Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: kumonk on June 19, 2013, 07:26 pm
-
Most of the time I engage in philosophical discussions with people about meaning, God, and the purpose of life, the conversation gets clouded by a lack of foundation or semantic common-ground. It is, in my opinion, necessary that a primordial "fact" is established before a debate of this magnitude can properly function... otherwise it will undoubtedly spiral into a cyclical argument about semantics that will never flourish into real philosophical debate.
Thus, I give you the following: The question of whether or not god exists, or what the purpose of life is needs to revolve around a question of "how?" and not "why?". People typically ask foundational questions like: "Why do we exist?", "Why is the sky blue?", and "Why does matter exist?". However, these questions all seem to support the idea of a primordial sense of purpose. The question of "Why" something is, already predetermines an idea that something happens for a reason. The subsequent answer will also revolve around a sense of purpose that, in my opinion, completely misses the point of establishing a foundation. The question seeks to find a foundation for "Why?", but already presupposes a primordial sense of purpose - which comes before the foundation it is trying to establish. Therefore the question of "Why?" will never properly address the foundation.
Rather, the better question to ask is "How?". "How do we exist" (or "how" have we come to be", "How is the sky blue?", and "How does matter exist (or "how" has matter come to be). Phrasing the question in this manner does not support a primordial sense of purpose, but rather seeks to find a foundation for how it is possible that things exist.
More importantly, aside from what you might immediately think, there are a finite number of possible answers for the question: "How do things exist". In fact there are only 3 "possible" answers to this question, and more likely only 2.
They are:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1). God did it.
An entity that exists outside of physical space time went "poof!" and matter appeared for the first time in space.
2). Matter has always existed
There has never been a beginning to time. Things have been evolving, and changing, and becoming more complex through processes like evolution, but there was never a beginning to matter... it has always existed.
3). Matter sprung from nothingness
Matter simply appeared out of nothingness... poof!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I for one do not like option 3. It doesn't seem to be logical for something to simply appear out of nothingness without a cause.... I've left it in though because it could be argued that it is still an option. Also, please note that by "god", I do not mean a "god" that necessarily follows any current mainstream religion.
For me, options #1, and #2 seem equally as likely. I don't think either one can be argued for more heavily than the other in terms of its scientific probability. I lean in one direction more than another, but that is simply what "feels" more likely to me, and is not bounded in logic. They both have their inherent issues, but unfortunately they are the only options that I can think of...
So what do you think? Do you think I am entirely wrong here? Are there more options?...
If not, which option to you believe is more likely correct?
-
Berkley would say there is no life outside of your mind, there is no beginning to existence beyond this;
Kant would say the human mind does not have the cognitive apparatus to achieve knowledge of the beginning of time;
Hegel would say your human mind defines everything you see, and there is no beginning like there is no end.
Schopenhauer would say the object world began with the emergence of the subjective world. Without one there is no other.
Each of Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer point towards option one for me, with a different approach in that God is collective and subjective consciousness, God is us and we are our own beginning. Without us there is no it. Beginning begins with our beginning and finishes with our definition of an end -which for some people is eternity (spiritual/religious) and others is finite (physicalist).
Sometimes I feel pity for the physicalist who only believes there is physical existence alone and with death comes nothingness. It may be a comforting illusion to believe in more, but it cannot be scientifically proven either way (at least not yet).
-
I agree for the most part with what you've said, but I think that more weight should be applied to the physical world than most of those philosophers give credit to... I tend to like schopenhauer and phenomenologists like Heidegger when they argue over Cartesian dualism in an attempt highlight which of the two (mental/spiritual/conscious realm vs physical/tactile/"real" realm) is most primordial.
However, these philosophers argue that there is a lack of objectivity in the tangible, physical world which I do not think is warranted.
Let's take Heidegger as an example. He argues against the value of the physical sciences because, for him, the answers which those sciences seek to explain are already distorted by the perceptions of the individuals doing the scientific analysis. When a Being perceives anything, that thing immediately has meaning applied to it and is defined by the Being. This cloud the individual's ability to make an objective statement about the object --- take for example looking at a stop sign. I can't define what the thing is without my mind already (and almost immediately) preinterpreting and establishing meaning on it: it is red, it has corners, it is 6 feet tall, this one time I ran through one and got into an accident... All of these can invoke emotions as well which further subjectivity the definition of what a stop sign is.
