Did any ideas about the fundamental kinds of things that exist stand out to you? Tell us in the comments. If you enjoyed this episode, give our excellent contributors a thumbs up! If you'd like to further explore the cosmos, consciousness, and meaning, please consider becoming a subscriber. For more episodes from Season 19, see our Season 19 playlist: bit.ly/38ZCxq9
If daily language is purely descriptive/explanatory, then mathematics is just the part that we use to describe our calculations. The Universe doesn't need mathematics, even if it is organised in a way we can describe through mathematics. In the same way the colour black doesn't know it's black. That's just our way of describing something black. So for me, we don't need God. All Gods are purely a way to describe the unknown - was the lightning strike God speaking to us, etc. Today we know that religion is outdated, yet people still persist on accepting such nonsense. It's embarrassing that modern man can't leave this illogical junk in the past where it belongs. Let's stick to science and hopefully in the near future all the questions will be answered.
Everything has a definition or a concept that discribes it. Every single thing on your list of irreducibles has a definition to describe it's nature. It's fundlemental nature or the concept of it is the same just more fundlemental. This is data or information. Information is language. All these things must come from a mind as a concept is generated not perceived. A concept can only be conceptualized by a conscious mind just as only a conscious mind can perceive.
Mr. Ellis makes a strong impression, but he leaves as viable the possibility of belief; I strenuously refuse to go there, because there the possibilities seem completely unconstrained. If there's anything actual about the "spiritual," etc., I must be able to experience - not just imagine - it. If, in pursuing the actual that I can experience, I wind up behaving like a Tlingit shaman, so be it. So is there a problem with the experiencer? To observe what's actual, the experiencer must be whittled down to his essentials, whatever they may be.
I came to the conclusion when I was 14 that many truths are paradoxical. It was such a huge moment for me that I remember where I was and what I was doing.
The most underrated RUclips channel of all time but this channel has already about half million of flwrs which are curious so much to following this great Chanel
I dont know if youve done a segment on simulation theory or life as a game but it adds something to this. Everything is created for the game. If you go to the furthest reaches of the world you might just find a place where the edges are kinda blocked out or just out of reach. The more you explore this argument the more you see in everyday life.
I have a great time watching these intelligent people trying to answer unanswerable quiestions in a polite way and how many start to loose their patience when the can't, which obviously is the goal of the presenter.
I am hoping one day Khun also holds an interview with one of renowned Zen masters, such as Vet. Pomnyun Sunim, on his views on fundamental categories of existence basis Buddhist teachings and his perceptions of the world. Would be an interesting approach to seeing consciousness and theism.
I am watching this 4 years late. Great video. I am on a similar journey trying to become Closer to Truth. I do not access to renowned scientists like this. So it is interesting watching ur videos. Even though, most of the time, i find myself wanting follow-up questions. 😆
Sometimes, when there seems to be no satisfactory answer to a question, the reason is that it’s the wrong question; for example a fish asking “ Why is there only water?”
I don’t know if it’s a catagory but I’ve characterization in simplest terms, the universe. The universe is characterized by something that is sometimes lazy, as seen in the principle of least action. Much of the characterization seems to occur at a microscopic level where definitions, rules, and methods simply might not work, too small, or quantum then, we turn to expression instead of normal physics. The expression I find most common in our characterization of the universe is mathematics. It is the language the universe prefers when elaboration and complexity is expressed. The universe speak in Mathematics as it is used in every chemistry and physics analogy ever. I see a universe where where because of the Pauli principle, things do have rules and the observation of superposition is another but, it’s where the rules seems more an expression, characterized and probability, another mathematical analogy. I see a universe whose reason for being is to explore for the balance between persistence and change. This balance is looking for the same thing scientists are, the balance of what is verses what might become all based on the past. Exclude the expression of time with the mathematical and persistence wins. So Chang e is fundemental as the ingredient of all.. Simple enough. A category that personifies the universe not as a God but as a system with definite behaviors both by rule and by choice. Yes it’s an exploration of pre-determinism verses free will. The universe must have a point where things are not fixed and are actively being explored and expressed by these characterizations in absence of full laws and rules. Thats what we are witnessing. The mathematical expression of probability to evade the stringent expressions of scientific law because the sphere of influence of the universe hits a limit somewhere is why. Thats why.
A truly brilliant series..that we get to ask & ponder such questions ,experience the experience of life here (wherever here is) on Earth ,never seemingly able to grasp God nor gravity nor quantum states as we would wish for ..merrily merrily merrily ,life is but a dream~ or not .
very good video. when I think about these things I always end questioning the meaning of the question. what does "exist" mean? I am not clear on that. What is the specific property that something that exists has and that something that does not exist has not?
The property comes from its category of existence. For example, to exist physically, it must posess properties of a value of energy, spacetime coordinates, and some ability to interact with other physical objects according to laws (and one can define whatever criteria). If it fails any of those criteria it does not exist physically. What doesn't exist at all has no properties; it is impossible for anything you can imagine not to exist since it will have the properties of an imaginary object. On a side note, it seems to me that the concept of defining existence categorically proves dualism. For example I can imagine a coin with my face on it. It therefore exists, since I can imagine it at will and manipulate it. It doesn't exist physically, yet exists metaphysically.
@@deetimeless5836 I wonder if spacetime is really necessary to define existence. I heard in recent physics that spacetime is not fundamental, it is emerging from pre-existing stuff like quantum fields. The more you dig the more things become abstract and the concept of existence becomes very vague
Yes a possible category has been missed. Information. Consider information may exist as a permutation of the arrangement of physical objects. A permutation of physical objects is not itself a physical entity. Nor is a permutation metaphysical since permutations can occur with nothing but physical objects (and I'm talking about an actual arrangement, not a mathematical representation of it). Therefore it is a separate category.
This video serves as a perfect demonstration of what happens when the mind attempts to come to an understanding that can only be achieved tacitly. This is what the Zen notion of “no-mind” expresses. Or as Ramana Maharishi said, “Silence is the language of the Self.” Philosophy refuses to recognize the limitations of mind. Science is too impressed with itself to recognize them.
I agree, specially if the science, thought processes & deductions are originating from imperfect beings like us, with limited understanding, and who are limited to our senses, which are also imperfect. How can we trust our own conclusions on such fundamental questions? Thinkers become arrogant. But ignore that the scientific method has its limits. Maybe we are not designed to think about everything or understand everything in a logical way. Maybe the absence of mind and just “being” is the answer.
I think Aristotle's notion of forms (and developed by Aquinas), as distinct from Plato's ideas, are worth exploring. Part of what makes consciousness so interesting isn't just the experience of it but how it seems to render things intelligible, such that intelligibility itself needs to be explained. The argument against Platonic objects not being causally connected to the world is a good one. But if what is truly fundamental is the morphe, such that natures really do exist, then their relation to the material world could be entirely causal. Things do what they do because of their natures, where those natures would not be reducible to matter.
The concept, or nature or definition of something is the most fundamental part of anything conceivable by the human mind, therefore every thing our mind perceives must be conceived and conceptions only happen in a mind.
