Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben D, I'm not proposing a mental process. I'm saying first of all that existence makes no sense in terms of cause. You can always ask what causes the cause, recursively. Since existence cannot have a cause it makes no sense. What does make sense? Concepts. They make sense, so perhaps there is no existence. Perhaps everything is actually conceptual, like numbers or like fractals or math functions or order. If you look at all of the numbers, they have infinite complexity, because there is no last number. All information is somewhere in the number line. Absolutely every form or pattern is representable in them, and that would be where the universe actually is. It could simply be that every action we have, every day, every moment is part of number, part of order. To us things appear to be changing, but that could simply be a trick of perspective.

But with due respect Brickjectivity, concepts have no reality except as mental thoughts, what exists is that which the concept represents. Reality itself can not be known through conceptual understanding, it is forever on the other side of the concept. Numbers, words, symbols, etc., are meant to represent something real, but they are not the real they represent, they are only real in their own domain, that of concepts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But with due respect Brickjectivity, concepts have no reality except as mental thoughts. Reality itself can not be known through conceptual understanding, it is forever on the other side of the concept. Numbers, words, symbols, etc., are meant to represent something real, but they are not the real they represent, they are only real in their own domain, that of concepts.

That is a matter of belief. Some people believe that concepts are discovered. Others believe they are created by us or by minds. You can decide what you think, but I will probably always believe that concept exists independent of who discovers it. I understand that all writings and all knowledge all exist in the infinite complexity that is in order. Even all things which seem chaotic appear in the number line, which I believe needs no creating. I view this as a subset of God, something which is part of and exists in God rather than a creation. I think of God as unchanging, and the numberline inherits this property.

There is actually a post I've made with videos by famous Mathematicians discussing this. Some are on your side, and some are on mine. They explain why they think Math is real or is created by us. Incidentally our user Polymath agrees with you that Math and concepts are created by us and are not pre-existing. I think you're both terribly and unfortunately wrong.

Here are those mathematicians: 9 Videos interviewing 8 famous Mathematicians about reality

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is a matter of belief. Some people believe that concepts are discovered. Others believe they are created by us or by minds. You can decide what you think, but I will probably always believe that concept exists independent of who discovers it. I understand that all writings and all knowledge all exist in the infinite complexity that is in order. Even all things which seem chaotic appear in the number line, which I believe needs no creating. I view this as a subset of God, something which is part of and exists in God rather than a creation. I think of God as unchanging, and the numberline inherits this property.

There is actually a post I've made with videos by famous Mathematicians discussing this. Some are on your side, and some are on mine. They explain why they think Math is real or is created by us. Incidentally our user Polymath agrees with you that Math and concepts are created by us and are not pre-existing. I think you're both terribly and unfortunately wrong.

Here are those mathematicians: 9 Videos interviewing 8 famous Mathematicians about reality

The actual real represented by the concept of real exists. The concept of real also exists, but it is only a mental representation of the actual real. If you want to understand reality, you must cease having a concept about reality, The same for the reality represented by the concept of God, if you use your conceptual mind, you can never in all eternity understand that which are trying to understand. Do you understand?

 

[rational experiences]

Well I agree with your points, but the soul of a dead human being still exists, and every atom of the body of a dead human still exists, nothing has gone missing.

To discuss the theist only as consciousness you are just thinking.

The topic theists as humans it meant you know not you the living self owns death. As one day you do die. So your claim I know I am dead yet living to die. I live with the creation.

The deceased human is deceased. Is missing non ability to think be Aware or respond bodily as aware by being oxygenated. Heart beating brain function.

To be dead means removed from as both water and oxygen is removed bodily at death.

The living spirit.

Water can be bodily present without life.

The self argument is if I am the same person deceased as I am alive then I must be living as a dead human from whence I came.

As consciousness summarises what it is and owns. Human. Which also includes ancient first parent memories. Then before their life pre first humans.

Reasoning babies born in ice stable state is not never was first humans.

So you are in fact wrong otherwise no human would ever leave by death.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The actual real represented by the concept of real exists. The concept of real also exists, but it is only a mental representation of the actual real. If you want to understand reality, you must cease having a concept about reality, The same for the reality represented by the concept of God, if you use your conceptual mind, you can never in all eternity understand that which are trying to understand. Do you understand?

