The Meaning of Life (c/o wiki)
Turtoni
Many people believe that the meaning of life is:
a.. Survival, including the pursuit of immortality through scientific
means (see life extension)
b.. Sexual reproduction
c.. Natural human evolution, or contribution to the gene pool of the human
race
d.. Technological evolution, or the active development of the future human
e.. To seek happiness and flourish, experience pleasure or celebrate
f.. The pursuit of one's dreams, a sense of achievement, or one's destiny
g.. Gaining and exercising power
h.. Competition or co-operation, with others
i.. The accumulation of wealth
j.. To leave a legacy, such as work to be remembered for
k.. Serving others or doing good deeds
l.. Giving and receiving love
m.. To seek and find beauty
n.. The expression of compassion
o.. Working for justice and democracy
p.. Living in peace with each other, and in harmony with the natural
environment
q.. The search for truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom
r.. Relating, connecting, or achieving unity with others
s.. To seek freedom, either physically, mentally, financially, or
spiritually
t.. Serving or worshiping God, or achieving union with God or the Divine
u.. To become God, or God-like
v.. To simply live until one dies - there is no universal or celestial
purpose, existence has no meaning beyond which one chooses to give it
w.. Seeking and acquiring virtue, to live a virtuous life
x.. Learning a series of lessons and finding enlightenment
y.. Some combination of the above
Sir Frederick
Good list for normals.
All but b.. are based on the practice of stories.
b.. is breeding (which is a kind of genetic and gestation story).
There you have meaning for the normal person : breeding
and stories.
The abnormal also may find meaning in an epileptic event,
or a drug, or a TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation).
(Surgical stimulation does not count as then the little bugs
can get in.)
BTW your word "believe" is a false folk story or theory.
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish
Brian Fletcher
"Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish" <nully...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132640183.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Can you imagine two aliens talking about a strange capsule that had landed
on their planet, the inside of which contained a disc player, which , when
activated, showed an hour in the life of people on earth.
Based on your comment, you would likely validate the one who said "that disk
is just a random accumulation of digital encoding".
B OfL
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish
They are related to us. Like the Eloi in The time machine.
Peace
minus
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish skrev:
> z. There is no meaning. It's a complete accident.
>
> Ping
> http://www.pingcreations.nu
What motivated you to write that?
Sir Frederick
>z. There is no meaning. It's a complete accident.
>
Thus our stories.
A mold in the garbage dump, with stories.
We do need our stories.
Without our stories we are like a mold in a dump.
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish
Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
life. The meaning is that there is no meaning. As soon as you relax and
realise that your life becomes much simpler. There is no need to gain
control over something that is completely random. Sure there is
evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned. It hasn't already
decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It doesn't
know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is no past.
There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you don't know what
is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely brilliant. There
is no intelligent design. It's all an accident.
Turtoni
news:hv75o11ojfgbefps1...@4ax.com...
To operate in the self built world this language is currently "necessary" to
a.
Deconstructing: b needs a therefore a supersedes b.
The abnormals "events" probably have some connection/"combination" in this
list.
IMHO.
Turtoni
news:1132640183.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> z. There is no meaning. It's a complete accident.
Thats covered in v.
> Ping
> http://www.pingcreations.nu
Turtoni
This was v on the list.
"v.. To simply live until one dies - there is no universal or celestial
purpose, existence has no meaning beyond which one chooses to give it"
> Ping
> http://www.pingcreations.nu
>
Dare
> Many people believe that the meaning of life is:
42 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everythin
g
Or maybe we're asking the wrong question? :-)
Turtoni
>> Many people believe that the meaning of life is:
> Dare wrote:
> a. .................y.
> 42 ?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
Humor is a defense mechanism. v covers this.
> Or maybe we're asking the wrong question? :-)
v.
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish
fluidly unsure
> I am against intelligent design. I don't believe in a higher power.
> Our lives are not planned. We try to plan them to seem like we have the
> control. Really we are all running around like headless chickens hoping
> that we can stay alive for long enough to understand the meaning of
> life. The meaning is that there is no meaning.
> As soon as you relax and realise that your life becomes much simpler.
I don't find being in the dark relaxing.
> There is no need to gain control over something that is completely random.
There is no reason to let it run out of control either.
