User Avatar Image

The Philosophy thread

posted by hansschmucker on - last edited - Viewed by 278 users

Time to share your views on what's happening in the universe. While I'm not a big fan of turning philosophy into a profession, I think it's a great thinking exercise, because you can experiment with things you don't see in your daily life.

So here are my thoughts on the nature of the universe:

The fun thing about the universe is that it's infinite in time and space. It's something humans have a hard time understanding. We usually measure emptiness, like in "an empty hand" or "an empty glass". We try to specify amounts of emptiness in an (in our opinion) filled world.
The void of the universe is of an entirely different nature. So different that it's hard to put into human words: The universe is not the absence of anything, it's the natural state of not-being.
In the universe there's no here and no now, because if you have a plane that extends endlessly there's no beginning, no fixed point that you could you can put the here and now in relation to.

There also is no first time for anything, because everything has always happened. There's no one big bang that formed matter out of nothing, because that would imply that there wasn't anything before that, but since the time before is infinite, it must have happened before. And because the space is infinite it must be happening somewhere right now as a matter of fact. Somewhere right now there are a infinite number of worlds just like this where you are married to the equivalent of Salma Hayek. There's also an infinite numbers of worlds where you don't exist, so all in all I'd say being on our earth isn't all that bad.

There's no purpose, no point to anything. Stuff just happens. But you know what the really fun part is? It doesn't matter. We live in what we perceive as the here and now, and we create reference points that only matter to us. Moral values that don't have any logical basis. You can call them "god", "believe", you can call them "good in people", it doesn't really matter. People who try to find the logic in our being here are at best unhappy and at worst suicidal. These oversimplifications keep us happy. It feels good to be good. And that's what matters to us.

73 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • You've got some interesting ideas there. But I'm not sure I agree with it all. About the multiverse, I think we may never be able to verify their existence, and I'm not sure if it will be parallel universes that are similar to this one, but instead you have beard and are bad. Oops, I wear a bear, so possibly I'm the evil one and in another universe I'm the good one. It sounds all too sci-fi for me.

    I don't think there's no sense in life and the universe. We surely must be here with a mission besides living each day with no purpose at all. Moral values are relative, but we have something innerent to us, which you may call a concience that will tell you if something is good or not. And the universe is surely the result of an intelligent design, not the result of chaos, which doesn't mean there isn't a lot of chaos in this universe.

    I agree that universe is infinite, but time is real, at least to us, because it is how we perceive it along the other dimensions. Maybe it's real only for us, but in our limited knowledge it is something that we use to measure the movement between spaces.

  • @hansschmucker said: The fun thing about the universe is that it's infinite in time and space. It's something humans have a hard time understanding.


    Not necessarily true. As far as science is concerned, time has a beginning. It stands to reason that it may also have an end. Time and space are interconnected; dimensions of the same thing, through which we move at a fixed rate. If we move at the speed of light through space, time stops, and if we stop in space, time moves at the speed of light. Space is 11 dimensional, and our universe is merely a strand or "brane" within it, and may flow into other universes through black holes.

    With all of these developments in the realm of theoretical physics, it doesn't seem far fetched to me to see the universe as a system folded in on and flowing into itself; infinite only in the sense of a Mobius strip.

    Just a thought.

    Moral values that don't have any logical basis.
    This isn't true. Morals are the invention of mankind, as is the notion of "good" in its most abstract, but we exist in a human world, and within that world, there most certainly is a logic. Much can be said of good and morality without ever invoking "God." Just because not all things are human is no reason to shrug off humanity.

  • @pilouuuu said: And the universe is surely the result of an intelligent design, not the result of chaos, which doesn't mean there isn't a lot of chaos in this universe.


    The "watchmaker argument" and its variants are the most easily disproved teleological arguments in philosophy.

    Basically the argument as you've framed it goes thus:

    "The universe is so complex and well-ordered that it could only have been created by God."

    So complexity is framed as something that can only be created. And yet the virtue by which it was created is that of a superior, or more complex, being creating something lesser than itself.

    Now we've caught ourselves in a loop. God hasn't solved the equation, he's brought us further from it! We now have an even more impressive entity than the universe, in need of a better than perfect creator himself!

    Thus the sarcastic cynic might retort to your argument, "It's obvious that the universe was created by God, just as it's obvious that God was created by Supergod! Surely a being as great as God could not have happened into existence without Supergod!"

    It's a very poor argument. If we can accept that something like God can "simply always be" without the need to be created, then surely we can accept that the same is true (and indeed more plausible) of the less-impressive thing called "the universe."

  • @Frogacuda said: Surely a being as great as God could not have happened into existence without Supergod!



    You don't believe in Supergod?!?! BLASPHEMY! HANG HIM!!!!

    But seriously, I agree with everything you said there, heh.

  • 1. We can conceive of something that is the "greatest."

    2. Existing adds to "greatness", while not existing takes away from "greatness"

    3. Since God is the "greatest", God must exist.

    Ontological Argument. It's flawless.

  • 1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable

    2. The Merit of an acheivement is the product of (a) its instrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of the creator.

    3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

    4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

    5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of a existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing

    6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God who did not exist

    Ergo:

    7. God does not exist

  • (I already read those things, but I couldn't be arsed getting out the god delusion to type in in properly, so I just ran google searches and copied and pasted them)

  • @Fury said: 1. We can conceive of something that is the "greatest."

    2. Existing adds to "greatness", while not existing takes away from "greatness"

    3. Since God is the "greatest", God must exist.

    Ontological Argument. It's flawless.


    This is great because it's missing a premise, namely "All things of which we can conceive exist." :lol:

    Anyway, I have no problem with people that want to believe in God, and I think athiests that blame evils of man on religion are deluded and looking selectively.

    But I get aggravated when people act like they can prove got exists, while simultaneously defining him outside of the bounds of the provable. Nobody can prove or disprove such a being.

  • @Frogacuda said: Nobody can prove or disprove such a being.



    We can't prove or disprove such a being by philosophical arguments. But just because science can't disprove God now, doesn't mean we won't be able to at a later date. Scientists in the 18th century talked about how we will never be able to determine the composition of stars, but we can do it now with spectroscopy.

    Science is pretty awesome, it'll work something out eventually. Religion isn't immune from science, just like the world being flat isn't either.

    But I doubt we'll get there in our lifetimes.

  • @Fury said: We can't prove or disprove such a being by philosophical arguments. But just because science can't disprove God now, doesn't mean we won't be able to at a later date. Scientists in the 18th century talked about how we will never be able to determine the composition of stars, but we can do it now with spectroscopy.

    Science is pretty awesome, it'll work something out eventually. Religion isn't immune from science, just like the world being flat isn't either.

    But I doubt we'll get there in our lifetimes.



    Homer accidentally disproved god while he was doing his taxes once.

Add Comment