You can't assure me of the thing you are asserting. Is 1, 2, 3 discovered or pre-existing? Its a matter of opinion, since as far as we can know it is a feature of order. Is it increasingly complex? Yes as far as we can know by induction the numbers only grow in complexity. Can all information be represented therein? As far as we can know it might. Is there any way that it wouldn't? We don't know. Therefore its entirely possible and a matter of opinion.

Why I come down on this side is as I say before. Existence makes no sense, because every cause has to have another cause. Concept is the only exception.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't assure me of the thing you are asserting. Is 1, 2, 3 discovered or pre-existing? Its a matter of opinion, since as far as we can know it is a feature of order. Is it increasingly complex? Yes as far as we can know by induction the numbers only grow in complexity. Can all information be represented therein? As far as we can know it might. Is there any way that it wouldn't? We don't know. Therefore its entirely possible and a matter of opinion.

Why I come down on this side is as I say before. Existence makes no sense, because every cause has to have another cause. Concept is the only exception.

First let me say we need to be seen as not having a debate on this issue, hopefully we can discuss the matter cordially. If you consider anything I say as debating, I apologize and will withdraw immediately from further discussion.
First, let us agree that the meaning of the word 'concept' is thought or ideation..
The thought of 'existence' is just that, a thought, existence otoh is reality itself, it is not a thought, it is not a concept. So what I am trying to convey is that the concept/thought of existence is not existence, it is an thought representing existence. Are you with me?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The self argument is if I am the same person deceased as I am alive then I must be living as a dead human from whence I came.
.

Ok rational experience, I can't follow al lot of your post so I chose this to comment on as to my understanding.

A person who is deceased does not exist any longer. The soul of a person who is deceased still exists for it is spiritual and not physical.

 

[rational experiences]

Ok rational experience, I can't follow al lot of your post so I chose this to comment on as to my understanding.

A person who is deceased does not exist any longer. The soul of a person who is deceased still exists for it is spiritual and not physical.

The thinker of any subject is a living conscious human. Bio life body is not just consciousness.

Bio conscious human theist pretends science is just his thoughts.

Death. A human is no longer body functioning in oxygenation.

Reason we age as bio form as we live being sacrificed by caused fallout of man. Removes water mass and re oxygenation of bio life all day long.

Atmospheric fallout.

When you die consciousness human the owner is gone.

Scientific heavens reactive conditions states whilst you lived your life was recorded. Your Living life recorded remains as a recording only but the conscious owner no longer owns it.

God does by teaching heavens gas status owns the recording causes in the water oxygen status. Where we live why clouds using water projects images.

We are not clouds as it is reactive causes.

That advice proves no man is God. As you lived died as the bio human.

For a scientist claiming they will find God by attacking sacrificing life living by machines is wrong. Earths heavens as mass owns the fallout. Not your machine.

If natural heavens owns it you copy as science by getting fallout inside your machine reaction yourselves nuclear mass of stone as I can copy God of the heavens. Says the inhumane scientist.

Water as mass was formed in space involving pressure of space. Hence in science bio life has nothing at all to do with spatial pre creations.

Father told me this advice for his science lying son Mr I do not know it all...never will know it all...but I will abuse anything to try to find answers as a human liar.

Science has never owned the spatial pressure creations. Each form is ended as it's formed form for you to discuss it. Our human self is present ended as a human but we end again in human death.

Which Satanists theists ignore. They could care less if we die unnaturally.

To science that claim to own two ends meant in a sick irradiated theism that you came back to die. As if first human not deceased never owned death miraculously.

Why they falsely said we came back from being dead.

Their science theism said an atom reacted after the reaction a human was formed.

The ancient human life destruction given by the human status science as science said I gave you your second death by atom nuclear reaction.

We only ever owned one human death as natural. As we do already die.

Science claiming. Human as the human is ended in a creation status. Finished.

Yet we do die. Humans can die at any stage of their life in vitro to baby toddler teenager adult or old human.

Thinking incorrectly made you think incorrectly. Self basic status as a human you lie for self statuses.

Sick minds quote. An atom exists as it ended as the atom.

I will compare biology a human is a human as it ended as a human. An atom.

No comparison whatsoever you do all the choosing yourselves.

Science can react the atom as it's end was known....hence science got energy.

It is why satanisms today compare a human owning an end to the atom as they intend trying to react us also. By pretending a human owns two deaths. A human not dead at all and the atoms destruction.

