Colin McGinn - What Are The Things of Existence?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2021
- How many different kinds of 'things' are there? What are the fewest number of things that can characterize existence and do so exhaustively? In other words, what are the most basic building blocks of everything we see and know? From what things can all that exists be constructed? Are things needed beyond the physical?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on metaphysics: bit.ly/3tXcWsr
Colin McGinn is a British philosopher.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Colin is one of the coolest dudes Robert interviews. He's quite balanced, not strict materialists nor into that whole religious stuff. He just tries to connect the dots and that's it.
He is a pluralist though and hence wants to encourage adding more categories. Wouldn't it be wiser instead to singularize everything as pragmatic philosophers have opted and stick to one category "abstract"? By so doing is it not easier to engage at all levels be it physical, mental, Devine, value what have you?
@@scoreprinceton Well he's not trying to impose a certain view. He's just collecting all kinds of views to reach a better understanding.
@Chris Eggleton - What?
Wow! I never thought of the abstract as a separate category because I never thought that hard about it. And I never thought about scientists' dismissal of a separate mental category as unproven metaphysics is itself an unproven metaphysical claim. I learn so much from this interviews.
Sounds like you're already way ahead of the curve:)
The abstract might not qualify as a separate category - it could be seen as entirely a product of thought - if not for its remarkable persistence and scope. It's that old debate about whether mathematics is invented or discovered.
To put it another way, would the mathematics developed by different beings somewhere else in the universe, or in some different universe, be appreciably different from human mathematics? There might be a universe in which the axioms of set theory or number theory might not seem necessary, for example a universe that has no discrete elements but is some kind of vast smooth wave function, but would that universe necessarily prevent those axioms from leading to the results of set theory or number theory?
This is a more interesting question than you might think, because we're so used to thinking in terms of discrete things, such as discrete axioms or discrete steps in a proof. Could discrete elements exist in the abstract, independently of the properties of a material universe? My personal opinion is yes, because we in this universe can certainly conceive of them, and we only need one such instance to conclude that the possibility exists. Whether or not they're available in other universes doesn't reduce the strength of this conclusion.
@@starfishsystems Excellent! Just rewatched, the film, "Arrival." Speaks to the issues raised in your post. Thank you:)!
The abstract is absolutely a necessary quality. It isnt thought about often because we use it to postulate/imagine and sometimes to balance mathematical arguments (math in itself is of the abstract). Most of us leave it behind when we venture into the real, practical world. However it is the only way to rationally qualify things such as infinity, prime number such and things like incompleteness theorem to name a few.
I want to, if I may, apply David Duetschs Constructor Theory and Eric Weinsteins Geometric Unity theory to this premise though. Both fairly recently novel theories, it would appear as though we could arrive at a framework that can allow us to arrive at a certain set of base fundamental axioms or first principles as they pertain to this universe. Now, from this one should be able to not only theoretically reconstruct reality from these principles, but have reality continue on creating itself. I think there is going to be yet another new branch of philosophy that deals with this. Its very hard to describe because we are now pushing the bounds of human ontology. There is perhaps ontology that is outside the human purview but could it really then be said that it is applicable to humans if it is not fundamental to our understanding? What if it is fundamental in operation but not in understanding?
I think the best chance we have is to come up with a rational argument and try to work on a proof that is immune to time and space, matter and even consciousness. But that level of abstraction may be unknowable by its very nature. It is like asking a singularity to create another singularity. Veratasium has a great video on the things we will never know and goes into the detail on knowability and mathematical proofs from mathematicians such as Cantor, Hilbert, Von Nueman and Godel, to name a few. some of whoms work would go on to aid in the understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics.
@@starfishsystems World renowned mathematician Michael Atiyah does not agree with you
You know, it’s such a pleasure to hear really brilliant, thoughtful people like this guy and Robert talk about the big questions this series deals with. It’s reassuring to know that people like these two dudes exist. That we’re not all ignorant tribal angry reptilian brains. Just most of us.
Was that a confession? Do you need absolution?
The value category is very real. Humans laugh at jokes, and lower animals have their brands of play. Birds have their own "purposeless" music, and so do dolphins and whales. The maternal instinct is a value category, because the mother can recognize vulnerability and defencelessness. And there's a real reason why flowers are attractive for insects, birds and humans.
And all you said seems real ,really real ...values that come from a different world .
@@rovidius2006
Is that an ad hominem attack? It's patently false, and my comment came from inside me, but I'm not from another world. Still, res ipsa loquitur, and you could have beaten me to the punch in saying it.
