User Controls
Did existence begin or is it eternal?
-
2019-10-16 at 4:06 PM UTCDiscuss
-
2019-10-16 at 4:07 PM UTCdefine 'existence'.
define 'begin'.
define 'eternal'. -
2019-10-16 at 4:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny define 'existence'.
define 'begin'.
define 'eternal'.
Existence is everything that encompasses the universe and beyond. Beginning implies a component of time and for something to begin it would mean it's not eternal or infinite; something that doesn't have a beginning or end -
2019-10-16 at 4:19 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 4:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Ghost Existence is everything that encompasses the universe and beyond.
does it include time ?Beginning implies a component of time and for something to begin it would mean it's not eternal or infinite; something that doesn't have a beginning or end
how is it not possible for something to have a start and not have an end ?
things that have a beginning not necessarily must have an end, it can just start and go on and on for an eternity. -
2019-10-16 at 4:47 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 4:53 PM UTCI can't remember.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-10-16 at 5:29 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 5:31 PM UTCAll of reality as we know it is merely an illusion. The past, the present and the future are really one thing.
-
2019-10-16 at 5:31 PM UTCMaybe it began an eternity ago.
-
2019-10-16 at 5:33 PM UTCHow you perceive the world boils down to nothing more than electric and chemical stimuli. Doesn't mean it's real, just means that your electrical and chemical systems say they are.
-
2019-10-16 at 5:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL How you perceive the world boils down to nothing more than electric and chemical stimuli. Doesn't mean it's real, just means that your electrical and chemical systems say they are.
So Philip K. Dick had this theory that time was an illusion and that we were all actually in 50 A.D., and the reason he had written this book, Flow My Tears, was that he had somehow momentarily punctured through this illusion, this veil of time, and what he had seen there was what was going on in the Book of Acts.
And he was really into Gnosticism, and this idea that this demiurge, or demon, had created this illusion of time to make us forget that Christ was about to return, and the kingdom of God was about to arrive. And that we're all in 50 A.D., and there's someone trying to make us forget that God is imminent. And that's what time is. That's what all of history is. It's just this kind of continuous, you know, daydream, or distraction.
And so I read that, and I was like, well that's weird. And than that night I had a dream and there was this guy in the dream who was supposed to be a psychic. But I was skeptical. I was like, you know, he's not really a psychic, you know I'm thinking to myself. And then suddenly I start floating, like levitating, up to the ceiling. And as I almost go through the roof, I'm like, "Okay, Mr. Psychic. I believe you. You're a psychic. Put me down please." And I float down, and as my feet touch the ground, the psychic turns into this woman in a green dress. And this woman is Lady Gregory.
Now Lady Gregory was Yeats' patron, this, you know, Irish person. And though I'd never seen her image, I was just sure that this was the face of Lady Gregory. So we're walking along, and Lady Gregory turns to me and says, "Let me explain to you the nature of the universe. Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's 50 A.D. Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. I mean that's what time is. I mean, and it's no more 50 A.D. than it's two thousand and one. And there's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in."
And then she tells me that actually this is the narrative of everyone's life. That, you know, behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right? -
2019-10-16 at 5:47 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 5:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe So Philip K. Dick had this theory that time was an illusion and that we were all actually in 50 A.D., and the reason he had written this book, Flow My Tears, was that he had somehow momentarily punctured through this illusion, this veil of time, and what he had seen there was what was going on in the Book of Acts.
And he was really into Gnosticism, and this idea that this demiurge, or demon, had created this illusion of time to make us forget that Christ was about to return, and the kingdom of God was about to arrive. And that we're all in 50 A.D., and there's someone trying to make us forget that God is imminent. And that's what time is. That's what all of history is. It's just this kind of continuous, you know, daydream, or distraction.
