Off-topic for this forum - even in the Lounge - as it appears to be a religious statement.cogitech said:The Self, being identical to the Universe, is quite capable of this realization.
Off-topic for this forum - even in the Lounge - as it appears to be a religious statement.cogitech said:The Self, being identical to the Universe, is quite capable of this realization.
Off-topic for this forum - even in the Lounge - as it appears to be a religious statement.
Well you certainly find the idea within the western philosophical tradition (expressed in a non-religious sense). The work of Johann Fichte comes to mind as one proponent of this general idea.Off-topic for this forum - even in the Lounge - as it appears to be a religious statement.
Well you certainly find the idea within the western philosophical tradition (expressed in a non-religious sense). The work of Johann Fichte comes to mind).
Phil
Only if we are playing word-games.cogitech said:In answering such questions, the one rule is that there are no rules. One need not answer "the question of the edge of the Universe" on the same terms and assumptions as modern Physics. That is not a requirement, it is an option.
The 'edge of the universe' I think is simply a boundary within which time, space and energy are as we know it. Beyond that . . . who knows?
And yes, it is meaningless because our current paradigm cannot explain what may lie in a realm where some if the fundamentals as we understand it do not exist.
(And, no, I don't believe in ET visitations)
I agree. But perhaps it is possible for "laymen" to reach similar levels of understanding by virtue of a completely different approach?
Only if we are playing word-games.
If we don't agree what is meant by 'Universe' then we can't discuss anything about it. If we agree that it is (at least roughly) what scientists mean by Universe then we are constrained in what we can say. Physics can tell us a great deal and we are foolish to ignore it.
If we claim that 'Universe' means 'all there is' then we are making a religious/philosophical statement which may or may not be true. I believe it to be untrue: the 'universe' accessible to science is not all there is. However, I still believe that the stuff which is accessible to science is best described by science. Other aspects of 'all there is' have to be considered by other means, such as revelation.
IMO, it's just empty "space" devoid of any matter or energy that has not reached it that far yet yet............to infinity .
Any statements about what is, in any fundamental sense, unavoidably either use or contradict religious concepts. To identify Self with Universe is a direct contradiction of monotheism. Philosophers often claim to be making non-religious statements, yet they are fooling themselves.Philosophil said:Well you certainly find the idea within the western philosophical tradition (expressed in a non-religious sense).
I can only assume that you use the terms 'Self' and 'Universe' to mean something other than I understand them to mean.cogitech said:Stating that the Self and the Universe are identical is not a belief statement. It can easily be explained in scientific language.
Any statements about what is, in any fundamental sense, unavoidably either use or contradict religious concepts. To identify Self with Universe is a direct contradiction of monotheism. Philosophers often claim to be making non-religious statements, yet they are fooling themselves.
My own view is that I am still unsure whether there is a gap for Philosophy to fit in between Physics and Theology. I know something of the latter two, and find that Philosophy often seems ignorant of both. However, I must admit that I have read very little philosophy as the little I have read seems to show so much ignorance of its neighbours!
I can only assume that you use the terms 'Self' and 'Universe' to mean something other than I understand them to mean.
I would suggest that you read a little more philosophy in that case, because almost any philosopher with a concerted interest in cosmological or metaphysical questions will almost certainly be quite familiar with those neighbors. As for me personally, I have actually studied a good number of theological writings (mostly from the medieval period, but extending into the modern as well), and have some familiarity with the tradition of physics as well (understood in its root sense as phusis or 'nature' as the study of being that involves motion or change).Any statements about what is, in any fundamental sense, unavoidably either use or contradict religious concepts. To identify Self with Universe is a direct contradiction of monotheism. Philosophers often claim to be making non-religious statements, yet they are fooling themselves.
My own view is that I am still unsure whether there is a gap for Philosophy to fit in between Physics and Theology. I know something of the latter two, and find that Philosophy often seems ignorant of both. However, I must admit that I have read very little philosophy as the little I have read seems to show so much ignorance of its neighbours!
I'm not so sure about that. I think of both in terms of matter and energy. You?
Once we have dealt with cosmology could we turn our attention to neurophysiology? I'm sure any brain surgeons on here would benefit from our ideas about treatment of tumours, despite our lack of pieces of paper from medical schools telling us it's OK for us to think about brain structure and surgical techniques.