any agreement or group belief becomes isolated. Sometimes we lock those people in padded cells on a steady cocktail of chemicals. To help them.

Is it not possible that instead of things being a hallucination they could instead be different vantage points of different facets of reality with different amalgams, amounts and permutations of information of reality entering the scope of individuals and groups? Given this conditional: if no one knows everything, and no one is right all the time, then we all believe and feel we know things that are false unbeknownst to us, is it not possible that everyone gets different bits of reality and illusion [both subjectively and intersubjectively) and are just unable to parse what is what? That is, is it possible we are unable to tell completely and fully where the hallucination(s) begins and ends and where experiencing "reality" begins and ends?

Is it also not possible that reality isn't the "same" for everyone?

Also, how do you define "reality?"

Another one that always makes me laugh is the economic excuse hallucination. Yes, we could do this thing that would benefit all of humanity and advance us to the next level of existence.

But who is going to pay for it?

We almost all of us subscribe to the culturally accepted trip that humanity cannot achieve something without paying humanity for doing it.

99.999% of us humans accept economics as reality. But it is no more real than the little green men who come to converse with the lunatic in the asylum.

Wouldn't something that impacts the lives of billions of people have some sort of basis in "reality," despite being generated by humans? Ideas run the world, wouldn't you say? Is an idea something that has no basis in reality to you?

And again, how do you define reality? Is it not possible that "reality" can consist of both physical and non-physical phenomena?

Would it be more apt to say that based on certain inferences, everything may be an illusion, but we aren't sure?



One love

 

[fink]

Everything you both said can certainly be valid within your hallucination. If you convince me it is worth hallucinating about then it becomes valid in my hallucination too.

The term hallucination is defined as an experience of something created by our mind and sensory array that is in fact not real. The way I currently see things is that there is no such thing as reality IE everything is a hallucination or an illusion if we prefer that term.

If anyone believes there is a definite line in the sand between what is real or not and they are prepared to be the one brave enough to say for certain where that line is then I admire their courage.

For me, currently, what we call reality is simply multiple votes for the same illusion.

That does not mean I do not believe that either of you exist. I feel fairly confident you do exist as conscious entities. We all three appear to accept that the existence of this message board is worth believing in. So here we are.


For me to really stop and honestly think about the absurdity of the universe and our awareness of it - to try to put my finger on just exactly what is reality - is the most terrifying prospect my consciousness can imagine. It just seems far more likely that we are all sharing a wonderful dream.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Everything you both said can certainly be valid within your hallucination. If you convince me it is worth hallucinating about then it becomes valid in my hallucination too.

Well, now we're at a point where it "goes that deep." :twisted:

Notice that I haven't made any claims one way or another. I'm merely providing a query wherein we explore what you mean.

And this seems to be a way to avoid what I've asked you.

The term hallucination is defined as an experience of something created by our mind and sensory array that is in fact not real.

In this case it seems that the perceived phenomenon is what as deemed not really here, not all sense experience that is had by the mind. The definition implies that the phenomenon is wholly supplied by the mind. What about sense experience of things that appear independent, conditionally (appealing to the idea of interconnectedness), to the mind and the sense? Would it not be more accurate to say that some of the input we receive is hallucinatory or illusory, as a by product of mechanisms and interactions of the mind and senses, and not the sum total of this input received?

If anyone believes there is a definite line in the sand between what is real or not and they are prepared to be the one brave enough to say for certain where that line is then I admire their courage.

I am certainly not trying to make this claim. I can poke holes in almost anything :twisted: I suspend judgment.

For me, currently, what we call reality is simply multiple votes for the same illusion.

That does not mean I do not believe that either of you exist. I feel fairly confident you do exist as conscious entities. We all three appear to accept that the existence of this message board is worth believing in. So here we are.

Eh, you may not be wrong; I remember seeing a billboard stating "a million people can be wrong while one person is right," which statistically, can be true, even if it doesn't appear so most of the time.

