Topic: On the meaning of life and the long-term merits of technologic improvement - page 3. (Read 23743 times)
June 08, 2016, 11:00:30 PM
Time will come human technology will cure aging and death. We think we are modern but we belong to the ancient. You don't see what human is capable to do. Give humanity another 100 to 500 years.
June 08, 2016, 09:47:34 PM
You mean god felt lonely and insecure and decided to create the universe and men in order to be adored?
So, besides being an entity with clear anger management problems (just see the punishments from Yahweh on the Old testament), god also has an inferiority complex? (the need to be worshiped)?
So, besides being an entity with clear anger management problems (just see the punishments from Yahweh on the Old testament), god also has an inferiority complex? (the need to be worshiped)?
June 06, 2016, 02:29:05 PM
Look at what God said when He created the earth, etc. From the beginning of Genesis in the Bible:
----------
God made man in his own image. From Genesis 1:26,27:
When we want to use software to make or download an .iso program, we say that we make an "image" of the program file on our computer. This image is not the fully operational end-program. Yet it has the potential to be, because it is an image of the fully operational end-program.
----------
Solomon, who was probably the wisest man ever, wrote in Proverbs 25:27:
This brings us to the point of why mankind exists.
God looked at his own honor and glory in the creation. Now, remember. Mankind was made in the image of God. This means that both man and God have some similarities, share some qualities. So, perhaps in some ways, if God had not made man, it would not have been honorable or glorious for Him to look at the creation that He made... to look at His own glory and honor.
What does man have to do with maintaining God's honor and glory in this? One of the major purposes of mankind is to praise, honor and glorify God for all the wonderful things He has done. Thus people, who are similar to God in some ways, use their God-likeness to uphold God's honor and glory. Yet, because it is God who made mankind, it is God upholding His own honor and glory in a wondrous, fabulous way... through mankind.
Then, when mankind turned away from the thing that we were supposed to be doing, God didn't destroy us. Rather, God sent the Savior, Jesus, so that mankind could be saved, when there was no apparent reason or even desire for saving mankind, but so that God's glory and honor could become even greater. Mankind now has even more reason to glorify God. Not only did God make man, but He saved man when man turned against God!
This whole creation is all about the honor and glory of God. And there is a whole lot of pleasure and joy right along with the honor and glory.
Quote
...
"God saw that the light was good..."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good"
...
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
...
In other words, God looked at everything that He created and made, and He saw that it all was very good. God saw that it was all very good."God saw that the light was good..."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good."
...
"And God saw that it was good"
...
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
...
----------
God made man in his own image. From Genesis 1:26,27:
Quote
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
When we want to use software to make or download an .iso program, we say that we make an "image" of the program file on our computer. This image is not the fully operational end-program. Yet it has the potential to be, because it is an image of the fully operational end-program.
----------
Solomon, who was probably the wisest man ever, wrote in Proverbs 25:27:
Quote
It is not good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to seek one’s own honor.
Some translations say "glory" rather than "honor."This brings us to the point of why mankind exists.
God looked at his own honor and glory in the creation. Now, remember. Mankind was made in the image of God. This means that both man and God have some similarities, share some qualities. So, perhaps in some ways, if God had not made man, it would not have been honorable or glorious for Him to look at the creation that He made... to look at His own glory and honor.
What does man have to do with maintaining God's honor and glory in this? One of the major purposes of mankind is to praise, honor and glorify God for all the wonderful things He has done. Thus people, who are similar to God in some ways, use their God-likeness to uphold God's honor and glory. Yet, because it is God who made mankind, it is God upholding His own honor and glory in a wondrous, fabulous way... through mankind.
Then, when mankind turned away from the thing that we were supposed to be doing, God didn't destroy us. Rather, God sent the Savior, Jesus, so that mankind could be saved, when there was no apparent reason or even desire for saving mankind, but so that God's glory and honor could become even greater. Mankind now has even more reason to glorify God. Not only did God make man, but He saved man when man turned against God!
This whole creation is all about the honor and glory of God. And there is a whole lot of pleasure and joy right along with the honor and glory.
June 03, 2016, 01:15:47 PM
Did you see the "Up Like Trump" post here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15069587 ? Seems that there are a lot of "me" people protesting against some of the things that Trump is suggesting.
The only time the meaning of life has any significance is when "we" willingly use the "me" to help the "we." And the "we" we help first is our family, and then our neighborhood, and then those far away.
