Existence and Infinity (Warning: major rambling)

[Napoléon]

Disclaimer: People reading this who are not interested in the rambling and retarded thoughts that go on inside Napoleon's head, should probably leave now.


So, now that's out of the way...

I was up last night thinking about existence, why we are here, what is the meaning of life and all that bollocks.

I had a thought which really annoyed me. It was kinda blowing my mind at the same time though, trying to comprehend what I was thinking about. No, it's not that mind blowing to some people I'm sure, I haven't discovered the meaning of life or anything. But what I was thinking about was existence. More to the point, is it infinite? I want to make the distinction here, between existence and the universe we are in. For me existence would constitute what is in and beyond our own universe, (provided there is something beyond it, not 100% sure on that one yet). I'm talking about everything. If you believe in god, I'm talking about that, if you believe in multiple universes, I'm most certainly talking about them too. If you believe the universe is expanding, I'm talking about the seeming nothingness we are expanding into.

Now the thought about infinity, comes from the fact that we have discovered thousands of sub-atomic particles. I'm sitting here thinking, "well just how many more are we going to find?". Will this go on forever? Are we going to keep discovering them? How much smaller can matter get? Can existence get?
On the other end of the scale, the universe seems to be expanding into nothingness. But surely it can't be nothing we are expanding into right? Some physicists think there are multiple universes, that we are like bubbles floating through the void, and when the bubbles interact with each other, new universes are made. I guess this is both science fiction and scientific theory.

My point is, on both ends of the 'scale' spectrum, from sub atomic particles, to multiverses, we don't seem to be any closer to finding a definitive 'end point'.

So my question really is, will we ever find an end point? In fact not so much that, but is there one at all, regardless of whether we will ever find it or not.

I just have a real massive problem with this idea/thought/whatever the fuck it is. It's bugging me like crazy. If we find an end point, and we can say, 'existence consists of this (from the smallest thing in existence), to this (the largest thing in existence)', then it's like, well why the hell are there boundaries? What made the boundaries? Does there need to be a reason for the boundaries? I would like to think so, an existence without reason is just so unreasonable!

But what if there isn't an end point? Existence just goes on for infinity say. Outside of the universe is a multiverse, outside of that is something else, outside of that there is something outside of that and on and on and on.

Then it gives you a real fucking headache!

But on top of these two conundrums, we have this whole god/creator pollava.

Say you believe that a god created the boundaries for instance. He sets the rules etc. Well I still have the same damn problem. If you can come up with a reason as to why god is exempt from the "it must of had a creator" rule, then why can't I just use that same exemption for the universe on its own? How can a god be infinite, yet everything else in existence is not? Is god a part of existence or isn't he? If he's not a part of existence then he doesn't exist. Period.


To simplify (as much as I can simplify this garbage), seems there's only two options for existence. It's either infinite (goes on forever/has infinite scale), or it's not (it has a finite scale/doesn't go on forever).

Both scenarios cause me a massive amount of mind fuck.

I'd very much like to hear some other people's views on this shit. I mean, are there things I'm thinking about where I'm missing something? Is there a simpler way of looking at existence?


I don't know.


In essence it really is just the rehashed kind of philosobabble question I spend all my time hating. But hey, this one interests me.


Anyway. Thanks for reading if you did. Can't say I blame ya if you didn't

Feel free to let me know what your thoughts are in the poll at the very least.

[Polaris]

For this post, I am only going to talk about the secular and not the religious definition of infinite.

I used to believe existence was infinite being a proponent for the collapsing universe theory (aka a never ending succession of universes....starts with a big bang and then collapses back into the same space prior to the big bang to start the process all over again), new findings point to the impact of dark energy as pointing to the eventual death of the universe....aka dark energy will even push atoms apart. So yes, it will still be existence, there will still be a universe, but it will be a universe of almost nothingness.....no substance, just loose subatomic particles floating in the nothingness of space....well not even space as space has substance...you said it can't be nothingness if we are expanding, but it would be essentially nothingness like smoke after it has dissipated into the atmosphere....particulates are still in the air, but they have become so disperse that they are essentially no existent.

[Napoléon]

they are essentially no existent.

But, the problem I have is, essentially non existent, is not the same as non existent.

This is the thing. Regardless of what the existence is made up of, even if it is an incomprehensible void, it is still something. It still has a past, it potentially for all anyone knows still has a future.

So then the question I ask is more along the lines of: "What is the difference between that which is 'essentially non existent', and actual non existence?

