Resisting Existential Nihilism

Michael,

“Nature does nothing without a purpose?” Surely you’re not suggesting intelligence in microbes? I can accept that we may be blind to processes that we cannot see and ignorant of those things that we can see, but, again, I see no need for a watchmaker.

And I’ve not read of any evidence that any potential alien life needs be extinct.

I think that it’s incontrovertible that we will become extinct, even if only though the evolutionary process. I don’t believe that we can say that we’re unique in this Universe — it’s an awfully big place.

And I’ve yet to hear/read of fractal patterns ruling life-forms. Deviant nature — snowflakes, etc., yes, but large mammals? Noooo...

I’m not certain that I would call ‘swarming’ a higher degree of intelligence. Canada Geese fly in formations for several reasons; none because of a developed intellect. No, I don’t believe in any types of collective-consciousness amongst humans, at all; that idea is in the gutter of the paranormal, to me. And I certainly don’t believe that matter-energy can become self-aware. Gutter-al, again.

There is nothing — no accepted theories or hypotheses — that suggests a binary Universe. Quite the opposite! The more that we learn about Universal curve-balls the more the theoretical dimensions we include to attempt to explain the queer nature the space beyond. And, lest we forget, maths and physics and (quip) universal astro-sciences are only halfway out of the womb. Newton is a recent cousin, Einstein our granddad, Hawking the older brother.

Nature doesn’t “make” us evolve; you’re, again, creating intelligence where there is none. We see patterns because they offer comfort, not because they always (or, even more frequently than not) exist. Certainly there are statistical patterns and probabilities — but I don’t think that we’re smart enough to predict an evolutionary pattern of the future development of a bird’s bill, much less any sort of of a reasoned universal truths.

I ‘get it:’ You desire patterns (just as the faithful desire miracles from saints, as peoples are gladdened to be a part of the 50%) because you want meaning. But there isn’t meaning; maths and physics attempt to explain the rudiments of that which exists, usually shy about positing that which will be. Gemologists don’t predict 900-carat diamonds, but are in awe when one is mined. Astrophysicists can’t predict finding one black hole larger than any yet discovered but can only say that there might be even larger black holes in the Universe.

I didn’t watch the video, but I will. If it convinces me that ELEs are more likely than not, I’ll reply.

DD,

Just a brief observation in re religions (as we’re discussing philosophies I’m hoping that small theologies won’t be banned).



I love ritual, as well. I was a stickler for exacting orders of Rites.

Now that I’ve no guiding/guided liturgy, I’ve given in to the fruitful chaos of existence, maybe. I still dream of ringing the bells at elevation but, when awake, I ring my single bell only for the joy of the tingle-tingles.

I’m over ritual, now. I ceded my spots on diocesan liturgical committees decades ago!

I think that 'now' is something that is fundamentally important to the way the human psyche has developed & to it's balance & well-being. Because we are cognoscent of the past & aware of the possibilities (and dangers) of the future, we are at risk of ignoring the present moment & instead, fixating on the decisions of the past & the choices faced in the future. What gives use the ability to perceive & project, is also what can prevent us from being effective & engaged in the present.

Here, I'd beg to differ. Depending on belief, it could be argued that right & wrong are fundamental absolutes enshrined at the beginning of creation - however, the human perception of right/wrong will inevitably have a personal interpretation based upon personal/environmental construction. Therefore, the positioning of those goal posts are always subject to individual variation - due to this, right/wrong at a societal level must become something of a compromise, rather than being fixed points. It's a price of having the ability to make individual choices - something that's likely essential to our development as a species.

But fear is also proof that you're alive...

Oh, but black is a color — just try pairing a black suit with a black shirt, a black tie, black socks and shoes: Impossible because of the many shades of black. I know of no earthly substances that can be seen without the reflection of light or that produce illuminance.

Oh, I think that languages are full of words that things that name nothingness. Don’t think of ‘void’ so stringently! Even space — outer space where there be dragons — we’re now discovering isn’t the void that we believed it to be 1-years ago!

(And then there are fools like me who, hearing the word void, think first of contracts.)

