Help
I've been having this long conversation with people about the meaning of life, so i decided to bring it here.
What is the meaning of life?
I've always insisted that the meaning of life was to pursue the meaning of life. Which really means, that, by posting this topic, I am fulfilling my purpose. That seems rather unlikely. However, nobody has proved me wrong yet. What if there isn't a meaning of life? Maybe, as soon as we realize that, the species will die out. Possibly, there is no meanng of life except to reproduce, which is fairly obvious, since that is the meaning of life for all creatures. But, us being the most (so far) intelligent species, wouldn't our life have more to it than sex? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps "Intelligent" is a misleading term, as we use our intelligence to produce new varieties of grass.
Which reminds me:
Why do we grow grass? There is no real reason for this, except that the entire species is insane, which seems unlikely. Perhaps the meaning of life is to grow grass. Maybe there is a hyperintelligent life-form somewhere that has, unknown to us, enslaved us, and grass is simply a way of flexing their muscles, so to speak.
Now that you're thoroughly confused: What is the meaning of life, in your opinion?
------------------
The Journalist- International Man of Markers
The Meaning of Life
MultiQuote
#2
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,698
- Joined: 21-August 01
Posted 30 August 2002 - 11:35 PM
A meaning is an expression, in human context. If nature isn't an expression, of anything, then it can't have meaning. If it IS an expression, like of God, then it's meaning is His intent.
If it's an expression of quantum mechanics, then the meaning of life is complete randominity and chaos.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
If it's an expression of quantum mechanics, then the meaning of life is complete randominity and chaos.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
There are only 3 kinds of people; those who can count, and those who can't.
#3
- fogey
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,768
- Joined: 23-January 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR
Posted 30 August 2002 - 11:57 PM
I don't believe there's a meaning of life. Life is a pattern, it just works its own way, and I don't think it really has a meaning.
Oh, and slugs are obviously the highest form of intellegent life on the planet, not humans. Can't you just tell when you look into their eye stalks, how they're obviously potting against us all? Good thing they don't have opposeable thumbs.
------------------
"Test the bloody thing, or it won't be the only bloody thing!"
Oh, and slugs are obviously the highest form of intellegent life on the planet, not humans. Can't you just tell when you look into their eye stalks, how they're obviously potting against us all? Good thing they don't have opposeable thumbs.
------------------
"Test the bloody thing, or it won't be the only bloody thing!"
#4
- Haruspex
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 1,443
- Joined: 21-April 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Minneapolis MN
Posted 31 August 2002 - 06:53 PM
I'm going to propose that a better question to ask in place of "What is the meaning of life?" is "How come existance?", or perhaps, "Does the universe exist if we're not looking?"
Take a look outside and watch the world put itself together piece by piece. First the tree across the street materializes, then the sidewalk, the grass, the asphalt on the street, and finally all the cars, people, and other details form the world, as if the mere act of watching has drawn them all into existance. Watching this misty genesis unfold gives me a gut feeling that the very universe may be constantly emerging from a haze of possibility; that we inhabit a cosmos made real in part by our own observations.
Why does the universe exist? The quest for an answer to that question inevitably entails wrestling with one of the strangest aspects of modern physics: According to the rules of quantum mechanics, our observations influence the universe at the most fundemental levels. The boundary between an objective "world out there" and our own subjective consciousness that seemed so clearly defined in physics before the eerie discoveries of the 20th century blurs in quantum mechanics. When physicists look at the basic constituents of reality-atoms and their innards, photons, forces of energy, etc.-what they see depends on how they have set up their experiment, and the elements that influence how they draw their conclusion. A physicist's observations determine whether an atom, say, behaves like a fluid wave or hard particle, or which path it follows in traveling from one point to another. From the quantum perspective the universe is an extremely interactive place.
For as long as I've understood physics I've been an advocate of what I recently found was called the anthropic principle: the idea that the universe and the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit the existance of life. Lately though, I've been toying with a far more profound and possibley provocative idea that for now I'll call genesis by observership: That our observations may actually contribute to the creation of a physical reality, that we are shapers and creators in a participatory universe.
