There ARE parallel universes

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:43 pm

Noax wrote:
ken wrote:Okay that is your definition, which is fine. Rather circular, and using the same word that is being defined also in the definition does not really clear things up for Me, but at least you defined and clarified something for Me when I asked a question, which is far more than I usually get in this forum, so thanks for that. But now, how does an 'objective stance' differ from any perspective but mostly from an 'objective perspective'?

How can a human being take an objective stance but not be able to look from an objective viewpoint?
I agree that my circular wording will not suffice as a definition, but the word objective is opposed to subjective, and subjective implies a viewpoint, and all our knowledge is confined to what can be gleaned via that viewpoint.
Okay great, I think we are getting somewhere. Although you did not answer my question about, "How can a human being take an objective stance but not be able to look from an objective viewpoint?" I see that your using objective as opposed to subject, and subjective implies a viewpoint, so would I be right in saying that you would agree if subject implies a viewpoint, then objective implies not a viewpoint or point of view but a way of seeing or looking instead? Could what you meant by 'objective stance' mean the way we look rather than what we see (the viewpoint) when we look.

If so, then if we are going to agree that ALL views, which are what has formed AFTER looking, no matter what, that they are subjective? Can we then agree that there is a way to look at things, which can be objectively?
Noax wrote:
Noax wrote:Thought it was rhetorical
... and if I ask a question, which is ANY sentence ended by a ? I write, then I am literally asking a truly open-ended question seeking a truly open and honest answer to THAT question.
...
If human beings do not mean what they say (or write), then why say (or write) it?
Are you thus seeking my open and honest answer to that question?


Yes I was actually. When I said before, "... if I ask a question, which is ANY sentence ended by a ?...", then, "Yes", that is exactly what I literally mean. I literally was seeking your open and honest answer to that question, and any and all other questions I may ask.
Noax wrote: Looked rhetorical to me.
Looks can be deceiving.

The trouble in expressing ideas, views, et cetera, to a wider group of readers is finding the right words and ways to express what it is that is actually being said and meant to be said. There are so many people who have their own individual views and differing ways of looking at things that confusion can too easily set in. What can be seen to be one thing to one human being can be completely different and even opposing to another human being.


Noax wrote:
If you discard all beliefs and assumptions, then all biases are discarded also.
Agree.
Noax wrote:
Great. So if you agree, then could your agreement then lead us towards the premise that if a human being is completely open, which is they have discarded all beliefs and assumptions, then they can actually look from a no biased viewpoint, and/or have a view without any biases at all?
Yes, I agree with this, but only because of the 'if'. I think a human is incapable of this kind of openness.
That is great that you agree with this, even though you think that a human being is incapable of complete openness. Could you agree that a human being could be completely open at all, even for just a very short while?

If so, then this is the same sort of thing I am discussing with surreptitious57, in that surreptitious57 says that human beings are incapable of not having emotions and you say human beings are incapable of being completely open. I have never said that human beings are capable of doing either for very long nor extended periods of time. I have just been alluding to, and asking via clarifying questions, that these things are possible and human beings are in fact actually capable of doing them. Although you and surreptitious57 both are saying that these things are not possible you both are still showing signs that you are at least open to the possibility that they are possible, you more so than surreptitious.

Human beings who are at least somewhat open to new ideas, views, et cetera, is all I have really being looking for on here. Only through discussions with open and honest people is the way I can really learn how to express better.
Noax wrote: Logic is a tool to supplement the emotional part where beliefs are held and decisions are made.
Beliefs are not held anywhere if they are discarded completely. Depending on where the "logic" come from "logic" can be the most subjective of views, and using this most subjective of "logic" can dissolve absolutely any objectivity there is.

