I am frequently astonished by the capacity of the deity pedlars to believe that to be an atheist is to accept that life is meaningless. But so what if it is? Why does there have to be a point in existence? Surely, there doesn't.
Because the religious try to dodge the fact that serving a deity blindly is just as pointless. There is no virtue to being a cog in a religious machine whose only purpose is to suck the divine dick of a cosmic entity for dubious and deferred reward. They are envious of all of us who give the infinite recession of pointlessness the shaft and simply state that "pointfullness" (to give it a name) has to start somewhere and it might as well be with us.
Remember it is not us with whom they seek assurance from, but from themselves. Claiming that life has a meaning is important to those who cannot accept that the "after-life" is horse dooky. They seek the assurance from others that they are correct in their fantasies. They more they object to our views the closer they are to admitting they are wrong as well. They are not prepared for that, nor do they want to accept it. You cannot argue with fear.
Meaning of Life? Don't know if there is any. Human experience is pretty whacked.
Meaning of my life? Up to me, and I choose to live a meaningful life. I don't need an after-life to have meaning.
Of course why anything exists, why existence as a sort of order to it, why this existence has life in it, and why life has consciousness etc ... so that human experience is even possible? Most people wonder about those things, though I don't think anyone has any good answers for any of it.
Nihilism isn't the same as atheism/non-theism/secularism. Nihilism seems to me to be a psychological condition of despair.
Quote from: 1liesalot on November 11, 2015, 12:39:07 PM
I am frequently astonished by the capacity of the deity pedlars to believe that to be an atheist is to accept that life is meaningless. But so what if it is? Why does there have to be a point in existence? Surely, there doesn't.
It's an emotional argument on their part, not a logical one. That's all there is to it.
The way I see it is, even if there is some point to existence, does it matter to me?
It doesn't seem to matter to my dog, and he's happy enough.
Quote from: 1liesalot on November 11, 2015, 12:39:07 PM
I am frequently astonished by the capacity of the deity pedlars to believe that to be an atheist is to accept that life is meaningless. But so what if it is? Why does there have to be a point in existence? Surely, there doesn't.
Isn't it the opposite: theists long to be with God afterlife, so this life is really less important than the afterlife; atheists don't count on an afterlife, so this life is all there is, and hence of greater importance.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 15, 2015, 06:59:25 PM
Isn't it the opposite: theists long to be with God afterlife, so this life is really less important than the afterlife; atheists don't count on an afterlife, so this life is all there is, and hence of greater importance.
That is unfortunately true of many theists. In fact, there is no afterlife ... there is only one life. Otherwise G-d wouldn't really matter ... because what comes afterward ... is always in the future, we never reach it.
Quote from: 1liesalot on November 11, 2015, 12:39:07 PM
I am frequently astonished by the capacity of the deity pedlars to believe that to be an atheist is to accept that life is meaningless. But so what if it is? Why does there have to be a point in existence? Surely, there doesn't.
The point of our conception was probably two people needing to 'scratch that itch'. And while that may have been just divine it wasn't a guided act of creation. From there it follows that an unguided conception results in an unguided life.
So let's all quit worrying about that and make the best of the time we have here. We won't get a second round.
At some young age, I suppose everyone is introduced to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" It is usually posed as some deep philosophical question that can only be pondered, but never answered. It persists in some into their college years. Eventually it becomes a silly joke about pseudo-philosophical half wit posers.
But as Christianity often creates explanations for things we do not yet understand, it claims to know the answer to a trick question. It turns out the joke is on the believers that have fallen for trap that sentence structure in the form of a question, means it's a valid question. In fact, it's more like gibberish.
Ask a related question to the "meaning of life," and the nonsensical quality of the gibberish begins to become apparent: "What is the meaning of a turtle?" It makes sense for the uniformed to ask, "What IS a turtle?" but to ask for it's meaning makes an assumption that a turtle has meaning. You can ask what is life, but to ask for it's meaning makes an unsupported claim.
The question is widely recognized fallacy. I call it "begging the question," although it's actually begging you to accept an unsupported claim that is disguised as a question. It can also be identified as the Complex Question Fallacy, which can be googled at Wiki. It tricks you into accepting an unsupported claim (life has meaning), before you evaluate the evidence for the claim itself. The sentence structure in question form, "what is the meaning of life," is irrelevant. It's a clever attempt to dispense with doing first things first, and just conveniently jumping ahead to a debate which isn't relevant or justified. But if the theist can get you to accept that life has meaning, he can now bore you for a half hour with God's Plan.
