|
why why why????? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
Oh no, it's the dreaded illuminati again controlling all our lives from the shadows!
Wasn't it the Nazi party who promised the Germans to "free them from freedom?" People will always try to come up with any excuse they can to break the link between actions and consequences - but the truly HAPPY are the ones who accept their responsibility and don't NEED to make excuses.
You're worrying about your purpose in life? Stop. There isn't one. Our lives are random, and accepting that is not "primitive" - primitive is the nonsensical belief that there has to be a reason for everything. Sadly, the universe is not some cosmic (or government) scheme. We all make our own purpose. |
|
|
| trancechaos |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Oh no, it's the dreaded illuminati again controlling all our lives from the shadows!
Wasn't it the Nazi party who promised the Germans to "free them from freedom?" People will always try to come up with any excuse they can to break the link between actions and consequences - but the truly HAPPY are the ones who accept their responsibility and don't NEED to make excuses.
You're worrying about your purpose in life? Stop. There isn't one. Our lives are random, and accepting that is not "primitive" - primitive is the nonsensical belief that there has to be a reason for everything. Sadly, the universe is not some cosmic (or government) scheme. We all make our own purpose. |
im not sure about that dude, i believe that there is a limit to which someone can control thier own life and future. society plays a big role in what you can and cannot do. im not trying to say that there is one particular government that controls society but breaking it all down one can see that society is controled in many different ways by many different companies and governments.
yes you do have the power to choose which direction your life will take but once that decision is made you can only do so much to make things fall in place.
im not really worrying about my purpose on earth coz i dont really believe that i have one, but i would like to understand why things are the way they are. i know ill never get true answers to any of these questions but it doesnt hurt to ask why? |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Oh no, it's the dreaded illuminati again controlling all our lives from the shadows!
Wasn't it the Nazi party who promised the Germans to "free them from freedom?" People will always try to come up with any excuse they can to break the link between actions and consequences - but the truly HAPPY are the ones who accept their responsibility and don't NEED to make excuses.
You're worrying about your purpose in life? Stop. There isn't one. Our lives are random, and accepting that is not "primitive" - primitive is the nonsensical belief that there has to be a reason for everything. Sadly, the universe is not some cosmic (or government) scheme. We all make our own purpose. |
hahahaha...the dreaded thread has been revived :p Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the above. And for trancechaos and the rest, please do yourselves a favour and read some philosophy if you're still questioning (which is fine and great). Read some Camus, and in particular The Myth of Sisyphus. It deals with what you're questioning (and more) and hopefully answers some of your queries. Sartre also comes to mind, and so does Paul Kurtz. Two particularly enlightening books, which I can't but strongly recommend, and which happen to be a collection of the foremost essays dealing with the meaning of life, are Sanders and Cheney's "The Meaning of Life", and ED Klemke's "The Meaning of Life". Yes, how original, I know :p They do an extremely good job at presenting different view points (the theistic, the humanistic and the nihilistic), so you'll have the opportunity to decide for yourselves where you fall within those categories. I should mention that there are a lot of overlapping essays between both books, so pick one and read it from cover to cover. Hopefully, you'll fall within the humanistic category, which roughly claims that humans create their purpose in life. Good luck :)
EDIT, to post link: So this is a short essay by Paul Kurtz (a secular humanist) that almost exactly sums up my thoughts regarding this topic. Read this first. Click here |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
trancechaos, it depends what perspective you look at it from. I think everything does have a reason, even if it is a seemingly "random" reason ... it's still a reason. For example, say a family member suddenly dies tomorrow because he/she gets hit by a car. And you probably end up thinking, that was random, that's life, what can you do. BUT, there was a reason why that family member was hit and killed ... even if we are totally, completely oblivious to that reason, that doesn't mean the reason does not exist. The reason still exists, we just don't know what it is. Also, the fact that the reason or the whole event occured at such a point where your family member was hit, it seems like total coincidence, and that I do agree with. It's a coincidence, or simply put, chance that would place that car in the same vicinity as your family member. And a reason of course that makes the car hit your family member.
The world, the universe, our lives, everything is so complex, we as a race simply cannot explain most things in our lives. Thus, calling it total coincidence, or randomness, gives us some peace of mind, so we worry about things less.
Magnetonium, I see what you're saying, but answer this: how can you be sure our universe is closed? At the very least, are you open to the idea of different universes, and travelling between them?
DigiNut, whether or not you choose to believe in such an elite group does not make any difference. Hypothetically, if they do exist, your belief in them will not change anything anyways, so your point is moot. But, are you honestly telling me you're not open to the idea that such a group is possible, and probable?
"If you're the police ... then who will police the police?"
Also, DigiNut, you cannot prove life is random ... just as I cannot prove to you there is a reason for everything. Both of us are much too primitive to have such knowledge. But the fact that I can imagine it, means there is a chance it is possible ... for many things people have imagined throughout history, have in fact become reality. We only make our own purpose in the limitations that are given to us (be it physical limitations, mental, creative, societal or simply genetic). |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Well, I believe there are maybe inifinite number of universes out there. However, the farthest and the first ray of light that has shone in our universe that has travelled since the beginning of our universe (which also marks the edge of our universe) will eventually be pulled back ALONG WITH every single atom and every single electron in the current universe into a pin-sized "black hole" that will afterwards result in another Bing Bang and so on. Life has its cycles, thats how the universe works - in a cycle, so one day the universe will contract and explode again, over and over, thats the only way everything works - in cycles. Humans dont understand that by looking at their actions on this planet.
Basically, you can travel beyond this universe, but eventually you will get sucked back when the "expansion" of the universe will reverse.
Think about it: if atoms can escape the universe, wont it interfere with its cycle of life? Dont you think the universe has "evolved" into such a system as to maintaim a perfect cycle?
I hope you are understanding what I am saying. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
hahahaha...the dreaded thread has been revived :p Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the above. And for trancechaos and the rest, please do yourselves a favour and read some philosophy if you're still questioning (which is fine and great). Read some Camus, and in particular The Myth of Sisyphus. It deals with what you're questioning (and more) and hopefully answers some of your queries. Sartre also comes to mind, and so does Paul Kurtz. Two particularly enlightening books, which I can't but strongly recommend, and which happen to be a collection of the foremost essays dealing with the meaning of life, are Sanders and Cheney's "The Meaning of Life", and ED Klemke's "The Meaning of Life". Yes, how original, I know :p They do an extremely good job at presenting different view points (the theistic, the humanistic and the nihilistic), so you'll have the opportunity to decide for yourselves where you fall within those categories. I should mention that there are a lot of overlapping essays between both books, so pick one and read it from cover to cover. Hopefully, you'll fall within the humanistic category, which roughly claims that humans create their purpose in life. Good luck :)
EDIT, to post link: So this is a short essay by Paul Kurtz (a secular humanist) that almost exactly sums up my thoughts regarding this topic. Read this first. Click here |
I wish I had the time to read all this philosophy. Maybe then I'd actually be able to explain what the hell I'm talking about without it all coming out as random gobbledygook. It just seems so much more elegant to be able to go, "Well, to quote Plato, 'blah blah blah'". Then again, people who quote ancient philosophers too often also sound like pretentious pricks... ahh, decisions decisions.
Did you take philosophy in university or did you just spend a lot of your free time on it? (not that it makes any difference really, I'm just curious) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dark_Archonis
Also, DigiNut, you cannot prove life is random ... just as I cannot prove to you there is a reason for everything. Both of us are much too primitive to have such knowledge. |
Maybe you're too primitive, but I have no problem understanding the concept of randomness. Your alienist belief bears a striking resemblance to standard Abrahamic religions - the unknown entities, the knowledge and power "beyond" our comprehension... and to put it bluntly, the whole pseudoscientific edge.
The fact is, when we can write probability functions for these processes and use them as models to accurately predict the distribution of potential outcomes, we've implicitly proven randomness. Further explicit proof is not necessary. As for the illuminati theories, I'm open to the idea that it's possible, but not probable - in order for the "probable" box to be ticked for any concept I need to see actual evidence, which you've presented none of in this case, just a lot of speculation.
Trancechaos: Of course, things like genetics and society and our environment in general will play into the outcome of our lives, but keep in mind that those things are also random processes, partly determined by other people's conscious choices and partly by natural phenomena. If you're wondering "why", then don't look at the randomness - that's definitely the wrong place to look - look at yourself, the deterministic, the things you CAN control. Only there will you find the answers you are looking for. (And perhaps in some of these books that Epicurus listed, I'd corroborate if I could :p) |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I wish I had the time to read all this philosophy. Maybe then I'd actually be able to explain what the hell I'm talking about without it all coming out as random gobbledygook. It just seems so much more elegant to be able to go, "Well, to quote Plato, 'blah blah blah'". Then again, people who quote ancient philosophers too often also sound like pretentious pricks... ahh, decisions decisions.
