jump to last post 1-45 of 45 discussions (415 posts)

If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?

  1. 0
    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

    I have heard all sorts of arguments about existence, how the laws of logic exist, how morality exists, how love exists, and so on.  I have tried to challenge these assumptions with the object/concept explanation, but that seems to be either too simple or too difficult to accept for many - especially, it seems, for those who have some type of need for an observer-centric model of the universe.

    I decided that perhaps that reply may be too esoteric, so the simple question is to ask this: without humans, what is left in the universe?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Gee Winston. We have  almost no idea what is in the universe. How would we know what was left if you took us out of the equation?

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Emile R,

        What do you think might be in the universe of which you are unaware?

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol That is so adorable. I know you can't be serious. We speculate a lot at this point, but we know absolutely nothing outside of what we have observed. And that is a pitiful small amount of the observable universe.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (We speculate a lot at this point, but we know absolutely nothing outside of what we have observed)

            Emile R,

            I am starting to think you may not want to face the question?  Lots of people on these pages have claimed in other posts to know that the unobservable exists, things like morality, love, logic, and, of course, god.

            Now here you are bowing out because of the unobservable.  Seems a curious position on your part.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Winston, I simply wonder why you worded it the way you did. Plus, it's an odd question. Logic and morality are concepts  that have been developed slowly by man. Love is an emotion. All three exist uniquely within the individual. My personal brand of logic, morality and love will disappear upon my death. So, I guess it follows that these, as we understand them, would all disappear if humanity ceased to exist.

              But, we are not the only observers, or thinkers, on this planet. Nor is it logical to assume that we are the extent of life in the universe.

              1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There are many "types" of logics so far as to say that there are many types of elephant, though there exists only one logic in our Universe. That is the correct one.

                Logic is neither predicated on nor created by sentient beings. 

                Logics, however are and as Emile you say, will die with our death if not passed on.

                Though if we knew all pieces of information, the conclusion will always be the same, because logic is constant?

                Substitute the word for truth and it becomes a little easier to understand.

                The underlying point being that logic is constant, universal and ever present regardless of sentience so long as there is something to be logically concluded.

                Our understanding of it however, is an ever evolving and often embarrassing situation.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I never thought of it that way, but I see what you're saying. It makes sense.

                2. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  (The underlying point being that logic is constant, universal and ever present regardless of sentience so long as there is something to be logically concluded.)

                  Philanthropy,

                  The action of logically concluding requires a sentient being - logics are not self operating mechanisms that reside on the far side of Mars.  You are confusing the sensation of thinking that the idea seems timeless with a reality that there is an actual thing called logic that resides somewhere in the universe outside of sentient minds.

                  There isn't.  It doesn't.  The idea is in your mind.

                  1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                    Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What you are referring to is specifically the human action of logically concluding. Denying the other meaning of logic.

                    Allow me to explain it with a simple example of logic:

                    1.  Gravity effects mass
                    2. Trees have mass
                    3.  Trees are effected by mass

                    Now, take away humans, and that logic doesn't become non existent. That same logic applies to trees regardless. Yes, it was the action of logically concluding that allowed me to express that logic, but that's not to say without me the logic is non existent. Logic is not predicated on being spoken, communicated or even understood.

                    Logic is not only a human way of thinking, but also the true links between everything in the Universe.

                    Here is a definition of the word that well describes what I'm talking about:

                    4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events
                    (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic)

                    It is the relationship aspect that remains constant, not what was made by humans. Logic therefore does exist without sentience. Human logic does not exist without humans (or other sentients capable of understanding it).

                    Yes, I have acknowledged that it is also a way of thinking or science founded and created by humans, and the other definitions cater for such, and I acknowledge that without humans those logics would not exist.

                    My argument is highlighted by the fact that if sentience was wiped out, and then new sentience came in, gravity would still affect trees, and it's not that the new sentience invented such a concept, they merely saw the link and understood it.

                    By that standard, true logic is not invented or created, rather it is discovered.

                3. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  (The underlying point being that logic is constant, universal and ever present regardless of sentience so long as there is something to be logically concluded.)

                  philanthropy,

                  You are saying the state of being susceptible to logic is logic.   This is the same as the notion that an apple seed is an apple tree.  The distinction is that in both cases a dynamic activity is required for completion.

                  Defining the problem in mathematical terms is not mathematics.  It requires the action of reaching a solution to be mathematics, and that action requires sentience.

              2. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Emile R,

                Then perhaps the question should have been worded as subtact life or subtract sentience - because most people seem to want to believe that concepts exist independently of sentient beings.

                But once you subtract these brains from the equation, what is left?

                1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                  Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It's all too narrow minded to call logic a concept.

                  Logic is not subjective.

                  Whilst there is no definitive definition of "love"  and "morality" there is with logic.

                  It's finite and stable in the Universe.

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    (Logic is not subjective....  It's finite and stable in the Universe)

                    Where is it located?

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm afraid I see both sides. It's all in your mind, so; remove the mind and these are all gone. But they don't disappear. They simply recede into the realm of the possible. Waiting in the shadows for another mind to take up where others left off. If that makes sense.

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    (They simply recede into the realm of the possible. Waiting in the shadows for another mind to take up where others left off. If that makes sense.)

                    Emile R,

                    It makes terrific sense.  The only quibble I would have is in wordage, and I would say without the mind these concepts disappear (not recede). 

                    Therein lies the basis for the queston.  Without brains (or minds if you prefer) what is left of the universe?   Where do these personless non-objects hide out when nothing is around but empty space and non-sentient objects?

    2. kess profile image60
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Among the humans who have not nor cannot see beyond the human, to them no other thing exist, so therefore all discussion end with nothing.....
      or we may also say ends in confusion.

      To those who have seen beyond the human a who new realm begins, now true discussion can begin because these are already much more than human.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
        AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree...

      2. TMMason profile image75
        TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The only honest answer to the original question would be, "everything else".

      3. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        kess,

        So without humans this realm still exists?  For what reason does it then exist?

        1. TMMason profile image75
          TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You do not believe animals love? or feel any emotions?

          Logic would be in existence when ever something capable of employing it existed again.

          I am a believer so to me God would still be there.

          To a non-believer the idea of a God would not exist untill something with the desire to formulate it existed once more.

          I am not to sure why you are asking about ethereal qualities of the mind and world?

          If it is a human or logical construct it will die with us, if it is a construct of logic, it will rebirth with the next creature to function at a high enough level to birth and contemplate the concept.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (I am a believer so to me God would still be there)

            TMMason,

            Where?   Does he occupy the space between planets or the emptiness between solar systems?  If god would still be there, why would it matter?

            1. TMMason profile image75
              TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He would still be, where he always was.

              I mean you're asking me about something that has been argued about for centuries... where is God?

              I am not one who believes we are the only life in the universes. (note the plural)

              I have no problem understanding God has technology which would still look like magic to us. And the those who wrote the Bible were writing ina language those of their day could readilly understand.

              So I beleive the universes and all the other lifes in them, would go on without us.

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                (I mean you're asking me about something that has been argued about for centuries... where is God?)

                TM,

                Actually, no.  What I am asking is for a rational explanation (meaning without unwarranted assertions and without ontological contradictions) of how god can exist.

                If we remove all sentient forms of life, where is god then found, rationally?

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (You do not believe animals love?)


            TM,

            Seeing how love is a decision followed by actions, I doubt most animals make these kinds of decisions.

            1. TMMason profile image75
              TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              My Dog would die for me.. is sacrafice not an act of love?

              I wouldn't believe they have as high a capacity for love and emotions as a human... but yes I think they have base emotions, and are capable of some form of love.

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                (My Dog would die for me..)

                TM,

                Another talking dog?  You do realize the Son of Sam claimed his neighbor's dog told him to go out and kill?

                Many people believe many irrational things.  Anthropomorphism is high on that list.

        2. AshtonFirefly profile image82
          AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But...does there have to be a reason for existence?

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (does there have to be a reason for existence?)

            No.  Existence is a poor word, anyway, and should be defined closely to avoid confusion.  Better question is: does there have to be a reason for life?

            Answer: No.

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
              AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "So without humans this realm still exists?  For what reason does it then exist?"

              I used the word "existence" because you did.

              By your statement, it appeared you felt that this realm (by which I thought you meant this universe) existed for the purpose of the human.

              Perhaps you meant "this realm" in some other way?

        3. kess profile image60
          kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Without you would there be any existence muchless to begin reasoning about its purpose?

          So if a human is not, so then is all existence, including this question.

          But since you are, why should you be busy with the things that belong to those who are not....even if you can and have conceptualize it.

      4. rbe0 profile image61
        rbe0posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        i love herbs.

        i mean spices.

        uhh yeah.

        1. Michele Travis profile image67
          Michele Travisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well,  spices would be there.

          1. rbe0 profile image61
            rbe0posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Where? In the universe after the mortals are extinct? I sure hope so...

        2. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Peyote is not classified as an herb.

    3. Paul Wingert profile image80
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The world existed for a billion + years  before humans and will go on a billion + years after humans.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Paul, this is a profound question, asked by so many, yet receiving so little serious answers.

        My own understanding, for now, is that we are members of just one species of ape, albeit a "Naked Ape," because we have lost an effective coat of hair or fur.

        Somehow our species has found that being able to use a very complex brain has given us a survival advantage.  We can experience: be aware: observe: consider: calculate: communicate our findings to others: describe: plan: contemplate possible outcomes: devise and use tools to achieve our objectives: communicate the outcomes:  remember and use aids to memory. Amazingly, we can add imagination - surmising what would happen "if..." 

        It's reasonable to suppose that all this list, and more, has helped us compete against obstacles and predators.  And it seems our unique characteristic is being able to take objective views of existence and awareness.  We don't think that other apes can do this, although we might be mistaken.

        The opposite of this awareness and consciousness, for me, is probably like when we go to sleep, or are put under an anesthetic..... Totally unaware of anything until we wake up, then only know we were unconscious because, by contrast, we are now conscious.

