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.
Originally posted by Wang Tang
...still exists in ErgoTheConclusion's mind, so it still exists in a certain capacity.
The universe is simply the container...
Originally posted by Wang Tang
I see. So let's say our physical bodies exist in a computer simulation and all of our physical interactions are simulated and can be manipulated by an outside power.
So our physical bodies may not exist, but we cannot rationally conclude "we don't exist," because we must exist to some capacity. As Descartes said "I think, therefore I am," so there must be some object that causes us to think. This object, I recognize as the mind.
Our mind must exist then, and it also must exist somewhere. Our minds can't simply exist in nothingness. This place where our minds exist, I would also call the universe.
The problem is I'm dealing with the realm of possibility here and I feel like I'm expanding the definition of universe... but for now I stand by my belief that the universe is a fact. I'll have to think this through more later.
Originally posted by Wang Tang
Here's the simplest definition I can give you... the entity that holds our planets, solar systems, and galaxies is the universe.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing
With this one take Vanity and multiply it x 3.141 f=gd. Good luck.
Wow. That post made you sound so thoughtful and intelligent. I wish I was as smarts as you is.
Yes, you don't know much, but you're assuming that your failed attempts mean a method doesn't work at all. That is quite vain if you ask me.
Obviously, everybody has thoughts when they sleep. It's called "dreaming" and happens every night. You might not remember, but a healthy brain does dream.
Your little detour in semantics is cute, but a bit on the childish side. What you're saying is basically a rose is a rose is a rose. I knew that ... lol. But, a single phenomenon that displays contrary properties creates a paradox.
Let me simplify for you: water is wet, but not dry. Dry water does not exist. No paradox. A photon with 0 mass is a particle AND a wave. That is a true paradox because the two properties are mutually exclusive. So in essence light can behave like dry water ...
Here is what we're arguing about:
- enlightenment
- vanity
- those who call themselves enlightened are vain
Originally posted by 1nf1del
Maybe we are nothing more then a dream, electrical signals no different then what we are made of, same signals in your brain, what if we are living in a fractal?
Enlightenment is the end of feeling like there is something missing. It is the end of trying to become something.
It is the end of looking for that secret we just can't seem to get hold of.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Many people feel they are complete, and yet you would say they are not "enlightened". This, again, implies that "enlightenment" is purely subjective.
Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
I simply don't know whether *I* am that entity which holds the planets, solar systems, and galaxies... or whether it is something "outside" of me.
I know that I wouldn't be *aware* of the planets, solar systems, and galaxies without me... so on one level they simply wouldn't exist as far as I know unless I believed they exist.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Wang Tang
If I were to postulate that nothing exists outside of my mind, how would you prove me wrong?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Wang Tang
If I were to postulate that nothing exists outside of my mind, how would you prove me wrong?
Originally posted by Wang Tang
How can you exist in nothingness?