> Sure there is evolution. But it is still random. It is not planned.
Who said it was?
> It hasn't already
> decided that we will all have huge feet in a million years. It doesn't
> know what we will be like. It's all an accident. There is no past.
> There is no future to plan. All there is is now and you don't know what
> is going to happen. And that is wonderful. Completely brilliant. There
> is no intelligent design.
> It's all an accident.
No, not yet. My pants are still dry. 8^)
>
> Ping
> http://www.pingcreations.nu
>
If asking questions is too much for you, why are you giving answers?
--
Liquid
fluidly unsure
or lack of
> or a drug, or a TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation).
> (Surgical stimulation does not count as then the little bugs
> can get in.)
>
> BTW your word "believe" is a false folk story or theory.
>
--
Liquid
fluidly unsure
>>>"Turtoni" quoted:
>>>Many people believe that the meaning of life is:
>
>
>>Dare wrote:
>>a. .................y.
>>42 ?
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
>
>
> Humor is a defense mechanism. v covers this.
Or maybe it's just another story.
>
>
>>Or maybe we're asking the wrong question? :-)
>
>
> v.
>
>
--
Liquid
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish
"""""""""If asking questions is too much for you, why are you giving
answers?""""""
I never said that I do not like questions. I love questions. But. My
answers are just random thoughts. I have no control over them ,,
hahahahahahahaha..
Bob
<nully...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My answers are just random thoughts.
Then you are on the right forum.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
fluidly unsure
> """""""""If asking questions is too much for you, why are you giving
> answers?""""""
>
> I never said that I do not like questions. I love questions. But. My
> answers are just random thoughts. I have no control over them ,,
> hahahahahahahaha..
Something like Dirk Gently's holistic navigational system?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the line starts back there.
While you're waiting, you might want to try "The Long Dark Tea-Time of
the Soul" by Douglas Adams.
Let me guess, whenever you need to give an answer you just look for a
question that sounds interesting. That way, while your answer may not be
the "right" one for that moment, it just might be an important answer
in another time/space.
Maybe M.O.M.A would be interested in your auto-writing.
>
> Ping
> http://www.pingcreations.nu
>
--
Liquid
Brian Fletcher
Life is life. All is connected. We each ultimately move "beyond"
time and space.
BOfL
Bob
<bri...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Life is life. All is connected. We each ultimately move "beyond"
>time and space.
Sounds like you are smoking some really good shit.
Where did you get it?
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish
November 23rd, 2005
Another day another rant; I am writing a book and for the next few days
I am going to publish a few extracts from various chapters. There are
eleven chapters so far with four more to write. The story is about
three brothers that grow up in the poorest part of the midlands in
England. Their father spends his days in the pub whilst their mother
works her socks off to feed the kids. This first extract takes place
outside of a pub in Northampton, England.
............................................................................................................
December 20th 1980
The Swinging Sporran
"So here it is, merry Christmas, everybody's having fun. Look to
the future now, it's only just begu-uuuu-un". The Swinging Sporran
pub was at the north end of Weston Favell Shopping Centre. It was an
ordinary Saturday afternoon and we had to wait outside until Dad
finished drinking. The sign in the pub window said "Merry Christmas
1980", which meant we had to behave ourselves. Dad said that Father
Christmas only visits good boys and girls. I wanted to be good. Dad
came out and gave us another fizzy cola and a packet of cheese and
onion crisps to share between us. Then he went back in to the pub and
sat with his glitter gang. I liked cola, although I wasn't too fond
of cheese and onion crisps. I preferred it when we got to play in the
garden of The Mill Wheel pub, on Lumbertubs. At least then you could
get a packet of greasy batter bits from the chippy, instead of stinky
old cheese and onion crisps.
Blondie was leaning forward in his pushchair clutching at his whistle.
-I want to go toilet, he said.
You never got more than a five second warning with him. He always
needed a wee and he had a bladder the size of a peanut with about as
much self control as any other four year old who has guzzled a litre of
fizzy cola.
- I want toilet.
But it was too late. He began to grizzle as little lime-green droplets
of piss seeped through the red and white striped canvas pushchair onto
the black shiny floor. His light blue flannel shorts turned dark blue
and the snot bubble that constantly hung from his nose doubled in size
before it burst, covering his small face in a light snotty spray.