@@rovidius2006
My comment doesn't SEEM real, they are real. I just described our world as I see it, not a DIFFERENT WORLD.
@@maverick1972 No attack whatsoever ,it is just the realization that part of us may be originating from a different world ,some of the observable properties we encounter don't seem genuine to earth if one scans them carefully .
@@rovidius2006
I still can't tell whether you're objective, mildly insulting or poignantly wistful.
My consciousness is all that exists as far as I can tell.
Exactly! Awareness itself
@@monkkeygawd Yup - without awareness, even if reality exists outside of self, does it matter at all?
....are you sure?
Petra Kann yes, as far as I can tell, idk how I would figure out that anything else existed lol
Don't know about that. I can kind of make out the nose, a pair of eyes and brows, hair on top and bottom. Not sure about the mouth, though, that might not exist.
Just to sum this up… I’ve no idea what the categories are
The value category, especially moral, is interesting; it also has the possibility to bring together other categories.
It reminds me of Robert Prisig's 'qualia'.
If we are strictly discussing ontological categories, value categories don’t seem like they can ontologically “bring together” ontological categories like the mental and physical.
Colin's plurality could be organised if plotted as a tree chart, as in taxonomy. He already noted that the mental depends on the physical, so physical things would be at the base of the "tree", along with information (instead of Plato's eternal abstract) because matter must have some kind of form and forms must be applied to matter. The physical domain includes particles, fields etc and the mental domain could branch off to value, emotion etc.
The difference between physics now and metaphysics in the past is particle accelerators. We can now test the hypothesis that we make. In very subtle, but very definite ways, we can experiment, and take measurements.
And what the accelerators have been telling now is that everything is a wave (function). Science has said other things in the past. But that’s what Science does.
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of the infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far."
HP Lovecraft
In physics particles are not different fundamentally with fields.
A particle is a narrow manifestation of a field. A local perturbation in the field.
(Waves)
Most of the stuff that Colin McGinn would put in separate categories would go just as easily in sub-categories. The first category has to be whether the thing in question can act causally on another thing that exists. If a thing can't interact with other things, then there is no way you could know about it, so it is imaginary at best.
Try and look at the quantum wave function and wave function collapse, and try to say the same thing. Good luck untangling ontology and epistemology there. No one has solved it
@@Robinson8491 It is difficult enough at our human level to make such strict categories. At this stage of the game, I would categorize all of quantum theory as mathematical constructs crafted by humans to explain weird experimental results. Explanations of quantum wave functions exist in the same way that any stories do, but I doubt that it would make sense to say that they exist as things in themselves. I don't think it is very useful to imagine that these experimental results tell us anything about the ontological existence of particles or anything else, but many people would disagree with my assessment.
@@caricue Unfortunately, these experiments are all we have. What do you suggest we base our knowledge of the world on? Which is being tested to the extreme beyond our own normal experience by these experiments anyway?
@@Robinson8491 That's a really good question. I would first point out that the fundamental nature of reality is a philosophical question that cannot be answered by science. I'm not saying that the research is fruitless, just that the goal must be to find regularities in nature, not find some sort of essential quality of existence.
There is also a presumption built into your question. You are assuming that reductionism is the only route to knowledge. Reductionism is super useful to advance science and technology, but it is not going to answer existential questions. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that all the answers are more likely to be in ultimate reality, not fundamental reality. We live in ultimate reality. Our everyday reality is what the micro-level enables and responds to, not the other way around, so, as Dorothy said to the Wizard,
“If I ever go looking for my heart’s desire again, I won’t look any further than my own back yard. Because if it isn’t there, I never really lost it to begin with!"
This guy was interesting could talk to him for hours
the many categories of reality are subsets of the four fundamental categories of the physical, mental, abstract, and the divine, transcendent, or holistic. ken wilber's AQAL model clearly provides the map for these categories and their sub-types, embodied in truth-body, beauty-mind, goodness-culture, and justice-systems.
Fields and particles are just different features of quantum field theory. Physicists don't try to get rid of them. They replace them with a deeper concept that embraces both. This was settled 100 years ago.
The simulation theory would be a theory of everything if it was true
Everything In our universe sure. But not the universe that's simulating us.
@@nahCmeR true I was thinking about editing that comment lol and the show goes in but at least we’d know everything there is to no about our place in our pixelated reality!
