|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 27 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Theories: A bit of philosophy... |
Posted by
Alugarde on Sunday, January 20, 2002 - 04:25 AM PST
There are two driving forces in the universe. There exists a certain energy, whatever you choose to call it, that forms all that can be seen, observed, interacted with, or even comprehended. And then there is a second force, not opposite the first like in most belief systems but complimentary, an unseen something that binds this energy into whatever form it happens to take.
The energy lends itself towards change and chaos, while the binding lends itself more towards a rigid set way of working, and any form taken has to have at least a certain amount of both, for without one the other will diffuse and spread itself infinitely thin. When the energy and binding are equal, life is created. If enough energy is lost leaving the form binding-dominant the form dies and reverts to mere matter, whereas a form that gains too much energy and becomes energy-dominant becomes a force of some kind. (In this context "force" is a technical term, meaning something such as fire, lightning, or even something like gravity, whereas in the first sentence "force" is merely used for lack of a better word)
There is, however, something unique about life forms. A fire can only burn and a lifeless corpse can merely sit there until something comes along and moves it, but life has choices. Fire is (in a sense) in command of its own energy, while a corpse is likewise in command of its binding, but life commands both energy and binding and can play around with different mixtures of each. Thus are formed to semi-energy dominant forms, the mind and the spirit.
Imagine also that there is no reality. Nothing exists, all there is is an infinite void. But then, what does infinite mean? "Infinite" is a concept of reality. What follows this gets a bit abstract because being confined to this reality we can only describe it in terms of itself, so bear with me. There is no reality, only void. Space, distance, location, none of that means anything, but the only way I've been able to picture it in my mind is as if the void had a spatial property. Using such a spatial property as a point of reference,imagine that some"where" within that void there is a sudden spark of the energy mentioned earlier, the energy of reality. This energy is self-reproducing and thus infinite, and creates an infinitely expanding shockwave of reality, but this reality expands not only throughout the spatial property, but through the dimensional and temporal properties as well. This spark may or may not show up in several different "places" within the void and as realities expand and the "distance" between them decreases, eventually realities could collide, but what if they're not compatible? What happens to the overlapping areas and to the non-overlapping areas? Do the realities compete or do the absorb into each other and create a hybrid reality? Obviously my theory isnt complete yet since I'm asking such questions, but I'm working on it. I'm also working on a way of explaining space and time as being semi-binding-dominant forms. Something tells me theres more to it than just saying they've got more binding than energy. Anyway, thats what I've got for now. More later...
|
|
| |
|
|
This article has not been rated
|
|
|
|
|
|
A bit of philosophy... | Login/Create an account | 20 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Ow...my freaking head...
by Dolorosa on Jan 20, 2002 - 04:57 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Ok...took me awhile tobreak that down intolayman's terms so I could understand it. Real deep thinking I guess...problem is, what does that have to do with anything? I'm going to go back to nihilistic little poetries, unusual musics and dark tastes and leave that junk to Mr. Wizard and Bill Nye the metaphysical guy...
|
Re: A bit of philosophy...
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com)
on Jan 20, 2002 - 05:41 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://devin.vibechild.com/
|
What good is metaphysics if you use such big words to describe it that nobody can (or wants to) understand what you're talking about.
Translation:
There's all kinds of vibes - they can be straight up or skattered. It takes all kinds. And it rocks to be alive cuz you get to play with them.
|
Oddly Enough...
by Rae (darkness_embraced1@yahoo.com)
on Jan 20, 2002 - 07:06 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://darknessembraced.vibechild.com
|
Oddly enough, this has been one of my very own thoughts. You know, the type of thoughts that enter your mind in the middle of the night when all is quiet. No wonder I am such an insomniac.
|
Re: A bit of philosophy...
by Anonymous-Coward on Jan 20, 2002 - 07:13 PM
|
But, fire burns until it runs out of fuel and the corpse will decay. The fire will create as the blows into the wind, thus spreading itself infinitely thin across everything, and the corpse will rot into the ground, spreading the nutrients it absorbed from the ground in life to a greater area, thus spreading itself infinitely thin.