What about the intersubjective nature of science and the scientific method? Are the people who appeal to this sort of modality merely adhering to some alternate hallucination, despite the goal and aim of their pursuit?

So to understand you correctly, I exist in some manner to you, but nothing is "real," so I exist as part of your hallucination, and so in a certain sense I don't exist at all?

In philosophy of mind there is the idea of solipsism, which posits that the only thing one can truly know to exist is the existence of their own mind. This is often misinterpreted as saying that nothing exists outside of one's own mind (including other minds), which, logically, is a leap, because it does not imply this. Though I'm not saying that you're implying you're the only thing that exists, this was just something that popped into my mind that I thought to share.

Your position has some parallels with the Brain in a Vat theory which has been more popularized by the Matrix, both of which are intimately concerned with how we know what is real and exists, which ends up being quite the epistemological and ontological knot.

For me to really stop and honestly think about the absurdity of the universe and our awareness of it - to try to put my finger on just exactly what is reality - is the most terrifying prospect my consciousness can imagine. It just seems far more likely that we are all sharing a wonderful dream.

I sometimes wonder if it's really absurd or if our thinking that it's absurd is just a reflection of our limits of capacity to understand and grasp it.

One love

 

[fink]

Well, now we're at a point where it "goes that deep." :twisted:

Notice that I haven't made any claims one way or another. I'm merely providing a query wherein we explore what you mean.

And this seems to be a way to avoid what I've asked you.

I'm very happy as always to debate. Though if you'll forgive me - rather than avoiding questions from both your good self and from Magma, my intention has been to not get too caught up in tangents. Rather to maintain a consice stance in response. The reason this started was by way of suggesting for Tomtegubbe that illusion could be absolute and that avoiding illusions in deference to reality could be a futile endeavour no matter what.

In this case it seems that the perceived phenomenon is what as deemed not really here, not all sense experience that is had by the mind. The definition implies that the phenomenon is wholly supplied by the mind. What about sense experience of things that appear independent, conditionally (appealing to the idea of interconnectedness), to the mind and the sense? Would it not be more accurate to say that some of the input we receive is hallucinatory or illusory, as a by product of mechanisms and interactions of the mind and senses, and not the sum total of this input received?

Not really no. Our experience is a full hallucination, an interpretation governed by a few supposed billion years of evolution geared entirely towards survival and reproduction. We dont see with our eyes. We compile the light data and then hallucinate the result in a way that makes being alive manageable. But I know this is not a revelation to you, I'm just explaining for the discussion's sake.

What about the intersubjective nature of science and the scientific method? Are the people who appeal to this sort of modality merely adhering to some alternate hallucination, despite the goal and aim of their pursuit?

Philosophy repels most humans as it only creates more difficult questions. Science is a wonderful thing, indeed, already in this post alone I have quoted biological science multiple times.

I would suggest that science in direct opposition to philosophy appeals to the human mind as it appears to grant answers and solve problems. I say 'appears to' because the great gag at the end of science will be a full circle where the dog realises it has bitten it's own tail.

So to understand you correctly, I exist in some manner to you, but nothing is "real," so I exist as part of your hallucination, and so in a certain sense I don't exist at all?

Not at all. We are the same thing experiencing itself from a different angle.

In philosophy of mind there is the idea of solipsism, which posits that the only thing one can truly know to exist is the existence of their own mind. This is often misinterpreted as saying that nothing exists outside of one's own mind (including other minds), which, logically, is a leap, because it does not imply this. Though I'm not saying that you're implying you're the only thing that exists, this was just something that popped into my mind that I thought to share.

Your position has some parallels with the Brain in a Vat theory which has been more popularized by the Matrix, both of which are intimately concerned with how we know what is real and exists, which ends up being quite the epistemological and ontological knot.

I believe We all are the only singular thing that exists. The only reason We exist is because given an eternal void of nothing, with enough practice, nothingness can become aware of itself. In rebellion to the endless void we can create everything simultaneously and then experience all of it in one instant that can be broken down and stretched out into infinite moments of time.