- Blondie's piddled himself again, said Mickey, giggling, - I'm
telling Dad.
- I want toilet, gurgled Blondie, as another snot bubble exploded,
spraying his Paddington Bear T shirt. He sat weeping in his pushchair,
looking to the crowds of shoppers, hoping that somebody would take pity
and help him find a toilet. I helped him to get out of his chair and
sat him up against the smooth pub wall away from the newly formed urine
pond. Mickey always enjoyed the puddles. He said that they made the
floor more slippery. He took a big run up then slid at full throttle
into the steaming liquid and managed to skid the full length of the pub
window leaving behind him a splash of urine like a car driving through
the rain.
- Go and get Dad, said Mickey, as he slid back towards me, spraying the
passing shoppers.
- No. I don't like it in the pub, I said.
- But you're the oldest, said Mickey.
He was right, I was the oldest. I was seven and two weeks. He was only
five and eight months and Blondie was only four and a bit. Being the
oldest was great when it came to being the best at counting, or running
the fastest. But when it came to the pub, being the oldest was a bad
thing. Being the oldest meant that I had to go into a place where
everybody smelt of beer; a place where everybody smiled; a place where
everybody was pleased to see me. I liked happy people, but I always got
the feeling that these people were pretending.
- You go, I said.
- I am not allowed, said Mickey.
- I always have to go. I said.
- That is because you're the tallest, said Mickey.
I was starting to get angry. Any second now I would turn green and get
big muscles like The Incredible Hulk. Doctor James Spacey; physician,
scientist; searching for a way to tap into the hidden strengths that
all humans have; then an accidental overdose of gamma radiation alters
his body chemistry.
- Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
With one last dramatic glide, Mickey slid back through the puddle and
smashed into a large woman who was carrying three bulging shopping
bags. I watched the collision in slow motion. He bounced off of her
wobbly belly, sending a slow deliberate rippling wave of flab up to her
neck like the tide at Clacton. She fell backwards managing to keep both
of her feet on the ground but loosing her grip of one of her shopping
bags, sending tomatoes the size of footballs rolling through the
steaming piss. She never actually fell over; she just seemed to lean
backwards and then slowly bounce back up like Zebedee. She wasn't as
thin as Zebedee though, and she didn't have a spring instead of legs
either. She was a large old woman with a washed out old raincoat and
swollen ankles that hung over her small tight shoes. She reminded me of
the bumble bees in our garden. They were fat with small wings but they
still managed to fly. This woman was fat with small feet but she still
managed to walk. She gave all three of us a severe gaze. Mickey froze
as she zoomed in on his soggy black plimsolls, then she looked at
Blondie who was slouched up against the wall of the pub, soaking wet,
grizzling, and clutching his winkle as if afraid that it was going to
fall off.
- I want to go toilet, sobbed Blondie, as the woman eyeballed him.
- Where is your bleeding mother? She growled.
Regards
Brian Fletcher
"Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:43846c25...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:05:19 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
> <bri...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Life is life. All is connected. We each ultimately move "beyond"
>>time and space.
>
> Sounds like you are smoking some really good shit.
>
> Where did you get it?
To a phiolosopher I'm a philosopher, to a vagabond, I'm a vagabond, to a
shit smoker I am that too.
Artificial way to "glimpse" reality leave one "high and dry" (temporarily at
least).
It was one of my very early confirmations of the "natural way" to hear
comments like yours.
"Smoke Gets In Your EEEEyes" truth on a Platter ;-)
BOfL
Tim
V. implies that there is only accident. Looks covered to me.
Stu
With all the discussion v is getting maybe it should be moved to the
top of the list.
I wonder if the very question, "What is the meaning of life?" has any
meaning at all. Is it a trick of Language to cue us that somehow this
dynamic entity denoted by the noun *life* would have an attribute such
as meaning?
What is the correlation between a process (life in this case) and
semantics (meaning)?
Isn't this the same as "What it is the meaning of energy?" "What is
the meaning of society?".
Its a nonsense question, with nonsense answers.
--
~Stu
Bob
>I wonder if the very question, "What is the meaning of life?" has any
>meaning at all. Is it a trick of Language to cue us that somehow this
>dynamic entity denoted by the noun *life* would have an attribute such
>as meaning?
