Nothing Matters / All is Extraordinarily Special

[Acid]

What do you guys think of this? What are your thoughts/arguments? I wrote this a while back when this problem was constantly on my mind. So yeah. /---/---/ o n t o being one and t being two; one being infinitesimal and two being of extraordinary value. o being o-extreme and t being t-extreme; n being neutral; ont being whole. _______________________________________ sects of a message sent to a female friend of mine: "There are many definitions as to the meaning of wrong, so according to a permissible and rather considerable amount of meanings to the term wrong, nothing is wrong per se. It seems that every turn I make on this hypothetical street, I recognize that knowledge means nothing and my life is so insiginificant even to the contrary of the butterfly effect, my being alive will not affect infinity because relative to it, it is nothing.To ignore this is to live in a fake reality You see, according to logic and my views upon the pertaining matters of happening, the universe is infinite. And to view the universe as infinite, is to view that everything relative to infinity is infinitesimal.Therefore, including terminability, nothing really -matters- However, if you look at it through the extreme opposite: Considering the evaluation that every unit of matter and apparent matter are finite and infinitesimal; you should cherish every moment as if it were your last, because the probability of your reality being reality as it is is increasingly coincidental and highly unlikely. In turn, nothing actually matters to one extreme, and to another, all is extraordinarily special."

[saltyseedog]

Much of what you say is true. Everything leads to nothing. Whatever we do in this lifetime does not matter when we are infinity. infinity is one. It is everything. It is everything that could ever be. It is nothing. we are infinity. everything is infinity. we are nothing but part of something larger which is part of something larger which is part of something larger infinitely. Everything within us is the same way. Everything works together for the greater good of the whole. Everything is codependent. We need knowledge. We are unaware of this concept which is all of reality. it causes us to be greedy and our society to be miserable. It destroys our planet. it is what causes so much of this suffering

[Arra]

What do you mean by "the universe is infinite"? What aspect of the universe is infinite? Space? Time? Or something else? To just say "the universe is infinite" makes little sense. I can't agree with the rest of the post until I know and agree with what is meant by this phrase.

[tommo]

It makes perfect sense. It is infinite in space/size, time, whatever else.

[saltyseedog]

What do you mean by "the universe is infinite"? What aspect of the universe is infinite? Space? Time? Or something else? To just say "the universe is infinite" makes little sense. I can't agree with the rest of the post until I know and agree with what is meant by this phrase. Within an atom are neatrons, electrons and protons. These subparticles have subparticles and those sub particles have sub particles. It goes within infinitly. Our planet belongs to a solar system, which belongs to a galaxy which belongs to a cluster of galaxies forever belonging to something bigger than itself.

[Arra]

Within an atom are neatrons, electrons and protons. These subparticles have subparticles and those sub particles have sub particles. It goes within infinitly. Our planet belongs to a solar system, which belongs to a galaxy which belongs to a cluster of galaxies forever belonging to something bigger than itself. I've never heard this. Before believing things are true, we need to have observed them or have some other rational reason for believing in them. I know almost nothing about quantum physics, the big bang theory, etc. but this doesn't sound like it fits into either of the theories. As far as I've heard, there are a few hypotheses or theories, but scientists don't yet know what the smallest particle that makes up matter is. So I don't know how you can be asserting that subparticles go on infinitely. That hypothesis seems one of the most unlikely and nonsensical to me. And our expanding universe is, as far as I know, the only one scientists are aware of. Again, there are hypotheses about other universes and superuniverses, but I don't know where you're getting your information to say with sureness that superuniverses go on into infinity.

[Philosopher8659]

Imagine that a toaster could think. Put the words into the mind of a toaster. Would they be true to the function of the toaster? What may or may not be predicated of a thing is determined by the definition of a thing. This is just as true of a rock, as to sapience. It is not relative, therefore you claim you are using logic, which is far from the truth. It is a fancy idea that truth is relative, an oxymon that only the logicless can indulge in. Relation to self: Do you really believe that the significance of a person changes with the data that person considers? Or, was Plato correct, is logic correct, that the relative difference between two terms is not either term of which it is between?

[saltyseedog]

I am not using logic. Your mind can only understand so much from the limited perspective of what it percieves in the physical world. The source of this information is not from this world. I was told by someone else. They can see life from a bigger perspective.

[Philosopher8659]

I am not using logic. Your mind can only understand so much from the limited perspective of what it percieves in the physical world. The source of this information is not from this world. I was told by someone else. They can see life from a bigger perspective. Ever notice how a blind person cannot help but make the same mistake over and over again when it comes to judging color?

