If all matter in this universe is the result of being combined into a mass the size of a dot and then exploding out into space, can it not be that all matter shares the same origin?
And if all matter shares the same origin, why can it not be that grey matter (our brains) must be incapable of experiencing truth in relation to any other matter from which it shares the same origin?
In other words, though we may experience matter (things) filtered through our own subjective perceptions, it is ultimately all the same subject,thus the objective is subjective, and the subjective is objective, at least in regards to matter that shares the same origin.
Everything is relative to every other thing only in manner of degree. The final relationship must be be that all things are, finally, the same thing.
In this case, there would be no real distinction between objective and subjective, especially at the quantum level, because nothing is truly separate from anything else. Through human perception we witness what we believe to be boundaries and discrete objects. Yet, fundamentally, the closer you get to the ‘bottom’ of matter, the more matter doesn’t really exist except as a human idea. I believe Whitehead made similar claims. Certainly, this theory can go a long way to solve many of the epistemological problems that a Kantian would encounter.
Supposing the above is true, the real question becomes why ‘matter’ evolved in such a way (which is bad wording but I can’t think of anything better)? Furthermore, why would humans evolve in such a way as to have a somewhat erroneous view of reality?
After asking these questions, I do believe that there are times when humans can ‘transcend’ perceptual limitations and feel the ‘oneness’ of the universe. For example, aesthetic things like deep experiences of beauty or appreciation of music could allow the mind to move beyond the limitations of the five senses, into the realm of the ‘undescribable’ or ‘undefinable spaces’.
We can lie becasue we can fix up our own reality. Think about a lie, a blue elephant. When you lie you create images to enforce your grip on what reality is to be. A lie can exist, although it’s only in your mind.
I just posted in this topic my idea. Does ‘altough we are born individuals, are longing for that oneness which we were before’ ring a bell at you GCT?.
It probably is.
The result of the big bang is a whole lot possibilties, which can be broke down to to whole bunch of yes/no’s which eventually leads to the existence of us, and the goal is to be one with the universe. Irrefutably.
If, and only IF, all matter in the universe is indeed the result of being combined into a mass the size of a dot… ,then the question you’re posing is in fact a very apt question.
God created the universe is a meaningless statement.
But that’s not my point here. Subjective is objective in one sense, but not in another. It is objective in that a subjective experience exists, objectively. It is composed of whatever experience is composed of, sense data, ego, gray matter meets events, etc. The experience is an objective, quantifiable entity, and that entity is connected with the underlying matter from the big bang. But subjective is NOT objective when it makes false propositions, i.e. the sun revolves around the Earth. That is a subjective experience that is objective in that it DOES do that, within an experience, the sense data that constitues the sun revolves around the Earth’s corresponding sense data. The subjective realm is loosely connected to the objective realm and can behave independently within certain guidelines. But the subjective realm is not objective in the sense that it is as universally the case as an objective, external event - assuming for sake of argument that there is such a thing.
Took me a while to get what you were saying. As i see it, the problem with your argument is that in fact we do not know the matter of things, but their form. So all this prime matter dancing on the head of a pin can ultimately differentiate and be known.
Did that make sense? I’m still not sure what you mean by “matter of degree”. Do you mean different types of material things?
Ahhhhhhhh Grand Unification. I am a firm believer in that. And I think in a microcosmic way, we are in communication with the whole rest of the universe. Just like how one particle can know what another particle is doing in a remote part of the universe. The particles in our bodies are connected to the rest of the universe. We, ourselves are not, simply because we experience life as a macrocosmic experience rather then a microcosmic experience. The microcosmic information we contain innately is an unconscious knowledge, rather then a conscious one. I think that after we die we will be more a form of pure energy, and thus may have access to microcosmic informations. If you know anything about near death experiences, many, many people have claimed that the realm of death consists of total enlightenment.
The question to me is not whether everything in the universe is connected, as it is, but whether or not everything in the multiverse is connected.
Suppose, for example, that accepting God as being the creator of the Universe is a “meaningless statement.” Wouldn’t you, then, be contradicting yourself by ending your well-stated remarks with:
I think that God created the universe is a meaningless statement, because God could have also created the big bang, thereby creating the universe. Now if you would have said "I think God created the universe according to the method of “let there be light” described in the book genisis of the old testament, that may have had bearing on this conversation.
Does it, even mildly, register anywhere on your radar, that when I stated I believed God created the universe, that perharps, considering the fact that I wasn’t specific of how he went about doing it, that the big bang might have been a possibility of how we went about it?
Look, to say “God created the universe” without any explanation or definition…you’re better than that and I think you know it. It tells us NOTHING…it’s that kind of vexing nonsense that made us philosophers in the first place. Apologize for it and move on, and we’ll give you the BOTD that you in fact have plenty of interesting things to say about your definition of the thing that created the universe and why you choose to assign a word from primitive scriptures.
By the way…how does me saying it’s a meaningless statement contradict the statement that I was assuming a premise (that external objects exist) before making bold statements about the difference between subjective objectivity and objective objectivity. If you think the middle part of my post was well-stated, I’m pleased. And if God did create the universe, hell, I’d be pleased about that, too.