When I speak of good and evil, negative and positive, I speak of forces of nature beyond our perception, but not necessarily beyond those of science. In a purely additive/subtractive sense, if what we are doing is subtractive (whether of another's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or anything else), we are acting on the side of the entropic, i.e., black/evil/selfish/negative/insert-adjective-here side of the yin/yang. If what we are doing selflessly adds to someone else's existence, we are acting on the side of the additive, i.e., white/good/selfless/positive/insert-adjective-here side of the yin/yang. That's why I believe Taoism came very close (without even realizing it) to a phsyical description of our universe and it's peculiar brand of reality, on top of the religious aspects of it. Yet, it's not the whole.

This is why I said that I believe mankind is, as self-aware creatures independent of each other, seemingly heading towards a collective self-awareness as one organism, much like how higher order intelligence spawns from lesser animals like fish and birds. I think we're heading towards a singularity of consciousness. Nature is, above all else, evolving for one purpose, and that is the transmission of information/energy from one thing to another. This is why that pattern is repeated from the macroscopic (stars and planetary orbits, for instance) down to the microscopic (quarks and photons and neutrinos). This higher level order rising from lower level order is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and yet, it happens all the time. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is referred to as a clue.


And all of this fits perfectly not within Einsteinian physics, but within Bohmian physics which is the true TOE (theory of everything) if there ever was one. Look it up some time. It accounts for, and resolves, a lot of paradoxes and unexplained oddities of classic physics. Which brings me to the language of the universe, and that, assuredly, is mathematics. Math is eternal. Nothing else comes close. Physics of the astro- and theoretical kind is a relative new comer on the stage of mankind's existence, but algebra has been around since the dawn of man.


And the particular brand of mathematics used by nature are fractals. Everything in creation forms in fractal patterns, from the tiniest to the largest, and that pattern is a pattern because it repeats forever. And what kind of fractal is it? A sine wave. A sine wave is the most basic building block of nature because before matter could form, energy was required. Thus, immediately at the big bang energy was released, and then matter formed as energy encountered the second law of thermodynamics, slowing and transforming into matter. And energy in its most efficient form is always in a sine wave, never square or saw tooth.

Everything repeats, in infinite variations and infinite permutations. All bound between two poles of additive/subtractive, energy/non-energy, light/dark, forever under tension like a guitar string. This is part of the natural order. And that is why I say it is dangerous for man to attempt to redefine that--not because it will affect nature, but because it will affect his perception of it.

Sorry, I'm rambling. lol This is what I have going through my head constantly. Like looking down one of those weird optical illusions...

Even Buddhism has a creation myth although it is too complicated to go into here. But it has to do with what Buddhists call "a full emptiness" which is not the same as
"void" and now Buddhist scholars prefer that void not be used when talking about Buddhist non-theism.

I personally do not have a problem with creation "myths" and the symbolism that is at the heart of all organized religions. As long as it is reflective of something good. But if one isn't raised in a particular religion, and brainwashed, the myths can come across as pretty crazy. I have always said that no religion can be defined because its members all contribute their own interpretation. There would be a "sort of" consensual reality but it is actually pretty loose.

However, with all that is coming down within the Roman Catholic church...all tolerance is thrown out the window. The way this religion is set up it allows for power mongering, secrecy, and criminal activity...and seemingly attracts pedophiles. Yuk.

I need to reread this thread. Most of what is being said is going over my head.

Wow, you guys are rocking this thread.

I have read and reread it and about 90% is going over my head.

But someone mentioned that NOW as being all that matters. And I am wondering if NOW is what contradicts Nihilism. On the other hand...if NOW were really, really bad than extinction would seem the best exit door.

But once we take good and bad as relative terms...than NOW still reigns supreme. (Because...what I mean...is...that NOW is a relative term. It reflects a relative not absolute reality.)

However, I am not wholly behind the idea of deflating the polarities which is...something done in the very advanced metaphisics of Buddhism. This may be "absolute reality" but as someone here said...we need a moral compass and for that we need good and evil....relative terms.

Haha I feel stupid here. I think I will just go look for a Wiccan Circle...

Michael,

I wanted to reply to other posts, but your #50 is too juicy!

Your summation, I think, drives your reasoning and I don’t think that’s good. Over and over again, we see that mythologies are created out of fear: Fear of attack from the Winter’s wolves and, yes, always, the fear of death.

I think that it’s just as unlikely that one can create a viable philosophy of life from fear as a theology.

Now.

