The Nature of Reality

“Reality—that which exists—can have no cause or explanation: any alleged cause would itself have to exist, i.e., be a part of reality. Likewise, the universe—the totality of all that which exists—can have no cause or explanation: any alleged cause would have to exist apart from the universe, i.e., apart from the totality of what exists.” Onkar Ghate

I fully agree.

I don’t.

The universe before it was what it is, was still something, so it was still the universe.

I agree with you.

How does Dr. Onkar’s view contradict your statement?

I agree as well. Being/existence is not a stage or auditorium which things like “the universe” come into, prance about, and go out of. The universe is itself existence; the stage, the auditorium, and everything in it. So within it are all causes and explanations.

I am surprised that none of the many supernaturalist’s on this board care to discuss this.

“Reality—that which exists—can have no cause or explanation: any alleged cause would itself have to exist, i.e., be a part of reality. Likewise, the universe—the totality of all that which exists—can have no cause or explanation: any alleged cause would have to exist apart from the universe, i.e., apart from the totality of what exists.” Onkar Ghate

The first sentence seems to be logically true. The second sentence assumes that the universe contains all that exists, but I am not sure if that assumption is true (it presumes that there are no immaterial substances). The conclusion is that the universe has no cause, but from what I have read, the universe did have a beginning. The question then, is, “How did the universe begin to exist?” Even if the material that expanded to create the known universe was itself eternal (that seems doubtful), then how did it ever come to expand if it was infinitely in a compressed state? It is said that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So what acted upon the material to cause it to expand and become the universe?

The known, supported by the unknown, the tangiable built upon the intangiable, the thing, and the thing-in-itself.

Did it? Maybe it just always was- a place to BE. A place for reality to exist may just be eternal.

A devil who whispers in dying men’s ears, “you will forever live this life again”, finds both elation and sorrow.

To embrace/live through eternity may be reality’s cause.

Nothing last forever. The cause of the Universe may no longer exist. Stuff like this is interesting as long as we restrict ourselves to only three dimensions.

SouthpawLink,

I don’t think it does. All that exists would include immaterial substances. Keyword being substance. Whatever the type or form the substance is, it is still a substance; meaning that it exists in some way or form.

That would presuppose that at one point the universe did not exist, for which we have no reason to think so, other than anthropomorphisms. Like, I created my kid, so similarly the universe has had to have been created. Which, appart from not being making the fallacy of composition even if it was correct when stating that the kid was created, is really just a misuse of language if you really think about it. No one really creates anything; they rearrange what already is. What the person who said I created my kid really means is I rearranged something that exists into something else that exists seemingly differently. The person did not bring her kid into existence, even though it may appear to them that they did.

It could be that the universe is autonomous. Nothing really says that the universe needs to have an external cause to change, other than our probably faulty anthropomorphic projections which state that the universe is and acts wholly throughout as we think a portion of it does.

I think it depends upon how ‘substance’ is defined. The universe is process; there’s no part of it for which, upon examination, one can find an inherent essence. No discernable substance, if you will. We experience reality somewhat similar to the way we dream. Sensory perception shapes our mental fabrications and we consider what we create to be reality. And in that conventional framework, it is. Yet in another sense it’s illusory, because it’s our minds creating an illusion of a separate “I” as the examiner of ‘other’. But that “I” is as interdependent (and as subject to the process of being continuously created/destroyed) as everything else. It has no separate substantive reality.

We have a notion that there must be ‘first cause’, most likely because we consider ourselves as ‘beginning’ at some point, like when we were conceived. However, that sperm and ovum came from our parents, just as theirs came from their parents and so on. Certain forces aligned themselves in a very particular (and interconnected) way to create the universe, this planet and, after some time, the organic life forms that could be supported by its atmosphere. Science hasn’t been able to describe why it happened, but they know when it happened. And they’ll likely be able to duplicate it within the next decade or two, which will cover the how.

There is no particularly compelling reason to assign those forces an ‘origin’, especially since we can’t even definitively pinpoint our own origins. In that respect, the process of creation has no starting or stopping point. Also, in our common experience, the cause ever becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause. It’s circular and a first cause is inconceivable. So life in that respect could be posited as beginningless.

Probably much of the conjecture about life is fueled by that other problem: its perceived ending point (at least the organic one).

Of course that’s reasonable. But I don’t like that it’s a quote, this Dr. has no authority on reality or reason, and isn’t here to be smacked around.