I blame Quasicrystals 🤣
@@raspberrypi4970 something like that haha
@@alanbrady420
You ever watch those Quantum Gravity Research videos..
The Theory of Everything
They talk about the E8 Lattice/ Quasicrystals/ Pixelation and so on
What’s the highest frequency wave in the highest spectrum that can be made?
The modern discussions should be in "natural" (as opposed to material - which leads people to think of particles of matrials etc, or physical which is also too narrow) vs. supernatural. Basically natural is something that can be EVENTUALLY explained and does not involve something unknowable vs. supernatural by definition are outside the "natural" world (magical, unknowable and mysterious stuff).
To say that philosophy is nonsense is itself a philosophical statement.
You cant escape philosophy.
My consciousness tells me that I exist and everything else is also only recognized to exist in my conscious mind but nothing of matters resides in my conscious mind.
Neither philosophy nor science or mathematics can help me to prove the existence of things outside of my consciousness so I used to (and perhaps everyone else too) assume and has been taking for granted that the universal matters outside my consciousness do exist.
Fortunately for me, by guidance of Allah - The Almighty Creator of the universe - after reading His Book of Revelation - alQuran , now by certainty I know that the universal matters do exist because He has created them. In fact He was created me, my consciousness and gifted me with faculties of hearing, seeing and objective and subjective feelings.
Now I'm trusting that everything I observe isn't an illusion but a reality. Sciences are reals - the studies of AyatuAllah - signs of the existence of All-Living, The All-Independently Self Subsistence, All-Knowing and All-Powerful Creator.
Proof is the logical relation between mind and reality. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.
Even if the whole thing is a "physical accident" how far does the accident extend?
Light is not fast hope next episode will about light.
“How many different kinds of 'things' are there? What are the fewest number of things that can characterize existence and do so exhaustively? In other words, what are the most basic building blocks of everything we see and know? From what things can all that exists be constructed? Are things needed beyond the physical?”
There is only one “thing.” The only substance that exists in the universe is “light.”
Everything arises from Still Light. The vacuum is the fulcrum of motion. What we call “physical” is simply motion.
L. Dove
Arbiter - Universal Law
How is the abstract different from mental?
Abstraction is a selective mental focus.
Many and One Relationship Matters, e.g. Wave-Particle Duality Follows the self-evident principle: A Bizarre Contrast of Dimensional Efficacy (ABCDE), IFS = IFL: a higher dimensional being is a sum of the infinite number of its lower dimensional integral components, for example, electron cloud outside hydrogen atomic nucleus formed by infinite number of 2-dimensional electronic realities in Imaginary Time (IT) is equal to one the measured.
Became apparent very early in this interview that the interviewee is psychologically a proponent of heterogeneous thinking.
It is important in ones development to be able to denote differences, but this line of thinking takes the back seat once greater, unifying relationships between the diverse components being observed are established.
Still worth ten minutes
All things is Creation, all creations are temporary, camouflaged motion.
And We are still, Here and Now.
1 second of universe time and gone we will be ,not a important feature of long living stars .
Ontological nature of physics:
Fields, particles and if they should be both classified as material.
Of mind:
Cognitive aspect
Emotional
Intent/choice
Heterogeneous- diverse in character or content
Realm of the abstract
Numbers
Propositions
Infinitesimal points in space
I would note that questions and changes of perspective are housed under the umbrella of propositions.
Points of space look like they belong to the physical category of space in one aspect and to the abstract realm in another
Pizza, hairballs, and keys.
💪🙏💛
The things of existence are what we can prove by scientific methods are real otherwise we dont yet know if they exist...
Common human experience validates scientific method.