[Polaris]

they are essentially no existent.

But, the problem I have is, essentially non existent, is not the same as non existent.

This is the thing. Regardless of what the existence is made up of, even if it is an incomprehensible void, it is still something. It still has a past, it potentially for all anyone knows still has a future.

So then the question I ask is more along the lines of: "What is the difference between that which is 'essentially non existent', and actual non existence?

I view it as an interpretation, an interpretation of observation. It still exists, but without form, its existence becomes meaningless.

[Napoléon]

I view it as an interpretation, an interpretation of observation. It still exists, but without form, its existence becomes meaningless.

But existence (in my world view) is meaningless anyway. That might make a difference to you but to me it does not.

[Gambit]

This one question is why, when you asked me a while ago, I said I was a deist. I just can't fathom it. I used to fuck with my friends when they were stoned, by asking them "Try thinking of nothing." They would come up with a number of scenarios; however, each one would inevitably describe something. A thing that had attributes, was natural, and could be tested and verified if we had the means.

I asked my da about this once, and this is what he had to offer: "We are nowhere near as intelligent or advanced as we'd like to believe. There are things in this universe (At the time the multiverse was virtually unheard of) that we are simply incapable of understanding, at this point in our evolution. We may never understand them, but that's OK, we don't necessarily need to. That we want to; that we are driven by a desire to pursue such truths - that is the greatest trait of humankind.

My da is a useless asshole in a lot of respects, but those words have kept me sane for a long time.

[Napoléon]

This one question is why, when you asked me a while ago, I said I was a deist. I just can't fathom it. I used to fuck with my friends when they were stoned, by asking them "Try thinking of nothing." They would come up with a number of scenarios; however, each one would inevitably describe something. A thing that had attributes, was natural, and could be tested and verified if we had the means.

I asked my da about this once, and this is what he had to offer: "We are nowhere near as intelligent or advanced as we'd like to believe. There are things in this universe (At the time the multiverse was virtually unheard of) that we are simply incapable of understanding, at this point in our evolution. We may never understand them, but that's OK, we don't necessarily need to. That we want to; that we are driven by a desire to pursue such truths - that is the greatest trait of humankind.

My da is a useless asshole in a lot of respects, but those words have kept me sane for a long time.

Yeah I know full well that most if not all of these questions won't be answered.

But that's what bugs me the most

Interesting you point towards what you said about deism. I think it's really just a question of how you think, are you prepared to accept that at some point there has to be an exception to the rule. If a creator exists then he must be the exception. Unless something created the creator, and so on down the abyss of philosobabble.

For me I just can't accept the exception to the rule. It defies everything that is logical. I'm simply not prepared to forgo logic.

[idunno]

Only read the OP (really interesting) plan on sharing a thought on infinity later.

[Gambit]

This is the point where I think atheism and theism is in complete conflict. If God exists, by its very nature it is outside of everything. It is not governed by the laws of nature as we know them, because it created those laws. God, if it were real, is the only thing capable of acting outside of those laws. There doesn't need to be another God, because before God created the universe(s) there was nothing physical and no laws to govern such things. The Gods of man are flawed. I don't need to present all the arguments as to why, I'm sure you have heard them. However, a God that only created because it could, has no obligation to its creations. Nor does it have any responsibility to create perfectly. It's so simple in its complexity.

The problem is, we want an explanation, whereas theists are happy to accept that God is outside of natural laws. Now, consider what we are asking here. We are looking for the zero point of creation. Given what we know of psychics, we are nowhere near finding it at this point. How far do we have to regress before we get to the starting point? If such a thing exists. So, in my opinion, I embraced the deistic belief that I outlined in the above paragraph because I know I will die without ever finding the answers to my questions. Why, what, where, when and how.

I can't actually take part in this thread anymore. Fuck you, Napo; now I'm not going to sleep the whole night, just thinking about this shit.

[Napoléon]

Fuck you, Napo; now I'm not going to sleep the whole night, just thinking about this shit.

I did warn you

---

Now, consider what we are asking here. We are looking for the zero point of creation. Given what we know of psychics, we are nowhere near finding it at this point. How far do we have to regress before we get to the starting point? If such a thing exists.

This is what I'm talking about right here!

Fuck knows if there even is a starting point. What about the end point? Could you have a start but no end? Even an end but no start? When you think about it, none of it makes any fucking sense

Now the introduction of a creator kinda solves the problem somewhat sure, depending on how you look at it. Personally I think it raises more questions than it answers.