I have a hunch (with little more backing than intuition) that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creeation of not just the present and the future, but the past as well. Just point a telescope at a quasar-the light we see now was emitted billions of years ago, before life on Earth (let alone our telescope) even existed.
I conjecture that we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself-and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined, but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the big bang. our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.
Does this mean that humans are necessary to the existance of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of a participatory universe, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Let's say a high energy is released by a radioactive element in the Earth's crust. The particale exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real until it interacts with something, say a rock in the Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the rock, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the rock by the particle becomes part of the real world.
At every moment the entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. I suspect that most of the universe consists not of stars, galaxies, black holes, or dark matter, but of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. The universe may well be a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.
Yes, I'll admit that this is a mind stretching idea that may possibley be the result of too rapid a search for knowledge, or maybe just way too many drugs. It's not even really a theory but more of an intuition about what a final theory of everything might be like. It's a tenuous lead, a clue that the mystery of creation may lie not in the distant past but in the living present. This point of view is what gives me hope that the question "how come existance" can be answered.
I'd like to address one of the most confounding aspects of moder physics: the relationship between the observations and the outcomes of experiments of quantum systems. The problem goes back to the earliest days of quantum mechanics and was formulated most famously by Erwin Schrödinger, who imagined a Rube Goldberg-type of quantum experiment with a cat:
Put a cat in a box, along with a vial of poison gas, a piece of uranium, and a giger counter hooked up to a hammer suspended over the gas vial. During the course of the experiment, the radioactive uranium may or may not emit a particle. If the particle is released, the giger counter will detect it and send a signal to the mechanism controlling the hammer, which will strike the vial and release the gas, effectively killing the cat. If the particle is not released, the cat lives happily ever after. Schrödinger asked, what could be known about the cat before opening the box?
If there were no such thing as quantum mechanics, the answer would be simple: the cat is either alive or dead, depending on whether the uranium emitted a particle. But in the quantum world things are not so straight-forward. The particle and the cat now form a quantum system consisting of all possible outcomes of the experiment. One outcome includes a dead cat, another a live one. Neither becomes real until someone opens the box and looks inside. With that observation, and entire sequence of events-the particle jettisoned from the uranium, the release of the gas, the death of the cat-at once becomes real, giving the appearance of something that has taken time to transpire. This quantum paradox gets to the heart of my idea about the nature of the universe: the principles of quantum mechanics dictate severe limits on the certainty of our knowledge.
You may ask whether the universe really existed before you started looking at it. That's the same Schrödinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existen before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week you're going to find either a live cat or decayed piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe,the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago.
The universe and the observer exist as a pair. You can say the the universe only exists when there is an observer who can say "yes, I see the universe there." These small words-it looks like it was here-for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say the universe exists without observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistant theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of the observer, because who will read what is written by the recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for someone to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of conscious observers, our universe is dead.
So will the question "how come existence?" ever be answered? I doubt it. I'm not sure human intelligence is capable of answering it. Wo don't expect dogs or ants to figure out everything about the universe. And in the sweep of evolution, I doubt we're the last word in intelligence. There might be higher levels later. So why should we think that we're at the level to understand everything? At the same time I think it's great to ask the question and see how far you can go before you bump into a wall. If you say we're smart enough to figure everything out, that's a very arrogant thought. If you say we're not smart enough, that's a very humiliating thought. Will we ever understand why the universe came into being? I believe we'll at least know how. Why is a trickier thing. Look at Darwin and how he provided a simple explaination-evolution through natural selection-for what seemed an utterly intractable problem: how to explain the origin and diversity of life on Earth. Might physicists one day have a similarly clear understanding of the origins and perhaps, purpose, of the universe? In my opinion, absolutely.
------------------
[url="http://"http://www.leapinglaughter.org"]Dig a little deeper[/url]
As below, so above.
[This message has been edited by Sargatanus (edited 08-31-2002).]
Take a look outside and watch the world put itself together piece by piece. First the tree across the street materializes, then the sidewalk, the grass, the asphalt on the street, and finally all the cars, people, and other details form the world, as if the mere act of watching has drawn them all into existance. Watching this misty genesis unfold gives me a gut feeling that the very universe may be constantly emerging from a haze of possibility; that we inhabit a cosmos made real in part by our own observations.
Why does the universe exist? The quest for an answer to that question inevitably entails wrestling with one of the strangest aspects of modern physics: According to the rules of quantum mechanics, our observations influence the universe at the most fundemental levels. The boundary between an objective "world out there" and our own subjective consciousness that seemed so clearly defined in physics before the eerie discoveries of the 20th century blurs in quantum mechanics. When physicists look at the basic constituents of reality-atoms and their innards, photons, forces of energy, etc.-what they see depends on how they have set up their experiment, and the elements that influence how they draw their conclusion. A physicist's observations determine whether an atom, say, behaves like a fluid wave or hard particle, or which path it follows in traveling from one point to another. From the quantum perspective the universe is an extremely interactive place.
For as long as I've understood physics I've been an advocate of what I recently found was called the anthropic principle: the idea that the universe and the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit the existance of life. Lately though, I've been toying with a far more profound and possibley provocative idea that for now I'll call genesis by observership: That our observations may actually contribute to the creation of a physical reality, that we are shapers and creators in a participatory universe.
I have a hunch (with little more backing than intuition) that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creeation of not just the present and the future, but the past as well. Just point a telescope at a quasar-the light we see now was emitted billions of years ago, before life on Earth (let alone our telescope) even existed.
I conjecture that we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself-and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined, but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the big bang. our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.
Does this mean that humans are necessary to the existance of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of a participatory universe, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Let's say a high energy is released by a radioactive element in the Earth's crust. The particale exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real until it interacts with something, say a rock in the Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the rock, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the rock by the particle becomes part of the real world.
At every moment the entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. I suspect that most of the universe consists not of stars, galaxies, black holes, or dark matter, but of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. The universe may well be a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.
Yes, I'll admit that this is a mind stretching idea that may possibley be the result of too rapid a search for knowledge, or maybe just way too many drugs. It's not even really a theory but more of an intuition about what a final theory of everything might be like. It's a tenuous lead, a clue that the mystery of creation may lie not in the distant past but in the living present. This point of view is what gives me hope that the question "how come existance" can be answered.
I'd like to address one of the most confounding aspects of moder physics: the relationship between the observations and the outcomes of experiments of quantum systems. The problem goes back to the earliest days of quantum mechanics and was formulated most famously by Erwin Schrödinger, who imagined a Rube Goldberg-type of quantum experiment with a cat:
Put a cat in a box, along with a vial of poison gas, a piece of uranium, and a giger counter hooked up to a hammer suspended over the gas vial. During the course of the experiment, the radioactive uranium may or may not emit a particle. If the particle is released, the giger counter will detect it and send a signal to the mechanism controlling the hammer, which will strike the vial and release the gas, effectively killing the cat. If the particle is not released, the cat lives happily ever after. Schrödinger asked, what could be known about the cat before opening the box?
If there were no such thing as quantum mechanics, the answer would be simple: the cat is either alive or dead, depending on whether the uranium emitted a particle. But in the quantum world things are not so straight-forward. The particle and the cat now form a quantum system consisting of all possible outcomes of the experiment. One outcome includes a dead cat, another a live one. Neither becomes real until someone opens the box and looks inside. With that observation, and entire sequence of events-the particle jettisoned from the uranium, the release of the gas, the death of the cat-at once becomes real, giving the appearance of something that has taken time to transpire. This quantum paradox gets to the heart of my idea about the nature of the universe: the principles of quantum mechanics dictate severe limits on the certainty of our knowledge.
You may ask whether the universe really existed before you started looking at it. That's the same Schrödinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existen before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week you're going to find either a live cat or decayed piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe,the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago.