The current thought isn’t that the Universe will become a large black hole but rather that it will collapse into the impossibly small shape of the tiniest bit of energy mixed with a larger bit of matter; as it was at the beginning. Will there come another Big Bang? Who knows? No one. It’s impossible to even theorise what comes afterward.

I say that I’m a believer in science but I’m also a cynic, a skeptic: I believe that some sciences are collections of ‘maybes’ — with severely limited knowledge, maybe X is maybe at this time. But, again as a skeptic, it seems to me that we deal with probabilities based upon what we know now. Particle physics assures us, with almost 100% certainty, that the Higgs field exists and, with my limited knowledge, I accept that certainty (when explained by my particle physicist friends in children’s language).

The only thing that I’m 99.9% certain of is that there is no creator, no spirits or spirit worlds, and no ‘meaning’ of evolved human consciousness.

And that’s my story.

No, no, no! Please be cautious in your use of programming, programmed, and design, etc. Those words suggest a programer and designer, a theological construct that I (and I’m not alone on this) reject. I know that I’m beating the Darwinian evolution equine, but he’s still galloping, not dead. Our odd sexuality — and even amongst the asexual reproducers — is evolutionary. Not at all by design! Yes, in many species, reproductive activities are pleasurable but, I believe, the desire (!) to procreate is evolutionarily, even unconsciously, innate. As pop culture says, we want to churn out little versions of ourselves (if only because of an unconscious fear of death and a wholly irrational desire to live beyond death). That’s the science behind the continuation of our feeble species, I think.

Genetics. No, again, not programming, yet, though it’s fast becoming possible. What we pass on is our mutated genetic code. Is it random? Sometimes. More often than not, though, we unconsciously select prostitutes and life-partners because they have genetic traits that we find desirable; traits of being well-bred and capable of breeding well. Evolutionarily innate. That’s science. Far from seeking variety, we seek good health and other traits for our potential progeny, going so far as to , again, unconsciously, evaluate the parents of potential life-partners.

Yes, certainly, artists represent and can enhance the ways in which we stumble through our limited lives. But it’s, maybe, just stimuli of our finite consciousness that leads us to enjoy such fabulous distractions.

Michael,

I wish that I had the time to respond to every post but I don’t — so I pick and choose. I find your messages the most disturbing, though and feel a compulsion to respond.

I’m not sure that you mean ‘entropic’ (lacking in order or predictability, i.e. chaos, disorder) when we behave on the side of selfishness (if I may use the word in place of evil, which I find largely subjective). And I don’t think that any religion/philosophy has ever come close to describing the physical Universe — science, really, only dabbles in that Great Unknown.

As for ‘collective consciousness’? I find that idea smacking of a new-age-fiction with absolutely no scientific support. Maybe it could be found in sentient alien species, but not on this planet. Not amongst any Earth life forms. Yes, we’re evolved from primal sea creatures and, yes, higher intelligence has evolved — but not spawned — from life in the primordial soup but we retain little in common with the single-celled organism.

You write that ‘nature has evolved’ for a singular ‘purpose’ — the transmission of information and energy to one another. The whole of nature (birds, beasts, and flowers) isn’t on a single track; we have evolved and will die out as species — not in some sort of evolutionary equalities. Again, you’re seeing (or seeking) patterns where none exist. That’s folly, I think.

Evolutionary processes are only random from a distance; up close we know why some dinosaurs died whilst others evolved and we know why woolly mammoths went extinct. We have a partial puzzle of how we, homo sapiens, mutated from other species. We’re awash with scientific possibilities but we lack scientific certainty in many, many fields. I cannot even say that that which makes me laugh will make you laugh; cannot say the my beauty will be the same as yours. We’re not so much individual beings as we are individual mutants (and I believe that evolutionary biologists would agree).

I’m not sure how you jumped from lower-higher postulations to Einstein and much less certain why you cite Bohm’s theoritals as a (or the) Theory of Everything. Did Bohm make that claim? The physicists and practitioners of higher maths that I know wouldn’t make such claims for any partial theories; although I know that Bohm is in vogue presently.