>What is the correlation between a process (life in this case) and
>semantics (meaning)?
While I fully agree with your distinguishing the epistemological from
the ontological, I don't think anyone ever intended the question to be
ontological.
However if I may speculate, the ontological meaning of the Universe is
to become more perfect and to manifest this increase in perfection to
sentient beings.
The meaning of life is whatever a person wants to make of it. If a
person wants to look upon life as absurd, then that is their choice.
That does not make life absurd for everyone else.
>Isn't this the same as "What it is the meaning of energy?"
Energy is the line integral of the vector dot product of force times
distance. It is the capacity to do work, which is also the same
integral. It's true meaning becomes manifest in the conservation laws.
>"What is the meaning of society?".
The meaning of society is to facilitate Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of
Capitalism, wherein individuals are offered the opportunity (in
principle) to pursue their lives with the meaning they choose as long
as it does not infringe on the essential rights of others and does not
violate the Common Law that the society consents to be governed by.
>Its a nonsense question, with nonsense answers.
Like that statement is nonsense.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
Brian Fletcher
"Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005112412231550073%Nospam@towelcom...
Thats life!!! (in the group sense).
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:23:15 -0800, Stu <Nos...@towel.com> wrote:
>
>>I wonder if the very question, "What is the meaning of life?" has any
>>meaning at all. Is it a trick of Language to cue us that somehow this
>>dynamic entity denoted by the noun *life* would have an attribute such
>>as meaning?
>
>>What is the correlation between a process (life in this case) and
>>semantics (meaning)?
>
> While I fully agree with your distinguishing the epistemological from
> the ontological, I don't think anyone ever intended the question to be
> ontological.
I have no doubt that all questions are ontological, in essence. Man only
"really" wants to know one reality. The epistemological is merely the
structure that forms in the ladder of ontology.
> However if I may speculate, the ontological meaning of the Universe is
> to become more perfect and to manifest this increase in perfection to
> sentient beings.
If I may elucidate, the Universe has no onlological meaning per se, like the
ladder, just a means to an end (or beginning if I wish to be ontologically
pedantic :-)
>
> The meaning of life is whatever a person wants to make of it. If a
> person wants to look upon life as absurd, then that is their choice.
> That does not make life absurd for everyone else.
>
>>Isn't this the same as "What it is the meaning of energy?"
>
> Energy is the line integral of the vector dot product of force times
> distance. It is the capacity to do work, which is also the same
> integral. It's true meaning becomes manifest in the conservation laws.
>
>>"What is the meaning of society?".
Simply a collective noun for a group of peoples.
>
> The meaning of society is to facilitate Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of
> Capitalism, wherein individuals are offered the opportunity (in
> principle) to pursue their lives with the meaning they choose as long
> as it does not infringe on the essential rights of others and does not
> violate the Common Law that the society consents to be governed by.
Correction : A group of peoples clustering around one persons idealism.
>>Its a nonsense question, with nonsense answers.
We each swim through the non sense to arrive at the sense. The
epistomological ultimately gives way to the ontological.
>
> Like that statement is nonsense.
>
Makes sense to the sense makers ;-)
BOfL
tooly
Ah...but there is always that 'next step' across the desert we must take.
Should we just meander? Life without vision is like...well...going nowhere,
even in circles perhaps, left to shrivel and die from desert nothingness.
We have but this moment, and we are bright enough to figure something out.
As a package deal, I oft to pursue something in that package that makes me
happy...even more. And that, to me...is 'direction'.
And...if there is a 'direction', the I argue there is 'meaning'.
Pre-planned as anything we can understand, I cannot say, but surely, as
guided at the very least, like water that falls downhill. A natural path or
a divine one...A path is a path; and we reach across time no matter and
aspire to be something more.
Turtoni
> Bob:
> Then you are on the right forum.
Governed thoughts are on the left forum.
Stu
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:23:15 -0800, Stu <Nos...@towel.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if the very question, "What is the meaning of life?" has any
>> meaning at all. Is it a trick of Language to cue us that somehow this
>> dynamic entity denoted by the noun *life* would have an attribute such
>> as meaning?
>
>> What is the correlation between a process (life in this case) and
>> semantics (meaning)?
