Jubatus Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 I wrote this several months ago in the Swamp as a reply, but then there was only one person taking it somewhat seriously up for discussion and not much at that. So, since this new forum for serious discussion has been created I figure I'll bring it up again; I'm sure it will bring about a lengthy discussion. To what end I ask myself and can answer nothing but to satisfy my curiousity on a few matters (might reveal what specifically later on). Should anyone wonder why I still have this piece of text I will offer two reasons: Firstly, because when I write what I know will be larger chunks of text for a forum I always write them in Notepad first, because I've experienced several times that the page might crash while I'm writing (and when writing something over again from the beginning it never gets written as well as the first time around, right? ). Secondly, I've kept it around because this text, though rather cruelly, encompasses my view on existence. Onwards to straight copy and pasting!: Philosophy, eh? Man's continued quest to rationalize existence through observance and contemplation. I'm not a follower of any philosophy/philosopher(s), I have my own view on things so bear with as I rant on with lack of an academic approach. The meaning of life. I believe there is none other than what each individual creates for themself. In order to believe so I don't necessarily need to dismiss the existence of dieties (or a single diety). Like us they could simply be entities cast into creation by chance. Such creatures are per definiton more powerful and insightful than mere mortals thus enabling them to create reasons for existence for us, but not necessarily for themselves beyond that of ruling our fates nor any reason different to those we mortals might create for ourselves. Even an entity or group of entities being responsible for creating 'the all' may not claim any convincing meaning for their own existence. It all boils down to knowing. How can anyone in perfect truth claim to definately know anything other than existence is? Let's take the Christian God; he is claimed to be creator of everything, and to be the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. How can he truly know that? He may feel that he is one with everything, he may feel that he is the ultimate being knowing all of what he perceives to be. But how can he ever know not to be a victim of an illusion like we might be? A more elaborate illusion in nature but not necessarily in craft. I say 'we' even though there might only be this one 'me' in existence. Despite all the revelating visions and boosts of enlightenment one might be exposed to, and of which none can be truthfully stated as being true, one can never truly claim allcertain knowledge. So, given that you truly can't know anything beyond the fact that something exists, why even bother trying to find meaning and truth? Because everything is relative. Truth is in the eye of the beholder by simply not even questioning its truth (Truth's truth...weird term). What we perceive as truth is truth for us, even if it's not truly true. Free will. I believe there is no such thing. Every thought and action is inevitable, a product of our inheritage and the influence of our surroundings. To claim a free will is simply not bothering with looking beyond a very, very complex system of action/reaction that is our behaviour. Chaos is only chaos until you can perceive the entire complex structure as it is. (As a sidenote this argument can be used to nullify the existence of God. Goes as this: No free will -> no responsibility -> no guilt -> no judgement, and since God is the Big Judge in the Sky, he can therefor not be.) But again, we're moving into the realm of relativity in the understanding that any accusation of guilt can be traced back to Creation if thus inclined; he killed because of his upbringing, his parents raised him like that because of their upbringing, etc. etc.. Balance. Everything in existence seeks balance, although not always obvious and at times even unbeknownst to itself. If existence is the continious result of the conflict between opposing forces then everything is justified if existence must be justified. Alot of classical oppositions are wrong in my belief, because anything merged with its opposite must per definition result in the annihilation of both, snuffed out of existence so to speak. Black and white does not annihilate eachother, they just merge into a new thing, gray. To find the opposite of anything simply put anti in front of it; anti-white, anti-good (not evil, because evil is motivated by the same as good, selfinterest, but I'll return to that later), anti-down. It sounds abstract and to find the opposition to everything we need to look at the idea of an anti-Universe, something not easily understood nor imagined beyond the notion. How do you picture anti-white in your mind for example? Egocentricity. I believe everybody to be egoistic, nomatter how noble your actions and motivations are. An urge to do good is a selfserving desire to feel good by doing good. An example: A compassionate man gets the offer from Satan to replace another soul in Hell, the other soul will be freed but the man will take his place in eternal torment. His choice to do so is still egoistic; he knows he will feel bad about not rescuing a soul from Hell when he had the chance, he would be tormented by his own consciousness. Serving his own egoistic need to do good in order to feel good he takes the soul's place knowing that although he is now trapped in Hell he has rescued another from it. Hence evil is not the opposite to good, since both are motivated from selfinterest. Evil and good are only defined by what different actions we take in order to fulfill our needs and wants. Some actions will please your surroundings, others will hurt them, but basically they serve the same purpose - to quench desires. Freedom. This is linked to free will in the essence both are non-existent in my belief. Freedom is subject to relativity as everything else; you're as free as you feel, but true freedom only comes with non-existence quite paradoxically. Needs and desires are bonds binding you from freedom. Having your desires and needs fulfilled to contentment might make you feel free, but nonetheless you're still bound by them. Only by not existing will the needs and desires seize to be, but you're not there to enjoy that freedom. A paradox. True freedom cannot by nature be experienced. Here endeth my ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by Jubatus ....; I'm sure it will bring about a lengthy discussion. I stand corrected Does no one here care to discuss existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by Jubatus The meaning of life. I believe there is none other than what each individual creates for themself. In order to believe so I don't necessarily need to dismiss the existence of dieties (or a single diety). I think it is even simpler than that. I think life just is. At least, that's what I think at the current time... new data may change my opinion in the future. But I look at the Earth from the outside and pretend to not be a human being for a moment... is man more or less significant to the biomass of the planet than, say, ants? Ants, by themselves, comprise 10 - 15 % of the planet's biomass. Man's significance only matters to man. The Earth cares not if man resides there or not, in fact, there is compelling evidence to indicate that it may be better off without man. Therefore, life is. Nothing else... it just is. The difference (one of many!) between us and ants is that we are self-aware. Further more, we are aware that others are self-aware and so we have many methods of symbolic communication to interact and even discuss our awareness. Man is relatively new in the Universe (as far as we know) and very likely an accident of millions of years of evolution... billions of years of development within the universe. Originally posted by Jubatus It all boils down to knowing. How can anyone in perfect truth claim to definately know anything other than existence is? Let's take the Christian God; he is claimed to be creator of everything, and to be the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. How can he truly know that? I think that even more interesting is to consider that the universe is not only infinate into the future, but into the past as well. If that's the case, then the bubble of existance that the billions of billions of galaxies resides has been expanding and contracting forever into the past as it will forever into the future. That precludes a creator. Originally posted by Jubatus Free will. I believe there is no such thing. Every thought and action is inevitable, a product of our inheritage and the influence of our surroundings. I think I agree (with the "every thought..." statement) but for different reasons. If the universe is infinately old, then every possibility of every existance is inevitable, so eventually, everything will happen. But that, in my opinion, doesn't preclude free-will. If I choose to get up and refill my coffee now or wait until the end of the post, the one thing that is certain is, whatever I decide, the choice was mine. Eventually, however, my other me will do (or already has done) the other choice. Originally posted by Jubatus Balance. Everything in existence seeks balance, Newton covered this with "for every action, there is an equal, but opposite reaction." This law would seem, to me anyway, to apply in many non-physical aspects of our lives, i.e. relationships, etc. Though for different reasons. But balance seems to be an apt description. Originally posted by Jubatus Egocentricity. I believe everybody to be egoistic, I've recently been having some very similar thoughts. However, I called it statusism. I think everyone seeks status in life... In fact, I challenge anyone to show me a individual that does not crave, benefit or enjoy status. Even the Dali Lama must feel content and perhaps even want the status of his country restored, which will in turn increase his own status. Originally posted by Jubatus Freedom. .... you're as free as you feel, but true freedom only comes with non-existence quite paradoxically. Needs and desires are bonds binding you from freedom. "As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress." ___-- J. Robert Oppenheimer Originally posted by Jubatus Here endeth my ramblings. And mine Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 14, 2003 Author Share Posted June 14, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker I think it is even simpler than that. I think life just is..... But I look at the Earth from the outside and pretend to not be a human being for a moment... is man more or less significant to the biomass of the planet than, say, ants? Ants, by themselves, comprise 10 - 15 % of the planet's biomass. Man's significance only matters to man. The Earth cares not if man resides there or not, in fact, there is compelling evidence to indicate that it may be better off without man. .... Man is relatively new in the Universe (as far as we know) and very likely an accident of millions of years of evolution... billions of years of development within the universe. Agreed. Man has put himself on a way too high pedestal thinking himself allimportant; that the entire being of Creation revolves around him and that it has to be justified to him and not the other way around. I suppose it's due to lack of perspective, in our everyday lifes we fail to fathom just how virtually insignificant we really are next to the age and volume of the Universe. Arrogance comes easy with a narrow vision. Originally posted by SkinWalker I think that even more interesting is to consider that the universe is not only infinate into the future, but into the past as well. If that's the case, then the bubble of existance that the billions of billions of galaxies resides has been expanding and contracting forever into the past as it will forever into the future. That precludes a creator. Not necessarily, but I see your point. Originally posted by SkinWalker I think I agree (with the "every thought..." statement) but for different reasons. If the universe is infinately old, then every possibility of every existance is inevitable, so eventually, everything will happen. But that, in my opinion, doesn't preclude free-will. If I choose to get up and refill my coffee now or wait until the end of the post, the one thing that is certain is, whatever I decide, the choice was mine. Eventually, however, my other me will do (or already has done) the other choice. Disregarding your theory on infinite 'I's and focusing on what you call your 'choice' is exactly what I refer to as not being a choice at all. What we do is inevitable, and what makes it seem like free will is the vast complicity that lies behind every action we take, every thought we think. True, doing one thing out of several options can be called a choice, but understand it for what it is; simply what you ended up doing, not a result of some glorious 'free will', which I again believe is man thinking too highly of himself. Originally posted by SkinWalker "As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress." ___-- J. Robert Oppenheimer If this is meant to dismiss my argument, you might want to read the full version again and take note of the word 'relative'. Yes, in existence we can be relatively free but never truly free. And as for Oppenheimer's sentence 'free to think what they will', well, that's where I say that what we think is not a product of any free will but, as mentioned above, a product of a vastly complex array of causality (and before someone jumps in and points out that this is exactly the viewpoints of the French guy in Reloaded I must again clarify that this was written many months before that movie and thought of years before that again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 I apologize for not posting names... just picked some quotes I don't agree with fully Man is relatively new in the Universe (as far as we know) and