The one thing that I can agree with you on is that mathematics is the lingua franca of the Universe; but the words are a toddler’s utterances and there are thus no complete sentences to weave into paragraphs. No, algebra was not present at the dawn of our species — it hasn’t accompanied us for 200, 000 years. Rather, maths sprung from that Mesopotamian ‘cradle of civilization’ just over 5,000 years ago; a nascent science. There are no fractal patterns and similarities (fractals) only explain mutations over periods of time. I’m not sure that you’ve grasped the Big Bang which posits that an incredibly dense ‘object’ comprised of mostly matter and smaller amounts of energy exploded to eventually form all of the extant matter and energy of this Universe. The idea that energy created matter defies fundamental physics and directly destroys the very core of relativity. (Energy can neither be created or destroyed.)

Sine waves aren’t ‘universal,’ and I’ve never heard them described as the essence of energy. Do you have a source?

To my knowledge, the Universe isn’t binary — no ying-yang — nor does everything (arguably anything ‘repeat.’ Time is our artificial measurement of the incomprehensible seeming continuum of a misunderstanding. We can now predict, with no great accuracy, the years since the birth of our Universe as well as it’s demise. With greater accuracy, maybe, we predict the raging death of our Sun and our Solar System. What we know with some certainty is, that like our consciousness, our Universe was born and that it will die. Everything else is amusing.

Finally.

I mean no personal attacks yet I realize that this thread is argumentative. I’m loathe to ‘look things up’ via Google or in any other manner: You can argue that I’m responding from the ‘top of my head,’and you’d be right. If I’m wrong about anything that I’ve written, and you’ve proofs, please let me know. I would like to suggest that you might be more persuasive if you could offer objective sources for what I read as subjective alternative facts. Let’s both deal in brass tacks?

My brothers, all alter boys, admitted to sipping the wine in the sacristy while preparing it for the service but nothing weird or strange happened to any of them, I don't think. They were all schooled in Catholic schools for 12 years (come to think of it, they all went to Catholic colleges, too) including an all-boys prep school. I was also schooled for 12 years in Catholic schools and for 4 years went to an all-girls convent school where we had priests, nuns, and lay people as instructors. In all this time I never once had even an inkling of anything strange or not right. I daresay I really enjoyed my education. So be it. I then went on to a very liberal "hippie" college which was the exact opposite. No rules, organized orgies on the weekends, a wild and wooly purging of regimented spirituality. Doors and windows thrown wide open and tons of fresh air streaming in...what a wonderful era!


You are right in saying...we cannot stay within these toxic systems just because of a sincere wish for belongingness (I am speaking of myself) -- and I don't mean just religious systems, but also political or socio-economic systems, too. For instance, the fact that I live in a town that is 98% white American has an effect on my reality. Not good, either. A homogenized reality. A bubble. A twisted reality.


I have had an obsession with the opposite of nihilism. I have described myself as an eternalist. If I have any mental illness label it would be adjustment disorder. I am surprised by change. I am trying to change that.


Thank you for all your interesting comments.

Even though much of this thread is going over my head I have to say this is by far the most interesting thread I am ever come across on Psych Central. I just want it to go on forever!

[QUOTE=amicus_curiae;6237935]Michael,

I wanted to reply to other posts, but your #50 is too juicy!

Your summation, I think, drives your reasoning and I don’t think that’s good. Over and over again, we see that mythologies are created out of fear: Fear of attack from the Winter’s wolves and, yes, always, the fear of death.

I think that it’s just as unlikely that one can create a viable philosophy of life from fear as a theology.

Now.

The current thought isn’t that the Universe will become a large black hole but rather that it will collapse into the impossibly small shape of the tiniest bit of energy mixed with a larger bit of matter; as it was at the beginning. Will there come another Big Bang? Who knows? No one. It’s impossible to even theorise what comes afterward.

I say that I’m a believer in science but I’m also a cynic, a skeptic: I believe that some sciences are collections of ‘maybes’ — with severely limited knowledge, maybe X is maybe at this time. But, again as a skeptic, it seems to me that we deal with probabilities based upon what we know now. Particle physics assures us, with almost 100% certainty, that the Higgs field exists and, with my limited knowledge, I accept that certainty (when explained by my particle physicist friends in children’s language).

The only thing that I’m 99.9% certain of is that there is no creator, no spirits or spirit worlds, and no ‘meaning’ of evolved human consciousness.

And that’s my story.[/QUOTE


I thought the main theory was that the Universe would just continue to expand.

I wonder what the .1% believes? You left a thread hanging in the tapestry. Intriguing.

So beautifully written. Awesome thoughts here.