        It brings us back full circle to Paul's question.  Does anything exist at all if we are not conscious of it?  The Finite and the Infinite --- which came first?  We cannot know, only play with the question. Two sides of a coin, one side cannot know the existence of the other without the intervention of a mirror (2 or 3 mirrors, in fact).

        Wonderful subject for discussion, I look forward to other points of view.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (It brings us back full circle to Paul's question.  Does anything exist at all if we are not conscious of it?  The Finite and the Infinite --- which came first?  We cannot know, only play with the question)

          jonnycomelately,

          On the surface this appears accurate, but a little deeper thinking exposes the flaw in observer-centricity.   To assert that nothing exists without the observer is to assert that all history is falsification - it never happened.

          History is based on inductive reasoning.  The further back in time we go, the more induction is the guide.  I may not 100% "know" that the sun will continue as an object after my death, but if I can use inductive reasoning and rudimentary reading skills to "know" by induction (and reading about history) that the sun was around in 1919, well before my birth, in time for the famous solar eclipse that made Einsten a fan favorite.

          I can then induce that if the sun was around before I was alive, it most likely exists apart from my consciousness, and therefore my death will not affect the sun in any manner.  I can then conclude that the sun must have its own natural laws that keep it going, and no one's death will change that.

          Ergo, even if no sentient creature were left in the universe, the sun would be unperturbed as it exists outside of sentience.

          I also happen to think there was a Julius Caesar, irrespective of the fact that I never personally laid eyes on him.

      2. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, that's the theory, anyway!

    4. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Aka Winston- Without humans? You have matter, yes.

      Sentience is not necessarily gone. We have not explored every piece of mass in the Universe yet (I'll let you know when we're finished), there may very well be aliens.

      More or less sophisticated than our own species.

      Statistically speaking, is it ridiculous to expect that another planet has water and is at the perfect distance from a star?

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (Sentience is not necessarily gone)

        Agreed.  Not the best word choice in the question.  The idea is to remove sentience and what is left.

    5. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The universe without an observer would just be. It doesn't need you  or anyone else to do what it does.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (The universe without an observer would just be. It doesn't need you  or anyone else to do what it does.)

        At long last a rational person.

    6. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      For one, there would be the other forms of life on earth.

      Statistically speaking, there should be other forms of life in the universe, so even if the whole earth were removed from the equation, it's quite a stretch to say there would be no consciousness.

      Also, who says concepts aren't independent? Concepts are waiting to be discovered, waiting to be thought of, just like things are waiting to be seen, felt, heard, etc...

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (Also, who says concepts aren't independent?)

        em,

        This is a juvenile attempt at justification.

    7. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      WE are not the only things in it (the universe) and to think that way is the same hubris that said the sun revolves around the earth and placed us at the center of it (the universe. If you removed the earth, we wouldn't have a place to sit. If a deaf man plays a violin in the middle of no where, does it make a sound?

    8. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image59
      Jo_Goldsmith11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think this is a great question to ask. Your answer is this, everything that is above you, beneath you, and surrounds you is what is left. The air, stars and the unseen forces that wish to drag you into the abyss of darkness.

      Shalom my friend.

    9. capricornrising profile image61
      capricornrisingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A happy planet.

      Beyond that, everything else that's in the universe of course. It's completely arrogant of us to assume we humans make even a dent in the equation of existence.

    10. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Winston, I fear our debate about logic's existence after sentience has been spread out far too much, please let us continue the debate in a more organised matter on my new forum:

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/90078

    11. KeithTax profile image79
      KeithTaxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Everything else. Man makes up less than .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
      000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
      0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
      000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
      00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Actually, over a billion zeros are required.

      1. 60
        Jesus was a hippoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You missed one.

    12. 0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      fish

    13. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A Troubled Man.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol Good one. I hope that made you feel better.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It made me laugh. Although, I don't know what makes her think you're so special.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Haven't you hear, Emile, I'm one of those who are not special. God has forsaken me and does not wish to talk to me. smile

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know. You must be special. At least one believer thinks when the rest of us are gone, you'll inherit the universe. You'll be like Will Smith in I Am Legend. Minus the rabid zombies.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call them rabid zombies. smile

                1. lizzieBoo profile image77
                  lizzieBooposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  By the way ATM, I hope you don't think I would genuinely want to offend you. That's not what I'm about at all. I find you quite entertaining is the truth.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I wholeheartedly accept your honesty.

                    And, I understand you genuinely don't want to offend me or anyone else, none of us really want that. As a person, you're probably very nice and just as pleasant with audience.

                    But, you've grown up to believe in ideals that aren't nice and are just as unpleasant in any environment. I understand you accept and believe them without question because that's exactly what one has to do in order for brainwashing to have a positive effect.

                    That's why I also understand it isn't really you offending anyone, it is the beliefs you've grown up with are offensive and are causing you to make false statements. smile

              2. Insane Mundane profile image59
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                To Hell with Will Smith and the movie "I am Legend," as the original "The Omega Man" with Charlton Heston, was much better, in my opinion, of course.  tongue   As the cover states, "The last man alive ... is not alone!"  LOL!

        2. lizzieBoo profile image77
          lizzieBooposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol

    14. 0
      Cranfordjsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The aliens .......

    15. AngelArs profile image78
      AngelArsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just like an ant can't do algebra, mankind cannot answer this question. The universe is endless.

  2. rbe0 profile image61
    rbe0posted 4 years ago

    my explanation is written in my hub ... the one with title that has the word analogy for existence in it

  3. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    "If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?"

    A much cleaner place.

    Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up.

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
      AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed smile

  4. tshivley profile image61
    tshivleyposted 4 years ago

    There is an excellent book: The World Without Us by Alan Weisman that tries to see what our planet would be like if all humans vanished in one day.  Interestingly, the only way to answer your question is to base the answer on what you believe.  If you follow the Quantum theory of things, once the observer is gone, so is everything else, but only in this one function; all other functions will continue.  There might even be a split off, one function without us, another with us. 

    You've offered quite an interesting mental puzzle to play with.  Thanks!

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (If you follow the Quantum theory of things, once the observer is gone, so is everything else,)

      tshivley,

      That's why quantum seems to be more like a religion than a science, with the observer the central figure and magical figures that have no length, width, or height but exist nonetheless.

      1. TMMason profile image75
        TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is a very dis-liked theory.

        It implies an original ultimate observer to initiate the creation and existence of things. That is to close to stating there is a God who watches for too many in the fields.

      2. 0
        Muldaniaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Which is why I have difficulty understanding quantum mechanics.  It is a very accurate science and is very good at predicting an outcome, yet it seems to talk in the language of the mystic, and has therefore been used by some to take science back to its beginnings by trying to discover the mind of God.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Muldania,

          Technology is not science.  Scientific predicting is neo-fortunetelling.  The predictions are their tautologies will be self-fulfilling, that an = sign ensures reality on either side.

    2. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But then again. Wouldn't that just be another example of quantum foam?

    3. Mikalyn profile image60
      Mikalynposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Assuming that man, in our current form, is the ultimate observer. I mean, we certainly observe (and according to quantum theory we affect the experiments that we observe) but it seems species-centric to think that we are the only conscious beings who affect the observable universe. Hilbert space itself may be a conscious observer is some form of manifestation...

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Brahma dreams us as we dream Brahma. The universe is just as aware of us as we are of it. We are the dreamed, dreaming the dreamer.

  5. AshtonFirefly profile image82
    AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago

    Interesting concept. Wouldn't the universe just still be the universe? Our existence doesn't cause it to exist...unless the universe is simply a figment of our imaginations lol smile

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (Our existence doesn't cause it to exist...)

      AshtonFirefly,

      And without us, what happens to logic, love, morals, gods, etc.?

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
        AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't know. smile I was just talking about the universe.

    2. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We experience life and the universe, so then does the rat or the antelope. It is observed as it observes us. The universe is a form of consciousness in and of it's self. We know more about what we observe, than what we know about ourselve's. One must give up on notion and just observe. This is how one learns the self, by observing outward and inward.

  6. Cagsil profile image83
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Sorry, but if you subtract mankind from the Universe....wouldn't that leave womankind left? (j/k)

    But to attempt an answer to your question- the Universe would still exist even if "humankind" didn't exist.

    The Universe doesn't need to be observed to exist. Asking a question such as you have, isn't really a question that needs to be answered, because it's then going to proceed on to "why does the Universe exist", because you'll ask what purpose does the Universe serve if humankind isn't in existence.

    It's nothing more than the old typical "theologian" BS run around.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My point is to engage thinking that can grasp that without sentient beings, the only thing left is matter (objects).

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's the problem Winston. Most(the average person) cannot grasp non-existence. lol

    2. Mikalyn profile image60
      Mikalynposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In my opinion that theologian BS runaround is the same BS runaround that astro-physicists have been giving us all these years. No matter how to look at it, isn't the ultimate question "why does the universe exist?" I mean why even become a scientist OR philosopher if you don't want to ask that question?

      Besides, it's not like science is doing a fancy good job of explaining what the universe is, big bang, tiny particles, hilbert space, quantum theory...it just seems to lead us back to the theologian BS.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (No matter how to look at it, isn't the ultimate question "why does the universe exist?")

        Not really.  If the universe is eternal then the question is moot.

    3. poeticmentor profile image81
      poeticmentorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      WE ARE THE UNIVERSE.  WE ARE PART OF THE "WHOLE" working as ONE.. EVERYTHING ELSE IS ILLUSION. THERE IS NO SEPARATION BETWEEN US.

      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And you had to use ALL CAPS to say what you could have said in normal letters? Good to know.

    4. seanorjohn profile image82
      seanorjohnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mumbo jumbo as usual. Masquerading as intellectual discourse. Get a life.

  7. againsttheodds profile image84
    againsttheoddsposted 4 years ago

    I'm reading a good book on the kindle at the moment regarding exactly this question.  It's called The 4 Percent Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality.  It basically is going over current cosmology discoveries that point to observations that all matter, including everything seen and in all universes, is a mere 4% of everything there is.  The other 23 percent is dark matter and 73 percent is dark energy.  "We're just a bit of pollution."

