Am I the centre of the universe?

pj9999

Does the universe and everything in it exist because of me? I don't mean this in a conceited way- I simply think that when I stop living, there is a possibility that everything will cease to be. There will be no need for anyone else to stay living because I believe their purpose will be served... the purpose being to give me the appearance of a 'normal world' going on around me.

Now I believe people in general are aware -to a greater or lesser extent- that this is the way the world is. Naturally it is not something they would (or even could?) speak about.

I've no idea why the world is like this, why I should be the centre of it, and what the end purpose is. All I know it's a hell of a burden to be able to carry around. So what are the logical shortcomings in my argument? Can it be proved that I am the same as anyone else?

No. Because I am.

MrStuffins

My mate was talking about an interesting (to him) subject a while ago you might wanna look up. It might interest you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_%28cosmology%29

af_thefragile

Religion says you are here to serve God. To take awe in his creation and thank him for what he has given you and be patient when things get difficult.

Science says you are a complex amalgam of physical and biological processes. All a part of a more holistic system of conscious and unconscious physical processes which make up what we've come to call the universe. You along with several others are just a result of these processes taking place in a grand scale from celestial events of unimaginable proportions to interactions at the most elementary level of everything. Your magnitude equates to negligible compared to the size of the universe. You are not even a spec of dust in this universe.

Then there are new age believes saying all matter is merely condensed into a slow vibration that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves.
(yes you know where that's from).

So you can take your pick.

David Matthew

Papa Smut wrote: »

No. Because I am.

Me too!

David Matthew

pj9999 wrote: »

So what are the logical shortcomings in my argument? Can it be proved that I am the same as anyone else?

Solipsism is an epistemic claim about whether we can truly know other minds, and in its most extreme form, whether we can know for sure whether there exists (a step towards an ontological claim) anything besides our own mind.

Now, it might be fair to say that as a fairly extreme ontological claim, the burden of proof rests on those who profess it. For example, I might say that an invisible, undetectable jelly monster lives constantly by my side; ridiculous of course, but in principle impossible to refute. (As part of the premise is that it is undetactable). Solipsism I think suffers from a similar weakness, in that its strength lies in the difficulty to logically refute it. However, solipsists, if they truly exist (for more than evening of class A drug intoxication ) should put forward claims as to why it is likely to be true.

An interesting post pj9999!

af_thefragile

You could also have a look at this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

charlemont

i sort of agree with you, iv a feeling everything exists to serve the brain...

af_thefragile

charlemont wrote: »

i sort of agree with you, iv a feeling everything exists to serve the brain...

Which brings the questions, what is your brain?
Where did it come from? Who is serving your brain? Why only your brain?

When I was a kid I often used to think I was the only one with consciousness i.e. I was the only one who could "see". I found it almost impossible to imagine the world from someone else's mind who could see me walking around in their world. And I used to think why is it only me who can see everyone...

Now it sounds stupid but back
Then it was a very strong belief...

powerjuggler

pj9999 wrote: »

Does the universe and everything in it exist because of me? I don't mean this in a conceited way- I simply think that when I stop living, there is a possibility that everything will cease to be. There will be no need for anyone else to stay living because I believe their purpose will be served... the purpose being to give me the appearance of a 'normal world' going on around me.

Now I believe people in general are aware -to a greater or lesser extent- that this is the way the world is. Naturally it is not something they would (or even could?) speak about.

I've no idea why the world is like this, why I should be the centre of it, and what the end purpose is. All I know it's a hell of a burden to be able to carry around. So what are the logical shortcomings in my argument? Can it be proved that I am the same as anyone else?

I feel that this solipsistic angle or viewpoint that the self is an individual consciousness that exists alone, is a very paranoid ideal, and a tasty morsal for conspiracy theorists to excite themselves over in a delusional matrix style fantasy. We can differentiate between dreams and reality can we not? I have been violated and snuffed out by the furry beast of dreams that is Sesame streets Mr Snuffaluffagus, yet awoken with all limbs intact. This proves in itself that the mind works as an individual organ when set apart from it's waking consciousness, and is uncontrollable if left to its own devices, or when we come to our wits end. This visible landscape we observe is our reality, but shared memories that are initially lost to us but then are reignited in our minds by confidantes and aquaintances prove that this life is definately a communal existence.

