Something we often miss.

[peter]

Many people are absolutely fast in their conviction that 'this is all there ' is, that there can be no continued being after death, and it has to be said that in the face of the success and strength of the 'scientific enlightenment' of our age this would need seem to be the most rational position to take. I however take into mind at least one (small?) caveat - that the limited possibility of any future existence post mortem pales into insignificance when set against the absolute impossibility (in comparative terms) of our being here in the first place.
It should be noted that in saying this, I'm not so much refering to our having come about (by what ever means) in an already existant universe - although, God knows, the likely occurrence of even life (in terms of its complex biochemistry), let alone sentience and self awareness, having occured even in such a place is unlikely to the n'th degree - but I mean that actual 'being' itself should be the case as opposed to non-being. This is the great impossibility beside which the possibility of getting another piece of the action post death must seem in comparison almost like an odds on favourite. Of course the 'I' that each of us is lumbered with is not likely to figure in the deal - but in truth, when you get to my age the I of the day before yesterday sometimes struggles to do so, so that should be of minimal concern and (even though it's not of itself impossible) should not really be part of our thinking too much. Besides which - and I can only speak for myself here - the idea of being able to start again from scratch, a clean slate as it were , is not without it's appeal to one who has perhaps not always been 'the best person that they could'. Besides which (again), why feel constrained by the limitations of 'being as you've experienced it' this time around, if you're going to think along these lines (and I hope you do because all of a sudden Peter Pan's observations on death don't seem so far off after all) then you might as well embrace all of the possibilities (as well as the virtual impossibilities, which we know by our having this exchange at all, have a habit of occuring) and let your imagination soar. Belief in the possibility of impossibility is after all, non zero-sum.

[Vraith]

Belief in the possibility of impossibility is after all, non zero-sum.

Are you sure?
It seems you believe in the impossibility of the possible...for instance...

There's a very strong argument that things exist BECAUSE infinite non-existence of some universe [meta-infinite? cuz time would be non-existent, too...?] is UNSTABLE.
OTOH, I haven't seen any actual argument/evidence...just "is my blue your blue" assumptions/ponderings...that nothing is MORE likely/rational/probable than something.

Becoming-living, once you have a stable universe [and eventually non-existence's instability will produce a stable one] is just as likely [or more] to have the odds stacked in its favor as against it.
[[after all, we have only one universe we know of so far...and it has at LEAST one intelligent living species. If we ever find evidence of even one more, all the junk about "unlikely" and "special" become absurd]]

Once living DOES exist, though, it has to follow the rules of that universe...
so there has to be some measurable/existent property and structure that supports after-living.

Believing in the possibility of the impossible, historically/empirically, CAN be non-zero. But is less than zero more often than more than zero.

No one should believe in the impossible, only in the possible.
But everyone should be very, very careful about thinking they know what things are which. [[some are easy, some the opposite. And I should sometimes take my own advice and be more cautious.]]
[[related to what I said to someone, Fist I think, before: I can't show that NO god exists. But it's pretty easy to show the ones described so far can't be what is claimed.]]

[peter]

Why should then the 'instability of non-exstance' not equally apply to the odd quantum pattern that constitutes (what in my poor understanding of truth I classify as) me as to Universes? Besides which V, I'm not convinced this approach provides any reliable answer. The being versus non being argument is as slippery as an eel in that in order for non being to have instability it is required in at least some sense to be being. Thus the problem is just removed by one step. This might seem an inadequate answer - I concede this - but I think at least serves to illustrate that our thinking on this is in some way inadequate or perhaps even limited to a degree that we cannot even comprehend - and could never do so - the true glories of what it is (and isn't) to be.

(Thought experiment; describe a form of being that bears no similarity - none - to the nature of being that you currently understand.)

[Vraith]

Why should then the 'instability of non-exstance' not equally apply to the odd quantum pattern that constitutes (what in my poor understanding of truth I classify as) me as to Universes?

(Thought experiment; describe a form of being that bears no similarity - none - to the nature of being that you currently understand.)