The universe and the observer exist as a pair. You can say the the universe only exists when there is an observer who can say "yes, I see the universe there." These small words-it looks like it was here-for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say the universe exists without observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistant theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of the observer, because who will read what is written by the recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for someone to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of conscious observers, our universe is dead.
So will the question "how come existence?" ever be answered? I doubt it. I'm not sure human intelligence is capable of answering it. Wo don't expect dogs or ants to figure out everything about the universe. And in the sweep of evolution, I doubt we're the last word in intelligence. There might be higher levels later. So why should we think that we're at the level to understand everything? At the same time I think it's great to ask the question and see how far you can go before you bump into a wall. If you say we're smart enough to figure everything out, that's a very arrogant thought. If you say we're not smart enough, that's a very humiliating thought. Will we ever understand why the universe came into being? I believe we'll at least know how. Why is a trickier thing. Look at Darwin and how he provided a simple explaination-evolution through natural selection-for what seemed an utterly intractable problem: how to explain the origin and diversity of life on Earth. Might physicists one day have a similarly clear understanding of the origins and perhaps, purpose, of the universe? In my opinion, absolutely.
------------------
[url="http://"http://www.leapinglaughter.org"]Dig a little deeper[/url]
As below, so above.
[This message has been edited by Sargatanus (edited 08-31-2002).]
#5
- earstwhile
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,728
- Joined: 13-December 01
- Gender:Male
- Location:That one place in Nevada.
Posted 31 August 2002 - 08:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Joveia:
If it's an expression of quantum mechanics, then the meaning of life is complete randominity and chaos.
If it's an expression of quantum mechanics, then the meaning of life is complete randominity and chaos.
Are you saying that, because of the randomness of chaoticness of life, we are fulfilling our purpose by contributing to it? Or are you saying that, because of the chaos, we will never actually find the meaning of life, because there's so much chaos? Or are you suggesting something entirely different, which I cannot think of after reading Sarg's post?
------------------
The Journalist- International Man of Markers
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
#6
- earstwhile
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,728
- Joined: 13-December 01
- Gender:Male
- Location:That one place in Nevada.
Posted 31 August 2002 - 08:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mag Steelglass:
I don't believe there's a meaning of life. Life is a pattern, it just works its own way, and I don't think it really has a meaning.
I don't believe there's a meaning of life. Life is a pattern, it just works its own way, and I don't think it really has a meaning.
Then why are we here? Why didn't our species die out if life has no meaning, since there would be no reason to be here in the first place? If there was no meaning to life, life would not exist, since there would be no reason to exist.
------------------
The Journalist- International Man of Markers
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
#7
- Ehhhhh...no?
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,501
- Joined: 10-February 02
- Location:Anytown, Anystate, USA
Posted 31 August 2002 - 10:14 PM
It's good to know that even after being gone for two weeks, The is still posting pointless crap.
I for one refuse to participate on grounds that it is entirely presumptuous.
------------------
dude3--dirt carrot for dust bunnies.
Quote of the Week- "It sure is hard coming up with a new quote every week." -dude3
I for one refuse to participate on grounds that it is entirely presumptuous.
------------------
dude3--dirt carrot for dust bunnies.
Quote of the Week- "It sure is hard coming up with a new quote every week." -dude3
"For a writing to be a writing it must continue to 'act' and to be readable even when what is called the author of the writing no longer answers for what he has written..."
Jacques Derrida, "Signature Event Context"
Jacques Derrida, "Signature Event Context"
#8
- fogey
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,768
- Joined: 23-January 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR
Posted 01 September 2002 - 04:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by The Journalist:
Then why are we here? Why didn't our species die out if life has no meaning, since there would be no reason to be here in the first place? If there was no meaning to life, life would not exist, since there would be no reason to exist.
Then why are we here? Why didn't our species die out if life has no meaning, since there would be no reason to be here in the first place? If there was no meaning to life, life would not exist, since there would be no reason to exist.
If you knock over the first domino in a series, and the rest fell down, would you ask why they fell down and what is the meaning of dominoes falling over? Do dominoes fall over to find out what is the meaning of dominoes falling over? I think life and dominoes are the same sort of thing, patterns that happen to cause the outcomes they cause through many interactions. There's no grand meaning of either.
------------------
"Typical Americanism. Somebody else does it so we have to do it wrong."
#9
- earstwhile
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,728
- Joined: 13-December 01
- Gender:Male
- Location:That one place in Nevada.
Posted 01 September 2002 - 07:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mag Steelglass:
If you knock over the first domino in a series, and the rest fell down, would you ask why they fell down and what is the meaning of dominoes falling over? Do dominoes fall over to find out what is the meaning of dominoes falling over? I think life and dominoes are the same sort of thing, patterns that happen to cause the outcomes they cause through many interactions. There's no grand meaning of either.
If you knock over the first domino in a series, and the rest fell down, would you ask why they fell down and what is the meaning of dominoes falling over? Do dominoes fall over to find out what is the meaning of dominoes falling over? I think life and dominoes are the same sort of thing, patterns that happen to cause the outcomes they cause through many interactions. There's no grand meaning of either.
The meaning of knocking dominos over is to watch dominos fall. We only do it for that reason. Dominos are not intelligent, so you cannot compare their falling habits to life. Doing so would be similar to asking why the compter turns on when you press a button. Is it trying to find the meaning on onness? Of course not. We want to do something with it. So we turn it on. We want to watch dominos fall. So we line them up and knock over the first one. Same thing. Neither thinks for itself, and cannot be compared to meaning of life, because they are not alive. The meaning of dominos falling over is to watch them fall. The meaning of pressing a button on the computer is to turn it on. That is just what they do, and not being alive, they can't contemplate their meaning.
Note: I repeated myself, and it was intentional. I'm not that dumb.
------------------
"Nobody pays attention anymore"
"What?"
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
#10
- earstwhile
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,728
- Joined: 13-December 01
- Gender:Male
- Location:That one place in Nevada.
Posted 01 September 2002 - 07:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dude3:
I for one refuse to participate on grounds that it is entirely presumptuous.
I for one refuse to participate on grounds that it is entirely presumptuous.
Then why did you write that?
Clearly, the meaning of dude3's life is to argue with me and to oppose himself in the process.
Sig Change
------------------
"Nobody pays attention anymore"
"What?"
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
#11
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 278
- Joined: 27-April 02
Posted 01 September 2002 - 08:35 PM
When you knock over a domino, the next one will topple as well. Then the next, and so forth. Same with life. The food chain is like dominoes. One animal eats another. Then, another animal eats it. Then the next, ad infinitum. Everything must die, must end, for without death, there cannot be life. No loose ends will be left.
Note: This topic is going haywire.
------------------
Disadvantage has its advantages: It lowers the enemy's guard.
Upcoming - Black Inferno, SOS, Survival
Note: This topic is going haywire.
------------------
Disadvantage has its advantages: It lowers the enemy's guard.
Upcoming - Black Inferno, SOS, Survival
#12
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,698
- Joined: 21-August 01
Posted 02 September 2002 - 05:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by dude3:
It's good to know that even after being gone for two weeks, The is still posting pointless crap.
I for one refuse to participate on grounds that it is entirely presumptuous.
It's good to know that even after being gone for two weeks, The is still posting pointless crap.
I for one refuse to participate on grounds that it is entirely presumptuous.
Your first annoying post in weeks.
Quote
Sarg
<****ing huge snip>
<****ing huge snip>
Ok Sarg I read some of your writings but it was just too large to hold my attention for much longer, so I'll reply to the beginning. First off, how do you know that past and present and future exist? It may seem likely but if past exists, then if it exists outside of minds (ours) then it must be stored somewhere. Where can the universe of every universal unit of time be stored? It happens this way when you think of the universe as a projector of film rolling. Einstein shows that with gravity, the film projector slows down, not quite nailing but pegging the theory that somehow, the universe isn't quite a clock. Einstein himself said that 'past present and future are only illusions, however persistent.' However I have yet to track the precise source of this statement in terms of his theorems, it may be that I need to revise them in order to understand them and put into into words that would support my argument. However I'll leave that...
Next off, this thought has often occurred to me - it's that anything we observe will be instantly false if we are projections of a virtual reality. Bizarre yes, simulations we could be, and then anything that we observe is only part of a 'simulated' universe designed to react to us in certain ways, unlike any 'real' universe. This is the ultimate un-disprovable theory, so I respect that it should be false. However I'd like to point it out, that one can never be too sure...
I've often that in a way, the universe could be part of a self-ordering equation. This equation would be the nearest kinship to God you could find in science - subatomic, quantum, a principle that is everywhere and goes about 'ordering' life into new substances which produce. If that is the case then the meaning of life is to develop an extremely elegant and perfect organism. As Mother Nature proves, the frequent path of her 'perfection' is by draconian conflict - the weak die to the strong. Since Jesus is essentially preaching the opposite gospel - shelter thy neighbour, I see him rather as an Interloper in God's vision. I'd much prefer the Jewish Yahweh.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
There are only 3 kinds of people; those who can count, and those who can't.
#13
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 213
- Joined: 12-January 02
Posted 02 September 2002 - 07:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by The Journalist:
But, us being the most (so far) intelligent species
But, us being the most (so far) intelligent species
That's a bit arrogant. We are the third most intelligent creatures on this planet. Don't you know mice are the smartest creatures, followed closely by Dolphins?
------------------
You've got a pet halibut?
Yes. I chose him out of thousands. I didn't like the others, they were all too flat.
#14
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 278
- Joined: 27-April 02
Posted 02 September 2002 - 11:32 AM
We are the most intelligent life-forms on this planet, save for some exceptions... 
------------------
Disadvantage has its advantages: It lowers the enemy's guard.
Upcoming - Black Inferno, SOS, Survival
------------------
Disadvantage has its advantages: It lowers the enemy's guard.
Upcoming - Black Inferno, SOS, Survival
#15
- Haruspex
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 1,443
- Joined: 21-April 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Minneapolis MN
Posted 02 September 2002 - 04:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Joveia:
Ok Sarg I read some of your writings but it was just too large to hold my attention for much longer, so I'll reply to the beginning. First off, how do you know that past and present and future exist? It may seem likely but if past exists, then if it exists outside of minds (ours) then it must be stored somewhere. Where can the universe of every universal unit of time be stored?
Ok Sarg I read some of your writings but it was just too large to hold my attention for much longer, so I'll reply to the beginning. First off, how do you know that past and present and future exist? It may seem likely but if past exists, then if it exists outside of minds (ours) then it must be stored somewhere. Where can the universe of every universal unit of time be stored?
That's the point Jov-If you read through it you'd see I stated that it's the job of those clumps of matter lucky enough to be blessed with consciousness to figure out the past, and the only thing the past is recorded in is the physical evidance around us, otherwise it would be as impossible to pinpoint as any quantum possibility within the future.
Quote
Next off, this thought has often occurred to me - it's that anything we observe will be instantly false if we are projections of a virtual reality. Bizarre yes, simulations we could be, and then anything that we observe is only part of a 'simulated' universe designed to react to us in certain ways, unlike any 'real' universe. This is the ultimate un-disprovable theory, so I respect that it should be false. However I'd like to point it out, that one can never be too sure...
Although these sorts of postulates are interesting and thought provoking they don't get us anywhere. When you break it down it's pretty rhetorical; "what if everything you know to be real isn't really real?" But it doesn't change anything does it? (For that matter, neither does my theory except maybe validating one's own existence when down). The fact remains that this reality, however real or not that it may be, is the one we have to work with. Might as well dig in and enjoy the ride.
Quote
I've often that in a way, the universe could be part of a self-ordering equation. This equation would be the nearest kinship to God you could find in science - subatomic, quantum, a principle that is everywhere and goes about 'ordering' life into new substances which produce.