If the media uses the word "we" as a human race thing, it really doesn't have any meaning, because nobody interacts with the whole human race. If you are trying to speak for the whole human race, go with "42" from Doug Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy:
EDIT: In the Wikipedia article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy), Adams as noted as saying regarding "42"
What's interesting about this is, we live in a universe controlled by cause and effect. Pure random seems likely, but it has never been found. So, what caused Adams to select 42?
The only time the meaning of life has any significance is when "we" willingly use the "me" to help the "we." And the "we" we help first is our family, and then our neighborhood, and then those far away.
If the media uses the word "we" as a human race thing, it really doesn't have any meaning, because nobody interacts with the whole human race. If you are trying to speak for the whole human race, go with "42" from Doug Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy:
Quote
In the radio series and the first novel, a group of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings demand to learn the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. It takes Deep Thought 7½ million years to compute and check the answer, which turns out to be 42. Deep Thought points out that the answer seems meaningless because the beings who instructed it never actually knew what the Question was.
EDIT: In the Wikipedia article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy), Adams as noted as saying regarding "42"
Quote
The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
What's interesting about this is, we live in a universe controlled by cause and effect. Pure random seems likely, but it has never been found. So, what caused Adams to select 42?
June 03, 2016, 11:40:44 AM
Questioning our fear (or, at least, a negative feeling about it) of death is like asking why we don't like to be dumped by a girlfriend (unless we are tired of her).
If one doesn't have negative feelings about death, this means one doesn't love life.
Someone can realize everything he wanted on life, but, if he still loves being alive, death will be a tragedy.
Someone that doesn't fear or dislikes death, as the end of his own life, is someone who loves nothing or anyone, not even himself.
No one likes unhappy endings. Therefore, all happy stories about life have to be relatively short ones.
Romances and princess tales always end on the marriage. But, actually, they don't end there, but on a funeral.
If one doesn't have negative feelings about death, this means one doesn't love life.
Someone can realize everything he wanted on life, but, if he still loves being alive, death will be a tragedy.
Someone that doesn't fear or dislikes death, as the end of his own life, is someone who loves nothing or anyone, not even himself.
No one likes unhappy endings. Therefore, all happy stories about life have to be relatively short ones.
Romances and princess tales always end on the marriage. But, actually, they don't end there, but on a funeral.
May 25, 2016, 08:54:11 AM
Theories, philosophy, religion and science all have one thing in common that makes solving the riddle of life impossible: they tackle the 'problem' as a group.
Death is an intimate affair. As a matter of fact it is the most intimate affair anyone will ever experience from their time on earth. When you're born you're physically linked to your mother but when you die you are completely alone.
No need for textbooks or professors here, the only question that can help each and everyone solve the age old riddle is: "Why do I fear death?" The answer to this intimate question is unique to each and everyone
Ultimately your death is the culmination of how you lived your life.
Death is an intimate affair. As a matter of fact it is the most intimate affair anyone will ever experience from their time on earth. When you're born you're physically linked to your mother but when you die you are completely alone.
No need for textbooks or professors here, the only question that can help each and everyone solve the age old riddle is: "Why do I fear death?" The answer to this intimate question is unique to each and everyone
Ultimately your death is the culmination of how you lived your life.
May 25, 2016, 06:18:52 AM
feel that the issue of the meaning of life is analogous to the issue of the definition of chaos. As we know, there is no definition of chaos, because at the moment that someone formulates such definition, chaos ceases to be chaos. Similarly, at the moment that someone formulate the meaning of life (do not forget that it covers not only humans), it will become meaningless.
May 22, 2016, 11:18:31 PM
All that technological improvements mean is that somebody will be able to use technology to control someone else easier. Government will use technology to make government people rich at the expense of poor ignorant people who don't have technology.
One of the few pieces of technology that might help poor people from being plundered is a good gun in their hands.
One of the few pieces of technology that might help poor people from being plundered is a good gun in their hands.
May 22, 2016, 11:06:37 PM
Can the generations alive now really trust on science to postpone death for a long period?
Better don't hope too much.
The time of the simple scientific problems ended. Now, a genius working alone won't be able to do much, like in the past.
As humankind goes deeper and deeper, each scientific problem increases extraordinarily in complexity. Current times are times of big teams of scientists banging their minds for years trying to solve a problem.
