Am I the centre of the universe?

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

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

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

It is an axiom, but it is not self-evident. If it were self-evident, there would be a contradiction when it is assumed to be false. "There is not existence" and "There is existence" are both consistent statements.

An example of an (arguably) self-evident statement would be "A rose is a rose".

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

It is an axiom, but it is not self-evident. If it were self-evident, there would be a contradiction when it is assumed to be false. "There is not existence" and "There is existence" are both consistent statements.

An example of an (arguably) self-evident statement would be "A rose is a rose".

aaah, I getcha. I was thinking that "there is existence" was self-evidently true bcos there obviously is existence.

what would you say then, that it is an axiom/proposition which is necessarily true?