In the phenomenological ontology of Samkhya Philosophy of India there are 23 categories or tattvas that arise out of the interaction of two fundamental potentias. Samkhya philosophy has two major forms, classical, which is atheistic, and a theistic form. The two most fundamental potentias are Purusha and Prakriti. Purusha is the conscious potential and in the classical form of Samkhya they are innumerable, while in the theistic form of Samkhya Purusha is one and is equated with either an impersonal absolute or as a personal God. The other fundamental potentia Prakriti is the objective potential, and is constituted by what are known as three gunas or modes, which are the modes of clarity (sattva), passion (rajas) and inertia (tamas). When Prakriti is in it's potential state those three modes are in equipoise, but when the two potentials of consciousness and objectivity interact the equipoise of those three modes is disturbed and cosmic consciousness becomes manifest as pure I-Am-ness and this is the first tattva or category known as the Mahat tattva in it's macrocosm aspect while reflected in it's microcosm aspect, it is called Buddhi (intellect) tattva. From this Mahat evolves the ego known as the Ahamkara. This Ahamkara is the pure I-am-ness further identifying it's self and thus is no longer a pure I-Am. It is qualified by the three modes. From it's state dominated by the mode of clarity, propelled by the mode of passion, arise the reflective mind (manas), the five knowledge gaining instruments (jnanendriyas) and the five action instruments (karmendriyas). The knowledge gaining instruments are the faculty of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling. the five action instruments are the faculty of grasping, locomotion, speaking, procreating and evacuating. From the Ego (Ahamkara) dominated by the mode of inertia, propelled by the mode of passion, evolve the five fundamental types of sense data (tanmatra) which are sound, tactile, form/color, flavor and odor. From these data bites evolve the five elements of aether, air, fire, water and earth. So to sum up these 23 tattvas or categories, which arise from the interaction of the two fundamental potentials of Purusha (conscious potential) and Prakriti (objective potential) from the bottom up, we have the five elements, the five types of sense data, the five instruments of action, the five instruments of knowledge, the data receiving mind, the identifying ego, and the cosmic consciousness or universal I-Am-ness.
"the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil D. Tyson let us remember to not attribute things that we cannot explain to things we may relate strongly to, but may know even less of.
I am sorry to disappoint you ! Neil de Grasse Tyson is just a puppet of the cabal. If he was really smart why does he keeps his eyes closed and spreads false information ?
So by that faulty logic, anything that DO make sense to us are not real? Or if they are real, they SHOULD only be real to us from a purely anthropocentric point of view right? Any scientific so-called fact then is only a fact to us and not the universe by that logic. Because again, even if something makes sense to us, it does not mean it's real or truly existent. ... In other words, The very statement that "the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" somehow contradicts itself, simply because the person (who is part of the universe) who is stating that is stating it as something that "makes sense"; otherwise why would someone says something that does not make sense anyway? ...
@@williamburts5495 The very beginning of such statement as "the universe..." is overly anthropocentric. It's like you are dealing with something absolutely objective "out there" independently standing on its own and has absolutely no relation to the observer... Moreover, what is the definition of "the universe" to begin with? The so-called ^universe^ could very well have innumerable definitions based on the self-conscious observer subject(s) and surely none of them can ever see or perceive the whole picture, as in reality there most probably is not a single observer-independent reality "out there" anyway. And finally, if anyone claims that universe should not or does not make sense in any way or form, then the very statement by that person should as well fundamentally speaking be considered as nonsense and without any meaning or value simply because that person 'is' also "the universe" (see I did not say 'part' of the universe) itself in one way or another. To my understanding, the first hand, subjective self-conscious human experience is prior to our symbolic linguistic concepts and definitions. In other words, this problem remains a problem of language at the end of the day; and language is nothing but yet another relative anthropocentric medium with which we are trying to 'make sense' of our 'experience' (see I did not say make sense of 'the universe'). All in all, I believe consciousness is fundamental and absolute reality stands beyond language simply because reality stands beyond 'existence' and 'non-existence', hence it cannot be even pointed at, nor defined (neither objectively nor subjectively). So how can one even realize that there is an absolute reality in the first place if it stands beyond 'being' itself? ... Well, in my honest opinion, to answer such question, we need to go beyond the current human epistemological paradigm and we need an absolute shift in our arrogant human mentality and perception. To realize that reality cannot be even 'known' as the very act of knowing involves subjects and objects and absolute reality stands beyond both subject and objects dichotomy. Therefore, 'knowledge' itself is secondary to the absolute reality as reality by by nature cannot be temporal as it stands beyond both 'time' and even 'knowledge' to begin with. So how can one 'know' some no-thing that stands beyond 'knowledge'? ...
@@konnektlive I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I believe that if ultimate reality does exist it is not beyond existence it's just existence beyond our senses tp perceive.
@CloserToTruth My own take on it; albeit I'm nowhere as eloquent as the people in the video. The "beginning" as we can ever hope to dig towards should have been in some non-physical (as we understand physical) state where only the Impossible exists. Where the Impossible is defined as [1] beyond our understanding of explaining and [2] fundamentally, regardless if defined as one or more separate entities, sharing the property that it defies Absolute Perfect Nothing. A by "defy" meaning it's either [a] either as a thing that coexists or [b] an "Absolute Limit". In other words the Impossible are the things that don't care for the state of "nothing" and neither care for "something" either (or at least the Impossible we are talking about doesn't care for the state of "something"), among other properties it might have. Impossible might be be acting as a "Limit" or "Brink of Absolute Perfect Nothing" for example. As for why the Impossible exists, perhaps because "impossible" is what you get when Absolute Nothing becomes Perfect Absolute Nothing (play on words but philosophically "if there's nothing, everything is impossible"), or maybe because Impossible and Absolute Perfect Nothing are not mutually exclusive. Either way it's hard to say "the Impossible can't exist in Absolute Perfect Nothing", by our definition of Impossible at least. By saying you have PERFECT Nothing, you implicitly have created a primordial cauldron so-to-speak for "everything" to be "easy", since forces to counter anything-at-all-happening do not exist by the definition of Perfect Absolute Nothingness; the only missing component is what that something is, and the impossible is the only seemingly available candidate. Following that you have Absolute Perfect Nothing and the Impossible, there is only one outcome and that is the Impossible becomes Possible (the Unreal becomes Real as it were). Since Absolute Perfect Nothing, as the name implies suggests absence of everything so that means the more nothing the more absence (remove physical, laws, concepts, etc) therefore Impossible, no matter how "weak" even if equivalent to 0, becomes "larger" or "more probable" then Absolute Perfect Nothing. Similarly for nothing to go to more nothingness it has to give way, otherwise it's "something" (eg. if it counter acts impossible it's something, since it acts like a force). I would say "eventually" but fundamentally "Time" doesn't exist here, so any "transformation" is not something that happens the way we would perceive a transformation, something that not even the word "instant" could properly express. For the sake of clarity we'll say "it resolves to" that. As for how does "resolving" fits in, we can just call it just another part of the Impossible-and put that problem to the side for now. We can assume Perfect Absolute Nothing to be the beginning "state" or at least we see no reason why "nothingness" isn't at least part of the Origin of Existence of Everything, since it's the only state with out questions or other assumptions attached. The "resolution" of Impossible once this Perfect Absolute Nothing state becomes "unstable" / "loses" (not to be confused with physics concepts of symmetric or the like) to some subset of the Impossible, as the "First Choice." Given an "infinite" set of Impossible, it's not clear if the first choice results in all possible combinations, some or just one outcome. This question largely falls into if there are differences or if all Impossible things are "the same". Given we assume Impossible things don't follow convention it means it's not something we can ever answer. If there are differences then it's more believable that there is just one outcome, if there are no differences within the Impossible then it's more believable that after Perfect Absolute Nothing all possibilities exist at all times (the complete opposite state). We will go with the simpler outcome to avoid verbosity, that there is at least one and just talk about said outcome from the perspective of it's history. Since for all we know even if all possible Impossible happened, we can only at best say that "at least ours didn't collapse back into nothing, yet" Taking one outcome as the answer the First Choice thus becomes The Start of Destiny in the sense of how we perceive "Destiny" as a concept. Which is to say, whatever the information that determines how things will be in the future is already encoded in the First Choice. Of course this "encoding" for all intents and purposes might be unfathomably complex, too profound for us to ever understand, as simplistic as 1+1=2 or combination of all three. Most probably is a combination; or at least the idea that we're not doomed to never understand is harder to swallow. So to recap, in this transformation: There is sill Absolute Nothing, but some/or-all Impossible has "resolved", so now nothingness should be Imperfect. A question that can be posed at this point is in the "edge" between Absolute (Imperfect) Nothing and Reality (as we might perceive it, with physicality, space, time, etc) how do we get there. To answer this we have to attempt to resolve the very hard problem of how do you distinguish between Laws that are part of the Impossible made real, and what are just superfluous laws that site on top. To this effect there are easy answer and hard answers. It's not easy to tell what is an illusion of several laws and what is an Impossible Law/Concept and what is just a consequence of said Impossible that we just gave a convenient name to. For example the following concepts are likely rooted in the Impossible: Infinity, Finite, Zero, Transformation, Inequality, Concept of Math, Choice. While the following are harder: - space, maybe just an illusion we use to get by - time, maybe just the illusion of the physical world - laws of physics, maybe fundamentally they have a root, but unlikely the ones we see now Going back to the state of the First Choice, all subsequent choices are simple. Since even if a system has zero "energy" having "anything" is equivalent to having some (if not an infinity; for all intents and purposes it may very well be perceived infinite by entities created by it). The question of energy, matter and other aspects just boils down to what transformation the either chosen Impossible produces. While the word "energy" is used here, it's not energy as physics might define it, and there's no clear definition. It could very well be just the "will, as resulted by all impossibilities combining", "power of probability", "a form of actual energy" or something else entirely. The important part is only that "something" (as we understand it) is now present. Presumably once a set of Impossible becomes "powerful" within Absolute Nothing, existence and everything is the only possible outcome. No matter what recognizable or unrecognizable shape it might take. In our case, following who knows what transformations, Time, Space, and such existed in some form, and whatever the events that lead to what we now refer to as "Big Bang" (although it might not be a singularity at all since we're just extrapolating backwards) happened to lead to our little corner of nothing. So in short we are all just the impossible manifest "inside nothing", and the trivialities we work with day to day (gravity, matter, space, time, etc) and the physical world we love so much, should we consider ourselves separate from them for a moment, are just the winners of the impossible made real, transforming before us as we speak. And if there is an ending, then it's clearly Nothing. Of course if there's something both the science and religious people agree with is that they don't really like Impossible things. It's not the orderly they both like after all.