Ah, the endless feedback loop. A good point about God I might add; similar to the one i would have made but I didn't want to go about dragging deities into a stricly human matter.
Quote
If that is the case then the meaning of life is to develop an extremely elegant and perfect organism. As Mother Nature proves, the frequent path of her 'perfection' is by draconian conflict - the weak die to the strong. Since Jesus is essentially preaching the opposite gospel - shelter thy neighbour, I see him rather as an Interloper in God's vision. I'd much prefer the Jewish Yahweh.
Ah, now you're barking up a different tree entirely. I'll quote the infamous Eliphas Leví here: "The more obstacles the will surmounts, the stronger it gets. That is why Jesus glorified sorrow and poverty." Or in other words, that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Think about it on a larger scale-a group of people, strong willed by the trials of life, united (idealy at least) by a common and unconditional brotherly love. Given the politics of the time that makes for a pretty strong factor in a draconian equation. Let's not forget the history of this faith, whcih is a little more draconian than its scripture.
------------------
[url="http://"http://www.leapinglaughter.org"]Dig a little deeper[/url]
As below, so above.
#16
- earstwhile
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,728
- Joined: 13-December 01
- Gender:Male
- Location:That one place in Nevada.
Posted 02 September 2002 - 10:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mordok:
That's a bit arrogant. We are the third most intelligent creatures on this planet. Don't you know mice are the smartest creatures, followed closely by Dolphins?
That's a bit arrogant. We are the third most intelligent creatures on this planet. Don't you know mice are the smartest creatures, followed closely by Dolphins?
Please leave Douglas Adams out of this. The meaning of life, in this case, is declaring arrogance. And of course, stomping out all theories of something being smarter than us. Which is arrogant. Funny how it works.
Joveia and Sarg are seriously screwing with my head.
Mag: You've been reading Xenocide, haven't you?
The past can never be certain, because of the accumulated errors of the continuous copying
------------------
"Nobody pays attention anymore"
"What?"
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
#17
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,698
- Joined: 21-August 01
Posted 03 September 2002 - 09:19 AM
Quote
That's the point Jov-If you read through it you'd see I stated that it's the job of those clumps of matter lucky enough to be blessed with consciousness to figure out the past, and the only thing the past is recorded in is the physical evidance around us, otherwise it would be as impossible to pinpoint as any quantum possibility within the future.
I thought you were saying that the past exists. Like a moment of time in which was stored everything that existed as of memory-record 1 second ago was preserved somehow. Seeing as how you were not, I do not have anything to quibble about.
Quote
Although these sorts of postulates are interesting and thought provoking they don't get us anywhere. When you break it down it's pretty rhetorical; "what if everything you know to be real isn't really real?" But it doesn't change anything does it? (For that matter, neither does my theory except maybe validating one's own existence when down). The fact remains that this reality, however real or not that it may be, is the one we have to work with. Might as well dig in and enjoy the ride.
That's why I made that provision for it.
Quote
Ah, the endless feedback loop. A good point about God I might add; similar to the one i would have made but I didn't want to go about dragging deities into a stricly human matter.
My version of God is that of a non-sentient mathematical equation that involves all of quantum subspace. As such, in a way, we subatomically are part of him (and the rest of the universe.) But do not take that as an endorsement of collectivity.
Quote
Ah, now you're barking up a different tree entirely. I'll quote the infamous Eliphas Leví here: "The more obstacles the will surmounts, the stronger it gets. That is why Jesus glorified sorrow and poverty." Or in other words, that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Think about it on a larger scale-a group of people, strong willed by the trials of life, united (idealy at least) by a common and unconditional brotherly love. Given the politics of the time that makes for a pretty strong factor in a draconian equation. Let's not forget the history of this faith, whcih is a little more draconian than its scripture.
He glorified it so that we could recognise it as being negative and end 'they brother's suffering'. He was against suffering and wanted a society of complete collectivists - people who would instantly sacrifice themselves for each other. About your synapsis of the 'totally united group'. Well, imagine a planet that had no competition whatsoever. That planet would, in the end, be substantially weaker than the planet which had experienced constant conflict and suffering throughout it's history. I understand that in technology people must become more and more specialised and need society more, but it doesn't call for total unification. What I envision is 2 groups of equal size that are more or less bent on dominating each other.