And, emotions can influence thinking, but it is thoughts or thinking from which decisions are made. The emotional part is just that part made up of about 450 or so inner, or emotional, feelings. Decisions are made up solely from the mental capacity, and so come from the mental part. The mental part is just thoughts. Of course emotions influence thoughts but decisions are not made from the emotional part. A human being, for example, can feel anger or rage, but there is nothing in that emotional part from which a decision can be made, a decision about what to do next, for example, can only come from the thinking or mental part. Whether or not a human being decides to lash out with a knife, or grab a gun and shoot, or step away and take a few deep breathes, or leave the situation and go for a walk, or yell out, or any of the multitude of other choices they can choose from and do, comes from a thought within the head. A decision about what to do exactly can not come from an emotional feeling. A feeling is just that, a feeling. It is thoughts, and only thoughts, which actually controls ALL of what human beings do.
Noax wrote:We all like to think of ourselves as rational beings, but the rational seems always secondary to deeper roots that are the source of our biases.
Without emotions a human being will not have an emotional bias influencing the thinking, and, without assumptions and beliefs a human being is completely open and thus will also have no biases in which to influence the choice they make.
Noax wrote: We are evolved for survival, not truth. The truth is not conducive to survival.
So far. But part of that in-built survivability in human beings is to discovering, learning, and knowing Truth. Truth may just be what helps in evolving to finding better and far more peaceful and pollution-free ways for human beings to live and thus survive, which in turn could not be as detrimental to their survival as the way they are going now is.
Noax wrote: I have seemingly identified enough of my own biases to see where the path leads. I cannot discard those biases, but at least I'm aware of them.
If you are aware of your biases, then why can you not discard them?
Noax wrote: So I have a closer awareness of what I feel is truth, but cannot embrace it.
This might be the solution to the Fermi paradox. Truth eventually kills any sufficiently advanced race.
I am not sure how Truth could kill any race.

I have never heard of fermi paradox before but on quick inspection my first thoughts are:
Earth could have already been visited by extraterrestrials.
Who says human beings are not a result of extraterrestrials visiting earth, thus human beings are themselves the evidence that extraterrestrials have already visited?
The assumption that the universe had a beginning might be limiting the actual probability of the vastness of the actual area to cover when traversing to happen upon one planet called earth.
Why is it generally accepted and thought of that ufo's are aliens coming from other planets anyway?
Ufo's could just be human beings themselves travelling back in time.


Noax wrote:
To give an example let us say if a view, which is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, and which is in fact agreed upon and accepted as Truth not just by every human being but also by absolutely every thing, then COULD that view that is accepted as True Fact by Everything actually have come from an objective viewpoint, and, BE an objective view?
There are agreed upon facts? Especially facts not known by subjective means? Sure, 12+17=29 seems to be something on the nature of an objective fact, but even that one would never have been known without subjectivity. It certainly does not come intuitively to uneducated minds.
But 12+17 equaling 29 is not an objective fact to Me. That human beings have agreed upon a symbol that looks like 1 to denote one thing, and that a symbol that looks like 2, which denotes two things, when put together creates the symbol 12, which means twelve things and that that number when added together with an agreed upon symbol and number 17 equals the symbol 29 and that that is an agreed upon and accepted twenty nine things, is an objective fact to Me. Yes this would probably not have got to this stage without any points of views being put forward to be discussed so in that sense this would never have been known without subjectivity (viewpoints), but to Me as long as human beings were being completely open, so that things could be found, discovered, and learned, then that is objectivity. To Me, it is only from the truly uneducated Mind, found within all human babies that this type of complete openness is what has allowed human beings to have evolved into such educated people.

To Me, very young human beings intuitively know that it is wrong to hurt, harm, and damage each other. But to the elderly and educated, they will quite happily imagine, invent, create, and sell some thing, for greed, no matter if it does hurt, harm, and damage other human beings, and even themselves. Although these two examples may not be objective facts. It is these types of examples I think, which are Truths or objective facts.
Noax wrote:
If the way to obtain those, accepted by every thing as absolutely, True Facts comes from being truly and completely open, which comes from have absolutely no beliefs nor assumptions and which rids one's own self of ALL biases, then just maybe that is the way to be able to gain a view from Everything's perspective. If you could Instead of just looking at things from a truly open viewpoint instead of from your own personal perspective, then could that be the way which allows you and all human beings to be able to see from a truly objective viewpoint, which then obviously also allows a truly objective view to be formed?
I think I have to disagree. Being totally open is to start at zero, from where no progress can be made.
But is being completely open not where all human beings start at? Being totally open at zero, on one's first day, is to start at zero and from where ALL progress is actually made, right?
Noax wrote:So gain knowledge, get the biases, but work through them. You can only rid yourself of a bias if you know you have them. Not so simple to just start without them if you don't know they're there.
To Me, all human beings start without personal, individual biases. To Me all human beings start intuitively knowing and are biased for the survival of the species, but they do not know that they are there.