Question is if The point of life is to live by god's way and his commands to be a good, decent person and to help those in need by his teachings and so to earn his approval and a place by his Side in The afterlife... Then what would be the point/meaning of said afterlife? Once you are there, for eternity, in a perfect world without hate, suffering or struggle spending all your time by his Side and basking in his glory and goodness (assuming you've been good), what would give meaning to your existance then?
There'd be nothing left to prove, to achieve, to learn. There would be no stamps to put on history. There would be no competition. No, inherently meaningless though they may be, experiences of victory or defeat. Because they would be meaningless in an endless world where our desires become reality without effort. And yet they herald this as a great life.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 15, 2015, 06:59:25 PM
Isn't it the opposite: theists long to be with God afterlife, so this life is really less important than the afterlife; atheists don't count on an afterlife, so this life is all there is, and hence of greater importance.
I think the main reason for belief in God is that (in the minds of believers) only a God can provide a mechanism for there to even be an afterlife. And it's this afterlife that people yearn for, since they can't imagine their own nonexistence. Apparently, though, they don't need a God to provide a "before-life."
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2015, 04:52:42 PM
Nihilism isn't the same as atheism/non-theism/secularism. Nihilism seems to me to be a psychological condition of despair.
I don't understand this. I consider myself to be a nihilist, but I feel no despair at all. I thought nihilism was simply a lack of belief in cosmic meaning.
QuoteYou fall out of your mother’s womb, you crawl across open country under fire, and drop into your grave.
Quentin crisp
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 17, 2015, 06:47:46 PM
I don't understand this. I consider myself to be a nihilist, but I feel no despair at all. I thought nihilism was simply a lack of belief in cosmic meaning.
Quentin crisp
Metaphysical nihilism vs emotional nihilism? I was speaking of the emotional kind. Believing in nothing is just being skeptical.
Oh, I see. I'm about as unemotional as I can manage, so emotional nihilism would be against my very nature.
Quote from: 1liesalot on November 11, 2015, 12:39:07 PM
I am frequently astonished by the capacity of the deity pedlars to believe that to be an atheist is to accept that life is meaningless. But so what if it is? Why does there have to be a point in existence? Surely, there doesn't.
There doesn't need to be some universal purpose to life... But life is so much more interesting when you choose to assign purpose to your own life. A double edged sword.
I have come to interpret "I refuse to believe this all happened by chance/accident" as "I refuse to believe that I am anything but divine and special and the center of the universe. The whole point of the universe."
Humans are not the center of the universe.
Quote from: 1liesalot on November 11, 2015, 12:39:07 PM
I am frequently astonished by the capacity of the deity pedlars to believe that to be an atheist is to accept that life is meaningless. But so what if it is? Why does there have to be a point in existence? Surely, there doesn't.
It seems like an appropriate response would be, "Yeah? So what's your point?"
Quote from: Savior2006 on November 18, 2015, 01:12:23 AM
I have come to interpret "I refuse to believe this all happened by chance/accident" as "I refuse to believe that I am anything but divine and special and the center of the universe. The whole point of the universe."
Humans are not the center of the universe.
Every being is the center of the universe. There isn't just one center, but many. And not just humans, but all beings. Atoms are not the center of the universe, but what it is physically made up. A charged atom, doesn't just exist at a tiny point ... but its EM field extends across the entire universe. The gravitational field of the atom, even the neutral atom, also extends across the entire universe. So how big is an atom?
Quote from: SGOS on November 16, 2015, 08:57:38 AM
Ask a related question to the "meaning of life," and the nonsensical quality of the gibberish begins to become apparent: "What is the meaning of a turtle?" It makes sense for the uniformed to ask, "What IS a turtle?" but to ask for it's meaning makes an assumption that a turtle has meaning. You can ask what is life, but to ask for it's meaning makes an unsupported claim.
I usually attribute the very word "meaning" to be an anthropomorphic term entirely, it's the other word from the other side of the coin: the word "purpose".
The "meaning of life" only makes sense in a human context, IMO. So if you strip that human context, like pondering what life will be like after you're dead, you might start to realize that there is no meaning, neither purpose. Life just is or it is not. This becomes particularly apparent in pondering what meaning had your life before you were born? Well, none - you weren't there to establish a meaning.
It's probably just one of those "profoundity" things; sounds deep but is really just incompatible concepts stringed together.
Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2015, 06:55:32 AM
Every being is the center of the universe. There isn't just one center, but many. And not just humans, but all beings. Atoms are not the center of the universe, but what it is physically made up. A charged atom, doesn't just exist at a tiny point ... but its EM field extends across the entire universe. The gravitational field of the atom, even the neutral atom, also extends across the entire universe. So how big is an atom?