Please do a 1-2 minute summary at the end of these videos which simplify the topic just presented for those of us who want to understand but aren't smart enough to grasp what you're talking about.
One thought i had while listening to these interviews is .... just as we have realised that there are alternatives to current physical laws, IS there any alternative to mathematics as the language of science. What if anything, can substitute mathematics in its current role ?
In computer programming we commonly create instances of classes, which I think is somewhat analogues to the categories you describe. Instances and classes exists in different domains/realms and are only related by definition. We also use abstractions and inheritance but as I see it this is only relationships within the same realm and has nothing to do with reducibility of category. A "class" in programming also have a category in another realm but in programming we never go that deep. We only stay in two realms, the realm of classes and the one of instances. My belief is that nature might be constructed in a similar way where particles are just instances of field classes. But of course also a field should have some kind of category, maybe in a pure mathematical realm.
I think it is sheer hubris to think we can know for certain what exist. There may be realms of existence or knowledge that will be forever beyond our grasp. Moreover, we may be completely wrong about what we think we know today.
There is no primary category (or type of object) in this world, every category is primary. Every phenomenon in the reality is a "first-class" citizen. And even a gust of wind is a category on its own. But to see these things clearly, we must put aside everything that we have learned.
Assume that “time” is not “relative” or necessarily “directional”, but rather found to be a primordial foundational element of the multiverse cosmic landscape. Then, it seems to me, time would also be another bedrock of what actually exists.
Indians know it and try to experience it. Some of them experience it which require pure state to experience it. It is swayam sidh (existance) swayam prakshit (Gyan prakshi) swasanvedhya. (swayam pulsiv)
" The senses meet the object and from their contact sensation is born. Thence results recollection. Thus, as the sun's power through a burning-glass causes fire to appear, so through the cognizance born of sense and object, the mind originates and with it the ego, the thought of self..."
I liked the part about the relative interaction/influences/relations between distinctly significant scales (my way of saying/summarizing it). I think it is very important. What occurs on greater scales can have a dominant over influence on the overall conditions of smaller scales, while having a relatively minor influence compared to dominant (local?) native smaller scale influences/forces. There seems to be a mutual interaction/influence & interdependency. I have some philosophical ideas & concepts & models based on this, including with respect to many models in science.
To me that are two basic parts of nature: wave and whirlpool. One is philosophically put in horizontal prospective and the other in vertical. Therefore the whirlpool represents matter and the matter lasts as long as the whirlpool lasts and convert in to horizontal wave, and so on and forth
You have missed the contrariety of Arrow and Lace, both in the grand category you seek (Lace as fundamental physics and Arrow as Intelligible ideals drawing out evolution) and the myriads of smaller scale Arrow and Lace oppositions throughout science and the evolution of existent things.
Robert, i hope you don't blush, but this is the very finest series I've thus far on the nature of existence! It's far more penetrating, expansive, and inclusive as regards its precise workings and fundamental components than is any authored or produced on the Planet. I accept your kindly invitation to assist you in your search for answers. Let's talk sometime. For this quest, and the manner in which we travel along the road toward ultimate truth, are things we share.
I’ll offer one other primordial, bedrock “category” of existence to think about. A paradoxical category. The category of “non-existence” and all objects, persons, things and sub-categories found in non-existence. A case can be made that all reality comes in pairs - positive/negative (matter, energy or anything else); electron spin up/down; mind/body, good/bad; yin/yang and so on. Why not things in existence vs. non-existence? Just my musings.
I'm thinking about this all my life. I have reached to the conclusion, that what ultimately exist, are the abstract mathematical objects - patterns, shapes, numbers, spaces.. All of these can be further abstracted and generalized to sets. The sets are the ultimate category of existence. Sets, of course, are just 'collections of objects, called their elements'. To this day, there is no strict definition of set in mathematics and they're being understood intuitively. For example if you say that sets are collections of objects, then you have to define what is a collection, which brings us back to set. Furthermore, I think that all possible mathematical structures exist and there is nothing, which makes some more real than others. The physical universe, which we inhabit, is just one of these possible structures, with all that it contains. Also, I think, that the reality has a quasi-fractal structure - it's similar at different scales, but never exactly the same. I can explain any of these in more details, in case someone is interested...
There are only three things that exist. 1: FAITH . in the thoughts we have as memories (number one law of physics, of the conservation of information). 2: HOPE in the thoughts plans and intentions of a future not yet carried out as an expression of the 3:NOW which we LOVE because it is all that exists of us as a SINGULARITY of the energy that just keeps changing form. ... The process works like this. NOW we think about our past memories of now experiences and action reaction kicks in and we execute our plans of the future while at the same time creating new plans. IOW, we are currently creating plans (future) based on memories (past) and executing them NOW. This validates the conservation of energy and information and the laws of motion all at once, which of course solves the issue of quantum entanglement and why light has properties of wave and particles and the observer effect all at the same time.
Premium. The ads just became to much. And I watch RUclips more than anything for good or bad at the moment. Can't get away from some in video promos but that's down to youtuber.
The last episode I watched the crickets were freaking out in the background. Maybe they know! And are trying to tell us lol.. I do believe animals are more enlightened then we are.
Its space. Moving space. Areas of space move relative to other areas. Time dilation and space contraction results in huge areas of "empty" (slow moving) space and tiny areas of "solid" (fast moving) space. Everything is a field of space.
I'll help you with a new category that like Bohm, should be the most fundamental; That categorical/ fundamental space is Illusions; that are really there but less real (,being roots or holes in the foundation catagory spaces), than that which generates illusion in all we see or know. See what you do with that. Robert.
