How do we exist?

[five sounds]

 

[Zangetshumody]

"Science" encompasses all existence, as abstracted from the noumenon.

It was a fallacy when [MENTION=20790]Zangetshumody[/MENTION] said science cannot equal truth given the confines of its own scope, but what he failed to take into account was that science never sleeps - his argument would be like subtracting one from infinity.

infinity can never be accurately encompassed in a set of data; so in sense it is impervious to evidential inclusion; this fact puts science (the quest for knowledge) in a position where it is incapable of informing a complete understanding of truth [& the truth of existence].

Of course if you wanna turn around and say truth is a lie and science is all we can has:
then I would just hasten to retort: this is why we can't has nice things.

[Just because a process can go on forever [or never sleeps] doesn't mean it can accurately express infinity without resorting to any form of reduction]

I deem it the same as supposing: Science never stops; ergo it will eventually describe how we will be able to construct square circles.

The logically impossible will always be thus.

& Logic is not science, although in some limited sense it is regarded as one of it's premises.
[Of course when you start mixing premises that I would say are essentially not fungible; you get confusion as to the scope of what something is capable of.]


My (personal) opinion:
At the end of the day: the highest understanding science can give us about reality: is that its basic nature is probabilistic (QT). Which to me is another way of saying: start your spiritual journey on the basis of building a spiritual understanding as to the Laws that govern the force and power of probability. Requiring you to understand the (wisest &) purest form "the Word" can be understood by [aka love thy neighbor as thyself (when hearing the Word)]]: 'how you choose to lay "the Word" out in your mind'; and what that Word ends up choosing you for in your life. (In my understanding this is the most basic relationship between man and God). When you see these dynamics at work, then you can explore the wisdom of creation; and not just knowledge of its dissolution.

So yeah, I don't think science is capable of that level of metaphysics.

 

[Zangetshumody]

The question posed; How Do We Exist?

That's certainly debatable as there's more than one theory of cosmological evolution.
Big Bang Theory has stood up to scrutiny quite well but maybe the phrase "according to Hoyle" will someday make a comeback with the Cyclic Theory.

Then there's simulated reality to consider.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
Bostrom's Simulation postulated that we don't actually physically exist but that our perceived consciousness & the universe in which we're led to believe we exist within is merely the result of clever computer programming. What are the odds that we're all nothing more than code within a program & that program was created to entertain the rug-rats of higher beings?
See this brief review. http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html


When I was a preteen I had an experience that caused me to question whether life as I'd perceived it was real or something else. That kinda blew my socks off, had me conjuring up ideas of what life might really be. Some years later I learned of Simulated Reality & I wasn't so quick as others to dismiss the probability.

I don't think the question of How Do We Exist is very important within the grand scheme of things until we can answer Why We Exist.

There can always be speculation as to what is really behind everything in some objective paradigm. But the strange thing is; such thoughts are quite far removed from real understanding that our minds are capable of; and end up looking like grotesque horror sci-fi writing because of the over-emphasis on certain premises that are contextually unimportant to the realization of real human liberty and the minds full utilization.

If you reduce people to programmed thinkers without real choice; some grand narrative is important in order for people to know their place because the ego is tempted into thinking that this answer might bring conclusion or relief in knowing the final formula for life. Science in a sense is a bit like history; you have a thousand historians, and you get a thousand narratives: but how empowering is it really; and how often are people trapped by the narrative?

How we exist to me; is essentially a question that if I had to categorize as a function; would call it an Se question.
How we engage with the true potential we find in immediate wakeful environment. Because that real potential as explored by Se is itself sustained by the 'how we come to exist': and tapping into that will allow us to enjoy an activated Se drive to its full glory that enables us to find ourselves in the right place and the right time.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Opinions of reality vary somewhat among people, you're entitled to yours (even though you're wrong LOL) just as I'm entitled to mine. I don't seek to limit anybodies ideas, I've no need to encourages others to adopt my perspective or embrace my opinions. Each to their own because that's what makes the us all so interesting.





"Programmed thinkers"? I was thinking more along the line of programmed existence, that our perceived consciousness may actually be nothing more than elaborate programming.
One possibility for why some of us seek greater meaning to life or believe there are dimensions hidden from us (a version of M-Theory or Super String Theory) is because reality is multi-demensional but we're trapped within a small slice or universal reality.

I know it's out there & the odds are low but I prefer to consider the possibilities rather than exclude anything that's uncomfortable or unlikely.
See PM

A program doesn't experience its own will; a program is just a process, awareness of meaning is not a process- this is what the word "mind" entails... not that it performs a function, but that it is essentially non-material; and therefore exists beyond mechanical and material record: you can call the mind a different dimension if you want, but its not inaccessible to humans, and it certainly is not gonna be explained and mapped by M-theory or any similar model.

I believe the speculative position in science is a cheap philosophical cult: you are of course entitled to your way of conducting inquiries into big questions, but I would just caution you that adopting a stance that is incapable of respecting and transmitting truth is essentially defeatist. But I guess trading advanced formulations and positions of doubt can be entertaining for a time.

 

[Mole]

we're trapped within a small slice of universal reality.

It's called parochialism.

And so it is important to get out of the intellectual slum.

 

[Mole]

I choose to think for myself rather than accepting everything that books & professors attempt to clog my mind with.

This is the vanity of uneducated.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I've no desire to entertain narrow minded opinions, if you need to right that badly then affix the gold star to your forehead & be confident that you're special.

You may be quite confident that you're familiar with every possible system of programming within the universe but I'm getting that gut feeling that you learned a few things & you need to prove your intelligence to yourself. Knock yourself out but arguing with a wannabe know it all on an internet forum just isn't my thing.

Do you expect the truth to look nebulous? If by narrow mindedness you mean an understanding that's cohesive, cogent and has a solid form, then I guess yes, my mind has narrowed [to exclude: entertaining the likeliness's of philosophical revelings that have no impact on human affairs apart from a pure exercise (and life through) the imagination].

Life is about understanding what to do; not living off sensations gathered in an imagined fortification that is actually just comprised of solitude.