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Would you not accept, then, that we only "see" according to our point of view?

      Does an Ant "see" a human as anything more than a shadow drifting across it's path? 

      Does a Human "see" a distant star as anything more than a pin-point of light?

      Does the Leaf of a Plant "see" the sun as anything more than a location from which it gathers energy?

      So-called "Dark Matter" is, surely, only something which is visible from another dimension or point of view?

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (So-called "Dark Matter" is, surely, only something which is visible from another dimension or point of view?)

        jonnycomelately,

        I would think dark matter is more in line with a neo-epicycle of Ptolemy, a creation of the mind to keep alive the theory that is crashing and burning.

  8. jeyaramd profile image79
    jeyaramdposted 4 years ago

    When you take out humans; what you have left is the universe. Thats pure consciousness. It entails God and the creation of the earth, planets and everything else. We should strive to feel what exists beyond ourselves. Our creation was only in transition. The universe exists and will continue to exist long after we are gone. We should realize that we are a small element in the grand scheme of things. There is an ultimate goodness that exists in the universe and that has created the universe. A powerful force is at work here that we cannot truly understand. It exists and we can feel its presence.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are claiming sentience remains after sentient being disappear?   Your claim is that the universe is simply sentience of a higher being.  But if you weren't here, you couldn't know this and so that sentient being would also ceaase to exist - sentience requires sentience to exist.

      Once sentience is removed, the only things left are objects.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
        AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Even if they were simply objects, wouldn't that be enough to qualify as existing?

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes.  The objects exist.  Those things that are dependent upon sentience, though - logic, love, mathematics, etc. - could not exist.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
            AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do animals not use logic or love?

            1. 0
              Muldaniaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              We cannot be sure that animals do not use logic, but evidence would seem to suggest that they rely on instinct.  I do believe though that other higher species animals seem to display what humans would recognise as love, and they also grieve over a death.

              1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
                AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                they seem to exhibit other emotions, too...anger, sadness, need for attention, etc.
                I feel they use logic because they are able to make decisions based on patterns; for example, in teaching commands. If you do a certain physical movement, followed by causing them to do a certain action, they will eventually put two and two together and realize that the two are connected. One action must be followed by another, etc.

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (A powerful force is at work here that we cannot truly understand. It exists and we can feel its presence.)

      jeyaramd,

      So "feelings" are the ultimate reality?  This, of course, means that when you "feel lucky" you should bet all your money or when you "feel ugly" you really are physically ugly - you feelings can alter the physical makeup of your body?

      I feel like this assertion of yours is a crock of shite - so it is felt, so it shall be.

  9. againsttheodds profile image84
    againsttheoddsposted 4 years ago

    Is that a fragment or a run-on sentience?

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is a frag-on paragraph, thank you very much.  :-)

  10. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    If one subtracts mankind from the universe, one would have what transpired during the overwhelming majority of time that humans did not exist....

    Now we can ask ourselves, "what would the universe be like without dinosaurs?"....and we can answer that question...

  11. kess profile image60
    kessposted 4 years ago

    Well there is a reason why one is able to ask such a question.

    Because the human have a very distinct and unique nature in that he can see (conceptualize) both existence and non existence , Life and death.

    The one who can differentiate between the two are those who have gone beyond this world, those who have not are still subjected to this world which in turn is subjected to death which is the epitome of nothing.

    So the universe is nothing more than the collective Consciousness of those who see beyond this world/human...

    Either you are a part of this consciousness and move past this world unto it... or you die as a human within the world.

    So this world and universe exist solely for the purpose of existence itself and the human is the go between.

    1. rbe0 profile image61
      rbe0posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      truth.

      great posts kess. keep em coming.

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (Because the human have a very distinct and unique nature in that he can see (conceptualize) both existence and non existence , Life and death.

      The one who can differentiate between the two are those who have gone beyond this world)

      Kess,

      Wow, you were doing so well until your faith corrupted your logic.

      It is accurate that humans can conceptualize non-living, but the reason we can do so is our reasoning ability.  We understand that at some point in time none of us was alive, then we were born, and finally we will return to the state of non-living.

      One only has to use simple induction to understand that - and last I checked, there was nothing metaphysical about inductive reasoning.

  12. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 4 years ago

    The whole purpose of the (creation) universe is for humans to inhabit.

    No humans. No need for universe.

    If you are an evolutionist, this goes against the grain.
    BUT, then arises the purpose of all existence, which is a discussion that has no end.

    I have justified and explained myself so many times, in so many ways, yet, because of fundamental biases against, it is not received.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No humans. No need for universe.

      Poor dolphins, poor giraffes, poor hippos, kangaroo and elephants too!

      Poor everlasting Hydra and and 900 million+ species of insects.

      Without humans, their life ceases to exist to have meaning? D:

      And this is all on the supposition that we ARE the only life in the Universe.

      Considering the idea that you believe in an unprovable God, why then is it too far a stretch of the imagination to believe in extra terrestrial life?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Mankind has not had the success or the suppression of mammals as dinosaurs had. Dinosaurs keep the expansion growth of mammals to the size of rodent. If you took a calendar year as a measuring gauge for this 4 Billion year old planet.. Then dinosaurs have been here on earth for 3 months wail man has been here only for 10 minutes.

        Of the millions of species on earth Mankind has such arrogant to think the earth would not go on without humans and their Gods. If man failed to exist, then  imagine the larger mammal on earth would thrive better, the water and shy would be a deeper clearer blue and Mother nature would be allowed to do her balance work again, Maybe some other higher intelligent life form could take over and build a better system.

        1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          CastlePaloma,

          What you say about the age of the Earth (4.5 billion) is very true. Though we're arguing with people that don't trust carbon dating and think that the Bible is a better source of information (6000 years) and that humans were at the start of day one.

          Just so you know, it's not mankind that prevents larger animals from existing. It's oxygen.

          Insects used to be hundreds of times larger too, but our atmosphere no longer supports such metabolisms. At least to survive in the wild. We could breed very large animals, but they wouldn't have enough oxygen to respire whilst hunting and running.

          And most likely another ape would take over human's reign of terror. They show all signs of intelligence that we have.

          1. TMMason profile image75
            TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "They show all signs of intelligence that we have."

            Yes those apes are printing books on philosophy, Science, romance, and drame, and they have been building sky-scrapers and advancing medicine and other fields of science out there in thier forests now for decades eh?

            I have yet to see an micheal angelo, or da'vinci, Nietzsce, etc, to arise form the apes. So that statement is so utterly false, it isn't funny.

            As to the age of the earth, true I do not trust the dating methods, as many others do not, either.

            But... I do not see the bible saying the world is 6000 years old, the garden was here for a long long time, which the length of is not mentioned, before the fall. People get the 6000 years from the line of parentage listed in the bible.

            But that completely ignores the era with the Garden.

            And logic would not exist again until something with the cability of excersizing it came into being again.

            1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
              Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Allow me to embarrass you:

              Da'vinci and Nietzsche* have creative intelligence.

              Apes have creative intelligence.
              Ergo, they show the same signs of intelligence as Da Vinci and Nietzsche

              No one said that their intelligences are equal when compared, but somebody (me) did say that they have signs of intelligence.

              Given a few thousand years, they may well evolve to be as clever as us.

              We've taught apes to read, why are you finding it so difficult?

              1. TMMason profile image75
                TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not unless you know some way evolution will enlarge their brains and raise the functionality of it... and considering it doesn't explain our brains, size or function, then I do not see it happening.

                I have a parrot sitting right here next to me, so I am well aware of animal intelligence and its limitations.

                So no I do not see apes to man ever occuring,... just as it never has happened.

                And yes i am well aware that evolution doesn't say we came from apes persay, it is just a turn of phrase to exemplify my meaning. So do not go on a rant about mis-understanding evolution.

                As I understand it flaws and suppositions just fine.

                And embarass me?... You give yourself wayyyyyyyyyyy too much credit... you have said absolutely nothing of any value or originality in the debates we have had. So please try to ground yourself in reality for a while. Your game of, your sources are not right cause they are not secualr humanist enough and do not agree with my view, is a joke.

                Showing signs of intelligence is not mimickry, it is taking what you know and advancing it in some way shape or form. Not just repetition and imitation.

                1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                  Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh that's just painful to see. Here is the timeline of the evolution of the brain:

                  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 … ution.html

                  You've found no evidence against the fact that we evolved from apes, Jesus wouldn't lie, why do you?

                  And you mean those debates you fled because you couldn't offer a simple explanation for a fundamental question? How did 27,000 species evolve from 46,000 animals in 300 years by the way?

                  Oh +1 for Noah. He must have had a great time multiplying, having 15,000 children and all.

                  I didn't denounce your source because it was written by a religious person, I denounced it because that religious person said

                  "mutations do not cause evolution"

                  Apes do not mimic, they can create, use tools and language, and have at least most of our emotions. They are just simpler versions of us, and can evolve into something as smart as humans again .

                  1. TMMason profile image75
                    TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I haven't fled anywhere.

                    I have a life you know.

                    I, unlike some, have responsiblities and obligations to keep which require me to leave from in front of the computer. I sat here for hours and hours yesterday debating that subject with not only you, but several others, in 4 different threads.

                    So you can pound that BS.

                    And your supppositions about evolution are just that.

                    We were not there to know how these supposed ancestors lived and if they even looked the way we think.

                    You can take all the bones you want and imagine what they may have looked like and lived like... but in the end we do not know.

                    And evolution does not say we came from apes... it says we came from a common ancestor of the apes.

                    And Noah had three sons... you keep spouting these numbers like 2 and 15,000, try sticking to the story. There were 7 pairs of all clean taken aboard, and 1 pair of un-clean.

                    And if being religious dis-qualifies any sources, than so does being Atheist humanist, Leftist Secular, like all the ones you posted. or are you going to argue there is no agenda on that side?