On the first, most of what I've seen that is on point for that issue [[and to the extent I understand it]] says what I was saying...the fluctuations and such that caused the universe to be happen because non-existence is unstable.
Nothing cannot be [not-be?] in perpetuity.

And yea, it's weird/slippery and not totally comprehended by me.

I've tried your thought experiment a lot.
I argued with WF once, saying we can understand not-being, at least for ourselves, to some extent by "experiencing" general anesthesia or being knocked out while boxing.
BUT---even then, it's only approachable in contrast with being/consciousness, ponderable at the outline/borders, in absence.
I've tried comprehending -1, and i in themselves. [[there's a reason that these things when first taught are almost always done with a visual aid--a number line for -1 showing it in relation to one, with zero between...a 4 quadrant graph usually for i.
There's a reason that someone---Pratchett, maybe, or Adams perhaps said, roughly:
"Imagine an apple. Now take it away. Now take away another one."
A reason that's funny...and both helpful and not really helpful at all.
I've tried to translate/imagine/approach it meditationally [meta-tationally??]
"Sit and breathe. Lose YOUR existence [I/identity]. Now lose the rest of existence."

[peter]

Rather than commenting further at this point V, I'm going to go back and consider what you have already said. When posting yesterday, I was also thinking that there were further points (in relation to your first post obviously) I'd like to make. Suffice to say (another way of saying what I said yesterday really) - it's the is in "not-being is unstable" that is the problem; anything that is is, is not not.

( Forgive me V, but like a man laughing at his own jokes ya gotta do it. I love that last bit!)

[wayfriend]

When I think about the odds of our being here in the first place, I am prompted to consider conditional probability.

The odds of flipping heads ten times in a row is very small. But the odds of flipping heads ten times in a row given that I have already flipped nine in a row is just 50/50. That's conditional probability. There's a "given" that needs to be considered. It's very similar to a causal collapse in quantum physics, in that the "given" part causes certain possibilities to become real, and many more to be lost.

So I consider the difference between the odds of "our being here" from the odds of "our being here given that I am here". Conditional probability comes into play. And the odds of the latter, as you can see, are pretty high.

If we weren't "here", we wouldn't be considering the odds. But that's a possibility that was lost. The odds are now zero. How can we quantify it any other way?

We can imagine a time back when it was a possible possibility, at the dawn of the universe or something. But this even fails. A lot of what makes life possible was decided in the first blip of the eternal timeline. There was no "before" before then. By the time time exists, most of the possibilities of not being here are already lost.

You are left to retreat into those kinds of hypotheticals that the human mind is incapable of comprehending (IMHO). Nothingness. Before Time. Before Existence. No meaningful answer can be deduced from that.

This leaves us open to mysticism. Maybe the universe has a tropism for consciousness. Maybe we are inevitable. Pah. That's a recipe for collective narcissism.

[Fist and Faith]

There's a lot of studying being done and books being written about Complexity and Self-Organization. I've barely started to read into it, so can't say much. But there are clearly forces of order at work. What would the universe be like if there was only entropy, after all.

[Avatar]

When I think about the odds of our being here in the first place, I am prompted to consider conditional probability.

The odds of flipping heads ten times in a row is very small. But the odds of flipping heads ten times in a row given that I have already flipped nine in a row is just 50/50. That's conditional probability. There's a "given" that needs to be considered. It's very similar to a causal collapse in quantum physics, in that the "given" part causes certain possibilities to become real, and many more to be lost.

So I consider the difference between the odds of "our being here" from the odds of "our being here given that I am here". Conditional probability comes into play. And the odds of the latter, as you can see, are pretty high.

If we weren't "here", we wouldn't be considering the odds. But that's a possibility that was lost. The odds are now zero. How can we quantify it any other way?

We can imagine a time back when it was a possible possibility, at the dawn of the universe or something. But this even fails. A lot of what makes life possible was decided in the first blip of the eternal timeline. There was no "before" before then. By the time time exists, most of the possibilities of not being here are already lost.

You are left to retreat into those kinds of hypotheticals that the human mind is incapable of comprehending (IMHO). Nothingness. Before Time. Before Existence. No meaningful answer can be deduced from that.