It’s like this for all concepts though, not just these specific axioms.
For instance, if I made up a fictional beast, let’s call it “Bigfoot”, and described it and it became an urban legend. If one day we found a creature in the woods that happened to match the description I invented, some may feel compelled to claim:

We have found bigfoot.

But that cannot be true, since the concept was not based on this newly discovered, existing creature. It may be a fitting name to give it, but the definition has now changed from “fictional concept”, to “that existing/observable hairy animal there.” That is a change in definition, the truth values didn’t change:

bigfoot(1) does not exist (cannot).
vs.
bigfoot(2) (this new hairy beast) does exist.

Easy to confuse, but also easy to see why they are not the same.

Likewise, the universe is so defined. If there are more dimensions, and we know of them, they are likewise “part of the universe”. If we limit the universe to mean dimensions XYZ and not ABC, then we need new definitions. Sub-univese vs universe, etc. The reasoning however, will not (cannot) change.

All of existence will necessarily include everything by definition (causes, dimensions, whatever). This sort of definition is conceptual, based on any and all future findings. There is a common definition for this type of statement, it eludes me at the moment, perhaps some others recall the classification of it. Basically it cannot be demonstrated to be true or false, it’s infinite in scope, and defined as “any future state”.

Please note, if the universe = the known univese AT THAT TIME, that it can be demonstrated to be false. as someone pointed out, if some “dimension” is unknown now, but is known later, and turns out to “contain” the “known universe”, and to have caused it’s existence, then the OP is false.

If universe = any future state (infinite), then yes sure, it cannot by definition, be false. That is, any known cause immediately becomes part of the set of “all that is”.

-Mach

No, it’s a definition, we cannot show it to be true or false in it’s relation to reality, it’s either accepted or rejected. You appear to “accept” it.
OK, you accept the definition:
Reality: that which exists.

NO!! You just agreed that reality as a definition is “that which exists”. No assumptions, you already accepted it as premise #1 above.

But you just accepted it as “logically true”?!!

No, it’s that by definition, claiming a “cause” of all that exists, has no meaning. If the cause is known, it exists, and is therefore “the universe”. Sounds tricky but it’s not a trick.

No sane individual claims the to know (or can claim to know), that all of existence had a beginning, or not. Singularity is the closest humans can get. We not only don’t know beyond that, we don’t know if it’s POSSIBLE to know beyond that, or if “beyond that” even makes sense.

-Mach

The “beginning of the universe” is just what we say when we talk about the start of our historical account of it. I don’t think anyone with common sense thinks that our account is complete with regard to being fully descriptive of everything. It can only account for what we can see. The problem arises from a lack of observation. We see what we see, then we try and account for apparent contradictions by postulating speculative theories. The problem in arguing against speculation is that it doesn’t hold the same epistemological status as pure deductive reasoning.
Also, the problem of first cause is a huge philosophical issue, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t account for causes and effects within a scientific epistemology. If we agree that speculation is all we have to go on and admit it into evidence, then you simply have to categorize your knowlege of cause and effect that you get from empirical science, and the speculative knowlege that’s used to explain everything else.

The universe contains the planets and the stars, but it is itself the emptiness for this reality to BE. The universe is space, a void, nothingness, i see no beginning or end.

What was nothing before it was nothing, still nothing?
Nothing comes from nothing and goes to nothing.

Nothing lasts forever.

Reality: An ongoing process, constantly c0nstructed by the interplay of universal fluctuations and the pooling of energies we call unities.

Since consciousness is always lagging behind reality, in that the conscious interpretation of the phenomena that result from the flux demands a certain interpretation and abstraction, therefore all sense of reality is always too late or obsolete when it is attained.

Consciousness makes-up for this by using these simplified abstractions to extrapolate patterns and foretell future phenomena.

It does this by finding patterns repetitive consistency it calls laws or logic.

Of course these are only effective when what is perceived lacks the free-will to extricate itself from its essence.
Essence being its historical heritage and habitual behaviors derived by the path-of-least-resistance.

I agree. What percentage of nonsenical philosophical ponderings is squished by this simple observation, I’d like to see that statistic :wink:

-Mach

The nature of reality is beyond the measurement of men.

There’s something called a lap game - You get a circle of people standing front to back, then get all of them to sit simulataneously, to find themselves all sitting on eachothers’ laps.

The universe is one of those I shouldn’t wonder. A->B->C->A. A self supporting circularity; existing because it can, and therefore, does.

You speak only for yourself, and in that context, I agree with you. To those that have abandoned reason, the nature of reality is beyond their measure.