Objective Metaphysics

reply to post by HarryTZ


A debatable position as "Dirac delta function" offers otherwise.

Originally posted by Philodemus
3. A=A
Can these be considered objectively irrefutable, irreducible, and self-evident? If not, why not? If so, what does this mean for our epistemology and our theory of concepts?

A=Ppv



Peace
Sacri

reply to post by Sacri


lolwut

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by Sacri

 

lolwut

Once you have become conscious of your own consciousness A=P

Once you have become aware that your own consciousness is merely a higher form of collectiveness A=Pp


Once you grasp that the collectiveness doesn't stop A=Ppv

That is far as I have projected

[color=gold]
therefore the OP analysis is somewhat

Existence is potentially Objective or IS objective...
and to perceive it requires experience within it

in order to become aware to the sound or essence of it,
and then become further aware of 1zself to the point

where actual forms can be attributed to
understand the physical reality interpreted from the physical brain

and the non brain which would be the actual Higher Self Brain
Steering the YOUS in the lower or more physical chapters with a consciousness

requires subjective experiences within Objective reality actual EXISTENCE as well as the understanding
as a CREATOR Creation that YES there is potentially more to what the physical brain

and conscious awareness level of the higher brain is aware of so to be somewhat humble is logic if
rising thru these levels of physical and non physical awareness levels of existence

in 3d or higher realms ... and to acknowledge HIGHER or ELDER beings who HAVE experienced more then the less matured Consciously is not thinking outta box objectively as much as some subjectively suggest.

NAMASTE
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******

I for one would really like to hear a valid opinions as to why consciousness can be construed as irrelevant to reality.

So far I have read nothing to support that position.

To be clear defining "no thing" does not offer the conclusion that in such a definition "no thing" is something.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Why do you assume consciousness is a thing? What exactly brings you to that conclusion?

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by Kashai

 

Why do you assume consciousness is a thing? What exactly brings you to that conclusion?

By definition consciousness can take up space. I would refer to an earlier conversation, where I pointed out the issue of consciousness, having a non-random effect upon reality at the quantum scale.

reply to post by Kashai


If you have come to the conclusion that consciousness can take up space than you honestly don't know what you are talking about. A subjective experience doesn't have any physical properties.

reply to post by HarryTZ


Unless science has made an error and in fact what we consider the subjective, falls under the category of being energy.

Human behavior is not random.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

"There are no 'things' - there is only ever the present happening (appearance)."

Semantics, appearance relates to identifying a thing in fact.

Further, moments are infinite and with respect to Spooky action at a distance really fascinating.

Any thoughts?

There are no 'things' - 'things' are words/thoughts. 'Things' are concepts - words.
All that appears to exist is this present moment. Is this moment a 'thing'?
The appearance of this present moment is constantly changing.

Existence appears to exist.
Emptiness is forming but is never formed into a solid thing - like a flowing river.

You say that moments are infinite - how long is now?

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by Kashai

 

Why do you assume consciousness is a thing? What exactly brings you to that conclusion?

By definition consciousness can take up space. I would refer to an earlier conversation, where I pointed out the issue of consciousness, having a non-random effect upon reality at the quantum scale.

'Definition' is to draw a line around some 'thing'.

Consciousness is the light that appears presently. So if there is a thought/word appearing, a sensation, a colour, a noise - it is appearing as the light of consciousness.
Only presently can the light (of consciousness) be seen - the light is the scene.
The movie of life is made out of the light of consciousness - it is the play of light (Maya/Leela).

The darkness was divided by the light.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Unless science has made an error and in fact what we consider the subjective, falls under the category of being energy.

Human behavior is not random.

Any thoughts?

edit on 29-6-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content

Yes, consciousness is energy. But we don't even really know what energy is. There is only one energy and it is spaceless and timeless. It has no physical properties (nothing to do with translucent wisps of light lol) because it is what gives rise to all physical properties. So really, we can accurately say that energy = consciousness.

reply to post by Kashai


wondering if I understand you...

Does the existence of a rock burried 70 feet below the surface of Mars depend on your consciousness for the reality of its exitence?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Agreed. There is only "now". Past, and future are conceptualizations.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


This is to mark the difference between the source of knowledge (objects) and the means of knowledge (reason).

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by Kashai

 

wondering if I understand you...

Does the existence of a rock burried 70 feet below the surface of Mars depend on your consciousness for the reality of its exitence?

That rock and its gravity are having a direct (albeit extremely minuscule) effect on me and my existence. If the rock could somehow cease to effect me or any other observer in the universe, than the rock itself would cease to exist in any definitive form. It would just be a jumble of probability, until it again was observed.

reply to post by HarryTZ


Alright. What about one sub-atomic particle from an unobserved quasar 700,000,000,000,000 light years away?
Hypothetically, by what means would an unobserved particle have "effect" on you?

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Alright. What about one sub-atomic particle from an unobserved quasar 700,000,000,000,000 light years away?

edit on 30-6-2013 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)

In relation to Bells theorem any activity in the Universe. Has essentially an effect upon all other mater, created in the universe at the same time despite distance and instantaneously.

While our Universe is 13.7 billion years old it is anywhere between 40 to 185 billion light years wide.

In relation to Multiverse Theory the nearest level 1 type Universe is about 10x10 to the power of 28 meters from here. Data from Planks Satellite presents clearly that our Universe resulted from the impact of two others.

So with respect to your hypothetical quasar 700 trillion light years from here the "Universe" it exist in can have an effect one the one we live in.

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Alright. What about one sub-atomic particle from an unobserved quasar 700,000,000,000,000 light years away?
Hypothetically, by what means would an unobserved particle have "effect" on you?

edit on 30-6-2013 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2013 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)

If it exists and has mass, or effects particles around it that have mass, it is effecting every other particle in existence simply because of the distortions in gravity it creates. It does not matter the distance between me and the particle.