4 ms·
As a side note--and I stole this idea from an essay that I thought was by Asimov called the Scientist and the Sage but: 400 or 1000 years ago there were still b
by Avshalom 9y ago
As a side note--and I stole this idea from an essay that I thought was by Asimov called the Scientist and the Sage but: 400 or 1000 years ago there were still basically three possible predictions: the universe will end; the universe is infinite; the universe will cycle.
It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions.
- stcredzero 9y agobut: 400 or 1000 years ago there were still basically three possible predictions: the universe will end; the universe is infinite; the universe will cycle. It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions. We now have an inkling that this taxonomy of understanding may well be too limited. For one thing, the notion of a "beginning" might not actually have a concrete meaning. There may simply be no time before "time zero." Also, the universe may well come to a false "end" in a way which completely remixes the laws of physics and possibly remixes the very causal structure of the universe. The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats. That last one is something which our ancestors of 400 and 1000 years ago simply didn't have the "mental furnishing" to conceptualize.
- Avshalom 9y ago>>For one thing, the notion of a "beginning" might not actually have a concrete meaning. There may simply be no time before "time zero." Is not relevant to the end (or not) of the everything. >>The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats. Is usefully distinct from an un-ending universe for philosophic purposes... how?
- stcredzero 9y agoIs usefully distinct from an un-ending universe for philosophic purposes... how? Because the phase change boundaries may be utterly impassable and the other side incomprehensible to beings such as ourselves, but the universe itself goes on. So it's quite distinct from an un-ending universe.
- state_less 9y agoWhat if the universe doesn't end, or at least hasn't appeared to yet, and yet you're not sure if it's infinite. Like a computer that may halt, but you can't decide if it will or not. I hope you don't upset the operator and have the simulator suspended with this bickering about what it is. :)
- Avshalom 9y agoWell if you believe in a god all bets are off, including whatever conception of god you believe in.
- state_less 9y agoTake it easy, I just wanted to put forth another position, that of not knowing.
- Avshalom 9y agoNo, no. That's the thing: if we have no fucking clue-- "not knowing"-- we have no direction or guidance and thus no way to distinguish (globally) good versus bad and we end up running off what "we" feel is right. And yeah that can lead Hitler but it can equally lead to MLK Jr. Again I'm not saying Nihilism is "good" I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily lead to one set of morals, and what ever you allow it to lead you to can infact be almost congruent with Abraham or Quetzalcoatl or whatever.