Have you ever noticed how everything leads to relationship? I'm not talking about human relationships only, I'm talking about our interactions with objects also...:eek:

Every Relationship is defined by:
Focus
Interaction


The Focus is defined by:[list=1]
Subject
Object
[/list=1]

The Interaction is defined by:[list=1]
Action (or Cause)
Reactions (or Effects)
[/list=1]

NOTE: Let us not concider time, since it is irrelevent in this discussion.

First of all, I must say that I'm defining ALL possible situations using only one basic outline in a single situation. The basic outline is:
A single subject interacting with a single object will create a single reaction.
This is the basic definition. The universe is the conjunct of nearly infinite subjects interacting with nearly infinite objects creating nearly infinite interactions.

All possible situations are defined by one subject and one action interacting with one object causing one reaction at a given time.

Ok... let's stop the definitions...
Now to the questions...

What does that mean? Every single thing that we do is a relationship of some kind. Want to experience it? Well... for instance, you are typing in a computer right now. You are the given subject. The computer is the object. Your action is typing. The computers reaction is to write it on the screen.

You can go around you and you will see that you are always limited by your own perspective. You are the subject. Other people will be their own subjects, but you are your own subject.

You can also look around and you will see many objects. You will see the computer, a chair, maybe a sofa, a bed, or a TV... Thos are the objects. You can interact with them. You have the choice.

The interaction is the action. You can turn on or off the computer, you can sit on the chair or whatever.

The reaction of the action (push the bottom "on") would make the computer turn on.

Well... enough of that. It is important to see that the whole universe is a conjuct of that. But the question that comes up now is... "Are you really the subject?" We have the impression that we are in the center of the universe. But is it really that way? If everyone can do so, than we cannot be in the center of the universe, but at the same time we can only make a choice within ourselves.

Well... let's have a nice discussion about all those things... :D;):p

Truthseeker,
I wonder if the universe is the cause and we (everything inside the universe) are the reaction or if the universe is the reaction and ??? is the cause?

notme2000,


I wonder if the universe is the cause and we (everything inside the universe) are the reaction or if the universe is the reaction and ??? is the cause?
:confused:
That's always mind bending after all... :D

I think the universe is the reaction of our thoughts. I think that we create the universe in some way. But I guess that must be some basic parameters to create balance and order... But anyways... good question... :eek:;)

I'm suprised you didn't say God was the cause and the universe was the reaction! So the universe is our own creation then. We are the cause AND reaction... Doesn't that make US God?

God is within us and everywhere, so...:confused:
What I see from what I said is that faith is the actions that we do that cause the reactions to change the universe. Or faith is what makes it possible for us to be the "action" instead of "reaction"...

But still, without someone to be conscious of the universe, does the universe exist at all?:confused:

I personally think so. It's like asking if the universe still exists when your eyes are closed. It's possible the universe ceases to exists until your eyes are opened again... But it's probability that matters, not possibility... And it is not at all probable that the universe ceases to exist when you close your eyes, or after the last human has died, etc... But I could never say for sure.

Cris:

Aye, I'd agree (I've left another religious-oriented thread here) but for the fact that this is Truthseeker, well, pontificating about his quasi-religious philosophy.

Your advice is appreciated, though. In the future, I'll just close the damn things. :)

Nelson, notme, I've deleted everything off-topic but this. Stick to topic, please.

*Edit*

Oh, Cris, critique taken to heart. Hope you don't mind that I deleted. :)

Xev,

No problem.

Take care.

Nelson, notme, I've deleted everything off-topic but this. Stick to topic, please.
No prob

All possible situations are defined by one subject and one action interacting with one object causing one reaction at a given time.
Not if you're studying qantum physics. Where reactions can suddenly show up without any particular cause.. Weird stuff happens at the subatomic scale.
I think we can all agree that *this* is all the subjective universe. But is *this* created when we judge the ALL that is the objective universe. If such a thing exists, and in a sense is there any meaning for the universe to exist if it cannot percieve itself existing. Since we are of the universe, we are in effect percieving the universe existsing and can confirm that it does (remember 'it' is 'we' aswell) but only subjectively. One could conclude that subjectivity and objectivity flow together efortlessly to create the one truth. Which exists as an effect of the two together.
Perhaps there is an objective truth, but it would not be the One Truth. The One Truth is the interaction between subject and object.
I get an immage of a kind of 'dream world', when we dream we create an object eg. a ball. The ball does not 'exist', yet in our dream we may interact with it as if it were a separate object from our mind (when it is not). We don't feel our 'dream world' from the balls perspective. But from our own, yet we project the dream.

So we could just be the Universe Dreaming, (and TS, just to make you happy.) The universe could be 'god' dreaming.

moonman,

In quantum physics, particles don't "show up" without any cause, it is just impossible to perceive the cause. If you look in a bubble chamber, you are not looking at the particles, you are looking to the track they live in it. They don't just appear there, they are caused by particles that we cannot see.

I would add three layers to this model:

First, the distinction between which is the subject and which is the object is entirely relative to our interpretation of the verb used. In one sense, it is no more valid to say that you are typing on the computer than it is to say that the computer is causing you to move your fingers around.

Second, the distinction between objects at all can be considered artificial. It is possible to have a mind-frame eliminating everything from the distinction between tectonic plates of the earth to the distinct nature of particles. In this sense, there are two things: an entity, and the way that entity behaves.

Finally, even the distinction between entity and behavior can be eliminated with the proper model. Behavior and entity are halves of a singular essence.

Enjoy.

Yes, and this 'singular essence' can be compared to my banaly used 'one truth'.
Actions are not separate from results, they are only seperated by our human discrimination between past and present.
(ok, hmm, did that seem a little non-senseish? Perhaps)

That makes perfect sense... We are not in the universe, we are a part of the universe....

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
*walks carefully and close the door behind without doing any noise...*:eek:

... it makes perfect sense... ;)

I play the "Heisenberg's Uncertainty" card. By not being able to show an exact relationship between space and time, we are lost.

I guess you are right, a concious mind only has reactions in all situations. Though, at a subatomic level, this is totally different.

I play the "Heisenberg's Uncertainty" card. By not being able to show an exact relationship between space and time, we are lost.
Without time there is no movement, without space there is no movement. There's a relationship. Without movement there's no time, thus without space there's no time. Same idea reversed.

Without time there is no movement, without space there is no movement. There's a relationship. Without movement there's no time, thus without space there's no time. Same idea reversed.

Good call.

Originally posted by Slacker47
Good call. Nope, fallacy of the converse. The fact that p --> q does not mean that q --> p. I think one could have time without movement.

I think one could have time without movement.
How would you measure it? If you can't measure it, how could you know it to be true?

How would you measure it? If you can't measure it, how could you know it to be true?

It depends on how you define time, that which we experience as the constant flow of energy from one medium to another. Or a universal denominator that can be called the 'universal time'. A relationship between all the different 'times' combined existing at a certain point in the universe.
Time as defined observed from a point where time is constant to a point where time has ceased.
How would the shift between these two points be percieved?

Time is the flow of energy. And if the 'time' is infinite and energy is infinite, can one realy say that 'time' as we know it exists at all or can be defined as we do today? Or maybe I just don't know the latest definition of time, perhaps it incorperates this perspective.

Originally posted by notme2000
How would you measure it? If you can't measure it, how could you know it to be true? In a manner analogous to the way one measures the length of stationary, three-dimensional objects.

In a manner analogous to the way one measures the length of stationary, three-dimensional objects.
Ah, but time is measured through movement and vice-versa. A clock hand slowly moves, it takes one hour for the short hand to go from number to number. Speed is done miles per hour... So movement and time are identical, the same thing.

Could it be that time is just a side-product of a certain kind (dimension) of movement? That other dimensions are independent of time and may have their own peculiar side-effects.