Another theory on reality + this world, free will etc

[madscientist]

I've always wondered how God could have created the universe and thigns like that. And what is real and virtual. And I've heard many times theories like "this world is just a realm, just our 'dream' or something happening in our mind" where the actions could have been predetermined etc. And I also kind of believe/d this - that this world, universe, is one where the surroundings are "preprogrammed" - and so the people and everything in this world arent "real", they exist only in my realm, and for example if I do somehting evil to someone, it only happens in my world, but not to him in reality. So it is sort of a "dream" - it doesnt matter what happens in dreams, with the difference that we cannot "wake up" - and it lasts longer and has laws and logic, unlike that of a dream.
And therefore it would all be in our minds only, and for example the people here - eg if they die they maybe dont die actually, or dont even have free will. And so for example, then everything would be preprogrammed, predestined in everyone's mind - and the world through which one would go would still feel like "real". But the people also wouldnt be able to make free choices and love us, and although we'd be happy that someone loves us, for example, he wouldnt love us in reality - just like in a dream or so... a theory which maybe people thought about and been bothering me probably the most.

Is this a possible theory with our perfect God? At first I thought yes but then we wouldnt have to take anything seriously. If we do evil, its just in our world. We couldnt harm anyone since it'd be virtual. But then I thought that this would most probably go against perfect nature of our God if the people in our world werent real and didnt love/hate us from their own will. ALthough God would still love us, the people wouldnt really exist themselves - and therefore we'd believe we are loved by someone, that person wouldnt have made that choice. And so it would be kinda "brainwashing" - thinking that those people really exist and have free will and we need to love them, have relationships with them etc when all it would be just a virtual feeling in our minds. So would it be against GOD?
Who can define what IS reality and what is VIRTUAL>?

A theory to sort of support this is woth hell/heaven where it was said that heaven/hell isnt a place but just a spiritual feeling. Then for example the people there - eg our loved ones who wouldnt be really in heaven, we might still see them in our world - and same with everything. This world would be just something in a soul's mind, either predestined and so on.
(Dreams are also like that - we think they're real until we wake up, and yet we often suffer while having the bad dream...)

[Canuckster1127]

Mad,

I'm sorry you haven't gotten a response on this yet.

I've read through it and tried to understand as best as I can your question.

Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

There are all kinds of competing philosophical bases for understanding and interpretting reality. Frankly, I believe the Bible and Christian worldview offer the best. What we see and experience around us is "real." However, there is truth and reality which extends beyond that which we simply experience with our senses. God has created us, and he created us in His image, with a built-in need to know Him, worship Him and fellowship with Him. That reality extends beyond our senses and that which is physical and provides our lives with meaning and purpose and the assurance that regardless of what this world holds for us in the short-term, there is an eternity waiting with Him that will be free of all the suffering and frustration we experience now.

I hope that helps. I had a little trouble understanding all you were asking.

Bart

[madscientist]

Mad,

I'm sorry you haven't gotten a response on this yet.

I've read through it and tried to understand as best as I can your question.

Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

There are all kinds of competing philosophical bases for understanding and interpretting reality. Frankly, I believe the Bible and Christian worldview offer the best. What we see and experience around us is "real." However, there is truth and reality which extends beyond that which we simply experience with our senses. God has created us, and he created us in His image, with a built-in need to know Him, worship Him and fellowship with Him. That reality extends beyond our senses and that which is physical and provides our lives with meaning and purpose and the assurance that regardless of what this world holds for us in the short-term, there is an eternity waiting with Him that will be free of all the suffering and frustration we experience now.

I hope that helps. I had a little trouble understanding all you were asking.

Bart

THX for response, ya i know... im not the only one, and it was quite what i had in my mind what i wrote. So it may not be htat easy to understand, but the vague idea at least. The idea of eternity is very good, perfect etc but if the people there are really "real" and those who may not be there will not be there. "Well if I knew this world was just an imagination or a sort of thing i discussed above then one thing im sure is id change the opinion on life. Duno how, but it would be different." This is one of quotes I made...

[Turgonian]

Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

That's not quite true, Canuckster. This world, according to Plato, was real, but LESS real than the Ideal World -- not 'unreal'. Sounds a lot like C.S. Lewis, hm? The new Narnia was somehow more intense, more real than the old one...

Madscientist, the theory that everything is virtual reality is completely crazy. It could lead to murder -- after all, it's only a game, I'm only murdering images! It blurs the line between fact and fiction. God has created a dependable reality, because such is His character -- dependable. God saw that Adam was alone, and therefore He made Eve, not a dream image to make him feel better. We were made for each other, to live in communication and fellowship with each other, NOT in our own silent, insulated little world. As the poet John Donne said, 'Man is not an island, alone of itself...'

I think Heaven is very real, somehow more real (or more intensely real) than our world -- and yes, I am Platonic in that regard. We will be closer to God and experience everything in a better way. I think Hell is, like you say, a dreamlike state -- like a fever dream: being unable to think straight, possessed by an idea which drives you but which you don't think about... A mindless, frightened, and lonely activity...
And when you think of Hell as something like that, it is clear that people who defend theories like the one you brought up are making this world into a kind of Hell. Don't believe them.

I can't disprove the theory -- you might have dreamed up the response you're reading now -- but it's crazy: it's like believing everyone is following you. When someone's not looking at you, you can say it's make-believe. You can fit everything into the theory -- but it's a mad theory.
Don't believe in virtual reality. Believe in God and His trustworthiness.

[madscientist]

Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

That's not quite true, Canuckster. This world, according to Plato, was real, but LESS real than the Ideal World -- not 'unreal'. Sounds a lot like C.S. Lewis, hm? The new Narnia was somehow more intense, more real than the old one...

Madscientist, the theory that everything is virtual reality is completely crazy. It could lead to murder -- after all, it's only a game, I'm only murdering images! It blurs the line between fact and fiction. God has created a dependable reality, because such is His character -- dependable. God saw that Adam was alone, and therefore He made Eve, not a dream image to make him feel better. We were made for each other, to live in communication and fellowship with each other, NOT in our own silent, insulated little world. As the poet John Donne said, 'Man is not an island, alone of itself...'

I think Heaven is very real, somehow more real (or more intensely real) than our world -- and yes, I am Platonic in that regard. We will be closer to God and experience everything in a better way. I think Hell is, like you say, a dreamlike state -- like a fever dream: being unable to think straight, possessed by an idea which drives you but which you don't think about... A mindless, frightened, and lonely activity...
And when you think of Hell as something like that, it is clear that people who defend theories like the one you brought up are making this world into a kind of Hell. Don't believe them.

I can't disprove the theory -- you might have dreamed up the response you're reading now -- but it's crazy: it's like believing everyone is following you. When someone's not looking at you, you can say it's make-believe. You can fit everything into the theory -- but it's a mad theory.
Don't believe in virtual reality. Believe in God and His trustworthiness.

Well, exactly what i do not want to suppoet. i used to think itd be crazy, as you said, but that this would be against Gods perfect nature etc. And that was where i need more opinions etc. - and whether this would really go against god. One thing is you can never prove whether this is virytal reaity or not, because even if it were it would seem as reality; if it were not then it would be the same feeling. Like a dream - every dream (almost... there are tines i know its just a dream and i can force myself to wake up) seems reality, and every reality seems realotyy. Its never the other way around. Sometime it may be - eg when the persomn thinks its just adream eg a disorder or coma or duno soemthing like that where one doesnt know what dream and whats relaity. Nevertheless, during adraeam we still feeel "real" and it does have an impact on us. We're still able to suffer/feel good.
So i absolutely agree this theiry could be considered crazy hwoever this may be how it all seems. Whats the deofinito of "real" and "virtual reality"? Even if its defined we could say we "feel" liek that or duno. But one which is sure, whetehr real or not, is that SOMETHING exists. If i can think, feel, have visions, hear sounds, hallucinations and all sorts of things theres that objecta nd the feeling of it, so id say this pretty muvh proves existnce, that at least SOMETHIGN EXISTS...

[Canuckster1127]

Much of what you are saying philosophically is not new. It sounds a lot like Plato's thinking. Plato imagined that nothing was real. He saw in fact everything that we see as "real" as really just being a shadow of what must exist in another realm. He suggested that what was in this other realm was what was in fact was "real."

That's not quite true, Canuckster. This world, according to Plato, was real, but LESS real than the Ideal World -- not 'unreal'. Sounds a lot like C.S. Lewis, hm? The new Narnia was somehow more intense, more real than the old one...

Well, to be more specific, here's a good summary of the whole Allegory of the Cave Scenario.

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

The Allegory of the Cave
Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of Forms.

The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Plato's Cave:



From Great Dialogues of Plato: Complete Texts of the Republic, Apology, Crito Phaido, Ion, and Meno, Vol. 1. (Warmington and Rouse, eds.) New York, Signet Classics: 1999. p. 316.


Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.

So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a book,” what is he talking about?
He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word “book.” What does that refer to?


Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:
“And if they could talk to one another, don't you think they'd suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”

Plato's point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato's view) to the real things that cast the shadows.
If a prisoner says “That's a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He's only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.


Plato's point: the general terms of our language are not “names” of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind.

When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.

Plato's aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by “naming” the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.

The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word “book” refers to something that any of them has ever seen.
Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive.

[madscientist]

ya ive heards about this. Not so long ago on ToK lessons in school... But does it compare with the theiry of virtual realtiyt? Becase them turning their head actially means reality, but in this theory there would not be a reality at least - or the virtual reality and reaility would be one. SO that smy quest - how exzctly it relaites to it.

[katnut]

Here is a short film about what is free will.
http://www.kab.tv/eng/?item=148
I suggest you to see it

[madscientist]

Ya i seen the film. Interesting really... also downloaded all the other ones on the panel so i could watch them when ill have more time.
But waht exacly is this kabbalah teaching? sounds cool but is it connected with christianity directly; i.e. isnt it against it in some way - are we christians allowed to listen to its teachings? All they said in the film didnt relate to a religion in particular but rather spiritualuty in general.
Anyway.. i hope i can get some time to watch those videos...

Btw i like the idea that egoism is the driving force of everything we do. And altruism...
It really seems to be as they say it is.

But a paradox which i never really understood is about altruism: ive heard it is what produced the greatest happiness is the person who does it. OK then WHY we do something for someone else - because we want to HELP THEM or get the GOOD FEELING of it? Would we be altruistic if it did NOT produce pleasure in us?
And even if we ARE altruistic, we do it because we WANT to be so, i.e. we still do our desires. I personally think humans arent "programmed" to be so very much, but rather egoist. So free will could be then trying to change and do what we desire, have freedom.

Any ideas?

[bizzt]

Ya i seen the film. Interesting really... also downloaded all the other ones on the panel so i could watch them when ill have more time.
But waht exacly is this kabbalah teaching? sounds cool but is it connected with christianity directly; i.e. isnt it against it in some way - are we christians allowed to listen to its teachings? All they said in the film didnt relate to a religion in particular but rather spiritualuty in general.
Anyway.. i hope i can get some time to watch those videos...

Btw i like the idea that egoism is the driving force of everything we do. And altruism...
It really seems to be as they say it is.

But a paradox which i never really understood is about altruism: ive heard it is what produced the greatest happiness is the person who does it. OK then WHY we do something for someone else - because we want to HELP THEM or get the GOOD FEELING of it? Would we be altruistic if it did NOT produce pleasure in us?
And even if we ARE altruistic, we do it because we WANT to be so, i.e. we still do our desires. I personally think humans arent "programmed" to be so very much, but rather egoist. So free will could be then trying to change and do what we desire, have freedom.

Any ideas?

here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

[katnut]

Here you will find what is reality.
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/what_is ... eality.htm

[madscientist]

Hm seen the kabbalah thing. Nice!! Yea exactly what i thought!! haha - finally i see people, specialists seeing it - or me - the way they do. That feels nice thinkinig im not crazy
What one has to do to be able to contribude or bcome part of Kabbalah? really interests me this thing - philosophy but religious and leading to truth and God, not some earthly purpose.
BTW does Kabbalah lead people to ANY religion - i.e. is it thought to be for any religion in general?

[katnut]

BTW does Kabbalah lead people to ANY religion - i.e. is it thought to be for any religion in general?

Kabbalah and religion is common question. Here you can find some materal about this http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/science ... ligion.htm
I hope you will find answer to your questions.

[madscientist]

Looked at it, didnt have time to rad all of it. Oh that kinda surpiresed me badly... koz i thought Kabbalah is acceptable with a religion. How then it leads peoole to God if it says it is againt prayers? all "gods" i think want prayers, so how does it lead one to God? And does it lead to any god - is it universal for any god people believe in?
However there were some things that I liked as a christian (as much as i am one! ) about the pain, egoism as a driving force for evil in the world, some thing on free will etc.

But i dont want to submit to its theories and so if it will lead me away from christianity. or can these 2 co-operate? i would be happy if yes. So i think i will have to find something else as explanation/theory if this isnt what my religion teaches...

[bizzt]

Looked at it, didnt have time to rad all of it. Oh that kinda surpiresed me badly... koz i thought Kabbalah is acceptable with a religion. How then it leads peoole to God if it says it is againt prayers? all "gods" i think want prayers, so how does it lead one to God? And does it lead to any god - is it universal for any god people believe in?
However there were some things that I liked as a christian (as much as i am one! ) about the pain, egoism as a driving force for evil in the world, some thing on free will etc.

But i dont want to submit to its theories and so if it will lead me away from christianity. or can these 2 co-operate? i would be happy if yes. So i think i will have to find something else as explanation/theory if this isnt what my religion teaches...

The Kabbalah is more of Eastern Orthodox JEWISH tradition. I would say all you need in your life is the Bible. The Kabbalah will cause confusion... Just my thoughts.