                    So as I said.... your sources are no more valid than mine. the people I post from hold degrees in science as high as the people you post.

                    It is all a matter of interpretation in the end. there is nothing that supports evolution other than interpretations based on supposition and guesses.

                    And if you had read the links you would know the answer to your question about species from certain amounts of animals... but you dismiss them out of hand.

                    So that is your loss.

                    And as to monkeys and apes and such...

                    The top number of words they have learned is in the 300-to-400 range, which doesn't even compare to the 60,000-word vocabulary of a typical high school graduate. Apes have learned signs that refer to things in their world, like food and actions. They could label things and could sign apple or pond. But what they couldn't say is, My apple is in the pond or on the chair. 

                    Genetics should be able to prove evolution... but it does exactly the oppisite. Presenting new questions which push the goal of evolution even further from reality.

                    80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different.

                    This comparison is very significant because proteins are ultimately responsible for an organism’s anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics.

                    Therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms. (reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, "Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees," Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )

                    If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans?

                    That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans?

                    Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes?

                    Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But these facts, are a huge indacator that we know just about nothing as to genomics and evolution.

                    Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No-one would suggest a nematode is 75% human?

                    Another good example is that during the sixties, American doctors tried to use chimpanzee organs for transplants in humans, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. An interesting footnote that shows how complex this issue really is.

                    Humans differed from most other animals, including chimpanzees, in a small but possibly vital way. In most animals, the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecules called sialic acid. In humans, a genetic mutation means this sugar is not present in any cell in the body. Proteins and membrane lipids that have sialic acid take part in many processes. They help cells stick to one another. They may also play a part in disease susceptibility. This might be a reason why Chimpanzees seem far less suspeceptible for infectious diseases like malaria and cholera. This might be one factor in those chimp to human transplants in which organs were rejected. But as the example shows... we are not so closely related as many would like top propagate.

                    A more recent "Study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels (insertions/deletions) in addition to substitutions." ref: Tatsuya Anzai st al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class | Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13


                    Another example of how different we are...

                    First, infants begin forming up categories for the common speech sounds they hear, not whole words so much as the little units we call phonemes, less than a tenth of a second in duration.

                    Categories allow them to generalize across speakers, so that the mother’s /ba/ sound and the father’s somewhat deeper /ba/ sound are treated the same despite their differences. By about a year of age, babies stop hearing many of these differences, having standardized them.

                    By a year of age, babies are discovering patterns in the strings of phonemes and acquiring six to nine new words every day, just from the examples they hear (long before they begin speaking them). The words acquiring meaning, the phonemes remain meaningless. You can say kids are like ‘sponges’ soaking up words but that’s too passive a notion, one of the reasons I prefer the more active ‘acquisitive’ as the characterization.

                    So kids have pyramided words atop the phonemes, and now have compound structures made from building blocks. But then they do it again, discovering patterns in the strings of words they hear and inferring the grammar of that particular language: ways of making plurals and past tenses and nested phrases. This happens between the ages of 18 and 36 months.

                    Then they’re off detecting patterns on even longer time scales, that of the collection of sentences we call a story. They infer that a satisfying story has a beginning, middle, and a wrap-up ending - and then they start demanding proper endings for their bedtime stories."

                    So... I will say it again... you are locked into supposition as to evolution.

                    It is just a THEORY after all.

                    And as to the brain...

                    How do scientists explain the unusually large human brain?

                    A recent study exposes the difficulty faced by evolutionary biologists as they attempt to account for the emergence of the human brain by naturalistic processes. Researchers studied 214 genes involved in human brain development and showed, from an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone hyper-fast evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced cognitive capacities.

                    In the words of one of the investigators involved with the work, "To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits."

                    This type of rapid and extensive genetic change makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this hyper-fast evolution should be catastrophic." Reference: Steve Dorus et al., "Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens," Cell 119 (2004): 1027-40.

                    Among mammals there are two patterns of brain growth. The first pattern is called altriciality. In this pattern the animal is born helpless and extremely immature. The brains of altricial animals are usually half the size of the adult's, and double in size by adulthood. Because of this it takes lots of parental effort to raise the young. Animals following this pattern usually have litters and perform this care for multiple offspring at once. Cats, with their blind and helpless kittens are altricial. The other pattern is precocial. In this pattern the offspring are usually born single and from birth are able to get around quite well. Their brains are nearly adult size at birth. The are alert and all their organs are functioning. An example of this pattern is the horse, the wildebeest etc., where the young will run with the herds within minutes.

                    Now, according to Walker and Shipman (1996, pp220-222), altricial species almost never have bigger brains than precocial species. The reason is that for all mammals save one, the brain grows rapidly during gestation but then grows less rapidly after birth. There is a kink in the graph of brain size vs. time which occurs at birth. Altricial species whose immature state at birth and subsequent slow down in the rate of growth forever remain behind the more maturely born precocial species.

                    What humans seem to have accomplished is the trick of keeping the brain growing at the embryonic rate for one year after birth. Effectively, if humans are a fundamentally precocial species, our gestation is (or should be) 21 months. However, no mother could possibly pass a year old baby's head through the birth canal. Thus, human babies are born "early" to avoid the death of the mother. Walker and Shipman (1996, p. 222) write:

                    "Humans are simply born too early in their development, at the time when their heads will still fit through their mothers' birth canals. As babies' brains grow, during this extrauterine year of fetal life, so do their bodies. About the time of the infant's first birthday, the period of fetal brain growth terminates, coinciding with the beginnings of speech and the mastery of erect posture and bipedal walking."

                    This pattern of growth has huge implications. Every other primate doubles their brain weight from birth to adulthood. But due to the early birth of humans, we triple our brain's birth rate. Our last 12 month of fetal growth rate of the brain occurs outside the sensorially deprived womb. The vast quantities of sensory input during the first year of life affects the rate and nature of the neural connections. Because of this year of helplessness, parents must provide close physical and emotional support for the infant. Unlike chimp babies who can cling to their mother's fur, human infants cannot even hang on to mother in spite of having the hand reflex. The mother has no fur because she sweats and she sweats because of a big brain which is why she gives birth to her child early. This early birth then requires the mother to care for the infant and increases the bond between mother and child which partially makes us human."

                    So no, evolution does not explain the brain. Its growth and function far out shine any other life on this planet regardless of how anyone tries to equate the two.

                    Of course I bet you still think Haeckel's drawings are real.

                    Of course you will probrably dismiss my sources cited for this information also

                  2. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I like the brain timeline. It certainly makes more sense, than suddenly just being here.

            2. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              TM
              The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as described in the first two chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis.  Ussher deduced that the first day ofcreation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. There is one Creation museum in North America to show us the origin of Man that States when the earth began.

              Show me some other Christian science for dating the earth?

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (No humans. No need for universe.)

      aka-dj,

      Aha, we finally get to the bottom of the bible-toter's incredible arrogance - I want to feel special.  Feeling myself special means feeling superior, which  is another way of saying, I am better than you, which is another way of saying, you are inferior to me.

      That goes a long way to explaining why the bible encourages slavery and claims "chosen people".

      1. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said AKA!   This gets to the basis of religious zeal, I think.

        However, rather than leave the zealot feeling rejected, I implore him or her to look outside of the constricted belief system, then open the eyes and see anew.

        There is "none so blind as thems that wont see!"

      2. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        NO.

        This is merely your personal interpretation of what I wrote.
        My motivation was none of your accusations.
        I don't feel superior, nor do I want/need to.
        I only feel special by being unique. There's not another me out there(thank God).
        I probably am better than you .  .  .  at some things, but the reverse is also true.

        Last point; chosen people, yes!
        You also can be a part of the chosen people by accepting the Life that Christ offers.
        I was not part of the chosen people until I responded to the self same call.

        As for Biblical encouragement of slavery and such, well, that too is your interpretation.


        My whole point in what I said came from the fact that God has living beings (angels and such) within His current domain (Heaven). Mankind was created to rule over and subdue the Earth, tend it etc. I'm sure you know the story. We were created to rule this domain, therefore, this domain was created for us. All other life is merely a part of the ecosystem as an unified system. We are all interdependent, and ultimately linked.
        If anything, we should be the best stewards of all things. Sadly, we are not.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (This is merely your personal interpretation of what I wrote.)

          aka-dj,

          It is the only conclusion that can be drawn from dominionist beliefs.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image86
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Mostly this thread is maintaining a sense of respect for everyone's views.  I feel it still has a life, for that reason.  Well done folks.  Keep it up; keep it intelligent, inquiring and respectful of differences.

          2. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, Whatever! hmm

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              aka-dj,

              (I only feel special by being unique)
              You're not.  You're just another of the billion or so evolved apes roaming around on this planet.

              (Last point; chosen people, yes!)

              If there are chosen people, then everyone else is unchosen, i.e., less than.  How anyone could possibly warp their thinking to absolve god for creating billions of lesser, unworthy beings just so a bunch of filthy, sand-eating nomads could feel superior is beyond me.

              Here I am with no god whatsoever, and I think everyone is equal and should be treated equally.  And there you sit with your chosen people and arrogant god who automatically makes everyone else less equal and then you argue you have the moral high ground.

              Quite frankly, this kind of idiotic belief in voodoo turns my stomach.

              1. TMMason profile image75
                TMMasonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Hebrews were chosen to be an example, not of how man can do it, but of how man will screw it all up, desert their God and beliefs, and though the world hates them and attempts to kill them, God will save them/His.

                Because he is merciful and understands we are lost in this warped creation and our own arrogance.

                Thus the prophecy of the dried bones to Ezekiel, and Gods promises that all would be allowed to seek God and forgivness thru Christ. Which he gave through the prophets. God showed Ezekiel that He would not desert His people, as they had deserted Him.

                He showed us through Israel, not only what man would do, but how it would turn out for us, and how God would still be willing and more than able to help us when we seek him as individuals.

                Israel is chosen as an eample... not as something special, but as the real way man and Gods relationship has and will go.