I sometimes wonder if it's really absurd or if our thinking that it's absurd is just a reflection of our limits of capacity to understand and grasp it.

One love

I think it is more likely that our inability to understand it is caused by forgetting that we are all of it.

 

[Exitwound]

Very interesting discussion. I tend to think that Hermetic teaching summarize basic laws of existence very gracefully: "The Universe is Mental - held in the Mind of THE ALL."

1) Real vs. hallucinations - this is like discussing a coin, which you can only see from the one side. It's heads! No it's tails! Does it matter? It's a coin.
I think, whatever you perceive right now is as "real" as anything. Whether you are under unfluence or not. You can also say that you are always under influence, because brain is a vat full of chemicals.

2) Solipsism vs. other things - there is no way to prove a solipsist otherwise. You can't also make a 100% proof to yourself that other people are real. But I think it's true and false at the same time.

My conclusion at the moment is (resonant with what fink said), that all came from nothing, and this "all" is really "one" and "everyone" at the same time. There is no reason for this "all"(-mighty) to be always one, because all is infinite. So All is One but also is Many at the same time. Small ones experience their personal stories, Big ones experience many "ones".

I just think that human experience is one of the infinite experiences all gets to experience. All that alien stuff you see on the DMT? I am pretty sure lots of it is tuning your inner FM receiver to difference hyperspatial frequencies.

Just imagine: you are being with infinite power, would you stop at one experience? or million experiences? I'd be playing with universes like with toys. Finetuning basic "physical" constants and seing what comes of it

All of this doesn't change a bit in immutability of our physical reality laws. Even if all of this is in The Mind, doesn't mean that The Mind will bend rules for you

 

[MAGMA17]

What about animals or insects? are they also part of this shared hallucination?
Imagine a mosquito that leans on my refrigerator and I crush it, it can mean 3 things:
either my fridge, the mosquito and I exist and I have killed it;
the mosquito does not exist and is part of my hallucination (as my fridge);
the mosquito and I exist but the fridge does not, and it is so convinced of the hallucination that it died going against the laws of physics (since somewhere it has to lean to be crushed).

For me the conclusion is the first. Is it the second for you?

What I ask myself is: why should our perception be something to be taken into account to determine if behind something there is this matter that we call "truth"?

Precisely because we cannot escape from our perception we cannot make absolutist determinations like you did with "everything is an hallucination".

That said, I appreciate your vision, don't think not! but I think it comes from a desire to create that mystery that we human beings like so much.

 

[Exitwound]

What about animals or insects? are they also part of this shared hallucination?
Imagine a mosquito that leans on my refrigerator and I crush it, it can mean 3 things:
either my fridge, the mosquito and I exist and I have killed it;
the mosquito does not exist and is part of my hallucination (as my fridge);
the mosquito and I exist but the fridge does not, and it is so convinced of the hallucination that it died going against the laws of physics (since somewhere it has to lean to be crushed).

For me the conclusion is the first. Is it the second for you?

What I ask myself is: why should our perception be something to be taken into account to determine if behind something there is this matter that we call "truth"?

Precisely because we cannot escape from our perception we cannot make absolutist determinations like you did with "everything is an hallucination".

That said, I appreciate your vision, don't think not! but I think it comes from a desire to create that mystery that we human beings like so much.

For me, everything is a part of this big hallucination, even rocks and trees and elementary particles.

Mosquito exists and so do you and fridge. But all 3 of you are mental, not physical.

Here is physical, materialistic "truth": There is more empty space in your body than one that is occupied by molecules. It can be said that you are more empty than full, yet when I see you, I see a solid body.
Here is another physical semi-"truth": Mass is energy.
You probably have heard about uncertainty principle, wave-corpuscular dualism and other quantum quirks of our universe. Even elementary particless at the smallest level, do not behave like a solid billiard balls, but rather interact in much more complex ways.