I'm not so sure, wouldn't the gravitational force attenuate below Planck size and be virtually zero, when going far enough away from the center of the atom in question?
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 18, 2015, 10:33:43 AM
I'm not so sure, wouldn't the gravitational force attenuate below Planck size and be virtually zero, when going far enough away from the center of the atom in question?
If we want to bring in physics speculation, like Plank length, time, mass etc ... well then we can imagine anything. Classically speaking, the field goes out to the edge of the universe, if it has an edge. For computation, we approximate it as zero not too far from the center of charge/mass. But this is us doing it, not nature. And in QM, the wave-function or quantum field similarly has no proper boundary ... though quantized results only happen close to the atom. A free electron ... freed from a hydrogen nucleus ... has a quantum number of infinity, rather than a finite number (1, 2, etc). At that circumstance, the classical result is good enough.
Quote from: 1liesalot on November 11, 2015, 12:39:07 PM
I am frequently astonished by the capacity of the deity pedlars to believe that to be an atheist is to accept that life is meaningless. But so what if it is? Why does there have to be a point in existence? Surely, there doesn't.
From a biological perspective, why would humans be the only species on the planet which doesn't have a purpose to its existence? How does that 1% difference in DNA from chimpanzees mean that humans are the only species of animal without normative behavior?
Quote from: Ace101 on November 18, 2015, 01:53:24 PM
From a biological perspective, why would humans be the only species on the planet which doesn't have a purpose to its existence? How does that 1% difference in DNA from chimpanzees mean that humans are the only species of animal without normative behavior?
Ask our Perky over in the other thread.
Quote from: Ace101 on November 18, 2015, 01:53:24 PM
From a biological perspective, why would humans be the only species on the planet which doesn't have a purpose to its existence? How does that 1% difference in DNA from chimpanzees mean that humans are the only species of animal without normative behavior?
"Purpose" has several meanings. The biological purpose of all creatures is to compete for food and sex. Hope you are getting some ;-) There is a continuum between apes and humans ... our behavior is simply more complex (at least in biology, but not in theology).
I know the meaning of life. I learned it on the way to work one day.
I was driving along, groggy because I'm not a morning person, when I noticed two birds flying around. One, presumably the male, was chasing the other. He was matching her graceful moves instantly. It was as if they were one creature with two parts, flying gracefully through the air. It was quite moving. Even more so when, again, as one, they flew in front of my car and only she emerged from the other side of my grill. While this may sound like a joke, I assure you, I am entirely serious. It was at that moment that I fully understood the meaning of life for the first time. You see, he followed her to his death in their beautiful mating ritual. He didn't intend to, of course, but the only thing important to him at that time was her. She had calculated her path and believed she had enough time to make it, which she did. He had not calculated. He jut followed because of an overwhelming desire for the female he was following. Death is coming for all of us, but until that day the meaning of life is to seek happiness. For some, like the bird, it is to propagate, not just the species, but our specific genetic line. For others it's the dying "American dream". For still others a seemingly meaningless existence (to outside observers) is enough. The meaning of life is to seek what makes you happy until you die. The meaning of life is to make of your life what makes you content with your life. The meaning of life is nothing more than to live. Not survive, but live.
We each give our own lives our own meaning. Some people simply can't imagine there being any meaning if they are just going to die. This is shortsighted and narrow-minded. They project their own idea of meaning onto others. They see people who accept that they will one day die as leading meaningless existences. But my life doesn't have to have meaning to you, only to me. It is, after all, my life. It has meaning if, and only if, I believe it does. You may believe a life has no meaning if the person does not become President of the United States or set some other ludicrous requirement for a life to have meaning. And that's okay. But that's what would give your life meaning. I have 4 kids and they are better people than I was at their age. That's what gives my life meaning. That's enough for me. If you need more, or just something else, by all means, go for it. But for me, my life already has meaning enough. If you want to project your idea of meaning onto me, I'm sorry, but your projection only has meaning to you. You simply can't expect it to have meaning to me.
Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2015, 06:55:32 AM
Every being is the center of the universe. There isn't just one center, but many. And not just humans, but all beings. Atoms are not the center of the universe, but what it is physically made up. A charged atom, doesn't just exist at a tiny point ... but its EM field extends across the entire universe. The gravitational field of the atom, even the neutral atom, also extends across the entire universe. So how big is an atom?
Oh please… to a human a dust mite and an atom might as well be the same size, they are both microscopic…..big ho-hum. If the universe was a human it could not tell the difference between our entire solar system and an atom. Humans are so full of themselves they cannot comprehend they are as important to the universe as a dust mite. You are welcome to stroke yourself to your own content but the reality is the same. Humans cannot change the fucking "continuum" no more than a little bubble on the thousand mile shore of Chile can.
