believing in an idea, and then expereincing that idea as reality sounds apriori.
The difference is whether or not its a known cause , or assumed cause…though the effect is the same, there is a reality being created.
would there be a known cause to the effect of a reality being created?
perhaps we can discuss also the differences between a ‘known’ cause, or an ‘assumed’ cause… and the influence of both on the understanding and experience of reality.
If subsequent experiments support the hypothesis, it will become the basis of a scientific theory, which may in turn be accepted as natural law, if it is observed to occur without failure or variation in nature. ~My Biology notebook, haha
Do you mean that…
“Look at that rabbit, I think it is going to jump!”
Then it jumps!!!
So are you saying that I could have created the reality of it jumping just by thinking it was going to happen?
Let me see…
That can jump into the realm of intuition…and whether you can get to the rabbit hole before alice.
but really, the rabbit will eventually jump on its its own and that may confuse you into thinking by just thinking something , it will happen. You know that rabbits jump. Therefore you dont even need to think about it jumping because you know it will eventually.
Same applies to our relation, i cant make you agree with me just by thinking you will, or are, for that matter.
Conversely, you cant make me jump up on the kitchen counter scratch my rear and grab a banana, just by thinking it.
Its not the role of thoughts to actually create the reality. The thought function is for translation…translating whatever communications it recieves from the senses. Our ideas and beliefs are present in our thought process, buts its not the function of thought to create the reality.
though, it seems a simple awareness…
Take for instance the idea of god.
Now some could think its apriori that god is the cause, reality is the effect.
But its the idea of god that is influencing the reality of the person who holds the idea of god, as an idea of truth. Its not a god, per se, but an idea construct, because many other ideas are associated with this one idea of god, ideas pertaing to morality and judgement and righteousness and grace and you get the idea.
And what i am bringing up for discussion is not pertaining to religion, (but it makes for the easiest examples)…Its more or less that we use ideas to form our reality, to form our experience…and the possibility that even if ideas about reality are actually false, whether we believe they are true is what matters because it is the ideas we think are the truth that are influencing the reality we create as well as the interpretation of the reality we create.
I also want to discuss false ideas, or false beliefs and the limitting ideas we choose to believe as truths.
And possibly get to how our idea/beliefs influence our feelings and bodily health.
Oh I see, you mean that our ideas of our universe can effect our personalities, and if we can convince enough people to believe us, it will change our world completely…I think.
Of course.
Those bomber who blow themselves up believe that they will go to heaven as some sort of god. They have changed their world by believing a concept.
Believe in witches, and you burn innocent people.
I thought at the beginning of the post that you were talking about science becoming a reality from just believing in it…
The Big Bang never happened…
But the evidence for it could be created from self belief.
I wouldn’t believe in physical universes being created from self belief.
Ok, yea, this what i am meaning…
Lets take this example…
I am in agreement with you that the big bang never happened. But yes there are ideas formed that themselves support this false idea.
A type of idea construct where the core idea is actually false, but is held as a true belief or idea.
Now, this is also a kind of root assumption. The big bang, this idea construct is actually springing from a root assumtption.
This root assumption being that there is some cause to the the creation of the physical universe.
We assume there is a cause…and this root assumption is the bed on which ideas spring forth supplying an explanation reinforcing the root assumption that there is a cause.
Now this is also good, because in a sense you are saying you dont hold the psuedo-cause of a big bang. the big bang which i view as a limiting idea actually clouding whatever it is that could be the actual cause.
But lets be honest. The cause is really not understood. Its basically assumed, or theorized.
Simply we hold many such distortions of a cause. From the religious causes to the scientific and to evolution and into psychology to medicine it could be said that alot of our fields dealing with cause are in actuality fields of distortions. They themselves promoting limiting ideas and false beliefs.
Then what idea do you subscribe to as the creation of the physical universe?
Do you mean, what do I think happened instead of the big bang?
Answer = Perpetual motion. Motion from almost nothing.
Space has no friction, therefore perpetual motion is much easier to happen up there. So you think of the most basic shape that could move without any physics around at the time. The shape would have to be made from hardly any parts, and the parts would have to exist without any growth. So this shape is what we think of as NOTHING.
