Metaphysics What Shape Is Your Water - Universal Connection

Discussion in 'Metaphysics' started by junior_smith, Sep 24, 2004.

  1. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    thats your philosiphy anyways.

    bruce lee said,
    "You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can crash, drip, flow...be water my friend."

    and that got me thinking, where would we be without a bowl? what shape would we be?

    and i said that to my friend and he said,
    'well i just imagine water falling'

    but i said that, that could ot happen because gravity is part of our bowl, and vice versa anitgravity is part of a bowl, so if we didn't have gravity we would stil be in a bowl. so then with out any sort of gravity or anti gravity, or a planet/no planet, what then is the shape of our water?

    are we then non-existent without the bowl? is the water then made by the bowl?

    i cannot stand cause and effect (and that is the number one thing teachers ask you on essays) because the two are co-existent. without one there is no other, with out ying there is not yang.

    uh oh im rambling lmao. time to end this post lol
     
  2. Icewolf

    Icewolf Premium Member

    mm Mr Deep eh, lol, but anyways I tend not to get into Philosophy, I'm a science guy myself, every time I start talking about philosophy I end up trying to file it into a catagory and analyse it scientifically, so I'm not the best person to answer.

    But then again what came before the Big Bang?
    (and don't forgot about the Big crunch, lol.)

    Can I ask how you put a signature in as everyone has something fancy in it.
     
  3. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    but then the sun or the core is part of the bowl

    gravity is part of the bowl and vice versa anti-gravity is part

    those all consist of our surroundings its fair to say that water is not a physical thing howver its not non-physical either for each is a representation of the bowl
     
  4. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    Isn't this more of a scientific question? I read it as: "What shape is a dorp of water in empty space without any gravitational fields?" The answer depends on the temperature of the water, I think. You should look up a phase-diagram to see what phase water is in at 3K and 0 pressure. The vanderwaals forces and hydrogen bridges probably can't keep the water together, so I think it would act like a gas, spreading and spreading.

    I think that you should rephrase your question to something like: To what extent is the existance of an object dependant on other objects? Can an object have properties on its own or can it just have properties in relation to other objects?
     
  5. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    but your water is not sicinetific water this is not h2o. h2o is part of the bowl, science is part of the bowl. search for what it is not to find what it is
     
  6. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    I'm with Wittgenstein and Russell on this. You must make very clear what you're talking about. What are your definitions and what is your question? My alternative questions were what you meant rephrased, right? I think you're looking for the relation between the properties of an object and other objects.

    Wittgenstein says about this in the Tractatus:

    I think he means that properties only exist in relation to other objects, but that an object can be defined on its own by all possible properties it can have. It depends on the world which properties the object has, but on the object itself which properties it can have.
     
  7. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    i think to say that the water can not exist with out water and vice versa is a good argument, but what happen when the bowl changes shape, for instance if you move to a country where you are shy and such then you have a differently shaped bowl instead you might be a cup. so then how could we exist with the bowl? but now we exist with the cup
     
  8. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    :o Am I the only one who doesnt understand that? :p Could you translate it please? thanks
     
  9. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    Close both your eyes and imagine you see a sphere. The background is black.
    Ask yourself, how big or small is the sphere? You can't tell.... Everything is relatives?

    Edit: I mean perception, by just looking at the sphere.

    I think smith is talking about the universe itself. Science, water it's part of the universe. Without the universe what would we be? The shape of water ect...

    Mother nature has way of protecting its secret!
     
  10. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    I assumed most of you knew German. Isn't it taught in American schools?

    My own translation (I only have the text in German and Dutch) but don't expect too much of it, philosophical texts are not easy to translate:

    Please, stop with the bowl/cup/water analogy. I don't understand it anymore: "for instance if you move to a country where you are shy and such then you have a differently shaped bowl instead you might be a cup." What is that supposed to mean?

    And tablet, in our universe, one would be able to define the size of a sphere as a x times the planck length. You can measure the planck length, if you have access to the right equipment.

    The question "What are the properties of an object outside the universe?" is a useless question. Because the object is a part of everything, it can't be outside everything.
     
  11. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    why not amantine? do you know what happens when you die? can science answer that question? perhaps when we die we loose our bowl

    and what i meant by that is that when you move somewhere or are faced with a new situation you become a new person different from who you thought you were.
     
  12. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    By definition, everything that happens after we die (my guess is that nothing happens) is also a part of everything. I prefer not to use the term universe, because of the cosmological and physical associations people have with it. Universe will be reserved for the topological space with the same physical laws as our own. I will use the term 'everything' for all that exists.

    I think I know what you mean. Do you mean to ask if we know that outside this universe we keep the properties we have in this universe? My answer would be this: We are an object with certain properties. These properties are determined by our relation with other objects. The rules that govern these 'connections' are the laws of logic, mathematics and physics. If we move to a place with other rules, the properties we have change as well. If our properties change, we are no longer the same as we were. It is impossible for you to exist in a world with different rules, because your existence is determined by the rules in this world. If you were to move to that other world, you would no longer be the same object.

    So, we do not only lose our properties, we no longer exist in a world with different rules. For the 'everything', you and the version of you in afterlife are not the same object, but just two objects linked by a connection.
     
  13. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    very good point,
    however if we crossover to a possible afterife, he have to have something more than a connection in buddhism it's karma in christianity its our soul. that is in essence our water, our water is our soul, our kundulini energy. without getting too religious, there has to be an identity beneath our surroundings, our circumstances and our envorinment.

    to meerly say that we are a by-product of our envorinoment is not enough for me personally. however if we look at a different way then you could say, i am part of the bowl. i am part of other's bowls as well, their water would be a different shape of water without me, therfore as a whole world we are the bowl and the water

    p.s. this is what i thought of when i thought of this forum, so keep up the good work every one
     
  14. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    Yes amantine, I couldn't say any better than that.

    Here's an analogy to understand smith's mindset.

    The water that is in your CUP (sorry for the analogy, I know you can't handle it anymore) or any water will soon go back to the ocean (where it belongs) and unite with other water that were once in the cup.

    Our soul is like water. If i'm correct, I think smith believe in soul OR is talking about it.
     
  15. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    The "identity beneath our surroundings" as you call it, are all the possible connections an object can form. The rules that determine what connections can be formed, physics, and what those connections are, logic and mathematics, depend on the rules of the world. If the rules change, the possible connections change and the underlying identity changes.

    When an object goes to another world, not only does it change in the connections it has with other objects, its underlying identity also changes. Afterlife can't exist, because the thing you become in the afterlife is no longer you. You can be connected to the afterlife-you by memories or personality, but you are not the afterlife-you.

    Furthermore, I see no reason at all to invoke something like a soul. There is no reason, scientifically or philosophically, to assume a soul exists and the soul has no clear definition. We don't add invisible, unmeasurable, undefined forces to physics either.
     
  16. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    Very interesting. I'm not into physics but what you just said is very inspiring.

    I'm going to steal that from you!

    Let me add more fuel to get this car going.

    In philosophy there's a concept call "Nothing" Nothing is a very useful concept that only exist when compare with existen.

    My other though for smith is that the MIND can be called SOUL. IF the mind exist, then SOUL exist. Let's just put it that way. MIND=SOUL=MIND. I don't know much or believe in soul. Let's see where you can take me.

    [Edited on 8-10-2004 by tablet]
     
  17. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    then amantine really and truly what are we living for?
    whats the purpose?

    and it is very possible to have a soul, i personally don't believe in souls, there are still things in science which we can not figure out science has its limitations. this forum was suppossed to be about open-mindess but you aren't willing to except abiguity.
    there are things some people can do with 'ch' or 'qi' that shouldn't be physically possible, but they can with things we can not measure.

    also going back to science, correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there an experiment done my mickelson and moorley who did something like fire a photon emitter at a plate that picks u photon emission and they had a magnet on either side of the photon emmiter (one '+' and one '-') and they borught in 20 people. they divided the people into 2 groups.
    the first group they told that in science the positive magnet is stronger, so when they fired the phton emmiter the photon emitter actually veered to the side with the '+' magnet, and the the other group the said the negative magnet would be stronger so the phton emmiter actually fired towards the '-' side. where does this experiment measure up in your science?
     
  18. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    Did I say anything about purpose? Why does my argument that an afterlife-you would not be the same as you, but at best a being with the same memories and personality, make you think that there is purpose for life? All the argument does, is deny that you here and afterlife-you are the same being. I assume therefore that you think the meaning in life is going to the afterlife to live there. But if you and after-life are the same, then the afterlife is still a part of life. Do you think that the purpose of life is eventually living in the afterlife? I find it a very stupid purpose to be alive for the sake of being alive.

    I see no reason to assume that something exists if there is no evidence that it exists. I accept that there is a possibilty that something as undefined as the soul exists and if you show me good evidence that it exists I will accept. However, I will not use an argument from ignorance for the existance of something. People usually see how wrong an argument from ignorance for the existance of something is when you write down the argument: We don't know if something exists, therefore it exists. That is a non-sequitur. There is a difference between open-mindedness and believing everything you hear.

    Using only this argument we can not dismiss souls. But there has been research to prove the existence of souls. This research failed. Neurology shows that our minds depend on our brain. This is a strong argument against souls. No measurement of a soul has been done. Let's explore my thoughts on measurements using your next claim.

    If we cannot measure something, it might as well not exist at all. A non-measurable phenomena is superfluous and we all know what Occam's Razor does with superfluous phenomena.

    Let me explain this. If something affects the world, it changes something in the world. This change is measurable. If something is not measuable, it doesn't affect anything in the world. Something that doesn't affect anything in the world might just as well not exist at all.

    In philosophy, we are able to measure all change. In science we have to keep in mind the precision of our equipment and, if humans are used as measuring instruments, the terrible amount of self-deception and information filtering the human mind is capable of. This means that science weakens arguments about the existence of some phenomena from the "might as well not exist at all" to "we don't know". The fact that something can't be measured, can never be used to defend the existence of that phenomena.

    New detectors can change this and show that phenomena do exist. With that in mind, we have to make a spectrum between "we don't know" and "might as well not exist at all". Every experiment designed to show the existence of a phenomena that fails moves use more in the "mightas well not exist at all"-direction. One positive experiment can change this. This spectrum is an inductive addition, that I think will help us learn more about the world faster, to the standard philosophical theories of science like Popper's.

    The Michelson-Morley experiment was done in 1881 to test predictions made by ether-theories of physics. It gave an unexpected null-result. This result inspired Einstein to make the theory of special relativity. I doubt you mean the Michelson-Morley experiment.

    If your experiments exists, it is part of science. It is measurable and it shows the existence of a measurable phenomena. It has nothing to with the existence of currently unmeasurable phenomena like souls or afterlife.
     
  19. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    lol tablet, i don't think we are having a debate we are just discussing our views.

    amantine, you see science as your religion, or at elast that's the way i interperet that. you can be as close minded, as fundemetalist christians. you have to leave yourself open to the fact that science may not have the answers for everything, it's a radical concept, but you have to be open minded, i am for science as much as religion, i don't neccessarily believe inafter life but im not going to categorically deny it possiblity
     
  20. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    What religion changes it views when there is new evidence? What religion tries to falsify its own ideas? I'm sorry, but there is a fundamental difference between science and religion. I accept that science can not have the answers to everything. I wrote above that science can give no definitive answers. At best it can say about the existence of a certain phenomena is that it probably exists, probably does not exist or that we simply don't know. Religion will never say that it doesn't know, because dogma and creed are a part of the definition of religion.

    If you mean by this that science is my way of looking at the world, I fully agree with this. But I do have a problem with you implying that science is a religion, something that I explain above.

    I never denied that it could exist. All I said it that philosophically, we can not know and scientifically, it probably doesn't exist. That's all, no categorically denying on my side, if that's what you're implying.