Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Regardless of which school of thought one follows and identify oneself with a source (God, Alien, Energy, Simulation, Soul), there's no denying that we can't and perhaps will never have evidence of that source and what even created that source.
Take big bang - we know space and time began from it but we don't know what existed prior to it. We don't know what happened at that exact moment to begin space and time.
And, then, humans themselves have history of thousands of years only which is speck of dust in terms of the time Dinosaurs ruled - let alone in terms of the life span of Universe.
We are cognitively advanced, but temporarily and spatially? We are insignificant.
Every school of thought - philosophy and religion, give a source of existence to people - a hope because randomness is hard to believe. It's because we crave order - a meaning
But, it's the randomness what we see more often than any deterministic aspect.
Take big bang - we know space and time began from it but we don't know what existed prior to it. We don't know what happened at that exact moment to begin space and time.
And, then, humans themselves have history of thousands of years only which is speck of dust in terms of the time Dinosaurs ruled - let alone in terms of the life span of Universe.
We are cognitively advanced, but temporarily and spatially? We are insignificant.
Every school of thought - philosophy and religion, give a source of existence to people - a hope because randomness is hard to believe. It's because we crave order - a meaning
But, it's the randomness what we see more often than any deterministic aspect.
Last edited:
Doesnt make sense, using the scientific method, try to find what you called the source. Natural science try to understand how the physical objects works, and predict the behavior of the physical objects, it doesnt try to answer what is the nature of reality. This is a task for philosophy (theres other ways for that too, not only philosophy, not only through a rational path btw)
Absolute randomness is a contraditory idea btw, it just an empty concept. There will always be, at some point, a lvl of determinism, patterns, etc (even if its very insignificant or not)
Absolute randomness is a contraditory idea btw, it just an empty concept. There will always be, at some point, a lvl of determinism, patterns, etc (even if its very insignificant or not)
Last edited:
I’m not arguing that science should define ultimate reality.
I’m saying that even with our best scientific and philosophical tools there is boundary beyond which probably we can't go.
No tool can answer where is the source? From where it came? What was before it? Any tool or system trying to tell us about the source with certainty is making a reach without any proper justification.
Yes there are patterns and some sort of order and laws which the Universe follows but it doesn't imply it has meaning attached to them. They simply exists until we know for sure why they exists which let's be honest - perhaps we never will.
It's Humans tendency to impose meaning even when uncertainty exists. I will be blunt - it makes us feel safer that there is someone out there watching over us.
We consider ourselves logical, seek fact checking and evidences, yet we don't question systems or beliefs which claims to tell us the source or beyond it without any evidence. There is no evidence. There are beliefs and opinions.
Heck, quantum mechanics which describes universe so well in itself is probabilistic and probability is more random than deterministic
I’m saying that even with our best scientific and philosophical tools there is boundary beyond which probably we can't go.
No tool can answer where is the source? From where it came? What was before it? Any tool or system trying to tell us about the source with certainty is making a reach without any proper justification.
Yes there are patterns and some sort of order and laws which the Universe follows but it doesn't imply it has meaning attached to them. They simply exists until we know for sure why they exists which let's be honest - perhaps we never will.
It's Humans tendency to impose meaning even when uncertainty exists. I will be blunt - it makes us feel safer that there is someone out there watching over us.
We consider ourselves logical, seek fact checking and evidences, yet we don't question systems or beliefs which claims to tell us the source or beyond it without any evidence. There is no evidence. There are beliefs and opinions.
Heck, quantum mechanics which describes universe so well in itself is probabilistic and probability is more random than deterministic
1) From the scientific pov, i dont believe we're ever gonna explain these questions you did, because its not science's business to answer that
2) From a philosophical pov, I would say thats is not the business of philosophy to inquire how "the source" really works or where we can find "the source". The philosophy can only say: "the source is this or that" and "Following the logic the properties of the source are this and that".
From a non-dualistic pov (that I believe is real): the source can be accessed by us, not through rationality, but through our internal experience. But in the non-dualistic pov, there is no difference between subject and object, both are the same thing. The sentence "x knows y" is dualistic, but in the non-dualism there is no "x" or "y", only "knows". That means when someone has a non-dualistic experience, this person is not having an experience as if this person is something different from that experience. That means the experience is the only reality and nothing more. The subject is not real per se, nor is the object, both are only part of something called experience. And what you called "source" is the experience, the only thing that is really real.
2) From a philosophical pov, I would say thats is not the business of philosophy to inquire how "the source" really works or where we can find "the source". The philosophy can only say: "the source is this or that" and "Following the logic the properties of the source are this and that".
From a non-dualistic pov (that I believe is real): the source can be accessed by us, not through rationality, but through our internal experience. But in the non-dualistic pov, there is no difference between subject and object, both are the same thing. The sentence "x knows y" is dualistic, but in the non-dualism there is no "x" or "y", only "knows". That means when someone has a non-dualistic experience, this person is not having an experience as if this person is something different from that experience. That means the experience is the only reality and nothing more. The subject is not real per se, nor is the object, both are only part of something called experience. And what you called "source" is the experience, the only thing that is really real.
Well, let's go with experience. Ironically, what I said stands true for this as well.
Yes, it's true that we perceive reality through experience but subjective personal experience cannot be equated with public evidence or justification.
Experience of an individual cannot be used as a verifiable claim to establish certainty about reality
And, then it brings me back to the same question - why experience exists? Why experience is the only thing which is real? Why do we experience?
Regardless of what school of thought one follows - science, religion, philosophy, even experientially - there is a limit beyond which we can't go.
Yes, it's true that we perceive reality through experience but subjective personal experience cannot be equated with public evidence or justification.
Experience of an individual cannot be used as a verifiable claim to establish certainty about reality
And, then it brings me back to the same question - why experience exists? Why experience is the only thing which is real? Why do we experience?
Regardless of what school of thought one follows - science, religion, philosophy, even experientially - there is a limit beyond which we can't go.
You are right, subjective experience cannot be publicly justified, thats why I didnt say "I can prove or justify the source using the internal experience", I said "I can access the source, and experience it". And yes, I can't share rationally this experience to anyone. This only shows how rationality is limited, but not that the experience or conciousness is limited.
I'm tired now, but later I will explain my point of view about these things
I'm tired now, but later I will explain my point of view about these things
Sure!
Experience is limited in a way that it's selective.
Ask yourself - can you experience another person's mind? Can you experience universe beyond the horizon or before big bang?
Can you experience the past and future?
Can you experience yourself from outside?
Even if we stretch your imagination we will still be bounded by what we experience in reality and what we experience is limited because it depends on one's nervous system and biology framework - one's environment.
Experience is limited in a way that it's selective.
Ask yourself - can you experience another person's mind? Can you experience universe beyond the horizon or before big bang?
Can you experience the past and future?
Can you experience yourself from outside?
Even if we stretch your imagination we will still be bounded by what we experience in reality and what we experience is limited because it depends on one's nervous system and biology framework - one's environment.