Does everything one could think of and beyond exist?

[Sugarcoat]

Maybe it’s not possible for anyone to answer this question, but is it so that everything that one could think of and infinitely more exists for some conscious pov? So for example my current life but me wearing a different shirt right now exists for a conscious pov, every book we read, the story exists irl for some conscious pov? Etc etc. I say “for a conscious pov” in the sense that I , right now exist as a conscious pov, and I experience my little “bubble” of appearances, and in the same way there’s a conscious experiencer for all of the other “bubbles” of appearances. Or could there be appearances without a conscious experiencer perceiving them? If you get what I mean

[Someone here]

We can certainly imagine dogs have wings and flying in some alternative universe. But does that mean this must be actuality? Physicists talk about the multiverse theory which basically means there is infinite universes which contain all the spectrum of possibilities that could ever exist .Leo also had similar insights into absolute infinity .

I think there are no physical limits to reality .but there are logical limits ..like you can't be at two places at the same time for example (in the macro level if we set aside the weird shit that happens when you go to the quantum level).

[Sugarcoat]

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

We can certainly imagine dogs have wings and flying in some alternative universe. But does that mean this must be actuality? Physicists talk about the multiverse theory which basically means there is infinite universes which contain all the spectrum of possibilities that could ever exist .Leo also had similar insights into absolute infinity .

I think there are no physical limits to reality .but there are logical limits ..like you can't be at two places at the same time for example (in the macro level if we set aside the weird shit that happens when you go to the quantum level).

Thanks for the reply, I didn’t know about the multiverse theory before. So science is partly supporting my view. That’s interesting. It’s freaky to think about

I too don’t think there’s physical limits to reality as a whole. Don’t know what you mean by logical limits, how that would be different from physical ones 

Edited October 10 by Sugarcoat

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Sugarcoat said:

I too don’t think there’s physical limits to reality as a whole. Don’t know what you mean by logical limits, how that would be different from physical ones

What I mean by logical limits is that things must obey the laws of logic more than the laws of physics.  If you have a triangle..this triangle cannot be a triangle and a square simultaneously. Because that's the law of identity ..which says that A=A. A thing is itself . So I would say even though reality is infinite yet still a "square-trinagle " cannot exist within infinity .

[Sugarcoat]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

What I mean by logical limits is that things must obey the laws of logic more than the laws of physics.  If you have a triangle..this triangle cannot be a triangle and a square simultaneously. Because that's the law of identity ..which says that A=A. A thing is itself . So I would say even though reality is infinite yet still a "square-trinagle " cannot exist within infinity .

Ok I see. But that’s  to do with how we define things. So ofc there can’t be a square triangle as it goes against the definition of a triangle

Edited October 10 by Sugarcoat

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ok I see. But that’s  to do with how we define things. So ofc there can’t be a square triangle as it goes against the definition of a triangle

Yes that's what I'm saying .that's my point . Laws of logic are more fundamental than laws of physics in my view . So if you imagine a monster with five heads and six hands and four feets ..there is nothing that prevents this monster from existing in some dimension of existence that would contradict any physical law. However..If you imagine a square-triangle..Well..notice that you cannot even imagine it .it's a logical contradiction. A logically impossible thing .so the answer to your thread is that as far as anything we could imagine existing there is nothing that prevents this from being true as long as it doesn't break a logical law .

[Keryo Koffa]

I believe all experience is perceived, much of it traversed on different layers and by alternate selves.

Yet I wouldn't say all of it is equal in significance and intensity of awareness to our own.

There is an infinity of qualia behind the senses that channel our experience.

Lifeforms across all layers filter and navigate this potential.

If you can conceive it, it's been simulated, but not necessarily at your POV's intensity.

That is to say, there are gradients between pure imagination and actualized experience.

Our structure creates significance and confines, to deepen intensity and immersion.

Such actualized experiences depend upon this highly filtered structure.

It's a probability distribution, except probability = experiential intensity.

Imagine that at each step, consciousness fractals outwards to explore alternatives.

Then it chooses among them to merge into a higher actualized perception.

This perception advances its timeline, even though others are also available.

And it's an open, interactive system, formed by conscious drive and desire for its materialization.

[Sugarcoat]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

Yes that's what I'm saying .that's my point . Laws of logic are more fundamental than laws of physics in my view . So if you imagine a monster with five heads and six hands and four feets ..there is nothing that prevents this monster from existing in some dimension of existence that would contradict any physical law. However..If you imagine a square-triangle..Well..notice that you cannot even imagine it .it's a logical contradiction. A logically impossible thing .so the answer to your thread is that as far as anything we could imagine existing there is nothing that prevents this from being true as long as it doesn't break a logical law .

that’s my view too pretty much 

[Sugarcoat]

7 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

I believe all experience is perceived, much of it traversed on different layers and by alternate selves.

Yet I wouldn't say all of it is equal in significance and intensity of awareness to our own.

There is an infinity of qualia behind the senses that channel our experience.

Lifeforms across all layers filter and navigate this potential.

If you can conceive it, it's been simulated, but not necessarily at your POV's intensity.

That is to say, there are gradients between pure imagination and actualized experience.

Our structure creates significance and confines, to deepen intensity and immersion.

Such actualized experiences depend upon this highly filtered structure.

It's a probability distribution, except probability = experiential intensity.

Imagine that at each step, consciousness fractals outwards to explore alternatives.

Then it chooses among them to merge into a higher actualized perception.

This perception advances its timeline, even though others are also available.

And it's an open, interactive system, formed by conscious drive and desire for its materialization.

Not that I understood that much but cool..

[Keryo Koffa]

17 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Not that I understood that much but cool..

The x-axis is the infinite variety of experiences.
The y-axis is the intensity of your awareness.

Your focus lends specific experiences significance.
And it tunes you out of all other types of experiences.

Consciousness seeks out experiences this way.
Everything is potential, and focus makes it actual.

https://youtu.be/mk2eBDK8sc4?si=3I264pLFzI6n2eSi&t=11623

[Sugarcoat]

14 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

The x-axis is the infinite variety of experiences.
The y-axis is the intensity of your awareness.

Your focus lends specific experiences significance.
And it tunes you out of all other types of experiences.

Consciousness seeks out experiences this way.
Everything is potential, and focus makes it actual.

https://youtu.be/mk2eBDK8sc4?si=3I264pLFzI6n2eSi&t=11623

Ok I think I can kinda understand now tnx

[Atb210201]

Thoughts are possibilities.

That's all they are.

They exist as a possibility.

A possibility has a distance from reality.

[Keryo Koffa]

Just now, Atb210201 said:

Thoughts are possibilities. That's all they are. They exist as a possibility. A possibility has a distance from reality.

Thoughts shape reality, create reality, become reality and reality is but a thought in the mind of god.

[Atb210201]

9 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Thoughts shape reality, create reality, become reality and reality is but a thought in the mind of god.

Thoughts can become a reality but until then they are not reality; they're just thoughts in the possibility field.

Edited October 12 by Atb210201

[zurew]

On 2024. 10. 10. at 4:26 PM, Someone here said:

A logically impossible thing .so the answer to your thread is that as far as anything we could imagine existing

I agree with most of the things you said , but I would make a correction on this one. Logical possibility entails all possibility that doesn't entail a contradiction. This is relevant because, there are much more logically possible things compared to the things we can imagine.

This is why we need to be careful when it comes to arguments and proofs to not appeal to incredulity ( to our lack of ability to imagine something being true or false) and to rather appeal to logical proofs where you actually rule out a given logical possibility being true, by showing that it would entail a contradiciton.

 

If there are two sets (set A and set B) . Set A being all the things we can imagine and set B being all logically possible things, then these two sets would have an overlap, but each set would have unique elements  to them (things that wouldn't be contained in their intersection) 

So for example, there might be contradictions that we can imagine being true , and there are things that are logically possible , but we are just not aware of those possibilities or simply lack the ability to imagine those things.

Edited October 12 by zurew