>
> While I fully agree with your distinguishing the epistemological from
> the ontological, I don't think anyone ever intended the question to be
> ontological.
>
> However if I may speculate, the ontological meaning of the Universe is
> to become more perfect and to manifest this increase in perfection to
> sentient beings.
I don't understand how you can extract this teleology from nature. How
does nature reflect a movement towards perfection?
Though I do believe there is a general movement of nature towards
greater complexity, greater diversity and greater integration. Ie for
example: the periodic chart of elements, the growth of a plant.
>
> The meaning of life is whatever a person wants to make of it. If a
> person wants to look upon life as absurd, then that is their choice.
> That does not make life absurd for everyone else.
I disagree. If there is a telos, say perfection or evolution, and it
is our responsibility to respond to nature's flow than its not up to
personal choice as to what to do with this gift. Our actions would be
determined as those that best harmonize with the natural order.
The person who turns their back on this telos and takes on the belief
in the absurd is operating contrary to nature.
However, again I have difficulty extracting "meaning" from the
spontaneous flow of life. Life simply is. Our relation with life is
in terms of how we want to engage in this flow. "Meaning" is not part
of the equation. Life can not be said to be absurd because life is a
dualistic flow. It flows from the absurd to the ordered. The fast to
slow, alive to dead, warm to cold, and so on.
The flow does not have intrinsic "meaning". The human gestalt is a
talent of finding patterns in the environment. That implies a purely
subjective "meaning" imposed on raw data (the environment). But I am
very careful to recognize the source of subjective meaning. It is
transient and amorphous at best. Certainly nothing that we would want
to base a personal philosophy upon.
As for engaging with the dynamic movement of life, I am for that 100%.
Carpe Diem.
But that is not meaning.
>
>> Isn't this the same as "What it is the meaning of energy?"
>
> Energy is the line integral of the vector dot product of force times
> distance. It is the capacity to do work, which is also the same
> integral. It's true meaning becomes manifest in the conservation laws.
The conservation laws are but a human interpretation of nature. They
reflect a narrow human perspective (the mathematical perspective).
They only exist to those who understand the intellectual abstraction.
There is no intrinsic meaning in energy. Energy "happens" with or
without science.
>
>> "What is the meaning of society?".
>
> The meaning of society is to facilitate Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of
> Capitalism, wherein individuals are offered the opportunity (in
> principle) to pursue their lives with the meaning they choose as long
> as it does not infringe on the essential rights of others and does not
> violate the Common Law that the society consents to be governed by.
Yikes! Society is only understood in terms of social Darwinism?
Survival of the greediest. Certainly the meaning of western corporate
capitalism du jour. But the meaning of society? Ask an African
tribesman or a Peruvian peasant if he agrees.
Society is a dynamic changing interaction of individuals. History,
geography, economics, health and the like all are factors that guide
the flow of society. Again no intrinsic meaning.
>
>> Its a nonsense question, with nonsense answers.
>
> Like that statement is nonsense.
Au contraire. Life and meaning do not belong in the same statement.
Meaning can only be derived from things, artifacts ie, art, music,
books, speeches, cars, things. Meaning is not an attribute of dynamic
processes.
Happy Thanksgiving!
--
~Stu
Bob
>> However if I may speculate, the ontological meaning of the Universe is
>> to become more perfect and to manifest this increase in perfection to
>> sentient beings.
>I don't understand how you can extract this teleology from nature. How
>does nature reflect a movement towards perfection?
The evolution of sentient beings.
>Though I do believe there is a general movement of nature towards
>greater complexity, greater diversity and greater integration. Ie for
>example: the periodic chart of elements, the growth of a plant.
That'll work.
>I disagree. If there is a telos, say perfection or evolution, and it
>is our responsibility to respond to nature's flow than its not up to
>personal choice as to what to do with this gift. Our actions would be
>determined as those that best harmonize with the natural order.
That'll work too.
>The person who turns their back on this telos and takes on the belief
>in the absurd is operating contrary to nature.
I agree in principle, however the absurd also applies to man's
creations like strong authoritatian central govt that have raped and
pillaged mankind for the past 10,000 years.