@@konnektlive Hi konnektlive, To me, nothingness is not just empty space in the universe with its alleged invisible quantum fluctuations and such, but complete and utter void. Think of everything that could possibly exist in every possible dimension or context of reality imaginable... (be it the universe or the multiverse, space, matter, life, mind, consciousness; be it objective or subjective, eminent or transcendent, etc., etc.) ...then think of nothingness as being the featureless and infinite (ever-yielding) “arena” that contains it all. Now we could get into an argument over the idea of a featureless “arena” (or “void”) being something as opposed to nothing, but that’s just semantics. Anyway, that’s my quick and simple definition of nothingness. What’s yours? And what is your purpose in asking me to define the word? _______
How could you have a world without definitions? And what does it mean to define? To define means also to differentiate. And if you differentiate between things, you create polar opposites. Between these polar opposites the experience is made. Could this now be a basic category?
Reality/Life = That which is/That I am. That which is (Life), that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
OK, missing category - the (potential) unknown. What are we completely blind/oblivious about? Look how much has been discovered & created/defined, that we were completely or almost completely blind/oblivious about before or in past, throughout our history; I'm confident we likely continue to do this. ALso, the enhancements/improvements about what we know, expanded greatly beyond our past knowledge & concepts & understandings & models/stories, for the same observable/sensible/detectable knowns. & how we know (origins, foundations, paradigms, dependent conditions, etc.). The ultimate preface to anything any one has ever thought/said/communicated/experienced/cognized/felt - "According to what ____ knows/known ...". ALso, abilities & limitations/boundaries of the sensing/detecting/perceiving/cognizing system (like our brains & minds). I conject we may not be able to make complete accurate statements about what is known & how, unless the system doing this is accounted for in the description. Like our brains & minds, or computers or other information systems. Alien information systems (including brains & minds & perception/cognition systems) are not necessarily the same as ours; perceptual abilities & limitations could be very different even surrounding the same sense/sensation (source). I have many more ideas/concepts/models about this. We are all informational/(re)presentational systems, including communicating with each other; a compatible net system. Other information/sensory-perception/cognition/symbolic/(re)presentation systems may not be compatible; compatibility is important, and the degree/measure. Can anyone join me in striving towards the limits/boundaries of our abilities, & try to extrapolate beyond them as much as possible? We impose so many assumptions & presumptions of our abilities & conditions on everything we sense & perceive & know.
i lean toward the theory of everything. everything exists and always will. if there is nothing well nothing means it dont exist and this can be emphasized dividing lets say 2. divide that into 1 then didvide 1 in 0.5 then divide it until you get 0 but you will never get 0 because 0 does not exist. we created the thought of 0 only.
There are a number of words which men (human beings) are best advised not to use, and they are as follows: 1. Exist 2. Mean 3. Real (or possibly true or fact) The reason that it is best to avoid them is the you will inevitably get into a sort of feedback loop where you ask does existence exist or what does meaning mean, or is reality real, and it is best to avoid that if possible. It may be that the question that is being posed is follows: If X is only possible,or thecase if and only if conditions A and B are fulfilled, could it be that X is possible, or the case, precisely because conditions A and B have been altered or deliberately arranged, so that X is possible, or the case? Some people suppose it to be remarkable that Fibonacci numbers appear in nature while others suppose that it be even more remarkable if they didn't appear in nature. By the same token is it particularly remarkable that the planet earth and all its lifeforms and various features is situated in the Goldilocks zone as being in just the right place for all these things to be possible. Put the case in another way, would it not be even more remarkable if the earth being in the Goldilocks zone, there were *not* all those features? And again If X is t only possible, or the case if and only if conditions A and B are fulfilled, and conditions A and B are fulfilled, would it not again be remarkable if X were not possible or the case?
I/ my mind exists because “I question”, therefore... ...all minds exist.... therefore.. ...new minds (babies) exist... therefore... ...other people exists because they have minds, therefore... ...other animals exist because animals are people too, therefore... ...all life exists....therefore... ...all material/space/time exists because all life is made up of these things...therefore... ...”Everything Exists”!
Your initial premise is a mere assumption. An AI-simulated human trapped in a virtual reality within a computer existing in our reality is programmed to question. The AI is also programmed with a sense of self and exists in a realty so convincing it looks at itself and others around it and concludes I AM ALIVE!.... I EXIST!.... How wrong that poor, deluded A.I is, in reality... or not, depending on the definition of 'existence' and 'reality'... The AI does exist physically as a collection of transistors but does not exist in the way it thinks it does........ But I do not believe we live in a simulated universe, personally.
PrivateSi ??? If add mechanical legs/ arms/ hands/face/body, and program it to control its own movements/etc;; how is that AI any different from a human. A human is just a machine programmed by DNA and with faster “ organic” processors/body made of cells. Cells are just organized inanimate matter.
@@jimliu2560 .. If you totally destroy my analogy then yes, you can make the virtual entity a real physical android - but you are missing the point. The AI thinks it exists in a real reality but it is fake. Being able to question does not mean you exist in the reality you think you occupy. You could be a brain in a jar and I could be a figment of your imagination or a simulated virtual reality... I am not a hard solipsist, personally... I am a soft one, I admit we cannot know whether this is reality - but the best bet is that it is.
As far as Ellis’ “possibility space”, to me that is not much different than QM’s “superposition of probabilities”. Both are just “potentialities” co-existing all-at-once, at least under most interpretations of QM.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Did any ideas about the fundamental kinds of things that exist stand out to you? Tell us in the comments.
If you enjoyed this episode, give our excellent contributors a thumbs up! If you'd like to further explore the cosmos, consciousness, and meaning, please consider becoming a subscriber. For more episodes from Season 19, see our Season 19 playlist: bit.ly/38ZCxq9
My first encounter with "possibility space". I need to learn more about that and ponder. Thank you for making this available!!!
If daily language is purely descriptive/explanatory, then mathematics is just the part that we use to describe our calculations. The Universe doesn't need mathematics, even if it is organised in a way we can describe through mathematics. In the same way the colour black doesn't know it's black. That's just our way of describing something black.
So for me, we don't need God. All Gods are purely a way to describe the unknown - was the lightning strike God speaking to us, etc. Today we know that religion is outdated, yet people still persist on accepting such nonsense. It's embarrassing that modern man can't leave this illogical junk in the past where it belongs.
Let's stick to science and hopefully in the near future all the questions will be answered.
Information is fundamental.
Everything has a definition or a concept that discribes it. Every single thing on your list of irreducibles has a definition to describe it's nature. It's fundlemental nature or the concept of it is the same just more fundlemental. This is data or information. Information is language. All these things must come from a mind as a concept is generated not perceived. A concept can only be conceptualized by a conscious mind just as only a conscious mind can perceive.
Mr. Ellis makes a strong impression, but he leaves as viable the possibility of belief; I strenuously refuse to go there, because there the possibilities seem completely unconstrained. If there's anything actual about the "spiritual," etc., I must be able to experience - not just imagine - it. If, in pursuing the actual that I can experience, I wind up behaving like a Tlingit shaman, so be it.
So is there a problem with the experiencer? To observe what's actual, the experiencer must be whittled down to his essentials, whatever they may be.
I'm so grateful to Robert and the rest of the CTT team for taking the time to create and publish these incredible interviews. Thank you!
I came to the conclusion when I was 14 that many truths are paradoxical. It was such a huge moment for me that I remember where I was and what I was doing.
The most underrated RUclips channel of all time but this channel has already about half million of flwrs which are curious so much to following this great Chanel
Thank you for posting these episodes here.🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
Excellent video. You seriously need to make a full-length documentary brother; everyone with a splinter in their mind will flock to it.
This is a show that has been running for 20 years. There's literally 2,000 hours worth of material here.
@@xjohnny1000 I need ALL of it!
I dont know if youve done a segment on simulation theory or life as a game but it adds something to this. Everything is created for the game. If you go to the furthest reaches of the world you might just find a place where the edges are kinda blocked out or just out of reach. The more you explore this argument the more you see in everyday life.
