Position:Home>Philosophy> My theory of reality. What do you think?
Question: My theory of reality!. What do you think!?
Sorry in advance for such a long submission/question!. I'd really like to know if anybody follows this, and what do you think about it!?
When I was young, I encountered the story of Descartes' adventures inside the stove (he hid in an "isolation tank" to analyze how the world worked, and came up with "I am because I think I am!.") This explanation of existence seemed not fully formed to me, because the instantaneousness of perception does not entail self-awareness per se!. When I "experience something" (Descartes' "think") I pick out an object!. If I did not differentiate object-non-object pairs, I did not "think!." So MY very existence is based on consciousness as SEPARATION of reality into objects and not-objects!. The non-object is just as real as the object, like one of those silhouettes that are both a candlestick and two faces!.
http://www!.photopenfathor!.com/images/fac!.!.!.I was helped by an idea that I have heard attributed to hinduism, the idea that consciousness (or life,) consumes reality like a fire, and that what exists before and after experience is like kindling to ash!. (This means that consciousness fundamentally destroys reality much like fire destroys wood!.)
Now I understood that perception is defined by experience and experience is "altered" by perception (particularly in that what is, is "split" by perception into categories and substrata that probably only exist as a function of consciousness!.) What was so was not as "complicated" as what seemed!.
So the non-percieved reality is much closer to a "whole" than what we see, with our "mental splitter!." To know something is to dissect it, and to atomize it, more or less!. I came to believe that everything that looks this way or that, is a reflection of the whole, rather than autonomous pieces!. Consciousness is looking, as it were, through a shattered mirror and seeing thousands of varied reflection of the same thing!.
As a teen I had a revelation that the number 0 the letter o and the circle O were all the same thing!. O represents the universe as a whole, o represents any given part of it, and 0 represents non-existent but functionally participatory potential (such as potential particles in the workings of the quantum physics description of the electron!.) Just like the candlestick/faces puzzle, being and nothing were "facets" that mirrored the whole!.
This means that every component of the universe is a REPLICA of the whole universe (to see more about this, search: Mandelbrot Sets, Recessive Wallpapering and Complexity Theory!.) It also means that the void part of the universe (potential) determines the ACTUAL parts of the universe, and that things that really are are imaginary also!.
Anything is everything and nothing at the same time!
Well!? Opinions!?
Www@QuestionHome@Com
well done!. actually, i have come to the same conclusion as well (funny how that works)!. im familiar with most of this, except the hindu concept!. if u could say a little more, or point to where i could find out about it myself, it would be greatly appreciated!.
your 0 o O idea was particularly interesting!. I came up with something somewhat related!. a 3-part ratio!.!. which comes from combining the two equal ratios ( 0:1 ) and ( 1:∞ ), so it looks like ( 0:1:∞ )!.
∞ is the universe as a whole, 0 is void - the same as yours, and 1 represents any particular part (and i suppose you could differentiate between particular parts by referring to them as 1, 2, 3!.!.!., etc!. - because mathematically, in the ratio, all the different numbers fit exactly the same, yet obviously each individual number differs from all the others under normal circumstances!.
also ive heard fractals are similarly related to the idea that every component of the universe is a replica of the whole!.
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Fractal
feels good to know there are others out there coming to like understandings!. take care brotherWww@QuestionHome@Com
Is the moon a firmament or a hole in the sky!? When I look at the night sky I see the sky as a solid and the moon is a cutout!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
!.!.!.i agree, again!.!.!.thanks for sharing!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
You put way too much thought into this, lol!. But you're definitely making some sense!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Yes!.
i had a look at some of ur previous answers;they were in the same vein as this question;contradictory!.
Its likely that you are missing something;you seem to be in"that ( )void part of the universe!.!.!.that really are imaginary also"!.
You seem to want to know what the "oracle(s)"are thinking;
You also talk of being "young"when you learned something of decarte's theories;perhaps you are stuck for another wise past master to encounter!.
i doubt,though,that hinduism will fill that particular void;although,if you have had your "fill" of modern explanations,re!.the "search" involving mandelbrot sets/recessive wallpapering and Complexity theory;then you may be receptive to a more fruitful criticism of the interpretation of some of these modern phenomenons!.
Of course,you would have to do some work to further understand and fix them into a more workable scenario!.(I would suggest a practical scenario too)!.
In this way your theory-of-reality could take-on a life that would be purposeful and discoverable,rather than oracular and inventive!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com
I think the void is only conceptual, and is employed as a contemplative tool because finite fragmented mind cannot accommodate infinite reality!. The void is a conceptual inversion of infinite ultimate reality for the sake of convenience!.
Your cosmology is essentially similar to what has been described as a holographic universe where an imprecise approximation to the whole is contained in any fragment of it!. You have taken this idea one step further and said that all is mind, so this cosmology becomes a metaphysical idea!.
