Is the universe one big process ?

a reply to: Bicent76

There are some conclusions that we can make : we are words carvers. We see a tree, and we name it "tree", and just by naming it we have isolated it. But in the real world, there cannot be such a thing as an isolated tree, there cannot a be tree without the sun, without gravity, without water, without the earth below it, etc., in the real world such a "tree" doesn't exist. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that there is the whole, or there is nothing : there is the tree-in-its-environment, and if we talk about anything else than the whole system, we talk about a fiction. The same can be said about humans : you have vital organs inside your skin, but you also have vital organs outside your skin, like the sun which gives you vitamins and warmth, like trees that produce breathable air, and the air itself. The logical conclusions is that if you identify with your heart, your lungs, your brain, your liver, you must also identify with the sun, the trees, and the air you breathe. You might want to argue that you don't control the sun, or the trees, or the air, but you have to realise that you don't control the regulation of the temperature of your body, nor the beating of your heart, nor the filtering of your liver, nor your breathing, nor the vast amount of activity of your brain. You don't even control your own thoughts : if I tell you not to think about a monkey, you will irremediably think about a monkey.

Reality is like a territory, and words and ideas are like maps. We can change maps as we wish because we are the ones who create those maps. We can choose to use maps that represent the territory with more precision. The idea that says that "your body" is only what lies inside the skin is nothing but a map. Those who cling to this particular map or that particular map are making a confusion between the map and the territory, they have come to believe that the map IS the territory. Religion ? It's a map. Science ? It's a map. Everything I've said so far ? It's a map.

Now if you and me we want to communicate in any efficient manner, we have to have approximatively the same map, and it's called social convention. The social convention that says that the body is only what lies inside the skin was an obvious one, it came early and naturally, just like the idea that the earth is flat came naturally. Humans don't have roots, humans move around freely, one human can suffer while all others around won't feel the same pain. However, this image is but a tiny fraction of reality. Today, we know for a fact that humans are totally dependent on their environment. We haven't been placed on this planet after everything else evolved, but we have evolved along everything else, and everything else has influenced our evolution, which makes us a part of everything else. We are a development of the universe, and this is not mere poetry or sentimentalism, but a hard and cold fact.

Now, if what you're looking for is a plastic cable made in China as proof of 'connection'(whatever that means in your mind), I am sorry but God must have forgotten those.

What happens when it ends?

a reply to: gosseyn
Totally agree. The best minds in the world at the time ridiculed Darwin and Wallace for their Evolution theory or CONNECTION.
THIS PART IS CRAZY.
It turns out they are right

I wasn't talking about the movie. It is the famous "double slit experiment" that I wanted to mention. The experiment which first took place in the year 1801, and has been studied and discussed for more than 100 years.

if you knew about the double slit experiment, or any physics for that matter, you wouldn't post a what the bleep do we know video. We all know what the double-slit experiment is. Your argument is that it shows we are connected. It doesn't.

New age fluff? I have been discussing knowledge (in previous posts) that has been around for thousands of years. Just because you don't understand it, and you are just now learning about it, and it's new to you, doesn't make it new age.

None of your knowledge says we are connected. That's the problem. It shows the exact opposite.

What you are asking for is a systematic relationship, not just a connection. You want me to describe a situation similar to removing a cogwheel from a clock to make the clock fail. You want me to explain a case where if our human body was removed, some other processes would cease to work or exist. Unfortunately, I can not describe to you the purpose of life here.

I'm not asking for the purpose of life. What I want you to describe is how everything is connected. Just describe your connection to, say, Halley's comet.

Like the OP, you have assumed the universe is a body in the classical sense, something with a boundary and that moves as one, and that we are in it. However, if the universe is boundless, there is no boundary, there is no universe, and you are contained in nothing. We do not know the answers to these questions, and any new age doctrine that says otherwise is dogma.

I am nothing like an atom? That is all I am, atoms. That is all you are. That is all matter is. We are all just atoms in a sea of atoms.

You are nothing like an atom. Seriously. Compare yourself to an atom, but think a little harder this time.

A story about atoms? Since you are incapable of understanding what an analogy is, I think you shouldn't even be attempting to have a discussion on this topic. You should see yourself out of this topic until you have the required skills to have a simple discussion.

I know exactly what an analogy is. Your analogies are not even analogous. Hilarious.

originally posted by: onequestion
What happens when it ends?

