Misconceptions

[uniquemand]

I'll buy that.

My major point was that while the universe apparently exists, this doesn't necessarily require a creator. This is a common idea people resort to when insisting that there must be a creator, or creators, because something is here. As others have pointed out, this argument is logically flawed, because it infers that the creator is either eternal or must also have been created by another creator, and so on. If you accept the idea that the creator was eternal, why couldn't you accept the idea that the universe itself is eternal? If the creator wasn't created, why is it necessary that the universe was created?

 

[VaD]

It's good!
We got back to the OP: Misconceptions.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Energy conservation has to include ALL forms of energy. Among them is gravitational binding energy, which is negative, because gravity is an attractive force. (It costs energy to pull things apart; energetically, you have to pay your way out of debt.)

The very early universe had enormous negative gravitational energy, because everything was close together. So the Big Bang does not necessarily violate conservation of energy: the total energy of the universe, with pluses and minuses all added up, may simply be zero.

Otherwise, of course, it's not really clear how to apply the statement, "The total amount of energy does not change over time," to the moment at which time itself begins. In this sense SpecialFrog is right. In what I think are Scn terms: cosmology may be senior to thermodynamics.

 

[Vinaire]

Ah, but that's not proven. Doesn't that make that an arbitrary consideration?

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

Sure does!

.

 

[Vinaire]

"Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." - First law of thermodynamics.

If this is true, then how would that square with the idea that it was created in a big bang, or with ANY creation scenario?

The human mind (including mine) balks at the concept of something being eternal. We are used to things having a start, span of existence, and an end.

The universe could well be eternal.

Nah! It could be cyclic.

But, of course, all these are considerations.

.

 

[VaD]

The very early universe had enormous negative gravitational energy, because everything was close together.

How do you know? :confused2:

 

[uniquemand]

I don't think (and didn't mean to imply) that the Big Bang violates the laws of thermodynamics. I was saying that there must have been something that went bang. I don't think time began at the start of the big bang. I don't think it is meaningful to say that time has a beginning or an end. You can mark off periods of time in arbitrary units, but this shouldn't be taken to mean that there was nothing going on before or after.

Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" details possible things going on prior to the big bang, setting up conditions for it. There could have been various other "bangs" or events prior to or on different timelines from our "big bang".

 

[Vinaire]

If doesn't. If the universe is eternal, so are the laws of thermodynamics. If it isn't, they might or might not apply to any time period up to and including the creation of the universe, assuming that you can meaningfully consider time before that point.

I'm just saying that the laws of thermodynamics can be valid without indicating that the universe is eternal. They are valid within the scope of our current universe.

Impressive arguments!

.

 

[Vinaire]

I'll buy that.

My major point was that while the universe apparently exists, this doesn't necessarily require a creator. This is a common idea people resort to when insisting that there must be a creator, or creators, because something is here. As others have pointed out, this argument is logically flawed, because it infers that the creator is either eternal or must also have been created by another creator, and so on. If you accept the idea that the creator was eternal, why couldn't you accept the idea that the universe itself is eternal? If the creator wasn't created, why is it necessary that the universe was created?

Both "creator" and "cause" are considerations. "Eternal" is a consideration too.

All considerations are manifestations.

I have now become aware that my arguments are mathematical and extremely abstract. My apologies for inflicting this torture on ESMB members!

.

 

[uniquemand]

My problem with your argument, here, Vinaire, isn't that it is abstract or mathematical, it's that it is meaningless. Can you name anything that is not a consideration? What information is gained by calling something a consideration?

 

[VaD]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about Misconceptions of/in/from Scientology.

Just noticed that tags of this thread are "david mayo" and "vinaire".

I was wrong.

This thread is all about philosophy, I guess.

Vinaire likes philosophy. He speaks about philosophy. He wants us all *to look*.

But Vinaire doesn't look onto Scientology. He just wants *us* to look onto Scientology in ways he wants us to look at everything (according to his blog and essays).

***

I had a misconception about this thread. - I thought it was about Scientology's misconceptions. - It wasn't. - It was about each other's misconceptions about philosophy. (Or has become such)

Talking philosophy is an endless and useless talk.

Every group of people has their own philosophy. It won't change until an individual changes his group.
I.e. Politicians have their own philosophy. Criminals have theirs. Housewives have theirs. Scientists have theirs. Theologists have theirs...
- Number of philosophies is endless. To study them all is futile and useless.
- To argue about your (in fact, your group's philosophy) with another (in fact, his group's philosophy) is futile and useless.

(My view)

 

[VaD]

Before we can truly identify MISconceptions, we should discover what Conceptions (without MIS-) are.
- I presume we can never wholeheartedly agree on conceptions, and that is one of the reasons our minds (and minds of those around us) are overfilled with MISconceptions (and Vias) - oftentimes we just have to either accept other's conceptions or GTFO. Accepted, they don't feel to us as such ("good conceptions") but - we have to live with them, and go on a via to be acceptable for that person.

- It's not a group job, imho.
It's on individual basis that one discovers what his Conceptions (without MIS-) are. Then, he can clearly see his (rather instilled into his mind by upbringing, education, authorities of any sort, idols,... even loved ones) MISconceptions.

Above was posted in this thread earlier.

