Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Fate

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 05:34:27 AM
Some say that every thing happens for a reason is it self the most harmonious and beautiful thing -- even more than music.

Some say the best music is a finite subjective emotionally intensive illustration of the infinite, an imperfect existential rendering of the perfect.

But ultimately, saying existence is meaningless and miserable is just as deluded as saying it is meaningful and happy.

Nihilism helps us stop projecting our attitudes onto the universe, and helps us start seeing it more clearly. :)

It only is what it is. But 99% of humans can't face this and need to insert creators and magic and goofy shit. But getting upset with humans for this is kind of like getting upset at the mosquitoes who fly into the bug zapper. They can't help it and you couldn't reason with them if you tried.
Lettin' nillas know.

I hope our aryan overlords will emerge form their l secret base below antartica and wipe all of those under 500 of IQ And don't have the ability to mindtravel into the Xerces Galaxy.

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 05:58:43 AM
There is no underlying music in the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAPNfKADA7Y

lol. sorry had to do it.

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 06:08:18 AM
There is no underlying music in the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAPNfKADA7Y

lol. sorry had to do it.

No, thank you. I stand corrected. not on the god bit, but on how ambient noises can be quite pleasantly musical and simultaneously and randomly emanate from interstellar space. There is music to the universe.

This is a good listen.

As I expected the top comments relate this to being "alive" and having some magic intelligence.
Lettin' nillas know.

I hope our aryan overlords will emerge form their l secret base below antartica and wipe all of those under 500 of IQ And don't have the ability to mindtravel into the Xerces Galaxy.

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 06:58:48 AM
Why is it, wolfgang, that you must ridicule people who have found what brings them purpose?
You may not need any purpose. But you are not everyone, and everyone is not you.
Those people have discovered something that you have not.
Because you don't know about it, does that make them stupid?
Granted, there are many 'believers' that really have no idea why they believe in the weird stuff they believe in.
Or even what it is, that they believe in: old men sitting on clouds, etc.
But they are not the only people who have an understanding beyond the purely physical.
I often wonder about this.
It's a lot like leftists hating the 'rich', for having something they don't have.
Even to the point of wanting to destroy them, for having it.
Do you secretly want this thing believers have, but have no idea what it is, why they would value it, and no idea how to get it?
You don't have to say.
Squawk!

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 07:14:32 AM
If this is so, problems arise for determinism: if all universes are determined, yet all universes are possible, then the fact of determinism bears no relation to what may or may not happen in our universe.
Yes, I'd like a clarification on this specific part. I don't understand how infinite possible universes negates, in any way, the set path within any one particular universe. Perhaps you're saying that, although determined, the future could still take any theoretical course because we could be in any theoretical universe? But if this is indeed what you mean, I don't see how it makes a difference whether there are infinite universes, or just this one. In either case, we do not -CAN not- know the position of every existent molecule at every moment in time. So, whether everything is determined or not, it makes no difference in terms of how we approach the universe/reality itself. I think the evolution of our ability to grasp "possibility" as a concept was a tool enabling us to somewhat surpass our own biological(i.e., sensory and data-processing) limits, allowing us to weigh different potential outcomes before they become extant, thus giving us some ability as a sort of biological time-machine by living in not only "the" future, but many possible "futures." The downside being that we often get swept up into silly notions like luck and free will, going so far as to see things as vital central aspects of our human nature, and so come to mistake the tool for the goal.
HE WHO REAPS STORMS, SOWS WINDS. HE WHO SOWS WINDS, REAPS STORMS.

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart."
-Ecclesiastes 7:2

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 07:27:47 AM
Mistaking the tool for the goal is the hallmark of humans.
The tool being the mind, ending up with the mind being all there is.
The way to all knowledge, is the suspending of the mind, altogether.
All knowledge exists. But not in the mind.
So where is it?
Nowhere that the mind is able to go.
The desire for knowledge is the surest way of never knowing it.


Squawk!

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 07:33:37 AM
Why is it, wolfgang, that you must ridicule people who have found what brings them purpose?
You may not need any purpose. But you are not everyone, and everyone is not you.


This is a death metal site G.
Lettin' nillas know.

I hope our aryan overlords will emerge form their l secret base below antartica and wipe all of those under 500 of IQ And don't have the ability to mindtravel into the Xerces Galaxy.

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 08:48:48 AM
If this is so, problems arise for determinism: if all universes are determined, yet all universes are possible, then the fact of determinism bears no relation to what may or may not happen in our universe.
Yes, I'd like a clarification on this specific part. I don't understand how infinite possible universes negates, in any way, the set path within any one particular universe. Perhaps you're saying that, although determined, the future could still take any theoretical course because we could be in any theoretical universe? But if this is indeed what you mean, I don't see how it makes a difference whether there are infinite universes, or just this one. In either case, we do not -CAN not- know the position of every existent molecule at every moment in time. So, whether everything is determined or not, it makes no difference in terms of how we approach the universe/reality itself. I think the evolution of our ability to grasp "possibility" as a concept was a tool enabling us to somewhat surpass our own biological(i.e., sensory and data-processing) limits, allowing us to weigh different potential outcomes before they become extant, thus giving us some ability as a sort of biological time-machine by living in not only "the" future, but many possible "futures." The downside being that we often get swept up into silly notions like luck and free will, going so far as to see things as vital central aspects of our human nature, and so come to mistake the tool for the goal.

It's a very slightly different interpretation of the word "determined" in each case, I think.  In the normal view of determinism, all events (effects) are determined by the original cause (Big Bang, God, Cosmic Penis Monster, whatever).  However, if the deeper levels of physical universes are probabilistic to any extent (as QP suggests?), and all possibilities must happen (again, as QP suggests?), then everything which might exist does exist, in some corner of the "multiverse": that is, both everything and every thing are determined, rather than only one singular complex string of cause/effect relationships.  I believe the problem, as far as I see it, is this: while all realities are determined ("at all times", from our human perspective), no one reality is determined at any one point, though it will be seen to have been determined (in hindsight).  I'm a little bit too sober at the moment to fully grasp the idea myself, but something in my brain is saying "there's a schism, here, between what supposedly must happen and what must happen in reality".  Perhaps to say "problems arise for determinism" is wrong, and it is more correct to say "problems arise for what I understand to be the commonly held view of determinism".

On a similar note, my girlfriend (a psychologist, but interested in philosophy to a good extent) suggested that an individual might move his/her awareness/consciousness from a body in one reality to the related body in another, in some circumstances (we've had some pretty bizarre [some weirdos might say "psychic" or similar] experiences to do with "other realities", "divination", "past lives", etc., though not as goofy/retarded as those phrases suggest - don't worry, we're sceptical).  Perhaps to say "an individual might move" is misleading: it's not "free will", in the traditional sense of the term, in that whether one's awareness moves or not is, as far as I remember from what she told me, determined as well.  However, the theory does allow for an "individual" to move out of one possible sequence of events and into another, thus the experience of a life need not necessarily extend through a sole reality.  I'll ask her to fully flesh out the idea, since it pertains to this discussion, and I can't quite do it justice.

Re: Fate
March 30, 2012, 09:54:13 AM
"and it is more correct to say "problems arise for what I understand to be the commonly held view of determinism"."


You took it home right there.
Lettin' nillas know.

I hope our aryan overlords will emerge form their l secret base below antartica and wipe all of those under 500 of IQ And don't have the ability to mindtravel into the Xerces Galaxy.