So what I'm trying to say is that 1) of course it is all theories and totally unverifiable, beyond one's perfonal beliefs. 2) metaphysical picture of the universe that I have in mind, is no way conflicting with science. On the contrary, I think science is the hardest rock we have to step on, the best tool we have to explore the universe. 3) I think that siding with view of "only I exist" and considering the rest as big personal trip, is not productive or interesting. It's more interesting to assume more complex picture of myriads of independent experiences ("existences") intersecting in the one big collective trip we call "life".

 

[Tomtegubbe]

The words in their everyday meaning can become misleading here.

In this Indian chant different aspects of the Goddess are praised. One aspect weaves the illusions for all beings to dwell and another aspect destroys the illusions and this is the cosmic play that goes on and on.

Illusion doesn't mean here same as "non existing", but rather something akin to children's play.

Play is good, but so is seeing through the play.

In Buddhist thought there are three characteristics that all phenomena share. That is nothing exists without the existence of other phenomena (anatta), nothing is permanent (anicca) and nothing is fully satisfactory (dukkha). According to Buddhist thought meditating on these factors helps to see the world as it is and alleviates suffering. These basic characteristics cut through illusion.

Then, we can talk about illusion on a more conventional level, which I was mainly referring to in my original post. It is one kind of an illusion to think that I *have* to go to work, but another kind of illusion to think that my neighbors are stalking me (they aren't). Psychedelics and mental stress can cause us to weave illusions that separate us from other people, and even ourselves and our authentic needs replacing them with something that provides sort of fake satisfaction but doesn't address our "true" needs. If we believe that there is some causality in the world, we can assess the truthfulness of our views depending on how well they seem to correlate with out inspections on how the world actually works. Here it makes sense to speak of true and fake, illusionary and realistic in their conventional sense, even though in the ultimate sense these words become much more fuzzy.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Philosophy repels most humans as it only creates more difficult questions. Science is a wonderful thing, indeed, already in this post alone I have quoted biological science multiple times

Perhaps the experiencing the hard questions is the most important thing to do and that one really sees the heart of many things by doing so even if it gives fewer answers than other questions. And sometimes the answer is another question or series of questions.

Also, science is predicated on philosophy and doesn't move forward without it. A good example is Karl Popper.

Philosophy, by its nature, penetrates everything.

an interpretation governed by a few supposed billion years of evolution geared entirely towards survival and reproduction.

Hmm, then is this "fact" also hallucinatory since it derives from the same source of experience and filtering and augmentation by the mind and senses?

Not at all. We are the same thing experiencing itself from a different angle.

Is this a fact or belief for you?

My position here is only to explore the implications of certain statements and where those implications lead us in our interpretations of things. There are many interpretations, systems and modalities to help explain and understand existence and our experience of it. I kind of just hop from paradigm to paradigm

One love

 

[fink]

What about animals or insects? are they also part of this shared hallucination?
Imagine a mosquito that leans on my refrigerator and I crush it, it can mean 3 things:
either my fridge, the mosquito and I exist and I have killed it;
the mosquito does not exist and is part of my hallucination (as my fridge);
the mosquito and I exist but the fridge does not, and it is so convinced of the hallucination that it died going against the laws of physics (since somewhere it has to lean to be crushed).

For me the conclusion is the first. Is it the second for you?

What I ask myself is: why should our perception be something to be taken into account to determine if behind something there is this matter that we call "truth"?

Precisely because we cannot escape from our perception we cannot make absolutist determinations like you did with "everything is an hallucination".

That said, I appreciate your vision, don't think not! but I think it comes from a desire to create that mystery that we human beings like so much.

Your hand would be creation (god?) experiencing itself killing a mosquito. The mosquito would be creation experiencing being crushed by a hand. The fridge would be creation experiencing itself as an inanimate object used in the previously mentioned exchange.

You are definitely right about the desire for the mystery. Or more a desire to make the already existing great mystery something more than meaningless random fluctuations. Physics in all it's glory still fails to explain consciousness in a way that appeals more to me than the ideas talked about here.

