It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Go ahead and destroy us - we will be back.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
This thread embraces the cause and effect. This is something that occured when having conversation with a friend.

Wouldn't you agree that for every effect or phenomena there is a cause? While not necessarily suggesting that the first cause of everything is god, which is a philosophy proposed amongst others by Thomas Aquinas - even though one might think that the first cause might as well be the creator de facto.

That however is not the topic of this thread, apologies of having side steps. Considering that for every effect there is a cause, and every effect becomes a new cause; which in philosophy is known as theory of causality.

Now considering that every effect spawns from multiple causes, predicting events with limited knowledge comes rather challenging. Because the chain of causes and effects is so complicated, many of us believe in chance, the random. We oppose that.

We know that there cannot be random. From a deck of cards, you cannot pick random card. Outcome of dice rolling is not random. We humans have so far failed in producing pure random because it doesn't exist in reality. The random used on computer applications is based on seed, usually generated from the computer's clock. It seems like real random is a philosophical and practical impossibility.

Keeping above in mind, we are not here by a chance, but due the complex chain of causes and effects. Then the question is: If humanity would be erased - wiped away like the dust from the shelf - then would the prevailing causes that made it possible for humanity to emerge from vast processes of life make us appear again (provided that we wouldn't destroy the whole earth in the process)? If the causes of the dust, which falls on the shelves is not removed, the dust will fall again?

-v




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Hmm. That's deep. I think though that there is a difference between "random" and "by chance". There indeed is no random behavior in material world - above quantum physics level at least. But there is "by chance" occurrences. For example only, if comet seeding theory is correct - there is a chance that suitable comet would suitably crash into suitable planet with suitable conditions and carbon life form could develop. Not randomly. But by chance. Even if it could not have developed otherwise after Big Bang due to laws of physics - to observer it is still by chance.
So while i personally believe that we are here as we are for a reason, and that there is God , i also am sure that no philosophical/scientific prove (or lack of prove) of our"planned" existence will ever be found.
Oh, and dust never falls on the same place even on the same shelf. I know. I collect it .



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 

I don't know whether this is relevant, but this post reminds very much of Carl Jung's view on synchronicity.
In the Fortean archives there are numerous cases of "co-incidences" too wierd to be chance. I'm thinking of a man who had a baby fall on his head twice on the same day a year apart, at exactly the same time, or the king who met the pauper who was born on the same day, had the same name, the same relatives names and died the same day. Suffice to say a run of "chance" has driven people nuts when it happens in the extreme.
I would say it reveals something like the face or reminder of God in our outer consciousness, which is in any case already in our inner design.
To the last paragraph's question - yes, according to Hindu scripture the universes will expand, contract and expand in endless cycles.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Valid point. I used word "chance" too obscurely. After all, chance implies to a possibility. I meant random by chance, so they have equivalent meaning in OP.

Personally - yet I have no way of knowing - I assume that there ain't random in quantum physics either. There are perhaps phenomenas we cannot explain as we are not knowing the cause.

-v



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Jung's conception of synchronity is not familiar, but someone somewhere mentioned that to me, so your remark makes it second time (on unrelated events)! Maybe I should check it then, as it seems to be an synchronic event by a quick glance made on wikipedia about that matter


Thanks for bringing it up


-v



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

I'd like to think that spiritually I can escape from this materialism through some some merciful belief, but maybe that is wishful thinking, and in some zillion years we'll have this very same conversation on this very same ATS in another "2010".
Well, hello again.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Maybe


But we don't know, not untill we try hard enough, and maybe after that we still don't know


But we do know that it is a wonderful place with all the misery.

-v



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
OP.. I would suggest for you, if you have not yet, to study the chaos theory..

Interesting read I am in somewhat agreement with you..


even chaos their order.. Yet how that would mean stars aligning the same way more then once is very very very debatable, yet perhaps possible..

Neither do I beleive we exist based off of chance. Life and existance from breathing to the universe above to the PERFECT alignment of our planet to the sun for life. It is just way to complex for a many random events occuring over Million OR even billions of years..



This reality is a Technology surely not created from anything but something that follows a law of order.. Order in more faucets then meets the eye..



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 

Well, some say that we eventually attract what we want. In Hinduism that is also taught: if you want sex all the time, why not become a pigeon - it can have sex 13 times a day! There is a body for every type of consciousness imaginable in the universes at the time of death. So we must be careful what we wish for!