Knowledge is gained no matter what, so there is no choice there, in the early years. Personal biases get instilled along the way. Once you know how you obtained your own personal biases you can then start to separate those biases from what is actually needed for survival, then I found it was very easy to rid those personal biases, which allowed Truth to flourish.

For example one of my own personal bias was for eating cow, lamb, and pork. Then I asked the question, why do I think this is all right behavior when it is totally unacceptable to others?

Unlike what most people do and what I had always done up to that time with questions like this, that is dismiss the question and not answer it, but this time I actually did answer it. "Because of the way I was brought up", I said.

Then the most basic of realizations hit me. I was only doing and thinking what I was raised to do and think. So, if I was only doing what I was doing because of my up bringing, then so is every other person. No exceptions. We all do what we do because of our past experiences.

But what is all right behavior? I asked. Obviously there is no way of knowing what meat is all right to eat because there is so many differing cultures and societies. But what I do know, and which is proven by any and every living vegetarian, is we do not need meat to live. We can survive without eating meat. From that I concluded that what is all right behavior is what is right by all. What is agreed to be right by all is not one's own personal biased viewpoint, which has obviously come from one's own experiences, but what is collectively known to be right. This I was discovering provides a far more objective view of Life, then my own subjective view every had or could. My own personal view, which was obtained by what i had experienced and been subjected to, was just that - a personal view. A far more realistic view could and would obviously be formed by a far more greater viewpoint or perspective. A far greater audience and obviously see far greater and more. Therefore, I was seeing that an ultimate or absolute Truth could only be seen from the perspective of everyone as One.

surreptitious57
Posts: 4092
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:04 pm

ken wrote:
But how could you or how do you justify or demonstrate that it is not possible for human beings to eliminate their emotions
I say it is not just very possible to eliminate emotions but that I was doing unconsciously and consecutively for many years
A human being is an emotional being by definition [ obvious exceptions notwithstanding ] But would everyone want to
be emotion free? You obviously do but others may think differently. You also have an obvious advantage which makes
it easier for you to want to eliminate emotion. For others though it may be harder and therefore rather less desirable

surreptitious57
Posts: 4092
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:53 pm

ken wrote:
Noax wrote:
Logic is a tool to supplement the emotional part where beliefs are held and decisions are made
Beliefs are not held anywhere if they are discarded completely. Depending on where the logic come from logic can
be the most subjective of views and using this most subjective of logic can dissolve absolutely any objectivity there is
The most rigorous logic is deductive logic. This is the remit of axiomatic systems such as mathematics and syllogisms. It is logic
which is definitely true. There is also inductive logic which is probably true and abductive logic which is possibly true. For here
there are more variables. Logic though cannot be subjective and neither can it dissolve objectivity because it is itself objective

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:01 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
But how could you or how do you justify or demonstrate that it is not possible for human beings to eliminate their emotions
I say it is not just very possible to eliminate emotions but that I was doing unconsciously and consecutively for many years
A human being is an emotional being by definition [ obvious exceptions notwithstanding ]
Yes I totally agree.
surreptitious57 wrote: But would everyone want to be emotion free?
NO. I would think not and I would certainly hope not. I think no one human being would want to be emotion free, let alone everyone of them. The very reason why I was being emotionless and emotion free is the very reason why no human being would want to be put through that and become emotion free.
surreptitious57 wrote:You obviously do but others may think differently.
I am not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that I obviously want to be emotion free. The actual Truth is the very opposite. I actually told a doctor, not to long ago, who had prescribed anti-depression tablets that they were suppressing emotions and that I had only just come to experience these emotional feelings, which all human beings have, and because of that that I was not going to take the tablets anymore. Being able to feel feelings and experience ALL of the emotions is a huge part of being a human being.
surreptitious57 wrote:You also have an obvious advantage which makes it easier for you to want to eliminate emotion. For others though it may be harder and therefore rather less desirable
This has never been about wanting to eliminate emotion. If I recall correctly I was just stating that it was possible to eliminate emotion, and how doing that can and does help in eliminating biases.