Heidegger would then go on to argue that all things perceived in the "real world" are only perceived once an individual's subjective meaning is applied to it and defined. He goes as far as saying that there are no objective things in the world (or rather that they aren't worthy of study because of the problems associated with the understanding in the above paragraph), because it is the meaning that really matters, and without this most primordial understanding, nothing else really matters.
However, I think it only takes one little fun thought experiment to show why physical matter is so important.
Let us think of a Doctor ... we'll call him Dr. Alex. Dr. Alex is running a study in which he asks individuals to carefully define any object that is presented to them. It is explained to them that any meaning, definition, explanation, etc of the object should be done in explicit detail. To make it even more interesting, he has only selected graduate level PHL students who understand how to articulate meaning in this way.
Dr. Alex runs this experiment within a fMRI machine, and record the participant's brain activity. .... Now it is about to get interesting....
Dr. Alex then reruns the experiment in the same with the same people, but this time he injects them with DMT without their knowledge.
The DMT will undoubtedly illicit a response within each individual that dramatically changes all of the meaning they have with the world - including of course the random object stimuli that Dr. Alex is presenting to them.
What is interesting here to me is that A PHYSICAL OBJECT - i.e. DMT was able to dramatically change the individual's entire realm of meaning and association to the world... How can this be possible if MEANING is supposed to be primordial to the PHYSICAL WORLD and experience itself? ... A physical object - DMT - which was not perceived by the participant, was able to illicit a fundamentally different realm of meaning.
This indicates to me that the physical world is at least equiprimordial to meaning and experience... Or it is the foundation from which meaning is developed.
Thoughts? - and thank you for your response.
-
Berkley would say there is no life outside of your mind, there is no beginning to existence beyond this;
Kant would say the human mind does not have the cognitive apparatus to achieve knowledge of the beginning of time;
Hegel would say your human mind defines everything you see, and there is no beginning like there is no end.
Schopenhauer would say the object world began with the emergence of the subjective world. Without one there is no other.
Each of Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer point towards option one for me, with a different approach in that God is collective and subjective consciousness, God is us and we are our own beginning. Without us there is no it. Beginning begins with our beginning and finishes with our definition of an end -which for some people is eternity (spiritual/religious) and others is finite (physicalist).
All of them argue essentially the same thing, subjectivism. Of course all serious scientists are pretty strong advocates of objectivism. All evidence points to an objective reality that is completely independent of subjective perception.
Sometimes I feel pity for the physicalist who only believes there is physical existence alone and with death comes nothingness. It may be a comforting illusion to believe in more, but it cannot be scientifically proven either way (at least not yet).
You think it cannot be scientifically proven that if a tree falls in the woods it makes a sound regardless of if anybody is there to hear it or not?!?!
3). Matter sprung from nothingness
I believe that the most widely accepted theory, from physicists of course, not from philosophers, is that eternally there are pseudo-vacuums in space that inflate and are filled with intrinsic energy, and eventually the vacuum deteriorates and all of the energy inside of it explosively turns into matter. The area that the vacuum filled is called a universe, this process of inflation has been going on for eternity and will continue for eternity, there are an infinite number of universes and together they make up the multiverse which consists of everything that is. I think universes inflate from what is called a white hole, something through which matter can be pushed out but through which nothing can go in. This is the inverse of a black hole, something through which matter can be sucked in but through which nothing can come out. I think every black hole from one 'perspective' is a white hole from another perspective, and that all of the multiverse is connected together with black:white holes.
Of course this is just my understanding as a layperson. Theoretical physics is a bit too much for me to really grasp at a detailed level. However, if you are interested in reading more about this you could look up 'eternal inflation' and 'white holes'.
-
eternally there are pseudo-vacuums in space that inflate and are filled with intrinsic energy, and eventually the vacuum deteriorates and all of the energy inside of it explosively turns into matter.
I also am not a physicist in any way, nor do I claim to have any more than a VERY rudimentary understanding of physics.
However, in order for a "vacuum" to inflate, there must be something outside of the vacuum that already exists in which the vacuum can inflate relative to. In addition, how is it possible that the energy you speak of (or the vacuum for that matter) exists?
As soon as we dive into an argument about someTHING that "caused" matter, we find ourselves in the same predicament which my OP seeks to address: "HOW" has that thing come to be?
How has the energy been created? ... How has a vacuum been created (for surely, in order for a vacuum to exist, there must be something relative to it that the vacuum is able to "inflate into)...
It doesn't really *matter* (lol) whether we seek to define where matter, energy, or anything else came into existance... the essence of the question is the same: How has shit come to be?!?