The claim in science is I can give you human instant death.
Theism. Confessions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The actual real represented by the concept of real exists. The concept of real also exists, but it is only a mental representation of the actual real. If you want to understand reality, you must cease having a concept about reality, The same for the reality represented by the concept of God, if you use your conceptual mind, you can never in all eternity understand that which are trying to understand. Do you understand?

I disagree. I probably do not misunderstand what you're saying.

The terminology is getting confusing though. 'Mental representation' is what I have in my mind. Another way to describe it is that its my perception. Using your words I think 'Actual real' things are abstract relationships like 1 + 1 is 2; however my own thoughts and actions are static parts of this unchanging. To me they may appear changing. I perceive my thoughts as changing and my life as a time experience, but my thoughts and actions aren't so complex that they cannot be lower dimensional shadows of some unchanging relation between numbers or forms that are unchanging.

My perception is that things are happening, that I am alive, that I then die, that I was and then was not. That is however me limiting the universe to my own experience, me thinking that the universe is changing, thinking that there is another reality beyond this. It is me imposing my perception onto the actual. In truth the universe may not even change and may simply be a very complicated relation and I simply a tiny smear in it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I disagree. I probably do not misunderstand what you're saying.

The terminology is getting confusing though. 'Mental representation' is what I have in my mind. Another way to describe it is that its my perception. Using your words I think 'Actual real' things are abstract relationships like 1 + 1 is 2; however my own thoughts and actions are static parts of this unchanging. To me they may appear changing. I perceive my thoughts as changing and my life as a time experience, but my thoughts and actions aren't so complex that they cannot be lower dimensional shadows of some unchanging relation between numbers or forms that are unchanging.

My perception is that things are happening, that I am alive, that I then die, that I was and then was not. That is however me limiting the universe to my own experience, me thinking that the universe is changing, thinking that there is another reality beyond this. It is me imposing my perception onto the actual. In truth the universe may not even change and may simply be a very complicated relation and I simply a tiny smear in it.

No we are not on the same wavelength yet, you are not understanding what I am trying to convey. If I may, please bear with me.

Take the moon, I am looking at it, I try to describe to you the moon I am seeing. No matter how well I describe it, the moon remains oblivious and untouched by our conceptual exchange. The concept of the moon is not the moon. Real things are not concepts, concepts refer to a real thing but are not that which they are meant to represent or refer to.

What I am trying to convey is not complicated, in fact quite simple, logical, and common sense. The concept of the moon is not the real honest to goodness object in space we see and call the moon.

That is all I am trying to convey, form there we can see that this principle applies to all conceptualization.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No we are not on the same wavelength yet, you are not understanding what I am trying to convey. If I may, please bear with me.

Take the moon, I am looking at it, I try to describe to you the moon I am seeing. No matter how well I describe it, the moon remains oblivious and untouched by our conceptual exchange. The concept of the moon is not the moon. Real things are not concepts, concepts refer to a real thing but are not that which they are meant to represent or refer to.

What I am trying to convey is not complicated, in fact quite simple, logical, and common sense. The concept of the moon is not the real honest to goodness object in space we see and call the moon.

That is all I am trying to convey, form there we can see that this principle applies to all conceptualization.

Yes I grasp that we perceive nothing directly. I understand you are saying so. I too am saying that our perception of what we are is perhaps false or very different from what is.

The OP is asking could the universe create itself. I beg the question how the universe can exist at all. Existence implies cause, but there can be no first cause that satisfies questioning. If we identify a cause we can always ask "Well then what causes that cause?" One exception I have seen to this, and it is numbers. It answers for me the question about the universe. Like the numbers I simply think the universe is a pattern, something which doesn't need to be created. Perhaps all is ghost or is empty form.

The actual real represented by the concept of real exists. The concept of real also exists, but it is only a mental representation of the actual real. If you want to understand reality, you must cease having a concept about reality, The same for the reality represented by the concept of God, if you use your conceptual mind, you can never in all eternity understand that which are trying to understand. Do you understand?

Understanding it in all of its complexity? No, not me.