You are also right that absolutes cannot be used. But belief is something we can form without conclusive evidence. Perhaps belief is just the defence mechanism of the eternally confused?


Like Exitwound said, quantum physics now is learning that many of the laws of physics break down when we get small enough. Classical physics has been running for a couple hundred years now by using placeholder formulae for the things it couldn't describe properly. Again from EW's post 'everything is mass and energy'. Is consciousness mass or energy, or both, or neither?


There is an ironic catch that is impossible to escape... If anything of this is true then it would also mean creation would need to experience itself simultaneously proving and disproving it.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Or more a desire to make the already existing great mystery something more than meaningless random fluctuations. Physics in all it's glory still fails to explain consciousness in a way that appeals more to me than the ideas talked about here.

Isn't the "truth" the truth, regardless of subjective appeal?

quantum physics now is learning that many of the laws of physics break down when we get small enough. Classical physics has been running for a couple hundred years now by using placeholder formulae for the things it couldn't describe properly. Again from EW's post 'everything is mass and energy'. Is consciousness mass or energy, or both, or neither

The laws of physics also likely not what they are now during the "big bang." However, it's possible that said laws operate on different layers of reality in different ways.

It also seems like an overgeneralization to discard science because it has limits, in this case explaining consciousness.

You are also right that absolutes cannot be used. But belief is something we can form without conclusive evidence. Perhaps belief is just the defence mechanism of the eternally confused?

Typically, and we've visited this before, when someone believes something they also feel/think it's true. My position is that many may attach to beliefs of various kinds because we're conditioned to have answers whether the answers we want are extant or not.

One love

 

[fink]

We dont need to discard science for the idea to work. Science just becomes another facet of creation trying to understand what it has done.

 

[dragonrider]

If we are all simply "sharing a collective hallucination", wich i don't find an unreasonable assumption btw, then i wonder how that sharing works. I mean, most philosophers agree that we cannot realy know objective reality.

But if we want to agree about our hallucinations, shouldn't we be able to at least communicate some defining characteristics about these hallucinations of ours?

But then this communication for a large part would take place outside the scope of our own minds, so there should be some elements in what we communicate that áre objectively simmilar.

Maybe though this sharing happens when we reach a nash-equilibrium between private claims of objective truth: if we all have completely unique hallucinations that we think are true, but we all have to compromise a little on these beliefs, there can be a point where, in a group of people, an equilibrium is being reached.

Each individual within that group then adapts his private hallucinations to match the "average outcome" of those of the rest of the group as much as possible. Or rather, to make it match certain objective signs attributed to certain defining characteristics.

The equilibrium is reached when no individual within that group can better match his personal beliefs to the collective beliefs. And because of this, because there actually ís something objective that is shaping his beliefs and his believes are optimally tuned to match those objective elements, there can be the illusion of objective truth. Because no element of his hallucinations could be adapted any further to make it match better.

 

[fink]

Had to go look up Nash equilibrium, thanks for making me aware of it. So what we are getting at is the idea that the Nash hallucinatory equilibrium is most balanced when no one changes their hallucination? The optimal strategy for each entity is to have a set hallucination that varies at least in some degree from every other and the parts that overlap are what creates the solidity of a group's agreed perception of reality?

I have the feeling that creation is running headlong to the point far in our future when every element of consciousness finally realises what the game was. That being to experience everything all at once from every possible perspective. The idea of a singularity of pure conscious energy seems plausible to me.

In the one instance the singularity grows tired of the void and splits into these infinite conscious entities all at once. Spreading itself over infinite moments of time to get a proper look at what is going on. In the last instance it rejoins as one consciousness that has nothing left to experience. The singularity phase again. To rest and take peace in the void again. Until boredom sets in once more.

 

[Exitwound]

The laws of physics also likely what they are now during the "big bang." However, it's possible that said laws operate on different layers of reality in different ways.