Black Swan

If you believe something to be real, it is real in its consequences (for you).
... WI Thomas

Torakx

I think, therefore i am...the center of the universe

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

I think, therefore i am...the center of the universe

Although I appreciate your humour, "Cogito ergo sum" of René Descartes in Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy, essentially addressed whether a person existed, not if they were a Ptolemaic universe unto themselves; i.e., the Earth is the centre of the universe, and you are central to the existence of the Earth (in your own mind).

Torakx

Ye i was waiting for a comment like that
I really ment it like i think therefore i am..possibly in a matrix thinking im the center of the universe.
And you might be,If this is all in our heads.
But i think the way i said it the first time was better lol
And ye it was more a reach for comedy than serious philosophy.
I dont think im all up in it enough to be able to do that here
I like the thought though of what Decartes ment.

Besides i could be the center of my universe and you are a computer program designed to make me think im not.
How do i know all this isnt fake or an experiemnt on my mind in some other dimension? and in that dimension i could be center of that universe

looksee

Yes, you are the centre of the universe. When you die the universe that your brain was aware of is gone. From your point of view it is irrelevant whether everyone else is the centre of their own universe. When you die your universe ceases to exist.

Every individual sees a different universe, because all our brains are separate, so when you are gone, your particular universe disappears. If we shared consciousness then we would all see the same universe and no-one would be the centre of it. When one person died all the others would continue to see the universe, so it would continue.

MWoods

No, because if everybody else in the world are just projections, who are only there to convince you that this is reality, then they have failed because you already doubt this is reality. Therefore by your logic everyone would have ceased to exist by now, if their only function is now void, like you said it would be after your death.

Jamyduff

I have been thinking about this for some time now and this is what I have concluded.

I have pretty much satisfied myself with the idea that there is no such thing as free choice. That the brain simply reacts to its surroundings. Due to the existence of reason there is no free will.

Following from that I have been thinking about what makes me, me? (Pardon the grammer). I have come to the conclusion that there are many states of nature in the universe and the two that concern me are animation and in-animation. (If thats a word that means the opposite of animation)
The universe is a string of knock on events that have occurred since its beginning. This goes right down to the very tiny instances occurring on the level we operate on and much much further down again.
From these knock ons, has evolved life as we define it. We are animated. Where was my sense of identity before I was born? It did not exist yet because my body and brain had not formed yet. When my brain formed, (due to the course of evolution of the human brain) it developed the capacity to comprehend the idea that it seemed to be a separate animated body from anything else.
From this comprehension the brain and my body have developed "me" there sense of individuality. When the brain loses its animation through death so too does it lose its sense of identity.
I do not have a singular life. I am just a form of life that has a sense of individuality.

This is a very half formed poorly written idea. But I'd love to chat more about it!

Cannibal Ox

pj9999 wrote:

Does the universe and everything in it exist because of me? I don't mean this in a conceited way- I simply think that when I stop living, there is a possibility that everything will cease to be. There will be no need for anyone else to stay living because I believe their purpose will be served... the purpose being to give me the appearance of a 'normal world' going on around me.

You are the center of the universe because your perception of the universe is dependent on how you experience the universe. So you experience "a" universe, and the person beside you experiences a universe, and the person beside them ad infinitum. Once you die your universe dies with you because you are no longer there to maintain your particular experience of the universe. Is that what you're saying?

I think you could turn the tables on that argument, and point out that you are dependent on the universe for your existence. If it was a case of chicken and egg, where you're the chicken and the universe is the egg, I think the egg has to come first because you couldn't actually exist without a universe that underlies your experience of the universe. I think it's perfectly logical to argue that human beings experience the universe through the self, and as such, you experience the universe differently from me, we, as Irish people, experience it differently from Chinese people, and we, as human beings, experience it differently from Lions. None the less, what underlies, and makes possible, our experience of the universe, is the universe.

So, to put it another way, you aren't the center of the universe, but the universe is the center of you. The universe makes your existence possible, it's the prior condition for your particular experience of a/the universe, without which you could never even make the claim that you are the center of the universe.

Moving on from that, **** gets shady. If we say that there is an external objective reality but our experience of that is subjective, then we have the problem of how or whether it is possible to access that external objective reality, and how or whether it is possible to know that external objective reality. If we say that there is 'a' universe, then we posit the idea of an absolute truth, but when we simultaneously say there are separate universe's', then we posit that there are particular truths, and reconciling those positions is very, very difficult. If we say that something comes before something else and makes it possible, does something always come before something else, is there always a cause, is there a beginning to this process, is there an end, is...the question keep coming.

Selected

Jamyduff wrote: »

I do not have a singular life. I am just a form of life that has a sense of individuality.

Please explain – expand, as best you can.

Does anyone agree with quoted statement?

Jamyduff

Selected wrote: »

Please explain – expand, as best you can.

I'll try.

I guess what I'm saying is this.. In our incomprehensibly tiny part of the universe we know there is life. This life has many forms. We are one of those forms. If I could remember my biology I would list all the forms of life there are!
Life like every other element of this universe has a function (probably the wrong word to use, I'd say it has evolved and is part of the universe). It fulfills its function like every other element of the universe.. without choice or freewill it simply reacts with what is around it. Humans are, as I have sort of said, a particular vehicle for life to do its thing!
But our brains, some while into being developed, gain a sense of individuality. This may have some evolutionary benefit to life itself. As a by-product of this sense of self comes "me" as I experience myself.
When my body dies, as they say, I become "worm food". This body runs its course. The same way any other form of life does.
There is no singular life lost. My body just loses its sense of self with everything else it loses.

I'm sure I've more explaining to do!:p

Selected

Jamyduff wrote: »

This may have some evolutionary benefit to life itself.

There is a time paradox in the above statement consistent with the previously quoted oxymoronic statement.

Rest assured it is not my intention to overwhelm; I merely seek clarification and understanding of your personal/individual observations.

Could you possibly, in the self-interest of this particular poster, reflect and meditate on the articulation of those observations, to the best of your ability.

They are, after all, your thoughts, your understanding, and your interpretation. I think the expression and recognition of the power of the individual is long overdue.

Courage resides within the individual : bravery is what the crowd expects.

Make no mistake – there is a war going on here.

Inflammatory statements indeed – well, one can only hope.

“The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” Eric Schmidt.

Jamyduff

I don't know if I have quite got the hang of quoting yet.

It is my basic understanding of evolution that those things beneficial to a species persist and evolve and those that are not may not.
I then presumed that the brains sense of self may have some benefit to humans. Since I feel that humans are one form of life then I presume that this development is beneficial to life.

I am very poor at articulating myself. If you make it clear what you would like me to expand on then I would love to. I'm afraid the time paradox has gone straight over my head. Could you point it out for me?
What use are observations without someone to test them with?

dunsandin

If all the people who thought they were the center of the universe, were, the universe would be a very multicentric thing. Anyway, the center of the universe is Simon Cowell, so thats that. Well, he thinks so anyway.

PaulGogartyTD

I tweet, therefore I am a bird

SparkyTech

I believe the centre of our universe can only be defined by our inner soul and foremost thoughts, its the part of our consious which thinks rationaly before we act on it.

Morbert

David Matthew wrote: »

Solipsism is an epistemic claim about whether we can truly know other minds, and in its most extreme form, whether we can know for sure whether there exists (a step towards an ontological claim) anything besides our own mind.

Now, it might be fair to say that as a fairly extreme ontological claim, the burden of proof rests on those who profess it. For example, I might say that an invisible, undetectable jelly monster lives constantly by my side; ridiculous of course, but in principle impossible to refute. (As part of the premise is that it is undetactable). Solipsism I think suffers from a similar weakness, in that its strength lies in the difficulty to logically refute it. However, solipsists, if they truly exist (for more than evening of class A drug intoxication ) should put forward claims as to why it is likely to be true.

An interesting post pj9999!

There is a form of solipsism that skirts this issue. If a solipsist claims that their mind might be the only thing that exists, then they are in the clear. Well almost. The claim "I exist" is also an assumption that might not be true.

krd

powerjuggler wrote: »

We can differentiate between dreams and reality can we not?

How do you know you have had dreams?

How do you know that your memories are real and not as insubstantial as dreams?

The replicants in Bladerunner/Do Androids dream of electric sheep, all have implanted memories. Some are unaware they are replicants, because they have vivid childhood memories.


The cogito comes up against a brick wall. I know therefore I am - but how do you know you know. How do you know there is a you in the first place.

t0mm13b

Morpheus: Define real, what is real... if you perceive real to be based on touch, smell, hear, see, taste, then real is nothing more than electronic signals sent to the brain.....in order to change a human being into .... pause..... duracell battery...

powerjuggler

krd wrote: »

How do you know you have had dreams?

How do you know that your memories are real and not as insubstantial as dreams?

The replicants in Bladerunner/Do Androids dream of electric sheep, all have implanted memories. Some are unaware they are replicants, because they have vivid childhood memories.


The cogito comes up against a brick wall. I know therefore I am - but how do you know you know. How do you know there is a you in the first place.

You can only think what you think you know. And I recognise dreams to be neurological activity whilst the body is inactive. Dreams can be fantastical, while reality seldom is. Once you start to question empirical reality and base your assumptions on flight of fancy style notions, then the possibilities of argument are limited only by your imagination. All assumptions can only be based around experience and observation. Otherwise the constrictions and restrictions of logic and reason are impotent.

Knasher

Well I only came into existence when I opened this thread and as soon as I click submit I imagine, such as you will allow me, that I will blink out of existence.

So I guess OP that not only are you the center of the universe but that the size of the universe that centers on you is really quite small. Which is a pretty bad indication of the size of your imagination but seeing as we are all imaginary its not like you really have anything to compare against.

Playboy

Make peace with it. Its a question that is never going to be answered and its mental masochism to contemplate ideas such as free will and solopism too much. Maybe we dont have free will but the perception of having free will makes the world a better and safer place. Solopism while it cannot be disproved is a horrible and frightening idea.. chances are it isnt true!

18AD

If you are on a boat in the middle of the ocean, your gaze extends to the blue horizon of water in every direction. Are you in the centre of the ocean?

Rabble Rabble

The most obvious answer I have to this ( very interesting) question is this:

The world is a huge place. My life is fairly boring. I would have accepted a Truman show type village were I born in it. It is far to complex to be made for me.

Boroimhe

meryem wrote: »

In my view point no one is center of the universe except for almighty himself. It is the god that we and whole universe revolve around.

If we are to take the assumption of a "god" figure why can it not be man? Why can it not be the op and if thats the case then yes you are the centre of the universe.

Perceptually you are an individual whos surroundings exist separately and jointly to yourself. They are there and acting independent of your actions (though you can have an effect on your surroundings you do not control them and they don't care wether you are there or not), they remain when you are gone but you do not percieve them. To believe they cease to be when you go is to assume and we all know that assumptions is the mother of all **** ups.

wylo

exactly,

its a fairly wild assumption or argument to make that the whole universe revolves around you just because when you die you dont see the universe any more.

what is going in your head is just the experience of the universe,the universe will carry on regardless with or without you.

18AD

Since this is a philosophy forum, I think you will have to make a better point than simply asserting that God exists as the centre of the universe.

Philosophy is about using reason, thereby opening up the possibility of convincing people about your position.

How is God the centre of the universe? You say he is within everyone, so how can there be a centre if the there are multiple points in multiple people in a localised space in the universe? Surely then you are saying that there is no centre.

It may be helpful to explain what God you are talking about.

pj9999

MWoods wrote: »

No, because if everybody else in the world are just projections, who are only there to convince you that this is reality, then they have failed because you already doubt this is reality. Therefore by your logic everyone would have ceased to exist by now, if their only function is now void, like you said it would be after your death.

Ah MWoods, I'm not calling anyone a projection... ye are all very important to me in yere own way... I can only apologize that I was not aware of yere contribution earlier. That said I am somewhat disappointed that you "have failed because you already doubt this is reality"... I hope you will not 'cease to exist' now. If you did I could not help but hold myself responsible.

dunsandin wrote: »

If all the people who thought they were the center of the universe, were, the universe would be a very multicentric thing. Anyway, the center of the universe is Simon Cowell, so thats that. Well, he thinks so anyway.

Dunsandin, I appreciate the attempt to inject some humour into the situation, but I think we all know that I am not one of "all the people"...

Knasher wrote: »

Well I only came into existence when I opened this thread and as soon as I click submit I imagine, such as you will allow me, that I will blink out of existence.

So I guess OP that not only are you the center of the universe but that the size of the universe that centers on you is really quite small. Which is a pretty bad indication of the size of your imagination but seeing as we are all imaginary its not like you really have anything to compare against.

Indeed Knasher, your blinking in and out of my existence is but part of the greater plan... your's is a small role, but rest assured you have played it well.

Less disparaging comments about my imagination might be in order though. The fact that I am now 'aware' ahead of time would seem to contradict the idea that there is anything wrong with my mind.

I think the best way forward for the time being is to try to maintain the status quo... I say this because I know a lot of you must now be petrified as to what the future holds. I am nothing if not benevolent, and if anything will be changing, I will give the appropriate notice.

In peace.
P

later12

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Sylvia Plath's great poem on solipsism.

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/soliloquy.html

Solipsism is one of those immediately satisfying and attractive ideas in philosophy, both for its simple beauty and for how it makes a God out of each of us.

However, it is generally more of an exercise in self-amusement than anything too serious, because there are some serious logical shortcomings with solipsism, e.g. is solipsism not a self refuting idea? This is where I think the theory breaks down.

Omentum

You are part of the universe.

roosh

later10 wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Sylvia Plath's great poem on solipsism.

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/soliloquy.html

Solipsism is one of those immediately satisfying and attractive ideas in philosophy, both for its simple beauty and for how it makes a God out of each of us.

However, it is generally more of an exercise in self-amusement than anything too serious, because there are some serious logical shortcomings with solipsism, e.g. is solipsism not a self refuting idea? This is where I think the theory breaks down.

what are the logical shortcomings of solipsism and how is it self-refuting?

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

what are the logical shortcomings of solipsism and how is it self-refuting?

It is logically consistent, and not self-refuting. But it makes an assumption ("I" exist) that isn't necessarily true.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It is logically consistent, and not self-refuting.

that's what I was thinking

Morbert wrote: »

But it makes an assumption ("I" exist) that isn't necessarily true.

it doesn't make any assumption about the nature of that "I" though does it?

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

it doesn't make any assumption about the nature of that "I" though does it?

It doesn't. But "I exist" is still contingent, and without any logical underpinning. Metaphysical Nihilism is Solipsism without that assumption.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It doesn't. But "I exist" is still contingent, and without any logical underpinning. Metaphysical Nihilism is Solipsism without that assumption.

what is it contingent on?

EDIT: apologies, just looked up the meaning of contingent and saw the "philosopy definition".

Assuming that definition: if it is contingent would that not mean that it is necessarily true?

IQDENIED

You are the center of your universe whereby you are the constant. This does not not mean the universe or indeed any subset is finite or by any means existing, just your perceived reality on the matter, which maybe be dark.

6 x 9 = 42

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

what is it contingent on?

EDIT: apologies, just looked up the meaning of contingent and saw the "philosopy definition".

Assuming that definition: if it is contingent would that not mean that it is necessarily true?

Contingent propositions may be true or false. Necessarily true propositions are always true, no matter what other axioms may be true. "A triangle has three angles" is a proposition that is always true, and hence not contingent. "I exist", on the other hand, is a proposition that may be false.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Contingent propositions may be true or false. Necessarily true propositions are always true, no matter what other axioms may be true. "A triangle has three angles" is a proposition that is always true, and hence not contingent. "I exist", on the other hand, is a proposition that may be false.

ah, I getcha - cheers for the explanation.

would the the truth of the proposition, "I exist" be contingent on the definition of "I"? Like, a triangle is very clearly defined and hence we can agree that the proposition "A triangle has three angles" is always true, but if "I" was clearly defined would it be possible that the proposition "I exist" could also always be true?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

ah, I getcha - cheers for the explanation.

would the the truth of the proposition, "I exist" be contingent on the definition of "I"? Like, a triangle is very clearly defined and hence we can agree that the proposition "A triangle has three angles" is always true, but if "I" was clearly defined would it be possible that the proposition "I exist" could also always be true?

The problem isn't really with the definition of "I". It can be supposed that things exist. It can also be supposed that nothing exists. "I exist" cannot be true if nothing exists. Hence, "I exist" is contingent on "Nothing exists" being false.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

The problem isn't really with the definition of "I". It can be supposed that things exist. It can also be supposed that nothing exists. "I exist" cannot be true if nothing exists. Hence, "I exist" is contingent on "Nothing exists" being false.

but there is existence, so "nothing exists" is false.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

but there is existence, so "nothing exists" is false.

"There is existence" is a proposition that may or may not be true.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

"There is existence" is a proposition that may or may not be true.

I think it is more of an axiom that is self-evidently true