Your fragments of the mirror that reflect the fire might be called the soul, perhaps what the Hindu's call Jivaatma!. The individual is that fragment divided in to perceptions!.
Now what if each fragment, reflecting the whole in a discrete fashion, in some way "colours" the fragment!? Since all fragments reflect the whole differently, then all fragments would exhibit different "colours"!. Now consider what if the whole, itself, is the collection of all the colours of an infinite number of such fragments!?
Under such circumstance the whole, being infinite, would ultimately be fully indescribable - it couldn't fit into finite mind, hence, any world view would only be an approximation!.
But, parts of the whole would consist of finite numbers of pinpoints of "colour" that could be delineated by mind accurately!. Unlike for example, if it were the case that the holistic fire of the whole were some kind of continuous analogue field, in which case the descriminating lines that divide it would only approximate the borders of things - i!.e the real border - (under higher magnification) would likely fall one side or the other of the descriminated border which defines what is perceived - and hence would be render the descrimination meaningless or at least totally subjective!.
If the infinite pixel model of the whole is correct, then the "things" we perceive actually exist!!!
This would imply that locally things can be accurately described, but totally how they behave will be uncertain, because no discrete description held in finite mind can fully contain the nuances of the infinite!. This model suggests that we can formulate physical laws, but they will always contain uncertainty!.
It also suggests a God - paramatma, but not a Top-Down God but a Bottom-Up emergent God, which has a holographic recursive fractal nature!.
Now if the same dividing principle that creates perceptions and ego is what also divides jivaatma from paramatma to create the id, then, we are God, the dreamer of the dream, experiencing herself subjectively!.
I like your idea, but, I think stuff really does actually exist - we are just not sure what it is yet, and probably never can be!.
EDIT: The point is the original loaf is not a loaf - it is undefinable, it is the source!. Only the sections after the cut are definable and therefore have any meaning!.
For example, the following is not a perfect analogy but it will do!. Take the pacific ocean, its not infinite admittedly, but it is close enough for our analogy, - this is your loaf, we cannot define what it is, its beyond us!. Yet I can take a cup and scoop a cupful of water from that ocean and I will have a cupful of water!.
Or look at it another way, say the ocean was comprised of small beads!. The cup would have a finite number of small beads of various sorts and thus be fully defined!. But if the ocean was infinite, we could never describe it, certainly not in terms of the beads that it is comprised of, be that description be of number or quality!. Hope that clarifies!.
The important detail is that if the all-pervasive spirit-reality is a continuum then it cannot be divided accurately therefore all divisions are arbitrary - meaning every "thing" is illusory!. But if the all-pervasive-spirit-reality is pixellated albeit of infinite extent, then finite collections of pixels can be grouped - then the groupings are not arbitrary but real!. Yes, you could still make different groupings, but that would be like a wheel being part of a car - separate things, different groupings, but still real!. If ultimate reality were a continuous field however, then the border between car and wheel would be arbitrary, you could draw it anywhere!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It seems to me that you're working much too hard at this!. Part of the problem for me is that I don't see you mentioning anything about our capacity to love or the power and importance of love in our lives!. It could be that our collective consciousnesses determine the universe, and it also could be that our consciousnesses aren't collective!. Or, maybe they act collectively some of the time!. What we do know to be true is that we do have consciousnesses, and they exist for us to perceive the world, make decisions and have other experiences!. You can draw whatever conclusions from that you want!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
You seem to delve in to some Platonic Theory of Forms which I did some workk with many years ago while working with 18th=century British aesthetics!. Your interpretation of Descartes---cogito ergo sum or auf Deutsch, dene also bin ich is rich with great clarity and definitive points, don't stop writing!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
All is One, and One is All!.
From the largest to the smallest!.
From the smallest to the largest!.
All is One, and One is All!.
Everything is connected!.
The seen and the unseen!.
God and mankind!.
Mankind and God!.
Each mind is a universe in motion!.
Each motion is by the design of Allah/God!.
As it IS above so it IS below!.
As it was in the "beginning" so shall it be in the "end", by His command, for in truth, we are merely the custodians of His creation+
Many thanks!. I enjoyed your question+
Www@QuestionHome@Com
reality is defined by your own being and existence!. you cannot ask others opinion on your personal definition because validation would only make you question your own solidity in life!.
But i do find your fascination with the number 0 in your teen years to be very interesting!. I was fascinated by the number 9!.
Theory has it that the human mind has a hard time comprehending things that are not straight or structured!. Anything that has curves or wiggles are considered foreign and too complex to understand!. Hence, our brain is the least most understood organ!. Human prefer things to be "straight to the point" and "ironed out"!. That's why nature is often enjoyed by people rather than comprehending it--most of things found in natures are not straight edge (ie, trees, leaves, mountains, waves)
But!.!.it comes back to my point of you being fascinated by the number 0!. This must be your first time awaken by the consciousness of life and marks your first love/experience to a higher thinking ---thinking that does not involve lines and squares!. Www@QuestionHome@Com