Actually no, laws of physics were changing very very very rapidly during dawn and early expansion of the universe. At least we think so.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Inflation and baryogenesis
Main articles: Inflation (cosmology) and Baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. The period from 0 to 10−43 seconds into the expansion, the Planck epoch, was a phase in which the four fundamental forces — the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force, were unified as one.[25] In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity.[26][27] The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10−43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.[25]

At approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially, unconstrained by the light speed invariance, and temperatures dropped by a factor of 100,000. This concept is motivated by the flatness problem, where the density of matter and energy is very close to the critical density needed to produce a flat universe. That is, the shape of the universe has no overall geometric curvature due to gravitational influence. Microscopic quantum fluctuations that occurred because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle were "frozen in" by inflation, becoming amplified into the seeds that would later form the large-scale structure of the universe.[28] At a time around 10−36 seconds, the electroweak epoch begins when the strong nuclear force separates from the other forces, with only the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force remaining unified.[29]

Inflation stopped at around the 10−33 to 10−32 seconds mark, with the universe's volume having increased by a factor of at least 1078. Reheating occurred until the universe obtained the temperatures required for the production of a quark–gluon plasma as well as all other elementary particles.[30][31] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions.[1] At some point, an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[32]

I think there is no way for us to figure "the truth". Why would you ask? Because Goedel's incompleteness theorem and its implications.

Basically all current scient is like a huge multistory building complex, built of some common foundations. What Mr. Kurt Goedel says, is that you can't have complete "Self-provable" mathematical system. You always have to start with postulates, or assumptions which you simply state to be truth without any proof. Science has to be built on such postulates. Then you have empirical method, to confirm some of your theories. Which is good for the things we are able to build and test. But I'd say 90% of modern physics is currently untestable by us, we can't even detect dark matter yet. To split particles even more effectively, we'd need to build particle accelerator with size comparable to Earth's orbit around the Sun.
So we either have to figure out how to continue experiments more efficiently, or suck it up until we are able to build a structure around the star

Science is the best tool, but scientific knowledge doesn't contain absolute truth, in sense that science itself built on questioning and checking and re-checking itself.

 

[MAGMA17]

Sorry in advance for the too long post!

For me, everything is a part of this big hallucination, even rocks and trees and elementary particles.

Goedel's theorems too? :lol:

Mosquito exists and so do you and fridge. But all 3 of you are mental, not physical.

Unfortunately, we cannot know that. What we do know is that we are here with a body on this planet. And if I punch myself on my leg, I hurt myself. You cannot make theories about completely unverifiable things, because otherwise we fall into:
x ----> y
if x is false, then every possible y is true.

There is more empty space in your body than one that is occupied by molecules. It can be said that you are more empty than full, yet when I see you, I see a solid body.

Ok, but this is simply a curiosity. My closet is like that too.

So what I'm trying to say is that 1) of course it is all theories and totally unverifiable, beyond one's perfonal beliefs.

I think that simply (as in so many cases) the problem is more of a linguistic nature. It is normal that if we speak in absolute terms as "this is that", others will investigate the verifiability of the thing. But of course, it's also absurd to think that you can ask someone every time to premise "this is just my idea, and I don't think that's the truth at all, but it's nice to go around things and make assumptions". So the discussion I believe is all around that, linguistic issues.

Science is the best tool, but scientific knowledge doesn't contain absolute truth, in sense that science itself built on questioning and checking and re-checking itself.

But it is precisely for this reason that it's what we can rely on the most to get closer to the truth. Because doubt is the driving force of science, and therefore is constantly improving. What would be the alternative? faith? feelings of someone? If you go out on the street you will probably find someone who has the feeling that in 1 week a meteor that looks like a burrito will wipe out the earth.

------------------

In Buddhist thought there are three characteristics that all phenomena share. That is nothing exists without the existence of other phenomena (anatta), nothing is permanent (anicca) and nothing is fully satisfactory (dukkha).

