Our Universe is too vast for even the most imaginative sci-fi

[Mindful]

End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.

To add to Mindful 's list of incomprehensible's -- we don't even know what existence is.

Rene Descartes pointed out to us that since we think therefore we exist.

However that's as far as he took it.

Everybody in Philosophy has been wondering about that ever since.

Which begs the age old question: is the moon still there when we are not looking at it?

 

[yiostheoy]

Or maybe we'll have our 'time'. Like the dinosaurs.

When I die I will mostly miss my cat.

If my cat dies after I do then I will worry about the cat being taken care of.

The cat has up to 15 or so more years to live.

I could go another 30 or 40 at most. That would be time for 2 or 3 more cats.

I have raised my cat from his birth one cold night when he crawled into the world and went looking for a nipple to nurse milk from.

From watching the cat and loving it I have learned what it must be like to be an immortal God, at least compared with the cat anyway.

I just hope the immortal God takes care of me and the cat in the future.

Therefore I always try not to anger the God.

 

[yiostheoy]

End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.

To add to Mindful 's list of incomprehensible's -- we don't even know what existence is.

Rene Descartes pointed out to us that since we think therefore we exist.

However that's as far as he took it.

Everybody in Philosophy has been wondering about that ever since.

Which begs the age old question: is the moon still there when we are not looking at it?

The Moon is only a few minutes away -- as is the Sun as well.

Wait a couple of minutes and they both will probably still be shining/reflecting.

What is a bigger dilemma is that of the stars -- they could be all gone by now -- billions of years ago.

 

[Mindful]

The nearest I can wrap my puny brain around is Arthur C Clarke.
His conclusion of Childhood's End.

The Overlords are eager to escape from their own evolutionary dead end by studying the Overmind, so Rodricks's information is potentially of great value to them. By radio, Rodricks describes a vast burning column ascending from the planet. As the column disappears, Rodricks experiences a profound sense of emptiness when the Overlords have gone. Then material objects and the Earth itself begin to dissolve into transparency. Jan reports no fear, but a powerful sense of fulfillment. The Earth evaporates in a flash of light. Karellen looks back at the receding Solar System and gives a final salute to the human species.

 

[Mindful]

End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.

To add to Mindful 's list of incomprehensible's -- we don't even know what existence is.

Rene Descartes pointed out to us that since we think therefore we exist.

However that's as far as he took it.

Everybody in Philosophy has been wondering about that ever since.

Which begs the age old question: is the moon still there when we are not looking at it?

The Moon is only a few minutes away -- as is the Sun as well.

Wait a couple of minutes and they both will probably still be shining/reflecting.

What is a bigger dilemma is that of the stars -- they could be all gone by now -- billions of years ago.

That one too. We're gazing at the past.

Wrap your head round that one.

 

[there4eyeM]

If no human were around to perceive, there would be no question of anything existing. One might say, Schroedinger's cat would have infinite company.

 

[there4eyeM]

The only unquestionable reality is that consciousness exists.

 

[there4eyeM]

End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.

To add to Mindful 's list of incomprehensible's -- we don't even know what existence is.

Rene Descartes pointed out to us that since we think therefore we exist.

However that's as far as he took it.

Everybody in Philosophy has been wondering about that ever since.

Which begs the age old question: is the moon still there when we are not looking at it?

The Moon is only a few minutes away -- as is the Sun as well.

Wait a couple of minutes and they both will probably still be shining/reflecting.

What is a bigger dilemma is that of the stars -- they could be all gone by now -- billions of years ago.

That one too. We're gazing at the past.

Wrap your head round that one.

Put another way, we are gazing at 'now', the only time that exists. IF the light can be called 'the past', this only reveals that all exists in one place and that the myriad 'things' we see and 'time' that 'passes' are at most the result of how our perceptions function.

 

[there4eyeM]

A 'God' would have to be 'too vast' for any religion to imagine (make an image of).

 

[yiostheoy]

A 'God' would have to be 'too vast' for any religion to imagine (make an image of).

Well, there is "imagine in your mind" and there is "imagine in stone", true.

You seem like quite an accomplished linguist there4eyeM . I like your moniker too, as I love Descartes' philosophy as well.