Therefore I think magic starts in ourselves and our own minds to focus on what WE SHOULD WANT to make us happy. So, many people want to be very rich, but they curse the very rich out of jealousy. Instead they should revere first what they want.
Christianity is very confused about this: but they have a magic called "prosperity Gospel" which is good short-term magic for riches.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 

Be that as it may, that is looking waaay ahead.
But synchronicity cannot be denied. I have noted this
before any Internet access. If I walked through an academic library the books I pulled out would be totally connected to what I was looking for. Even now for reseacrh, the odd totally unknown book comes up. Many researchers have felt this.
I think this is also related to "doppelgaenger" and other phenomenon.
The strange thing is that the more one studies this, the more it seems to happen.
Jung eventually spoke of a "Manitou" in even inanimate objects, before his final chapters were hidden. It seems the I-Ching sticks first interested him on this, although I only mention snippets.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

then would the prevailing causes that made it possible for humanity to emerge from vast processes of life make us appear again (provided that we wouldn't destroy the whole earth in the process)? If the causes of the dust, which falls on the shelves is not removed, the dust will fall again?

Possibly, but not especially likely.

The process that produced us was punctuated with non-recurrent events. Part of the explanation of us is the impact disaster that wiped out the dinosaurs, and the specific distribution of mammals that were around at the time. That "dust" may fall again, that is, there may be another impact, but it will leave a different set of survivors as the "initial state" from which "we" would have to emerge again.

There are also path dependencies to consider. Part of the explanation of us is that something happened to the Neanderthals. Very likely, that something was encountering us. It is easy to imagine that a small difference in the conditions under which we met the Neanderthals might have made a big difference in the outcome of the encounter.

I think it is also significant that literally we are here, in part, because we successfully negotiated what may be the most successful interspecies partnership ever: us and gray wolf, now known as domesticated dog. That, too, could easily have gone the other way.

Pigs, gray wolves and us have something in common: all three of us will eat just about anything. A lot of human success is not because we are so smart, but because we taste bad and smell worse. Not much preys on us, and almost nothing preys on us twice. BUT, gray wolf can obviously stand the smell.

So, there is an alternate Universe where we encountered gray wolf under slightly different circumstances, and were tasty enough while we lasted.

Assuming that there are gray wolves in the new start, or afterwards. And if not, would we be as successful? If not as successful, might we not be categorically unsuccessful?

Anything's possible, of course. But I think we are one-off. To borrow Thornton Wilder's line, we are where we are by the skin of our teeth. The idea that we could do it all again "from scratch" is, at best, speculative, IMO.

Interesting thread, though. S&F.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0

Keeping above in mind, we are not here by a chance, but due the complex chain of causes and effects. Then the question is: If humanity would be erased - wiped away like the dust from the shelf - then would the prevailing causes that made it possible for humanity to emerge from vast processes of life make us appear again (provided that we wouldn't destroy the whole earth in the process)? If the causes of the dust, which falls on the shelves is not removed, the dust will fall again?

-v


I would say that no, regardless whether or not we are here by chance or not, if we were to go extinct, it is highly unlikely that we would arise again simply by the natural workings of the Earth or the Universe. Perhaps some other intelligent species might "reincarnate us" from DNA left lying about, but if we go extinct, we are gone forever in the natural scheme of things.

Sure, dust will still fall, (species will continue to evolve etc.) and there may even arise a very similar species from among the primates, but it wont be "us." Even if we dont go extinct, and our descendants carry on for a couple of million years into the future, they also will likely not be "us."

Lets say it was completely part of the "plan" that we evolved, no chance in there at all. Why would our demise be any less "planned?" It is our own arrogance that makes us assume ourselves the pinnacle of creation, when it is much more likely we are just another brick in the wall.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

If that is true, and nothing can ever be as it was, even in the infinate possibilities of material hit-and-miss re-combinations, that is very sad.
Apologies for getting a bit emo, but it reminds of one of my favorite movie scenarios: "AI" by Spielberg. There is a scene where the aliens "create" the boy's mother from hair, but he only gets "her" back for one day.
If I can never see my loved ones again I would rather go to eternal, atheistic sleep.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


Yes, wow, very good. Every construct or concept of chance man has ever made has never been such. Dice rolling is physics, gravity, force... same with the flip of a coin and a man-made side... RNG in computer games is known to only be a simulation of randomness.