Isn't just a question of money. Humankind has been burning billions on serious scientific issues for years (cancer, nuclear fusion, increasing the output of solar panels, understanding the human brain, aging, cryonics, etc.) with small results.
Other issues, only after decades of investigation are giving some results (AIDS, genetics, stem cells, space exploration, robotics, artificial intelligence).
Some went as far as saying we already are more or less at the top of scientific development (John Horgan, The Final Frontier: Are We Reaching the Limits of Science?: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/oct/cover; he is author of a famous book on the issue: The End of Science).
Others on more reasonable terms, taking in account the increasing on complexity, say we are risking reaching a stalemate on scientific development by 2050, unless we double or triple the financial and personal resources dedicated to investigation.
The so-called revolutionary nature of modern society because of scientific development as been exaggerated. Technological development had must more social consequences back on the XIX century.
Better don't hope too much.
The time of the simple scientific problems ended. Now, a genius working alone won't be able to do much, like in the past.
As humankind goes deeper and deeper, each scientific problem increases extraordinarily in complexity. Current times are times of big teams of scientists banging their minds for years trying to solve a problem.
Isn't just a question of money. Humankind has been burning billions on serious scientific issues for years (cancer, nuclear fusion, increasing the output of solar panels, understanding the human brain, aging, cryonics, etc.) with small results.
Other issues, only after decades of investigation are giving some results (AIDS, genetics, stem cells, space exploration, robotics, artificial intelligence).
Some went as far as saying we already are more or less at the top of scientific development (John Horgan, The Final Frontier: Are We Reaching the Limits of Science?: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/oct/cover; he is author of a famous book on the issue: The End of Science).
Others on more reasonable terms, taking in account the increasing on complexity, say we are risking reaching a stalemate on scientific development by 2050, unless we double or triple the financial and personal resources dedicated to investigation.
The so-called revolutionary nature of modern society because of scientific development as been exaggerated. Technological development had must more social consequences back on the XIX century.
May 21, 2016, 10:37:04 AM
All facts occurring on our life under light are reflected and "conserved" by photons (the basis of light). Many of those photons are reflected to space.
Our all life (even some occurring on the privacy of our homes, when there is light) might be out there on the universe.
For someone that loves History, the idea that all our History and pre-History is out there and "could be seen like a movie" is interesting.
Alpha Centauri is the closest star system (it has 3 stars) to Earth. It's at 4.37 light years (the light at 300,000 kms per second takes 4.37 years to reach it) from Earth.
Therefore, the light reflected by Earth that is reaching it now parted Earth more than 4 years ago. Any "intelligent species" on a planet there (there seems to at least one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri#Planets) would see Earth as it was 4 years ago. With a "powerful enough telescope", they could even see us.
Of course, they had to have a telescope working on completely different principles than, say, the projected James Webb Space Telescope, able to "pick" most of the stranded and relatively few photons reflected by Earth (being a planet, those photons are lost on the middle of the ones emitted by the Sun).
Someone on a planet 5000 light years away from Earth with the same "powerful enough telescope" could see and record all human history.
Since (as far as what modern Physics says) it's impossible to travel faster than light (and "wormholes" are still science fiction) we couldn't go there faster than light and "grab" those stranded photons. But as a science fiction possibility is an interesting idea, if indeed we could travel faster than light.
I confirmed that this idea was already an old idea:
https://www.quora.com/If-we-aimed-a-telescope-at-a-planet-that-was-light-years-away-and-it-hit-a-mirror-aimed-perfectly-at-Earth-could-we-see-into-our-past
Another possibility would be for the light reflected by Earth to be intercepted by a black hole on the right angle in order to be turned 180º (or on the necessary one) and sent back to the place Earth is now. That light could then be captured by our "powerful telescope":
See Holz and Wheeler, Retro-Machos: in the sky?, The Astrophysical Journal, 578:330–334, 2002 October (published at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/342463/pdf;jsessionid=64EA46FFE08D91BFA15CEF374C3F5F64.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org
http://rein.pk/gravitational-lensing-to-observe-ancient-earth/ (still available at https://archive.is/MCgtn).
Our all life (even some occurring on the privacy of our homes, when there is light) might be out there on the universe.
For someone that loves History, the idea that all our History and pre-History is out there and "could be seen like a movie" is interesting.