I am able to conjecture about whether we exist and how it might be. The common human mental representation of reality says we are solid, that we experience time, that yesterday is gone; but Einstein showed this to be wrong. Einstein showed that perception to be false. Fact is that yesterday is not gone and is merely separated from us by a dimension called time. All times are part of a single universe. People who to us are dead live in a neighboring time called the past and are not dead there. We can't see them, yet they are as real as we. They are ghosts to us, and we are as ghosts to them. Considering these things I ask do we exist? My answer is no. We don't exist at least not as we imagine existence. We exist like numbers do, like a pattern. This answers for me the question of whether the universe creates itself. My opinion only.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes I grasp that we perceive nothing directly. I understand you are saying so. I too am saying that our perception of what we are is perhaps false or very different from what is.
The OP is asking could the universe create itself. I beg the question how the universe can exist at all. Existence implies cause, but there can be no first cause that satisfies questioning. If we identify a cause we can always ask "Well then what causes that cause?" One exception I have seen to this, and it is numbers. It answers for me the question about the universe. Like the numbers I simply think the universe is a pattern, something which doesn't need to be created. Perhaps all is ghost or is empty form.

I just can't imagine a beginning of the universe, nor can I imagine the reciprocal, everything that exists to disappear. What does make sense to me is that the universe is eternal, it had no beginning nor will it have an ending, it has always been so. Of course I am not talking about form, all form must have had a beginning and definitely will have an ending.

Understanding it in all of its complexity? No, not me.
I am able to conjecture about whether we exist and how it might be. The common human mental representation of reality says we are solid, that we experience time, that yesterday is gone; but Einstein showed this to be wrong. Einstein showed that perception to be false. Fact is that yesterday is not gone and is merely separated from us by a dimension called time. All times are part of a single universe. People who to us are dead live in a neighboring time called the past and are not dead there. We can't see them, yet they are as real as we. They are ghosts to us, and we are as ghosts to them. Considering these things I ask do we exist? My answer is no. We don't exist at least not as we imagine existence. We exist like numbers do, like a pattern. This answers for me the question of whether the universe creates itself. My opinion only.

I must admit I don't see time as being anything but a mental concept, there is no time in the context of the eternal universe, it just exists always. For a temporal creature like man who observes the passing of days, lunar cycles, pendulum swings, etc., and measures 'time', it is a wonderful creation, but time as an entity does not exist. Thus my mind contemplates timelessness which brings about the transcendence of the thinking mind, peace beyond understanding.

 

[night912]

Yes I grasp that we perceive nothing directly. I understand you are saying so. I too am saying that our perception of what we are is perhaps false or very different from what is.

The OP is asking could the universe create itself. I beg the question how the universe can exist at all. Existence implies cause, but there can be no first cause that satisfies questioning. If we identify a cause we can always ask "Well then what causes that cause?" One exception I have seen to this, and it is numbers. It answers for me the question about the universe. Like the numbers I simply think the universe is a pattern, something which doesn't need to be created. Perhaps all is ghost or is empty form.


Understanding it in all of its complexity? No, not me.

I am able to conjecture about whether we exist and how it might be. The common human mental representation of reality says we are solid, that we experience time, that yesterday is gone; but Einstein showed this to be wrong. Einstein showed that perception to be false. Fact is that yesterday is not gone and is merely separated from us by a dimension called time. All times are part of a single universe. People who to us are dead live in a neighboring time called the past and are not dead there. We can't see them, yet they are as real as we. They are ghosts to us, and we are as ghosts to them. Considering these things I ask do we exist? My answer is no. We don't exist at least not as we imagine existence. We exist like numbers do, like a pattern. This answers for me the question of whether the universe creates itself. My opinion only.

That's special pleading. You said that existence implies that there is a cause, and yet, according to you, numbers also exist but does not require a cause.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's special pleading. You said that existence implies that there is a cause, and yet, according to you, numbers also exist but does not require a cause.

I misspoke but a previous post better represents my meaning.

Then I'll change to say existence doesn't imply cause. Cause, however, does imply cause. Overall I still get to make my point. Those who insist (not me) that there has to be a cause for physical existence have a problem, since each cause must have another cause. I did actually say this in a previous post in the thread here: Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist? There is a problem with presupposing physical existence is caused. You can always ask recursively what the cause of the cause is.

That being said I can't see whether the physical universe has a cause, but I can think of numbers as something that may not have a cause.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That being said I can't see whether the physical universe has a cause, but I can think of numbers as something that may not have a cause.

Numbers don't have a cause because they don't exist except as concepts, and all concepts have a cause, a thinker conceives them.