The "advantage" I appear to have came from the most hardest of experiences, which I wish upon no human being whatsoever. However what I came to learn and understand, from those past experiences, has shown me what a privileged life I have really had. Being alive, no matter what, was better than not being alive. I am so very fortunate, now, to have learned what I have, and that is a true advantage, but now trying to learn how to communicate fully appears to be a very long and slow tedious process but an enjoyable one. After so many years of never being being listened to, I never learned how to be heard and express my self. Obviously the more a child is listened to and heard, then the more they learn how to better express them self.

Being able to eliminate emotion is not a very hard thing to do at all. Just look at how many emotions you would have during a day. With the passing of each sentence you think or say, in your head or out aloud, a wide range of differing emotions appear and disappear. With each thought that appears a new emotion can and inevitably does appear. Then just with the changing or appearance of a new thought a new emotion appears. Thus the way for every human being to eliminate emotions is to just have thoughts that actually does this. The thought, 'I do not care', is one such thought that really easily eliminates all emotional feelings. No one human being has more obvious advantage and being able to change thoughts. ALL human beings have the same equal advantage of being able to do this. However, obviously because of past experiences, whatever they may be, some human beings have not changed thoughts so quickly and easily and so grow up not really learning how easy it actually is to change thinking, and thus behavior, by the way.

What is less or more desirable is also due to past experiences. What is far more desirable to me is to just live and laugh, and not try to be listened to, but there is such a strong desire within now to be heard and understood, that I spend hours on here in this forum trying to learn how to express better. I think to ALL human beings it is not desirable to eliminate emotions but what is paradoxically true is All human beings do actually want to eliminate ALL the negative or hurting emotions. So, although there is a very strong desire to keep and heighten ALL "positive" feelings the same strength of desire is to eliminate ALL "negative" feelings. This really is a rather silly thing to do because it is ALL feelings that makes a human being a true and full human being. Without the so called "negative" ones we would not know how good being alive can feel with the "positive" feelings. I quote positive and negative because really they are all each as important as the other. From the most hurtful "negative" feelings the most positive of outcomes can be found and reached.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Greta » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:23 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
But how could you or how do you justify or demonstrate that it is not possible for human beings to eliminate their emotions
I say it is not just very possible to eliminate emotions but that I was doing unconsciously and consecutively for many years
A human being is an emotional being by definition [ obvious exceptions notwithstanding ] But would everyone want to
be emotion free? You obviously do but others may think differently. You also have an obvious advantage which makes
it easier for you to want to eliminate emotion. For others though it may be harder and therefore rather less desirable
Emotions are wild cards. Imagine going through life being completely in control of yourself, operating exactly the way you want to in all areas.

Many seem to prefer the excitement and uncertainty of not knowing what insanity will fall out of them when under duress. I seem to have had my fill of that particular "thrill".

surreptitious57
Posts: 4092
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:50 am

I thought you wanted to eliminate all emotion because it is the only way to objective truth. But you were simply saying that while it might be achievable it is not necessarily desirable. You did however state that you have been eliminating emotions unconsciously and consecutively for many years which made me think that in your case it was desirable. Though you do not want to be emotion free as such. So a bit of confusion
there but overall am slightly clearer on your position than I was before. But I need to be more familiar with it so that I can understand it fully

My own position is that I try to be emotionally neutral or devoid of particular [ negative ] emotions altogether such as anger for example. I prefer
to be as calm as possible at all times. And most times I am. I still have anger inside of me but it is very much reduced and so I am more in control
I also avoid dogmatism and try to be as open minded as possible for the sake of my mental wellbeing. I am therefore no longer angry at the world and do not blame it for my failures but instead accept complete responsibility for them. I also have no fear of death any more. In fact it can take me any time it wants. I am a loner and so the world will not miss me when I do go. And because of all of this I am now as free as I have ever been