Sorry if I hijacked this thread in talking about religion...but I think when one talks about nihilism, then, for me, eternalism comes up. Which naturally leads to talk about religion. However, initially I was quoting Buddhism, which has a big metaphysical component stripped of the trappings of religion. As a philosophy I find Buddhism very interesting. Taoism is, I believe, a near cousin.

I can't really contribute much to this discussion. There is a starkness about nihilism that I would not say evokes fear as much as apathy.

The author Andrew Solomon includes a quote in his book on depression - I paraphrase - that depression is essentially a lack of enthusiasm, and a static state. It is not so much sadness as a mental and physical apathy.

I find that losing all the storylines makes for a boring existence. Nihilism, I say no to. But I am all for scraping away unneeded mental constructs.

In graduate school I studied some of what has been talked about here. But I found that all the conjecturing did not make me happy. I was mainly studying Buddhist philosophy, and, it was not...comforting. And I now realize it was a time in my life when I needed comfort and companions.

Dancing witches, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, creation stories, chaos theory, love/sex, honor, relationship, hobbies, building things, destroying things then rebuilding. Ah, anything but boredom. For me that is the killer. And nihilism strikes me as...boring. I'm coming out of a period of silence. And I mean...S I L E N C E. I have been listening to music again and this week - Aretha. -- R E S P E C T, Queen of Soul!. That voice...saying YES to LIFE. (I am now thinking of the musicians who continued to play while the Titanic was sinking. That is...a full...emptiness.)

Sorry, again, I don't belong here among all you intellectual giants. I will just read and try to not comment anymore. I feel like a little frog jumping around in a pond of sharks. It is only a matter of time before I get...gulped!

Whoo-boy, where to start? Looks like I knocked over the bee's nest with this one. lol But in a good way. First, Dechan, relax. There are no mental giants, here. lol At least, not on my end. I've just had a lot of time to try to piece together an idea of what is going on beneath our perception. And the current theories of the universe are that all the stars will die out, and unless we learn how to brute-force tow stars with some form of field propulsion, eventually, the entropy in the universe will overtake everything, and it will all become dark as the black holes begin circling each other like debris running down the drain, leading to a single black hole in the entire universe. After that--who knows? Another big bang, maybe? And Amicus, all of our "arguing" is fast becoming the stuff of gossip--"Did you hear Amicus' response to Wolves' latest thread??" lmao Very stimulating and healthy.

Now, then. To start with, you accept that mathematics is the lingua franca of the universe. I agree with you that we have only the most rudimentary vocabulary at our disposal to speak with nature. However, what I meant by algebra being around at the dawn of man is just that--homo sapiens. Astrophysics has only been around 150 years or so. The periodic table of elements has only been around the same amount of time. Yes, the elements were present in the earth, but our understanding of them was not. That is what I speak of. Algebra was figured out by man long before anything else was because necessity is the mother of invention. And if you think the Sphinx is only 4,000 years old, you're off by about, oh, 4,000 years (seriously, in the book, Before They Were Pharaohs, the author makes a very scientifically-valid argument about how the Romans resurfaced the Sphinx to repair it, throwing off carbon-dating). The sphinx is so old it was exposed to floods up to its neck--in the middle of the desert. The pyramids are just as old--they are from pre-dynastic Egypt.

The point is, algebra, and most assuredly trigonometry, were required to build them. Our first science, therefore, was mathematics, which the priesthood of Egypt guarded in secrecy because that knowledge was power. They could predict eclipses and floods and other natural wonders, which made them gods among men, and allowed them to rule uncontested for thousands of years.

Thus, mathematics has been around a lot longer than our puny understanding of the universe. And just like in that movie Arrival, which utilized the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis to amazing effect, our language (mathematics) affects our perception of reality. This is what I was implying by saying it is unwise for humanity to "move" the goal posts of two very primal forces of nature because it will change the collective perception of them and limit our understanding.

As human beings, we absolutely require for our psychological well-being the existence of an ultimate negativity, whether you call it evil, decay, entropy, or Thanatos, and the existence of an ultimate positivity, whether you call it good, creation, light, or God. We require these poles to exist because they underpin our perception of reality and give us a framework to put into context everything that occurs in the brief span of our lives. This is not a form of religiosity, it is a function of the universe in which we live, and a function of the physical aspects of our brains.