Quote from: aitm on November 28, 2015, 10:47:53 PM
Oh please… to a human a dust mite and an atom might as well be the same size, they are both microscopic…..big ho-hum. If the universe was a human it could not tell the difference between our entire solar system and an atom. Humans are so full of themselves they cannot comprehend they are as important to the universe as a dust mite. You are welcome to stroke yourself to your own content but the reality is the same. Humans cannot change the fucking "continuum" no more than a little bubble on the thousand mile shore of Chile can.
You seem to be unaware of the Butterfly Effect. And I wasn't expressing egotism, but you seem to expressing nihilism.
This brings up a couple of good questions:
1. Is my self definition limited to what I can willfully effect? Our infantile body definition we learned as an infant.
2. If I unknowingly crush a butterfly while walking in the forest, are there consequences for me? Chaos theory says yes.
With the first question ... when I move my arm, I have learned that it s a part of myself. But when I pick up my fork to eat, does it temporarily become a part of me? What of artificial limbs? And if it does ... then when I type this, the Internet temporarily becomes a part of me? What if two people reach for the same fork at the same time ... that is a bit like the Internet example ... a shared resource ... but unlike the fork example, more than one person at a time can easily use it? Which brings us to Siamese twins that share some part of their body ... where does one begin and the other end? They often share neural systems.
With the second question, self definition includes what you are conscious of, and what you are not conscious of ... but what if the majority of your self, is something you are not conscious of? What happens when the unconscious part of you is impacted by something you did, or someone else did?
OK!..
We should tolerate that the life doesn't really have any meaning or purpose.
There is no escape other than tolerating this situation.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on November 29, 2015, 11:06:20 AM
OK!..
We should tolerate that the life doesn't really have any meaning or purpose.
There is no escape other than tolerating this situation.
Meaning is assigned. not inherent. The lack of any higher power with the authority to assign meaning to each individual life means it is to us to assign any meaning to our own lives, if we so choose. Your life is meaningless if you assign it no meaning. It has meaning if you assign some meaning to it. I am okay with tolerating a the meaningless existences of others. What I cannot tolerate is those who presume to assign meaning to my life. Using the excuse of a higher power, who, coincidentally, feels exactly the same way about every situation as they do, they assign meaning to all others, pretending it comes from "above".
Do you want to know the meaning of life, the supposedly unanswerable question? I have the answer, by the grace of God.
The purpose of life is not to find meaning, at least not in the traditional sense. Are you looking to help people, to be a great politician, a musician, or perhaps just a man reaping wheat at harvest time? These things are meaningless. The meaning of life is a bit of a misdirected question; it is not meaning that we are meant to find, but rather to experience something for our education, so to speak.
The meaning of life is to discover and know the difference between good and evil, and to understand that our existences are in total, in every single aspect down to the smallest of details, determined by God.
This is explained from the beginning of the Bible. Adam and Eve partook of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, becoming like God in knowing the difference, but lacking the means to be good and not evil. This is the process by which the clay (us) is formed into the image of God, through the fire that is the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Why does evil exist? So that we might be chastised, corrected from our sinful natures so that we know that there is nothing good in us, and that we might depend on God to provide us with righteousness. No matter how good you think you are, I assure you that you are not; you are evil, no ifs ands or buts about it.
Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
ALL things. If you've led a life that might be considered superior to others, it is by His grace and that alone. Everything that is good comes from God; likewise, everything evil. But the evil will always serve to chastise us, to correct us from our sins and drive us towards repentance, both in this life and the next. In the end, ALL will be saved, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Besides the problem of the Bible not being very accurate ... the interpretation of inspired verses is tricky. Colossians 1:17 is inspired, but usually mis- understood. This verse validates pantheism/panentheism ... not standard Christian theology ... which sees thru a glass ... darkly (to quote Paul again).
Quote from: Baruch on November 19, 2015, 12:53:09 AM
"Purpose" has several meanings. The biological purpose of all creatures is to compete for food and sex. Hope you are getting some ;-) There is a continuum between apes and humans ... our behavior is simply more complex (at least in biology, but not in theology).
There isnt such a thing as "biological purpose".
QuoteThere isnt such a thing as "biological purpose".
There is.
First and foremost is to reproduce. That applies to all lifeforms without exception.
The short answer to the op is there doesn't
It's human nature I suppose to project our selves onto the universe. We find meaning in things therefor there must be a meaning in everything assumption.
I think some people find it depressing if there is no meaning to life but really I don't care if my life has meaning or not. I'm just living every day to the fullest so that when I die I can die with out regrets.
The other answer is that you give meaning to your own life. Meaning of life is subjective just like morality and virtually every other thing in life.
Purpose? No, there isn't one beyond the ones we make for ourselves. We're just a byproduct of the universe, not the point of the universe.
As for why people think there is a purpose and a point, I can do no better than reference a parable by Douglas Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs
I liked the parable. And the intention, of inducing people to be less egotistical ... is laudatory ... we certainly don't want to treat people like puddles. So yes, Mr Adams acknowledges Aristotle ... and the four causes ... intention fits Final Cause and Efficient Cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
Materialists of course only acknowledge the Material Cause and Formal Cause.
Quote from: pr126 on December 04, 2015, 10:16:38 AM
There is.
First and foremost is to reproduce. That applies to all lifeforms without exception.
No. Purpose requires intention.
QuoteWhy does there have to be a point in existence?
Short answer; Science and evolution. We are wired to see patterns... find meanings... even where there are none. This has mostly been an evolutionary advantage but it does have it's downsides as well.
Quote from: Baruch on November 29, 2015, 02:59:11 AM
And I wasn't expressing egotism,
Oh bullshit, my first response was to your masturbating that humanity has some effect on the universe and your response to mine was that a fucking butterfly controls the weather. Get over yourself and your piss ant god. We are exactly what we are. To the universe, we are nothing, to our solar system we are nothing. To our earth we are nothing. To ourselves we are important only among those whom we directly effect, to the rest of the people of the earth we are nothing. To the vast creatures of the earth we are nothing.
Enjoy life, there is no reason to stick your dick out in the wind and pretend you are some special whack job, though no doubt you are "special".
Point of our existence? The survival of our species, plain and simple.
Quote from: aitm on December 06, 2015, 08:39:46 PM
Oh bullshit, my first response was to your masturbating that humanity has some effect on the universe and your response to mine was that a fucking butterfly controls the weather. Get over yourself and your piss ant god. We are exactly what we are. To the universe, we are nothing, to our solar system we are nothing. To our earth we are nothing. To ourselves we are important only among those whom we directly effect, to the rest of the people of the earth we are nothing. To the vast creatures of the earth we are nothing.
Enjoy life, there is no reason to stick your dick out in the wind and pretend you are some special whack job, though no doubt you are "special".
I picked up my breakfast ... so I do effect the universe. But I don't affect it. But Gaia isn't too far from reality, unless you want to kill the ecology to prove that inanimate matter is boss. Then life can evolve from bacteria on up again. And chaos science is science ... so what woo woo do you rely on? The butterfly doesn't deliberately control the weather, it is an unavoidable secondary effect. But if a butterfly can do that, then how much, as an unavoidable secondary effect ... can I control the weather? Usually thru carbon emissions ... smell my flatulence! Or are you stuck in Newtonian determinism and absolutism? And you are correct ... since microbes are the dominant species ... we do mean a lot to them ... as hosts etc. You are very important to the survival of escheria ecoli ... so don't overcook your chicken ... speciesist ;-)
Quote from: Sylar on December 07, 2015, 04:40:41 AM
Point of our existence? The survival of our species, plain and simple.
But what happens when the survival of the individual is contrary to the survival of the species and vice versa? You going to generously sacrifice yourself, or run for President?
Quote from: Sylar on December 07, 2015, 04:40:41 AM
Point of our existence? The survival of our species, plain and simple.
"Point (or purpose) of our existence" invites a fallacy. What we need to do is define the meaning of "purpose." It can mean "the intention." It can also mean "what something does." You might ask a question about biology along the lines of, "What is the purpose of the heart?" Here you understand that it means "what something does," and in this case, you are not implying the heart has an intention to pump blood. It simply pumps blood. No foul has been committed.
But when "the purpose of existence" is posed in religious context, it usually means, "What was the intention of the creator? What purpose did he endow mankind with?" A penalty flag goes down; A foul has been committed: "Fallacy of Begging the Question!: Five yard penalty." <The referee signals to the downs keeper by executing the face palm gesture>
The design of the question is intended to trick the responder into accepting that existence has a purpose. An unsupported assumption, posing as an answer already hidden in the question, setting a trap for further (and ironically "pointless") discussion about the irrelevant answer which is presupposed, "If a creator didn't give us a purpose, then who did?"
Quote from: Baruch on December 07, 2015, 06:53:22 AM
But what happens when the survival of the individual is contrary to the survival of the species and vice versa? You going to generously sacrifice yourself, or run for President?
In theory, the answer is yes. And ultimately, on a much smaller scale, we do sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our families and loved ones, and their continuity, should they be in immediate danger. So is the case for modern armies.