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:10 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:I thought you wanted to eliminate all emotion because it is the only way to objective truth. But you were simply saying that while it might be achievable it is not necessarily desirable. You did however state that you have been eliminating emotions unconsciously and consecutively for many years which made me think that in your case it was desirable. Though you do not want to be emotion free as such. So a bit of confusion
there but overall am slightly clearer on your position than I was before. But I need to be more familiar with it so that I can understand it fully
When I was a young child I, unintentionally, blocked all internal feelings, and I continually did that for many, consecutive, years. When I started actually feeling again, much later on in life, I realized that I had, in childhood unknowingly, blocked all emotional feelings and had continually done so for quite some years. For me it was much easier to not feel at all, than to always feel pain. So I carried on blocking or eliminating all emotions without even realizing it.

As the very young child it was much more desirable for me to eliminate all pain and emotions, but it was not something I desired consciously at all. At the time I did not know what I was doing. I was just blocking all feelings completely unconsciously and unaware. Those feelings were just to hard to deal with. It was only many years on and looking back that I realized I had unwittingly learned, very successfully, to block or eliminate emotions. If fact I had learned that ability so well that I did not even know I was doing it. Only through retrospection and hindsight showed me what I had actually been doing. Being an emotionless being was not something I really wanted or desired. It was just one way I learned to deal with things.

From being in this emotion free state, I was looking at the world around me from from a mental state only, as the emotional state was non-existent. This, it turned out, was a great advantage later on in life when I was questioning things. I was able to look much more objectively, and in turn answers were appearing rather quickly, and thus I was seeing new and more things for the first time. One of those questions I asked actually was why I am now able to discover, see, learn, understand, and answer things that others can not. Some of those questions had been asked for millennia, without any success. The answer to why I was able to see things while others could not was because of that emotion free childhood I had. I had gained a different perspective, or another or different way of being able to look. From this I was then able to see and understand things for what they really are. I could see things much more clearly.

Without emotions, there was no judgement, and without judgement, a clearer and truer picture forms.

Although I can see things much more clearly, I am still rather useless at explaining this.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Noax » Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:53 am