We live in a binary universe--there are two poles: negative and positive. This polarity is seen much more dramatically at the quantum level as revealed through mathematics. Our brains, while analog, are also binary. Everything operates on the binary level. 0/1, yes/no, etc. This is an important point for one reason: because Alain Aspect proved the holographic nature of our universe back in the 80s, and this was recently upheld in major physics journals and websites, like this one and this one. (The first one you may have to just agree to their terms to use the site, but it's not spam.) In a two-dimensional field, there is only yes/no, 0/1, positive/negative. This is what I mean by holographic, not that we are merely photons and I can pass my hand right through you.

Why is the binary nature of the universe important? Because energy transmission has to occur through some mechanism, or we would be stuck in a static universe. How does energy get transmitted? Through waves and their functions, and in particular, the simple sine wave. And Bohmian mechanics, unlike Einstein, got it right. Einstein's theories are 99% correct, but they can't account for the very small, only the very large. Bohm's physics accounts for both quantum and macro-scopic physics. In the Bohm universe, everything is deterministic--but not without choice.

That is where I come in with my theory that attempts to reconcile both Bohm and Einstein, and to a lesser extent, Heisenberg (whose uncertainty principle evaporates when Bohm's pilot wave calculations are applied), Planck and Schröedinger. I argue that wave is a sine wave because it is the simplest form of fractal in the universe. What is a fractal? Wikipedia defines it as, "A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. It is also known as expanding symmetry or evolving symmetry." It requires two numbers to generate a fractal, through division. Our universe has been proven to operate on fractals--one only needs to watch an episode of Scientific American Frontiers and their special on such math, to see that scientists have proven that everything from the way arteries form to deliver oxygen to our brains to the way the interstate system "grew" to deliver people to their jobs, is based on fractals. This also applies to the natural world. Everything from the way rivers form to the way trees grow to the way mountains form--all fractal patterns.

Thus, the binary nature of the universe is established and proven. Now, since we know that the universe is binary, and forms according the principles of fractals, we now have a pattern. Yes, it's far too complicated to "map out" because who can account for every single particle in the universe in a single algorithm? Does such an algorithm exist? Most assuredly yes, but we haven't found it yet, and it would probably require a chalkboard the length of a football field to write it out. But we know that in a Bohmian universe, it is at least possible, no matter how improbable.

Now, back to the sine wave issue--the reason I am certain that the sine wave is the pattern is because while nature might seem random, we know that randomness to be merely our limited perception of it. Nature evolves for one purpose: efficiency. In other words, how to do the most amount of "work" for the least amount of "effort." This is a fundamental law. This is why arteries form the way they do. That is nature's modus operandi, if you will. In our universe, you're either transferring energy to something else, or you're static, and nothing in our universe is static--there is always motion. All of creation has thus evolved around the purpose of energy transmission, and that energy transmission is always in the form of a sine wave. Only mankind produces square and saw tooth waves--nothing else in nature does. Even if you argue that geysers, for instance, are more of a saw tooth wave, you can still "zoom" down to the surface of that wave and find it comprised of smaller sine waves, not saw tooth waves. Hence, sine waves are the ultimate building block of the universe.

Now, we have blue prints, and the language of the universe. We already know that language is extremely important in our perception of the universe as well thanks to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. This was exemplified in that movie, Arrival, as I mentioned above.

Then, we move on to the nature of higher order intelligence occurring spontaneously from a swarm of lesser order intelligence creatures. When the number of creatures in the swarm hits a critical threshold, that greater intelligence forms automatically and spontaneously, and here's the kicker: Such an occurrence violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics! Yes, that's right, entropy fails to account for how such a thing could come about. I posit that the same thing is occurring to human consciousness on a vast time scale as we evolve. Our planet is coming close to hitting the critical threshold, so now is not the time to be attempting to play with our collective language by attempting to move the "goal-posts" of the absolutes that we need based on the whim of the latest cause célèbre. We need those absolutes as anchors to tie our consciousness to. We as human beings need structure.

My point about religions is this: Every culture in human history that has spawned some type of theological framework has attempted to put into words the vision of the mind's eye. Arabesques are fractal patterns. The yin-yang of Taoism is a fractal pattern. The good/evil dynamic of Christianity is a fractal pattern. All of these religions have been for countless millennia attempting to describe the ineffable. Our perceptions shifting is dangerous only for us, not for any effect it will have on the physical universe (which is arguably nil), because our perception is shaped by our language. The patterns are there whether we choose to see them or not; merely acknowledging what millions of people see is not seeking patterns where there are none, it's accepting reality for what it is.

