Questions to make u *think*

[kavaris]

I been ruminating on different questions—like brain teasers to get ppl thinking (feel free to come up w your own, as thats the idea of the thread) and i been on this one as of lately, and that is...

Does anything exist without a ground level (or without being gravitational pointed towards a source, like a planet/blackhole, thus giving rise to ground levels)

iuno, basically, just think of weird questions like that, is the idea

Edited May 1 by kavaris

[Reciprocality]

It appears to me that you are asking whether anything could exist without existing as a substance, whether there are anything insubstantial.

I would ask you similarly whether anything could be possible without first being actual, that perhaps possibilities are conceptual breadcrumbs from perceived experiences and that if nothing is possible without first being actual in some form that nothing is real without first being substantial.

Isn't the separation between real and substance an invention of your mind as to what is possible? Again: why should anything be possible without first being actual in some form? 

Edited May 7 by Reciprocality

[Sugarcoat]

What is the self…

[LastThursday]

My favourite is, how do you get something from nothing? Specifically if I were some all powerful entity, how would I do it? Of course it's a completely absurd thing to think about, but fun.

 

[integral]

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

My favourite is, how do you get something from nothing? Specifically if I were some all powerful entity, how would I do it? Of course it's a completely absurd thing to think about, but fun.

 

It’s not absurd at all, and the answer is clear

[LastThursday]

@integral interesting. Why don't you think it's absurd? And if the answer is clear, are you able to create something from nothing yourself? i.e. if you know how a chair is made, couldn't you make a chair in practice?

[kavaris]

I had a thought (but its more of a question—that leads into an answer that im working on, as like, the best way to think of our current stuff..) but first i need to know if, like...

First off, let me preface by saying: what if we dont have any actual values for anything? In other words, what if everything we have is about proportions, like *this thing we know must be proportional to that*, and so theres no actual point where a value appears, and it leads to us running on circular logic, and our whole understanding of things being based on the relationship of a prior thing, and not about what the thing might be geometrically or numerically. of course, we have electrical sinewaves, and locally scoped, electrical circuits, but do we have a way to get to the space stuff? (the space of both the big and the small)

obviously i dont mean like, some theory that is like, an amalgam, i mean, this.

Are there actually pieces of real things that we can point to (and i dont mean to invoke the nature of everything, in its like, insurmountable identity of posdibilities where nothing is real) but rather, we assume realness, and then, we ask: Do we have a value for a thing, that which isnt in the context of a circuit, or can we only ever say things about electricity?

I think at this point i should mention that gravity is akin to the thing that demands spaces attention, like conceptually, a thing that is like, a product of the mapping of spaces, or something like that, and everything goes towards it, centripedal force, like, arrows pointing at the center. We can elaborate on this once we understand like..., is it that, we're lost because, the nature of the problem is already circular logic, or is it that we do have values, and its those famous, commercial science areas that are all the problem?

 

Edited Monday at 09:44 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

What im tryina get at is like, what if the thing we think is progression in science is akin to asking "what was the first memory i had" type questions, like maybe the answer is more of an origin story, less of a progression in science. So, i have this thing im callin Sean Theory, and its just like, what is the most practical way we can both internalize and express a thing, such that the destination is more aligned with progression, less about the origin... and i think it makes more sense conceptually if you frame every question as leaning too far in either direction...

p.s. my names not sean

Edited Monday at 09:57 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

Like, "What did i eat for lunch last tuesday" that could be an origin story, or it could be a progression. OR it could be the exact question we need to be asking ourselves atm

As science is better understood, then we can start asking the right questions, at which point the problems might be more clear... Even still, we can illustrate things to each other, and get across like, *this is what i might imagine happening with this, or, this might be what im imagining happening with that...*

Edited Monday at 10:05 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

Im tryina find like, a classical *solar system simulation* on youtube, or any sortve simulation of things in orbit, that which are portraying gravity's innate behavior, but its like, i cant find it—if someone happens to come across one, post it here so we can look & feel it, to understand it, conceptually and internally

(note: a bonus would be, if theres a marker of relation—that can show how the sun is not only rotating but also moving directionally, around the milky way which is also moving directionally..)

Edited Tuesday at 07:19 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

Theres probably more than one way to describe reality/physics... like if you really wanted.. but then, isnt that weird then, its like... lets ignore the fact that theres several ways to describe a happening, and just talk about it as if its a fixed rule that we discovered.. its like, suppose theres so many ways to reach the same thing, then its like, the thing that we are describing is a little less interesting now, nd instead it like... wtf was the thing they used to describe the thing... THAT shits crazy, cause it can pretty much talk about anything — in any conceptual space. Then its just like, how do we fortify THAT, and guard the attentions drawn therein...

[kavaris]

Theres also the fact the everything is biologic in the sense that its going through temporal sequences and such, so its like, you can only track things in a snapshot sorta way,and then what you have is a very diluted, concentrated image... so on one hand its like, it is that we could come atit from multiple angles, or is that, its like, its tryina describe the thing as you're experiencing the thing, and it feels like its very much biting off more than we can reason about, try as we might to keep tryin, as right off the bat we are workin on somethin'—else we're languishing in some depressed, against-our-nature condition.

[The Caretaker]

Idk if this fits your topic, but "who controls your thinking/can you stop your thinking" give some folks a brain lag

[kavaris]

@The Caretaker Definitely fits.

I'll add to that somethin' i was thinking today, now that its like the 7th day in a row that its rained here, its like, the rain makes me feel, not great (as do other ppl) and so its like, on one hand, rain and electricity is amazing, but seven days in a row not so much (its hard to think... brain dont work) I always say how like, theres moisture, as well as a little electricity in the air, like a sortve *static effect*, that is sortve like the sub atomic, super fast, super frantic conductive nature of electricity, but a little dampened so its not like electric explosions in the air... Then it mademe feel like, electricity is sortve like, one of those products/phenomenons that you can derive everything else from, including a pseudo-like gravity (i think theres a such thing as electrocuting a non-magnet material to make it behave magnetic), then there the fact that you can derive light and power from electricity, among other things like its use in chemistry.. and whatever else. its like, dang... wtf else can you discover by starting with electricity, and then trying to find other sorts of phenomenon that exist due to these frantic whatever things (iuno what happens to make things spontaneously electric.. i asked ChatGPT the othe day and i already forget)

Edited Friday at 04:56 PM by kavaris

[Aaron p]

Incredible how one simple thing is: think for yourself.

 

[kavaris]

Im slightly diverging off topic into a scenario of psychedelic/consciousness, but returning to the very initial question of something v nothing — the nothing-thing that always exists, and is always w/ us in like, the grand illusionist that awaits us, slightly staggered in some regard — is the question we finally ask that we were tryina think of, that we realize (coincidentally) it turns out its like, "woops that was truth... i didnt want that", lol... Therefore, the beginning is the beginning that exists now; however it doesnt mean there couldnt have been a prior non-everything, or something that wasnt this, it just means theres no dependencies. Suffice to say, the question to ask is like, what is the real question that gets to the heart of this, that we dont remember we are avoiding, such that its like, to realize it is to be in a bit of an coincidence. Im just assuming theres always something that is a bit deeper than the very first level, however it might have more abstractness around it, as opposed to a straight forward thing that can be brought to realization through natural means. There is specific qualities too that make it like, tuning into a busy radio frequency, type've thing.

Edited 12 hours ago by kavaris