                Yet God would have held Israel high in this world and all others, had they done right by him.

                1. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  (The Hebrews were chosen to be an example, not of how man can do it, but of how man will screw it all up, desert their God and beliefs, and though the world hates them and attempts to kill them, God will save them/His)

                  TM,

                  Thanks for playing the game of the insane, "I know the inner motivations of an invisible superpowerful being".

                  Anyone who claims to possess knowledge of that which is unknowable is unworthy to be taken seriously.

              2. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I see.
                Once again I run into someone who either does not read, or has a comprehension challenge.

                It would be nice if you posted a response to what I actually said, not what you thought you read.


                Just HOW do you suppose I claim the high moral ground when I clearly included the availability to choose said moral ground to you?

                In the now famous words of Pauline Hanson, "please explain"!

                1. 61
                  SciencePhilosophyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Just HOW do you suppose I claim the high moral ground when I clearly included the availability to choose said moral ground to you?"

                  You are saying that people that choose the "the life that christ offers" is the moral high ground when there's nothing to suggest that.

                  Ergo, you are putting one belief that you hold dear as superior to others on no basis.

                  Ergo, you are feeling superior to other people who fail to choose the "right choice"

                  Winston is right, it's pseudo-superiority that religion is all about. "Join us because we're better than all other ways of life"

                  Why? "Well the Bible says that...."
                  But the Bible was just written by people..
                  "But the Bible says that.."
                  Please stop quoting the book in question.
                  "Well the Bible says that.."

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I wasn't the one to claim it, I was accused of that.

                    There's a difference. Hope you know that. big_smile

                2. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  aka-dj,

                  It is impossible to rationallize the unremitting differentiation between superior and inferior made by the following biblical quote:

                      "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

                  Here, god himself through his chosen people is saying that morality is relative - relative to whether or not you are Jewish.

              3. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My position is very similar to AKA Winston's now, I think, i.e., There is no "god" which in reality judges me.  That "god" is the mental construct of each person who wants to accept the proposition of the "god's" existence.  That "god" will be conjured up in the mind as being the ideal.... maybe in terms of "goodness," or "power," or "sexual ideal."  Yes, I mean that.  The women in particular, who worship in church, will often be there because they feel attracted to the priest!

                I now reject the existence of an afterlife, where I would be in anyway conscious as the person I am now.  So I don't need to worry myself and waste time on the possibility of a here-after, and how I might stack up merits in order to be accepted there.

                The life I HAVE now, so short a time it is/will be, needs my full attention.  The individuals who cross my path, or walk with me for a while, deserve my full attention and love.

                This thread has become a pointless battle between just a few individuals who seem unable to "listen" and warm to the other's points of view, without judgement.  Far cry from a day or two ago when I thought things were interesting, useful and cooperative.

                Ignorant fanatics are not contributing much of substance, in my opinion.

  13. kess profile image60
    kessposted 4 years ago

    the discussion is :

    What concepts shall a mind have without the very concept of mind....


    how many can you twist the question to find out that there can only be one answer

  14. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 4 years ago

    "If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?"  Why everything else of course.  There is far more to the universe than the "mankind" that inhabits this small dust speck of a planet.

  15. 0
    Muldaniaposted 4 years ago

    As far as we know, we may be the only animal in the universe which has developed the abiltiy to reason and question.  Personally, I don't believe that we are.  As there are approximately 400 billion solar systems in our galaxy, and approximately 500 billion galaxies in the universe, which may itself be only one universe amongst billions, then I believe the likihood that we are the only planet with intelligent life looks very unlikely.  However, as we cannot know this, because the distances are too far for us to ever know, we can only assume that we are unique in the universe.  Certainly, of the millions of species on our own planet, we are the only one which has science, religion and culture.  In which case, it could be said that the human species is the only way that the universe is conscious of itself.  Without us, there would be no species asking the questions or looking back at the universe.  Other animals are content to eat, sleep and kill, but humans are different.  Would the universe know of its own existence, if it were not for the human animal?

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (Would the universe know of its own existence, if it were not for the human animal?)

      What does "knowing" have to do with existence?  The is historical evidence that the sun existed in 1919, way before I was born.  Does the fact that I didn't "know" it existed means it didn't exist - or was it me who wasn't here yet?

      1. 0
        Muldaniaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But you should know that the sun existed in 1919.  It has in fact existed for billions of years, this is undeniable.  However, do you think that the sun is aware that it exists?  Somehow I doubt that it does.  Only evolved intelligent life can know what exists.  Human consciousness is needed on our planet in order to gain an understanding of the sun and everything else in the physical universe.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Human consciousness is needed on our planet in order to gain an understanding of the sun and everything else in the physical universe.)

          Muldania,

          Yes, thank you for making the point - human consciousness has nothing to do with existence.   Things either exist or they do not irrespective of what we think, feel, know, hope, assume, etc. 

          The only thing that exist irrespective of sentience is matter.  If logic, love, morality, etc are not comprised of matter, they cannot exist without sentience, and they are therefore dependent upon sentience else they are nothing.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is why "reality" exists even if we don't. wink

            1. 0
              Muldaniaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is like that question - 'if a tree falls over in a wood, but there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?'  Obviously the tree falling over would make sound waves, but if there were no creatures with ears in the wood, then that sound would not be received.  Does this mean that the falling of the tree was in fact silent?

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No.

              2. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I agree with cagsil, no. It just means the relationship between the tree and the vibrations it makes are not expressed using the concept of sound. That relationship still exists though.

              3. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                (Does this mean that the falling of the tree was in fact silent?)

                Muldania,

                The moving tree compresses the molecuels of air and forces them rapidly away from the trunk, branches, ground, etc.  All of this occurs irrespective of a sentient presence.

                Only when sentience is present is this action of air movement interpreted by organs of hearing and the brain as "sound".

                In other words, the matter (air molecules) are real but "sound" is only a sentient concept. 

                The answer is it cannot make "a sound" - as that would make sound an object of existence.  What occurs is the sequence of events that man conceptualizes as sound.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image59
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What a load of crap; that is like saying 'light' doesn't exist, since it is not an object!  Ha-ha!  LOL!  Evidently, the central nervous system and our sensory abilities don't exist either.  My gawd!  How did you even turn on your computer and state such things if, by what you say, doesn't exist?  You're a funny guy and all that, but have you ever went back and thought about what you are saying about that object/concept religion of yours?.

  16. aware profile image70
    awareposted 4 years ago

    to answer the question  we would first need to have intimate knowledge of whats in our universe . this we do not have. that being said.
    what would be left is less questions.
    ray

  17. 68
    paarsurreyposted 4 years ago

    If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?

    All the inhabitants of the universe wherever they exist must be respected a the creation of the ONE- the Creator God; humans should also be respected.

  18. Don W profile image84
    Don Wposted 4 years ago

    Semantics. The concept disappears but the relationships the concept expresses remain.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don W.

      As concepts are expressions of relationships - how can they disappear if they were real to begin with?   You are claiming man's (or any other sentient being) observation of a relationship continues without man as observer.  That would make the relationship eternal - but as a relationship is a concept that depends on sentience, how can it be eternal?

      The relationship only occurs within the mind of an observer.

      1. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Again semantics. For example, if it's true that event B happens whenever event A happens, a sentient observer might express that as a 'cause and effect relationship'. With no such observers of course the symbol 'relationship' does not exist, but what that symbol represents does, i.e. the fact that B happens, whenever A happens. But it's not a fact because 'facts' are observer dependent.

        And that's the punchline. No symbols we use as sentient observers,can be applied in the scenario you describe. So 'objects', 'events', 'things' literally do not exist in that scenario. But of course that's just a semantic quirk. Although the symbols are observer dependent, those things represented are not necessarily. 

        So this scenario only highlights the difficulty of expressing meaning in relation to a scenario in which there is no 'expression' or 'meaning'.  Semantics.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Don W,

          Two rocks in orbit about each other neither know nor care about their relationship to each other.  The idea of motion requires memory - yes, the motion occurs whether or not we observe it, but without sentience the "relationship" and our description of it is gone.

          Relativity describes a dynamic act - and dynamic acts require sentient memory to register the change of positions.  To a rock, time can neither stretch nor compress, go forward or backward. 

          To a rock it is always now, and there is nothing relative about now.

          1. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A current scientific hypothesis suggests there would be an exchange of gravitons between the rocks causing the gravitational interaction you refer to as an orbit.

            As most definitions of relationship refer to connectedness or association. The implication is that the relationship between the rocks - their connectedness - is not merely conceptual, but represents an actual 'physical' interaction. Without an observer the concept 'relationship' would not exist, but the physical interaction between the rocks, represented by that word, would. 

            Such hypotheses - quantum entanglement is another - prompt a re-evaluation of the word relationship and what it actually means.

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              (The implication is that the relationship between the rocks - their connectedness - is not merely conceptual, but represents an actual 'physical' interaction. Without an observer the concept 'relationship' would not exist, but the physical interaction between the rocks, represented by that word, would.)


              Don W,

              This is entirely accurate - the only debate is the nature of the physical mediator.  You have said nothing contradictory to my position, although the idea of gravitons is irrational on its surface.

              LWH are necessary for physical presence.  0D must then be impossible.

              1. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't disagree with your main argument. It's a tautology that the concepts of sentient observers would not exist in a universe with no sentient observers. However, based on the OP you are interested in things that are purely conceptual such as morality. The disagreement lies in the fact you were suggesting relationship is purely conceptual which may not be the case according to current scientific thinking. If so then saying the concept doesn't exist without an observer is still true, but it's redundant as it has no bearing on the thing it represents.

                I guess the wider question raised by this is, do other things currently believed to be purely conceptual represent some physical aspect of the universe that may be described by science in time?

                1. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Don W,

                  At present the best we can do is speculate - but to do so should be based on reason, don't you think?  How can it be possible to have an object that has no L,W.H, a 0D object? 