Philosophy (any) is just a bunch of misconceptions.

I'm sorry to have sounded too harsh in my previous posts but - what is philosophy REALLY? - "Love of wisdom". Right?

Well, wisdom is a great thing but wisdom is not wisdom when it is not practical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

Wisdom is a deep understanding and realizing of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to choose or act or inspire to consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time, energy or thought. It is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) apply perceptions and knowledge and so produce the desired results. Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight. Wisdom often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that one's principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions.

This thread has a name "Misconceptions".

And some posted earlier that this thread is a great example of what misconceptions ex-Scientologists might have. Some said it's a "must-read" thread (for that reason).

***

I see that some here like to philosophize any and every subject they come across.
It's not practical.

If discussing each other's philosophies helps you you grow, it's good.

But! I don't think it does. - Everyone holds onto his own (philosophy). Until he changes a group he belongs to (trying to belongs to).

***

I said earlier that phlosophy is BS.

I correct myself. - Philosophy (of any kind) is a misconception.

Just because it stands between YOU (being) and the world as it is.

 

[Caliwog]

I have now become aware that my arguments are mathematical and extremely abstract.

I have now become aware that you should check your car for exhaust leaks into the cabin.

You haven't made mathematical arguments. Or abstract arguments. Or ANY arguments. Everything your saying could come from a pull-string doll, Vin. This reminds me of doing TR3. We're asking "Do fish swim?" and you are saying "Boy, what a pretty flower that is."

Which reminds me, I will repeat the question: Have you completed the assignment I gave you?

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

 

[Vinaire]

My problem with your argument, here, Vinaire, isn't that it is abstract or mathematical, it's that it is meaningless. Can you name anything that is not a consideration? What information is gained by calling something a consideration?

Good point.

The mathematical relevance is that since everything is a consideration we cannot know THAT which is beyond consideration. We are forever trapped in a bubble of consideration. We may speculate about how that bubble came to be but that would be a consideration too, and part of the bubble.

See the trap!

But, yes, consierations of that bubble have differences, similarities and identities among themselves. We may evaluate them for consistency and inconsistency. The bubble of considerations would appear complex to the degree it contains inconsistencies.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I have now become aware that you should check your car for exhaust leaks into the cabin.

You haven't made mathematical arguments. Or abstract arguments. Or ANY arguments. Everything your saying could come from a pull-string doll, Vin. This reminds me of doing TR3. We're asking "Do fish swim?" and you are saying "Boy, what a pretty flower that is."

Which reminds me, I will repeat the question: Have you completed the assignment I gave you?

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

Could you please remind me of that assignment once again.

Thanks.

 

[VaD]

Good point.

The mathematical relevance is that since everything is a consideration we cannot know THAT which is beyond consideration. We are forever trapped in a bubble of consideration. We may speculate about how that bubble came to be but that would be a consideration too, and part of the bubble.

See the trap!

But, yes, consierations of that bubble have differences, similarities and identities among themselves. We may evaluate them for consistency and inconsistency. The bubble of considerations would appear complex to the degree it contains inconsistencies.

.

Vinaire, you can seduce girls with such statements but this board is not that site.

 

[Terril park]

I'll buy that.

My major point was that while the universe apparently exists, this doesn't necessarily require a creator. This is a common idea people resort to when insisting that there must be a creator, or creators, because something is here. As others have pointed out, this argument is logically flawed, because it infers that the creator is either eternal or must also have been created by another creator, and so on. If you accept the idea that the creator was eternal, why couldn't you accept the idea that the universe itself is eternal? If the creator wasn't created, why is it necessary that the universe was created?

There is no need for the creator to be eternal. One assumes he started existence before his creation.

I still find the factors the best explanation I know.

Also I've read several accounts of people who appear to recall
something like a universe creation. I have and one of my PCs did.
Lets just say its a little bit of evidence.

 

[uniquemand]

Good point.

The mathematical relevance is that since everything is a consideration we cannot know THAT which is beyond consideration. We are forever trapped in a bubble of consideration. We may speculate about how that bubble came to be but that would be a consideration too, and part of the bubble.

See the trap!

But, yes, consierations of that bubble have differences, similarities and identities among themselves. We may evaluate them for consistency and inconsistency. The bubble of considerations would appear complex to the degree it contains inconsistencies.

.

Sounds like the "THAT" you are referring to is what Korzybski referred to as "unspeakable", and what I would refer to as ineffable. Primary experience, absent considerations. Nothing prior to my existence could have been part of my primary experience, thus the "time before time" would be ineffable to me.

We could argue about whether I existed during that period. I would argue I didn't, people who think we have lived eternally would argue I did. If that was the case, we could make statements about that primary experience, but they would not convey the experience.

 

[VaD]

We are forever trapped in a bubble of consideration.

I'm not.

Not now. Not "forever"

 

[VaD]

I have now become aware that you should check your car for exhaust leaks into the cabin.

You haven't made mathematical arguments. Or abstract arguments. Or ANY arguments. Everything your saying could come from a pull-string doll, Vin. This reminds me of doing TR3. We're asking "Do fish swim?" and you are saying "Boy, what a pretty flower that is."

Which reminds me, I will repeat the question: Have you completed the assignment I gave you?

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com