ken wrote:Okay great, I think we are getting somewhere. Although you did not answer my question about, "How can a human being take an objective stance but not be able to look from an objective viewpoint?"
My typical method is to postulate some statement about the nature of things (one that does not, for instance, conflict with physics as we know it), and then go back and ask what the subjective experience of that would be if that was indeed the nature of the thing.
If so, then if we are going to agree that ALL views, which are what has formed AFTER looking, no matter what, that they are subjective? Can we then agree that there is a way to look at things, which can be objectively?
Sure. Presuming the view is the only one is not a good step. Fine and dandy for the idealist, but I try to avoid that stance. If there is an idealist and realist interpretation of some thing, I tend to choose the latter interpretation. Hence the unicorns, despite not seeing one.
If human beings do not mean what they say (or write), then why say (or write) it?
I literally was seeking your open and honest answer to that question, and any and all other questions I may ask.
To help with thought process in this case? To influence others? The question seems off-topic for this thread.
That is great that you agree with this, even though you think that a human being is incapable of complete openness. Could you agree that a human being could be completely open at all, even for just a very short while?
No, not at all. Some things are too hard wired.
If so, then this is the same sort of thing I am discussing with surreptitious57, in that surreptitious57 says that human beings are incapable of not having emotions and you say human beings are incapable of being completely open.
I think we're using 'emotions' differently. I'm not concerned with happy, anger, pain, etc. I'm concerned with core processes from where beliefs are held and decisions are made. Those seem to be deeper that the rational conscious part of a person. The biases are there, and it takes quite a bit of effort to identify said bias with rational thought. It takes even more to truly discard them, and it would be stupid to discard them actually. They're there for a reason. One is forced to embrace them even if one rationally knows they're wrong. Perhaps that sufficiently advanced species actually embraces those rational truths. Not a good plan.
Beliefs are not held anywhere if they are discarded completely.
Obviously. But they're not discarded completely usually. Not the ones that matter anyway. Sure, I've discarded some completely, but they're pretty harmless. Others I rationally know are crap but I believe them anyway, at least in my gut. Most of society and morals is based on irrational belief. The irrationality makes them more fit.
A human being, for example, can feel anger or rage, but there is nothing in that emotional part from which a decision can be made, a decision about what to do next, for example, can only come from the thinking or mental part.
You do indeed have a unique perspective. I know myself enough to know otherwise, at least about myself. Anger very much drives action without rational thought. Belief very much influences the rationalization of those beliefs, rarely the other way around. The election of Trump is a fantastic example of this effect in action.
Whether or not a human being decides to lash out with a knife, or grab a gun and shoot, or step away and take a few deep breathes, or leave the situation and go for a walk, or yell out, or any of the multitude of other choices they can choose from and do, comes from a thought within the head. A decision about what to do exactly can not come from an emotional feeling. A feeling is just that, a feeling. It is thoughts, and only thoughts, which actually controls ALL of what human beings do.
We see such opposite views on this. My son is autistic, and yes, he can detach from say, pain, but sometimes seems completely at the mercy of controls from within, sometimes shouting at the frustration of the inability to will himself to do a trivial task like sit down.
Noax wrote: We are evolved for survival, not truth. The truth is not conducive to survival.
So far. But part of that in-built survivability in human beings is to discovering, learning, and knowing Truth. Truth may just be what helps in evolving to finding better and far more peaceful and pollution-free ways for human beings to live and thus survive, which in turn could not be as detrimental to their survival as the way they are going now is.
I have my doubts. Truth might help a few in the short run, but it will do us in far quicker than had we just stayed ignorant animals. Religion doesn't seem true (else it would not be so diversified), but belief in a common one definitely makes a society more fit.
If you are aware of your biases, then why can you not discard them?
I have, for example, an irrational desire to benefit 'me'. Evolution put it there, and those deepest biases are not to be casually ignored. I did figure out after 3 years what the 'me' was that I was trying to benefit, and what the "I" is that is making the effort. I have no desire to embrace the truth of what I found, even if it can be done. Embracing it would serve no better purpose.
I have never heard of fermi paradox before but on quick inspection my first thoughts are:
Earth could have already been visited by extraterrestrials.
More likely life started here via shrapnel from other planet that got smacked to smithereens. Everybody always envisions ETs in ships, which is sooo improbable. Nobody visits. The trip is 1-way.
The assumption that the universe had a beginning might be limiting the actual probability of the vastness of the actual area to cover when traversing to happen upon one planet called earth.
You said 'universe' means all there is, but here you use the word to refer to the chunk of spacetime we inhabit. Space and time is one thing that exists. Not everything exists in this funny structure of one temporal spatial dimension, three non-temporal spatial dimension, and at least one dimension that is not spatial at all (things are not measurably separated or ordered). That's sort of how I view our piece of the structure. Sure, it has a beginning just like Earth has a bottom. A hole can only be dug so deep before there's nowhere left to go but back up. It doesn't imply that Earth rests on some deeper shelf, and similarly there is no 'before the bang', at least not time as we measure it. Biases are clearly showing when asking questions about something from nothing.
Why is it generally accepted and thought of that ufo's are aliens coming from other planets anyway?
People love alien stories. UFO just means they don't know what it is.
Ufo's could just be human beings themselves travelling back in time.
OK fine. People don't even travel forward in my view. But fine. People at time X cause the existence of a UFO at time X-1000, which is almost theoretically possible given certain interpretations of quantum experiments where the results of past measurements can be influenced by decisions made well in the future of those measurements. I say almost because no message can be sent via this mechanism. If it could, you could do your UFO trick.
But 12+17 equaling 29 is not an objective fact to Me. That human beings have agreed upon a symbol that looks like 1 to denote one thing,
Cutting this off. Not talking about the symbols, or even the concept of 12+17. I'm talking about the numbers themselves.
.. equals the symbol 29 and that that is an agreed upon and accepted twenty nine things, is an objective fact to Me.
No agreement. That would be the concept of 12+17. I'm saying the two numbers add up to 29 as an objective fact without people being necessarily involved in any way. If a person needs to conceive it to make it fact, then it is a subjective thing.
To Me, it is only from the truly uneducated Mind, found within all human babies that this type of complete openness is what has allowed human beings to have evolved into such educated people.
I think we've been educated into being educated people. We're evolved to be educatable I guess, but no more. Humans are born with less education than most animals. The species seems to depend heavily on society.
To Me, very young human beings intuitively know that it is wrong to hurt, harm, and damage each other.
Love to meet your kids. You can have mine then. They had no such intuition. There was intuition to prevent self-harm, but that's about it.
But to the elderly and educated, they will quite happily imagine, invent, create, and sell some thing, for greed, no matter if it does hurt, harm, and damage other human beings, and even themselves. Although these two examples may not be objective facts. It is these types of examples I think, which are Truths or objective facts.
But is being completely open not where all human beings start at? Being totally open at zero, on one's first day, is to start at zero and from where ALL progress is actually made, right?
Nobody starts at zero. We might be less educated at birth than a wildebeest, but there are deeper biases that are very built in to any complex creature. Even a plant knows basic survival skills at the beginning.
To Me, all human beings start without personal, individual biases. To Me all human beings start intuitively knowing and are biased for the survival of the species, but they do not know that they are there.
My biases help me, not the rest of the species. At a base level, my existence competes with the rest of the species, and only learned cooperation makes me into something the rest of them might find beneficial.
For example one of my own personal bias was for eating cow, lamb, and pork. Then I asked the question, why do I think this is all right behavior when it is totally unacceptable to others?
That's a preference, not a bias. Acceptability of some behavior is a contract with society, not a truth or falsehood. So you apparently decline part of the contract held by some subset of society, which gets you into trouble only if that subset holds a significant majority like in India.
But what I do know, and which is proven by any and every living vegetarian, is we do not need meat to live. We can survive without eating meat.
I live among a pretty heavy population of them myself, and they seem to take an insane amount of nutritional supplements to make up for what they're missing. But that's just probably because the pill people know how to market their stuff to self-righteous vegans. The real ones (India again) don't seem to have this problem.