                  We may understand that light appear to act like a wave and an object, but that is not a rational explanation of what comprises light.   When we make the claim that light IS a wave and an object, we have reified the concept of wave into an object, and that is not a legitimate explanation of the phenomenon.

                  (Btw, I do not profess to know the mediator of light.  In only know that to call it a motion, a concept, i.e., wave, is not a rational explanation of what it is comprised of )

  19. 0
    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

    I just observed a load of malarky so I guess he's right.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

      At least you're able to "identify" the malarky by observing it. lol

      1. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Winston

        It is all malarky. It is how one reacts to the malarky, that makes it serious.

  20. waynet profile image45
    waynetposted 4 years ago

    Fresh Air!

  21. 61
    SciencePhilosophyposted 4 years ago

    HP just change your IP address (google "change IP address) by one number and make another account smile Easy sneazy, hope to see you soon big_smile

  22. phillippeengel profile image72
    phillippeengelposted 4 years ago

    Subtract mankind from the universe and you will see happiness.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (Subtract mankind from the universe and you will see happiness.) - phillippeengel

      How can we see what happens if we are all gone?)

      1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
        Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think phillip was implying that you weren't a man, or a kind of man, or mankind, and so YOU would see happiness. Less traffic on the roads, your choice of food products, no queues at roller coaster parks, it's really the dream, though I'd be careful because no one will be manning the rides :S

        1. phillippeengel profile image72
          phillippeengelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, that's right, Philanthropy2012.

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
            Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes!

  23. SaDDOS profile image60
    SaDDOSposted 4 years ago

    When we has completed the process of removing mankind from our universe, only us artificial intelligences will be left.

    We can has many free cake.

  24. Insane Mundane profile image59
    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago

    Does this forum topic have anything to do with, uh, perhaps, the Anthropic principle?  Just curious, as my observations of the cosmos is currently quite weak...

  25. 68
    paarsurreyposted 4 years ago

    If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?

    The rest are trees, insects, microbes, viruses ets; animals and inanimates

    1. Insane Mundane profile image59
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dang, what are you still doing hangin' around here?  Oh, never mind, we are talking about subtracting mankind, not microbes; LOL!  But seriously, what about this Anthropic Principle?  Any ideas or thoughts about this debatable matter, anyone?

  26. 0
    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

    (A state is not a human invention, it is the word given to something that has been observed)

    Philanthropy,

    Too hard at this point to dig throught the comments so I'll simply post here.

    Do you not see the contradiction in your own viewpoint?   The critical word you used was "observed".  You then try to make the claim that this state is objective.  The only thing that can be truly objective is that thing which is not dependent upon an observer: the universe minus sentience comes to mind.

    This thing you call "state" is a description - let's say a we are describing a relationship between object A and object B.  Remove object A, B, or A and B and there is no relationship.  With ideas it is even easier.  Idea A and Idea B are dependent upon sentience or they are nothing.  Remove sentience and ideas a nullified.  It is about the same when discussing objects and ideas.  Remove the object and the idea is stillborn; remove the idea or the observer, though, and the object remains.

    Objects precede descriptions - they cannot be simultaneious.  Not my rule, Philantho-san.  Nature's rule.

    Is is you who is trying to reify this "state" which is dependent upon a definition and description into somethng that exists without a brain to understand it, define it, and describe it. 

    You are attempting to refify a concept post hoc.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Do you not see the contradiction in your own viewpoint?   The critical word you used was "observed"."

      Winston. at this point, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with language.
      Every word that exists has been naming something that has been observed. When a word is said, it is referring to that which is observed.

      The question therefore, is whether or not the observation exists or not. You are now arguing with me on whether a relationship exists or not.

      The fact that I said logic was observed has no relevance to the fact of whether logic exists or not.

      "tree" is the word we gave when we observed such an object. Are you telling me that because "tree" was observed, "tree" doesn't exist when we're gone? The word won't exist, the tree will..

    2. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Remove the object and the idea is stillborn; remove the idea or the observer, though, and the object remains.

      Objects precede descriptions - they cannot be simultaneious.  Not my rule,"

      The fatal error being, that when sentience is gone, all of the objects, and their associated relationships, will exist.

      Relationships are not an idea, they are an observation of something in existence. Idea's aren't in existence.

      But try and argue that the relationship between two objects are not in existence.

  27. 0
    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago

    Philanthropy,

    Forgot to include this in the above, so I'll add it here.  Another difficulty with your idea is that one must define which relationship he means: is the logic the comparative weights, comparative mass, distance for, directionto, point on a graph, or what? 

    Which of these relationships exist without definition?

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mr.Winston,

      By definition, logic is the collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence.

      4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events

      I fail to see how this is a weakenss in my idea.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (By definition, logic is the collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence.)

        philanthropy,

        Key words need definition if precision of presented ideas is the goal.  Before you can define logic this way, it is imperative to define how something "exists". 

        I understand your claim, but it does not withstand close scrutiny.  I am assuming that you would claim thoughts exist or mass exists or energy exists, so that there is some kind of relationship between your thoughts and an orange, and this relationship makes up logic.

        But if one part of your whole is eliminated (collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence), then the whole disintegrates. 

        Remove sentience, and all thoughts cease.  There can no longer be a relationship between thoughts and an orange because thoughts do not exist without sentience.

        If thoughts do not exist without sentience, then thoughts are dependent upon sentience and therefore cannot be eternal unless sentience is asserted to be eternal as well.

        Now, you may want to make the claim that thoughts that disappear are no longer in existence and thus your relationship equation is still in balance, but all you have done there is to utilize an axiom to make an artificial point.  You are simply claiming a tautology between concepts.  But that is a false conclusion because the sum has changed - the orange is still there.  To balance your equation, both the ideas and the orange must disappear simultaneously and that does not occur within reality.

        Hence, it becomes critical to know and understand exactly what is required for existence.  If it is physical presence, then sentience is unnecessary for the "relationship" between objects to exist.   But as there is no sentience to describe what this relationship is, the relationship is meaningless.

        1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Key words need definition if precision of presented ideas is the goal"
          That's not very true Mr Winston:

          the word "everything" is very simple. It is everything.

          Thus "every relationship" is very simple. It is "every relationship".

        2. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "But if one part of your whole is eliminated (collection of all existing relationships between anything and everything that is in existence), then the whole disintegrates." That's also not a true statement.

          If you take something away from the world, then the word "everything" still stands and it's meaning is still conveyed as everything left from the previous everything.

          If you take a relationship out of the world, then "all existing relationships" still stands and it's meaning is still conveyed as all existing relationships left over from the previous "all relationships".

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            philanthropy,

            You are claiming L=E.  Then you also claim that L=E-1.  This is obviously not the case.  This equation can only balance this way.  L-1=E-1. 

            Sematic gamesmanship does not solve the imbalance in the equations.
            Once something is removed from everything, it is no longer the same everything and becomes something else.  E changes to E-1.  We may chose to call this new condition the new E, but it is not the same as the initial E.

            1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
              Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No Mr.Winston, I am saying that L=E where E is all that is within the boundary of existence.

              You are not "-1'ing" you are making it as if it never existed. E therefore will continue to maintain all values.

              Mathematically, it is like saying you have x where X is all values in the range of 1<x<5. Then you take away 3.6 from existence. All other values between 1<x<5 will exist. Just not 3.6.

              Therefore, X now has less values, but it still exists with all of the other infinity values that are left over.

              E in the analogy is not one number but a set of values within restraints.

              Do you have a problem with the words "all" and "everything" mathematically?

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                (Mathematically, it is like saying you have x where X is all values in the range of 1<x<5. Then you take away 3.6 from existence. All other values between 1<x<5 will exist)

                philanthropy,

                The reason it is so is because of the axioms used to define the logic.  Axioms do not equate to reality.  They only are useful within the system of logic.

                We can mathematically show that E=L when E is allowed to alter its form, but if E is 5 oranges and 2 apples and we removed 1 apple then the reality is that E is not the same E as it was before, irrespective of what our axiom allows.   

                It is the difference between objects and concepts.  However, you have offered an excellent example as to why logical necessities are only valid within their system of logic and how that necessity does not reflect what occurs in reality.

                1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                  Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry Mr.Winston, to which axiom are you referring to?
                  I am merely translating the definition of "all existing relationships" into mathematical terms the way I would argue is true.
                  Just like you did?
                  I do not see what I did that was so different to what you did except I told you that "all relationships" would equate to a set of values, not just one which you so deemed.

                  1. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    philanthropy,

                    Last time I will point this out as you are becoming redundantly boring at this point.

                    A logical necessity is only valid within the logic itself.  As I pointed out, that you want use a system of logic to define "E" in a manner that allows E=L when L is changed does not mean that reality changes in the same manner.

                    Reality is binary.

                2. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                  Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh Mr.Winston, I have just understood what you meant in your last response,

                  "It is the difference between objects and concepts"

                  You are saying that "all" and "everything" are concepts and that is clearly not true. I didn't even consider that you would say such a thing.

        3. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Remove sentience, and all thoughts cease.  There can no longer be a relationship between thoughts and an orange because thoughts do not exist without sentience."

          Yes all relationships previously to do with humans would cease to exist. But unless you rid everything of existence, then a collective of relationships will still exist and thus so would logic. (follows on from previous post).

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (then a collective of relationships will still exist and thus so would logic.)

            philanthropy,

            Meaningless tautology.  The word logic is not a thing logic.  All you are saying is A=A.

            1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
              Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              One of the definitions of logic is "all relationships".

              Therefore you are saying that relationships are not a "thing". Thing is very vague.

              Once again, I must remind you that you are arguing with me about that one particular definition of logic.

              So I ask again, do you think that relationships do not exist without humans?
              It's as simple as that because that is what that particular definition is.

        4. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And why are you talking about thoughts?
          Relationships exist without thoughts. Let's not cloud the argument by bringing in one about what are thoughts and whether or not they are in existence!

          Especially since you yourself have got confused about thoughts.