I would imagine if you traveled far enough in one direction, at no point would you ever reach a boundary, but eventually the game would crash.
Masterful! What a great production! Thank you for sharing so much knowledge with us!
I have a great time watching these intelligent people trying to answer unanswerable quiestions in a polite way and how many start to loose their patience when the can't, which obviously is the goal of the presenter.
He upholds all things by the word of his power.
he is amazing
As a Zen master once said, ‘Too much Mind’. Everything is said.
@Francis Ray Since there is 'no-self' - whose brain can explode?
Consciousness is fundamental
@@chitrang2441 What is consciousness?
George Ellis has a very clear way of talking about these subjects.
One of the best episodes so far. And the one certainly closer to my own personal quest in Philosophy.
Or you perceive it to be the best because it fits with your own personal quest.
so far in all these interviews in the last set of episodes, only George Ellis really says things that made sense to me.
Seriously? In this episode at least he's babbling metaphysical nonsense. Probability spaces?
I am hoping one day Khun also holds an interview with one of renowned Zen masters, such as Vet. Pomnyun Sunim, on his views on fundamental categories of existence basis Buddhist teachings and his perceptions of the world. Would be an interesting approach to seeing consciousness and theism.
so glad you guys came to youtube
I am watching this 4 years late. Great video. I am on a similar journey trying to become Closer to Truth.
I do not access to renowned scientists like this. So it is interesting watching ur videos. Even though, most of the time, i find myself wanting follow-up questions. 😆
Absolute Energy is the primal act of being. All else derives from this ground of Being.
These episodes are so good. Did God create constants or is he bound by them? Oh my.
Who else can create ?
Sometimes, when there seems to be no satisfactory answer to a question, the reason
is that it’s the wrong question; for example a fish asking “ Why is there only water?”
Consciousness, Mental space, Physical objects.
Where do you think consciousness resides?
Barry got that scientist hair! Haha love it.
It's more the disheveled academic look.
I have a feeling that it's probably a good thing we can't smell him.
@@b.g.5869 he smells fine! trust me
Why are these videos not being viewed millions of times?? I don't get it
More people are watching TikTok🤡👍
Great series.
What a time to be alive
Philosophers are beings with evolved brains and satiated bellies. We forget how recently we climbed down from the trees.
Most underrated comment here. 👍
We can't even conceive of that amount of time much less guess where we will be in that amount of time in the future.
Had to come to the comments to find out the real truth.
First time I ever heard of possibilities space, must say it kind of makes sense
Show is amazing
Here is something I noticed (apart from the birds) you went and had a walk, with this guy
Did you pay attention?
One of the best episodes, probably my favorite one.
I don’t know if it’s a catagory but I’ve characterization in simplest terms, the universe. The universe is characterized by something that is sometimes lazy, as seen in the principle of least action. Much of the characterization seems to occur at a microscopic level where definitions, rules, and methods simply might not work, too small, or quantum then, we turn to expression instead of normal physics. The expression I find most common in our characterization of the universe is mathematics. It is the language the universe prefers when elaboration and complexity is expressed. The universe speak in Mathematics as it is used in every chemistry and physics analogy ever. I see a universe where where because of the Pauli principle, things do have rules and the observation of superposition is another but, it’s where the rules seems more an expression, characterized and probability, another mathematical analogy. I see a universe whose reason for being is to explore for the balance between persistence and change. This balance is looking for the same thing scientists are, the balance of what is verses what might become all based on the past. Exclude the expression of time with the mathematical and persistence wins. So Chang e is fundemental as the ingredient of all.. Simple enough. A category that personifies the universe not as a God but as a system with definite behaviors both by rule and by choice. Yes it’s an exploration of pre-determinism verses free will. The universe must have a point where things are not fixed and are actively being explored and expressed by these characterizations in absence of full laws and rules. Thats what we are witnessing. The mathematical expression of probability to evade the stringent expressions of scientific law because the sphere of influence of the universe hits a limit somewhere is why. Thats why.
A truly brilliant series..that we get to ask & ponder such questions ,experience the experience of life here (wherever here is) on Earth ,never seemingly able to grasp God nor gravity nor quantum states as we would wish for ..merrily merrily merrily ,life is but a dream~ or not .
very good video. when I think about these things I always end questioning the meaning of the question. what does "exist" mean? I am not clear on that. What is the specific property that something that exists has and that something that does not exist has not?
The property comes from its category of existence. For example, to exist physically, it must posess properties of a value of energy, spacetime coordinates, and some ability to interact with other physical objects according to laws (and one can define whatever criteria). If it fails any of those criteria it does not exist physically. What doesn't exist at all has no properties; it is impossible for anything you can imagine not to exist since it will have the properties of an imaginary object.
On a side note, it seems to me that the concept of defining existence categorically proves dualism. For example I can imagine a coin with my face on it. It therefore exists, since I can imagine it at will and manipulate it. It doesn't exist physically, yet exists metaphysically.
@@deetimeless5836 I wonder if spacetime is really necessary to define existence. I heard in recent physics that spacetime is not fundamental, it is emerging from pre-existing stuff like quantum fields. The more you dig the more things become abstract and the concept of existence becomes very vague
Another question that to me sounds extremely simple. My answer...1. Time...2. Space...3. Energy. That's it. That's all. I love CTT.
Yes a possible category has been missed. Information. Consider information may exist as a permutation of the arrangement of physical objects. A permutation of physical objects is not itself a physical entity. Nor is a permutation metaphysical since permutations can occur with nothing but physical objects (and I'm talking about an actual arrangement, not a mathematical representation of it). Therefore it is a separate category.
This video serves as a perfect demonstration of what happens when the mind attempts to come to an understanding that can only be achieved tacitly. This is what the Zen notion of “no-mind” expresses. Or as Ramana Maharishi said, “Silence is the language of the Self.” Philosophy refuses to recognize the limitations of mind. Science is too impressed with itself to recognize them.
I agree, specially if the science, thought processes & deductions are originating from imperfect beings like us, with limited understanding, and who are limited to our senses, which are also imperfect. How can we trust our own conclusions on such fundamental questions?
Thinkers become arrogant. But ignore that the scientific method has its limits. Maybe we are not designed to think about everything or understand everything in a logical way. Maybe the absence of mind and just “being” is the answer.
A very interesting quest. But surely there is only one possibility regarding the question of "what exists?"......"I"
I think Aristotle's notion of forms (and developed by Aquinas), as distinct from Plato's ideas, are worth exploring. Part of what makes consciousness so interesting isn't just the experience of it but how it seems to render things intelligible, such that intelligibility itself needs to be explained. The argument against Platonic objects not being causally connected to the world is a good one. But if what is truly fundamental is the morphe, such that natures really do exist, then their relation to the material world could be entirely causal. Things do what they do because of their natures, where those natures would not be reducible to matter.
So I enjoyed this guy for some reason
The concept, or nature or definition of something is the most fundamental part of anything conceivable by the human mind, therefore every thing our mind perceives must be conceived and conceptions only happen in a mind.
