An Idea

[Profpat]

Hi Guys;

I REALLY don't want to get into a philosophic discussion here on semantics, but I find a thought is a REAL THING. You may disagree and thats OK.

re·al1 (rl, rl) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

1. 1. <LI type=a>Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness. <LI type=a>True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
   2. Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.
2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility.
3. Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend.
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.
5. Not to be taken lightly; serious: in real trouble.
6. Philosophy Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
7. Relating to, being, or having value reckoned by actual purchasing power: real income; real growth.
8. Physics Of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.
9. Mathematics Of, relating to, or being a real number.
10. Law Of or relating to stationary or fixed property, such as buildings or land.

Best to all,

Pat

[Drifter]

What about, say . . . the "I" thought?

Hi Guys;

I REALLY don't want to get into a philosophic discussion here on semantics, but I find a thought is a REAL THING. You may disagree and thats OK.

re·al1 (rl, rl) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

1. 1. <LI type=a>Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness. <LI type=a>True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
   2. Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.
2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility.
3. Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend.
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.
5. Not to be taken lightly; serious: in real trouble.
6. Philosophy Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
7. Relating to, being, or having value reckoned by actual purchasing power: real income; real growth.
8. Physics Of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.
9. Mathematics Of, relating to, or being a real number.
10. Law Of or relating to stationary or fixed property, such as buildings or land.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

What about, say . . . the "I" thought?

I'm a little confused here Drifter. I'm not sure what you mean by the ' I " thought.

Also I have no problem with the concept of Eternal Return ( Your link ). I don't know if it's true, but it could be.

Best,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

All your examples are unprovable outside of the philosophical rendering you cited - #6. - and even that alleged "objective existence" must be based on subjective processes.

The only means of proving there is no objective reality beyond a reasonable doubt is by logical implication. That reality can be said to exist within non existence; it can be said that a house can exist with no outside.

Just because you feel it, doesn't make it real; and just because we can refer to abstracts as real, like "real numbers," doesn't make them real either.

[Profpat]

All your examples are unprovable outside of the philosophical rendering you cited - #6. - and even that alleged "objective existence" must be based on subjective processes.

The only means of proving there is no objective reality beyond a reasonable doubt is by logical implication. That reality can be said to exist within non existence; it can be said that a house can exist with no outside.

Just because you feel it, doesn't make it real; and just because we can refer to abstracts as real, like "real numbers," doesn't make them real either.

I'm really getting lost now guys. I guess the universe can exist with no outside

[N0B0DY]

If you guess that based solely on opposing me, then I guess you're right.

We have to consider that the big-bang model was created, ex-nihilo, by a catholic scientist based on biblical renderings, and has been modified based on it being too illogical to bear.

[dipayankar]

I believe matter was created not by God, but by some process which is unknown to us...

Hi Dipayankar;

Here's the problem, you can either believe something from nothing, not to logical.
Or you can believe something is Eternal. Again not to logical.
Do you have a third possibility? I'd love to hear it.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

If you guess that based solely on opposing me, then I guess you're right.

We have to consider that the big-bang model was created, ex-nihilo, by a catholic scientist based on biblical renderings, and has been modified based on it being too illogical to bear.

Hi Nobody;

You take things far too personal, what do you mean "based solely on opposing me". I may or may not agree with your definition, but that doesn't equate with me opposing you.

I believe thought is a real thing and I guess you don't, and so we'll just have to agree that we disagree on that subject.

Additionally, I don't care if the "big bang" theory was Satan's own theory, it's either right or wrong. Oh I forgot you don't think right or wrong is relevant. Well I do.

It's the most accepted theory by most cosmologist, physicist, and mathematicians. It's part of the standard model. It was accepted by Einstein and Hawkings.

I hope you're not offended by any thing in this post, because truly that is not my intention.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

No, I don't get offended, Pat, but when you complained about my monster ton overshadowing your idea and I come here to focus on the cause of the idea via the cause of the root point of one-dimesnional strings, explaining that existence cannot exist within non existence, and you respond with, "I guess the universe can exist with no outside?", it tells me something about your intentions.

[Drifter]

I'm a little confused here Drifter. I'm not sure what you mean by the ' I " thought.

Also I have no problem with the concept of Eternal Return ( Your link ). I don't know if it's true, but it could be.

Best,

Pat

Look in vain for "I"
It's one of the terms you employ most frequently. During the day, the word "I" crops up in nearly all your sentences. Since your most tender childhood you have ceased referring to yourself by your own first name. "I" has become the word by which you express your desires, disappointments, projects, hopes, acts of all kinds, physical sensations, illnesses, pleasures, plans, resentment, tenderness, your weakness for vanilla and your aversion to fennel. For a long, long time you have linked this tiny word to your multifarious mental states. It is intimately involved in your feelings and your memories. Apparently, nothing is possible without it. It is there in all your stories and all your judgements. Not a single decision, not the slightest rumination escapes it.
The curious thing is, everyone uses the same word. The most irreducible intimacy, the most singular existence, for each one of us, is linked to a word that we neither chose nor coined, and that everyone else employs in exactly the same way. A pronoun in the language. There's nothing less personal than this "personal" pronoun. The particular existence it refers to remains, linguistically speaking, completely interchangeable. It could be anyone who says "I'm happy" or "I'm sad." All of us, in all our difference, refer to ourselves by exactly the same word as everyone else. A most paradoxical situation. But you don't think about it, and nor does anyone else, of course. You have enough to do without worrying your head about questions of that order.
And yet, try to pin down this "I." Does it exist? How can you find it? What does it look like? If you apply yourself to asking these questions, and trying to resolve them, you'll find that this "I" is neither simple to localize nor to authenticate.
This is not a brief experiment, whose limits are easy to circumscribe. It can come to seem, on the contrary, like a long pursuit. You need time, different occasions, a certain application, and stubbornness. So where is this blindingly obvious "I?" You will seek for a long time, in different places and under different aspects. And there is a strong chance that, at the end of it all, you'll return somewhat at a loss. Which is where things start to get interesting.
Among the avenues of inquiry you might like to pursue, it's worth remembering the existence of the body. Is not this "I," which is both individual and yet assimilable to others, in fact identical with the body that houses it, with its habits, its weaknesses, its vulnerabilities and its particularities? But there's no trace of an "I" in your body. Not one of your cells lives longer than ten years. No part of your body has persisted unchanged. So what will you address as "I?" The form? The ensemble? The general organization? There remains, famously, the phenomenon of thought. All may change, but not your memories, not your sense of remaining unchanged despite corporeal alterations. But even here, you cannot put your finger on an "I." All you will ever discover are thoughts, sequences of thoughts, memories, associations of ideas, desires-all of them pressed into service by what you call your "I."
To all these sensations, to all these mental events, the "I" seems to provide a common denominator. But it neither supports nor drives them. It merely imparts to them something like a family resemblance, a shared aspect to what are very diverse notions and feelings-something like a color or an odor. A way of seeming, a style. Nothing more. "I" is not a someone or a something. And yet neither is it just a word. It must be a refrain of the self, a secondary quality, at one remove.
If you manage to carry the experiment thus far, you will need to know what to do about this sensation. What impact will this impossible discovery about your "I" have upon your existence? How will you cope once your "I" has gone missing? That is another story.