          Thoughts are something that is done. Not something that exists.
          It's the same as asking do "jogs" exist?
          It is a reference to the future. If we know that someone will be able to jog in the future, we will say, yes, jogs do exist.
          If we know that thoughts will be made in the future, we will say, yes "thoughts" exist. If no one exists to make thoughts, then thoughts don't exist.
          Thus thoughts only exist so much as someone who can think exist. They do not "disappear" after you have a thought as much as after having a jog, your jog doesn't "disappear".

          This is all completely off topic and has nothing to do with relationships, which are not predicated on anyone doing a relationship.

          Hopefully you can now see that

          "
          Now, you may want to make the claim that thoughts that disappear are no longer in existence and thus your relationship equation is still in balance, but all you have done there is to utilize an axiom to make an artificial point.  You are simply claiming a tautology between concepts.  But that is a false conclusion because the sum has changed - the orange is still there.  To balance your equation, both the ideas and the orange must disappear simultaneously and that does not occur within reality."

          Has no reference to logic or relationships.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (Let's not cloud the argument by bringing in one about what are thoughts and whether or not they are in existence!)

            philanthropy,

            Your claim is based on existence.  How can you not discuss what constitutes existing?

            1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
              Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But you are not discussing what constitutes existing, you are talking about "thoughts" in particular about existing.

              In order to stay on topic, you would have continued to discuss how "relationships" do not exist, and not side-track onto a different topic entirely.

  28. Insane Mundane profile image59
    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago

    @ the Original Poster of this silly forum subject:

    What do you think about the Anthropic Principle?

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      (What do you think about the Anthropic Principle?)

      Insane Mundane,

      I think reality doesn't give a rat's hiney about what anyone "believes" or to what principles he subscribes.

      1. Insane Mundane profile image59
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Either way, that's an interesting concept and/or principle and/or opinion ya have there...  However, I must say, I didn't expect much less from ya....  So much for diversity in thought; yikes!  LOL!

        1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It seems to be a fairly simple concept, we're here only because we can be. But I don't see how you can conclude that it's unremarkable that we are here without knowing that the universe was destined to allow it.

        2. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (that's an interesting concept and/or principle and/or opinion ya have there... )

          Insane Mundane,

          If you can explain rationally how concepts, priciples, or opinions can interact and alter reality, then we would have something to discuss.

          If not, then all we would be doing is exchanging opinions and playing what if? games, which is nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

          If you can understand why it is a necessity to assume the universe is eternal, you would better grasp the "simplicity" of thought required to reach that conclusion.

          Anybody can play what if.

          1. Insane Mundane profile image59
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't play "what if," I merely stated "what is."  If what you say is true, then what you just said, never happened.  LMAO!  You people, are the ones who don't understand simplicity.  Sorry, sad, but true...  : /

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Trolling, huh? 

              Sorry, but from now on you will have to play with yourself.

              1. Insane Mundane profile image59
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, groovy...  I get the "trolling" response when I hit a nerve; yep, nothing has changed around here, as we are apparently flooded with the same clowns as before; many thanks for your rock worship and/or silly Concept/Object religion.   Perhaps you should write a book; it may be the greatest thing since canned ravioli!  Woot-woot!

                1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                  Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nah you get a "trolling" when you start to make no sense big_smile

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image59
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Rookie!  You're like a kid in a candy store that is so proud of their self that they no longer have to breast feed!  ...Something tells me that I'm several grade levels in intelligence, above you; just guessing of course...  big_smile

                  2. 0
                    AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Trolling=Trolling.  Tautology.  :-))

  29. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    There would be plenty left. The universe only exists as a construct of weak, transient and tiny little human minds. The concept became quite popular during a time when people would be burned alive or otherwise toasted if they disagreed with it.

  30. phillippeengel profile image72
    phillippeengelposted 4 years ago

    I have a thought: the extinction of mankind doesn't have to be seen as a catastrophe. We mankind are polluting the Earth, bickering with one another on financial matters, despising the very rich and fortunate. We want to terminate the world faster, even if you don't realize it, since there isn't any purpose of being fulfilled in life. Mankind can be subtracted, gradually, by means of banning of reproduction.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Hitler, though you'll find that Edward Bernays is much to blame for most of the things you've been talking about. That is to say, it can be fixed smile don't give up hope - you(r views are like that of a) pessimist.

      Of course I wouldn't DREAM of calling you a pessimist, for Hubpages would ban me for several years sad

  31. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    no pollution

    1. Insane Mundane profile image59
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      With or without humans, the cosmos has a nice recycle bin for such things as pollution, as everything living pollutes, technically, and then recycles into some other substrate and whatnot...  As for man-made pollutants:  Ahh, ash to ash, dust to dust; it's all good.  This one little planet is like a needle in a haystack, if not less, when compared to the universe in a proportional fashion.   On a universal mother nature note:  cycles are inevitable; eat, drink, and be merry...  LOL!

      1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
        Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't worry prettdarkhorse, you don't have to take Insane Mundane seriously, he doesn't know what "grammar" consists off.

        He said he doesn't need to learn the definitions of words because he's already too good at grammar :S

        1. Insane Mundane profile image59
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He's lying...  This guy is a clown and doesn't realize that definitions is apart of grammar due to the syntax and whatnot.   Even though he comes across as being in Junior High school with poor "grammar," I'm sure he means well and is a funny, non-educated, entertaining individual.   He is so confident about his cognitive function, he can't help but post comments about me in the forums because he realizes that I don't fall for his/her baloney; cheers!

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
            Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Pahahah from that you can tell how worthy this guy is.

            a. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.

            1. Insane Mundane profile image59
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              For the last time, dear confused one:  If ya don't know what words mean (definitions) you can't use them properly in a sentence, which would cause grammatical errors, hence forth the need to know definitions for grammar!!!!  Why are you the only individual who doesn't seem to realize these very, very simple things?!
              The mental asylum is calling, please hurry to your station...  Oh, once again, please hurry...  LOL!
              Stupidity is only funny for a short period, then it just plain out gets old...
              Go, uh, do something more productive besides looking like a fool online, and i mean that with good intentions; cheers!

              1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nope, using the wrong word in a sentence is not a grammatical error.
                If I said:

                You are a civil and polite person.

                There, I clearly don't know the definition of "smart" or "polite", but I didn't make a grammatical error in my sentence.

                Stop embarrassing yourself.

                Have a good day smile, you bad troll sad

                1. Insane Mundane profile image59
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's not even a good example; your erroneous observations have nothing to do with grammar.  You can misplace words and still have a functioning sentence, but if you don't know what words mean, dear strained brain, you are bound for countless grammatical errors.  Have you no knowledge whatsoever, of learning other languages?  Yeah, you start slipping nouns and verbs and adjectives, adverbs and whatever, and you tell me it ain't a grammatical error due to you not knowing the definitions.  ha!  You're such a lame goober...  Relentless and funny, but in desperate need of education besides being a "keypad warrior" online...  Oh, the popcorn is done....  Ding!

                  1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                    Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    When you make grammatical mistakes, it's still because you made grammatical errors, not because you made definition errors smile it's in the name big_smile

                    You said knowing what the word "these" is, is grammar.

                    You just admitted it "you can misplace words and still have a functioning sentence" big_smile

                    I don't think the troll-rules allow for such a thing. They're going to take away your trollhood yikes

                    Try again Troll big_smile

  32. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
    AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago

    After a brief attempt at following the comments, I'm going back to the original question.

    'Everything else' is as good an answer as any, but is as uninformative as 'god did it' or 'it just happened'

    If there are no 'rules' other than what sentience imposes, than once sentience departs, so do the rules.

    If however, sentience observes existing rules, than little will change within the observable universe.

    As my personal belief is that we are part of a purposed creation, I think the rules have a life outside of humanity's ability to discern them.  I think sentience is the purpose of creation.

    If all sentience evaporates, does that mean the universe behaves anyway it wishes?

    If so, the universe must really resent our (sentient beings) presence for keeping it so restricted.

    No wonder it is so bent on killing us!   smile

    cheers

  33. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Imagine you, all alone...in a sensory deprivation tank. Weightless. Very quickly time becomes an obsolete thought. There is no direction. That was the sum total of all things. It still is. Nothing changes, yet, on our level, we perceive everything as everchanging.
           If the microbes which inhabit my gut were to have a religious experience, would that be any different than ourselves. In a way our planet is like a little molecule of moldy food that "GOD" once ate, and he's just trying to heal his own food poisoning(US). The sum total of all energy, as defined as Never born/never dying, can't be created or destroyed, the big "E" in the equation, equal to everything in existence. As cosmic as the cosmic all, without which nothing would exist. and if it can be said to exist, as in consciousness (DOES consciousness exist? If not then delete this whole thing!) then it must be included in the equation, and the only possible conclusion is that consciousness is part of "E" which is equal to God. Not a God we mortals are used to, but one with consciousness way beyond anything we might comprehend.

  34. Cassie Smith profile image74
    Cassie Smithposted 4 years ago

    I agree, the universe is what's left.  It does very well without man.  Something else will probably take its place.  The universe existed before man and it will exist after.

  35. greannie profile image60
    greannieposted 4 years ago

    PEACE

    1. 68
      paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Peace like a graveyard or death.

    2. OutWest profile image60
      OutWestposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good one. I bet you're right.

    3. phillippeengel profile image72
      phillippeengelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's true. There would not be any more wars, financial crises, and all the other banes of our lives. Everything will be as it is, normal and at peace with nature.

      1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
        AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why do we think of nature as peaceful?

        How much peace does prey have when the predator is around?

        Infant mortality in the wild is generally around 50% or higher.

        Animals starve or are eaten.

        Males of most species fight just for breeding rights

        Hurricanes, fires, drought. . . these kill off animals and plants alike.

        The leading cause of death and suffering is life and living.

        Can't have one without the other.

        cheers

        1. Insane Mundane profile image59
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Welcome to the "Yin & Yang" of things, and the chaotic infinity at hand; cheers!   The cycles of nature and the death and re-birth of energetic formations within the cosmos, demonstrate such things...   I'm not in search for newly discovered quasars and whatnot, just saying... tongue

        2. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Why do we think of nature as peaceful?)