Does the beinding of all things wear off the longer they exist? Thus, all is an amorphous solid that spreads and is re-bound by heat?
The cookie cutter and the sheet of dough are such odd concepts. Thus, is all things that the cookie cutter cuts eventually rejoin the sheet, the cookie cutter must eventually become part of the sheet as well, since it has to have come from some energy vat somewhere.
Sure, another cookie cutter will come into existence, but it's patterns will be different, such like dinosaurs, or disco clothing, or something else horrendous and not comprehendable to the remaining cut cookies.
Now that's a sweet cookie!
Comedian-- still trapped in Reno (GAH!{tm})
|
Here comes the Inquisitor
by Arthegarn on Jan 21, 2002 - 01:22 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Interesting pot, Alugarde. A little aprioristic, if you ask me but interesting.
For the sake of discussion, I don't believe there is such a thing as a second energy to shape the first. I thnk that, considering what we know so far through science, there was in the initial seconds of the universe a force, external to this universe, that created a variation in the density of the energy within the energy field that the universe was at that time, thus preventing what should have happened: a momogeneous universe (this is a complicated idea, if anyone wants it developed say so and I'll post it, but right now it'd make the post WAY too long). But that's all, I don't believe in a second, dynamic bindng force. It's not neccesary more that as a passive premise. If you consider that the energy spreads as much as it can until it finds another exiting energy that blocks it spreading (mutually). The individual energetic pattern's shape (if anything as a shape exists) is determined by the surrounding energy paterns and the shape of the Universe. The second energy is uneccesary in terms of Ockham's razor.
This influences your second paragraph, of course. But even if it didn't, your theory of the relation between the energy and the binder and how it results in solids or life or forces is aproiristic again, and doesn't stand a moderate attack. What of plasma? What of photons and tachyons? What's the relationship of Death and the energy-binder ratio? Death is the force that disturbs the equilibrium? Because there are bindersome deaths, such as a coronary that leaves a corpse and no more, and energeticsome deaths, such as falling into a High Oven. By the way, this doesn't fit too well with the Enthropy Principle. ¿Too little binder in the universe?
Third paragraph: fire can only burn, yep. And life can only live. You insert the defined in the definition: If life didn't have "spontaneous" (that could also be discussed, what of crystals?) choices (that could also be discussed, what of viruses?) how would you tell it apart from unlife? You say life commands energy and binding, I thought life was a result of energy and binding. By your own definition if life changes that mixture it will die. There can be nothing like semi dormant energy forms for that would take out energy from its struggle with the binder, let the binder win and life to cease to exist.
The fourth paragraph gets too exotic fot me. Energy is NOT self replicant, according to all we know of it. OK, let's get over it all and assume that in this exotic void our science is extremely limited and we don't have a clue (That's what I call a leap of faith... and they ask me how can I be a Catholic!). Even then, infinite things are not self replicating by their own nature. You can't have two infinite things in the same plane of existence unless they don't interact with each other at all. "this reality expands not only throughout the spatial property, but through the dimensional and temporal properties as well" You and Einstein have different concepts of what a dimension is: there are two kinds of dimensions: Spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions. Time is a dimension, not a property. If the spark is infinite, it MUST be everywhere, it can't be here and not there. Otherwise it's a very limited infinite, wouldn't you say? Thus there can be no thing such as overlapping areas: The "realities" are always overlapping...
(* * *)
The difference between a theory and a poem is that theories exist to be proved or disproved. As a free (and unasked for, and therefore never well recieved) advice, prove your premises before working too hard on developing them, or else take it as a poem whose objective is to be beautiful and not to be true. Philosophy is the love of knowledge, this might be more like yhe love of beauty, phylo(insert here the greek lexem for beauty, which I can't remember right now).
Arthegarn
|
Hakuna Matata anyone?
by Dolorosa on Jan 21, 2002 - 03:55 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Yin and Yang chi, the circle of life...the essence of Gaia, heck...from the dust we were created. Lots of ways to say it I guess...Vibes man, just vibes...to complexify a simple concept renders it a pale comparison to what it truly is...just something that is.
|
|
|