We evolved the ability to see patterns for a reason, most likely multiple reasons, but it all comes back to the fact that there are fractal patterns in nature that point to something else going on beyond the limits of our perceptions. Clearly, nature intends for us some as-yet-unknown purpose, but our consciousness is moving towards that singularity of higher order, just as it does in smaller animals.

Also, energy transforms to matter when it is slowed, so that when excited particles cross the light barrier, they become pure energy. This is in perfect keeping with the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy is never destroyed, only changes phases. And here's why that's important: if we live in a holographic universe, and full holographic images can be generated from holographic film that has been halved multiple times down to the smallest form that it is possible to still run a laser through, that means that our essence is never destroyed so long as a single particle from us exists. This holographic weirdness was discovered by Bohm in the sixties when he was experimenting with lasers.

Furthermore, our units of time are the only thing artificial about time. Time itself is an integral part of reality; space-time is a mathematical construct that allows us to perceive time mathematically so that we can then use it in our formulae. Therefore, nature most assuredly repeats on every scale the same pattern over and over. When Nature finds something that works, it sticks with it.

Nothing in this requires a creator God, but in these terms, God can be thought of as the ultimate positive pole, and the Devil as the ultimate negative pole, with humans existing somewhere on the spectrum between. There is more to consciousness than mere existence and survival. And I think I'll post this now so I don't take an entire page with one post. lol Thank you again for all the responses. I'm really enjoying this!

Come to my house for homemade waffles. Five stars for this post.

That last paragraph. Yes. Victor Hugo said if there was not a God we would have to invent him/her. Although in advanced Buddhist philosophy the polarities collapse, many misinformed have taken this to mean "anything goes" on a relative level, and hence the "basic goodness" tripe of watered down western Buddhism, which has allowed all kinds of wrongdoing and mischief and stupidity, because of confusing the absolute with the relative. We need polarities. I really like how you put it...for our psychological well-being. Nice.

Why am I still here in the shark pond???? Don't know. Fascination and the dangerous delight of "bearing witness" to the crew that is keeping this delicious thread going.

Yes, programs/programming imply design & a designer - let's tackle that one, right away...

Say the universe began from a point of singularity, the ole big bang... Applying the scientific/logical processes currently available to us would then lead us to consider, what/who laid in place the matter/energy/sequence of events to initiate that big bang? Then we have to to consider what/who laid in place the matter/energy/sequence of events to initiate that initiation? And so on. Matter/energy, as we understand them, don't atrophy into nothing, nor can they spontaneously arise from nothing.

Until a credible theory is evolved to explain that conundrum, it is logical to see the timeline of the universe as a series of consequential events. The element of design/designer comes in, because we do not yet have any other way to explain the initiation of that series of consequential events.

And that series of consequential events is a program. Remember, a running program does not automatically imply a predetermined program end, if that program is capable of run-time modification, either via it's own coding (intentional self modification), or by external factors (coding errors/data corruption/not enough lead in the solder flux/Vogon bypass construction).

That sounds pretty close to my theory in the other thread, eh, Amicus? lmao Remember, the zero space-time interval nodes are the edge of that binary reality, the top half from the bottom half of the sine wave.


lol Welcome to the other side of the looking glass, my friends! Come in, come in, we're all mad here, you know? Have some tea, and mind the mushrooms...



Marvin, here is my thread about the Pattern. My last post is the one you should read, not the first, as it is an update of the first. That ought to give you some mathematical insight into what I'm talking about.

Thank you for making this a memorable thread. lol I've not had so much fun on a forum in a long, long time.

Thank you, Michael, for turning me on to the HeavyDirtySoul video. The drummer is hot! (pun not intended!) He really is (metaphorically speaking)...hot!

Our Universe is expanding now, theoretically much more quickly than was posited, oh, 50-years ago. The one constant has been the belief that expansion will cease and the Universe will collapse, returning to the incredibly small and dense form of matter and energy that gave birth to the Big Bang. After that, who knows? I like to think that it will bang again!

The .1% isn’t what others might believe but only my personal uncertainty that I could be wrong!

Jeez, Louise!

