That is the definition of Solipism.
But is solipism true? If solipism is not true, then non-existence would have to be achieved by a lack of all "yous’…yes?
And if solipsim is true, the nonexistence is easily attained.
In both scenarios, nonexistence is attainable.
Of course not. It is a lot of brainless bullshit spouted by monkeys, morons, and manipulators.
Not merely the lack of “You’s”, but the lack of literally ALL things of any kind, conscious or not.
If solipsism was true, nonexistence would be impossible to obtain. But then, it is impossible to obtain anyway, so what’s the difference.
As expected, the exact opposite. In Both Cases, nonexistence is Impossible … period (unless you meant the nonexistence of some one particular thing).
I don’t see where solipsism becomes “untrue.”
“Existence” ceases when “you” cease.
It is merely a choice of ontology. What is “true” depends entirely upon one’s chosen ontology. Ontologies are merely tools for the use of thinking, to give thought a foundation from which to communicate, analyze, and deduce. The better an ontology fits actual experience, the better tools it tends to be, even if not exactly matching reality (such as Relativity).
In my ontology, existence is that which has affect. And I cannot deduce that such ceases to have affect merely because I have ceased to have affect. One seems independent of the other.
The solipsist must provide convincing evidence that the universe no longer exists merely because he no longer exists. That could be rather difficult.
In that case, you should upgrade your ontology.
Yeah, right.
Or perhaps you should learn of it.
Frankly, I don’t think you care.
^
Don’t see the logic there.
If there is no consciousness, then there is no existence.
You might say that if there were no life on earth, atoms might percieve other atoms, stars might see other stars.
But that, would be a form of consciousness, a form of existence.
No consciousness of any kind, no existence.
If there is no consciousness, how would you know?
Existence is that which has affect, not that which knows that it is surrounded by other things.
If there was no consciousness, I would not know a thing. There would be nothing.
If something has perceived affect, but no memory, it is still conscious. It, exists.
That which has no affect, is not conscious, and does not exist.
Forgive me posters. The value of your posts remains unhindered by my focus on barbarianhordes posts rather than yours. Let’s call it personal preference and an intrigue triggered by an impulse rather than reason. Hopefully, you will entertain, with patience, my post anyway.
Mr. barbarianhorde,
I must also apologize. I hold you in the highest respect and your words are but lights in the fog leading to reaction. Allow me to analyze, dissect, and discuss your statement. I mean no disrespect. My attention to, my time, and effort toward your statements ought to be taken as a respect to you and your words. For if they were not important, I would not relate to them, write about them, and take my time to dissect them for you yourself, also the readers, and myself. For I believe the process of analysis teaches the analyzer as much as the reader.
You said:
“There isnt something rather than nothing. There is something. Sometimes that amounts to nothing.”
If I understand this statement correctly, you are saying there is no such thing as nothing. To which I would add my agreement. However, if we take that to be true, we cannot then say that sometimes that amounts to nothing. As your first two statements appear to universally state that there is something. As a universal statement there is no room for even one instance of something being nothing. Yet we are saying so. Unless, you are stating that the principle of universality no longer applies. Which would be to say that when we say “A is always A” doesn’t mean “A is always A”. That would plunge us into chaos. Unless we choose chaos, allow me to be so bold as to say that we need to be clearer in our language to explain what we mean.
Large disconnect. Forgive me, I will now take a 90 degree turn. My previous response was based on logic, reason, and fallacies. However, I believe that is the wrong approach. As I don’t believe you meant your statement to be logical or reasonable but rather personal, psychological, and spiritual. If I am correct, allow me to say, that your statement is actually saying that you are something, that something is you, but sometimes you feel like nothing. Hence, it is you ultimately saying you are down (sometimes).
Let’s go further and analyze your next statement where you said:
“Something cant follow from nothing but often from something follows nothing. Something then turns out…”
My analysis tells me that you are saying that when you are down there is no coming back from it, but when you are up there is still a way to come back down. This is a defeatist mentality seeded in your mind. For logically, the statement does not make sense. But yet there is hope in you which is suggested by “Something then turns out…”. And you are quite right. Ultimately, I would suggest that all reality, whether material, psycholigical, or spiritual has rhythm, ebbs and flows, ups and down. and is continually cycling. Once we understand the cycles there is a way to bend and break the rules when the cycle comes down again.