surreptitious57
Posts: 4092
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:53 pm

ken wrote:
Although I can see things much more clearly I am still rather useless at explaining this
Absolutely not ken. You have elucidated your position very well indeed. You denied emotion as a child because it was a coping mechanism
One you were not even aware that you were using. But now you are an adult you can understand why you did that. And you prefer to have
emotion than not have it since it informs your judgement on issues. And I understand it perfectly well but even more so I agree with it too

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by ken » Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:08 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
Although I can see things much more clearly I am still rather useless at explaining this
Absolutely not ken. You have elucidated your position very well indeed. You denied emotion as a child because it was a coping mechanism
One you were not even aware that you were using. But now you are an adult you can understand why you did that. And you prefer to have
emotion than not have it since it informs your judgement on issues. And I understand it perfectly well but even more so I agree with it too
Thank you surreptitious57 for the feedback. It means a lot.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Dalek Prime » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:06 pm

Who cares. You planning on going on an alternate vacation? Good luck getting there.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by thedoc » Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:36 am

Show me one.

Dubious
Posts: 2449
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by Dubious » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:11 am

thedoc wrote:Show me one.
We haven't yet managed to make this universe smaller to notice the next one.

whoeverwotever
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:01 am

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by whoeverwotever » Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:22 am

How about this interpretation..

Each one of use is born at a different time, in a different space and has a significantly different experience of the world (even experience of time flow time - regarding relativity). So can the experience of each living thing not be interpreted as a parallel world, a completely different viewpoint and experience in the same existence? In other words each living thing has it's own unique world (constructed by senses) which overlap with one another, hence parallel world.

Yours truely,

whoeverwotever

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There ARE parallel universes

Post by RCSaunders » Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:36 pm

Since when did science fiction become a branch of philosophy?

I suppose we'll find dragons and the Cheshire cat in one of those parallel universes.

If the universe isn't everything there is, what do you call everything there is?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests