Thoughts about consistency and existence
 

Hello all.

Is existence--whether personal, planetary, cosmic etc.--without consistent "laws" determining cause and consequence actually possible?--n.b. Using the word "laws" in a general sense as sthg. like "forms of framework"--sorry, cannot explain more clearly, hope understood.

petex

Probably, the way you meant your question, you inferred the existence of linear-time: there is an event-cause and after a time there is an event-effect.

There is a hypothesis that time is in fact what we perceive it to be, and that this moment is the point-of-power, meaning that any event-cause that happens in this moment propagates in all time directions: past, future, probable-pasts, probable-futures.

So there is cause-effect but not as we perceive it to work. This has a major impact on what people believe "karma" to be.

if we really had no consistency to anything there would be nothing to hang on to... no meaning to anything. Even anarchy has rules :hug2:

Hello all.

Wasn't actually thinking about "time" as such invalan, more about the consistency of particular cause having particular effect in particular circumstance. Without that consistency is existence possible?

Hi falling leaves. Again,if leaves could not be expected to fall in particular circumstances but instead displayed random change with random characteristics, would existence be possible?

I agree. Anarchy is not random behaviour.

petex

consistency and existence
 

Certainly there are cause effect . It's quite possible we may not be able to comprehend it or we may misunderstand it .

Hello Hitesh Shah.

Thinking that in the coupling of cause and consequence, the outcome, the effect which the cause produces,precipitates, does not seem to be random but subject to one form of "law" or another which governs the characteristic of that outcome.

Without needing to know or understand the nature of all of these couplings, those which we do understand seem to give evidence to this conclusion.

An obvious question is:- what is the origin of these "laws"? You could suppose that they are in some obvious part dependent upon the forces and properties of the constituent components, factors, influences in the interaction.

But that proposition itself seems to almost raise as many questions as it seeks to answer?

petex

Hello all.

And what of "logic"?

Logic may be understood as the reasoning of mind opining that--"it must be so".

Or perhaps "logic" is independent of mind, a force of inevitability transforming cause to consequence?

petex

Hello all.

An imagined example seeking to illustrate the possibility concerning"logic" as a power of inevitability as mentioned in previous post to this is a scenario to which I have referred in posts in other sections of the forum--and I cannot remember in which section/s.

Briefly as follows:-

If we imagine a static state into which some form of change is suddenly introduced--(I know not how this might happen or whether it is possible that such could happen)--but if it did, then it seems to me that however minute that change might be, the whole of the stasis would immediately (?) need to adjust to becoming dynamic. If that change and consequent adjustment involved movement and sequential movement, then perhaps the the emergence of that characteristic which we know as "time" would need to become part of that adjustment?

petex

Hello all.

Pease forgive/allow this continuing and stumbling pondering--which I readily acknowledge may be inaccurate in it's suppositions and propositions--as well as coming from an untutored mind.

cont:-

If we go along with thoughts expressed regarding consistency as being essential for existence as per OP. and combine those with the attempted expression regarding a relationship between logic and "time" as per post 8, then it becomes possible to imagine further that the"earliest" formed components of the/this universe are likely to have developed in conditions prevailing at that "time"--I.e. Possibly in conditions of transition from " no time" to "time".


The need for consistency however may perhaps dictate that those properties are nevertheless necessarily carried "forward" into the present even though that transition has been completed ? or progressed ?.

To continue--only able to post short posts for some reason.

petex

Cont:-

If this is possibly so, then it may help explain why the properties of the very small-quantum? -seem quite different to the larger--and later--components formed when the framework of " time" had become established.?

And further, that the "static state" referred to in post 8 need not necessarily be thought of as being devoid of energy, but simply not displaying energy--having potential but not dynamic?

--until somehow some "changing event" precipitated in its turn change from potential to dynamic? Immediately but possibly not quite immediately for some reason? -thus giving rise to a very brief transition from " no time" to " time" ?

Again to next post.

petex