very likely an accident of millions of years of evolution... billions of years of development within the universe. I would very much like not to believe in this. I don't believe it to be an accident, I mean self aware life. Of course it's by accident that our planet turned out to be biofriendly and the way our biolanguage (genes and all that stuff) looks like is also accidental. As soon as life appeared we were destined to appear, it was just a matter of time. It's a new step of evolution of knowledge bearing organisms (alive organisms). Free will. I believe there is no such thing. Every thought and action is inevitable, a product of our inheritage and the influence of our surroundings. It's absulutely right in my understanding the way Skin describes it. The overwhelming mislead in free will/fate problem is in understanding of what it is. If thinking that free will by definition has only one main property: to choose randomly, than it is the same mistake many fatalists make in describing their fate preference. Free will means to choose individually and not randomly, these are incomparable words from different topics, individuality is our subjective property as is free will while random things is out there on the objective side of our reality. I can again explain it in terms of multiverse if you like, but I'm afraid people will soon begin to fall sick about it. "As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress." J. Robert Oppenheimer I'm with Jubatus here. Again this is a freedom with a trick. There is no logic in these matters (I mean such abstractions are just out of it). The true freedom Oppenheimer is refering to is only "sense of freedom". I can imagine thousands inconsistent but not illogical limitations for that statement. Por ejemplo: we're have no freedom of our words to perfectly or accurately discribe our thoughts, we're not free to think of unknowable to us, our will is not free cuaze it's limited by our knowledge of things that can be willed by us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 16, 2003 Author Share Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul I would very much like not to believe in this. I don't believe it to be an accident, I mean self aware life. Of course it's by accident that our planet turned out to be biofriendly and the way our biolanguage (genes and all that stuff) looks like is also accidental. As soon as life appeared we were destined to appear, it was just a matter of time. It's a new step of evolution of knowledge bearing organisms (alive organisms). This, again, I contribute to man holding himself in too high esteem. Evolution or not, that we are here by mere chance should not rationally cause any dismay or angst. Simply regard the opposite scenario, that we never came to be about and ask yourself: If I never came into existence would I be around to feel sorry about it? That we somehow should be the design of some greater force for some higher purpose is a paradox of our own importance to ourselves; On one side we would feel a higher importance for being a part of something grand, yet on the other side we at the same time give up our possibility to make of ourselves whatever we might fancy. I figure this originates from human's basic need for safety as it is easier to let yourself be guided through life than figuring out your path on your own. Originally posted by Homuncul It's absulutely right in my understanding the way Skin describes it. The overwhelming mislead in free will/fate problem is in understanding of what it is. If thinking that free will by definition has only one main property: to choose randomly, than it is the same mistake many fatalists make in describing their fate preference. Free will means to choose individually and not randomly, these are incomparable words from different topics, individuality is our subjective property as is free will while random things is out there on the objective side of our reality. I can again explain it in terms of multiverse if you like, but I'm afraid people will soon begin to fall sick about it. Again, this is neglecting to observe the more likely possibility, that causality is such an immensily vast system so complex that we can hardly start to fathom the enormous amount of details entailed therein. We can easily grasp the concept of action/reaction as the basic tenet, but mapping the entire system down to it's every basest parts is an undertaking that might never succeed. It's simpler just to view it as a random chaos and let it be. I'm compelled to pick up free will for closer examination. If all what we do and think are not products of causality then on what are our choices based? I think we all can agree that choices are not totally random products of chaos but that they must have at least some foundation, that being personality (herein lies taste, preferences) and experience (which shape the part of personality in charge of preferences). Now, if the choices we make through this foundation are not results of the incomprehensible vast system of causality, then what? Is the argument for a free will, that if we cannot readily present our reason why we choose the red ball over the blue, as we believe ourself impartial to both colours, then that must be a free choice could have gone either way? If we looped the event in time 1,000 times then we would roughly have chosen the blue ball as often as the red? This leads us to the assumption of infinite parallel universes, each a result of different fallouts to the same choices. To me this idea is yet another easy way out of facing up to the possibility that we are not glorious free 'souls', that what happens happens and that alone. Rationally, there should be nothing to fear from this, it shouldn't imbibe some dread feeling that what we do is pointless. Just simply accept that we most likely are pointless, and our importance is relative only to ourselves. Bomb the Bass said it well in Bug Powder Dust "Que sera, sera - just leave it alone." Originally posted by Homuncul I'm with Jubatus here. Again this is a freedom with a trick. There is no logic in these matters (I mean such abstractions are just out of it). The true freedom Oppenheimer is refering to is only "sense of freedom". I can imagine thousands inconsistent but not illogical limitations for that statement. Por ejemplo: we're have no freedom of our words to perfectly or accurately discribe our thoughts, we're not free to think of unknowable to us, our will is not free cuaze it's limited by our knowledge of things that can be willed by us. Already addressed in the abovementioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 On one side we would feel a higher importance for being a part of something grand, yet on the other side we at the same time give up our possibility to make of ourselves whatever we might fancy. I figure this originates from human's basic need for safety as it is easier to let yourself be guided through life than figuring out your path on your own. Of course it's easier but that is exactly what most people don't do, they create their own path like some people become rich, scientists envent new theories correspondent to their own world view and so on. Again, this is neglecting to observe the more likely possibility, that causality is such an immensily vast system so complex that we can hardly start to fathom the enormous amount of details entailed therein. We can easily grasp the concept of action/reaction as the basic tenet, but mapping the entire system down to it's every basest parts is an undertaking that might never succeed. It's simpler just to view it as a random chaos and let it be. It's not a simple chaos and not perceived by us like it, but you're right it's simplier to avoid unneeded complications when they doesn't matter. When I say that they don't matter I really mean it. I guess you think, we can't measure causality implicitly, that's why we invented probability as a justification for it. And then we're illusory in our probable decisions because actually only one is "made" (that's an illusion too) and it's due to causes adopted. A good example of fate. It's inductionist way with words: observe, measure and then extrapolate that i don't like, the proof of something is not about that. It's about better explanation and problem solving. And as you can see your fatalist point does not solve the problem of discribing your reality. By discribing I mean that your theory must solve problem it perperts, leave as few as possible things unexplained and survive the criticism (and of course further be tested but that is not the case). So you speak of the world with a overwhelming purpose (actually without one). And every decision making is just an illusion of people trying to justify their inability to perceive causality implicitly. But that is just untrue, of course we can't observe and measure causality, cauze it's always one step ahead of us. For example I assume that we can measure every cause and response till this moment (while physically we can't ) in an effort of trying to make so-called decision (which doesn't exist) about it.This is just misleading because everytime we try to think to make prefernce towards one decision and not the other we just lose some collection of causes that we just couldn't add in our calculation. And that all doesn't solve the problem of discribing better than when decision making mechanism allowed. Actually when it's allowed we we don't have to think of causality and measure it implicitly, cauze it's unknowable and too complex to be regarded as better explanation, but we can understand it in principle (that's what we did). Then we use our probability method to discribe the complexity of causality. Another thing about your fatalist point is that you try to discribe something in terms of another entity, making your theory of fate use a complexity of theory of decision making. And so your illusory fate is just unneed complication for now. I don't say that it's false then, I just say that it's unsatisfactory at the moment. This leads us to the assumption of infinite parallel universes, each a result of different fallouts to the same choices. To me this idea is yet another easy way out of facing up to the possibility that we are not glorious free 'souls', that what happens happens and that alone. Rationally, there should be nothing to fear from this, it shouldn't imbibe some dread feeling that what we do is pointless. Just simply accept that we most likely are pointless, and our importance is relative only to ourselves. Bomb the Bass said it well in Bug Powder Dust "Que sera, sera - just leave it alone." For me your point is somehow frightening. I can agree with an importance thing but I can't possibly agree with our humans being pointless. We all have a purpose, it's just the difference that we discribe it to be. You say that our purpose is independed from us and so ain't worth hoping for anything and everything's pointless, I say that purpose is what we create for us individually by choosing it. There's another thing about that proving my side. We actually don't have one purpose, but a collection of independent and dependent purposes that we choose from. Independent could be our genes purpose to replicate knowledge (that's their solely task), our dependent purpose is por ejemplo our purpose for living in the world of peace (in response to that some people go to green peace or they just follow another purpose of gaining money, then they lie to themselves). And ther's no way arguing that because you yourself have a purpose of living pointless life which you chose individually (but that is really what I think you did not). Pointless may it seem for you, it is not. And in the end if you are not convinced that freedom of will is a fundamental part of us, self aware beings maybe you'll be encouraged to read Frank Tipler's Physics of Immortality and that'll make both of us feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 17, 2003 Author Share Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Of course it's easier but that is exactly what most people don't do, they create their own path like some people become rich, scientists envent new theories correspondent to their own world view and so on. Yes, and maybe they're people that do not believe in some grand scheme, but that's besides the point. I'm talking about the bigger picture here, the fate of mankind. We can believe in God and hope for his deliverance or we can take matters into our own hands, ie. spread out into space. But here comes the messy part, many people are quite skilled at mixing one with another, science in the name of God, or religion in science, which in my eyes make them mad, hypocrites to either cause or maybe even right, who knows? It's a simple question of what drives us and how we limit (or unlimit) ourselves by it. Originally posted by Homuncul It's not a simple chaos and not perceived by us like it, but you're right it's simplier to avoid unneeded complications when they doesn't matter. When I say that they don't matter I really mean it. I didn't say it was chaos, quite the opposite. Originally posted by Homuncul I guess you think, we can't measure causality implicitly, that's why we invented probability as a justification for it. And then we're illusory in our probable decisions because actually only one is "made" (that's an illusion too) and it's due to causes adopted. A good example of fate. It's inductionist way with words: observe, measure and then extrapolate that i don't like, the proof of something is not about that. It's about better explanation and problem solving. And as you can see your fatalist point does not solve the problem of discribing your reality. By discribing I mean that your theory must solve problem it perperts, leave as few as possible things unexplained and survive the criticism (and of course further be tested but that is not the case). It is exactly because the system is so vastly complex that I cannot just solve the problem of proving it. It's a matter of believe, but one which I think could be proven scientifically given time and means. And where exactly does causality not describe existence? Originally posted by Homuncul So you speak of the world with a overwhelming purpose (actually without one). And every decision making is just an illusion of people trying to justify their inability to perceive causality implicitly. But that is just untrue, of course we can't observe and measure causality, cauze it's always one step ahead of us. It's untrue because we can't observe and measure it? We can observe it though not quite perceive it's every little detail. It is as I keep saying that the system of causality is so immensily complex that it would take a supercomputer the size of a planet (just painting an explainatory picture here) to keep track of all the calculations behind every event. I do believe that with age and experience we gain more and more insight into causality to the point where we can predict the most likely outcome of more and more intricate events. And on the same note, I believe that if a mind were to live for millions of years observing the events in a universe it will develop a sense of future events, due to its experiences of how things usually turn out given certain pre-events. That sense will probably never be 100% accurate but its accuracy will grow in time. Originally posted by Homuncul For example I assume that we can measure every cause and response till this moment (while physically we can't ) in an effort of trying to make so-called decision (which doesn't exist) about it.This is just misleading because everytime we try to think to make prefernce towards one decision and not the other we just lose some collection of causes that we just couldn't add in our calculation. And that all doesn't solve the problem of discribing better than when decision making mechanism allowed. Actually when it's allowed we we don't have to think of causality and measure it implicitly, cauze it's unknowable and too complex to be regarded as better explanation, but we can understand it in principle (that's what we did). Then we use our probability method to discribe the complexity of causality. You're writing this like I said you had to know all the reasons for one's decisions when I'm actually saying that we don't, and that because we can't (yet) it can lead us to believe in free will. Other than that you're speaking my case. Originally posted by Homuncul Another thing about your fatalist point is that you try to discribe something in terms of another entity, making your theory of fate use a complexity of theory of decision making. And so your illusory fate is just unneed complication for now. I don't say that it's false then, I just say that it's unsatisfactory at the moment. Understand one thing: I'm not a fatalist in the classical sense, that everything is predetermined, but the difference is subtle. The description of a fatalist weighs heavily on the predetermination, where as I just say Que sera, sera. That means that I do believe that things only end up one way along one road, so basically saying the same as it being predetermined. It's the subtle difference between these two sentences: "Everything is predetermined, so what happens is inevitable." and "What happens, happens, so it is inevitable." Fate an unneeded complication? What's complicated about it? Unsatisfactory? So, you, like so many religious types, prefer to 'chose' what you believe in by personal taste than to believe in what might be right no matter how it disagrees with you? And before you throw that back at me, just know that I'm contemplating what I observe and hold no true beliefs - I'm 27 years old in an ancient, vast universe, and I've only ever lived on this little speck of a planet...What the hell do I know? But again, despite my next to nil age in comparison to the Universe I can utilize centuries of knowledge gathered by those before me....But what the hell did they know? Originally posted by Homuncul For me your point is somehow frightening. I can agree with an importance thing but I can't possibly agree with our humans being pointless. We all have a purpose, it's just the difference that we discribe it to be. You say that our purpose is independed from us and so ain't worth hoping for anything and everything's pointless, I say that purpose is what we create for us individually by choosing it. You need to learn to read what I write. You assume that I'm saying it's not worth hoping for anything since our existence is pointless. That's a common reaction from opponents to fatalism. Existing ought to be purpose enough to act, but why should it trouble you so much that in the big picture of the Universe we are virtually pointless? This need to raise man high on a pedestal of glory is beyond me. Afraid of the primordial Darkness, are we? Our purpose independed from us? If you mean that it isn't intemplated on us from the beginning and that we end up with a purpose through causality, then sure. But of course backtracking through the causality it could be said it was indeed intemplated on us from the beginning Then you go to arguing my case, that what purpose we have is what we create for ourselves. Originally posted by Homuncul There's another thing about that proving my side. We actually don't have one purpose, but a collection of independent and dependent purposes that we choose from. Independent could be our genes purpose to replicate knowledge (that's their solely task), our dependent purpose is por ejemplo our purpose for living in the world of peace (in response to that some people go to green peace or they just follow another purpose of gaining money, then they lie to themselves). And ther's no way arguing that because you yourself have a purpose of living pointless life which you chose individually (but that is really what I think you did not). Pointless may it seem for you, it is not. You're actually not saying anything here I'm not saying, but with a different understanding, but need to address this '...you yourself have a purpose of living pointless life...'. It's again about relativity; my existence has purpose that I create for myself, but with the understanding that in the big picture it is pointless. That does not invoke some fear or sadness or anger within me. My only fear is that there might be something after death for I do so long for non-existence. What you're saying is simply that you put much more weight to purposes created for ourselves, that that is enough for you to feel justified. I simply do not. Originally posted by Homuncul And in the end if you are not convinced that freedom of will is a fundamental part of us, self aware beings maybe you'll be encouraged to read Frank Tipler's Physics of Immortality and that'll make both of us feel better. And why don't you lay down your books and observe existence and be convinced of causality and not be frightened by it? But as a final note: I'm not a convinced follower of anything but nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 All right, so I misunderstood you in some way, so argument now would mainly be to "knowable causality" and why it is not as you think it is. Another question is also relevant here, because now I'm confused? Do you believe in free will? If that is how you differ from classical fatalist then I can understand everything And why don't you lay down your books and observe existence and be convinced of causality and not be frightened by it? Some people unlike us, modest mortals, possess enormous imagination and intuition for discribing things on the limits of those things being what they are. That's the case with Tipler. What you're saying is simply that you put much more weight to purposes created for ourselves, that that is enough for you to feel justified. I simply do not (chose?) Why do you then go only half way, isn't it your weakness that you take part of some understanding you call fate, mix it with what you 've been told since your childhood and extrapolate on your world-view. Maybe you need to invent a new ternminology. Or if living like that is your point , than my argument is irrelevant. Second, my point is based on the assumptions about our universe being nonclassical so viewing it in terms of multiverse, see below... You need to learn to read what I write. You assume that I'm saying it's not worth hoping for anything since our existence is pointless. That's a common reaction from opponents to fatalism. Existing ought to be purpose enough to act, but why should it trouble you so much that in the big picture of the Universe we are virtually pointless? This need to raise man high on a pedestal of glory is beyond me. Afraid of the primordial Darkness, are we? Both ways "Predetermination" and "Que sera" are the same in it's consistency and falseness like the solipsism theory for example. Actually they're identical and differ only by where you put accent on it to feel yourself purposeful, while purpose is what they neglect Fate an unneeded complication? What's complicated about it? Unsatisfactory? So, you, like so many religious types, prefer to 'chose' what you believe in by personal taste than to believe in what might be right no matter how it disagrees with you? And before you throw that back at me, just know that I'm contemplating what I observe and hold no true beliefs - I'm 27 years old in an ancient, vast universe, and I've only ever lived on this little speck of a planet...What the hell do I know? But again, despite my next to nil age in comparison to the Universe I can utilize centuries of knowledge gathered by those before me....But what the hell did they know? At least I'll say they knew something and it's personal taste that makes me decide what I prefer to think, but my taste is due to my world-view that says: I'm one of those religious types who takes only somethings he's explained better than other of it's rivals. That's scientific method, but it's belief too. So what the hell do we know of our reality? Bits of pieces, but merely one bit of our knowledge of existence can show us the structure so immense that it can't make me not bother finding out what it is, how it is and why it is. Our existence is poetry, science, passion, death and many others that I adore. Your position of fate is self-limitation. But in the end I'm no judge for anyone, you can think whatever you want. I guess it's the problem of most of us that here dwell, we are like religious scientists you mentioned not willing to refute it's faith for better understanding. Many people are cought in this. The multiverse, which we can perceive through quantum interference phenomena (if there was a better explanation for such event then I'll rethink my position) and many other aspects of our reality can be for now explained solely in term of this strucure. The classical universe where you live is a world of fate for humans where everything is predetermined for them cauze they walk a single road (i understood your point about "come what may"). Every single action is predetermined by causality and can be in principle computed by a classical universal computer (which is already proven to be false and this is a lead to multiverse again) . In fact everytime you have several possible decisions in your mind it is already predetermined which you're gonna decide. It's predetermined on microscopic level by chemical reactions in your brain, elecrical impulses in your neurons, and on subatomic level by the enteractions of different particles. That's fate. Am I right? Most advanced multiverse theory (I prefer to think) claims that every time there is more than 1 possible decision on the subject universe splits in so many universes as needed to cobver the gap (simply discribing). And what we do is making decision (chose) between different universes, so we go our individual way and every "moment" have right to chose a different decision. Then you will say again that while chosing everything is predetermined even between multiverse, but there is something else I haven't mentioned here. Every life form inmultiverse as a knowledge bearing structure through multiverse and is fundamental for it. Humans as self aware beings also possess quantum mechanism of decision making. Through quantum collapse in microtubule in every cell of our body (especially neurons are interesting here) we are connected to our other universes selves (call them clones if you like). These clones obtain different level of connection because of different conditions. So every decision then is made by the council of your clones (even other times clones cauze there're universes representing our time constraint). I use simple terminology here, it's all is very complex and not many scientists are now I can understand that right now you think that you can paste in every statement of mine something like this: "And this again is predetermined because classic physics allows it ". quantum theory and general/special relativity have proven long ago what physics are, and this is what we accept till better understanding of these matters will come (like upcoming superstring theory).There're untrackable things and as far as now we can not tell for sure whetther they would ever become trackable in our universe or in multiverse because the only way for us to perceive multiverse is indirectly through photons responding to the interaction with the shadow photons of other universes. What matters is present moment conception and how it solves the problem it perports to solve, if there was something wrong or some unsuspected things came up with the overwhelming predetermination that you suppose than it would raise a debate in science again like it happened when Einstein presented relativity. Your conception is a step back, face it. It was refuted before and your modern recreation of it doesn't change a thing. And I only argue for that and not that you don't have a right to think what you want. It's untrue because we can't observe and measure it? We can observe it though not quite perceive it's every little detail. It is as I keep saying that the system of causality is so immensily complex that it would take a supercomputer the size of a planet (just painting an explainatory picture here) to keep track of all the calculations behind every event. I do believe that with age and experience we gain more and more insight into causality to the point where we can predict the most likely outcome of more and more intricate events. And on the same note, I believe that if a mind were to live for millions of years observing the events in a universe it will develop a sense of future events, due to its experiences of how things usually turn out given certain pre-events. That sense will probably never be 100% accurate but its accuracy will grow in time. It not only would've taken supercomputer to measure causality implicitly (which is unneeded for many reasons) it would've taken universal quantum computer working in multiverse to process the amounts of data more than there're atoms in our universe. And we can measure causality partly as if we ere measuring it from the beginning, because deviations of quanta of the initial state would only bring the same deviation in end state And in the end And where exactly does causality not describe existence? it's a pseudoexplanatory when everything a theory has to say to any question is that you must give me some data for calculation by measuring every cause and response for the initial state of our existence. Something of an idea of some famous sci-fi. Your theory doesn't explain anything in principle. And again there's some instrumentalistic approach where theory is only ment for making predictions. Your conception does only this thing. Tell me of anything consistent that our modern science dicscribes worse with free will than with conception of cryptofatalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 18, 2003 Author Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Another question is also relevant here, because now I'm confused? Do you believe in free will? If that is how you differ from classical fatalist then I can understand everything Stated already from the start that I do not. Originally posted by Homuncul Some people unlike us, modest mortals, possess enormous imagination and intuition for discribing things on the limits of those things being what they are. That's the case with Tipler. And some people observe and figure things out for themselves. Not that you have done it yet, but don't be so eager to rely on the works of others. Not that I'm blaming you for it, but I hate discussing with people, whose only merit is their ability to quote writings from more or less famous persons in the field of discussion. It is actually still possible to form one's own oppinion. Originally posted by Homuncul Why do you then go only half way, isn't it your weakness that you take part of some understanding you call fate, mix it with what you 've been told since your childhood and extrapolate on your world-view. Maybe you need to invent a new ternminology. Or if living like that is your point , than my argument is irrelevant. You're gonna have to clarify what you're talking about here. I think, also due to the '(chose?)' you put in the end of your quotation of me, that you've misunderstood something. But can answer on your theory of how my oppinions came about. I havn't been told much about how the world works besides the Chrisitianity in school, but my view on existence comes from my own observation and contemplation. Originally posted by Homuncul Both ways "Predetermination" and "Que sera" are the same in it's consistency and falseness like the solipsism theory for example. Actually they're identical and differ only by where you put accent on it to feel yourself purposeful, while purpose is what they neglect Quite a number of times you've dismissed my arguments as being false without offering any valid counterarguments. But I hope you're smart enough to know that you will never be able to disprove solipsism, for by its definition it cannot be disproved. Never insinuated that putting the accent on Que Sera as you put it makes me feel purposeful. Originally posted by Homuncul At least I'll say they knew something and it's personal taste that makes me decide what I prefer to think, but my taste is due to my world-view that says: I'm one of those religious types who takes only somethings he's explained better than other of it's rivals. That's scientific method, but it's belief too. Yup, but it seriously matters if you choose (in my understanding of the word) Buddhism over Christianity because you prefer Buddhism, but it's really Chrisitianity that's true. Originally posted by Homuncul ...Your position of fate is self-limitation. But in the end I'm no judge for anyone, you can think whatever you want. I guess it's the problem of most of us that here dwell, we are like religious scientists you mentioned not willing to refute it's faith for better understanding. Many people are cought in this. How is being a fatalist selflimitating? Au contraire it sets you as free as possible in existence. Understand, like I stated in my original post, that fatalism does not exclude deities or higher forces or any wonder of the Universe. And I'm easily willing to refute any faith I have when new s*** comes to light that would demand a refutal. Originally posted by Homuncul The multiverse, which we can perceive through quantum interference phenomena (if there was a better explanation for such event then I'll rethink my position) and many other aspects of our reality can be for now explained solely in term of this strucure. The classical universe where you live is a world of fate for humans where everything is predetermined for them cauze they walk a single road (i understood your point about "come what may"). Every single action is predetermined by causality and can be in principle computed by a classical universal computer (which is already proven to be false and this is a lead to multiverse again) . In fact everytime you have several possible decisions in your mind it is already predetermined which you're gonna decide. It's predetermined on microscopic level by chemical reactions in your brain, elecrical impulses in your neurons, and on subatomic level by the enteractions of different particles. That's fate. Am I right? As they are influenced by surroundings, then yup, you got it. Causality proven to be false? Enlighten me. Originally posted by Homuncul Most advanced multiverse theory (I prefer to think) claims that every time there is more than 1 possible decision on the subject universe splits in so many universes as needed to cobver the gap (simply discribing). And... ...And I only argue for that and not that you don't have a right to think what you want. Please, how has my arguments been disproven? And how has 'yours' been proven? And you keep saying that my arguments are for problemsolving, and I say I simply relate what I observe. "...to think what I want." That's funny Originally posted by Homuncul it's a pseudoexplanatory when everything a theory has to say to any question is that you must give me some data for calculation by measuring every cause and response for the initial state of our existence. Something of an idea of some famous sci-fi. Your theory doesn't explain anything in principle. And again there's some instrumentalistic approach where theory is only ment for making predictions. Your conception does only this thing. Never said I was out to fully explain existence, only how I perceive it. You keep hammering me with the notion that I need scientific approach and that what I argue must be proven as some valid theory. But by my own arguments I can never do that nor can you ever disprove it. This discussion is futile and I was perfectly aware of this from the posting of my initial post. Neither of us will ever be convinced of the other's point of view. But please continue if you will, if nothing else it has an entertainment value. Originally posted by Homuncul Tell me of anything consistent that our modern science dicscribes worse with free will than with conception of cryptofatalist? Everything. EDIT: Typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 And some people observe and figure things out for themselves. Not that you have done it yet, but don't be so eager to rely on the works of others. Not that I'm blaming you for it, but I hate discussing with people, whose only merit is their ability to quote writings from more or less famous persons in the field of discussion. It is actually still possible to form one's own oppinion. Have I ever quote anyone directly? Don't we all quote anyone indirectly? Does our world view solely depend on interpreting words of others? Does our self aware existence solely depends on those who we learn from? The book is not about proving you wrong, it's about diversity of ideas that can be colloborated by science, there're many such books, I only chose to propose this one because of it funny cultural aspects and my preference and not because I wanted to scare you with every word it says. You're gonna have to clarify what you're talking about here. I think, also due to the '(chose?)' you put in the end of your quotation of me, that you've misunderstood something. But can answer on your theory of how my oppinions came about. I havn't been told much about how the world works besides the Chrisitianity in school, but my view on existence comes from my own observation and contemplation. I was attacking because while you talk you use terminology a bit inconsistent with your fate preference, always refering actually to what you choose to believe. While you count this fact on human's inability to understand that they don't have freedom of will you feel yourself free to use these words just to show your preference to your conception of "don't hold true beliefs and proud of it". So how this belief can discribe anything to you? If I shared your belief I could easily attribute your (our) point to whatever i feel buggering to know about to avoid "unneed complications". That's one of the reasons why it is self limiting. Quite a number of times you've dismissed my arguments as being false without offering any valid counterarguments. But I hope you're smart enough to know that you will never be able to disprove solipsism, for by its definition it cannot be disproved. Quite right. You know your topic. Respect;) . And I attributed old as world "predetermination" concept and your "que sera" to the same problem of proof, because proof (commonly understood) is what it needs not. There is quite a simple explanation why solipsism is refuted by most scientists, the same would go for your concept. If you know it already - make an analogy, If you don't maybe you'll be aeger to listen? Yup, but it seriously matters if you choose (in my understanding of the word) Buddhism over Christianity because you prefer Buddhism, but it's really Chrisitianity that's true. And that's what really matters not because it's essential to CHOOSE what I like. But I choose what I consider true thanks to criterion that concept I choose gives better explanation than it's rivals do. If Christianity is true and quantum theory is not, then at this moment I'll still stick with quantum theory because it explain better and leaves less things unexplained. But if I KNEW that Christianity is right (just knew, like you do) but I couldn't explain why I consider so, because Christianity leaves much things unexplained, including things quantum theory predicts with quite an accuracy, and multiverse theory uniting our reality in a marvelous structure, I Would contradict my criterion and wouldn't be hoping to have for a second a consistent world view (as we all feel necessity to have). If you would like now to refute my last statement you would just contradict yourself;) How is being a fatalist selflimitating? Again self limitating to the point of how would want to discribe all this new s*** in terms of your fate concept, while most advanced theories today, multiverse theory strongly permit free will (and even demand it) and fate in them is some special case of classical universe you live in. Causality proven to be false? Enlighten me. Causality is never an objective thing. All causes and effects is just how we perceive time multiverse (snapshot change, this is how we perceive time motion, which is false because there's no such thing) and is place from we create our subjective laws reality (like laws of physics). This is only intuition makes you think that time flows and the same goes to causality. It's your intuition makes you extrapolate every cause and effect to be a collection called causality with initial and end state. While every cause and effect is always relative on many levels to many factors, there is no way for it to exist as an objective fundamental truth and neither to be perfectly certain (there is none in physical world , maybe it's in the world of abstractions as Plato said ). Then if fate was true and again I knew that it was true (again just knew) and was unable to explain myself why , if there's freedom of will that explain better and furthermore has a deep connection to the most advanced and accepted theories of reality (that's why free will is fundamental), was I so confused about it? And i'll have to think hard to modify both fate and free will concept to satisfy the need for explanation. But that'll be no longer fate or free will, something different. This is the way science works, don't you agree. And always metioning some religion is of no worth because you know better than me that faith does not concern argument Please, how has my arguments been disproven? And how has 'yours' been proven? And you keep saying that my arguments are for problemsolving, and I say I simply relate what I observe. "... This is exactly what I don't like when a rational in many ways person chooses to rely only on what can only be observed, measured and make predictions. There are many fundamental truths that can not be observed directly (I mean only what can be directly observed through our senses which is in a way indirect) like particle superposition, quantum interference phenomena (which is one of the evidence towards multiverse), nuclear forces and so on. But we proved them to exist. My argument of the about quantum phenomena disproves you in a way that it gives better explanation with free will envolve than without one. And I don't pretend to know the truth like you do, and I would like people just think of best knowledge humanity possess and trust it. Trust it not because they were propogaded to trust (like in poor christianity) but because they can ask to look at every aspect of it by themselves, see of what it worth and decide about it on their own. I'm not propogading multiverse in a way that I want everybody to believe it at once or become my enemies, I just like to interest people in it, to make them open minded to look at everything from different angles. If I can encourage a solely person to make something like that, then I'm the winner:p P.S. I almost feel itchy of your rifle pointing in my arse. Wow feels like nuclear bomb is falling and I just can't find argument enough to stop it falling. The only way I have is to wear my sunglasses and say: "Que sera":cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 19, 2003 Author Share Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Have I ever quote anyone directly? Don't we all quote anyone indirectly? Does our world view solely depend on interpreting words of others? Does our self aware existence solely depends on those who we learn from? The book is not about proving you wrong, it's about diversity of ideas that can be colloborated by science, there're many such books, I only chose to propose this one because of it funny cultural aspects and my preference and not because I wanted to scare you with every word it says. If you'd care to read what you quote you'd see that I am not accusing you of direct quoting. Of course indirectly quote others before us. What I'm against are people who only use quotes as arguments, quotes that they themselves might not even understand. Never said that applied to you. And as for world view's depending solely on interpreting words of others, I fear that for many people that is sadly true, the only difference being smaller of bigger twists in interpretation, stemming from personality; take religious fanatics for example. Why would a book scare me? I hope you're not going for easy crowdpleaser points here. Originally posted by Homuncul I was attacking because while you talk you use terminology a bit inconsistent with your fate preference, always refering actually to what you choose to believe. While you count this fact on human's inability to understand that they don't have freedom of will you feel yourself free to use these words just to show your preference to your conception of "don't hold true beliefs and proud of it". So how this belief can discribe anything to you? If I shared your belief I could easily attribute your (our) point to whatever i feel buggering to know about to avoid "unneed complications". That's one of the reasons why it is self limiting. Never claimed that my beliefs were chosen by free will, it's just where I am at this time. And I've explained how I define choice. My belief cannot describe anything but uncertainty and knowledge of one thing alone, as stated in my original post. And unneeded complications? I welcome them as they make it all the more interesting, so no, I'm not limiting myself. I'm not so arrogant to assume that there aren't things yet to be learned by man, but whatever comes along can never change the fact that nothing but one thing is certain. Originally posted by Homuncul Quite right. You know your topic. Respect . And I attributed old as world "predetermination" concept and your "que sera" to the same problem of proof, because proof (commonly understood) is what it needs not. There is quite a simple explanation why solipsism is refuted by most scientists, the same would go for your concept. If you know it already - make an analogy, If you don't maybe you'll be aeger to listen? I said a couple of posts ago that predetermination and Que Sera, Sera a sides of the same coin, just that there was a subtle difference in perception of the matter. And perception, believe it or not, can have huge consequences. Again, my belief doesn't need proof because it never can be proved. And if scientist refute something because they cannot prove it, does that automatically mean it's not true? An analogy? Between what? Originally posted by Homuncul And that's what really matters not because it's essential to CHOOSE what I like. But I choose what I consider true thanks to criterion that concept I choose gives better explanation than it's rivals do. If Christianity is true and quantum theory is not, then at this moment I'll still stick with quantum theory because it explain better and leaves less things unexplained. But if I KNEW that Christianity is right (just knew, like you do) but I couldn't explain why I consider so, because Christianity leaves much things unexplained, including things quantum theory predicts with quite an accuracy, and multiverse theory uniting our reality in a marvelous structure, I Would contradict my criterion and wouldn't be hoping to have for a second a consistent world view (as we all feel necessity to have). If you would like now to refute my last statement you would just contradict yourself "(just knew, like you do)" - I don't and never claimed to. And there is no need to refute your statement as it simply presents a problem of logical satisfaction. But if you took Christianity as truth and it didn't satisfy your sense of logic, then I propose that you'd incorporate believe with science, like some are already doing. Originally posted by Homuncul Again self limitating to the point of how would want to discribe all this new s*** in terms of your fate concept, while most advanced theories today, multiverse theory strongly permit free will (and even demand it) and fate in them is some special case of classical universe you live in. I wouldn't deny the new s***, but as said before, there's really nothing that can come about that cannot come under my belief. Now, please explain (again) what the free in free will is. Originally posted by Homuncul Causality is never an objective thing. All causes and effects is just how we perceive time multiverse (snapshot change, this is how we perceive time motion, which is false because there's no such thing) and is place from we create our subjective laws reality (like laws of physics). This is only intuition makes you think that time flows and the same goes to causality. It's your intuition makes you extrapolate every cause and effect to be a collection called causality with initial and end state. While every cause and effect is always relative on many levels to many factors, there is no way for it to exist as an objective fundamental truth and neither to be perfectly certain (there is none in physical world , maybe it's in the world of abstractions as Plato said ). Then if fate was true and again I knew that it was true (again just knew) and was unable to explain myself why , if there's freedom of will that explain better and furthermore has a deep connection to the most advanced and accepted theories of reality (that's why free will is fundamental), was I so confused about it? And i'll have to think hard to modify both fate and free will concept to satisfy the need for explanation. But that'll be no longer fate or free will, something different. This is the way science works, don't you agree. And always metioning some religion is of no worth because you know better than me that faith does not concern argument Free will explains better? Who is avoiding unneeded complications now? And I've never said causality has an initial nor end state as I do not know whether there is a beginning or ending of time. Mentioning religion in this debate is not worthless for it is in our reality and should not be excluded when making an objective oppinion. Originally posted by Homuncul This is exactly what I don't like when a rational in many ways person chooses to rely only on what can only be observed, measured and make predictions. There are many fundamental truths that can not be observed directly (I mean only what can be directly observed through our senses which is in a way indirect) like particle superposition, quantum interference phenomena (which is one of the evidence towards multiverse), nuclear forces and so on. But we proved them to exist. My argument of the about quantum phenomena disproves you in a way that it gives better explanation with free will envolve than without one. And why wouldn't I include particles and quantum physics in my observations? Think you took what I said too literally. And the last part of this quote has already been addressed. Originally posted by Homuncul And I don't pretend to know the truth like you do, and I would like people just think of best knowledge humanity possess and trust it. Trust it not because they were propogaded to trust (like in poor christianity) but because they can ask to look at every aspect of it by themselves, see of what it worth and decide about it on their own. I'm not propogading multiverse in a way that I want everybody to believe it at once or become my enemies, I just like to interest people in it, to make them open minded to look at everything from different angles. If I can encourage a solely person to make something like that, then I'm the winner I don't pretend to know the truth...You've put that in my mouth several times now. As for making people interested so that they can contemplate your side of the matter, go you, and I hope you succeed, for an open mind is the key. Originally posted by Homuncul P.S. I almost feel itchy of your rifle pointing in my arse. Wow feels like nuclear bomb is falling and I just can't find argument enough to stop it falling. The only way I have is to wear my sunglasses and say: "Que sera" Don't worry, I don't think I'd ever kill a single person; it's all or noone with me. But hey, if you could outwit a falling nuke I'll be the first to appreciate its possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 Free will explains better? Who is avoiding unneeded complications now? And I've never said causality has an initial nor end state as I do not know whether there is a beginning or ending of time. Now I'm lost and getting angry . I thought it's normal situation with a world view when person trys to discribe to himself at least what's fundamental. If you don't explain even causality then why this debate at all? Or was it your point from the beginning, then why posting a thread if the debate is pointless?. So I got your point and it's unquestionable, we live in world of fate but we won't probably know about it at all, we would probably never be able to make predictions of it and we would probably never be able to discribe something with it with a bit of accuracy, but that's not something I should be afraid of. Ultimate cause is out their, but really you're not sure because you don't know whether time has an inicial state (because you've never seen it for yourself), and whether it has a final state (because we can't know causality and therefore fate). You don't believe in something like judgement day because you probably won't know how it all ends (again because we can't know causality). These are unneeded complications. While with free will it sounds like this: My point is always questionable because of it's structure, that's why it will necessarily grow and develop. We live in a world of free will and we don't need to know whether it's objectively true, because it's by definition subjective. For some predictions there exists a collection of results, discribing our inability in principle measure causality but showing our ability to present it as an abstraction and use it where ever we like. We can discribe many things to be accurate through probability (if needed) while yours would always require to know for certain (for example with particle superposition I would say that particle is at all places at once and is relative to an observer, while you would have to count every cause and effect of it, but there is advantage for you because you won't be affected by uncertainty principle to which I'm bound. But due to some justification part of your concept you will also say that you don't hold true beliefs and would accept my point, because it is false. What an absurdity). There's an ultimate cause but it's irrelevant, because I only decide what to believe in. There maybe with high pobabilty an end of the universe (it's crunch or it's everlasting expansion, both are ends) and it's pretty accurate for me but not for you. But I still feel these are no arguments so read below please if not very bored I wouldn't deny the new s***, but as said before, there's really nothing that can come about that cannot come under my belief. Now, please explain (again) what the free in free will is. It's free not to care about our inability to perceive causality and fate. It says that fate is what matters not because we won't be able to know of it being neither true, nor false. It also tellse us that we're individually free to make decisions (and not that we are random to cause and effect and do not choose at all. And the word random itself is a justification for our "unwill" to measure causality). Many of our theories dealing with probability discribe our reality, while there is none consitent theory discribing our reality with fate. And of course I choose to accept those consistent that discribe, rather than inconsistent one that discribes not (that leaves few things explained and much more unexplained things) An analogy? Between what? Let me entertain you and explain why solipsism is where it is and why fate will soon be there too. My considiration that multiverse is true is no the matter of logical deduction. And there is no way of proving through OBSERVATIONS that it's true and everything we perceive might be an illusion (actually it is an illusion because we didn't figure all things out yet). So reality might consist of one person dreaming a life's time experience. And that person dreams evidences of existence of other people and other universes. And since solipsism is consistent with this person perceiving all possible observational evidence (as there is infinite number of such theories), it follows that there is nothing this person (and us) can deduce logically from solely observations. And so why we should then accept any of the conclusions science make? this is called "problem of induction" and you're inductivist in some way with your fate concept. While there is no problem of induction because it's not observational evidence that matters (but explanational one). Iduction works like this: you make observations, form a theory , then make more observations and then justify a theory. This model worked for a long time in science. What solipsism does is that it inductively extrapolates observations to make a theory, which is false. Explanation is what makes us adopt one conception or refute another and concept is always a problem solving thing. And there must be a criticism also. But now about solipsism: If that person in his dream would try to think of people he's interacting with he could possibly concede that something rather than himself exists. If counting that on creations of his mind he would also see that some people there are antisolipsists. And then he would have to admit that he's also not wholly a solipsist (furthermore most people in his mind refute solipsism ) and reality then perhaps has different structure. He would also find interesting things (stars, planets, human behaviour, free will concept) that he could only study in terms of another theory (classical one). And because these things are already defined to be just a region in this person's mind then solipsism has no longer any argument against the validity of studying these things as we do. "Solipsism then insists on refering to objectively different things (such as external reality and person's unconscious mind, or introspection and scientific observation) by the same names. But then it has to reintroduce the distinction through explanations in terms of something like "outer part of myself"". The flaw of solipsism is that it introduces itself through counter-intuitive theory of classical reality. It's flaw is in it's explanation. It says something like this: "Solipsism is true, just it says that's how reality would look like if classical reality existed". These are unneed complications here and in your fate concept So your concept relys on the observations and contemplation while explanation is what really matters. Your concept says that fate is what exists but it introduces itself through other concept (of free will) that says that we can't possibly observe fate and the only way for us now is our position of not holding true beliefs and therefore we must atke it as it is, with terminology of free will reality. And that's self limiting (again and again). You should really try to read Karl Popper on these matters. Why would a book scare me? I hope you're not going for easy crowdpleaser points here. It should not and I never thought of scaring you (or are you afraid of my concept? ). This book is an idea of what really an alternative end of humanty there can be . It shows from one facet of it how necessary it is to look at everything from different angles (as I told already) and there many facets of this book than just this and free will - too. We misunderstand exah other quite often. These our faults of our explanations. Still it's very nice to have a debate with ya:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 23, 2003 Author Share Posted June 23, 2003 Not gonna bother with the copying and pasting this time around. Yes, we seem to misunderstand eachother again and again, and this I believe can be contributed partly to subjective prejudice of terminology, but also, and I mean no offence, that your english is a bit messy at times and can lead me to misinterpret what you're trying to say. But I need to address your continious argument that I feel no need to explore 'reality' further because I've settled with fatalism and solipsism. Au contraire I'm quite interested in how existence works, but I simply realize, as said in my initial post, that whatever scientific discoveries or spiritual revelations (Fx. The skies splitting and a heavenly angel descends in a holy light with a chorus of unspeakable beauty) we might encounter, none of it can ever be certainties. It's a 2 level experience for me; I'm open to everything yet bearing these fundamental observations in mind. And again, because solipsism does not explain anything, does not mean it isn't so. You seem so hooked on science that you're totally convinced it can explain everything. Well, maybe it can explain everything we perceive, but that still doesn't change the uncertainty. Now, you've just yourself said that the notion of free will is subjective, and not objective. That goes well with what I say: We're as free as we feel we are. You accuse me of induction regarding this, now I you. And I've never said we will never reach the point, where we might perceive every little intricate part of causality, but I do recognize the paradox inherited herein. And you still havn't clarified what the free in free will is. Again you lean on the crutch that it, free will or not, must describe reality. Well, what about the will not being free doesn't describe reality? What you call probability is what I call the current inability, and by some unwillingness, to observe the vastly complex system of causality. Am I afraid of your concept? Now, by the winky smiley I assume that it was a small joke not intended as a crowdpleaser, yet you went for it. No, why would it scare me? The counterquestion, which I feel more relevant, does the concept of causality scare you? Actually, I wanna state a few questions/arguments and you please tell me honestly if any of them scare you: - The existence of man might be ultimately pointless. We might have come into existence by mere chance. Had we not been we wouldn't be around to regret it. We might have no more worth to existence than a speck of dust, and thus we might have no more point for our existence than what we make ourselves. Why is that so troubling to many people? - Man might at some point in the future be able to describe all of existence, but man can never claim certainty of its reality. Why is that a problem? - Man might cease to exist after death, ie the end of awareness/consciousness. Why do some people fear that? Finally, before you do it yet again I'll politely ask you to stop putting words in my mouth based on assumptions on your part. P.S.: Almost forgot. You asked me why I started this debate if I knew it to be pointless from the very beginning. I stated it was because I was curious about a few things and that I would reveal what exactly later. Might as well do it now. I'm curious about how others perceive existence and especially why. Does fear guide their beliefs/preference of method? I'm curious to see if anyone can actually bring an argument that might make me rethink my views. And I'm curious to see if anyone out there might even agree with me. Besides the curiousity there are also the matters of egoboosting and entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 23, 2003 Share Posted June 23, 2003 But I need to address your continious argument that I feel no need to explore 'reality' further because I've settled with fatalism and solipsism. Au contraire I'm quite interested in how existence works, but I simply realize, as said in my initial post, that whatever scientific discoveries or spiritual revelations (Fx. The skies splitting and a heavenly angel descends in a holy light with a chorus of unspeakable beauty) we might encounter, none of it can ever be certainties. It's a 2 level experience for me; I'm open to everything yet bearing these fundamental observations in mind. And again, because solipsism does not explain anything, does not mean it isn't so. You seem so hooked on science that you're totally convinced it can explain everything. Well, maybe it can explain everything we perceive, but that still doesn't change the uncertainty. And I'm no longer attacking your 2 level experience, just trying to push you to rethink of how you prove it to yourself. I said that induction is a method of proving through observation and that it's invalid at present moment. Again you observe one thing, you push a theory, you observe more, you justify your theory with intuition (that fate is outside). And I pointed that intuition is not satisfactory in these matters. And I also try to say that none of the observations can ever be called fundamental, only their explanantions. I'm convinced that science can give us a long-looked-for theory of everything and that would be a true fundamental thing, cauze it will explain everything in our reality that can be explained. Uncertainty is explained and it's not our boundary but a fundamental law of physics. I'm not afraid of it, only of what methods you used to convince yourself fate is our external reality. does the concept of causality scare you? The way you propose it through observations solely, YES Why is that so troubling to many people (their poinlessness)? Do you really mean people or me. It troubles people because they are afraid to die. They feel the necessity to have a purpose. Rationally they can't think of an objective one rather then genetic purpose. Therefore they invent one, por ejemplo: to be remembered by humanity? to be a hero? to find a philosopher's stone? The only scaring thing for me here is that it contradicts with the fundamental theories science have developed till this moment. And that it'll be really hard to convince a fatalist otherwise. In your case, it was impossible. Please wait 8 years when I'll be where you're now and I'll think up a worthy argument. By that time you'll be 35 and perhaps you'll even rethink about that. Why is that a problem (uncertainty)? As I said it's not a problem for me cauze it's a fundamental law of physics For people it's a problem because of their overwhelming perfectionism. I think it was a great impact for our civilization when we started thinking in perfect abstractions. Why do some people fear that (death)? Because they can't pick up a valid purpose for them. Religion gives a divine purpose, science gives scientific, poetry gives poetic. I can't find a more challenging purpose than science gives, still I read Bible because it's a very interesting book and learn poems because they strike my soul. I'm not afraid to die. I accept it calmly as Heian samurai did. But they too felt the need to make at least ai uchi (a result of a duel where both players die) to protect their mates and maintain tradition. I'm curious about how others perceive existence and especially why. Does fear guide their beliefs/preference of method? I'm curious to see if anyone can actually bring an argument that might make me rethink my views. And I'm curious to see if anyone out there might even agree with me. Besides the curiousity there are also the matters of egoboosting and entertainment. Well at least i found some entertainment here, and you made me think really hard bout some matters. Thanks for that. And may the force be with you... Z-z-z-z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 23, 2003 Author Share Posted June 23, 2003 Homuncul, I am not done with you yet You say it's troubling for you how I inductively prove my views, but I've you'd cared to read my views closely enough, you'd know I'm saying that by my views I can never prove anything beyond the existence of something. And you must realize that if indeed our perceived reality is an illusion then every scientific method you apply in order to describe it is invalid. It's akin to what I've said in some other thread: How can you say that the reality you perceive is real, because you feel it, if all your lifelong experience with feelings were inside an illusion? And yes, the questions were directed at people in general, and they were somewhat rhetorical in nature, but your answers are very alike mine. One question though: What fundamental theories of science contradicts with our pointlessness? ...And why are not more people involved in this thread? Thought I was the only one seeing the futility of debating this stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 ...And why are not more people involved in this thread? I guess some people feel they have already decided unquestionably about such fundamental things that form their world view. For my part I don't feel that way, probably will never feel. Some people I know think I'm too deep in these things, they think I'm some kind of intellectual monster and they don't like to talk on these matters. What fundamental theories of science contradicts with our pointlessness? At least genetics (modern formulation) says that our purpose is bear knowledge through genes. Our modern understanding of genetics through multiverse glance tells us that life (DNA replicating strands) form a vast, complex structure in multiverse, and is distincted from it by it's property to cause invironments (our organism) to replicate themselves. At least here we're not pointless. If you'll try to refute that comlex and vast doesn't mean pointful, than remember what are stars and galaxies in classical universe and so the same with life (and everything that bears knowledge like artificial life) in multiverse. You say it's troubling for you how I inductively prove my views, but I've you'd cared to read my views closely enough, you'd know I'm saying that by my views I can never prove anything beyond the existence of something. And you must realize that if indeed our perceived reality is an illusion then every scientific method you apply in order to describe it is invalid. It's akin to what I've said in some other thread: How can you say that the reality you perceive is real, because you feel it, if all your lifelong experience with feelings were inside an illusion? And I was also claiming that it's natural for every person to have a consistent world view. A consistent world view presumes consistent proof. And I only want you to rethink the way you proove yourself (not to me of course, to yourself). If your consistent proof lies in the words "don't hold true beliefs, that's why I can think of whatever I like, observing inductively or explaining a problem". These are yours wrong assumptions that you attributed first to me. If you're claiming again that consistent proof is what your world view needs not then you're not really open to anything as you mentioned. And here we come to another fundamental discussion of criteria for reality. I wrote somewhere before about it and can repeat myself in simple words. I'll put your question and rephrase it. How can you say that the reality you perceive is real, because you feel it, if all your lifelong experience with feelings were inside an illusion? How can anything be real if there's nothing we perceive directly? First of all it's an inductive thought that I was trying avoid that I difine reality by only how I feel it. It is not solely so. Again all we know of reality comes not of the extrapolation of observations but of explanation of them. There is only one main criterion for our reality: response. If something "kicks you back" then it's real. Stay calm and listen . If you touch a button on your keyboard, a button kicks back to your senses and tells your brain that it's there. But what can you tell of the property of the button: for example, why does it always pull back, why it's there?. This problem was solved by the fundamental laws of physics (and of course some personal experience). Due to the very good explanation of them you can tell for sure that buttun you touch is made of plastic, that it's mass is not big (relatively), that there is a string there pulling it back every time you click it. And so how can I be sure that this is not just an illusion, and we live in some kind of Matrix. This illusion theory is very familiar to solipsism and "disproves" itself with the same argument I posted about solipsism. What is the ultimate proof for reality? I think it's accuracy with which it's rendered. Quantum computaion conception of a universal quantum computer is a good explanation to that. It tells us that it's possible to tell (in principle) our senses that they are in an accurate VR. So imagine you're in VR which is undefined to you, you can't tell anything about. You stand on the plane, you understand that there is some force here , you feel your mass. You jump and something pulls you back on plane. You make a guess that there is gravity here (or curvature of space-time), you make experimental testing of it. But how can you tell for sure that something you just ruled out would long for as long as you're here? Surely it would not please you to wait your life time here watching everything like a paranoid just to be sure your laws of physics work. This is what would've left for an inductivist to do if he got a glimpse of what' wrong with his proof. And finally you wasted alot time in this VR, investigated a lot, made each time better and better explanations of what you saw and made a intuitive guess that this reality is very similar to the way you perceive your normal reality. And again how then can you tell that this reality is not real, but just a VR. In a manner we all live in VR of our senses, but it's relevant here to answer how You can differ these realities? For a second you could tell for sure that it's not real because you have an experience of entering VR machine, that you stand on a single plane and nothing comforts your loneliness but some perfect geometric figures, which you used to form the laws of this world. For you to be really in complication about differing realities, this VR would have to look just as the normal reality, with the same laws, same people and same experinece of yours, without the memory of you entering a VR machine. How would you then can find out what's real? You would have investigate this world very carefully till you find some flaw. For example some of your friend you know for sure is not rendered accurately, it'll move you to investigate more. It'll make you doubt of this world being real. And I'd like to admit that we only investigate here, how we can find our reality to be false and not how to get out of it to the real world. And there is another thing. Imagine the same plane and in some area of it with no obvious reasons everything is wrong and every object you place there instead pulling back to the ground flys the opposite direction. You would spend enormous time and effort to find what's wrong, you'll probably try to look under the plane to find antigravity machine or something, but you won't. So you would have to redifine you world as a reality with an anomaly at the point of some x,y,z. This world of course then seize to be autonomous and laws you've ruled out before would not matter, cauze how can you tell accurately that there's no other place on this plane with same anomalic properties. That would surely lead you to the understanding that this reality is whether inaccurate and is not real, or you need find a better explanation for that and prove it of course. And now consider your world to be VR. Of course sometimes you want to check how accurately does it kick back. Actually you do it with every your action. It seems to me that with present technology we can't tell that our reality is false, we, to this point observed no anomaly, that we couldn't explain with laws of physics, or by altering them to fit the explanation (and of course proving them). It even seems that our reality is what it is and we feel ourselves (most people) comfort in it knowing it's real. But it's irrelevant. Another angle of this maybe religious for example. How can we tell god to exist if we can't kick it?. And it also shows that biblical god is inconsistent with what knowledge of reality we now possess. Some prefer to think there's no such entity, some (like I) prefer to think of god just to be too complex for us now. Of course it's not what it's said in Bible. We see that our reality is vast, complex and autonomous, and it kicks back to us with such an accuarcy that we can't tell it to be false. For that matter actually everything that is complex and autonomous has the right to be called real. And real is just a word to discribe the present moment approximation of reality. In different times different things were called real: the world was flat and the center of the universe, later it's round and is just a speck in expanding universe, now it's many mind world in multiverse with quantum theory discribing it's laws instead of Newtonian laws. And it's not what we feel with intuition that makes us consider something real but how it's explained with the fundamental laws. And science is no longer an intuitive thing, everything is too complex for even the common sense to be involved. I'm not against you in this post, just wish to share what I took from many books I read on fundamentality. Is it now clearer with what's real? Does it feel real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 24, 2003 Author Share Posted June 24, 2003 Yes, we bear genetic codes with the intent of propagation and survival and we adapt via evolution to achieve and mantain that pattern, but ultimately to no end, ergo pointless. Unless of course we are destined to reach an Enlightenment, that might offer something unimaginable to us now. Yet again, I can't by definition of my beliefs prove anything to myself beyond the existence of something. That this reality 'kicks back' as you put it is no definite proof of its reality. What we perceive are electrical signals interpreted by our brains (and no, I did not get this from Morpheus. I thought of this years before, and one of the possible scenarios I imagined were of me being somekind of longlived entity taking a vacation from myself in the form of a VR holiday trip as a human). I can only speculate here, as I do not know the exact science behind it, but I guess it would be a matter of plugging input/output wires into our central nerve system and parts of our brains, especially the sense faculties, hooked up to a computer capable of interpreting both ways the outgoing and incoming signals to and from our bodies as according to the events inside the VR. This machine would intercept and cut off signals we send to our body and apply them to the VR and it would make our brain/body react with the correct response dictated by the environment in the VR. This would not be beyond the capability of creating a 'kick back' effect. And in addition to all this bear in mind that the real me need not be a human form, or even physical at that. And for reality being real because of its accuracy? Why would it be impossible for an illusion to render perfectly? And again, if your whole lifelong experience with reality is through an illusion, then on that is what you have to base your assumptions about reality. So no, you have not made reality any more real for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 I can only speculate here, as I do not know the exact science behind it, but I guess it would be a matter of plugging input/output wires into our central nerve system and parts of our brains, especially the sense faculties, hooked up to a computer capable of interpreting both ways the outgoing and incoming signals to and from our bodies as according to the events inside the VR. This machine would intercept and cut off signals we send to our body and apply them to the VR and it would make our brain/body react with the correct response dictated by the environment in the VR. This would not be beyond the capability of creating a 'kick back' effect. And in addition to all this bear in mind that the real me need not be a human form, or even physical at that. It's all right, but irrelevant for our discussion. The theory of universal quantum computer working ny finite means and rendering any physically possible invironment is proved in principle. Actually you can take any phisically possible form you like (a corrective here is - physically possible which includes pretty a collection), even abstraction like a perfect sphere. You can make a program that'll make your brain work differently from human (that doesn't garantee your survival unfortunately, but it's possible). You can even render perfect sensory isolation. Why would it be impossible for an illusion to render perfectly? As it is proved by science it is absolutely (with high level accuracy) possible. But real is not truth. Don't mix them. And it's not the matter of how can you know the truth (we're discussing reality, not truth). Truth is one (I mean external one, but there' re many subjective truths) and reality is always what we perceive and how explain at present moment. It's not the matter of finding a way of getting out into the real world, it's only the matter of how we difine real. I say real is what kicks back accurately with complexity and autonomy. If you've got abetter argument than one I have just refuted (and will refute below), please share with me, I would vey much like to listen And again, if your whole lifelong experience with reality is through an illusion, then on that is what you have to base your assumptions about reality. Again illusion is not the correct word. Didn't you like my (not mine actually) "disproof" of solipsism. You can do the same with the "illusion of reality" theory by yourself because it searches the external truth, but truth is what irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 24, 2003 Author Share Posted June 24, 2003 Truth is subjective, yes, but realize and accept that you can never know the truth and that is all I've been saying all along. But unlike you I do apply this to reality too. Your scientific methods of disproving lack of reality and solipsism never manages to close the final gap that leaves room for doubt, so in effect you've disproved nothing. You treat reality with subjectivity. It suffices for you to accept what you perceive to be reality as real and settle with that. And I've never said that this reality I perceive isn't the real reality, just that I accept I can never know it is. But as a sidenote, the question of 'escaping' this 'reality' is ultimately relevant if Buddhism is true. And there's nothing to say that the external can't in reality be internal, ie we might need to explore inwards to explain the outwards. EDIT: Forgot this the first time around. If this reality is an illusion, it's amusing how you argue that an illusion created by a computer can render a reality perfectly, when that scientific understanding and awareness of this computer are part of the illusion. You're taking the illusion to explain reality when they possibly could be vastly different. The technology level we've reached in this 'reality' could be eons behind that of reality, if technology is even what is applied in reality to create the illusion. You must realize that utilizing the illusion, even the aspect of quantum physics, to explain reality is absurd and futile, regardless of your subjectivity towards reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Yes, we bear genetic codes with the intent of propagation and survival and we adapt via evolution to achieve and mantain that pattern, but ultimately to no end, ergo pointless. Unless of course we are destined to reach an Enlightenment, that might offer something unimaginable to us now. You neglect then to call this a purpose. By pointless you mean objective uselessness. I could've named thousands of subjectively pointful things, but I named an objective purpose of life. Is that pointless even even objectively? That this reality 'kicks back' as you put it is no definite proof of its reality It's the only valid proof for us now. Okey. Let's stop a bit. I now accept uncertainty and unknowledgable reality, although I'm not accepting fate cauze your arguments about it are inductive. Still i acceppt that there's something there I don't know yet how to difine. Now, reality is always only something that can be attributed to the present moment. There's no past reality, there's no future reality. What's in past is unreal, like Newtonian physics, what's in future is too unreal, like superstring theory which is not yet implicitly proven. But due to my preference to multiverse theory I have to admit that in some universes (past multiverse snapshots for example) Newtonians