In the phenomenological ontology of Samkhya Philosophy of India there are 23 categories or tattvas that arise out of the interaction of two fundamental potentias. Samkhya philosophy has two major forms, classical, which is atheistic, and a theistic form. The two most fundamental potentias are Purusha and Prakriti. Purusha is the conscious potential and in the classical form of Samkhya they are innumerable, while in the theistic form of Samkhya Purusha is one and is equated with either an impersonal absolute or as a personal God. The other fundamental potentia Prakriti is the objective potential, and is constituted by what are known as three gunas or modes, which are the modes of clarity (sattva), passion (rajas) and inertia (tamas). When Prakriti is in it's potential state those three modes are in equipoise, but when the two potentials of consciousness and objectivity interact the equipoise of those three modes is disturbed and cosmic consciousness becomes manifest as pure I-Am-ness and this is the first tattva or category known as the Mahat tattva in it's macrocosm aspect while reflected in it's microcosm aspect, it is called Buddhi (intellect) tattva. From this Mahat evolves the ego known as the Ahamkara. This Ahamkara is the pure I-am-ness further identifying it's self and thus is no longer a pure I-Am. It is qualified by the three modes. From it's state dominated by the mode of clarity, propelled by the mode of passion, arise the reflective mind (manas), the five knowledge gaining instruments (jnanendriyas) and the five action instruments (karmendriyas). The knowledge gaining instruments are the faculty of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling. the five action instruments are the faculty of grasping, locomotion, speaking, procreating and evacuating. From the Ego (Ahamkara) dominated by the mode of inertia, propelled by the mode of passion, evolve the five fundamental types of sense data (tanmatra) which are sound, tactile, form/color, flavor and odor. From these data bites evolve the five elements of aether, air, fire, water and earth.
So to sum up these 23 tattvas or categories, which arise from the interaction of the two fundamental potentials of Purusha (conscious potential) and Prakriti (objective potential) from the bottom up, we have the five elements, the five types of sense data, the five instruments of action, the five instruments of knowledge, the data receiving mind, the identifying ego, and the cosmic consciousness or universal I-Am-ness.
The truth is we are God
"the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil D. Tyson
let us remember to not attribute things that we cannot explain to things we may relate strongly to, but may know even less of.
I am sorry to disappoint you ! Neil de Grasse Tyson is just a puppet of the cabal. If he was really smart why does he keeps his eyes closed and spreads false information ?
So by that faulty logic, anything that DO make sense to us are not real? Or if they are real, they SHOULD only be real to us from a purely anthropocentric point of view right? Any scientific so-called fact then is only a fact to us and not the universe by that logic. Because again, even if something makes sense to us, it does not mean it's real or truly existent.
...
In other words, The very statement that "the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" somehow contradicts itself, simply because the person (who is part of the universe) who is stating that is stating it as something that "makes sense"; otherwise why would someone says something that does not make sense anyway? ...
" the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you " even if it were obligated how would or could it make sense to us?
@@williamburts5495 The very beginning of such statement as "the universe..." is overly anthropocentric. It's like you are dealing with something absolutely objective "out there" independently standing on its own and has absolutely no relation to the observer...
Moreover, what is the definition of "the universe" to begin with? The so-called ^universe^ could very well have innumerable definitions based on the self-conscious observer subject(s) and surely none of them can ever see or perceive the whole picture, as in reality there most probably is not a single observer-independent reality "out there" anyway.
And finally, if anyone claims that universe should not or does not make sense in any way or form, then the very statement by that person should as well fundamentally speaking be considered as nonsense and without any meaning or value simply because that person 'is' also "the universe" (see I did not say 'part' of the universe) itself in one way or another.
To my understanding, the first hand, subjective self-conscious human experience is prior to our symbolic linguistic concepts and definitions. In other words, this problem remains a problem of language at the end of the day; and language is nothing but yet another relative anthropocentric medium with which we are trying to 'make sense' of our 'experience' (see I did not say make sense of 'the universe').
All in all, I believe consciousness is fundamental and absolute reality stands beyond language simply because reality stands beyond 'existence' and 'non-existence', hence it cannot be even pointed at, nor defined (neither objectively nor subjectively). So how can one even realize that there is an absolute reality in the first place if it stands beyond 'being' itself? ...
Well, in my honest opinion, to answer such question, we need to go beyond the current human epistemological paradigm and we need an absolute shift in our arrogant human mentality and perception. To realize that reality cannot be even 'known' as the very act of knowing involves subjects and objects and absolute reality stands beyond both subject and objects dichotomy. Therefore, 'knowledge' itself is secondary to the absolute reality as reality by by nature cannot be temporal as it stands beyond both 'time' and even 'knowledge' to begin with. So how can one 'know' some no-thing that stands beyond 'knowledge'? ...
@@konnektlive I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I believe that if ultimate reality does exist it is not beyond existence it's just existence beyond our senses tp perceive.
@CloserToTruth My own take on it; albeit I'm nowhere as eloquent as the people in the video.
The "beginning" as we can ever hope to dig towards should have been in some non-physical (as we understand physical) state where only the Impossible exists. Where the Impossible is defined as [1] beyond our understanding of explaining and [2] fundamentally, regardless if defined as one or more separate entities, sharing the property that it defies Absolute Perfect Nothing. A by "defy" meaning it's either [a] either as a thing that coexists or [b] an "Absolute Limit". In other words the Impossible are the things that don't care for the state of "nothing" and neither care for "something" either (or at least the Impossible we are talking about doesn't care for the state of "something"), among other properties it might have.
Impossible might be be acting as a "Limit" or "Brink of Absolute Perfect Nothing" for example.
As for why the Impossible exists, perhaps because "impossible" is what you get when Absolute Nothing becomes Perfect Absolute Nothing (play on words but philosophically "if there's nothing, everything is impossible"), or maybe because Impossible and Absolute Perfect Nothing are not mutually exclusive. Either way it's hard to say "the Impossible can't exist in Absolute Perfect Nothing", by our definition of Impossible at least. By saying you have PERFECT Nothing, you implicitly have created a primordial cauldron so-to-speak for "everything" to be "easy", since forces to counter anything-at-all-happening do not exist by the definition of Perfect Absolute Nothingness; the only missing component is what that something is, and the impossible is the only seemingly available candidate.
Following that you have Absolute Perfect Nothing and the Impossible, there is only one outcome and that is the Impossible becomes Possible (the Unreal becomes Real as it were). Since Absolute Perfect Nothing, as the name implies suggests absence of everything so that means the more nothing the more absence (remove physical, laws, concepts, etc) therefore Impossible, no matter how "weak" even if equivalent to 0, becomes "larger" or "more probable" then Absolute Perfect Nothing. Similarly for nothing to go to more nothingness it has to give way, otherwise it's "something" (eg. if it counter acts impossible it's something, since it acts like a force). I would say "eventually" but fundamentally "Time" doesn't exist here, so any "transformation" is not something that happens the way we would perceive a transformation, something that not even the word "instant" could properly express. For the sake of clarity we'll say "it resolves to" that. As for how does "resolving" fits in, we can just call it just another part of the Impossible-and put that problem to the side for now.
We can assume Perfect Absolute Nothing to be the beginning "state" or at least we see no reason why "nothingness" isn't at least part of the Origin of Existence of Everything, since it's the only state with out questions or other assumptions attached.
The "resolution" of Impossible once this Perfect Absolute Nothing state becomes "unstable" / "loses" (not to be confused with physics concepts of symmetric or the like) to some subset of the Impossible, as the "First Choice."
Given an "infinite" set of Impossible, it's not clear if the first choice results in all possible combinations, some or just one outcome. This question largely falls into if there are differences or if all Impossible things are "the same". Given we assume Impossible things don't follow convention it means it's not something we can ever answer. If there are differences then it's more believable that there is just one outcome, if there are no differences within the Impossible then it's more believable that after Perfect Absolute Nothing all possibilities exist at all times (the complete opposite state). We will go with the simpler outcome to avoid verbosity, that there is at least one and just talk about said outcome from the perspective of it's history. Since for all we know even if all possible Impossible happened, we can only at best say that "at least ours didn't collapse back into nothing, yet"
Taking one outcome as the answer the First Choice thus becomes The Start of Destiny in the sense of how we perceive "Destiny" as a concept. Which is to say, whatever the information that determines how things will be in the future is already encoded in the First Choice. Of course this "encoding" for all intents and purposes might be unfathomably complex, too profound for us to ever understand, as simplistic as 1+1=2 or combination of all three. Most probably is a combination; or at least the idea that we're not doomed to never understand is harder to swallow.