And so I read that, and I was like, well that's weird. And than that night I had a dream and there was this guy in the dream who was supposed to be a psychic. But I was skeptical. I was like, you know, he's not really a psychic, you know I'm thinking to myself. And then suddenly I start floating, like levitating, up to the ceiling. And as I almost go through the roof, I'm like, "Okay, Mr. Psychic. I believe you. You're a psychic. Put me down please." And I float down, and as my feet touch the ground, the psychic turns into this woman in a green dress. And this woman is Lady Gregory.
Now Lady Gregory was Yeats' patron, this, you know, Irish person. And though I'd never seen her image, I was just sure that this was the face of Lady Gregory. So we're walking along, and Lady Gregory turns to me and says, "Let me explain to you the nature of the universe. Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's 50 A.D. Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. I mean that's what time is. I mean, and it's no more 50 A.D. than it's two thousand and one. And there's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in."
And then she tells me that actually this is the narrative of everyone's life. That, you know, behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right?
Waking Life sucks and you are a retard for bringing this into my thread, and again without source. -
2019-10-16 at 6:01 PM UTCDo you mean physical matter alone, or consciousness?
The running theory is that physical matter actually came into existence roughly 5 billion years ago.
What "existed" before that is really anyone's guess.
Consciousness, on the other hand, according to its own running theories, popped up some couple hundred thousand years ago.
Whether consciousness is a binary thing (either ya got it or ya don't), or a gradual thing (humans ain't the only motherfuckers rockin that shit), it's generally assumed to have emerged from the intercommunication of lower order biological phenomena a few hundred thousand years ago.
Now, are these answers satisfactory enough to appease a curious mind?
Not in the slightest.
Enter religious thinking stage right.
Each religion has its own narrative about this very question, but the problem is that none of them are even remotely based on rational reasoning, but rather on that epistemologically tricky little thing we call "faith".
So, to answer your question, I have no fucking idea. And anybody who claims that they do is selling you pure unadulterated bullshit. -
2019-10-16 at 6:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Do you mean physical matter alone, or consciousness?
The running theory is that physical matter actually came into existence roughly 5 billion years ago.
What "existed" before that is really anyone's guess.
Consciousness, on the other hand, according to its own running theories, popped up some couple hundred thousand years ago.
Whether consciousness is a binary thing (either ya got it or ya don't), or a gradual thing (humans ain't the only motherfuckers rockin that shit), it's generally assumed to have emerged from the intercommunication of lower order biological phenomena a few hundred thousand years ago.
Now, are these answers satisfactory enough to appease a curious mind?
Not in the slightest.
Enter religious thinking stage right.
Each religion has its own narrative about this very question, but the problem is that none of them are even remotely based on rational reasoning, but rather on that epistemologically tricky little thing we call "faith".
So, to answer your question, I have no fucking idea. And anybody who claims that they do is selling you pure unadulterated bullshit.
I mean being at all. Ignoring the fact that there would be no observer to give it meaning.
It seems plausible that all of existence is a big loop. -
2019-10-16 at 6:23 PM UTC
-
2019-10-16 at 6:24 PM UTCIf something is eternal, then it contains all possibilities
Including the possibility that that something had a beginning
checcmate/where do we go from here -
2019-10-16 at 6:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Daily If something is eternal, then it contains all possibilities
Uhhh no that's a complete nonsequitur.
A universe with just one electron zipping on forever is a perfectly conceivable idea. And it just has one possibility. The equations for the electron don't require any first point, you can extend it into t=-infinity or +infinity with no problem. -
2019-10-16 at 6:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Big League jedi I mean being at all. Ignoring the fact that there would be no observer to give it meaning.
It seems plausible that all of existence is a big loop.
But we have to define boundaries on which particular ontological entities can possess the attribute of "being".
The scientific community draws a distinction between matter, energy, and time, and only matter "exists". But what of energy? And what of time? And what of physically unverifiable phenomena in general? Etc.
To paraphrase one of the more prominent metaphysicists of our time - the 42nd president of the United States - "it depends on what the definition of is is."The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