This leaves us open to mysticism. Maybe the universe has a tropism for consciousness. Maybe we are inevitable. Pah. That's a recipe for collective narcissism.

Good post WF.

--A

[peter]

I think wayfriend's post (and yes it is a good post) serves aptly to illustrate the point that once we start picking apart the nature of being, we find ourselves in a small envelope about which we can comment, surrounded by an infinite (words cannot describe what it is/isn't) about which we cannot. About what goes on or doesn't beyond our brief encounter with being we are not placed to say, and therein lies my hope. A quick story.

It was clear that the Universe was dying. Of this there could be no doubt. The only question that remained was what was to be done about it. After much deliberation they came to the unavoidable conclusion that the only way forward was a new start; literally a Tabula Rasa , a clean sheet onto which nothing - nothing - could be written. Once made, the decision was not so hard to execute. A drawing in (dark matter could be relied on to help with that), the briefest of pauses and then .................BANG!!!

[wayfriend]

................BANG!!![/i]

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... 878#236878

[peter]

As an old country person I knew used to say "Now we're farming!"

[Skyweir]

Suppose you are one of a race of beings. You're curious folk, you believe in a God who created the universe, but you build telescopes and cyclotrons to figure out how the world really works to. Over time, your technology advances. You take control of your own evolution. You take control of the evolution of other species. You're mind becomes more capable, it encompasses more. Communication becomes like the air, it's everywhere, in everything. You terraform planets; you build planets. The barriers between minds break down; the distinction becomes pointless. You put stars where you need them. You create new laws of physics. You reach the edge of the universe, and touch it with the flat of your hand, you say to yourself, I think I can make one of these.

Then you see that the end is nearing; the heat/death of the universe as it collapses back onto itself, becomes a singularity, and then bangs big again. You know that time is circular; the end of the universe is also the beginning.

Now you have a mission. You are like unto the God you once imagined; but not even God can survive the reboot of the universe. But there is something that can be done. It's possible to put the right spin on giant masses, create the right density of quantum particles, adjust the natural laws enough to store your name in the decimal places of pi - with the result that some information will make it through to the other side of the universal singularity.

It is possible, by devoting the remainder of your existence, to affect what happens on the other side of the big bang.

Now it's done. Then the universe is reborn. The seeds you planted into the metafabric of the universe unfold. There is matter. There are stars. There are planets. There is water. There is life. Just as you had intended.

The life crawls out of the water, looks up at the stars, and wonders. How did I come to be? Why am I here? It imagines a God. And then builds a telescope

awesome posting Wayfriend ..

All of them .. including this!!

[Vraith]

awesome posting Wayfriend ..

HAH! YOu say good post, I say WF, STOP stealing my STUFF!
[[not really, there are a lot of variations on that take out there...and mine's more spiral than circular...and it's the INGREDIENTS, not the shape of the pot that matters, right???...
I mean...

right???]]

[wayfriend]

HAH! YOu say good post, I say WF, STOP stealing my STUFF!

I wrote that in 2005; you joined KW in 2008. I stole from you so much it was gone before you even got here!

[Vraith]

HAH! YOu say good post, I say WF, STOP stealing my STUFF!

I wrote that in 2005; you joined KW in 2008. I stole from you so much it was gone before you even got here!

And NOW, to hide your thievery, you're ignoring my time turbulence!



OR the conspiracy theory [[unlike the me and Ussi one, which was false-esque]] that you and I are actually one-ish.
Not EXACTLY one, but an "anexact yet rigorous" shape that infinitely approaches still/while/alternativingly retreating from unity.

[Skyweir]

HAH! YOu say good post, I say WF, STOP stealing my STUFF!

I wrote that in 2005; you joined KW in 2008. I stole from you so much it was gone before you even got here!

And NOW, to hide your thievery, you're ignoring my time turbulence!



OR the conspiracy theory [[unlike the me and Ussi one, which was false-esque]] that you and I are actually one-ish.
Not EXACTLY one, but an "anexact yet rigorous" shape that infinitely approaches still/while/alternativingly retreating from unity.

one or both of you .. could be infamous Time Bandits

[Rawedge Rim]

[Skyweir]

hahaha