Alpha Centauri is the closest star system (it has 3 stars) to Earth. It's at 4.37 light years (the light at 300,000 kms per second takes 4.37 years to reach it) from Earth.
Therefore, the light reflected by Earth that is reaching it now parted Earth more than 4 years ago. Any "intelligent species" on a planet there (there seems to at least one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri#Planets) would see Earth as it was 4 years ago. With a "powerful enough telescope", they could even see us.
Of course, they had to have a telescope working on completely different principles than, say, the projected James Webb Space Telescope, able to "pick" most of the stranded and relatively few photons reflected by Earth (being a planet, those photons are lost on the middle of the ones emitted by the Sun).
Someone on a planet 5000 light years away from Earth with the same "powerful enough telescope" could see and record all human history.
Since (as far as what modern Physics says) it's impossible to travel faster than light (and "wormholes" are still science fiction) we couldn't go there faster than light and "grab" those stranded photons. But as a science fiction possibility is an interesting idea, if indeed we could travel faster than light.
I confirmed that this idea was already an old idea:
https://www.quora.com/If-we-aimed-a-telescope-at-a-planet-that-was-light-years-away-and-it-hit-a-mirror-aimed-perfectly-at-Earth-could-we-see-into-our-past
Another possibility would be for the light reflected by Earth to be intercepted by a black hole on the right angle in order to be turned 180º (or on the necessary one) and sent back to the place Earth is now. That light could then be captured by our "powerful telescope":
See Holz and Wheeler, Retro-Machos: in the sky?, The Astrophysical Journal, 578:330–334, 2002 October (published at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/342463/pdf;jsessionid=64EA46FFE08D91BFA15CEF374C3F5F64.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org
http://rein.pk/gravitational-lensing-to-observe-ancient-earth/ (still available at https://archive.is/MCgtn).
May 11, 2016, 09:32:07 PM
Specialist says that we will see first a head transplant to an artificial body than to another human body: http://www.livescience.com/50074-head-transplants-wont-happen.html
On the controversial neurosurgeon claiming he will do a head transplant to another human body before the end of 2017:
http://www.alphr.com/science/1001145/what-are-the-chances-of-a-human-head-transplant-working
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-or-science-fiction-how-an-italian-doctor-hopes-to-perform-first-human-head-transplant-a7007676.html
http://europe.newsweek.com/we-ready-human-head-transplant-423757
On the controversial neurosurgeon claiming he will do a head transplant to another human body before the end of 2017:
http://www.alphr.com/science/1001145/what-are-the-chances-of-a-human-head-transplant-working
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-or-science-fiction-how-an-italian-doctor-hopes-to-perform-first-human-head-transplant-a7007676.html
http://europe.newsweek.com/we-ready-human-head-transplant-423757
May 04, 2016, 12:26:47 PM
I wonder if saying we will all have to die, soon or later (including after using all the means science is expected to give us to postpone it) is being pessimistic...
April 29, 2016, 08:23:05 AM
Warning: this text might depress you. Read at your own risk.
Traditionally, a philosophical or religious question, the issue of meaning is starting to be the subject of scientific studies.
Meaning is important because we are self-aware and we are conscious of the certainty of our death. Meaning is one of the ideas that help us dealing with death. Is part of our "terror from death management" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory). It helps us dealing with the fact that we live in a death row (for a crime we didn't commit), trying to entertain our selves while we wait for our turn (A. Camus). Or, to use more crude words, said clearly to shock the reader, that we "are corporeal creatures—breathing pieces of defecating meat no more significant or enduring than porcupines or peaches." (Solomon: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fear-death-and-politics/).
Traditionally, a philosophical or religious question, the issue of meaning is starting to be the subject of scientific studies.
Meaning is important because we are self-aware and we are conscious of the certainty of our death. Meaning is one of the ideas that help us dealing with death. Is part of our "terror from death management" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory). It helps us dealing with the fact that we live in a death row (for a crime we didn't commit), trying to entertain our selves while we wait for our turn (A. Camus). Or, to use more crude words, said clearly to shock the reader, that we "are corporeal creatures—breathing pieces of defecating meat no more significant or enduring than porcupines or peaches." (Solomon: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fear-death-and-politics/).
Interesting post. It's a very pessimistic way of viewing life. I'm very critical about the view of 'entertain our selves while we wait for our turn', as we age the quality of life worsens. I think at some point some of us can no longer entertain ourselves. In some lives there is no space for entertainment at all.