>However, again I have difficulty extracting "meaning" from the
>spontaneous flow of life. Life simply is. Our relation with life is
>in terms of how we want to engage in this flow. "Meaning" is not part
>of the equation. Life can not be said to be absurd because life is a
>dualistic flow. It flows from the absurd to the ordered. The fast to
>slow, alive to dead, warm to cold, and so on.
>
>The flow does not have intrinsic "meaning". The human gestalt is a
>talent of finding patterns in the environment. That implies a purely
>subjective "meaning" imposed on raw data (the environment).
Another Idealist. If you had studied physics thru grad school, you
would not be saying things like this. The Laws of Physics are
ontological - they reflect the inner workings of the Universe
considered as a real objective entity.
>Life and meaning do not belong in the same statement.
>Meaning can only be derived from things, artifacts ie, art, music,
>books, speeches, cars, things. Meaning is not an attribute of dynamic
>processes.
Thanks for the psychology lecture. Now you know why I do not like
psychology.
Stu
>> However, again I have difficulty extracting "meaning" from the
>> spontaneous flow of life. Life simply is. Our relation with life is
>> in terms of how we want to engage in this flow. "Meaning" is not part
>> of the equation. Life can not be said to be absurd because life is a
>> dualistic flow. It flows from the absurd to the ordered. The fast to
>> slow, alive to dead, warm to cold, and so on.
>>
>> The flow does not have intrinsic "meaning". The human gestalt is a
>> talent of finding patterns in the environment. That implies a purely
>> subjective "meaning" imposed on raw data (the environment).
>
> Another Idealist. If you had studied physics thru grad school, you
> would not be saying things like this. The Laws of Physics are
> ontological - they reflect the inner workings of the Universe
> considered as a real objective entity.
You may call me an idealist. I do not think that the fleshy physical
world delivered to me through my senses is the only one. Physics does
a good job of describing and predicting that world, but what of other
worlds? How about the intellectual realm? The world of ideas, culture
and even the models of physics. This realm has its own logic and set
of rules. The entities (symbols, images, words, thoughts) defy the
conventions of physics. Yet this world dominates our day. It could be
said that it is the realm where Physics, the science resides.
If an idealist is someone who recognizes there is more to this world
than appearances, then that is what I am.
>
>> Life and meaning do not belong in the same statement. Meaning can only
>> be derived from things, artifacts ie, art, music, books, speeches,
>> cars, things. Meaning is not an attribute of dynamic processes.
>
> Thanks for the psychology lecture. Now you know why I do not like
> psychology.
The thread here is "The meaning of life". Every post is psychology.
Perhaps you would be better off posting at alt.physics than
alt.philosophy. Unlike physics, philosophy is messy stuff with no pat
answers and no formula.
--
~Stu
Bob
>I do not think that the fleshy physical
>world delivered to me through my senses is the only one.
Neither do I. The order of Being is super natural because it can deal
with unbounded quantities. Our physical world cannot and that's why
there are unknowables, uncomputables, unprovables, indescribables. QM
reflects those limitations.
>How about the intellectual realm? The world of ideas, culture
>and even the models of physics. This realm has its own logic and set
>of rules. The entities (symbols, images, words, thoughts) defy the
>conventions of physics. Yet this world dominates our day.
> It could be said that it is the realm where Physics, the science resides.
That would be absolutely incorrect and exposes your Idealist bias.
Physics is fundamentally ontological - the laws of physics are
embedded in the real objective world and not in our minds. The planets
rotate around the sun in (nearly) elliptical orbits because that is
the way the world is constucted not because we think they do so.
An electron is a real objective entity, not some description of a
phenomenon. It you don't beliece me, grab ahold of a DC high voltage
line. Your will meet up with all the real objective electrons you will
ever want to encounter in one lifetime.
>If an idealist is someone who recognizes there is more to this world
>than appearances, then that is what I am.
You are free to adopt whatever Worldview suits your intellectual
endeavors. But it must be the appropriate one for the task. Idealism
is required to do mathematics, psychology, etc - those things which
reside in the mind. But when it comes to the laws of physics, Idealism
won't work - you need Realism and its rules to understand physics and
metaphysics.
Stu
>> It could be said that it is the realm where Physics, the science resides.
>
> That would be absolutely incorrect and exposes your Idealist bias.
