The Relativity Discussion V2

So the point of this thought experiment is to make you think I'm going out and saying now I DONT BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE, that being said I don't think its impossible which makes it fun to talk about.

.... ok sooooo here it goes

Basically you know the theory of dog years. Basically it's one human year is equal to seven dog years, this is because a human lives 7 times longer than a dog on average. Also you know the idea of other planets having different years compared to the earth due to how long it takes to orbit the sun. So I'm applying these simple ideas in this way. If you were to compare a dogs life and a humans life and assuming you are able to at some point of life completion look back at your life what would this feel like? For the 100 earth year human it would feel as though 3 month trips to the bahamas at 20 years old went by like seconds. For the 14 earth year old dog, it could remember a very small detail of one day being taken to the beach and being very happy. The memorys literally get more fuzzy over time because the brain has gone through so many others.

If that didn't make sense read again cause it gets cooler haha

So now think of (god forbid it) a kid who dies at 5 years old. Make a life time of 5 years= a lifetime of that person who lived 100 years. each year for the 5 year old would feel like 20 years for the 100 year old. So for the 5 year old each day is 20 times more vivid looking back then the 100 year old. This presents some weird ideas. Because right now everything in my life seems clear but as I age this means that each day "relatively" gets shorter and literally has less details to it.

Ok now the hyper example. Picture a bug that lives for 1 day. Picture what he feels every second as a day and basically can have a year in our time to make a decision. This is what it would feel like just hours are micro seconds. So picture the feeling of a fly before you are about to hit it. He has maybe 3 months to think about this hand coming at him and he is trying to just get the muscles moving to get out of the way, but somehow just can't and dies.

Sooooooo taking all of this and wrapping it into a nice ball. Think of a god who lives for billions upon trillions of centuries and lives for eturnity. What must one of our days feel like maybe a 1 tillionth of the smallest second measurable. So picture our planet as the fly and global warming the hand. We have had so much time to think about this and the "gods hand" is slowly coming at us in just the last 20 years you see bands come in and out technology changing all this history happen, and still to the God who would not notice this at all he just hits us like we hit the bug, but because its all relative it feels like we lived a planets lifetime when in actuality earth could have lived for 1 whole minute of that gods lifetime and he decided it was dumb.

Other conclusions that can be made... I thought of a young person dying at the age of 20 and that maybe you can find peace and see they lived just as long as a 100 year old but 5 times better for the time they were here. Maybe a happy thing to think of.

Things wrong.... well a lot of assumptions here, Im not claiming that it feels any different during your life, but I do think that if after your human life ended you could somehow feel it and reflect back and try to remember that these things makes sense.


This was my post above

Next was Matts

I like this idea. Especially the idea that a human life that doesn't last as long is less spread out and then in a way more profound (in short). Sure, in a way that assumes that those 5 years were different than the first 5 years of someone who lived 10, but if the 5 years end at 5, then I guess in a way they were because the context of them according to life (as they would be the entire life in itself) does change it. Putting every life in relation to everything else as opposed to just comparing regularly (5 years = 15 less than a 20 year old) which too many people do these days I think, sort of assigns a purpose and meaning to even the lives that we view as "not being lived" due to them parting from the world. Like yeah the 5 years may not feel different then like you said but, maybe to someone who has lived 20 those 5 years don't mean as much or exist within the same context, which makes them less meaningful. Looking backwards, each moment was more important if you had less of theme. This is of course, if you ever can look backwards after it all. I have another sort of theory that I'll get back to that isn't so much relative but, it's more just total speculation...

I tend to wonder if the earth is sort of like a single cell in another person, as another part of the universe. Like sure a cell is a cell but, atoms and molecules make that up and then something make those up. So maybe when we as humans threaten to screw up the earth, it's like when our atom's are doing things that are harmful to our body/mind, or even our cells are doing things that are detrimental. Don't get me wrong I don't think we have that little of control over what goes on with our health or whatever, I'm just saying. Maybe our cells are made up of "people" that make our cells "people" that make us "people. Maybe we're all the cells to another part of the universe.