Hal Finney is cryonically frozen. Perhaps death is not the final destination.
you are completely right .. this post is very interesting but there is no need to be so pessimistic about future at all.. maybe, science can find solution today's biggest problems in the future .. who knows ?
April 28, 2016, 09:16:09 PM
Since many of us live under the immortality delusion (death only happens to others), let me ruin your day once more and make you think again about death.
As Freud wrote "It is indeed impossible to imagine our own death; and whenever we attempt to do so we can perceive that we are in fact still present as spectators. Hence ... at bottom no one believes in his own death, or ... that in the unconscious every one of us is convinced of his own immortality "
(Sigmund Freud-Reflections on war and death (1915), Part II - Our Attitude Towards Death: https://archive.org/details/reflectionsonwar35875gut )
Death is just a return to our natural state, our only real "home", where we already spent an eternity, before being born: nothingness.
It's life that is extraordinary, not death/nothingness, which is a normal state.
As Freud on the same quoted book said in great terms: "Everyone owes nature a death and must expect to pay the debt".
But the idea of being forced to be again nothing for another eternity, after experiencing this fabulous life, is something so catastrophic, that one can't avoid a well known, but still pathetic (because pointless), overwhelming sentiment of imminent and irreversible loss.
Imagine what future generations would think about us if it were found a mean to avoid aging and our usual mortal diseases and people normally lived thousands of years.
They probably would say that we were people who lived their life like shooting stars, burning intensively and illuminating everything around for just an instant.
People, who faced with the most certain looming destiny, kept going unremittingly.
Who were able to leave their pre-historic caves, imagine and create deliberately the most beautiful, intelligent and admirable things known on the Universe and even create means to leave this planet and conquer the stars despite the conscience of their pending fate.
There is something glorious on being able to do all of this despite the conscience that our life is little more than a blink of an eye between two eternities of nothingness.
It's like the last and pointless charge of a doomed battalion.
Probably, this destiny was in many cases precisely an incentive to do all these things. But that doesn't diminish its merit, on the contrary.
Death makes any meaningful* life gloriously tragic. Not only because all these admirable things done are pointless to avert this fate, but also because it interrupts the creative process. Think about all the things that Da Vinci, Mozart or Einstein could have done more.
Don't think for a second that this text has any depressive objective or expresses any negative perspective on life. What makes the human condition tragic is precisely the wonderful nature of life, despite death.
Rather this text is praise to all the atheists that face their destiny openly, keep doing meaningful things and dare to be happy.
Don't criticize life, because the problem isn't life, but death. Being our life a wonderful "miracle", because of its improbability (a part of us had literally the run of his life to live, the spermatozoid, and won over millions of his brothers), not enjoying it is much more absurd than our destiny it self.
Yes, time flues unrelentingly fast. And, yes, we have a short life. But it isn't that short on comparative life terms. Even if you, fellow reader, are still a teen, think about your first memories: probably, it looks like if it was another life, because of how long ago it seems.
* In the sense of a life with positive consequences to others: see the OP.
As Freud wrote "It is indeed impossible to imagine our own death; and whenever we attempt to do so we can perceive that we are in fact still present as spectators. Hence ... at bottom no one believes in his own death, or ... that in the unconscious every one of us is convinced of his own immortality "
(Sigmund Freud-Reflections on war and death (1915), Part II - Our Attitude Towards Death: https://archive.org/details/reflectionsonwar35875gut )
Death is just a return to our natural state, our only real "home", where we already spent an eternity, before being born: nothingness.
It's life that is extraordinary, not death/nothingness, which is a normal state.
As Freud on the same quoted book said in great terms: "Everyone owes nature a death and must expect to pay the debt".
But the idea of being forced to be again nothing for another eternity, after experiencing this fabulous life, is something so catastrophic, that one can't avoid a well known, but still pathetic (because pointless), overwhelming sentiment of imminent and irreversible loss.
Imagine what future generations would think about us if it were found a mean to avoid aging and our usual mortal diseases and people normally lived thousands of years.
They probably would say that we were people who lived their life like shooting stars, burning intensively and illuminating everything around for just an instant.
People, who faced with the most certain looming destiny, kept going unremittingly.
Who were able to leave their pre-historic caves, imagine and create deliberately the most beautiful, intelligent and admirable things known on the Universe and even create means to leave this planet and conquer the stars despite the conscience of their pending fate.