And for us to think that our own existence came down to luck, which really may well be a man-made construct. Existence itself... very good



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I wouldn't deny synchronicity. I'd imagine that it may have something to do with animal magnetism or magnetism in general. We atract things and things atract us; but with what basis? I dunno


-v



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bicent76
 


Chaos theory is somewhat familiar; The butterfly moves it wings in distant place, and we'll have a storm here - as the common allegory says. It has been a long time since I was introduced to that theory, and now that you brought it up, I actually see how much it has affected the lines I typed in my OP.

-v



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


That's interisting 8-bits.

From certain viewpoint (that exludes behaviour and external differences) we can observe our DNA to be quite similar with the rest of the fauna (and maybe even flora). I recall of reading that vinegar fly and human DNA quite much similarity.

But I think I see what you mean; The underlying causes for the appearance of human kind might vary and produce something quite different. The depencies are important, just as you pointed out. It is as Zeroknowledge above pointed out, the dust never falls on exactly the same place, same way.

-v

[edit on 13-1-2010 by v01i0]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I see what you mean and I think you are correct. It isn't "us" that would reappear, meaning you or me, but something similar to mankind in general. I should've been more precise in the OP.

No, we are not aphex of creation; universe would definately go on without us.

-v



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Novise
 


I wouldn't dare to use the word "man-made" about the existence itself; rather we are made by it.

 

From now on, the following is not meant as a reply to anyone in special, but just are just general thoughts provoked by the posts.
 


1st. If we are the result of previous chain of causes and effects, should we consider that this chain is linear or would it rather be non-linear? Are there some major events that can shape the direction of evolution? Think example the dinosaurs that 8-bits brought up... What if they would've survived, how would've that changed the world as we know it?

2nd. What's the point of individual choice and action? They say that one human being is enough to change the world. You by your actions begin to weave another strain to the chain of causes and effects - if your actions gain momentum, it can become a trend so to speak; but it can also die and wither, but it depends much on the other causes and effects that are about.

3rd. Is there room for a personified god?

It may take a while for me to reply, as the causes and effects turned out so that I have to take my computer for repairs; the fan of the graphic card isn't spinning properly as the "intelligent" system fails to regonize the rising temperatures.

Anyway, thanks for replies everyone. They gave me something to think about.

-v



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman

If that is true, and nothing can ever be as it was, even in the infinate possibilities of material hit-and-miss re-combinations, that is very sad.........................................................................................................
If I can never see my loved ones again I would rather go to eternal, atheistic sleep.


Well, that depends entirely upon how you think of yourself and your loved ones now. Consider the possibility that you, yourself are not the same "you" that was born. Your thinking changes across your lifetime, your cells, your bits of knowledge, if you were to get amnesia, even your entire personality, your identity could change. Your loved ones are the same way. You see them on a regular basis, and your mind has assigned them a "pernamnence" but they are changing physically, emotionally, and intellectually moment by moment. You just keep updating your "image" of them to maintain the illusion of "permanence" that your mind or ego finds reassuring. Everything is changing continuously, even the mountains are slowly being eroded into something "other" than what they are now.

So, that which you feel is so sad and "might" happen, is actually happening all the time. You go to bed at night, and the day you just lived is gone forever. All that you loved that day disappears in a sense, and the next day you fall in love all over again with the "new" you, the "new" loved ones, etc. It isnt sorrowful. It isnt really sad. Its what we do. What makes it seem as though it would be sad is that our minds create an illusion of permanence, (even though it has to work frantically to update constantly the "permanent" image it created) which we then believe in. If we would just let ourselves see the truth, and through the illusion of "permanence" it wouldnt seem sad at all. Because it is what we have been doing the whole while.

Someone who has total amenesia, and no longer remembers their old "self" doesnt want to be "killed" or to leave in order for the old self to return to its former life. The new self may want some of the memories back, to make functioning in that role more easy, or to avoid disappointing people who remember the old "self," but the new identity wants to remain and be permanent every bit as much as the old one did. The you you are today doesnt want to go away forever to bring back the 10 year old you.

We dont want to restore OUR ancestors to the role of "us," we want them to be in the past, "us" to be the in present, and whatever comes next safely in the future. We just fear our own impermanence, and so we project our image backwards and forwards in "time" to reassure ourselves. In fact, "I" or "Us" exists only in the very moment one is aware, (the now) and as many mystics have pointed out, it is always "now" to the consciousness, if not to the thinking mind.

Which is why so many traditions try to get you to shift "I" from the thinking mind, the ego or bundle of memories you call your "self" to the "awareness" that uses the thinking mind, but is more lasting.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join