Anyways, the idea of god smashing us and us just trying to get out of the way basically, is pretty interesting. As well as thinking about the experience of a fly. Maybe a fly is living in like a human's house which is like a big city to it and it tries to get out before an earthquake hits (that being a human hand/fly swatter). I wonder if it's experience is actually filled with all sort of different emotions and we just can't recognize it. Maybe there are reasons that it just isn't meant to get out of the way, but who knows. It would be weird to think of a "god" up there who can't actually see what is going on with our thoughts and our feelings because we are basically too small. Maybe he could still appreciate us and decide not to smash us? I hope we're not as big of pests to him as flies have been outside this year.

Anyways, onto my total speculation: I've always wondered if somewhere outside life, before it...we choose all of the experiences we have to go through, so that our souls can experience new things. I've always thought it would be strange for an existent being to only experience one life, having one way of seeing the world...or at least one pair of eyes. So what if we all experience all sorts of lifetimes so our being/soul/whatever we inherently are experience it all. So life if that were true we'd choose when we were going to die beforehand to experience dying earlier, later and really for all reasons that otherwise we were unable to understand. So life we would choose to experience being a fly, and choose to experience being bigger than what we are now (though not god himself I don't think). That's just an idea though. It'd make everything relative to us as well as us being relative to it?

It's really odd to think about what happens when we try to put our lives in contexts and how if more memories are there, how it shrinks the vividness (that's a word?) of all the others.

So anyways, I wanted to reply to this post because I like the subject/post itself. In retrospect I don't really think I contributed/added that much if anything so, sorry for that but, I'm definitely glad you posted this.

Then came mine again

Ya so I totally think you contributed lots of little goodies in here haha. Not much of "new stuff" but it is new thoughts about the same stuff, which is good.
I really like the idea of the ultimate deciding the life before times for your soul to get what it wants from the world. Then I thought the one thought that maybe I'm programmed as an american.... how would they market this, so I know this is crazy but just go to the soul realm for a second.

Picture a place where an infintismal amount of souls exist, not in any form just in the idea of a soul the essence of a being. In this there has to be some direction, so relatively speaking every second for us on earth, someone is jumping into a little planet and living a entire life. So the earth had been maybe not the planet of interest in it's early years, no fun technology no fun games no sports just a bunch of lame people walking around fighting over land. Then fastforward to right now this planets population is growing sooooooooooo fast people want into our planet. What if these souls are like world of warcraft players hoping from server to server to get there fix. What if these souls "or us" have seen this all before and love this part of a planets life cycle, this is where all the fun happens. IF you think like this you begin to have the idea of past planets deja vu past lifes being explained as our souls getting a quick fix on another planets life. Then they die and they hop back in. But you have to make it in 2010 and be a teenager thats when they get portable music. So maybe we have a marketable soul realm where people are hooked on earth and want to get hear fast while all this effed up stuff happens.


WOW that should be a movie, but thats what I thought when you said the whole planning to live life before hand and then translating it to a soul that may have these urges and the same motives that seems like could be possible as most humans seem to share these urges of loving drama loving excitement and love to see shiiiiiZ fall apart.

sooooooooo that was way off topic but I just loved thinking of a marketing soul realm where planets are being marketed for there fun level and what experiences they bring hahah.


then matts

Thanks. Haha, the idea of marketing a soul realm is pretty interesting. It sort of plays into the question of whether on the most basic of levels (when we get down to what makes us) even spiritually, do we control our instincts or do they control us?

I'm interested in the idea of even spirits sort of looking at little parts of life as sort of "fixes." I "like" the idea in the sense of it making a cool concept-art (maybe movie) type thing like you said. The only thing I would dislike about it, is that I'm not sure I'd like to actually believe the universe as that, though that's not what either of us were thinking/claiming I don't think, haha. As an idea, I think it's cool. Though I bet if it were real (marketing has taken kinda an ugly turn in modern society in many ways) there could/would be a positive side to it. Marketing experiences instead of just "money" or "products." In a way it sounds perverse, haha...but, in another sense...pretty cool.