So to recap, in this transformation: There is sill Absolute Nothing, but some/or-all Impossible has "resolved", so now nothingness should be Imperfect.
A question that can be posed at this point is in the "edge" between Absolute (Imperfect) Nothing and Reality (as we might perceive it, with physicality, space, time, etc) how do we get there.
To answer this we have to attempt to resolve the very hard problem of how do you distinguish between Laws that are part of the Impossible made real, and what are just superfluous laws that site on top. To this effect there are easy answer and hard answers. It's not easy to tell what is an illusion of several laws and what is an Impossible Law/Concept and what is just a consequence of said Impossible that we just gave a convenient name to.
For example the following concepts are likely rooted in the Impossible: Infinity, Finite, Zero, Transformation, Inequality, Concept of Math, Choice.
While the following are harder:
- space, maybe just an illusion we use to get by
- time, maybe just the illusion of the physical world
- laws of physics, maybe fundamentally they have a root, but unlikely the ones we see now
Going back to the state of the First Choice, all subsequent choices are simple. Since even if a system has zero "energy" having "anything" is equivalent to having some (if not an infinity; for all intents and purposes it may very well be perceived infinite by entities created by it). The question of energy, matter and other aspects just boils down to what transformation the either chosen Impossible produces. While the word "energy" is used here, it's not energy as physics might define it, and there's no clear definition. It could very well be just the "will, as resulted by all impossibilities combining", "power of probability", "a form of actual energy" or something else entirely. The important part is only that "something" (as we understand it) is now present.
Presumably once a set of Impossible becomes "powerful" within Absolute Nothing, existence and everything is the only possible outcome. No matter what recognizable or unrecognizable shape it might take. In our case, following who knows what transformations, Time, Space, and such existed in some form, and whatever the events that lead to what we now refer to as "Big Bang" (although it might not be a singularity at all since we're just extrapolating backwards) happened to lead to our little corner of nothing.
So in short we are all just the impossible manifest "inside nothing", and the trivialities we work with day to day (gravity, matter, space, time, etc) and the physical world we love so much, should we consider ourselves separate from them for a moment, are just the winners of the impossible made real, transforming before us as we speak. And if there is an ending, then it's clearly Nothing.
Of course if there's something both the science and religious people agree with is that they don't really like Impossible things. It's not the orderly they both like after all.
Please do a 1-2 minute summary at the end of these videos which simplify the topic just presented for those of us who want to understand but aren't smart enough to grasp what you're talking about.
One thought i had while listening to these interviews is .... just as we have realised that there are alternatives to current physical laws, IS there any alternative to mathematics as the language of science. What if anything, can substitute mathematics in its current role ?
Especially considering how often math fails to describe natural phenomena such as quantum gravity and singularities
In computer programming we commonly create instances of classes, which I think is somewhat analogues to the categories you describe. Instances and classes exists in different domains/realms and are only related by definition. We also use abstractions and inheritance but as I see it this is only relationships within the same realm and has nothing to do with reducibility of category. A "class" in programming also have a category in another realm but in programming we never go that deep. We only stay in two realms, the realm of classes and the one of instances. My belief is that nature might be constructed in a similar way where particles are just instances of field classes. But of course also a field should have some kind of category, maybe in a pure mathematical realm.
Universes are a separate category (and the most fundamental)
for they Are the mirrors in the house of mirrors that show all the others
I think it is sheer hubris to think we can know for certain what exist. There may be realms of existence or knowledge that will be forever beyond our grasp. Moreover, we may be completely wrong about what we think we know today.
I think its funny. He describes many of his questions as his biggest/favorite question
NEWS BREAK! Physicists just discovered that the fundamental basis of universe and all reality is LOVE!!
The foundation is Nothingness / Emptiness with infinite possibilities.
Congrats on 100k subs.
There is no primary category (or type of object) in this world, every category is primary. Every phenomenon in the reality is a "first-class" citizen. And even a gust of wind is a category on its own. But to see these things clearly, we must put aside everything that we have learned.
Assume that “time” is not “relative” or necessarily “directional”, but rather found to be a primordial foundational element of the multiverse cosmic landscape. Then, it seems to me, time would also be another bedrock of what actually exists.
The ultimate stuff is the elements of Nature. All these elements exists, exists in an inner or outer exists.
What exists? All in One, One in all:)
Really enjoyed this episode
Indians know it and try to experience it. Some of them experience it which require pure state to experience it.
It is swayam sidh (existance) swayam prakshit (Gyan prakshi) swasanvedhya. (swayam pulsiv)
Wonderful
" The senses meet the object and from their contact sensation is born. Thence results recollection. Thus, as the sun's power through a burning-glass causes fire to appear, so through the cognizance born of sense and object, the mind originates and with it the ego, the thought of self..."
Not being helpful is not necessarily the same as not being true.
You missed one, the only one, consciousness/self-awareness. Everything else is nothing more than thought/vibrations.
The Absolute is beyond doubt and consciousness prior to consciousness. The absolute is eternal no beginning no end
I think you don't want to understand what are things for you, but to cathegorize the ways things can be cathegorized.
I know what the fundamental particle of existence is, unfortunately I cannot put it into words
To know" cause" you have to be" cause" and since knowing is the prerogative of consciousness alone it is consciousness that represents causation.
What about if we consider INFORMATIONS as the ultimate reality!
"There are no 'laws' that phenomena 'obey'!" -- Nietzsche
I liked the part about the relative interaction/influences/relations between distinctly significant scales (my way of saying/summarizing it). I think it is very important. What occurs on greater scales can have a dominant over influence on the overall conditions of smaller scales, while having a relatively minor influence compared to dominant (local?) native smaller scale influences/forces. There seems to be a mutual interaction/influence & interdependency.
I have some philosophical ideas & concepts & models based on this, including with respect to many models in science.
Yes!
To me that are two basic parts of nature: wave and whirlpool. One is philosophically put in horizontal prospective and the other in vertical. Therefore the whirlpool represents matter and the matter lasts as long as the whirlpool lasts and convert in to horizontal wave, and so on and forth
You have missed the contrariety of Arrow and Lace, both in the grand category you seek (Lace as fundamental physics and Arrow as Intelligible ideals drawing out evolution) and the myriads of smaller scale Arrow and Lace oppositions throughout science and the evolution of existent things.
You forgot Volition as a category
Make a program series about spiritual enlightenment
Robert, i hope you don't blush, but this is the very finest series I've thus far on the nature of existence! It's far more penetrating, expansive, and inclusive as regards its precise workings and fundamental components than is any authored or produced on the Planet. I accept your kindly invitation to assist you in your search for answers. Let's talk sometime. For this quest, and the manner in which we travel along the road toward ultimate truth, are things we share.
The will of God is to achieve all possible states.
I’ll offer one other primordial, bedrock “category” of existence to think about. A paradoxical category.
The category of “non-existence” and all objects, persons, things and sub-categories found in non-existence.
A case can be made that all reality comes in pairs - positive/negative (matter, energy or anything else); electron spin up/down; mind/body, good/bad; yin/yang and so on.
Why not things in existence vs. non-existence?
Just my musings.