INSPIRING. I've long thought that these so-called "intangible" things like emotions, thoughts, values have their place in the pantheon of the *physical* Universe too. The Bible has an interesting sentence which I suspect may give us a clue to the true nature of reality: "God is Love" for example. If the idea is to convey the simple notion that God is a loving person and He loves people, places, and things - like humans do, then why use such a peculiar phrase? Why not just say "God is a loving person"? Could the answer have something to do with there being a *physical* component to the emotion of Love? In other words, if we boil God down to his most fundamental substance of which He consists, could that "thing" be Love - as not just an abstract emotion, but actually a true substance that has direct and concrete relationship with all tangible things like rocks, baby food, galaxies, and humans? Taking a step further, could this "Love Thing" ("love particle"? "love field"?) be all that really truly exists fundamentally, and that everything else we know of is made out of it simply by carving out and dislocating the "Love Stuff" into the Multiverse, our Universe, our Galaxy, our Solar System, our Earth, our human race? This implies then that all of material existence resides in and is supported by the true underlying scaffolding - Love. I'm not trying to sound flowery and only chose Love because there's a literary work that sparks the idea (at least in my head) that an emotion can be more than an abstract idea, but it can also be something very concrete and tangible. In order for there to be something, anything at all, then there cannot truly be any such thing as "Nothing" in the most fundamental sense because with Nothing as the most fundamental state of all existence - then who or what was there within or without this Nothing to create something out of Nothing? And then who or what created that "God"? And so on.... However - if you begin to adopt the idea that There is No Such Thing as Nothing, these aforementioned conundrums are dispensed with in favor of the simple idea that everything that is was put into existence and resides in the infinite "Love Field" whether that be a God of some sort or an impersonal "Akashic Field" for example. In this model, all that exists is literally existing within the mind of "God" and we are best described as "His dreams". This helps explain the double slit experiment in Quantum Physics, and also explains some mystic phenomena many folk speak of for example entering a spooky house or building and feeling something very real only to find out later the house was the scene of a previous murder and the building used to be a jail where prisoners were beaten and inmates did violence on each other. I think emotions and thoughts are much much more tangible than we ever imagined. And no, I'm not smoking anything, I'm perfectly sober! (LOL)
"Why not just say 'God is a loving person'" - Because obviously if any 'God' exists, it's not a person but incomprehensive uniwersum entity, emergence of entire universe.
I suggest that the "ALL-THAT-IS" can be divided into two *ultimate* categories, and those two categories are *"somethingness"* and *"nothingness."*
In other words, everything that resides on the opposite side of *absolute* nothingness...
_(be it mental or physical, immanent or transcendent, corporeal or incorporeal, you name it)_
...can be considered as being real and existent in some context or another (that's the "somethingness" aspect of the "ALL-THAT-IS").
Therefore, anything that does not reside in the "somethingness" category belongs in the "nothingness" category.
Again, there are only two *ULTIMATE* categories pertaining to the "ALL-THAT-IS."
_______
Well done.
Physicists very well understand that particles are just excitations of fields (quantum field theory). In a sense everything in the physical world can be boiled down to fields. It's not controversial , it's commonly accepted in modern physics.
What do you mean by “are just excitation of fields”? If by that you mean mere reduction, then I’m not sure that “everything can be boiled down to fields” is true, regardless of what modern physicists claim. If you mean eliminative reduction, then sure.
@@Deductivenightmare I don't think I'm going to be successful in teaching you QFT in the CZcams comments, but even a cursory read on Wikipedia is enough to get that particles are not a separate fundamental "thing" from fields. The framework is very successful in predicting the behavior of the world around us, and is unequivocal about the fact that particles are a manifestation of excited fields (which are fundamental).
@@jeremypmerrill thank for your reply. There are several things worthy of note here here. First, I didn’t desire to explicitly disagree with you, nor do I believe anything I said could be construed as a asserting the falsity of your claim. Second, I’m aware of development in contemporary physics-mostly cosmology, though. I understand QFT enough to discuss it’s relationship to philosophy, and more specifically to metaphysics. I’m simply saying that your interpretation of QFT presupposes a very specific version of reduction, which is not necessary. Lastly, in a philosophical discussion, it is almost worthless to say things like “well, those theorists over there accept theory T, so it is correct.” Moreover, anyone who knows anything about philosophy of science knows how controversial this statement is when applied to scientific theories.
@@Deductivenightmare So you basically just said that metaphysics is nonsense. I completely agree.
@@schmetterling4477 again, it is incredible, from my perspective, to suggest that anything I’ve said implies that I believe or accept the following proposition: metaphysics is (basically) nonsense. I suppose a lot of this depends on what you mean by “metaphysics”. I think some forms of metaphysics are incredibly valuable and unavoidable. But I imagine I would agree that some kinds of metaphysics are indeed nonsense. I’ll make it explicitly. I accept the following propositions: (1) some metaphysics is meaningful and worth pursuing and engaging with; and (2) some metaphysics is not meaningful or worth pursuing, given a suitable definition of “metaphysics” for each.
Genesis 1:6 and God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters. Possibility of showing a gravity field.
Your faith is noted.
@@TeaParty1776 thank you. God bless. Jesus is the one that puts the note to it not me.
@@ChuckBrowntheClown Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.