> Physics is fundamentally ontological - the laws of physics are
> embedded in the real objective world and not in our minds. The planets
> rotate around the sun in (nearly) elliptical orbits because that is
> the way the world is constucted not because we think they do so.
>
> An electron is a real objective entity, not some description of a
> phenomenon. It you don't beliece me, grab ahold of a DC high voltage
> line. Your will meet up with all the real objective electrons you will
> ever want to encounter in one lifetime.
No doubt that the model of the universe constructed by physics is
highly accurate. Physics is the model not the universe-in-itself (my
apologies to Hagel) This model resides in the minds of men. If man
where to perish from earth physics would die with it. The universe
would remain the same.
That DC voltage may shock me, but the mathematical models that describe
that DC voltage wouldn't even raise a yawn.
>
>> If an idealist is someone who recognizes there is more to this world
>> than appearances, then that is what I am.
>
> You are free to adopt whatever Worldview suits your intellectual
> endeavors. But it must be the appropriate one for the task. Idealism
> is required to do mathematics, psychology, etc - those things which
> reside in the mind. But when it comes to the laws of physics, Idealism
> won't work - you need Realism and its rules to understand physics and
> metaphysics.
I agree. As a physicist you have a model that is dominated by the
fleshy physical world. My career is as a film editor. The work I do
is mostly dominated by the rather inexact art of emotion and story. I
spend much of my day focused in the mushy realm of images, symbols and
meanings. Hence the view of idealism.
I believe there is a bit of an idealist in you.
"However if I may speculate, the ontological meaning of the Universe is
to become more perfect and to manifest this increase in perfection to
sentient beings."
Make a statement like that and they aren't going to be letting you into
the materialists club.
--
~Stu
Picasso's Inner Nut Garnish
Part 1
Everybody agrees that where and when we live are not for us. We all
wish that things were better than they are. We all want more money and
we all want to live forever. If this is you, then welcome to my utopia.
My utopia is the world in 200 years
In this world, scientific progression has uncovered the location the
soul. Scientists can remove the soul from the body and with laser
utilities they can dissect the delicate light tissue that makeup the
souls gleaming epicenter. It has indeed been proved that body and soul
are connected and that it is essential to maintain both to live a long
healthy life. This is the reason for the invention of the SOULULIGHT
3000. This handy little mechanism provides your soul with all the
nutrition and love needed for your soul to lead a long and happy life.
Combine the SOULULIGHT 3000 with the KEEP-ME-YOUNG-AMATIC 500 to own a
healthy young body and a soul that crimonoids would kill for.
If you would like to know more about these products please don't
hesitate to contact Ping for further information.
Regards
Bob
>Physics is the model not the universe-in-itself
Not another Idealist. <jeez>
>This model resides in the minds of men. If man
>where to perish from earth physics would die with it. The universe
>would remain the same.
Yes, but physics is not only a model but a set of laws. Those laws are
embedded in the Universe.
>That DC voltage may shock me, but the mathematical models that describe
>that DC voltage wouldn't even raise a yawn.
Physics is a collection of laws one of which causes the voltage to
shock you.
>I believe there is a bit of an idealist in you.
Of course there is. Idealism is the proper Worldview for mathematics.
But it is not the proper world view for physics or metaphysics.
>"However if I may speculate, the ontological meaning of the Universe is
>to become more perfect and to manifest this increase in perfection to
>sentient beings."
>Make a statement like that and they aren't going to be letting you into
>the materialists club.
Suits me just fine.
Stu
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:43:57 -0800, Stu <Nos...@towel.com> wrote:
>
>> Physics is the model not the universe-in-itself
>
> Not another Idealist. <jeez>
I thought we agreed you are an idealist as well. (That perfection
quote gave you away.)
>
>> This model resides in the minds of men. If man where to perish from
>> earth physics would die with it. The universe would remain the same.
>
> Yes, but physics is not only a model but a set of laws. Those laws are
> embedded in the Universe.
I agree. However the laws have only meaning when translated by men
into formulae. In other words the universe ticks along under these
laws without the help of physics textbooks.
There is a difference between the laws as part of nature's order, and
the laws as uncovered by the physicist. One is a model. As science
matures the model becomes more and more precise. However the model
never becomes the modeled. It is an infinite regress.