I'm thinking about this all my life. I have reached to the conclusion, that what ultimately exist, are the abstract mathematical objects - patterns, shapes, numbers, spaces.. All of these can be further abstracted and generalized to sets. The sets are the ultimate category of existence. Sets, of course, are just 'collections of objects, called their elements'. To this day, there is no strict definition of set in mathematics and they're being understood intuitively. For example if you say that sets are collections of objects, then you have to define what is a collection, which brings us back to set. Furthermore, I think that all possible mathematical structures exist and there is nothing, which makes some more real than others. The physical universe, which we inhabit, is just one of these possible structures, with all that it contains. Also, I think, that the reality has a quasi-fractal structure - it's similar at different scales, but never exactly the same. I can explain any of these in more details, in case someone is interested...
there are only 2 categories:
1-'this'
2-'not this'
There are only three things that exist. 1: FAITH . in the thoughts we have as memories (number one law of physics, of the conservation of information). 2: HOPE in the thoughts plans and intentions of a future not yet carried out as an expression of the 3:NOW which we LOVE because it is all that exists of us as a SINGULARITY of the energy that just keeps changing form. ... The process works like this. NOW we think about our past memories of now experiences and action reaction kicks in and we execute our plans of the future while at the same time creating new plans. IOW, we are currently creating plans (future) based on memories (past) and executing them NOW. This validates the conservation of energy and information and the laws of motion all at once, which of course solves the issue of quantum entanglement and why light has properties of wave and particles and the observer effect all at the same time.
adverts every 2 minutes really spoils the flow of experience
Use a Adblocker
@anus presley I'm using a laptop so I don't get any adverts. I have tried it on my phone
Best thing I ever did was get Premium... it is worth the money.
@Pike Fisherman That's not good. Big Brother at work then :(
Premium. The ads just became to much. And I watch RUclips more than anything for good or bad at the moment. Can't get away from some in video promos but that's down to youtuber.
3:48 I think the cricket chirping in the background is asserting that it is the fundamental bedrock of existence.
The last episode I watched the crickets were freaking out in the background. Maybe they know! And are trying to tell us lol..
I do believe animals are more enlightened then we are.
He had something to add.
Its space.
Moving space.
Areas of space move relative to other areas.
Time dilation and space contraction results in huge areas of "empty" (slow moving) space and tiny areas of "solid" (fast moving) space.
Everything is a field of space.
I'll help you with a new category that like Bohm, should be the most fundamental;
That categorical/ fundamental space is Illusions; that are really there but less real (,being roots or holes in the foundation catagory spaces), than that which generates illusion in all we see or know. See what you do with that. Robert.
“What exists?”
I suggest that anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute and utter nothingness - “exists” in some form or context.
Define nothingness please, thanks.
@@konnektlive
Hi konnektlive,
To me, nothingness is not just empty space in the universe with its alleged invisible quantum fluctuations and such, but complete and utter void.
Think of everything that could possibly exist in every possible dimension or context of reality imaginable...
(be it the universe or the multiverse, space, matter, life, mind, consciousness; be it objective or subjective, eminent or transcendent, etc., etc.)
...then think of nothingness as being the featureless and infinite (ever-yielding) “arena” that contains it all.
Now we could get into an argument over the idea of a featureless “arena” (or “void”) being something as opposed to nothing, but that’s just semantics.
Anyway, that’s my quick and simple definition of nothingness.
What’s yours? And what is your purpose in asking me to define the word?
_______
Mathematics is a pattern. It exists in the same way that music exists.
But patterns can only be identified & interpreted by coinscious beings.. so consciousness is fundamental & primal to everything.
How could you have a world without definitions? And what does it mean to define?
To define means also to differentiate. And if you differentiate between things, you create polar opposites. Between these polar opposites the experience is made.
Could this now be a basic category?
Reality/Life = That which is/That I am.
That which is (Life), that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
Space time exists, energy exists and i guess concepts exists
❤ Very good 👍🏼
OK, missing category - the (potential) unknown. What are we completely blind/oblivious about? Look how much has been discovered & created/defined, that we were completely or almost completely blind/oblivious about before or in past, throughout our history; I'm confident we likely continue to do this. ALso, the enhancements/improvements about what we know, expanded greatly beyond our past knowledge & concepts & understandings & models/stories, for the same observable/sensible/detectable knowns. & how we know (origins, foundations, paradigms, dependent conditions, etc.).
The ultimate preface to anything any one has ever thought/said/communicated/experienced/cognized/felt - "According to what ____ knows/known ...".
ALso, abilities & limitations/boundaries of the sensing/detecting/perceiving/cognizing system (like our brains & minds). I conject we may not be able to make complete accurate statements about what is known & how, unless the system doing this is accounted for in the description. Like our brains & minds, or computers or other information systems. Alien information systems (including brains & minds & perception/cognition systems) are not necessarily the same as ours; perceptual abilities & limitations could be very different even surrounding the same sense/sensation (source).
I have many more ideas/concepts/models about this.
We are all informational/(re)presentational systems, including communicating with each other; a compatible net system. Other information/sensory-perception/cognition/symbolic/(re)presentation systems may not be compatible; compatibility is important, and the degree/measure.
Can anyone join me in striving towards the limits/boundaries of our abilities, & try to extrapolate beyond them as much as possible? We impose so many assumptions & presumptions of our abilities & conditions on everything we sense & perceive & know.
i lean toward the theory of everything. everything exists and always will. if there is nothing well nothing means it dont exist and this can be emphasized dividing lets say 2. divide that into 1 then didvide 1 in 0.5 then divide it until you get 0 but you will never get 0 because 0 does not exist. we created the thought of 0 only.
There are a number of words which men (human beings) are best advised not to use, and they are as follows:
1. Exist
2. Mean
3. Real (or possibly true or fact)
The reason that it is best to avoid them is the you will inevitably get into a sort of feedback loop where you ask does existence exist or what does meaning mean, or is reality real, and it is best to avoid that if possible.
It may be that the question that is being posed is follows:
If X is only possible,or thecase if and only if conditions A and B are fulfilled, could it be that X is possible, or the case, precisely because conditions A and B have been altered or deliberately arranged, so that X is possible, or the case?
Some people suppose it to be remarkable that Fibonacci numbers appear in nature while others suppose that it be even more remarkable if they didn't appear in nature.
By the same token is it particularly remarkable that the planet earth and all its lifeforms and various features is situated in the Goldilocks zone as being in just the right place for all these things to be possible.
Put the case in another way, would it not be even more remarkable if the earth being in the Goldilocks zone, there were *not* all those features?
And again If X is t only possible, or the case if and only if conditions A and B are fulfilled, and conditions A and B are fulfilled, would it not again be remarkable if X were not possible or the case?
I/ my mind exists because “I question”, therefore...
...all minds exist.... therefore..
...new minds (babies) exist... therefore...
...other people exists because they have minds, therefore...
...other animals exist because animals are people too, therefore...
...all life exists....therefore...
...all material/space/time exists because all life is made up of these things...therefore...
...”Everything Exists”!
Your initial premise is a mere assumption. An AI-simulated human trapped in a virtual reality within a computer existing in our reality is programmed to question. The AI is also programmed with a sense of self and exists in a realty so convincing it looks at itself and others around it and concludes I AM ALIVE!.... I EXIST!.... How wrong that poor, deluded A.I is, in reality... or not, depending on the definition of 'existence' and 'reality'... The AI does exist physically as a collection of transistors but does not exist in the way it thinks it does........ But I do not believe we live in a simulated universe, personally.
PrivateSi
???
If add mechanical legs/ arms/ hands/face/body, and program it to control its own movements/etc;; how is that AI any different from a human.
A human is just a machine programmed by DNA and with faster “ organic” processors/body made of cells.
Cells are just organized inanimate matter.
@@jimliu2560 .. If you totally destroy my analogy then yes, you can make the virtual entity a real physical android - but you are missing the point. The AI thinks it exists in a real reality but it is fake. Being able to question does not mean you exist in the reality you think you occupy. You could be a brain in a jar and I could be a figment of your imagination or a simulated virtual reality... I am not a hard solipsist, personally... I am a soft one, I admit we cannot know whether this is reality - but the best bet is that it is.
I don't think I heard any mention of dark matter and dark energy which make up 95% of what surrounds us.
Why I didn't find you sooner?
That's what I'm saying.
As far as Ellis’ “possibility space”, to me that is not much different than QM’s “superposition of probabilities”. Both are just “potentialities” co-existing all-at-once, at least under most interpretations of QM.
Well, we definitely missed the metaphysical realm's ... that's for sure. 👽
Keep it real