Is it the survival of the species? Not exactly, but the notion of individual sacrifice for greater good is still there. And what better motivator for individual sacrifice would there be, than the continued existence of our species?
Quote from: SGOS on December 07, 2015, 08:32:38 AM
"Point (or purpose) of our existence" invites a fallacy. What we need to do is define the meaning of "purpose." It can mean "the intention." It can also mean "what something does." You might ask a question about biology along the lines of, "What is the purpose of the heart?" Here you understand that it means "what something does," and in this case, you are not implying the heart has an intention to pump blood. It simply pumps blood. No foul has been committed.
But when "the purpose of existence" is posed in religious context, it usually means, "What was the intention of the creator? What purpose did he endow mankind with?" A penalty flag goes down; A foul has been committed: "Fallacy of Begging the Question!: Five yard penalty." <The referee signals to the downs keeper by executing the face palm gesture>
The design of the question is intended to trick the responder into accepting that existence has a purpose. An unsupported assumption, posing as an answer already hidden in the question, setting a trap for further (and ironically "pointless") discussion about the irrelevant answer which is presupposed, "If a creator didn't give us a purpose, then who did?"
That is a fair point, but I personally do not acknowledge the existence of a 'creator' thus I wasn't compelled to qualify my answer.
I do agree, though, that it is good practice to be precise when answering loaded questions.
We don't get meaning from the universe, the universe gets its meaning from us.
I don't know how I feel about that.
I tend not to fight the universe. It has a mind of it's own and if you mess with it messes you up.
You could say the universe is my god.
No, the universe has no mind without evolved minds like us to perceive it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2015, 06:08:48 PM
No, the universe has no mind without evolved minds like us to perceive it.
Object vs subject. We are the evolved mind of the universe, and we do perceive it (process the sensual data into meaning). Pantheism doesn't have to be metaphysical. I am a planetary biosphere relative to the trillion cells that make me up.
But aren't we both object and subject?
We affect the universe as much as a dust mite does, as much as a single bacteria does, as much as a single atom does.
Maybe, but given the infinite size of the universe, even Laniakea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laniakea_Supercluster) is ultra-tiny. I don't think size means anything. Being the self-aware part of the universe gives meaning to it, regardless of size.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2015, 06:32:08 PM
But aren't we both object and subject?
You are on a good path. If you meet the Buddha on the way ... kill him! The doggie means well, but he is a sad doggie ;-(
I've just finished my first reading of Tegmark's book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark), and I'm having fun exploring the 4 levels of the multiverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2015, 06:54:04 PM
I've just finished my first reading of Tegmark's book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark), and I'm having fun exploring the 4 levels of the multiverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe
Yes, heard of this. The ultimate in Pythagoreanism. Got right triangles?
Apparently, with just the level I multiverse, there are an infinite number of each of us (cosmic twins?) "out there" and an even larger infinity of "cosmic cousins." I think Greene put the average distance at 10^10^122 meters. How far is that in furlongs?
Also, I suppose each and every fictional character that can physically and logically exist actually does exist somewhere in the multiverse. Any other fictional characters that need magic or somesuch for their stories may exist in the level II or III multiverse, and we all float down here...
Quote from: aitm on December 08, 2015, 06:35:38 PM
We affect the universe as much as a dust mite does, as much as a single bacteria does, as much as a single atom does.
This may be so but let me tell you something....
the universe has had a profound impact on my life.
Why you say? Because we want to? â'¨
Quote from: doorknob on December 08, 2015, 07:40:14 PM
This may be so but let me tell you something....
the universe has had a profound impact on my life.
I would argue that you wonder at the universe and are thusly profoundly impacted by "it". If a single grain of sand, at the bottom of an ocean, any ocean, anywhere, is disturbed by a passing fish or eel, does it effect the sun? Does a single squirrel, chasing after a fallen acorn somewhere in the remotest part of Nevada, or Brazil effect anything on Jupiter? Does a human, with thousands of years of self aggrandizing ego consider that a piece of tree bark already rotting on the forest floor, a mere few percentile of DNA different than ours have the same right to claim that it as well, has an "in" on the universe? Humans are such arrogant things. I think, therefore I think I am, therefore I think I am all.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2015, 07:31:52 PM
Apparently, with just the level I multiverse, there are an infinite number of each of us (cosmic twins?) "out there" and an even larger infinity of "cosmic cousins." I think Greene put the average distance at 10^10^122 meters. How far is that in furlongs?
Also, I suppose each and every fictional character that can physically and logically exist actually does exist somewhere in the multiverse. Any other fictional characters that need magic or somesuch for their stories may exist in the level II or III multiverse, and we all float down here...
Yes, there is a universe somewhere .... where Bugs Bunny is real, and you are the cartoon ... Hahaha.
I am helpless ... I can't pick up my fork with my pink grapefruit ... and if it QM-wise randomly should find my mouth ... then it will have no effect on me when I swallow it because diet is ... woo woo (sarc)
Quote from: Baruch on December 09, 2015, 06:52:41 AM
Yes, there is a universe somewhere .... where Bugs Bunny is real, and you are the cartoon ... Hahaha.
Yeah, if there were multiple universes, why would the assumption be that we would have to occupy them at all? This is the way it is often portrayed in science fiction; Versions of ourselves that have chosen a slightly different life path, almost as if there are other universes, we have to occupy them or they will implode.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2015, 07:31:52 PM
Apparently, with just the level I multiverse, there are an infinite number of each of us (cosmic twins?) "out there" and an even larger infinity of "cosmic cousins."
Does it have to be an infinite number? What if it's just some random number of possibilities that become actuality? :think:
Quote from: SGOS on December 09, 2015, 08:45:24 AM
Yeah, if there were multiple universes, why would the assumption be that we would have to occupy them at all? This is the way it is often portrayed in science fiction; Versions of ourselves that have chosen a slightly different life path, almost as if there are other universes, we have to occupy them or they will implode.
Indeed, I remember the first time I heard of the "space time continuum" that if humans went back and altered the past this would somehow fuck up the universe. If our entire solar system was an atom bomb, the universe would scare feel its eruption, like a bubble in the ocean foam. So I don't think the re-organizing of a trillion or so atoms in a smidgen of a pimple of space would actually do anything at all.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2015, 07:31:52 PMAlso, I suppose each and every fictional character that can physically and logically exist actually does exist somewhere in the multiverse. Any other fictional characters that need magic or somesuch for their stories may exist in the level II or III multiverse, and we all float down here...
Does that mean that
Jesus, and
Muhammad are both real in some dimension of the multiverse? PLEASE DON'T LET THEM GET THEIR HANDS ON THE
INFINITY GAUNTLET! :character0029: The Tazmanian Devil might save us, because in one dimension he is on Prozac, and becomes a superhero known as the Fuzzy Cyclone.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 09, 2015, 09:46:40 AM
Does it have to be an infinite number? What if it's just some random number of possibilities that become actuality? :think:
Well, infinity is a very slippery concept. The way I've seen it explained is that any Hubble volume must have a finite number of particles, because too much matter/energy in any volume would collapse into a black hole. And this finite number of particles could only be arranged in a finite number of ways, ensuring that in an infinite universe every possible combination would arise an infinite number of times. We are each of us included in the potential combinations that can arise.
Hence, we exist because we must. We are all necessary beings.
Quote from: aitm on December 09, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Indeed, I remember the first time I heard of the "space time continuum" that if humans went back and altered the past this would somehow fuck up the universe. If our entire solar system was an atom bomb, the universe would scare feel its eruption, like a bubble in the ocean foam. So I don't think the re-organizing of a trillion or so atoms in a smidgen of a pimple of space would actually do anything at all.
Heck, the human body would barely notice a trillion or so atoms; there are something on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in the human body -- ten octillion -- of which a trillion would only be one ten-quadrillionth of one's body mass.
Quote from: trdsf on December 09, 2015, 06:56:44 PM
Heck, the human body would barely notice a trillion or so atoms; there are something on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in the human body -- ten octillion -- of which a trillion would only be one ten-quadrillionth of one's body mass.
stop being picky, I don't how many atoms there are..... ya nut :)
Quote from: aitm on December 10, 2015, 02:52:56 PM
stop being picky, I don't how many atoms there are..... ya nut :)
I love a good run with huge numbers. :D
Heck, 10 octillion isn't such a big number. The vast majority of numbers are so big we couldn't possibly symbolize them in any way.
Combinatorics makes things worse. Even if there were an infinite number of atoms, the combining of those atoms is a bigger infinity.
Don't worry ... the Improbability Drive always produces random results. So there is only a small but finite odds that you would end up in a universe where Jesus was real ;-)
Quote from: trdsf on December 09, 2015, 06:56:44 PM
Heck, the human body would barely notice a trillion or so atoms; there are something on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in the human body -- ten octillion -- of which a trillion would only be one ten-quadrillionth of one's body mass.
No wonder Ive been feeling so bloated lately.
Quote from: aitm on December 08, 2015, 09:29:21 PM
I would argue that you wonder at the universe and are thusly profoundly impacted by "it". If a single grain of sand, at the bottom of an ocean, any ocean, anywhere, is disturbed by a passing fish or eel, does it effect the sun? Does a single squirrel, chasing after a fallen acorn somewhere in the remotest part of Nevada, or Brazil effect anything on Jupiter? Does a human, with thousands of years of self aggrandizing ego consider that a piece of tree bark already rotting on the forest floor, a mere few percentile of DNA different than ours have the same right to claim that it as well, has an "in" on the universe? Humans are such arrogant things. I think, therefore I think I am, therefore I think I am all.
Unknowingly, you've just described Quantum Effective Field Theory, which would say that a passing fish or eel does not effect the sun... Now, Chaos Theory says otherwise (a butterfly in China can create a hurricane in the Atlantic) but between CT and EFT, the latter wins overwhelmingly.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 08, 2015, 06:54:04 PM
I've just finished my first reading of Tegmark's book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark), and I'm having fun exploring the 4 levels of the multiverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe
You should stop reading such trash.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 11, 2015, 07:28:26 PM
Heck, 10 octillion isn't such a big number. The vast majority of numbers are so big we couldn't possibly symbolize them in any way.
Well, there's what, an estimated 10
89 particles in the observable universe? So your body is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms, which I found on another site worked out to something in on the order of 64,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles (protons, neutrons and electrons -- lotsa hydrogen pulls the average particles per atom down). And the universe is around 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles, around 98% of which is hydrogen and helium, so we're still looking at reasonably close to 4E88 atoms. Those are really difficult numbers to get our heads around, much less the ratios. I have to fight the instinct to tell myself, looking at 1E28 and 1E89, that 89 is less than three times 28 so they're really not all that far apart, even though it's the difference between the size of a man and the size of everything.
In logarithms, big numbers aren't so much bigger than small numbers. So depends on the scale being used. Also matter is only 4% of the observable universe. We don't really know what the rest of it is made of.
Again combinatorics trumps ... a given 100 digit random number is one of 10^100 (googol) combinations possible. Look up googolplex ... 10^(10^100).
The majority of numbers are irrational, and only a finite number of irrational numbers can be symbolized ... like Pi or E. There are an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1 ... and for each rational number, there are an infinite number of irrational numbers.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 29, 2015, 10:31:44 AM
You should stop reading such trash.
Yeah, well, I read all sorts of trash. I've just finished
Hidden Harmonies (http://www.maa.org/news/math-news/hidden-harmonies-reveals-history-of-a-famous-theorem), and now I'm reading
Love and Math (http://www.edwardfrenkel.com/lovemath/).
After that, I plan to tackle
The Theoretical Minimum - Quantum Mechanics (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6720), having finished the one on classical mechanics.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 29, 2015, 05:09:47 PM
Yeah, well, I read all sorts of trash. I've just finished Hidden Harmonies (http://www.maa.org/news/math-news/hidden-harmonies-reveals-history-of-a-famous-theorem), and now I'm reading Love and Math (http://www.edwardfrenkel.com/lovemath/).
After that, I plan to tackle The Theoretical Minimum - Quantum Mechanics (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6720), having finished the one on classical mechanics.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
I'll give you a c
+ for Susskind's lecture, if you can bear watching him munch on his chocolate cookies and sip his coffee in every lecture he gives online...
Skip Susskind and just read Not Even Wrong periodically ;-) Unless you read it, you can't tell if Woit is alive or dead ;-))
What is the point of existence? Initial Singularity of course ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
In logarithms, big numbers aren't so much bigger than small numbers. So depends on the scale being used. Also matter is only 4% of the observable universe. We don't really know what the rest of it is made of.
Again combinatorics trumps ... a given 100 digit random number is one of 10^100 (googol) combinations possible. Look up googolplex ... 10^(10^100).
The majority of numbers are irrational, and only a finite number of irrational numbers can be symbolized ... like Pi or E. There are an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1 ... and for each rational number, there are an infinite number of irrational numbers.
Why??? Why would you post that? You made me think
so hard!
Infinities may have driven Georg Cantor and Ludwig Boltzmann insane ... maybe Kurt Godel as well.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 29, 2015, 10:29:54 AM
Unknowingly, you've just described Quantum Effective Field Theory, which would say that a passing fish or eel does not effect the sun... Now, Chaos Theory says otherwise (a butterfly in China can create a hurricane in the Atlantic) but between CT and EFT, the latter wins overwhelmingly.
I appreciate your intelligence and I am sure you have a math formula that would suggest such things are possible, but you will never convince the less intelligent that a butterfly can create a hurricane or that anything on earth can fight its way through 4 million tons of streaming energy per second and then affect the sun.