> The meaning of life is to reproduce and survive.
This is actually true. Its simple, but its shown to be true in all life forms all over the planet. No big mystery or deep meaning, just continued existence.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#131,889
@131,880 (G)
Really more tongue in cheek then anything else/ Sure does not represent my life yet portions are true for many including me.
Since one can write a book about dating or relationships and or marriage, one can as I was just be flippant for a moment about life.
Syntax double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#131,890
@131,880 (G)
Really more tongue in cheek then anything else/ Sure does not represent my life yet portions are true for many including me.
Since one can write a book about dating or relationships and or marriage, one can as I was just be flippant for a moment about life.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#132,612
@previous (N)
Not really but I do attend all kinds of religious events. Usually for the festivals and the food and music at. However I am spiritual in/of nature and do find comfort in churches. So when I travel to a new place on Planet Earth I will almost always climb up the steps of a church and sit down and meditate a bit.
Love the surroundings and often end up in conversations IF the Priest or Nuns etc speak English.
I just cannot become a Sheep and follow one religion based on handed down stories for dark ages ago.
Or the new mangled made up ones like Mormons of Scientology.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 57 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#132,661
To attain as much personal happiness as possible with as little negative impact on others as possible
Green !./UjmbBz7I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#132,976
Luigi titty shitter.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,000
Our purpose is to bring the universe into existence. Without observers the universe doesn't exist, but because there are observers --us, then the universe does exists. Paradoxical? Fuck yes, it's awesome. It's an extension of the riddle, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" It's called biocentrism as a 'scientific' idea but really it's more philosophy than empirical science. So it goes: If a universe explodes in the middle of nothingness and there is no one there to see it, did it really go bang?
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,002
@previous (G) > If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
By the laws of physics .. Sound waves are produced, people around to hear it or not.
DXMEOWTH joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,008
Other. The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,013
@133,002 (Syntax)
True, that's what makes that riddle a failed metaphysical thought experiment. extend the analogy to the whole universe. If one existed before ours with no observers then it wouldn't have existed. There would be nothing. nothing would remain, nothing would have happened, nothing would have started. The universe begins with the observer and then moves out from there in several dimensions -including time. Get it? Our universe exists because we do, and other universes exist if they are observed by their observers -but we don't observe that. And, if they are not observed then there is nothing. No information about it. It is the definition of nothing. you know, the nothing that was there before the universe.
ya get me?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,031
> True, that's what makes that riddle a failed metaphysical thought experiment. extend the analogy to the whole universe. If one existed before ours with no observers then it wouldn't have existed. There would be nothing. nothing would remain, nothing would have happened, nothing would have started. The universe begins with the observer and then moves out from there in several dimensions -including time. Get it? Our universe exists because we do, and other universes exist if they are observed by their observers -but we don't observe that. And, if they are not observed then there is nothing. No information about it. It is the definition of nothing. you know, the nothing that was there before the universe. > > ya get me?
Sorry I cannot agree. You base existence on an observer being present. At the singularity of the Big Bang, there were no observers and yet we currently exist.
If tomorrow all life in the universality ceased to exist, the gravitational forces and cosmic waves would tug on and directly effect the rest of the universe.
It exists with our without us.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,039
> Sorry I cannot agree. You base existence on an observer being present. At the singularity of the Big Bang, there were no observers and yet we currently exist.
Time exists for us in a linear fashion as a function entropy. However, time behaves in a way that seemingly defies that by, at times, reversing direction on the quantum level. Time exists in both directions, and it extends out from there being an observer. What we observe is the juncture between all of the dimensions including time. The big bang did not have a beginning, it is an 'end point' but one that cannot ever reach absolute zero. This has been theorized by Stephen Hawking. The other 'end point' is the future. From our perspective the future is a place where what we do now effects what happens then. And, from our perspective the past is also a place where what we do now effects what happens then... spooky, no?
And that extends backwards in time -the present effects the past all the way down to the 'big bang.'
> If tomorrow all life in the universality ceased to exist, the gravitational forces and cosmic waves would tug on and directly effect the rest of the universe.
And at the time there are no more observers then this universe will cease to exist as well, and nothing of value will be lost.
> It exists with our without us.
