21 Jun 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think the buddha himself would say those monks are wrong. There is only the now. The future is an illusion.
Actually no, Buddhism does include a notion of life after death (of a sorts).
However they don't like to admit it.
Aaron Rah did some digging on this including going to a number of Buddhist temples and
questioning the monks there and he did get them to (grudgingly) admit that they do believe
in a continuation of 'something' after death.
Can' ...[text shortened]... e he talks about this (there are several) but I will
post one when I next come across it.
24 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelBuddhism attempts to define words as an allegory, that's why the messages are all so ****ed up and self-referential.
I think the buddha himself would say those monks are wrong. There is only the now. The future is an illusion.
I think Buddha would smile at the thought of flipping the meaning of past and future. Throw in a doughnut and we might even get a giggle or two.
24 Jun 12
5 edits
So given that the direction of the arrow of time is purely referential.
Is it less meaningful to say that the future has created the past than it is to say that the past has created the future?
If Not then can it not be said, it is more likely that humans play a role in the creation of the universe by way of the future than an unproved 'God' has in the past?
24 Jun 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThat's not a given, physics has a preferential direction of time because of the laws of thermodynamics.
So given that the direction of the arrow of time is purely referential.
Is it less meaningful to say that the future has created the past than it is to say that the past has created the future?
If Not then can it not be said, it is more likely that humans play a role in the creation of the universe by way of the future than an unproved 'God' has in the past?
24 Jun 12
7 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe thermodynamic arrow of time is a notion we adhere to because we are simply unable to comprehend any other. However, the thermodynamic arrow of time is unable to deal with more existential matters such as existence. The causal arrow of time is.
That's not a given, physics has a preferential direction of time because of the laws of thermodynamics.
Sorry to cut and paste but this says it better than I could
'An epistemological problem with using causality as an arrow of time is that, as David Hume maintained, the causal relation per se cannot be perceived; one only perceives sequences of events. Furthermore it is surprisingly difficult to provide a clear explanation of what the terms "cause" and "effect" really mean, or to define the events to which they refer. However, it does seem evident that dropping a cup of water is a cause while the cup subsequently shattering and spilling the water is the effect.
Physically speaking, the perception of cause and effect in the dropped cup example is partly a phenomenon of the thermodynamic arrow of time, a consequence of the Second law of thermodynamics.[7] Controlling the future, or causing something to happen, creates correlations between the doer and the effect,[8] and these can only be created as we move forwards in time, not backwards. However, it is also partly a phenomenon of the relation of physical form and functionality to the attributes and functional capacities of physical agents. For example, the causes of the resultant pattern of cup fragments and water spill are easily attributable in terms of the loss of manual grip, gravity, trajectory of the cup and contents, irregularities in its structure, angle of its impact on the floor, etc. However, applying the same event in reverse, it is difficult to explain how the various pieces of the cup come to possess exactly the nature and number of a cup before assembling, how they could assemble (as neither floors nor hands can create china cups unaided), why they should assemble precisely into the shape of a cup and fly up into the human hand (as immobile floors cannot throw and, without contact, the human hand lacks the capacity to move objects unaided) and why the water should position itself entirely within the cup.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
My argument is that in the context of existence, the notion of cause and effect makes more sense if the universe itself were a temporal loop. Further, as humankind is the entity we actually know of then it is most likely that 'we' created the universe.
25 Jun 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThe key difference is predictability. There are more possible futures than pasts so we can 'predict' the past far better than we can 'predict' the future.
Is it less meaningful to say that the future has created the past than it is to say that the past has created the future?
It must be noted however that the past is not entirely predictable. This oddity about the past is what quantum mechanics is all about.
26 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut that's exactly my point. Why is this reality more coherent than the myriad options??
The key difference is predictability. There are more possible futures than pasts so we can 'predict' the past far better than we can 'predict' the future.
It must be noted however that the past is not entirely predictable. This oddity about the past is what quantum mechanics is all about.
27 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm suggesting that should science have a theory for existence. The lead theory should be a temporal loop.
I don't understand the question.
All this gnashing of teeth at the creationist twats that show up and yet nobody has a better idea than them.
In fact I'm going a step further by suggesting that our history and present are actually artifacts of the future.