Nonexistence is a form of dystopia.

[CCoburn]

I don't think the word "absurd" belongs in the definition of dystopia either. One persons absurdity, can be anothers fetish. Both aspects degrade or augment ones idea of the perfect world. I'm sure some elements can be agreed on by all, with others being more subjective.

[RaineAshford]

I don't think the word "absurd" belongs in the definition of dystopia either. One persons absurdity, can be anothers fetish. Both aspects degrade or augment ones idea of the perfect world. I'm sure some elements can be agreed on by all, with others being more subjective.

There's only the truth of what the most pleasure could possibly be. It isn't any fetish makes unique paradises. It's all have the same enjoyments as ultimate truth.

[RoseRed]

I'm pretty sure that my idea of utopia is very different than that of others.

[RaineAshford]

Nobody chooses their paradise they're just guided by the predestined future and physics.

[RaineAshford]

After millions of years of immortality everyone just starts thinking pretty much the same. (sex and just sex)

Furthest I've seen into the future.

[Caerdon]

Nobody chooses their paradise they're just guided by the predestined future and physics.

It's funny you mention physics when your aspects of paradise ignores the laws of physics itself. You really should study up on the sciences a bit more, it helps in alot of ways. (I say this because of this post :

(...)The sun being too hot is dystopian. In paradise it would be the perfect comfortable temperature at all distances from it, and it wouldn't blind you.

)

I can assure you though, like what RedRose said (I seem to be saying that alot lately...) my paradise is very much different than what your idea of paradise is. There's nothing about predestiny about it, there's nothing destined about what someone views as their own paradise. You create your own destiny, your own paradise, and the same with your own hell. Well, the hell part is much debated, just my belief in it there. [thumbup]

After millions of years of immortality everyone just starts thinking pretty much the same. (sex and just sex)

Furthest I've seen into the future.

Immortality, I would think after many aeons of years, would turn into more of a pursuit of novelty rather than fornication. Boredom would be the biggest issue you have, as well as isolation. There's a reason as to why immortality is often viewed as a curse or a price too steep.

[RaineAshford]

Then from this unfreezing state in time(the beginning), the minds subconscious’s began deriving and deriving from the derives to create matter[material]. Because we derive from derives transformation into perfect is incremental in stages. With early casts that feel like they are used later in future casts; Precasts to a successful cast. Subconscious derives of derives from the beginning of time must be balanced before paradise.


I always consider predestined physics["metaphysics"] because I've come to the conclusion it takes a future to guide a beginning.

[corvidus]

This sounds vaguely familiar.. You might like Heidegger's Being and Time. It's a little less redundant in its presentation, but I think you'd get something from it.

[RaineAshford]

This sounds vaguely familiar.. You might like Heidegger's Being and Time. It's a little less redundant in its presentation, but I think you'd get something from it.

Thank you I will check it out. I'll see if I can learn anything new from it.

[Caerdon]

I always consider predestined physics["metaphysics"] because I've come to the conclusion it takes a future to guide a beginning.

I just need some clarification here... do you consider "predestined physics" to be metaphysics? As in the two terms are interchangeable/one in the same, or do you mean the metaphysics of or behind the idea of predestined physics?

[RaineAshford]

I always consider predestined physics["metaphysics"] because I've come to the conclusion it takes a future to guide a beginning.

I just need some clarification here... do you consider "predestined physics" to be metaphysics? As in the two terms are interchangeable/one in the same, or do you mean the metaphysics of or behind the idea of predestined physics?

That what's understood as physics later in evolution of understanding could have had it's origins labeled as metaphysics.

[Caerdon]

I always consider predestined physics["metaphysics"] because I've come to the conclusion it takes a future to guide a beginning.

I just need some clarification here... do you consider "predestined physics" to be metaphysics? As in the two terms are interchangeable/one in the same, or do you mean the metaphysics of or behind the idea of predestined physics?

That what's understood as physics later in evolution of understanding could have had it's origins labeled as metaphysics.

Can you expand upon this? I think I might have the gist of what you are saying, but I need a bit more info to be sure.

[RaineAshford]

We're so wrong about science compared to an advanced space faring civilization, so concepts we're currently classifying as metaphysics could very well be physics, we just don't know.

Science still doesn't believe in predestiny. But how to you begin time unless affect comes before cause? Something beginning is an affect not a cause.

[corvidus]

But how do you begin time unless affect comes before cause?

By spinning it

IMO, a real beginning is both cause and effect when you consider that everything is from one root.

Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, Cause and Effect:

[CCoburn]

I think the proper order is Initial cause, affect, and effect.

Maybe goes something like this:
The will of GD(initial cause)affected the singularity, and the effect was the inflation of the singularity into 4d spacetime. So the initial cause was without movement or time, existing in eternity, and caused time and space to begin, and nothing was before it. One interval in a universal rhythm, one of the Hermetic principles.

Its not clear how something without movement, change, or time can affect anything. So this is where i say truth transcends reason?

I have three terms i use for "time":
Non-linear(eternity),GDs domain.
Indefinite or infinite linear(beginning with no known end, or no end). This one seems unreasonable, I should toss it.
Finite linear(beginning and end), the Universe.

[CCoburn]

I mean, if the initial cause has to be affected to do anything, then its not an initial cause, and you just end up in an infinite regression.

Maybe i glossed over what corvidus said, I should ponder that while I go pick my GF up from work. I jumped the gun, sorry.

[RaineAshford]

Its not clear how something without movement, change, or time can affect anything. So this is where i say truth transcends reason?

And you come to understand The Gods better.

[CCoburn]

But how do you begin time unless affect comes before cause?

By spinning it

IMO, a real beginning is both cause and effect when you consider that everything is from one root.

I think Corvidus is right, and i'm gonna try to explain why:

First of all, it's understood that time cannot exist forever, if it did(hypothetically), than we would have a never ending regression - an infinite past. Time needs a starting point from which to move forward.

Secondly, is the problem of the initial cause affecting, while in a timeless state. It doesn't, it "wakes up" and then affects.
We are the microcosm, the universe is the macrocosm. We go to sleep, and then wake up(most of us), as does the universe. With the universe this goes on forever.

This follows the Hermetic principle of rhythm.

But after all that I still don't understand the mechanism for the dormant and active periods of the initial cause, but im leaving it at that. [unsure]

One more thing, the universe waking up and going to sleep is analogous to the big bang/crunch.

[RoseRed]

But that's assuming time is linear.

[CCoburn]

Non linear, or circular time...so no beginning or end, a circle, so spin it like Corvidus said. I can only wonder what initiates this circle of time...this is a bizarre concept, perhaps it is beyond reason. Maybe i'll think about it while i go cook dinner. [smile]

[corvidus]

Non linear, or circular time...so no beginning or end, a circle, so spin it like Corvidus said. I can only wonder what initiates this circle of time...this is a bizarre concept, perhaps it is beyond reason. Maybe i'll think about it while i go cook dinner. [smile]

Think Paradoxically while you do

When Yin is created, Yang is created. These two are opposites, but also the same ( as in, frim the same root). Because they're different, the move away from one another. Because they're the same, they move towards one another. The only movement they're able to achieve within these 'rules' is a revolution about their center:

[RoseRed]

Circular?

[corvidus]

Non linear, or circular time...so no beginning or end, a circle, so spin it like Corvidus said. I can only wonder what initiates this circle of time... [smile]

Also, I didnt mean to imply that time itself is circular. I meant to say that Time revolves around a center point while interacting with space. In this mind-game: Time is Yin, Space is Yang.

The two continue to move together in order to maintain themselves, but just because they do so in a circular motion, doesn't necessarily mean that Time is circular. But this is because I assume Time evolves along with the Space it interacts with:

[Caerdon]

Quite simply, the inciting moment which "wakes" the universe would be like you moving from a stand still when you are conscious of the exact moment between you not moving and moving. It's like a sudden build up, a threshold if you will, which crosses from absolute inertia to active movement.
Yes, you can argue that not only is it because of the fact that time is moving that allows for this transition between not moving and moving, or perhaps you argue that it's your will behind the transition, but I like to view the initial build up between no-time and time using the same principle.
It wants to move. And the build up between the last final moment and the next first moment is like the build up between your last made movement and your next.

Ofcourse if you follow the Multiverse rout, it could just be as simple as an errant shard or wave of time from a neighboring universe touching and kickstarting the "sleeping" universe allowing it to initiate it's own first moment in time to begin. Sort of like getting a push to get it started. Or getting a jump for your car battery.

[CCoburn]

That's an elegant theory Corvidus, I shall bask in it sometime.

RoseRed, I guess I was attaching symbolism to an abstract idea.

Caederon, I absolutely never thought of that. GD doesn't roll the dice, but he sure plays a mean pinball! [grin]

Somebody said something about me boiling water for rice last night. I did boil water....for pasta.

Cheers