This object would fill the entire universe. So it moves, it creates a wave of itself, it bumps into itself, the bump creates some energy, the energy creates a signal, we see signals, we feel signals, everything is not really solid, everything is a signal. When we move, we are a wave in the NOTHING.
Everything is a wave, a wave of transfered energy, transferred particles in a MEXICAN WAVE.
Because it is a Mexican Wave that means that everything is recreated as it moves. If you walk accross the room, you are a different person when you stop walking. You are made from completely new particles of Perpetual Motion.
This idea requires no big bang. Just perpetual motion in a soup made from the tiniest particles in the universe…Strings basically.
This idea makes it easy to have planets, easy to have gravity, easy to have magnetism, easy to have photons. It explains the constant speed of light.
This would happen much quicker than the big bang, because the growth of the universe would not happen from a single point, it would grow more like grass, all over the universe in a mass.
This is more like the sea, with crashing waves all over it. The waves crash together, and you get tiny spray of particles, and they are atoms eventually. The sea is a mandelbrot of the beginning of time. Nature has many Mandelbrots, and the sea has been ignored as a replica of …
The creation of the physical universe.
hmmh, ok, so you take nothing, add a mexican wave with some perpetual motion, throw in some signal beacons, pour some soup on it, top it off with a Mandelbrot, cook on high for 15 minutes,
season and serve on the seashore…? heh
So …whats a Mandelbrot?
The Mandelbrot set, named after Benoit Mandelbrot, is a fractal. Fractals are objects that display self-similarity at various scales. Magnifying a fractal reveals small-scale details similar to the large-scale characteristics. Although the Mandelbrot set is self-similar at magnified scales, the small scale details are not identical to the whole.
Raz wrote:
It seems as though you have come to the realization that we all live in our own reality. I have mentioned this before, as it was a very interesting topic for me awhile back. Ultimately, I believe you will come to ask yourself that if we all live in our own realities, with our own beliefs, then can or does an objective reality exist? We go day in and day out believing what we wish, and acting and reacting based on these beliefs. We are defined by our beliefs, as we relate them to who we are. These beliefs are all limiting in my opinion. When an individual is fixed on a position, he doesnt allow room for another one with seemingly more truth to be introduced. Its the role of the ego to protect itself and in doing so it must protect its beliefs, hold on to the past, and focus on the future; otherwise who is it? When considering how our beliefs affect our body, it makes sense that we do indeed suffer from our thoughts. Ultimately, negative thought energy aids in the dissolution of the human body. Also, if we believe something to be true, it is so in our reality. So if the doctor tells me I have cancer, and I put all my belief into what the doctor has told me; I will only get worse, as now my reality must follow the thoughts that I am suffering from cancer. How can you say that it doesnt matter whether or not the beliefs we have are false? If there was no ultimate reality beyond our thoughts, then this could very well be accepted; but it is sensical that there is a reality beyond just what we think. But if you are simply concered with the aspects of our personal realities, though somewhat premature, I suggest you take a look at some previous threads I started a while back. http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=140868&highlight=reality and http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=143487&highlight=reality
Hi all!
I would say that our ideas, because they are borne out of our experience which itself is borne out of a sensory apparatus peculiar to whatever that is that we call human, limit our view of the world to a narrow set of specifics, (for want of a better word,) and that therefore they do in a sense shape it, as it were, at the very least.
But, of course, who knows, there are many angles from which to look at the problem.
And what do we mean by, such-an-such a term here there and everywhere anyway?
Peter
Now that it seems is a self fulfilling prophesy. That recognition that your ideas and the reality you percieve coincide and reinforce eachother.
Raz,
If there is a suggestion of the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecy about my response then surely that is because the question, ‘do ideas create our reality,’ is a leading one.
Peter
Very well…
Lets discuss ideas as they relate to suggestion. Our inherent openness to suggestion from others and our own self.
or in other words …Hypnosis.
What it takes for hypnosis is no real mystery. You suggest an idea and apply a state of an intense focus of concentration on that idea to the exclusion of all others for a period of time.
Its simple to do and you can self hypnotize yourself and the reality is you do it all the time. …
and the reality is, then, you do then experience the idea that is suggested as a reality.