Our lives bring the universe into existence. That is our purpose in it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,043
And to elaborate slightly on the second question you had, Lynn, once the observer ceases to exist then yes, you are correct the universe will decay, but the eons it takes to evaporate pale in the vast solitude that is the forever nothingness that will come after that short time. Once the observer is gone the universe blinks out of existence as if it had never even been there. And from any observer outside our universe, they'd be right.
Edit: It's like trying to pin down an electron. You can't know two things at once, you can't be outside the universe and know anything about what's inside, and vice verse. You could travel as far as you wanted to and you'd never find another universe. Another universe is no more there for us to find than we are for them. What exists is the universe, and beyond that there is nothing. And all of what does exist exists because there are observers of it.
Our place in the universe is that of creators.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,047
@133,013 (G) > If one existed before ours with no observers then it wouldn't have existed. There would be nothing. nothing would remain
And when this universe is gone something will remain? You can pretend time runs in any direction you like and call it spooky, but those end points are still end points. Also, please take care not to pretend the effects we see in quantum phenomena apply at any other scale.
@133,039 (G)
Yeah, still not really buying it. I suppose I could get behind that position if I thought consciousness was some magical thing, but I really don't.
Foxygen !xVulpesUUg joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,051
To continue the life-starting chemical reaction that began millions of years ago.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,052
Those end points are quite fuzzy, Hawkins believes the big bang is bowl shaped, like a function approaching zero -never quite reaching it. In my mind imagine it's similar to a field that doesn't quite have defined edges. The universe begins with us, the observers are the center of the field. No define beginning or end, but a perfectly continuous present as long as there is an observer. A big misconception in science is that time began with the big bang, and this is not true. The big bang was what formed time, but that forming of time was as a result of there being an observer in the future who's past required that formation of time, matter, energy, etc. Time begins with the observer and moves out in all directions from that central point.
> Also, please take care not to pretend the effects we see in quantum phenomena apply at any other scale.
I'm implying that the way that time exists in both directions requires that phenomena to occur on the quantum level. There is nothing more quantum than the precise exact instantaneous moment that is 'the present.' The present works, on the quantum level to define the moments that occur just before, and just after the present. The way that we perceive time let's us see our effects on the future and gives us the impression of causality. But causality actually runs both ways. It is only because of our limited ability to experience the universe that it appears to us that we only advance in one direction.
> Yeah, still not really buying it. I suppose I could get behind that position if I thought consciousness was some magical thing, but I really don't.
It ain't magic, but it sure is something.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,057
@previous (G) > It is only because of our limited ability to experience the universe that it appears to us that we only advance in one direction.
Isn't it kind of bad form to argue about what really happens outside of our limited experience when you are arguing that our limited experience is what constitutes reality? I'm still not sure why you think our conscious experiences (limited as they are to such a small piece of the universe) are the only thing that could give it meaning or reality.
Also, what counts as an observer? If a conscious person is enough, then how about a newborn baby? A cat? A tree? A rock? What makes the interaction of the rest of the universe with us so special as opposed to its interaction with other matter? Why would the chain of events that occurs when, say, a photon hits your retina be qualitatively any different than than other chain of interactions?
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#133,058
@previous (R)
Crashing. Will follow up. I do have answers to those questions, but I appologize they are long and i am tired and postan on my phone.
I know this all sounds obtuse, but time unfolds in both directions from the present and an observer is required to for the present to exist.
An observer is anything that causes a collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. The 'first' observer would occur moments before the big bang in time, and the last observer would be the last instance of radioactive decay in the universe. But, a universe of rocks and no life exists as nothing, it flits into and out of existence as if it was never there, leaving no trace. But, we are actually here, right now, and the universe is here because of our observing it to be.
If we stop observing, and one day we will, it will just vanish into forever nothingness just like it was before you were born.
I'll try harder tomorrow to answer questions to your satisfaction.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#133,944
> Isn't it kind of bad form to argue about what really happens outside of our limited experience when you are arguing that our limited experience is what constitutes reality? I'm still not sure why you think our conscious experiences (limited as they are to such a small piece of the universe) are the only thing that could give it meaning or reality.