Philosophy struggles with "imagining" a God or Gods, yes, you are correct.

The main characteristic of a God in Philosophy would be immortality, because as Philosophy observes, everything in the Universe and on Earth that we can see is mortal, changeable, is born and dies.

Logically this cannot continue indefinitely into the "past".

So philosophically speaking there must be a God who has no birth or death. Otherwise we and all the other mortal things like stars and people and animals and plants and microbes could not have created ourselves.

 

[there4eyeM]

The external image goes out from within.
Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.

 

[yiostheoy]

End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.

To add to Mindful 's list of incomprehensible's -- we don't even know what existence is.

Rene Descartes pointed out to us that since we think therefore we exist.

However that's as far as he took it.

Everybody in Philosophy has been wondering about that ever since.

Which begs the age old question: is the moon still there when we are not looking at it?

The Moon is only a few minutes away -- as is the Sun as well.

Wait a couple of minutes and they both will probably still be shining/reflecting.

What is a bigger dilemma is that of the stars -- they could be all gone by now -- billions of years ago.

That one too. We're gazing at the past.

Wrap your head round that one.

Human thought as far back as we can tell in history was dominated by superstition and religion.

Then a bunch of Greeks starting with Hesiod and Thales came along and tried to make sense out of it all WITHOUT resorting to superstition or religion. Back in those days Zeus was the Supreme God, and his brothers, sisters, children, aunts, and uncles were all Gods.

Thales was the first of many philosophers who discovered that pure human thought can explain many things without need for superstition or religion.

As Philosophy then progressed, and it caught up with mathematicians such as Copernicus and experimenters such as Galileo, then Science was born.

Science is the applied philosophy of physical things -- the Universe, stars, Sun, Moon, planets, comets, asteroids and meteors, all living things, and all Earthly characteristics, such as the sky, ground, oceans, rives and streams, rain and weather, etc.

Turns out that Agamemnon did not need to sacrifice his daughter Iphrgenia to get a favorable wind for his ships to sail to Troy -- a low pressure system would have blown through eventually giving him first a headwind and then a tailwind and finally a crosswind to get there.

The Gods had nothing to do with it for Agamemnon.

Science tells us that light travels at 186 thousand miles per second. Therefore from any star, planet, or moon shining or reflecting light at us, it will take the light time to cover that distance, since they are all more than 186 thousand miles away.

The Moon is 238.9 thousand miles away, so that light takes not quite 2 seconds to reach us.

The Sun is 93 million miles away, so that light takes slightly more than 8 seconds to reach us.

Science gives us these answers.

A mile, by the way, is 2000 steps taken by a Roman solder while marching. This equals 1.61 kilometers, which is an international French modern measure. These are merely conventions or definition. Mathematics is all about definitions and then manipulating those definitions. As such mathematics really does not exist outside of human minds.

 

[yiostheoy]

The external image goes out from within.
Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.

Jeeze you're smart. And good!

I will tackle each of your concepts one at a time in responding.

Language is fascinating.

All mammals, birds, and insects communicate with each other.

I am most familiar with my cat, since he is my cat and is with me 24/7/365 except when I am away from home.

When he wants something from me he utters a "meow!"

When he is unhappy he utters a kind of moan.

When he is angry he utters a warning.

When he is happy he purrs and licks my fingers and hands.

Thus non-human animal language is monosyllabic. But it does have associated meaning.

For humans, as we all learned in elementary school, speech requires an actor and an action word at the very least, and then sometimes also a predicate as well.

"Jack runs."

"Jill runs."

"See Spot run after them!"

These simple and complex sentences have evolved in various European, Asian, African, and ancient American languages over the millennia and eons of human existence.

When applied to Philosophy, words must be cut down to their most specific levels to avoid confusion and rhetorical double meanings.

So words, like mathematics, are inventions of the human mind. They are definitional conventions applied to daily life.

But other animals make sounds too. These sounds could be considered words as well.

My cat is very verbal.

 

[yiostheoy]

Cat language translated into English:

Meow! -- I want something from you. You have been a consistent provider to me since I can remember and now I am desiring something that I believe you can give me. You just have to guess what it is because I can only make single syllable utterances.