[Arra]

I am not using logic. Your mind can only understand so much from the limited perspective of what it perceives in the physical world. The source of this information is not from this world. I was told by someone else. They can see life from a bigger perspective. In my life, so far, I've observed too many times the feeling of something being right leading me astray. That way of knowing is too uncertain. We want supernatural things to be true, so our minds will try to make us believe them. Our minds are very powerful and capable of inducing strong feelings that things are true when they aren't. Like when people take drugs and feel a oneness with the universe, which they've pinned down in a laboratory to be a specific thing happening in the brain. Maybe you have a better reason than I do for believing in these non-logic truths, and you've experienced things that you somehow know are informing you about the truth, and are not just happenings in your brain. But until I experience something like that myself, it seems more likely to me that you're simply unaware of how good the brain is at making it seem like something supernatural is happening, of how powerful your brain is at inducing the feelings. That, or you just don't care about truth.

[stormcrow]

I've never heard this. Before believing things are true, we need to have observed them or have some other rational reason for believing in them. I know almost nothing about quantum physics, the big bang theory, etc. but this doesn't sound like it fits into either of the theories. As far as I've heard, there are a few hypotheses or theories, but scientists don't yet know what the smallest particle that makes up matter is. So I don't know how you can be asserting that subparticles go on infinitely. That hypothesis seems one of the most unlikely and nonsensical to me. And our expanding universe is, as far as I know, the only one scientists are aware of. Again, there are hypotheses about other universes and superuniverses, but I don't know where you're getting your information to say with sureness that superuniverses go on into infinity. Atoms are made of protons, electrons, neutrons and they are in turn made of quarks, etc. String theory is an attempt to find the "fundamental" smallest particle where all other particles originate to avoid this infinite regression problem. In this regard string theory is an attempt at foundationalism. But superstrings have never been observed so we are justified in being skeptical. Whatever the answer is the universe rarely conforms to our ideas of what is sensible so it is possible that there is no fundamental particle and all particles are made of smaller particles like a Russian doll that never ends.

[saltyseedog]

Maybe you should do some drugs and become one and you can see for yourself. It definatley makes everything seem like its not real.

[Philosopher8659]

Damn, I am back to being in love.

[Philosopher8659]

Atoms are made of protons, electrons, neutrons and they are in turn made of quarks, etc. String theory is an attempt to find the "fundamental" smallest particle where all other particles originate to avoid this infinite regression problem. In this regard string theory is an attempt at foundationalism. But superstrings have never been observed so we are justified in being skeptical. Whatever the answer is the universe rarely conforms to our ideas of what is sensible so it is possible that there is no fundamental particle and all particles are made of smaller particles like a Russian doll that never ends. People come off with these long trains of word which they are too unaware that merely state that reason is insufficient for reality--i.e. that language contradicts language, or logic contradicts logic. I only see such statements as being the grand self-referential fallacy. If one truly believed this themselves, would they speak at all?

[Arra]

Atoms are made of protons, electrons, neutrons and they are in turn made of quarks, etc. String theory is an attempt to find the "fundamental" smallest particle where all other particles originate to avoid this infinite regression problem. In this regard string theory is an attempt at foundationalism. But superstrings have never been observed so we are justified in being skeptical. Whatever the answer is the universe rarely conforms to our ideas of what is sensible so it is possible that there is no fundamental particle and all particles are made of smaller particles like a Russian doll that never ends. It's possible, but I don't see how it's any more likely than some fundamental particle or other type of energy existing. You seem to be arguing: - string theory is an attempt at foundationalism - there is no good evidence of string theory - therefore we should be skeptical of foundationalism - therefore a different theory, infinite regression, is more likely But that isn't valid, if infinite regression has no better evidence to support it right now. If anything, it should be assumed until proven otherwise that there is some foundational particle (with Occam's Razor).

[Philosopher8659]

But that isn't valid, if infinite regression has no better evidence to support it right now. If anything, it should be assumed until proven otherwise that there is some foundational particle (with Occam's Razor). That is where the ancient Greek Two-Element metaphysics has a leg up on modern thought. A fundamental partical would still be a thing, and you thus define things in terms of things--the primitive self referential fallacy. They realized that the two elements, form and material difference, were, in of themselves not things. Thus there is no infinite regression. Space is not a thing, but a cube is. Time is not a thing, but a second is. The universe is not a thing, but a galaxie is. etc. You even see the idea in what a basic sentence is. I explained this in L&E. It was also known that most people could not think in accordance with these two primitive abstractions. They must believe that a line is composed of an infinite number of points. They believe one can make a salad by waving a knife an infinite number of times in the air. There is a difference between people who craft and those who simply use craft. Ayn Rand had more than a foot in that shadow.