Well, we'll see what speculation occurs if the Higgs Boson is discovered. If it is measured it will be by indirect means, seeing how it interacts and influences other particles at extremely high energies. There are many things we can glean knowledge about things that are outside out limited experience. But, there are limits to what may actually be known. But what can be stated rather safely is that we are trapped inside the box that is our universe. This box includes all things, even those things that influence the visible universe as we experience it. As an example I'll say it includes all things in the standard model of the universe as we understand it, but also includes whatever other unknowable structure that may exist to support it. This box is everything, and anything that is not inside that box is unobservable. Any kind of 'thing' that exists beyond the universe would not have any influence on it at all. If it has influence, then it is a part of the universe. It is the simple act of being measurable by an observer that makes something real. This is what I mean when I say that the observer creates the universe.
As I've stated before the 'observer' may be any interaction that collapses the quantum wave function and forces matter to act as matter and not as energy. But life is a special case. You said, "our experiences are limited to a small piece of the universe," but in order for us to experience anything then all structures in the universe must be specifically tuned to support that limited experience. Supporters of a 'designer' or 'god' argue that the odds against the universe randomly forming from nothing is extremely, extremely remote -and physicists can't argue. It's highly improbable that all fundamental particles would have such exacting and perfect values -almost as if tuned by a creator. But that supposes that there was one first moment that things were created and we grew out of that. This theory holds onto the assumption that time only moves forward, beginning to end. But time is not well understood and the way that we experience time makes it incredibly difficult to wrap our heads around.
We experience time in the same way you would experience seeing a person by viewing only their shadow. You'd get some information, but a 3 dimentional object projected onto 2 dimensions conceals more information than it shows you. It's the difference between a square piece of paper and a box of equivalent size. Watching the shadow of a rotating box would lead you to speculate wildly about what is occurring, but with no observation of the actual box we would conclude that the shadow is an object that oscillates it's shape with a certain period. Time acts in the same way; we perceive time as having as being discrete, or continuous like the shadow, it changes it's shape with velocity and that relationship is well defined in special relativity. And just like our conclusions about the oscillating shadow, the math in special relativity just works.
The problem is that quantum mechanics doesn't mesh with special relativity. Quantum mechanics knows special relativity measures shadows and tries to describe the box. But, time exists in such a way that it is not fully measurable. We can only observe and directly measure the present. This being so, also means that the past and the future do not exist. Only the present is occurring. This works out to mean that what we perceive as time passing is actually the entropy of the universe, in other words it's tendency to become less organized rather than more organized. A single photon may move either forward or backward in time. But a particle moving backwards in time still results in that photon existing in the present. That action of reversing direction implies that the present has an effect on the past in the same way that it has an effect on the future. Rather than a continuous river, it flows in two directions at once and each direction intersects and at that intersection, the present, everything is made real by the observer. Everything flows from the present. The observer is therefor effecting his own past as well as his future.
> What makes the interaction of the rest of the universe with us so special as opposed to its interaction with other matter? Why would the chain of events that occurs when, say, a photon hits your retina be qualitatively any different than than other chain of interactions?
Qualitatively it is the insignificance of our universe without an observer that makes life have meaning.
Edit: There is no past and there is no future because all 'times' exist at the same time, the present, but they are removed from one another by distances in time.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#133,983
To kick ass and chew bubblegum.
Or to be excellent to each other.
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#134,046
@133,944 (G)
Well, thank you for following up. No doubt, we'll see that immortalized as copypasta sometime down the road.
> Everything flows from the present.
Believing that seems like a pretty tall order as it runs contrary to experience. There are lots of things a photon can do (or seem to do) that other things can't. Do you have a more compelling example?
> Qualitatively it is the insignificance of our universe without an observer that makes life have meaning.
It's an interesting perspective, but I'm still not buying it. The idea of existing just to be a witness to the universe unfolding because, without a witness, the universe can't exist to unfold seems a little circular for my taste. On top of this, the definition of an observer as "any interaction that collapses the quantum wave function" just seems to kick the can down the road to the problem of consciousness. I can't shake the feeling that all this talk of quantum weirdness is just an attempt to plug one mystery into another in hopes of tying off some loose ends from both.