@@TeaParty1776 because of people not looking inward is why we have the reality that we see outward.
@@ChuckBrowntheClown Life requires looking out at reality w/a focused mind, using that to guide survival. Looking inward as basic causes failure, dispair, mental illness and death. You evade identifying what you see outward.
conjecture, pomposity, speculation and opinion. Not tangible things.
In other words, we can categorize anything, in any way, into as many categories, as we wish. (mind blown... not)
Categories that identify reality without contradiction are mans basic method of survival.
Man can ,of course, evade this.
Intro. To Objectivist Epistemolology-Ayn Rand; a new theory of categories.
Kudos -- SUDOKU
Normal matter makes up only 5% of the universe. The rest is known to exist only by the motion of the 5% we can see. That's not much to work with, actually, since we don't know enough about dark matter or dark energy to break them down into more than one category for each. It's pretty arrogant to think otherwise.
So you are basically making an argument for not trusting your own beliefs that you know everything, already. That's cool, because that is exactly how dark matter and dark energy were discovered.
@@schmetterling4477 How you derived that from what I said, I have no idea. I'm just repeating the information that the physicists tell us as of now. That does not preclude new discoveries. I'm not arguing with the philosopher. It does no good argue with philosophers, troll.
@@GradyPhilpott Well, for one thing, all matter is only known to exist by motion. There is no knowledge of anything in a motionless universe. And, yes, that is physics 101, not philosophy. Try to think deeper.
Reality is complicated for us because of our mental ineptitude in trying to understand and identify it. We want to understand billions of years of development over several hundred years. But we are still babies in an attempt to understand laws of universe. I, too, would like to understand them in my lifetime, but it's not feasible. Who knows if it ever will be. I don't think humanity will survive to that day.
Or maybe it is not needed from the point of our programming. Maybe the simplest answer is that we are programmed with a given limit.
It's actually pretty easy to understand reality for those who didn't sleep in high school science class.
You can tell he’s a philosopher 😆 at this level I tend to be more on the side of physics and Robert made the correct points so I could make this decision more strongly too. I bet he has his belief as they might lead onto an afterlife, lol
Someone at this level can have a neutral view ,physics should not be considered the only place of reality defining science ,there maybe more over the horizon .
Consciousness is Dark Energy.
There's only one thing that exists - that is consciousness =love =infinity. In fact, there cannot be a theory of everything because everything is not a theory.
sounds to me like Advaita Vedanta. Nothing new under the sun. Four stages of existence.
walking, dreaming, deep sleep and the "Turia". This material is over 5000 years old and he is still trying to crack the same joke
There's something rather than nothing because everything is nothing and nothing is everything. For there to be nothing everything must exist. We are God. There was never a Big Bang, that's something we imagined.
I think the big bang was actually deduced from the available evidence, although physics can't account for what happened at or before the big bang, so it's not just a product of imagination. The big bang theory doesn't account for everything that we are able to observe, but so far it seems to be the best explanation available.
Everyone here 🕋is You in a different cubic dimension of space time 🗝
Non-existence is intrinsically ideal. Like it or not.
but since there is existence a non-existence is not ideal anymore. (except of course for depressed/nihilist people)
@@francesco5581
Non-existence remains the intrinsically ideal default state that it is. That existence is subsequently forced doesn't change it.
@@somethingyousaid5059 So being alive in existence is now a cruel act :p
@@somethingyousaid5059 None existence in the absolute sense is impossible(physical, metaphysical and even abstract). The expression "Nothing is impossible" is literally true lol. Cause think about it, what is none existence? Everything that we know, believe, imagine or even just put into words exists at least as an idea/concept or at minimum a claim. So therefore, somethings are possible, but nothing is impossible lol.
@@somethingyousaid5059 This is why I reject the notion of eternal oblivion for humans at least cause the idea that you no longer exist as a presence in any shape of form sounds almost impossible to comprehend and impossible to imagine if you ask me cause, how can we define to not exist when all we're fimiliar with is existence? Someone might point out pre-birth but pre-birth simply presents us with absolute lack of any memory whatsoever, that doesn't really mean much. One of the best evidence that we continue on in some state/realm or another is the fact that we exist now, think about it, if we will infinitely not exist after this life, why the hell would we be existing now? The mere fact that we're in existence now at least doesn't give us good reasons to think that we should stop totally.
My Theory
The Absolute of No Beginning nor End can never be questioned.
All answers require a starting point/ Cause and everything else that happens after is an Effect.
But since there's No Beginning nor End there's no starting point. Something that can never be created nor destroyed. So where do you go from there.
To Create a starting point/ the 1st Cause ever, you would have to consider No Beginning nor End the starting point as awhole itself, since there's no individual starting point within itself because it's infinite. So now you have a Cause.
Almost like an infinite finite without limits but 1 bound. Effect is created.
The only 'Why' question that can arise is the Effect, because like I stated, the one and only Cause already happened. Everything else is just the Effect/ Continuous.
My Theory continues(Effect)
Dimensional -1 i Singularity Genesis Fractal Particle Theory
D-1iSGF Particle is able to Program itself but never the same result because the particle structure always changes through it's own awareness, By splitting itself into 2 using [ i,i ].
This -1 Particle is a dimension itself, containing information of self for Existence to be.
Explained below will show by awareness of self to see what self [is] arises [ i ]Manifestation of Possibilities. Like you in a Dream Observing you aka "awareness" or you can be you actually awake in your Dream aka "awakened".
But in this case it happens simultaneously
*
variable v - vibration is a energy source that reaches point to of (~f)
variable x - x is the enlightened number
variable (~f)- wave frequency is a perfect harmonic numeric energy code to access the Void
variable [i,i] - infinit/infinit loop
variable d - dimension
variable p - particle
variable m - manifestation
(-1) Particle⚫ reason is do to self being, because nothing else Interacts with the Particle Not even with itself, the equation of ( 0) -1p+0p= -1p or 0p+ -1p=-1p either will do. Then v(x)=(~f)see variables*
When the Particle does de-fusion it become two Particles○/○●=●. -1dp(~f)/2dp(~f)
=1dp(~f)
because they are still one in the same❔
Almost like a Dream? Time is irrelevant Except within:
Void is Dimensional [ i ] Zero [+-0md(~f)], the Infinite Possibility of Manifestations that decodes the information from the Particle , to bring upon reality.
The second same Particle leaves the original Dimension, appearing in a time Manifestation of the Void. That's why the Void can never be filled.
-1dp(~f)( +-0md(~f)) + 1mdp(~f)
=1mdp(~f)
1st manifestations dimension Fractal Particle
So -1 Dimension became 1 Manifestation Dimension in the void
Particles know when they're being observed because they Observe themselves.
So In combination of -1d and -+0d/1mdp you get:
(-1dp(~f)+2mdp(~f))1mdp(~f) (+-0md(~f))
+1mdp(~f))
1mdp(~f) + 1mdp(~f)(1p(~f))
1mdp(~f) + 1mdp(~f)
= 2mdp(~f)
Genesis?
Singularity 2 Dimensional Manifestation Fractal Particle.
Pure Thought Energy from the Particle that got decoded to information to Create Reality from Manifestation within the Void..
[-1dp(~f)(+-0md(~f))]+ 1mdp(~f)) + 2mdp(~f)
1mdp(~f) + [-+0mdp(~f)] + 1mdp(~f) + 2mdp(~f)
= 3mdp(~f)
Or 3rd Dimensional Manifestation Fractal Particle
Results of Possibilities immeasurable in 3 Manifestations Dimensions do to unknown variables, origin D-1iSGF
Eventually D-1iSGF goes back to -1dp(~f) or non-awareness
And not -1dp(~f) , -+0md(~f), 1mdp(~f) then [ i,i ]
All over, back to self-awareness.
[i] Information can never fill, just recycled in the same order...Destruction and Chaos
Creation and Order
You can't Change what works.
-1dp(~f), -+0md(~f), 1mdp(~f) this is known as Superior Positioning -
Still work in progress ^
Only God is the answer before all questions start.
Religious "prik"
Question to Understand what was given, so we can use aka Science Field.
The purpose of the Mind.
Closed circle...
There is no God
@@raspberrypi4970 First of all quantum mechanics teaches us that some extent mind can control material world. Now what is mind ? Well at least experimentally we know we can connect with some ecstasy feelings, blissfullness but to whom ? At least spritualists say with divine. Well atheists say it is illusion, skeptics say we don't know and may be there is a reality of different dimension but that will not change spiritualist's world.
And this is why philosophy is completely useless.
Philosophy is useless within a limit.
@@TeaParty1776 A very, very, very small limit. We are possibly dealing with a 2500 year long null-experiment.
The conclusion that the fundamental thing is physical is simplistic, therefore unreliable. Quite a lazy conclusion.