Transience

nimblemaker30 said:We don't actually know where things are, do we?
In our own little way, we just dream them up inside our minds,
deciphering those tiny little pulses of light...

And honestly, we mostly just dream that we even possess a mind to begin with,

It’s all just one big DREAM.

If you take a closer look—really look—you’ll see that you're dreaming....
The fact that everything is so fleeting is one of the clearest signs
that we're dealing with an illusion.

To actually break through that illusion, you have to step into the chaos,
into that state where there is neither order nor law,

into a void of pure nonsense,
where explanations no longer exist
and there is no longer any foothold for the mind to grab onto.

Well said. But the day I actually accept that fact, I won't be human anymore.

To keep going:
Everything I’ve laid out implies that reality exists in two distinct modes. You have the physical realm—the world of actual objects and beings—and then you have the ideal realm, which is the world of laws. When you think about it logically, the gap between those two worlds is massive.

For example:
Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. If we strip away the fruit and just look at abstract numbers, we write 2 + 2 = 4. In that ideal version of reality, there is always one single result, and in this case, it's 4. Even with complex stuff like probability, there’s just one specific likelihood of something happening or not. That result remains true and necessary, regardless of what's happening in the physical world.

On the flip side, in the real world, those apples could turn out any number of ways. You might end up with four bitten apples, four red ones, maybe one green apple and three ugly ones, four pretty ones, or two green and two red... you get the idea. The ideal world gives us the number—the quantitative relationship—which is undeniably correct, but it tells us absolutely nothing about the quality of the apples that the number is describing. Or take color: if the ideal world tries to analyze the redness of the apples, it will assign a number to every shade of red, but no amount of math or summation will ever let you actually *experience* the color red.

That’s exactly why mathematicians find it easy to calculate possibilities in some imaginary multi-dimensional space. They can crunch the numbers, but math and natural laws alone can't show you what that world actually looks like without the involvement of reality—actual things or beings. The ideal world doesn't care that apples grow and rot, or that calculating takes time, or that every single one of those four apples is a unique individual occupying its own specific point in space and time. It doesn't matter to the math. It just says the answer is four, even if the entire universe collapses.

It's obvious that for the real world to exist, there has to be an "observer." Someone who looks at all those mathematical shades of red the ideal world found and simply says, "That apple is red."
As far as we know, the only certain, undeniable, and truthful "observer" is the human being. For now, we are the only ones who name things and give them meaning.

I think you just answered your own question... that an ideal world is all black and white, or maybe just one or the other.
But in the real world? It’s the nuances perceived by the observer that actually matter.

Mark Torres14 said:I’m walking along the beach, picking up shells. The tide is out—typical for this time of year—and there's a bit of a wind, but the sun feels warm. I pick up a stone filled with fossilized remains from a creature that lived long before humans ever walked the earth. It’s pitted and worn down, probably part of some ancient shoreline that turned to stone instantly, trapping whatever life was caught in its path. Time has taken its toll, and this single shell, partially frozen in crumbling rock, has taken over my thoughts. A tiny, insignificant being. Even if it had never existed, the world around me wouldn't change one bit.

So, what kind of world is it?

It’s a world of things that, much like humans, are fleeting. They emerge, they occupy space, they exist for a while, and then they vanish. Every single thing is unique, an original, both new and old, and impossible to replicate. There isn't a carbon copy of any of it anywhere in the universe. And yet, despite how complex or important these things might seem, none of them are actually necessary for the world to keep turning.

But if nothing is strictly necessary for the world to exist, why is it here at all? If you really think about it, there has to be something fundamental holding the whole thing together. Something necessary. What is it?

Believers would point to God; scientists would point to the laws of nature. While people go back and forth on whether God exists—not just as a matter of faith, but as a philosophical debate—there is no question that the laws of nature are real. The conservation of energy, the speed of light, mathematical constants... they're clear, precise, and interestingly enough, they don't share any traits with physical objects. They aren't fleeting, they aren't "unique" in a physical sense, they don't take up space, and time doesn't wear them down. They possess one undeniable, almost divine quality: they are always true. You could argue that these laws are so perfect, and our reliance on them so absolute, that no religious God could even compete with the laws of physics. It's perfection itself. Which means Plato might actually have been onto something—that our reality is just a shadow cast by a world of pure ideas.

What exactly are laws?

Laws belong to Magic, and Magic serves as the path toward enlightenment; Consciousness is God, just as God is the void and the uncreated work, much like the laws and numbers themselves... it is a truly fascinating cycle...

The singular law of magic is "as above, so below."😉

Roger Smith5 said:Laws belong to Magic, and Magic serves as the path toward enlightenment; Consciousness is God, just as God is the void and the uncreated work, much like the laws and numbers themselves... it is a truly fascinating cycle...

The singular law of magic is "as above, so below."😉

Why does everything have to be explained through mysticism and God?

Seriously, why?😠

Isn't it beautiful enough just knowing that every single fragment of existence is part of an infinite expanse of space, time, nuance, and variety?
One day, everything we know will vanish, and something we can't even fathom will take its place.
Isn't there beauty in simply knowing we were a piece of the puzzle in creating whatever comes next? Every being, no matter how small, is unique. We are architects of the future and witnesses to the past... whether living or inanimate.

In this modern era—and I say "modern" because at least I can describe it—quantity of life is starting to outweigh quality.
Do we really need eternity or everlasting life if we don't even know how to live the little bit we actually have?

Jeffrey Gray4 said:I think you just answered your own question... that an ideal world is all black and white, or maybe just one or the other.
But in the real world? It’s the nuances perceived by the observer that actually matter.

I haven't even started answering yet. The real question is: what are laws, and where do they actually live? I've also thrown a third "element" into the ring of reality—the observer.

The "observer" is a unique case because they possess something that sits above both versions of reality, yet can't function without either one. They have thought. And specifically, a curious mind that no amount of data can ever fully satisfy. On one hand, the observer—man—is undeniably an animal (the most advanced kind, sure, but still an animal). Based on biology, organs, behavior, needs, evolution... it's clear he belongs to the world of physical things and beings. On the other hand, the way that same man functions is governed by laws originating from the ideal world.

Thought is a slippery concept; try to pin it down and it slips away like a fish.
The truth is, the rules of the physical world (transience, time, space, uniqueness, necessity) don't apply to it, nor do the rules of the ideal world (finiteness and necessity). In fact, for any of those characteristics to even manifest in our world, we have to assign them some sort of mental value first.

I hope nobody more educated or smarter than me takes offense at this line of reasoning. I might just be repeating common knowledge, or maybe I'm heading in the completely wrong direction, but that's exactly why we have this forum—for the sheer joy of philosophizing.🙂😉😁

Roger Smith5 said:Laws belong to Magic, and Magic serves as the path toward enlightenment; Consciousness is God, just as God is the void and the uncreated work, much like the laws and numbers themselves... it is a truly fascinating cycle...

The singular law of magic is "as above, so below."😉

It would be pretty wild if someone actually skilled in religious logic—maybe you, 🤷—could look at everything we've discussed in this thread, following the footsteps of guys like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, or Avicenna... and try to offer a rational, logical take on how a religious God actually relates to the laws of nature.🙂

Mark Torres14 said:I haven't even started answering yet. The real question is: what are laws, and where do they actually live? I've also thrown a third "element" into the ring of reality—the observer.

The "observer" is a unique case because they possess something that sits above both versions of reality, yet can't function without either one. They have thought. And specifically, a curious mind that no amount of data can ever fully satisfy. On one hand, the observer—man—is undeniably an animal (the most advanced kind, sure, but still an animal). Based on biology, organs, behavior, needs, evolution... it's clear he belongs to the world of physical things and beings. On the other hand, the way that same man functions is governed by laws originating from the ideal world.

Thought is a slippery concept; try to pin it down and it slips away like a fish.
The truth is, the rules of the physical world (transience, time, space, uniqueness, necessity) don't apply to it, nor do the rules of the ideal world (finiteness and necessity). In fact, for any of those characteristics to even manifest in our world, we have to assign them some sort of mental value first.

I hope nobody more educated or smarter than me takes offense at this line of reasoning. I might just be repeating common knowledge, or maybe I'm heading in the completely wrong direction, but that's exactly why we have this forum—for the sheer joy of philosophizing.🙂😉😁

Look, laws take pre-defined concepts into account. Like you said, that apple means "apple." It is one thing, regardless of how it looks, it is still one
An apple is just a collection of red shades and hues. That much is certain.
Essentially, laws are simplified solutions for complex problems. They work by focusing on the unchanging aspects of an element—things that aren't prone to subjective interpretation. These laws were born from observation... but specifically from observing similarities while ignoring the differences.
Your apple example is spot on.
Laws exist within the real world because they were birthed from it, just like perception.
So, a law is created by spotting immutable similarities.
We all know this, but I’d love for you to flesh out your concept a bit more. It’s still not quite clear to me what exactly you’re looking for an answer to...

Jeffrey Gray4 said:Look, laws take pre-defined concepts into account. Like you said, that apple means "apple." It is one thing, regardless of how it looks, it is still one
An apple is just a collection of red shades and hues. That much is certain.
Essentially, laws are simplified solutions for complex problems. They work by focusing on the unchanging aspects of an element—things that aren't prone to subjective interpretation. These laws were born from observation... but specifically from observing similarities while ignoring the differences.
Your apple example is spot on.
Laws exist within the real world because they were birthed from it, just like perception.
So, a law is created by spotting immutable similarities.
We all know this, but I’d love for you to flesh out your concept a bit more. It’s still not quite clear to me what exactly you’re looking for an answer to...

I'm feeling a bit blunt today, so I'll keep this brief.

1. Laws are primary. They sit at the foundation of everything real. The physical world is just a byproduct of the ideal world. Basically—Plato.
2. Laws are inseparable from reality itself. We just perceive them (and write them down) through our own thoughts. Basically—Aristotle.
3. Ideal laws exist only in our heads, while their application in the real world is always messy and imperfect. Basically—Kant.

Mark Torres14, my friend... everything passes. Your flu will pass too, if that offers you any comfort at all.👍

Btw—where did that Medina chat cave disappear to?

-Can anyone reopen my locked thread? It was my one and only on philosophy.🤣

Donna Campbell6 said:Didn't old man Immanuel Kant pretty much tackle that whole thing already? 😁

I suppose we owe a debt to Professor Kant. He spent so many years trying to grasp the nature of the mind, sacrificing not just his mental energy, but his material comforts too—I feel a certain deep empathy for him, I guess. He didn't even land his first job until he was forty-seven, serving as a philosophy professor back in his hometown. And it’s true, he believed the mind is essentially bounded by experience—by what we sense and how we reason.

I actually found myself getting quite tangled up in a different discussion recently, one regarding the natural sciences, wondering if it’s even possible to prove certain parapsychological phenomena through physical, rigid laws of physics. Is objective proof even within reach? There is the lived experience and the thought processes of people who have gone through these things, but... I don't know, is that actual reality or just some "play of the mind"? There is this one theory suggesting that space might actually possess eight dimensions rather than four, which could potentially allow such phenomena to align with our current understanding of physical laws and theories.

Ramzes13 is a bit of a magical genius, really; he knows everything there is to know about crystals, crystal lattices, and that famous "as above, so below" principle. One shouldn't underestimate him. 🙂
It all seems more and more to me that our multi-dimensional universe might realistically resemble a Metatron cube in a four-dimensional projection, or maybe it is something even more complicated. Somewhere in that space, drifting between the "above" and "below" of those countless dimensions, our mind hovers, wondering if the universe is built upon laws, sheer chance, or God.🙏

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose we owe a debt to Professor Kant. He spent so many years trying to grasp the nature of the mind, sacrificing not just his mental energy, but his material comforts too—I feel a certain deep empathy for him, I guess. He didn't even land his first job until he was forty-seven, serving as a philosophy professor back in his hometown. And it’s true, he believed the mind is essentially bounded by experience—by what we sense and how we reason.

I actually found myself getting quite tangled up in a different discussion recently, one regarding the natural sciences, wondering if it’s even possible to prove certain parapsychological phenomena through physical, rigid laws of physics. Is objective proof even within reach? There is the lived experience and the thought processes of people who have gone through these things, but... I don't know, is that actual reality or just some "play of the mind"? There is this one theory suggesting that space might actually possess eight dimensions rather than four, which could potentially allow such phenomena to align with our current understanding of physical laws and theories.

Ramzes13 is a bit of a magical genius, really; he knows everything there is to know about crystals, crystal lattices, and that famous "as above, so below" principle. One shouldn't underestimate him. 🙂
It all seems more and more to me that our multi-dimensional universe might realistically resemble a Metatron cube in a four-dimensional projection, or maybe it is something even more complicated. Somewhere in that space, drifting between the "above" and "below" of those countless dimensions, our mind hovers, wondering if the universe is built upon laws, sheer chance, or God.🙏

Nobody’s underestimating him. Honestly, I’d love to hear someone tackle this topic from a totally fresh perspective. This forum isn't just for philosophers—it's open to everyone.🙂

Mark Torres14 said:I'm feeling a bit blunt today, so I'll keep this brief.

1. Laws are primary. They sit at the foundation of everything real. The physical world is just a byproduct of the ideal world. Basically—Plato.
2. Laws are inseparable from reality itself. We just perceive them (and write them down) through our own thoughts. Basically—Aristotle.
3. Ideal laws exist only in our heads, while their application in the real world is always messy and imperfect. Basically—Kant.

Personally, I’ve always leaned toward Plato’s view. It just clicks for me more than Aristotle or Kant ever did.

The reality is that behind every object, there’s a quantitative relationship—a pattern—that shows up perfectly in mathematics. That mathematical abstraction dictates how things actually function, from the smallest particles to the largest structures. In the macro world, we see atoms; in the micro, we see subatomic particles. We can only truly grasp their form through math. All these relationships are tightly linked—think about how physicists are obsessed with finding a single unified theory. Ultimately, we might just be looking at one singular "law" manifesting in different ways across our reality.

Because these relationships are so consistent, we can predict what’s coming next. If you follow the laws, your prediction will be right. But here’s the catch: it’s only ever "right" in an abstract, numerical sense—the ideal world. In the real world? Not so much. Even though the physical world has to obey those ideal laws, its very nature—being bound by space, time, and transience—means it never hits a perfect result. It only offers probabilities. Something might happen, or it might not. That's it.

Based on experience, science basically lands on two conclusions from the same starting point. Either these laws exist because they were crafted by a universal being (believers would call that God), meaning everything—including us—is part of an "intelligent design" or a matrix. Or, we’re just a massive accident, like a troop of monkeys hitting keys on a typewriter long enough to eventually churn out Shakespeare.

Then there’s a third option: maybe there are even deeper rules governing both the laws and the physical world, and the fundamental truth of our existence is simply dialectic—constant flux.

You write so well. I really love your perspective—cheers to you!

I was just wondering... If an ideal world exists solely to serve a purpose (or act as a reflection) within the real one, why shouldn't it belong to that same reality? ---> That isn't even an argument, per se—I'm just genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Emily Anderson4 said:You write so well. I really love your perspective—cheers to you!

I was just wondering... If an ideal world exists solely to serve a purpose (or act as a reflection) within the real one, why shouldn't it belong to that same reality? ---> That isn't even an argument, per se—I'm just genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on it.

It does belong. Once we use the term "real world," we've already defined the concept and opened the door to the existence of another one. Using the adjective "real" implies there's a boundary and a limit.
That's exactly why the concept of "the world" is much broader; it can encompass both the real and the ideal. Simply put, "world" has no opposite. There is no "non-world."

This is an interesting thread and easy to follow, though I’m struggling to pin down the actual core issue here.

Are we looking for a definition of permeability, debating reality versus abstraction, or something else entirely? I want to contribute, but there are so many overlapping terms that I'm not sure where to start.🙂

Raymond Miller38 said:This is an interesting thread and easy to follow, though I’m struggling to pin down the actual core issue here.

Are we looking for a definition of permeability, debating reality versus abstraction, or something else entirely? I want to contribute, but there are so many overlapping terms that I'm not sure where to start.🙂

Welcome. 🙂
In short, the topic is about the origin of natural laws and the fleeting nature of the physical—and perhaps ideal—world.
Get involved. Flip the script or bring something new to the table. Based on what you've written before, you've got plenty of potential to do just that.

Here is my take, sitting somewhere between scientific fact and my own judgment. Perhaps "scientific assumptions" is a better term, since science is constantly evolving; there will always be gaps or things taken as absolute truth that aren't.

> If the universe had a beginning, then there must be a mover.
The argument that this represents the beginning of time holds up at a macroscopic level—it’s what is observable. It applies to the material world, and our current knowledge aligns with the idea that there was indeed a starting point.
However, it isn't "justified" or even logical to claim that, say, Big Pork happened entirely on its own. Science doesn't make that claim, even though critics often accuse it of lacking a prime mover.
The reality is that we simply cannot access "moment zero." Even if a mover for Big Pork exists, everything we know about the world remains valid (unless it's proven that this entity intervenes in the world after the fact).

Speculating on the nature of the mover is impossible. But I'll simplify it: if "it" (whatever that implies) set things in motion, my intuition tells me it embedded the laws within the system.
That doesn't mean those laws are above or below the material world. Nor does it mean they are more or less real. Think of it like a sport: the game has rules. It makes no sense to compare the reality of the rules to the reality of the sport itself (assuming the mover doesn't interfere—meaning once the "game of the world" starts, the rules can't be changed or broken). 🤷

If we assume there is no interference, it becomes possible to predict the end of the human era. The total destruction of all reality is unlikely, but a complete collapse of our current state is possible. That said, everything we know suggests that won't happen.

> If the universe has no beginning, then there is no mover.
This theory raises far more questions regarding natural laws. The core issue is grasping what preceded what, given that both would have existed eternally. 🤷

I'll leave this part unfinished for now. Something just occurred to me, but I need to dig through some texts to organize my thoughts. It involves physics, so I won't wing it. 😁

Raymond Miller38 said:Here is my take, sitting somewhere between scientific fact and my own judgment. Perhaps "scientific assumptions" is a better term, since science is constantly evolving; there will always be gaps or things taken as absolute truth that aren't.

> If the universe had a beginning, then there must be a mover.
The argument that this represents the beginning of time holds up at a macroscopic level—it’s what is observable. It applies to the material world, and our current knowledge aligns with the idea that there was indeed a starting point.
However, it isn't "justified" or even logical to claim that, say, Big Pork happened entirely on its own. Science doesn't make that claim, even though critics often accuse it of lacking a prime mover.
The reality is that we simply cannot access "moment zero." Even if a mover for Big Pork exists, everything we know about the world remains valid (unless it's proven that this entity intervenes in the world after the fact).

Speculating on the nature of the mover is impossible. But I'll simplify it: if "it" (whatever that implies) set things in motion, my intuition tells me it embedded the laws within the system.
That doesn't mean those laws are above or below the material world. Nor does it mean they are more or less real. Think of it like a sport: the game has rules. It makes no sense to compare the reality of the rules to the reality of the sport itself (assuming the mover doesn't interfere—meaning once the "game of the world" starts, the rules can't be changed or broken). 🤷

If we assume there is no interference, it becomes possible to predict the end of the human era. The total destruction of all reality is unlikely, but a complete collapse of our current state is possible. That said, everything we know suggests that won't happen.

> If the universe has no beginning, then there is no mover.
This theory raises far more questions regarding natural laws. The core issue is grasping what preceded what, given that both would have existed eternally. 🤷

I'll leave this part unfinished for now. Something just occurred to me, but I need to dig through some texts to organize my thoughts. It involves physics, so I won't wing it. 😁

I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Mark Torres14 said:I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Agreed. It doesn't have to be Big Pork.
We are discussing the general theory that reality had a beginning. I used that specific example because it’s the most studied scientific model.

Mark Torres14 said:I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Let's assume that's the case, even if...
That logic holds in the macroscopic world, but not at the atomic level. The issue is that certain subatomic inconsistencies could influence the macroscopic world—essentially providing the data point from which all subsequent cause-and-effect events unfold.

Mark Torres14 said:I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Personally, the mover isn't a paradox to me. I can't explain it, certainly. But that's the point. Finding a concise way to describe my perception is difficult.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within spatial-temporal concepts like motion or stasis. To me, the existence of a mover implies something incomprehensible. Not because its nature might be impossible to uncover, much like subatomic behavior.
It's simply beyond human comprehension.

Besides, triggering the universe is just one theory; one that relies entirely on the existence of this unknown factor.

Raymond Miller38 said:Agreed. It doesn't have to be Big Pork.
We are discussing the general theory that reality had a beginning. I used that specific example because it’s the most studied scientific model.

Let's assume that's the case, even if...
That logic holds in the macroscopic world, but not at the atomic level. The issue is that certain subatomic inconsistencies could influence the macroscopic world—essentially providing the data point from which all subsequent cause-and-effect events unfold.

Personally, the mover isn't a paradox to me. I can't explain it, certainly. But that's the point. Finding a concise way to describe my perception is difficult.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within spatial-temporal concepts like motion or stasis. To me, the existence of a mover implies something incomprehensible. Not because its nature might be impossible to uncover, much like subatomic behavior.
It's simply beyond human comprehension.

Besides, triggering the universe is just one theory; one that relies entirely on the existence of this unknown factor.

😕 Why on earth do you think the chain of cause and effect doesn't belong to the atomic realm?
Can you actually explain what you're claiming in more detail?

Personally, the Prime Mover isn't paradoxical. Look, I can't explain it. But that's the whole point. I don't know how to put into words what I'm experiencing here.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within space-time concepts, or motion versus stillness. To me, the existence of a mover implies something fundamentally incomprehensible. Not just because its nature might be impossible to uncover, like some weird subatomic behavior (maybe).
It’s simply beyond our capacity to grasp.

But it *is* paradoxical.
That leaves us with two options. Either this "unmoved mover" doesn't exist at all and the world is driven by other logics we haven't figured out yet, or it does exist, but since we are part of it, we're stuck inside looking out and can't observe it from the outside.

Besides, setting the universe in motion is just one theory; one that relies on the existence of this unknown factor.

Time is just a measure of motion. No motion, no time.
Can there even be a space where nothing exists—no matter, no beings, no movement, and no time?
I get the feeling we already know everything; we just haven't figured out how to piece it together correctly.