[stormcrow]

It's possible, but I don't see how it's any more likely than some fundamental particle or other type of energy existing. You seem to be arguing: - string theory is an attempt at foundationalism - there is no good evidence of string theory - therefore we should be skeptical of foundationalism - therefore a different theory, infinite regression, is more likely But that isn't valid, if infinite regression has no better evidence to support it right now. If anything, it should be assumed until proven otherwise that there is some foundational particle (with Occam's Razor). Nah Im not really arguing for anything. Im just a gadfly that likes stirring the pot, I try to take the position of thesis and antithesis and let the reader decide which position I hold. I don't hold an concrete beliefs or positions I just entertain ideas. " - string theory is an attempt at foundationalism - there is no good evidence of string theory - therefore we should be skeptical of foundationalism - therefore a different theory, infinite regression, is more likely " I was not making this argument at all. I think it is likely that there is a fundamental particle but I think it is important to not write off an idea because it seems nonsensical to us because the universe is very mysterious after all. We should be skeptical of foundationism period. We should be skeptical of the skepticism that led Descartes to the conclusion I think therefore I am which is a famous example of foundationalism. Dianeva I love you so dont take this as an insult but please read my post more carefully. I guess people who are familiar with my writing style know I play the devils advocate all the time. I rarely come to conclusions I just entertain ideas. Anyway I think my last sentence sums up what I was trying to say "Whatever the answer is, the universe rarely conforms to our ideas of what is sensible so it is possible that there is no fundamental particle" Hence I use alot of words like possible, perhaps,etc. @Philosopher- Im not entirely sure if you are insulting me but Ill assume you are just trying to talk to me. I would ask you to be less ambiguous but Im sure you are going to insult me for being unintelligent...hmm conundrum. I dont really agree that reason is insufficient for describing reality, it is flawed but still one of our best tools for understanding the world.(see Dub's signature). I think language is in some ways an inefficient means of understanding reality. We believe language to be a mirror that reflects the way the world really is when language only reflects the ideas we have about the world. This reminds me of the poet T.S. Elliot's challenge to describe light to the blind. Again language is flawed but like reason it is an essential tool. And also fuck Ayn Rand.

[Philosopher8659]

It is transerrence when you claim it is the hammers fault for hitting your thumb--which you do a great deal of. As for Ayn Rand, you would be so lucky.

[stormcrow]

It is transerrence when you claim it is the hammers fault for hitting your thumb--which you do a great deal of. As for Ayn Rand, you would be so lucky. So Im guessing you are saying it is not the hammers(reason, language) fault, it is my dysfunctional brain that prevents me from understanding the world, how clever of you. How did I know you were going to take a shot at my intelligence. You are a 50 year old man feeling intellectually superior because you argue against teenagers.... I wouldn't poke my dick into Ayn Rand because I don't fuck animals.

[Philosopher8659]

I wouldn't poke my dick into Ayn Rand because I don't fuck animals. No, I imagine not, you spend too much time self amused.

[Xaqaria]

It makes perfect sense. It is infinite in space/size, time, whatever else. Unfortunately, it is untrue. Nothing that is real is really infinite. The perception of "infinity" is merely a matter of a limited perspective. Sitting in the middle of the ocean, water seems infinite.

[saltyseedog]

Unfortunately, it is untrue. Nothing that is real is really infinite. The perception of "infinity" is merely a matter of a limited perspective. Sitting in the middle of the ocean, water seems infinite. But I did not mean outwardly infinite. I meant inwardly infinite.

[Xaqaria]

Although the analogy is not as pertinent, the assertion still applies. The only constant of this reality is impermanence.

[Arra]

It was also known that most people could not think in accordance with these two primitive abstractions. They must believe that a line is composed of an infinite number of points. They believe one can make a salad by waving a knife an infinite number of times in the air. I think everyone has an abstract idea in their minds of what a line is, or what beauty is. I don't know why you think most people are incapable of thinking about abstract concepts. I’ve never heard of anyone not being able to do this. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re arguing in the Language & Experience thing, which wouldn’t be surprising.

[Philosopher8659]

I think everyone has an abstract idea in their minds of what a line is, or what beauty is. I don't know why you think most people are incapable of thinking about abstract concepts. I’ve never heard of anyone not being able to do this. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re arguing in the Language & Experience thing, which wouldn’t be surprising. Really? Then why would all these people tolerate the statement that a line is composed of an infinite number of points, or that space bends, or that time slows down? These elements also determine the principles of predication, a statement is only true when predication is the inverse function of abstraction. Yet, people observe no such principle--and call them and others like them, genius. Why do tolerate such phrases as The philosophy of Mathematics? How can people read a book, and not see contradiction after contradiction--and then praise the author? And what in the hell is an abstract idea? Is an idea different from an idea? What is an abstract concept? Is a concept different from a concept? May as well be talking about red, green, and blue ideas with purple concepts. You dont see the self referential fallacy of your word constructions. When you cannot use a principle, does it mean that principle is a fundamental part of your language processing? I will admit this much, and that is why I am working on this project, a great deal of what I see may only be the results of enculturation. I really hope so.