I was thinking like that we could choose rather than out of a fix, simply because all experience is within us maybe and if we go through life completely not understanding how something is possible, maybe as souls we would then choose to experience that horrible thing or even do so ourselves in a lifetime so that we could truly learn and truly expand to become the greatest form of ourselves. The most expanded one. Like in life itself I tend to think of this of when we truly hate an idea then sometimes that hate manifests in many different ways and prevents us from being happy because we are totally against the idea of that experience. Rather, if we see it as within all human beings, we can actively choose not to do something because we don't want to. Not to say that every human is capable of anything within the context of their lives, but simply put...if you take any human being and throw them into a situation, while we can choose not to fall into the traps of those negative experiences and can instead grow as human beings, we could also not have the awareness at that moment to do it or get too caught up in the situation that we do things we never would if such negative things didn't occur. Again I still think there is a choice but, part of choice comes with knowing that it can be within us to get swept up in things we can't control if we let ourselves be. That I actually believe. The part about choosing our experiences before life starts is more of an idea that I like and wouldn't mind being true, than a straight up belief of mine, you know?

Still though, back to the part of us choosing things based on us being sort of "convinced" or swayed towards things that create some sort of compulsion for them, I've never thought of that like a competition, but it'd be interesting. An idea I've had from the sort of thinking above that totally applies to this, is that what if in the spiritual "realm" time is much less linear. That isn't the idea itself; I'm sure that's been suggested 1 million times. Anyways, if this were so...maybe if we died and went back to that realm, we could say "I can't imagine what this was like, so I need to experience it" in reference to past and future events. What if that realm is timeless and experiences in the future are being experienced. Maybe a person who dies in 2010 could then decide they wanted to experience the 1960's. Maybe a person who experienced a life full of love would decide after that they wanted to go back and experienced Europe during World War 2. Past experiences could no different than present and future ones? This could sort of play into the whole differences and marketing within different era's. "Look, people in 2010 are still moved by hearing Janis Joplin sing, come to the 60's where it was possible to experience for real" for example, haha. There could be these "timeless" things that actually appeal to spirits in an actual timeless place?

Haha, a lot of different possible directions here. Thanks for the different take on that though (along with the topic to begin with). I definitely enjoy these sort of discussions.

Rileys post


That theory is cool. Nobody will ever know though. I have been thinking about how flies have a 1-3 day lifespan. Since that is their life it must seem long to them. But think about it this way. If that is true it takes them a few months to fly 10 feet. This contradicts that theory but may support it.
With the earth being a single cell universe on something else, I have spent many nights awake thinking about this. Since the universe is infinite the odds are extremely high that there is at least one other universe in here. We can not be sure of the size. There may be many more as well. I think that since the universe is infinite that there has to be an infinite amount of everything (duh), earths, different universes, solar systems etc. There may even be many universes on people. There is no way to know. There could always be the chance that we are a universe that is a tiny spec in another. Anyways, that my way to think of things. Quite fun too.

then drews post

I never even thought of something like this. It is amazing to think that when you die, you would have the chance to reflect on your past life/lives. It is nice to think that we are all meant to be here for a reason, or that our lives are a test to be able to move on to a better place afterward. That being said these are all assumptions, and unfortunately there are no real ways of knowing what if anything lays ahead of us.

There are so many other theories of what is after here are couple of my favorites.
Karma- the idea of how you live your life here you will be rewarded in the after life or reincarnated- the thought based on your karma to be reborn into another human (fun) or spend hundreds of years as a tree (boring).
Parallel Universe- By far my favorite, I don't truly believe in it I just wish it to be true. For those who don't know it is the idea that every decision you make there are choices from what to wear in the morning, to what career you pursue. In a parallel universe it plays out every outcome every single decision you make is a different world.
It would be nice if this were true and you got to reflect and look back at your lives afterward.

Anyways this was a great idea for a thread and i am excited to here what other theories you believe/dream to be true.

aarons post lol

tl;dr

mine

AaronX07 wrote:tl;dr

(his post means too long didn't read) Hey aaron your not really helping out this thread by telling everyone this if you are interested post if not pass and don't make things not fun.....

Mr iOXZ wrote:That theory is cool. Nobody will ever know though.

Totally valid point, but the cool thing about philosophy is that sometimes you come to profound realizations about your own behavior through the lenses of these bizarre theories so that's what makes these things useful.

Mr iOXZ wrote:I think that since the universe is infinite that there has to be an infinite amount of everything (duh), earths, different universes, solar systems etc.

This science is actually being slowly debunked there are several theories to what made our solar system our galaxy and ultimately our universe. For there to be an infinite universe things would be different scientists argue. Because over time all elements that we know of will interconversion into the next element, hydrogen converts to helium and so on. This is nuclear fusion, and a powerful energetic reaction. This happens on the sun all the time. The fact is that we still have tons and tons of hydrogen in our universe so this can be an indicator that it is not infinitely big or infinitely old. The two are connected because if it were to be infinitesimal then since it is expanding it would need infinite time to expand or the size would be finite.

So with all this I present to you a very common philosophical argument called the COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Philisophical arguments are presented like this with a number of premises if you don't agree with the conclusion of the argument then you have to disagree with one of the premises. I happen to disagree with this argument and one premise, but I will present it for you to debunk.

1.) There has to be an explanation for ones existence
2.) The two possibilities are a dependent being or an independent being
3.) A dependent being is someone who was created by another
4.) An independent being is someone who created itself
5.) Human beings are dependent beings
6.) If you go back far enough there had to be a being that created the first human
7.) An independent being must have created humans
_____________________________________________________________________
A God of sorts is this first causing independent being


next matts

There is definitely more to get into than just this right here but, for now let me post the parts of the theory you just posted that I could disagree with.

2.) The two possibilities are a dependent being or an independent being
3.) A dependent being is someone who was created by another
4.) An independent being is someone who created itself
5.) Human beings are dependent beings
6.) If you go back far enough there had to be a being that created the first human
7.) An independent being must have created humans

If a being creates itself, it is both independent and dependent. Sure, you can call it an independent being but, it is dependent on itself for it's own creation, which makes it neither and/or both. So I don't think "either or" is necessary.

Human beings could definitely be just a "physical" manifestation of what our "being" creates. We create our worlds yet live in worlds that involve the creation of others. There wouldn't actually have to be a "first human" if human's just became manifestations of things that we needed to experience. It's possible that through the evolution of the universe, our "spirits" so-to-speak, felt the need for a form that was more aware of itself.

This basically is saying that the universe isn't infinite per say but, that it expands and contracts into itself, therefore being both the "start" and "end" of itself. This is endless in a sense but, not of "infinite" size literally speaking. The Universe could be both old and young, but essentially exist outside of anything we know as "time." Science is a funny thing here, because it'd sort of be like trying to put together an accurate view of what a city looked like from the outside, without being able to be outside of it enough to do so. You can't have an overview from the inside. We couldn't truly get a reasonable grasp on what the earth looked like form the outside until we went outside of it using technology. So even as factually based as any science may be, it really doesn't explain the universe in any way, and is essentially limited in doing so, forever. We can simulate things based on findings, but for a true understanding of how it works, we'd have to view it from an outside perspective. That, is literally impossible unless we are not truly within a "universe." Again, a cell for instance, could never truly know or see what the entire body looked like from the outside no matter how perfect of a map it could make.

So again, if our "light-body" or "spirit" were to be outside of earth originally yet at the same time with us while we are here (how close to embodying it, being dependent on our own individual awareness, yet not dependent on anything other than our own choice) then we would basically be manifestations, and therefore creations of the self, neither or both dependent and independent.

Does that make any sense at all? So yes if we are partially independent then in a sense an independent being created us, but if we are said independent being and are dependent, then none of those definitions only fit as much as they do not fit.

It's like this explanation. Trying to explain that these definitions would only be inherently true within an accepted duality, while using the definitions to defines themselves, is kinda of impossible/contradictory yet possible/proponents of an equilibrium.

Just some thoughts. What do you think?

then finally we are caught up with this

I think that when looking at a conclusion as bold as god created us, obviously it is a bold statement so when looking at the argument it's best to just look at one premise and not the others. So when you say you disagreed with the 2-7 I think that's hard to make into a coherent argument, but I liked your thought in this response here's what I may do differently though.

MattB wrote:If a being creates itself, it is both independent and dependent. Sure, you can call it an independent being but, it is dependent on itself for it's own creation, which makes it neither and/or both. So I don't think "either or" is necessary.

I would say leave this one alone by definition the first 5 premises are pretty solid. I mean you have to just accept realistically that a independent being was self created and a dependent being was created by a different being. I think those ones are simple and shouldn't be thought to debunk, just because there is a weaker thing here. I think the last 2 premises give enough room to really attack this argument.

When thinking about how one thing needs explanation for it's existence, humans can be explained. You can explain them through evolution and you can say that all things were made from this and keep going back and back until you come to the big question of what started it all.