I want to respond to many messages but my hands aren’t working well today; I’m finding it almost impossible to tap-tap-tap with a single finger on my iPad’s virtual keyboard!

I’m lovin’ this thread, though, and intend to respond when — I hope — I have more control over my spastic hands/fingers.

First, I’m no intellectual giant. I watched a film earlier, The End of the Tour, about the time that a Rolling Stone journalist spent with David Foster (Dave) Wallace. Now Wallace was an intellectual giant but lived for writing and the commonplace. If my 24-years of formal education taught me anything, it is that I know so very little. Please, don’t refrain from commenting!!

Religion was bound to be broached; no harm. Existentialism and nihilism demand debate, I think, and religion becomes part of the debate. It’s only natural (giant pun).

Now nihilism and fear and apathy. I’ve not embraced nihilism out of fear (the initial fear of death/nothingness is no part of my nihilistic philosophy) or apathy (I care about, well, everything.) I’m not certain that you’re addressing me or other angels? For me, an evangelist for nihilism, I can only say that nihilism generally does provoke fear and a race towards mythologies that soothe that fear. I’ve yet to experience apathy personally or find it a reaction of those to whom I preach.

Now I think myself an expert on depression, having been brought down by the disease for over 16-years. I can’t offer any complete explanation of the disorder and doubt that anyone can. Depression does dampen any enthusiasm for living but that’s but a single symptom and I don’t believe that the enormity of the disease can be written off as a general ‘lack of enthusiasm’ and certainly not apathy though I admit that the depressed do feel apathetic about some daily activities (showering!) and other considerations of the world outside outside of themselves. With that I’ll admit that depression is a deeply rooted self-centred disease by definition.

I think that what you mean by storylines I would call mythologies and while mythologies are interesting I don’t feel that they sufficiently give overarching meaning to short-term existence.

Nihilism is far from boring! It generates an unparalleled vigor! Recognising the finite gives one a passion to live fully, an eagerness to explore and engage! Nothing boring about it!

I know silence on many, many levels. I was mute for over one-year; silencing myself. We’re Aretha-simpatico — but Natural Woman is my fave and yes, it says, she sings, yes to life.

I keep bringing up Molly Bloom’s soliloquy in the final chapter of James Joyce’s Ulysses. Let me quote the final lines:

Yes.

Marvin,

Frankly, I would posit a rogue group of aliens as first cause rather than an unseeable spirit.

You see a conundrum which must be considered where I see the unknowable. I’m not going to attempt to know the unknown because that puts me on the path of a crazed Möbius strip when I’d rather live and soak in all of the lively and lovely bubble baths that I can.

As ardently as I adhered to the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation, I have always been a sensualist first. As often as I confessed my sensual sins, I ran from the confessional to the backseat of my ’68 Mustang to kiss the current lovely girl. Since leaving the Church I only see wickedly comedy and egregious tragedy and realize, much too late!, that sensuality bred such a tremendous affirmation of life.

I’m unrepentant of the pleasures given and gained.

I don’t believe in a consequential Universe. It seems that there are new discoveries daily that defy our most revered certainties and that contribute to the belief of Universal randomness. B does not always follow A and the laws and theories that are held dear on this orb most certainly do not stand on others.

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution? I do. And what I know of evolution is that it can be observed but never, neverpredicted. Evolution follows from mutation and going from dinosaurs to birds is a comical mystery. We can offer hypothetical explanations but cannot even conjecture the smallest mutations that must have occurred.

If there was program it’s buggy as Hades.

Kee-rist!

I am eternally shamed by my misspelling of altarboy!

Mea maxima culpa.

DD,

First I need to grovel in shame and apologize for misspelling altar boy. I write quickly and loosely but that’s no excuse for so grave an error. Forgive me?

I, too, am the product of twelve-years of parochial education. Back then the nuns outnumbered the priests and the priests outnumbered the laity. But when selected my college I ran fast to the nearest rational-humanist that I could find! But I, too, genuinely enjoyed those first twelve-years.

No, you speak for me as well. There’s a comfort in belonging to, and being ritualized into, the largest Church on Earth. I miss the community but cannot be complicit in the countless horrors now.

I grumble about change now, in my old age and confined confusion, but I thrived on change when younger. I had hopes for the future, changes that could bring about real justice and equality, etc. Fifty years ago I had hope; now I’m ashamed.