What’s our take?
Thus in your ontology, each night when you sleep, the universe ceases to be. And when you awake, it springs forth once again. I would have to wonder if you ever forget to put all of it back.
how can anyone be so sure…
So you reached the second stage of your argument, about time.
You were going to ask me, but what if the universe does turn into white noise? What if all existence ceases to be?
Wouldn’t time, the measurement of force of change, seem to travel at an infinite rate? Wouldn’t something, anything, any form of existence, eventually emerge from the white void, as if it took no time at all, as if there was no gap, no nothingness ever, like waking from a coma?
My answer is, god I hope not.
If it was white noise, it wouldn’t be non-existent. Or did you mean that merely objects would not exist.
Emm… no. Why would it change rate? Light travels at a particular speed because it is impossible for it to travel at any other. The propagation of light demonstrates a change/affect occurring at an infinite rate through an infinite number of points/locations. It can never be greater than that.
If light traveled at an infinite rate, there would be no universe at all. All reality would be homogeneous. And no form could ever arise.
[/quote]
White noise, would have no affect. There would be no consciousness. Without consciousness, without affect, no existence.
Mince words all you like, but without conscious perception, time would travel at an infinite rate. I thought you would understand, since you brought up the dream analogy.
You go in a dreamless coma, and its like you wake up out of the coma where time travelled at an infinite rate. Simple stuff.
I suppose you fear that in a universe of white noise, the same concept would occur. After an infinite amount of time, some sort of affect might form from the white noise, rising the primordial ooze. Making death seem like yesterday.
My retort to this, is god I hope not. But the laws of physics could be tweaked, if need be, so that this never occurs.
I fail to see the logic or proof behind this.
Don’t get him started Trixie. Believe me, you don’t want to see the logic or the proof behind this. What’ll happen is, James will do his Affectance philosophy presentation and after you’ve read it, you won’t know how or what to argue, or whether to argue at all, because you won’t know what the hell he is talking about. I think James does this pretentiously and on purpose, and I would do the same. Like what are you supposed to argue, the ontospacial spin-velocity of a quantum entanglement is actually 0046.8 percent less than it would be if infinite finite infinities could be spontaneously counted in every reference frame?
Just take his word for it and change the subject, quickly.
His affectance made a bit of sense, and while its true according the laws of physics, that atoms can be converted into photons, since atoms and photons are the same core “stuff”, energy…
Atoms, do not travel at the speed of light, because they are not in photon "mode’. Changing the speed of photon "mode’, should not affect the existence or behavoir of atoms, since generally, atoms are barely affected by light at all, only slightly heated when touched by it.
Changing merely the speed of light, if it was at all possible, would alter the size of sub-atomic particles. The speed of the EMR entering and leaving the particles directly affects the size of a particle. Also what we call “distance” between objects would change.
When in doubt, people tend to project their own sins onto others and then remove all doubt of the truth of their imagined sinner: “It’s what I would do if I was him. So it must be what he is doing, because I can’t imagine anything else, or won’t.”
EMR, as in electro magnetic radiation? The speed of light is roughly a constant. What we see is generally a set of relatively the same conditions.
What I mean by this, is the bandwidth of variation isnt large enough to make any predictions for statistics. We only have a narrow scope of statistics to work with. We cannot say that a speed of light going infinitely fast, will do a certain thing, because we have only measure the interaction of light and particles using a narrow scope, with the speed of light being close to 100 percent…For all we know, the graph could reverse, inverse, or taper down. It might not be a linear set of statistics, but a parabola, or fractal, or even a zigzag. We cannot predict the equation of its behavoir, when we only have a small scope of statistics to work with.
You cannot say with any certainty, that light travelling at infinity speed, would destroy every molecule in the universe, can you?