There is something glorious on being able to do all of this despite the conscience that our life is little more than a blink of an eye between two eternities of nothingness.
It's like the last and pointless charge of a doomed battalion.
Probably, this destiny was in many cases precisely an incentive to do all these things. But that doesn't diminish its merit, on the contrary.
Death makes any meaningful* life gloriously tragic. Not only because all these admirable things done are pointless to avert this fate, but also because it interrupts the creative process. Think about all the things that Da Vinci, Mozart or Einstein could have done more.
Don't think for a second that this text has any depressive objective or expresses any negative perspective on life. What makes the human condition tragic is precisely the wonderful nature of life, despite death.
Rather this text is praise to all the atheists that face their destiny openly, keep doing meaningful things and dare to be happy.
Don't criticize life, because the problem isn't life, but death. Being our life a wonderful "miracle", because of its improbability (a part of us had literally the run of his life to live, the spermatozoid, and won over millions of his brothers), not enjoying it is much more absurd than our destiny it self.
Yes, time flues unrelentingly fast. And, yes, we have a short life. But it isn't that short on comparative life terms. Even if you, fellow reader, are still a teen, think about your first memories: probably, it looks like if it was another life, because of how long ago it seems.
* In the sense of a life with positive consequences to others: see the OP.
April 23, 2016, 03:45:44 PM
The text was updated with some details and quotes.
April 17, 2016, 06:38:40 AM
The quest for "immortality" I write about on the OP is called by some authors as "symbolic immortality". The main creator of the concept was Robert Lifton, The Broken Connection - On Death and the Continuity of Life (1983).
One day, I will update the OP with quotes of this study and several others that elaborated on it.
One day, I will update the OP with quotes of this study and several others that elaborated on it.
April 11, 2016, 09:36:43 PM
I posted here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/if-98-of-the-atoms-in-our-body-are-replaced-in-just-1-year-what-are-we-1432165 a text about the issue of our identity as a specific pattern (DNA) of organization of atoms and if a replacement of our cells with an exact artificial copy would affect this identity.
April 01, 2016, 10:05:07 AM
The so-called theory of A Universe from nothing.
The main creationist argument is based on the point that since the universe is made of "physical stuff" (notion that comprehends not only particles, radiation and energy, but also their space-time structure of support) this stuff had to have an origin. God had to be it.
The theory that the Universe emerged from "nothing" was defended by Lawrence Krauss on his 2013 book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing (you can watch here a presentation from him that is worthy watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc).
Krauss argues that the difference between "nothing" and the everything we can watch now (planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) is much more thin than it was thought and that "physical stuff" can emerge from "nothing" because, inter alia, the quarks (particles that compose subatomic particles like protons and neutrons) almost have no mass and earn mass by the way they interact with other particles. Since nothing is unstable, soon or later, nothing will convert itself in something.
That means we are made of particles without almost mass composed mostly of nothing ("empty"/free space), as are all the rest of the "physical stuff".
But, as have been pointed out (David Albert, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html), the "nothing" from which the stuff emerges isn't really nothing, because it's made of quantum fields able to create virtual particles (particles and antiparticles that destroy each others in fractions of a second) and real particles.
On this aspect, and on some others about Philosophy, the reply from Krauss was a disaster (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/ "Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people's attention"; see also http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.fr/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html).
So, this theory still forces us to ask from where the quantum fields came and why they obey to some specific laws.
On the Laws, the criticism seems unwarranted. The real philosophic problem of the physical laws is the fine tuning character of some of them. A slight change in some variables and stars and galaxies would never form. This precision makes some wonder if it wasn't planned.
By asserting (like others have done) that there might exist a Multiverse (or a Universe with billions of inaccessible parts that follow different laws) with many other Universes that follow different laws, Krauss eliminates the fine tuning problem. We simple emerged on a random universe with laws that allowed for this to happen.
Claiming that even the Multiverse would have some basic laws that would be the base to the other specific physical laws of each Universe (again, David Albert) doesn't bring back the same problem, since those basic laws are not fine tuned to humans. They are compatible with billions of different Universes. They can just be a random reality.
But about the quantum fields, as the origin of "physical stuff", believers still can claim it was god that made them. So, the problem is far from solved.