I suppose I probably won't be able to get behind this position, as I'm not convinced that consciousness is all that special. Some of your ideas remind of me position called conscious realism that holds that consciousness is fundamental and the rest of world is wholly constructed by and dependent upon it.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#134,083
> Well, thank you for following up. No doubt, we'll see that immortalized as copypasta sometime down the road.
It's like getting a gold star sticker.
> > Everything flows from the present. > Believing that seems like a pretty tall order as it runs contrary to experience. There are lots of things a photon can do (or seem to do) that other things can't. Do you have a more compelling example?
Well yes, the graviton. It is purely theoretical. It's existence would lead to a whole host of implications. The least of which is many worlds theory. String theory, again, purely a mathematical theory, predicts the graviton, and the many worlds interpretation is basically parallel universes. The idea being that what lays beyond our universe, the 'nothing' that I described, is instead not full of nothing, but full of parallel universes. But they are so far away from one another they will never be observed by one another. Distances that are beyond the scale of what is even imaginable.
The graviton, if it exists, has a lot to answer for. The other fundamental forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak nuclear) act as fields and exchange particles, but are much, much, stronger. Gravity is extremely weak by comparison. The question is why? It's possible that the graviton can move with an additional degree of freedom, meaning that it can travel in a direction that we can not. Think of it like a cartoon character stepping of the screen to avoid being hit by the train. The cartoon lifts itself from the 2D plane and moves in the 3rd dimension. This is what could possibly be what's happening with the graviton. It is never directly 'seen,' because before it can be observed it moves into a direction we cannot follow. It is weakly interacting because it doesn't exist in a single universe, but exists in in many universes once. Possibly each of the parallel universes are like the multiplicity of images you see when you stand between 2 mirrors. The images are really quite similar, but the deeper you look into the reflections the less "in focus" they appear. Parallel universes that share gravitons may be similar, the universes are mirror images, but with teeny tiny incongruities. Such as the difference between one instant in time and the next. If gravitons move freely between the universes then they are part of a much larger structure, a connected structure. Going back to the box example of time: we experience only the shadow -the surface area. But the of the box is ^3. Time is a very. large. dimension. Despite being removed from each other by impossibly vast spacial distances, information flows freely between them instantaneously in the form of gravitons
As observers we don't just create our universe, but we also create the entirety of the multiverse. If a universe does not exist unless it has an observer, then even in the multiverse where any universe is possible, a universe will not occur unless it is observed. Things that -can't- happen, won't happen. Not because they can't -they can, but they aren't going to because there is a 'present' that sets limitations on what is probable.
This also increases the importance of consciousness, in that it too would trancend those distances. If each parallel universe is a single moment of time from our perspective, then thought is a transcendant capability.
> It's an interesting perspective, but I'm still not buying it. The idea of existing just to be a witness to the universe unfolding because, without a witness, the universe can't exist to unfold seems a little circular for my taste. On top of this, the definition of an observer as "any interaction that collapses the quantum wave function" just seems to kick the can down the road to the problem of consciousness. I can't shake the feeling that all this talk of quantum weirdness is just an attempt to plug one mystery into another in hopes of tying off some loose ends from both.
Yeah, it's all just theory and conjecture when you start talking untestable theories. Fun stuff to think about, but it's all one hand fapping. But check into biocentrism, it's intersting stuff. Very counterintuitive. But, so is special relativity, so... who knows. Check out Dr. Roger Penrose, he's a theoretical physicist and he's got some really, really bizare ideas about consciousness and quantum menchanics. heady stuff too.
> I suppose I probably won't be able to get behind this position, as I'm not convinced that consciousness is all that special. Some of your ideas remind of me position called conscious realism that holds that consciousness is fundamental and the rest of world is wholly constructed by and dependent upon it.
Sounds similar enough. Not new ideas really. But, the idea of time as begining in the present, and the present existing in all times kinda blows my mind a little bit. Like, it's all connected, man.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#134,090
> Check out Roger Penrose
I'm familiar with his ideas. I think the last thing I really sat down and read by him was The Emperor's New Mind. I'm sure he's had some new ideas since, but I haven't kept up.
> But check into biocentrism, it's intersting stuff. Very counterintuitive.
I will have to look into it more. Counterintuitive perspectives can really challenge one's thinking.
> Fun stuff to think about, but it's all one hand fapping.
LOL'd
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#134,096