laws are real, and in some parallel universes superstring theory is in use for many centuries. They are real for the observers of those universes and not real for us. I told first that illusion is not appropriate word here. I'll explain if you don't what to deduce it yourself. Illusion is reality that is untrue. And this illusory reality therefore is REAL for an observer solely of this reality. But for the observer of the "true reality" it's unreal (even if he disigned the program to render this illusion) in a sense that his reality is bigger and includes both knowledge of his reality and of illusion reality being just an illusion. Yes, it's implicitly proven that universal quantum VR machine can render another VR machine rendering perfectly accurate illusion, cauze collection of such invironments is also a physical thing, and what's physical can be rendered with whatever accuracy is needed. You treat reaity with subjectivity. It suffices for you to accept what you perceive to be reality is real and settle with that. Yes I'm subjective with reality cauze now I agree that external reality is unknowable. Still I'm not settling with anything. As I said reality is always only present moment, this moment is real and anything else is unreal. If there was something in just a single snapshot of multiverse (whether parallel universes or other times universes) that gave me doubt of what's real whether an anomaly or any new upcoming theory I would judge "new" (in a manner of speak because literally there's no such thing) by a better explanation of it. And there's nothing to say that the external can't in reality be internal All modern theories of science don't give us explanation of everything we can presently observe and it makes uds assume that external reality is much bigger than we now can comprehend. And I've never said that this reality I perceive isn't the real reality, just that I accept I can never know it is. But as a sidenote, the question of 'escaping' this 'reality is ultimately relevant if Buddhism is true No it's irrelevant in this situation. Buddhism is a product of imagination of a human (very talented I guess). None that Buddhism says can be put to criticism because every cult is based on faith which excludes any arguments, nothing that Buddhism says can be put to the experimental tests. If looking at Buddhism as a valid explanation of reality (internal or external which is again irrelevant) then you can guess that nothing we see now in the world (like evolution or quantum interference por ejemplo) can be explained with it. None of the religions can claim to explain such matters better than science does with the scientific method. And faith is not true until we can explain all whys and hows about it , it's just something we blindly believe to be a purpose, it's unquestionable and therefore is incompatible with the model of proof which scientists propose. In the end, (for me it's proven) everything "eternal reality" kicks us with is capable of being explained and therefore become real to us. I guess you've got an argument here worthy of my suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 25, 2003 Author Share Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul You neglect then to call this a purpose. By pointless you mean objective uselessness. I could've named thousands of subjectively pointful things, but I named an objective purpose of life. Is that pointless even even objectively? It's a relative, objective purpse, yes, but not an ultimate one. It gives in itself no satisfactory purpose for our existence, but maybe we'll evolve into something that will. Originally posted by Homuncul It's the only valid proof for us now. Not for me it ain't, sonny. Originally posted by Homuncul I told first that illusion is not appropriate word here. I'll explain if you don't what to deduce it yourself. Illusion is reality that is untrue. And this illusory reality therefore is REAL for an observer solely of this reality. But for the observer of the "true reality" it's unreal (even if he disigned the program to render this illusion) in a sense that his reality is bigger and includes both knowledge of his reality and of illusion reality being just an illusion. There you go again with your subjective reality, as you concede yourself, but again, that doesn't work for me as explained in former posts. And furthermore, the creator of another's illusion cannot, like the one inside his illusion, claim certainty to the realness of his reality, but I guess I needn't point that out. Originally posted by Homuncul Yes, it's implicitly proven that universal quantum VR machine can render another VR machine rendering perfectly accurate illusion, cauze collection of such invironments is also a physical thing, and what's physical can be rendered with whatever accuracy is needed. Didn't you read what I wrote about this in my last post? Originally posted by Homuncul All modern theories of science don't give us explanation of everything we can presently observe and it makes uds assume that external reality is much bigger than we now can comprehend. Assume being the keyword here. Originally posted by Homuncul No it's irrelevant in this situation. Buddhism is a product of imagination of a human (very talented I guess). None that Buddhism says can be put to criticism because every cult is based on faith which excludes any arguments, nothing that Buddhism says can be put to the experimental tests. If looking at Buddhism as a valid explanation of reality (internal or external which is again irrelevant) then you can guess that nothing we see now in the world (like evolution or quantum interference por ejemplo) can be explained with it. None of the religions can claim to explain such matters better than science does with the scientific method. And faith is not true until we can explain all whys and hows about it , it's just something we blindly believe to be a purpose, it's unquestionable and therefore is incompatible with the model of proof which scientists propose. Again, you propose using the means of the illusion to refute what you can't know to be reality. Originally posted by Homuncul In the end, (for me it's proven) everything "eternal reality" kicks us with is capable of being explained and therefore become real to us. I guess you've got an argument here worthy of my suicide. No argument that I havn't already uttered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 And furthermore, the creator of another's illusion cannot, like the one inside his illusion, claim certainty to the realness of his reality, but I guess I needn't point that out. It's too circular, Occam Razor would just exclude such matters. Let me again mention that you try to talk about truth, and say that it's unknowable and (maybe) scientific methods and models i propose are unsatisfactory, but I talk about reality which is always real only realitive to an observer, I now too say that the truth is unknowable, but I do say that humanity is capable of discribing truth in however accuracy they want through subjecting reality they perceive and no illusion or solipsism theory will ever make us a problem of induction again. We can explain reallity with great accuracy actually (relative to us) our science says, I don't say that it's true than, but truth is irrelevant because it's unknowable, but we can and we try to explain through it's interaction (kick) to our reality and therfore can formulate laws of this reality (again laws are only for the present moment reality), we can experiment and get results, we can make accuarate predictions, we can observe explain, criticize and conclude that what we explain about our reality is autonymously comlex and that it kicks back to us. And we can then conclude that reality reflects truth in an always altering model. We must call it reality we science normally presume it to be, because all of it rivals are refuted (because they explain badly), it's put to the experemental tests, it's put to criticism. Therefore it's proven, and therefore it's real. For me... again... I feel I take just too much things for granted and that a valid explanation (and of course your acceptence of it) of my point to you would take the size of a book Again, you propose using the means of the illusion to refute what you can't know to be reality. Again mistake.. What we can't know to be truth, not reality. What we can know to be reality No argument that I havn't already uttered. That's just pretty enough for the suicide. Do you mean I have to reread all your inductive crap AGAIN? ... just kidding... I'd like to reread it to get your position implicitly but I become a volcano after every single post you make and just drop into my thoughts of whether killing you or giving you a worthy argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 26, 2003 Author Share Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul It's too circular, Occam Razor would just exclude such matters. Let me again mention that you try to talk about truth, and say that it's unknowable and (maybe) scientific methods and models i propose are unsatisfactory, but I talk about reality which is always real only realitive to an observer, I now too say that the truth is unknowable, but I do say that humanity is capable of discribing truth in however accuracy they want through subjecting reality they perceive and no illusion or solipsism theory will ever make us a problem of induction again. What do I care if the Occam Razor would exclude it? Too circular? Perhaps we are in a spiral chain of illusions within illusions. Yes, truth is unknowable, and where you say that reality through subjectivity is valid enough for you, I say it's just as unknowable as truth. Originally posted by Homuncul We can explain reallity with great accuracy actually (relative to us) our science says, I don't say that it's true than, but truth is irrelevant because it's unknowable, but we can and we try to explain through it's interaction (kick) to our reality and therfore can formulate laws of this reality (again laws are only for the present moment reality), we can experiment and get results, we can make accuarate predictions, we can observe explain, criticize and conclude that what we explain about our reality is autonymously comlex and that it kicks back to us. And we can then conclude that reality reflects truth in an always altering model. We must call it reality we science normally presume it to be, because all of it rivals are refuted (because they explain badly), it's put to the experemental tests, it's put to criticism. Therefore it's proven, and therefore it's real. Yes, to this subjective reality and nothing more. Originally posted by Homuncul For me... again... I feel I take just too much things for granted and that a valid explanation (and of course your acceptence of it) of my point to you would take the size of a book Don't bother - you will never be able to convince me satisfactorily. Originally posted by Homuncul Again mistake.. What we can't know to be truth, not reality. What we can know to be reality Wrong again. Originally posted by Homuncul That's just pretty enough for the suicide. Do you mean I have to reread all your inductive crap AGAIN? ... just kidding... I'd like to reread it to get your position implicitly but I become a volcano after every single post you make and just drop into my thoughts of whether killing you or giving you a worthy argument. You're more than welcome to killing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 What do I care if the Occam Razor would exclude it? Too circular? Perhaps we are in a spiral chain of illusions within illusions. Yes, truth is unknowable, and where you say that reality through subjectivity is valid enough for you, I say it's just as unknowable as truth. Occam's razor relative to explanations says: "do not complicate explanations beyond necessity". because if they do, the unnecessary complications remain themselves unexplained. It goes with solipsism like this: solipsism introduces itself through another theory, - and this is a complication and circuraity because theory of solipsism that world is a one person's dream, but it looks like reality (commonly understood) in everything. And I already explained how solipsist is not solipsist by definition. Unknowable truth introduces itself through another theory of subjective reality which says that truth can be discribed accurately, and therefore unknowable truth is unneeded complication. We need not take unknowable truth in account because it doesn't by definition give any explanation, but we do use it's kick back to our senses to discribe reality through explanations. And importance of truth in understanding of case in which an observer of an illusion render illusion is unnecessary complication. Becase it's proved that we can discribe truth accurately (through kick back) and call it our reality. And of course it doesn't matter how much "illusion of the illusion... of the illusion" we put. This is unneede complication. I don't investigate here how accurate we at the present moment discribe truth, I just say that in principle it can be discribed accurately. And wait, so you can't imagine that something can be explained so closely to what truely is that it would become almost perfect explanation for it? Don't bother - you will never be able to convince me satisfactorily. This is just so arrogant, i thought you were for uncertainty. You don't consider that someday you'll gonna read some book accidentalyy on induction and know yourself to be wrong. You know, our world view is so much dependent on our expirience. And our world view can even be measured: "in thousandth of millimetre (the separation of nerve fibres in the optic nerve) and in hundredth of of a volt (the change in the electric potencial in our nerves that makes the difference between our perceiving one thing and perceiving another)" Wrong again. Why is that, oh fate keeper? You don't even bother to explain:mad: You're more than welcome to killing me. Gladly if that is the only cure for you. Name time and place, I'll be there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.