Now think about someone who is an avid traveler who collects souvenirs from every exotic city he goes to. Now you can look at each individual object and see clearly where they are from, some say Tokyo some say San Fran. But the point here is that you can do the same with humans. But when looking at the group of souvenirs you can't say where the entire group manifested from, and when you think about it this is not needed for full understanding of the group. Humans may be the same way we can basically explain each one of our manifestations so why would we try to explain an entire group that may not have an entire reason for existing it may just be each human has it's own manifestation.

I also think the easiest thing to see here also is that if all the premises of the argument are true then that doesn't mean another independent being didn't create us, such as an amoeba which can split into two beings from itself.

But let me know any counter things here or rebuffing up your argument. Because I think that you had a lot of points, but they are hard to say as logical explanations, they are kind of what ifs when I think you can almost logically debunk this without these other theories of souls and spirits. Those are great arguments but its best to stay on this planet and this realm when dealing with this realm kind of. I don't know just what I think. lol but let me know

Next time just quote us all silly pants.

tl;dr

Lunanova wrote:tl;dr

Oh come on Luna. I thought you loved this kind of stuff. I never expected to vote a post of your down.

Um excuse me? Just because I don't have the attention span to sit here and read all of this (I already have on the other forum)?

It was a joke, lighten up.

Lunanova wrote:Um excuse me? Just because I don't have the attention span to sit here and read all of this (I already have on the other forum)?

It was a joke, lighten up.

Lol. I wasn't trying to be yellish and sorry I didn't see. I don't go to that far away land anymore. I hope you don't kill me.

Ahh it's okay. I'm just that I'm a bit uppity today.

Anywho, on subject, this really is an interesting thread/idea. It really adds a new perspective to my thinking. Thanks~

aferrar2 wrote:I would say leave this one alone by definition the first 5 premises are pretty solid.

aferrar2 wrote:I think those ones are simple and shouldn't be thought to debunk, just because there is a weaker thing here. I think the last 2 premises give enough room to really attack this argument.

That's a good point, especially because I was originally writing what I wrote to debunk the last two and then kinda threw the other ones in there because I thought they applied. I don't actually really claim to have debunked those first ones but, I felt like the way I was describing it made their level of likelihood, not be shown to be less in any way, but simply matter less. It was basically that an independent and dependent being can be one in the same even if they are generally not. The fact that even hypothetically they could, to me sort of makes the system of defining things in that way, less relevant. It's that way here just because the definitions seem dependent on their difference, yet since they can apply to one in the same, it makes them not truly defining to begin with. As I admit, I didn't "prove" that they are one in the same, but I think my argument outlines that hypothetically speaking, the definitions don't necessarily have to apply to things independent of each other. So while that doesn't debunk the definitions themselves, maybe it slightly lowers the fact that they are "defining" to begin with, if that makes sense?

aferrar2 wrote:I also think the easiest thing to see here also is that if all the premises of the argument are true then that doesn't mean another independent being didn't create us, such as an amoeba which can split into two beings from itself.

That's true, but it sort of questions whether or not we are really dependent or simply "part of" an independent being rather than a true "Creation of."

aferrar2 wrote:I mean you have to just accept realistically that a independent being was self created and a dependent being was created by a different being.

I like that line specifically because it leaves room for not claiming "absolute truth." Really, living as human beings have conditions as you were saying. These conditions are necessary, not "absolutely true." I just think that's the difference that many people miss, from scientists to thinkers to whoever. By definition, without differentiating anything, we couldn't tell ourselves apart and therefore wouldn't have any real "existence of our own" aside from a part of the universe. It's not that us or our egos aren't part of it as well, but that we can be a part and yet differentiate ourselves from other matter (I'm making no claims about whether that is good, bad, right or wrong either).

Needing these and accepting these conditions are what make us/keep us human. If we truly perceived ourselves are likely "just what we are" and understood that from a feeling perspective, we probably would technically, by current definition...not be "alive" anymore. We couldn't exist as what we are now. So whether these conditions are "true", and while I like arguing even the first ones...in essence...accepting them in general is really necessary to be separate and therefore human.

Really though, as you said...when referring to the last two, human's specific, literal "point of origin" can't truly be (at least for the foreseeable future) and especially need not be, "defined."

I'm glad this thread was re-posted.