what if..

what if everything that we can imagine or think up already exists.. im not saying that when we think of it we create it.. what im saying is that anything that we can think of does already exists..

if the universe is infinite then it has to exist.. not just really big, infinite!!!!!!!!!!!! never never never never ending!!

oh yeah NEVER!!!

so when we make up something like a dragon it already is out there somewhere no matter what.. everything is related.. and we can only come up with things that we have already encountered

just a thought..

try to think of a reality that doesnt make sense at all, it already exists.. try to think of something with out linking it to the things you already know exist... you can't

for example think of a color you've never seen

.

quote:

---

try to think of a reality that doesnt make senseat all, it already exists.. try to think of something with out linking it to the things you already know exist... you can't

---

So there is nothing new under the sun? Acatually I heard something similar when I was going to school. College can really swamp you so I started looking into how we learn. It was theorized that we need a framework of hooks => something to attach our perceptions to in order to learn. This is why they give the same subjects over & over again as students go thru school. Same with atheletics, we have to build synaptic responses to excellence?

Most of you have never read Crtique of Pure Reason. It may be that we can't think of a color that doesn't exist, but then all we know of coloer is what we have on the physical realm. But there is knowledge that we can aquire that is not based on our experience that can not exist in a "seperate reality". This type of knowledge is called a prioria. This is the knowledge of God. As well as other types. But this is to say simply that the "Christian" doctrines on God hold true on this plane while the "Islamic" doctrines on God hold true on another. This type of knowledge leads us to come to the logical conlusions that if everything we think of can exist, then it is to possible that in all probablity some things (things beyond our conceptions) can not exist even if we can think of them. We by no means have the complete ability's in our mind to realize all conceptions.

good and interesting thought anaylitical!
but ofcourse, first what does one mean just by saying that the universe is infinite? Yes, regarding where it ends physically it can be said that perhaps it is infinte, but in what other way can it be 'infinite'? Yes, it can be infinite it terms of the number of occurences that can occur, in which case it can satisfy ur point.
but again, what does one mean by infinte occurences? I mean, how? regarding the physicall infiniteness of the universe, there may be some somewhat twisted logic, but other then that, any other sort of 'infiniteness' is simple wishful thinking

Conway, I think your reference to Kant's work in relation to the question of infinite reality is quite astute. His ideas about causality being a hardwired paradigm of human perception totally turned the tables on old arguments about the nature of reality and theology, for instance early 'proofs' about the existence of god based on the idea of a 'first cause'. Before we can try to judge the nature of the universe based on rational perception, we must first determine whether our perceptions are actually accurate.
I've found that many people have difficulty with contradictions, such as the debate over free will vs. determinism, until they learn to throw out some very basic assumptions. Once a person can do this, he'll often find that the very question he was asking becomes irrelevant. In any ontological debate, the first instinct is to fall back on paradigms, or models for understanding and viewing reality.
Aristotle wrote that paradigms didn't relate the general to the particular, or the particular to the general, but rather the particular to the particular. Thus a paradigm often becomes a logical fallacy known as questionable cause, such as saying, 'A and B regularly occur together, therefore A is the cause of B.' He also said, 'only one of [the individuals concerned in the argument] is more knowable than the other." This is very interesting if you think about it.
In relation to the question of the role of divinity in the universe (ie how can both the Christian and Muslim monotheistic deities both exist simultaneously in a universe where everything that is possible actually exists, including the possibility that neither exists), an interesting philosopher by the name of Whitehead proposed that an actual identity must be the reason for the ordering or valuing of the abstract potentialities and the ideal forms from which our actual universe arises. You can take this to mean that God must exist because order exists, but I prefer to think of it this way:
The universe does simultaneously contain an infinite number of possibilities, but the very fact that we perceive a particular ordering and valuing of the world is evidence of the absolute, ie the ordering we perceive is the divine element. What we perceive, we create, because in a universe of infinite reality the more we perceive the more that exists for us. So, the divine impulse is contained in the very act of questioning and expanding our view if the world (even if we can't 'realize all conceptions').

but shouldn't that something be already created in order for us to percieve it?

No angel you are wrong (opnion of course). First you must realize that we as humans have a very limited capability to percieve what may or may not exist. Secondly it is true that on our "physical" realm or on Earth as we know it, the rule apply's that in order for us to perceive something "with our eyes" it has to exist. But we to have the abiltiy to perceive things as purely conceptions. Or purely ideas. And even these are classified into diffrent catorgries such as fiction novel's and philosophy books. It also is true that for us to concieve of an idea (being ideas such as fiction novels) it is completely possible that it exist in some form or fashion. This is not saying that it does or doesn't exist only that it is possible and we just don't have proof of any fashion. But the whole point is that in the way of (Philososphical conceptions) there is things that you can percieve (on our own unperfect wisdom) that do not exist even though you can imagine them. Thus the true answer is yes and no. As it often is. But as for an example of (philosophical conceptons) that do not exist I say this. Oweing to the fact we can know nothing for certain , it stands to reason that the philosophy of An all powerfull God and a lesser god destroying him and assuming his place is impossible because the first God was in fact Omnipotent. Which means he was in fact the very god who destroyed him. This is just one possible contradtion, there are many. This philosophy is closley related to the idea of "Contradtion" which states that soemthing can not both exist and not exist at the same time.

Sorry for the length. I try to keep em' short.

Well, perhaps we can imagine things that don't exist in this reality is by simply joining togather the things that do exist. We don't actually imagine things that don't exist, we just make fictional stuff from the stuff that exists. A person may imagine a dog with wheels for legs etc, but this imagination is possible because both dogs and wheels already exist

True. It is possible that when we combine A and B (things we already know to exist) then you have C which can not exist at all (oweing to our inperfections). However combining knowledge to reach anthoer knowledge is not the only way in which we receive knowledge. Some knowledge is completely free standing if you will and this kind of knowledge is "a prioria". Kant explains this throughly in the book of Crtique of Pure Reason. You might find it good to read.

yes, we may have a different form of knowledge which is not affected by the impressions life leaves on our brain.
Don't think I'll find crtique of pure reason in my local bookstore though!

Ha! Ha! Sad but true.