>
>> That DC voltage may shock me, but the mathematical models that describe
>> that DC voltage wouldn't even raise a yawn.
>
> Physics is a collection of laws one of which causes the voltage to
> shock you.
No. I am shocked by nature. The physic's model though will help me
recognize that I am well grounded and a great target for a negative
charged particle(wave?). With the knowledge of physics I am in a
better position to predict nature.
Nature is. Physics provides a map. We should not confuse the map with
the phenomenon.
>
>> I believe there is a bit of an idealist in you.
>
> Of course there is. Idealism is the proper Worldview for mathematics.
> But it is not the proper world view for physics or metaphysics.
I am not sure I agree. But my physics background is limited to
undergraduate (with a focus on physical acoustics). You may know
better. But isn't it in the realm of analytic physics to design a
model, say for example that there are 3 types of quarks, And then the
experimental guys test the model? Say by sending streams of particles
at neutrons.
And in many cases the experimental guys come up with evidence to
reinforce the model or suggest modification.
And there is always a sort of tension between the analytic guys and the
experimental arm? The resolution of that tension is progress.
>
>> "However if I may speculate, the ontological meaning of the Universe is
>> to become more perfect and to manifest this increase in perfection to
>> sentient beings."
>
>> Make a statement like that and they aren't going to be letting you into
>> the materialists club.
>
> Suits me just fine.
Really just two idealist looking where to draw the line.
--
~Stu
Bob
>> Not another Idealist. <jeez>
>I thought we agreed you are an idealist as well.
I said I adopted the Worldview of Idealism when I did mathematics and
other subjective-bases studied. But when it comes to physics and
metaphysics, you must adopt the Realist Worldview to be productive.
> (That perfection quote gave you away.)
Gave me away in what way? I have never said or even inferred that I
would adopt Idealism when doing physics or metaphysics.
>>> This model resides in the minds of men. If man where to perish from
>>> earth physics would die with it. The universe would remain the same.
>>
>> Yes, but physics is not only a model but a set of laws. Those laws are
>> embedded in the Universe.
>
>I agree. However the laws have only meaning when translated by men
>into formulae. In other words the universe ticks along under these
>laws without the help of physics textbooks.
The it would appear that we are in agreement.
>There is a difference between the laws as part of nature's order, and
>the laws as uncovered by the physicist. One is a model. As science
>matures the model becomes more and more precise. However the model
>never becomes the modeled. It is an infinite regress.
We must be having a language problem because you say one thing and
then contradict it.
Does the Universe behave according to an embedded set of laws we call
the Laws of Physics?
You seem to be saying that because the laws of physics as formulated
by physicists are not the same laws that govern the behavior of the
Universe. I won't argue that the laws of physics that are formulated
by physicists are not perfect representations of the laws that govern
the behavior of the Universe but they are the best we have and they
are representative of the actual laws embedded in the Universe.
The reason I can say that with confidence is because no matter what
improvements physicists make on the laws they formulated, they can
only be more accurate representations. If the laws of physics
formulated by physicists are as accurate as they seem, then they are
good representations of the actual laws.
Put in the language of metaphysics, there is a real objective and
absolute set of laws of physics - these are ontological - and there is
a set of laws of physics that have been formulated as being highly
representative of those real objective absolute laws - these are
epistemological.
I think we are splitting hairs. F = ma is a very good representation
of how massive bodies behave in classical terms. It becomes refined in
Relativity which is important in near-light-speed reference frames.
And I am confident someday that even the laws of relativity will be
refined. Nevertheless despite all these rather pedantic distinctions,
the Universe is governed by laws of physics, and the representations
of those laws are more than mere models because we can use them to
make surprisingly accurate predictions of the behavior of the
Universe.
>> Physics is a collection of laws one of which causes the voltage to
>> shock you.
>No. I am shocked by nature.
The act of being shocked is caused by the behavior of the Universe
under the guidance of the laws of physics embedded in the Universe. I
agree that our representation of those laws is not 100% perfect but
that does not mean the Universe is not governed by laws of physics.
>Nature is. Physics provides a map. We should not confuse the map with
>the phenomenon.
The behavior of the Universe is governed by laws of physics.
>Really just two idealist looking where to draw the line.
When it comes to physics and metaphysics, only the Worldview of
Existential Realism will allow you to be productive.