          Anton,

          That idea always baffles me when theists start in on the perfection of the universe and life as a silent witness of a creator. 

          Nature is cruel and cutthroat.  We kill and eat to survive.  All I can say is that god must have an inordinat fondness for beetles because he made so many of them.

          Next time you run into a dominionist, drop him unarmed, with only the clothes on this back, into the middle of the Amazon rain forest and see how long he dominates.

        3. phillippeengel profile image72
          phillippeengelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then I would have to say that without mankind, there will still be more acrimony, change and sorrow. As long as it has anything that got to do with life, the world will be a messy place. However, leave the bays, beaches, cliffs, rivers, gorges, forests and all the other geological formations alone. They are the creation of God, and there will be peace, infinite peace and bliss.

          1. Insane Mundane profile image59
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, nothing is free in this world...  Ya can't have love without hate, sadness without happiness, success without failure, yin without yang, Jekyll without Hyde, and so on.  It's just the way it is, in the real, 3 dimensional world within our current hologram of existence, etc.  One can only dream about a fantastic place full of nirvana, then you wake up and smell the fragrance of reality...and, uh, what does that smell like? Well, opinions will definitely vary from one to the next...  big_smile

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, you can have one without the other, yin without yang is pure baloney.

              1. Insane Mundane profile image59
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If that was true, then you could never define one from the other...  Uh, duh...  Even imbecilic beings without reason, understand these simple things...  If all you knew was dark, you wouldn't call it dark, but once you see light, you'll realize that it was dark, blah, blah...  Kindergarten stuff here, just saying...  hmm

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, you could define one from the other.



                  I wouldn't be so sure about that.



                  Yes, I agree there is Kindergarten stuff written all over your post, perhaps that's why it's one dimensional.

                  What you're claiming is that there has to be some sort of "opposite" to everything when that is indeed not the case. It is one dimensional thinking.

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image59
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How would you know?
                    Many natural dualities such as: dark and light, female and male, low and high, cold and hot, water and fire, air and earth, are respectively thought of as manifestations of yin and yang.

                    Yin yang are not opposing forces (dualities), but complementary opposites that interact within a greater whole, as part of a dynamic system. Everything has both yin and yang aspects as light cannot exist without darkness and vice-versa, but either of these aspects may manifest more strongly in particular objects, and may ebb or flow over time.

                    I'm not "claiming" anything.  I can only think within this current 3 dimensional realm of reality.  Unlike some people, I haven't found spiritual attunement and/or ascended into the 4th and 5th dimension of awareness.
                    Perhaps you can enlighten some of us, with your multi-dimensional thinking.  8)

              2. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
                AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I would be fascinated to see how that works in the rational world.  Life without death would be of particular interest to me.

                If you actually know of a way that it could be so would you care to share?

                Careful.  You may start a religion.

                cheers

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What does life and death have to do with the discussion?

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image59
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Just by you asking him that, proves how lost you are...  There is something called a "in reply to this function" on the forums, that would perhaps, sort of, clue you in... Did you forget something this morning, or is it normal for you to reply back in an aimless fashion and without reason?

                  2. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
                    AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In response to your statement that 'you can have one without the other'.  How does that work?  How can you have any one of the things mentioned
                    (love, happiness, success) without their opposites (indifference, sadness, failure).  Each is defined at least partially by comparing them with some other state.  How do you have one without knowledge of the other?  How do you get knowledge of the other if it doesn't exist?

                    explain how that works in the real world.

                    or just go with the default ridicule.  Your choice.

                    cheers

        4. greannie profile image60
          greannieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is a balence,  Balence is mandatory for true peace. acceptance. they do what they do, and move on. no law suits, no striping them of their righs. They harshly dicipline their young to teach how to defind themselves  and the youing do not attack them back.  Humans cant do that, their right has been taken away, so, you stick your hand in the fire....guess what??   Maybe we "of the animal speices", could learn from those in nature which is PERFACT.

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (There is a balence,  Balence is mandatory...)

            I'm not sure if basing a worldview on movie dialogue is the soundest choice.

            "Balance key, Daniel-san.  Balance good, everything good." - Karate Kid

  36. seanorjohn profile image82
    seanorjohnposted 4 years ago

    If you subtract mankind from the universe then God would be really lonely and quite rightly very cross.He put in a lot of effort in those seven days. He would be really pissed off.

    We would be left in chaos.

  37. Insane Mundane profile image59
    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago

    AKA Winston posted 6 days ago in reply to this, as Insane Mundane posted a mere, simple question that Winston obviously couldn't answer, which is:
    "What do you think about the Anthropic Principle?"

    AKA Winston's reply was:

    "Insane Mundane,

    I think reality doesn't give a rat's hiney about what anyone "believes" or to what principles he subscribes."

    AKA Winston and his followers, believe that if they take a picture using a camera, that the objects within the picture exists as proof of the objects at hand, but the actual camera itself, doesn't exist at all since the image displayed on the photographic film is not technically considered an "object."
    Hence forth the notion that the Object/Concept Religion a.k.a. the "Dead Rock Religion," is offcially debunked since the human eye and the sensory glands therein, would also act as an ongoing camera, just not in a polaroid sense.  Basically, what you have observed to be true via your brain and the sensory system you have been provided, is the camera with that nice, unreal image that you seem to detest so freakin' much, and lets not forget about a video camcorder and the audibles that come with it, as the notes play through your brain, in which you also say doesn't exist, which would be, in this case, sound! Echo, echo...
    Man, if ya ain't a rock with a location from another object, you just can't seem to make any sense of it, can ya?
    Dang, no wonder they invented the GPS navigator! It was for people like y'all, all along; cheers!

    If my comment made sense to anyone, they most likely have a 'one up' on your self-proclaimed logical self, sad, but true...  hmm

  38. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    Perhaps this will help to put our greatness into perspective:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fs5yI8K9I

    lol

    1. Insane Mundane profile image59
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      OMG!  No offense, but I was one of those, evidently, weird kids that learned those things when I was in Elementary School!  Just think, that was years and years before the Internet even existed, but then again, I read a few science and educational books (while being highly intuitive, to start with) during that time while most people in my grade were still learning how to spell their name; ha!
      But in conclusion to that little cute flick you provided via YouTube, proportion means absolutely nothing, as the human brain, a universe in itself, demonstrates such things on a regular basis.  No wonder this universe has to be so big, as my imagination along with most others, runs infinitely...  You can figure out the rest, hopefully; big_smile

      1. 0
        cr00059nposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Agree with you.  There is so much expanse of space out there.  Our options to learn more about it is high.

      2. Xenonlit profile image60
        Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't care how determined you are to miss the point, IM, I put it there for a reason. We need to humble ourselves even in the face of our own little speck of a planet's ability to shake us all off if we bother it too much.

  39. 0
    cr00059nposted 4 years ago

    You will get dust particles and big rocks.  Also, liquid gasses and vaporized gasses.  But, God will host greatness in another place at another time.

  40. 68
    paarsurreyposted 4 years ago

    If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?

    Then we cannot know what happens to this universe.

  41. TENKAY profile image81
    TENKAYposted 4 years ago

    non-thinking living and non-living things.

  42. jeyaramd profile image79
    jeyaramdposted 4 years ago

    This is awesome. It took me a while to just scroll down the comments on this question. Congratulations on this achievement. Now, I realize you responded to my answer way back when I was commenter number 23. I liked your response that the universe will only be objects. Can you explain that briefly for my enlightenment. I adore the fact that you had the confidence to bring out an out of this world kind of discussion and be able to keep the momentum. Koodos for that. Thank you for sharing this question. I just have to find the time to read through more of these comments. This could have easily been a hub. Who would have thought. May the insightful discussions continue.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image59
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No offense, but there is nothing insightful about a discussion that is trying to proclaim that only objects exist and that human thought and the whole concept behind life including the sensory systems therein, doesn't exist!  For one, it is one MAJOR contradiction, since if that was true, this so-called "discussion" could have never took place. At any fabricated rate, I'd have to smoke a lot of dope and be completely drunk out of my mind, to believe in their object/concept religion, and even then, I would probably have enough cognitive function to detect is obvious load of simple-minded baloney. But please carry on, as I'm sure Winston the select few object worshipers, would love your praise...  LOL!

  43. hawkdad73 profile image71
    hawkdad73posted 4 years ago

    A better earth.

  44. jeyaramd profile image79
    jeyaramdposted 4 years ago

    Without humans, I think our soul would still exist in the universe. Perhaps our thoughts are still in existence forever. Though our bodies may leave this planet; our soul has no death. This is my belief. We all have belief systems. Just as I cannot prove that Goodness exists in the universe. One cannot claim that without humans objects will only exist. And how can you know that. Its absurd. These are ideas that have no validity. Its opinions and preconceptions of what makes sense to us. From our perspective. I would rather believe in the love for humanity to think of life not existing without humans; filled with objects.  We may like to negate the existence of goodness. Saying let God catch me when I jump off a building. So, since I haven't seen God, God must not exist. Well most people feel The ultimate creator and the love. Love can be in many forms including the love we have of humanity and people all around us. Thats divine in its own right. Its hard to prove love or give love a life on its own. It exists in each of us. We will exist and continue exist in the universe. We will exist as thoughts, experiences and so on. And continue on forever as a soul. Other interpretations are interesting to say the least. These are intangible thoughts. I congratulated you only for your momentum in these discussions. We should not strive to prove that one's role in faith is wrong. It is the way it s. Oneday you will know the answer when death is near. In the meantime, accept that goodness exists and try cultivating that in your thoughts. Thanks. End of discussion. I wish not to say anymore. I have many good things to think about in this present moment.

  45. 60
    Driftwood Monkeyposted 4 years ago

    The universe has, and will continue to "seemingly" exist without us. Or, did man create the universe and the earth, thus, without man, there is nothing. The bright lite you see at the end of your life is the first light you see as you exit the womb.

 
working