The issue has been discussed on many places over the Internet and elsewhere:
https://philocosmology.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-explanation-from-nothing/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/
But, of course, ignorance is no reason to say it was god. Our ancestors made this god claim in mistake thousand of times about simple things, like thunders and lightning.
Another interesting claim (from a meaning perspective) made by Krauss is that the Universe is flat, will keep expanding forever and will die slowly. The dying claim seems to have empirical confirmation (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13036508)
The way "nothing" can be converted to "everything" makes one wonder if, if the universe becomes "nothing" again, the process can be repeated and everything started again.
Also leaves open the question if, since this entropic process happens in different moments on each universe of the Multiverse, it might be possible to "cross" to another universe with identical or compatible laws in order to escape from the end of ours.
Well, humankind probably won't be here to see it anyway. We'll fade away long before that.
Or, perhaps, we won't. Meaning is made also of these hopeless hopes.
The main creationist argument is based on the point that since the universe is made of "physical stuff" (notion that comprehends not only particles, radiation and energy, but also their space-time structure of support) this stuff had to have an origin. God had to be it.
The theory that the Universe emerged from "nothing" was defended by Lawrence Krauss on his 2013 book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing (you can watch here a presentation from him that is worthy watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc).
Krauss argues that the difference between "nothing" and the everything we can watch now (planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) is much more thin than it was thought and that "physical stuff" can emerge from "nothing" because, inter alia, the quarks (particles that compose subatomic particles like protons and neutrons) almost have no mass and earn mass by the way they interact with other particles. Since nothing is unstable, soon or later, nothing will convert itself in something.
That means we are made of particles without almost mass composed mostly of nothing ("empty"/free space), as are all the rest of the "physical stuff".
But, as have been pointed out (David Albert, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html), the "nothing" from which the stuff emerges isn't really nothing, because it's made of quantum fields able to create virtual particles (particles and antiparticles that destroy each others in fractions of a second) and real particles.
On this aspect, and on some others about Philosophy, the reply from Krauss was a disaster (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/ "Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people's attention"; see also http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.fr/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html).
So, this theory still forces us to ask from where the quantum fields came and why they obey to some specific laws.
On the Laws, the criticism seems unwarranted. The real philosophic problem of the physical laws is the fine tuning character of some of them. A slight change in some variables and stars and galaxies would never form. This precision makes some wonder if it wasn't planned.
By asserting (like others have done) that there might exist a Multiverse (or a Universe with billions of inaccessible parts that follow different laws) with many other Universes that follow different laws, Krauss eliminates the fine tuning problem. We simple emerged on a random universe with laws that allowed for this to happen.
Claiming that even the Multiverse would have some basic laws that would be the base to the other specific physical laws of each Universe (again, David Albert) doesn't bring back the same problem, since those basic laws are not fine tuned to humans. They are compatible with billions of different Universes. They can just be a random reality.
But about the quantum fields, as the origin of "physical stuff", believers still can claim it was god that made them. So, the problem is far from solved.
The issue has been discussed on many places over the Internet and elsewhere:
https://philocosmology.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/an-explanation-from-nothing/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/
But, of course, ignorance is no reason to say it was god. Our ancestors made this god claim in mistake thousand of times about simple things, like thunders and lightning.
Another interesting claim (from a meaning perspective) made by Krauss is that the Universe is flat, will keep expanding forever and will die slowly. The dying claim seems to have empirical confirmation (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13036508)
The way "nothing" can be converted to "everything" makes one wonder if, if the universe becomes "nothing" again, the process can be repeated and everything started again.
Also leaves open the question if, since this entropic process happens in different moments on each universe of the Multiverse, it might be possible to "cross" to another universe with identical or compatible laws in order to escape from the end of ours.
Well, humankind probably won't be here to see it anyway. We'll fade away long before that.
Or, perhaps, we won't. Meaning is made also of these hopeless hopes.
March 23, 2016, 05:36:53 PM
Most human beings live their life ignoring or denying death, like if living forever was their destiny. Some even real believe that something will happen that will allow them to escape death (let's forget about religious people). It's part of the terror of death management mentioned on the OP.
Camus had a different opinion on the cause, but also wrote: "I come at last to death and to the attitude we have toward it. On this point everything has been said and it is only proper to avoid pathos. Yet one will never be sufficiently surprised that everyone lives as if no one “knew.”" ("The Myth of Sisyphus").