Did you take philosophy in university or did you just spend a lot of your free time on it? (not that it makes any difference really, I'm just curious) |
hahaha...I would never quote Plato, or any other philosopher for that matter, simply because it makes squat of a difference in any argument, unless the person you're arguing against is impressed by big names and fancy sounding theories. And no, I have no formal training in philosophy (I'm a Chemical Engineer/Mathematician), although I did take a few courses, but what I do have is an extreme passion for it that's lead me to spend a lot of my free time and my not-so free time examining some of the major philosophical questions, such as the meaning of life, the existence of God, the free-will problem, consciousness and so forth. The one thing I got out of it, other than personal enlightenment, is peace of mind. That's why I personally recommend anyone going through an existential crisis to figure it out for themselves by delving into the existing literature out there. Anyway, enough of that, let's discuss something we disagree on...so I think Israel is a terrorist state :D |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
Anyway, enough of that, let's discuss something we disagree on...so I think Israel is a terrorist state :D |
Not tonight, I have a headache. :toothless
(or maybe it's just my right wing that hurts) |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Not tonight, I have a headache. :toothless
(or maybe it's just my right wing that hurts) |
No fun :p
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The fact is, when we can write probability functions for these processes and use them as models to accurately predict the distribution of potential outcomes, we've implicitly proven randomness. Further explicit proof is not necessary. |
That, I will have to disagree with you on. We don't implicitly prove randomness by being able to do that. The reason is simple: other models, that don't have ontological randomness as part of them, that are in fact deterministic in the strongest of senses, predict equally well the distribution of potential outcomes. See Bohmian Mechanics
In fact, using that argument in general is fallacious, since you can never be sure that a different model will not fit the data in the exact same way. This is the classical horror story for science, when it comes to claims of describing reality, since dramatically different models, with consequences when it comes to reality, can predict the same outcomes.
However, and like I previously wrote in this thread, Bohmian mechanic adherents are in the minority, and thus, my objections to a deterministic type of universe stem from a majority of experts type of argument, not to mention that Bohmian mechanics can't take into account many phenomena in quantum field theory (so it is poorer in this sense and needs to be further developed). |
|
|
| Dark_Archonis |
Magnetonium ... again, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I believe there are parallel universes with each one having their own lifespan ... so if our universe was very close to dying (imploding) then hypothetically speaking, if we had such technology, we could literally rip space apart, and then rebuild our race in another universe, preferably a young one.
Now, what you are saying can't be proved ... it's probably based on some current theories out there, unless you thought of this yourself. Same as I cannot prove what I am saying. To further explain what I am talking about, go read up on Dr. Michio Kaku. He's a theoretical physicist and one of the smartest people in the world. Also check out this Interview with Dr. Michio Kaku which goes more in depth about what I was talking about.
DigiNut, you seem totally convinced that the concept of randomness, and these probability functions are correct. As Epicurus stated, in essence, many different theories can essentially prove the same outcome. Just because the concept of randomness makes sense, doesn't mean it's correct (go back and read my "the earth is flat" argument). There could be dozens of other theories that prove the concept of randomness, and they could be totally different than the probability functions.
I wonder if you are aware of string field theory, which is a theory (co-founded by Dr. Michio Kaku) which is essentially a "theory for everything". Einstein tried to create such a theory, but could not. Now, string field theory continues Einstein's quest. Roughly speaking, string theory presents the argument that there is a reason for everything, and that everything can be explained.
Oh, and for the illuminati theories, I can't give you any physical evidence. There is enough evidence out there to make you believe, but I can't do that for you. The fact that you're at least open to the idea is good enough.
Just to make myself seem clear, the reason I am so seemingly open and general in my posts is on purpose. I try my best not to get attached to one theory, or one perspective. I try not to base my posts on any theories at all. I try to be as objective as possible, by looking at the big picture, and keeping things simple, ideologically speaking. |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| I highly recommend Monty Pythons "The Meaning of Life"...you'll find all your answers there:stongue: |
|
|
|
|