Not only is the terrorist threat providing an extremely negligable amount of conflict compared to the reaction that it inspires - but is unifying governments and forestalling the development of a 'partner' to the US, which will provide sufficient conflict for mankind to improve. Instead all I hear is this bull**** about international unification.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
[This message has been edited by Joveia (edited 09-03-2002).]
There are only 3 kinds of people; those who can count, and those who can't.
#18
- fogey
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,768
- Joined: 23-January 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR
Posted 03 September 2002 - 09:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by The Journalist:
Mag: You've been reading Xenocide, haven't you?
Mag: You've been reading Xenocide, haven't you?
I read it once about a year or two ago. I've forgotten most of it, and wasn't thinking about it at all when I made my posts.
------------------
"Typical Americanism. Somebody else does it so we have to do it wrong."
#20
- earstwhile
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,728
- Joined: 13-December 01
- Gender:Male
- Location:That one place in Nevada.
Posted 03 September 2002 - 08:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mag Steelglass:
I read it once about a year or two ago. I've forgotten most of it, and wasn't thinking about it at all when I made my posts.
I read it once about a year or two ago. I've forgotten most of it, and wasn't thinking about it at all when I made my posts.
Perhaps you were subconsciencely thinking about it, because your posts sound just like it.
Jov-It's about this family who must save the human inhabitants of a planet from a virus that causes the body to reject its own cells, on a planet inhabited by another sentient species, whos lives are governed by the virus. That's an extreme simplification, and you should read Speaker For the Dead too, first, to get more background, as well as Ender's Game. All of them are great books.Xenocide also involves genetically altered people, disabled by a form of OCD.
But back to the Meaning of Life
Maybe the Meaning of Life really is 42.
edit:UBB mishap
------------------
"Nobody pays attention anymore"
"What?"
[This message has been edited by The Journalist (edited 09-04-2002).]
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
#21
- fogey
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,768
- Joined: 23-January 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR
Posted 03 September 2002 - 10:00 PM
That's the answer to the ultimate question, not the meaning. I really don't remember much from Xenocide and the others that are part of its storyline, except that I found them dissapointing after Ender's Game. I don't think my ideas are from that, and I don't think I really thought about the theories and ideas in them very much, either.
------------------
"Typical Americanism. Somebody else does it so we have to do it wrong."
------------------
"Typical Americanism. Somebody else does it so we have to do it wrong."
#22
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,698
- Joined: 21-August 01
Posted 06 September 2002 - 03:29 AM
From what I know, the plot is that a bunch of aliens with FTL go to Earth to try and annihilate humanity. A few kids educated in battle school somehow beat them off. Well done for humanity! (Cough) and God who Is Protecting Our Young *cough*. So I wasn't very happy about potentially reading that.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
There are only 3 kinds of people; those who can count, and those who can't.
#23
- earstwhile
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,728
- Joined: 13-December 01
- Gender:Male
- Location:That one place in Nevada.
Posted 06 September 2002 - 06:10 PM
Well, the race that was destroyed was ignorant, because in their race, all on;y one member is intelligent. If you're a Starcraft player, think of this race of the Zerg. But, the Overmind is not evil.
------------------
"Nobody pays attention anymore"
"What?"
------------------
"Nobody pays attention anymore"
"What?"
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
#24
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,698
- Joined: 21-August 01
Posted 07 September 2002 - 02:59 AM
Then a satire upon dictatorship?
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
There are only 3 kinds of people; those who can count, and those who can't.
#25
- fogey
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,768
- Joined: 23-January 00
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR
Posted 07 September 2002 - 04:08 PM
Jov, the plot is much better than that. It's a good book, you should read it.
------------------
"Typical Americanism. Somebody else does it so we have to do it wrong."
------------------
"Typical Americanism. Somebody else does it so we have to do it wrong."