I didn't quite understand the meaning of "dukkha". Can you go deeper?

------------------

You are definitely right about the desire for the mystery. Or more a desire to make the already existing great mystery something more than meaningless random fluctuations.

Why meaningless? we may simply not understand its meaning (if there is any). Then, I believe that there is no better meaning in things than simply "doing its work". I think particles do their job very well, considering that we're here writing :lol:

Physics in all it's glory still fails to explain consciousness in a way that appeals more to me than the ideas talked about here.

There is still time, we have just started exploring these things as humans.

You are also right that absolutes cannot be used. But belief is something we can form without conclusive evidence. Perhaps belief is just the defence mechanism of the eternally confused?

Yeah...I think you are right. But I would also add the eternal convinced :lol: it's a defence mechanism for everyone.

There is an ironic catch that is impossible to escape... If anything of this is true then it would also mean creation would need to experience itself simultaneously proving and disproving it.

In this case I would gladly play the part of the pain in the ass :lol: :lol:

------------------

Isn't the "truth" the truth, regardless of subjective appeal?

Absolutely. We humans just want everything immediately, so instead of wanting to acknowledge that we don't know, we prefer to draw conclusions and believe them.

 

[Tomtegubbe]

In Buddhist thought there are three characteristics that all phenomena share. That is nothing exists without the existence of other phenomena (anatta), nothing is permanent (anicca) and nothing is fully satisfactory (dukkha).

I didn't quite understand the meaning of "dukkha". Can you go deeper?

This is an axiomatic truth in Buddhist cosmology, first of the four noble truth, that suffering (dukkha) pervades everything. This can be inferred from the impermanence of all things and impermanence (anicca) can be inferred from the interdependence (anatta, nothing exists independently).

In Buddhist philosophy if we see these three characteristics of all existence, we can stop pursuing (craving, tanha) things that won't give us the satisfaction we are after.

Normally we live in an illusion that if we were only to get we want we would be reach happiness, but this is a false view and the way out of misery is to stop wanting things you can't get, that is, fulfilment in what is impermanent and imperfect.

This is pragmatic metaphysics. False views (seeing things existing independently of each other, seeing them as permanent and satisfactory) lead to illusions that give rise to suffering. Right view helps to see through this illusion and reduces suffering because it releases us from pursuing that only results in frustration.

Edit: The word usually used for these false views is delusion rather than illusion. I believe this is useful word to think about in broader context of this discussion. If we say "everything is an illusion", can we say that anything is a delusion?

 

[Exitwound]

For me, everything is a part of this big hallucination, even rocks and trees and elementary particles.

Goedel's theorems too? :lol:

Of course! Everything is Mind, including mr. Goedel and his theorems

I think that simply (as in so many cases) the problem is more of a linguistic nature. It is normal that if we speak in absolute terms as "this is that", others will investigate the verifiability of the thing. But of course, it's also absurd to think that you can ask someone every time to premise "this is just my idea, and I don't think that's the truth at all, but it's nice to go around things and make assumptions". So the discussion I believe is all around that, linguistic issues.

Exactly, I think you nailed it. Not only the general tone, but the words are given different meanings by different parties too, like it was with "hallucination" in this thread.

It's just a bunch of apes around campfire sharing crazy night time stories Even if we don't come an inch closer to the truth and misunderstand each other, we are still entertained

But it is precisely for this reason that it's what we can rely on the most to get closer to the truth. Because doubt is the driving force of science, and therefore is constantly improving. What would be the alternative? faith? feelings of someone? If you go out on the street you will probably find someone who has the feeling that in 1 week a meteor that looks like a burrito will wipe out the earth.

There is currently no alternative to scientific method, I just think that classic science doesn't give the role of conscious observer proper credit.

Human thinking tends to fall into opposite polarities, like it's either science is right/has the final say or faith, nothing inbetween. I can see modern science asking more questions about origin of consciousness and "marrying" with mysticism closer, instead of dismissing it completely like ramblings of madmen.