Underlying this instinctive reaction is the idea that thinking about death will make us die not one time, but a million times. Every time someone contemplates his death, is like if he were dying again and again. Under this perspective, death can be much more oppressive from an intellectual point of view than physically.
Anyone that already faced certain death (for instance, an accident in which you really thought you were going to die) probably remember feeling fear, but mostly a simple sad resignation. That's nothing as harsh as the frequent conscience of the inevitability of death.
Even faced with the most terrible news ("you have 3 months to live") human capacity to adapt and accept what is inevitable is remarkable. Face it: what has no remedy is necessarily and automatically remediated as is, liked or not.
Dying is no big deal, but thinking about its inevitability can be, because of its coercive nature and feelings of unmeaningfulness.
Thus, the old quote saying the philosopher is unhappier than the simple farmer that lives each day caring not for anything more than his family.
Of course, no philosopher would change place with him. It seems there are people which prefer to die mentally a million times than live in oblivious.
Camus had a different opinion on the cause, but also wrote: "I come at last to death and to the attitude we have toward it. On this point everything has been said and it is only proper to avoid pathos. Yet one will never be sufficiently surprised that everyone lives as if no one “knew.”" ("The Myth of Sisyphus").
Underlying this instinctive reaction is the idea that thinking about death will make us die not one time, but a million times. Every time someone contemplates his death, is like if he were dying again and again. Under this perspective, death can be much more oppressive from an intellectual point of view than physically.
Anyone that already faced certain death (for instance, an accident in which you really thought you were going to die) probably remember feeling fear, but mostly a simple sad resignation. That's nothing as harsh as the frequent conscience of the inevitability of death.
Even faced with the most terrible news ("you have 3 months to live") human capacity to adapt and accept what is inevitable is remarkable. Face it: what has no remedy is necessarily and automatically remediated as is, liked or not.
Dying is no big deal, but thinking about its inevitability can be, because of its coercive nature and feelings of unmeaningfulness.
Thus, the old quote saying the philosopher is unhappier than the simple farmer that lives each day caring not for anything more than his family.
Of course, no philosopher would change place with him. It seems there are people which prefer to die mentally a million times than live in oblivious.
March 18, 2016, 05:16:12 AM
Reposting this on this thread, to concentrate here my posts on death and meaning:
Since there can't be any immortality, and death is our destiny, unfortunately, the issue of the effect of immortality on the value of time can't be really tested. Clearly, being able to live thousand of years would lower the value of our time. But I surely wouldn't mind to have time to be able to real waste it.
In the end, the only positive way to part from this life would be if we were completely bored with it. Think about it: life is like a relationship, the only happy way to end it is if we were tired of it. If we still love it, death will always be a tragedy.
Beside, being able to make our own decision to end life is also a positive thing. Death wouldn't be imposed by nature, but would be our own decision. One of the major problems of death is that is imposed on us against our will.
Of course, parting this life because one is bored with it wouldn't be exactly a happy moment. But it might be less unhappy than to parting it when we are still in love with life.
I'm not making an apology of suicide. In our current conditions, where life is a blink of an eye of awareness, in between two eternities of being nothing (before being alive and after being dead), suicide seems absurd. Even if life was a pain (not literally; if it was really a pain, euthanasia would make completely sense), why rush things?, we'll be dead "soon". But if we could live thousands of years, suicide could make more sense.
Since there can't be any immortality, and death is our destiny, unfortunately, the issue of the effect of immortality on the value of time can't be really tested. Clearly, being able to live thousand of years would lower the value of our time. But I surely wouldn't mind to have time to be able to real waste it.
In the end, the only positive way to part from this life would be if we were completely bored with it. Think about it: life is like a relationship, the only happy way to end it is if we were tired of it. If we still love it, death will always be a tragedy.
Beside, being able to make our own decision to end life is also a positive thing. Death wouldn't be imposed by nature, but would be our own decision. One of the major problems of death is that is imposed on us against our will.
Of course, parting this life because one is bored with it wouldn't be exactly a happy moment. But it might be less unhappy than to parting it when we are still in love with life.
I'm not making an apology of suicide. In our current conditions, where life is a blink of an eye of awareness, in between two eternities of being nothing (before being alive and after being dead), suicide seems absurd. Even if life was a pain (not literally; if it was really a pain, euthanasia would make completely sense), why rush things?, we'll be dead "soon". But if we could live thousands of years, suicide could make more sense.
Jump to: