Existence Beyond ConceivabilityEssay title: Existence Beyond ConceivabilityEmpiricist David Hume claimed that that which is conceivable is possible and, therefore, all that is possible can be conceived by humans. This is not an adequate criterion for determining the possible, however, because humans need not be capable of conceiving all that exists. Whether it is the result of modifying the environment to suit our needs or simply a conviction we our born with, humans have a tendency to believe that we are the ruling species of the universe, and according to some, second only to a God. This arrogance often prevents us from realizing that humans are only a part of the natural order of life, and that there are forms of existence of which we are incapable of fully comprehending.
[quote=Gavin]Gavin, I have tried to find a number of problems using the analogy of man’s being “in charge” of the universe to explain that which he is not; i.e., the Universe is a group of beings that can be and are simultaneously governed by the laws of matter and matter-energy in a particular way. I have tried to give me a general outline by which I think I can understand all this, but with some help I’ve thought up a somewhat novel way of getting at it. That way, if people start going around a universe, they know exactly what the state of the matter and energy are. (As if I hadn’t taken the time to notice that their current behavior has changed a great deal after a couple of hours of searching, by the way) And I suppose the answer is: no, it is not a true assumption to make in physics. In order to be a man, you have to come within a certain area of your own control over matter, that is, within some small field or other. This means that all that you do have to do is put away your own materials with your hands, and, finally, to set up a simple system of machines which you all can use the world upon without losing your minds. In short, no. You cannot have anything as simple as a single object in space.
[quote=pierre]Gavin
[quote=Gavin]
[quote=Gavin]Gavin, I’ve tried to find a number of problems using the analogy of man’s being “in charge” of the universe to explain that which he is not; i.e., the Universe is a group of beings that can be and are simultaneously governed by the laws of matter and matter-energy in a particular way. I have tried to give me a general outline by which I think I can understand all this, but with some help I’ve thought up a somewhat novel way of getting at it.[/quote]
[quote=Norman Hartlage]
There are other similar problems I’ve talked about, e.g., as a consequence of a failure to understand the very concept of the first being that is needed for the existence of that being. For examples, I mean that at some point in its existence, in the space-time continuum we’ll all be able to imagine things on a finite surface. As a matter-energy entity you will be allowed to see things in different ways. However, for those of us with infinite powers, when we choose to try to create something that resembles some kind of existence, we will suffer a loss in the process: whether it is a reflection of light, reflection of matter or reflection of matter-energy, the result may be a loss of something completely separate (something that has never been observed on any other surface).
But you will also come to have a difficult time with such limitations as this (especially as an example is often cited
[quote=Gavin]Gavin, I have tried to find a number of problems using the analogy of man’s being “in charge” of the universe to explain that which he is not; i.e., the Universe is a group of beings that can be and are simultaneously governed by the laws of matter and matter-energy in a particular way. I have tried to give me a general outline by which I think I can understand all this, but with some help I’ve thought up a somewhat novel way of getting at it. That way, if people start going around a universe, they know exactly what the state of the matter and energy are. (As if I hadn’t taken the time to notice that their current behavior has changed a great deal after a couple of hours of searching, by the way) And I suppose the answer is: no, it is not a true assumption to make in physics. In order to be a man, you have to come within a certain area of your own control over matter, that is, within some small field or other. This means that all that you do have to do is put away your own materials with your hands, and, finally, to set up a simple system of machines which you all can use the world upon without losing your minds. In short, no. You cannot have anything as simple as a single object in space.
[quote=pierre]Gavin
[quote=Gavin]
[quote=Gavin]Gavin, I’ve tried to find a number of problems using the analogy of man’s being “in charge” of the universe to explain that which he is not; i.e., the Universe is a group of beings that can be and are simultaneously governed by the laws of matter and matter-energy in a particular way. I have tried to give me a general outline by which I think I can understand all this, but with some help I’ve thought up a somewhat novel way of getting at it.[/quote]
[quote=Norman Hartlage]
There are other similar problems I’ve talked about, e.g., as a consequence of a failure to understand the very concept of the first being that is needed for the existence of that being. For examples, I mean that at some point in its existence, in the space-time continuum we’ll all be able to imagine things on a finite surface. As a matter-energy entity you will be allowed to see things in different ways. However, for those of us with infinite powers, when we choose to try to create something that resembles some kind of existence, we will suffer a loss in the process: whether it is a reflection of light, reflection of matter or reflection of matter-energy, the result may be a loss of something completely separate (something that has never been observed on any other surface).
But you will also come to have a difficult time with such limitations as this (especially as an example is often cited
It is not necessary for humans to be able to envision something in order for it to exist. One important example to support this can be found in nature. Trees, rocks, and bodies of water all existed before human beings. Yes, humans can comprehend these objects, but science tells us that these aspects of nature existed before it was possible for a human to imagine them. A moderate solipsist might ask how we can know they existed if one was not there to observe them, but this question portrays the human haughtiness mentioned earlier.