Grrrrrr! -- I don't like what you are doing so beware! I am about to scratch and bite you and then run away to a safe place away from you and hide.

Prrrrr! -- I am happy and enjoy your petting me now.

Brrrrrtt! -- Thank you, here I go. Thanks for opening the door.

Hmmm! -- I am sad. Something is wrong. You need to figure out what it is and make it better.

 

[yiostheoy]

The external image goes out from within.
Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.

We have no idea of what God is like -- unless like Moses or Jesus we have each seen God face to face and spoken with Him/Her/Them.

Or so Moses and Jesus claim. As far as I know, no one else has every claimed to see God or speak with Him/Her/Them face to face. If you believe them this then gives rise to Religion. But Religion has also given rise to witch burnings and torture-ings, so you cannot completely trust religion either without first giving it a good dose of Philosophy and Science first.

 

[yiostheoy]

The external image goes out from within.
Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.

I have read a lot of philosophers who try to trick their readers with words and double meanings.

Therefore I am always careful to chop down their words and sentences into very simple easy words and sentences to make sure they don't pull off any fast ones on me.

I trust language to the extent I can use it to describe real experiences.

I trust perception to the extent of British Empiricism which warns against excessive skepticism.

I trust pure human thought to the extent that it can give me a list of possible alternatives when I cannot prove or find out something myself by researching or experimenting with it myself using simple math, microscopes, and telescopes.

 

[yiostheoy]

That one too. We're gazing at the past.

Wrap your head round that one.

Mindful , as with all deep intellectual things, we have delved into Philosophy here.

It is always important to keep Philosophy separate from Science and from Religion.

I agree with Bertrand Russell that these 3 things must never be confused with each other. They must be kept separate.

Some of your questions and comments are purely philosophical, Mindful .

Others are purely scientific.

I have not heard you delve into Religion yet.

At any rate, always remember there are the 3 of them and they are separate.

So it helps to precede your content with whether you are speaking philosophically, scientifically, or religiously, so as to narrow the field.

Each of these 3 has different rules of engagement.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Science fiction shares a problem with theology.

For humans, everything boils down to being born, eating, growing, living, then dying, and finally dissolving into noxious fluids and finally to dust as bones decay from acidic soils or sunlight if left unburied.

The mind inside the brain cannot content itself with birth and death and the grave, so it imagines space travel and gods.

But other than a few short hops to the moon by a few past star-sailors (astronaut -- translated out of the original Greek), the grave is the ultimate destination of humankind.

So what's the point of us?

To feed pixels to the Whirled Wad of Wub.

 

[there4eyeM]

The external image goes out from within.
Words are symbols. The fact that we can put them together in ways that are grammatically and syntactically correct does not assure us of describing reality, or even possibility. When we attempt to describe the post profound facets of our existence, words become more and more limited. We have to suspect every one.
Immortality exists as a concept because of mortality. 'God' would have to be more than immortal, as there could be no contrast, no opposite, wherein 'God' were not living. Life, death and immortality must be part of 'God', thus 'God' must be more.
So, when we say that 'God' must be inexpressible, we already say too much.

We have no idea of what God is like -- unless like Moses or Jesus we have each seen God face to face and spoken with Him/Her/Them.

Or so Moses and Jesus claim. As far as I know, no one else has every claimed to see God or speak with Him/Her/Them face to face. If you believe them this then gives rise to Religion. But Religion has also given rise to witch burnings and torture-ings, so you cannot completely trust religion either without first giving it a good dose of Philosophy and Science first.

Joseph Smith wrote that he saw and walked with "God".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

End and beginning are mind constructs as well. That makes existence the only thing that could ever be important.

To add to Mindful 's list of incomprehensible's -- we don't even know what existence is.

Rene Descartes pointed out to us that since we think therefore we exist.

However that's as far as he took it.

Everybody in Philosophy has been wondering about that ever since.

Which begs the age old question: is the moon still there when we are not looking at it?

Moon is related to minus. To understand its original meaning, think like a primitive or a child. Its main characteristic is that it seems to be getting smaller, which happens when we're not looking at it (if you have the mind of a child).