My belief in God as the Creator of the universe is, as I recall mentioning (clearly), a personal belief. Why didn’t I go into details concerning my personal belief? (you may ask)… simply because it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
If God created the Universe as a prime cause, then you and HE have a lot in common. You’re both in the business of producing completely ill-defined, completely unexplainable non-sequitors. His being the Universe, yours being “I believe God created the Universe,” in a topic about subjectivity and the Big Bang.
I guess the fact that your belief was labeled “personal” means it’s above my petty analysis. But it was literally meaningless, and doubly meaningless given the context in which you chose to share it.
Yes, it did, and that was my specific argument as to why that opinion was not valid, as it said nothing of whether or not the big bang actually happened.
Thank you for the replies so far. My apologies in waiting so long to reply. In all honesty I don’t know where I am going with this. Being of a skeptical nature, often I like to advance ideas and arguments just to see how well they stand up… this is one of those, so don’t expect like a knock down drag out argument. Every reply seems just as reasonable if not more reasonable then my first little argument… so what I do now is for my own knowledge… nothing personal.
Also I will be pulling quotes out of other arguments, I will do this in order, so if I don’t attribute them directly the order should reveal who I am replying to.
First:
Would this indicate that ‘matter’ then is a human construct also, or that all is one, and whatever distinctions we make are just that… man made?
To my thinking, if I follow either one, it allows for this:
We are the universe.
We are a very confused universe?
The erroneous view is learned? The error sustains itself?
The error is the result of the finite not recognizing the infinite in itself?
the term ‘allow’ implies a block of some sort. What if our experience is what it is… the living part of the universe interacting with the itself and the rest?
Lie seems to imply choice… the choice to recognise that which is not true.
If we have free will then this is an example as human beings as active agents.
But the argument I gave entails an original cause… it does seem as though whatever we do will be a reaction…(thus the world is deterministic).
That may be… as such we lie because we must… we have no choice.
I like thinking that i have free will, however… so how is this… lies are the choice to not recognize what is. If what we experience is ultimately no different from us there is nothing in this universe that decrees we must always follow truthful experience.
I read an argument detailing the idea of “completeness”. Now having read your own I must say it does ring a bell.
If I am not mistaken, it was my Logic prof who pointed out that Pv~P is so basic that it cannot be escaped (at least by human beings). Either a thing is, or it isn’t. All the things that are… ‘are’. We are with those things.
Some folks have taken exception to this, where, personally, I don’t see the problem. You stated that it was meant in the context of the Big Bang, which leads me to God Created the Big Bang which, as a result, we have the universe.
In fact, I could have placed ‘God’ in where i wrote Big bang and, in itself, the argument would not have changed… so far as God is the original cause and does not bestow upon human beings anything which would seperate them from the rest of his creation. What people assume to be random and what might ultimately be by design could be the same thing.
I believe Gamer is calling your comment meaningless because you didn’t choose to qualify it in the context.
Which God? The absolute, all powerful, all loving God?
One , if he exists, still takes an active role in the affairs of human beings (and thus the universe?)
One that creates but acts no further upon his creation?
I don’t think anyone would mind if God was brought into the discussion… in fact if anyone were to submit something they thought was reasonable, and they were sincere about it, then they must personally accept it as being reasonable… meaning you aren’t the only person on this thread to mention their personal beliefs. But when you submit something you are, in a way, proposing an idea… we just need some other ideas supporting the claim
But what if the uniiverse consists of all things… this will include false propositions.
Can they not exist objectively as false propositions?
I do not mean to imply that they have mass and take up space… they exist as an idea is a thing… not a concrete thing, but a thing constructed by an object in the universe… false propositions can then be yet another object we experience.
This seems counter intuitive, I know… but since we have human beings lets say then that the universe must include all propositions human beings may make, are making, will make one day. Of these many may be false. Are only the ones that are true in relation to what we we experience objectively true, in that they correspond to the object and have a truth value… this is objective truth we may relate subjectively?
Probably some more I should add to that but my mind is drawing a blank now…
But we are the same matter… we share the same cause, exist in the same universe. My argument (I believe) would contend that either we already know, or that we know and ignore, or that we can truly know.
If I accept this, being skeptical, i would say that perhaps one day we may truly know, or we may not. But that it is possible.
Actually I said manner of degree… I thought if I said matter of degree it might be confusing.
What I think it meant was that if there are all these objects in the universe, of which we are some… what we observe is assumed to be directly in relation to ourselves. What we forget is that, sharing the same cause, everything shares a relationship to everything else. If we assume the Big Bang as having had happened, then it could very well be that ever atom is where it and every planet is where is must be… thus we are all objects, and all objects are subject.
It can be, via logic. Whatever ‘is’ even if infinite… can be known as a system… in logic human beings have fancy rules for making the system meet with human reason. Obviously reason is informed by the senses, which are finite and can only approach a limited spectrum. But the same stuff that comprises stars and the atoms in a pencil also, supposedly, form part of our bodies as well. If the universe is a part of the multiverse, and we are part of the universe, then by logic, we are part of the multiverse.