If we assume that it is like everything else that we have ever observed, then when the universe dies - if it ever 'dies', it will become something else. It's like the silence between two notes of music : if there was no silence it would just be one ongoing note, and we wouldn't even notice it. If we are able to notice what is, it's because we can compare it with what isn't. Does a fish that has never known anything but water, ever question the fact that there is water ? Life and death are the same process, it is an apparent duality when it is really just the same process.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then as above so below, you're the cells in your body and you're nature around you. The cells in your body are living in you. You are their host. Our host is the planet.

a reply to: MrMaybeNot

Not quite. I am not a banana. The cells of my body extend only so far, that I can grasp a banana or walk away from it without leaving a piece of me behind. Yes we need the conditions of the planet to survive, but this in no way means everything is connected, or that the universe is some grand body or being with us its cells. It's really meaningless to speak about the universe in this way.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrMaybeNot

Not quite. I am not a banana. The cells of my body extend only so far, that I can grasp a banana or walk away from it without leaving a piece of me behind. Yes we need the conditions of the planet to survive, but this in no way means everything is connected, or that the universe is some grand body or being with us its cells. It's really meaningless to speak about the universe in this way.

You don't understand, do you ? Try to understand this : if it is meaningless to talk about the universe in this way, then it is also meaningless to talk about 'your body' in this way.

a reply to: gosseyn

You don't get it. You're comparing a universe to a body. It is an awful comparison. The body is nothing like the universe.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: gosseyn

You don't get it. You're comparing a universe to a body. It is an awful comparison. The body is nothing like the universe.

You don't answer the question. You are being intellectually dishonest.

You are comparing words against words, you are comparing arbitrary classification against arbitrary classification, and a arbitrary classification is made of arbitrary criteria, that is why it is arbitrary. You choose to pick this or that criteria and then you say "the rest is nothing like that !". You're fooling yourself. You are confusing the map with the territory. You are the cartographer and you don't even notice it.

You say "my body moves", so what ? Isn't "moving" an arbitrary criteria ? Everything moves, the planet, the whole solar system, the whole galaxy.. Why did you choose this criteria over any other criteria ? You say "I have a skin thus it is the limit of my body", why ? Can you explain that choice of criteria ? Every organ inside "you body" has a physical membrane, why then do you say "it is my organ" ?

We are the ones who put meaning on things : what we call a tree has no meaning by itself, it's just being. The universe has no meaning, it's just being.

a reply to: gosseyn

The body moves as one, is what I said, just like every body. It has a boundary as well, just like every object. I am comparing a body to a universe, and I see zero similarities just by looking.

I don't think words are the exact same as what they represent. The word tree looks nothing like a tree. That would be foolish. It is your distinctions that are arbitrary for they really represent nothing, and continuing to abuse that Korzypski quote doesn't make it true.

A universe? You are speaking of everything as if it was one thing; one thing, mind you, you have never seen, experienced or properly fathomed. So tell me how you're speaking of the territory and not the map?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


The body moves as one, is what I said, just like every body. It has a boundary as well, just like every object. I am comparing a body to a universe, and I see zero similarities just by looking.

I don't think words are the exact same as what they represent. The word tree looks nothing like a tree. That would be foolish. It is your distinctions that are arbitrary for they really represent nothing, and continuing to abuse that Korzypski quote doesn't make it true.

A universe? You are speaking of everything as if it was one thing; one thing, mind you, you have never seen, experienced or properly fathomed. So tell me how you're speaking of the territory and not the map?

The planet with 'us' on it moves as one, the solar system with 'us' in it moves as one, the whole galaxy with 'us' in it moves as one. Don't you see that you're talking about words ? Talking about talking, thinking about thinking : you say "I am comparing a body to a universe", but you've already decided what a body is ! At this point you're just talking about a map. This is exactly the problem of language : it's auto-reflexive, talking about talking about talking, layers upon layers of abstractions. What is a body ? A body is a body. What is a body is a body ? A body is a body is a body. A map is a map is a map is a map..

When I say the "universe", I really mean the whole. It doesn't matter if the whole is boundless or if it has boundaries, if it's infinite or if it is shrinking, it doesn't matter. What matters is how do we see what we see, the map/territory relation. We all use maps, the trick is to know that the map is not the territory, but just a map.