3 ms·

Which is to say that he is nothing; it's nihilistic. What is a drop water in an ocean? One drop less won't make the seas recede. Life, death, where is the bound

by archhn 4y ago

Which is to say that he is nothing; it's nihilistic. What is a drop water in an ocean? One drop less won't make the seas recede. Life, death, where is the boundary when one is subsumed in the all? We are not anonymous atoms in the fabric of an unconscious universe. We have friends, family, and experience life in a unique way. We have the ability to channel our uniqueness into creative acts which introduce completely new combinations into the world. A black hole, a star, can't produce the Mona Lisa, and no one other than Divinci could. It was an outgrowth of his individuality. This idea that we are passive beings, like atoms, completely disregards our ability to create. We tower above the unconscious elements of the universe. We are creators! Putting us on the uncreative level of atoms is slander against humanity.

dwringer 4y ago
Well that's certainly one way to view it, but I am not sure whether it's how Feynman himself would have viewed it. To me there's an implication there that he doesn't view atoms in this context as passive beings since Feynman was definitely not a passive kind of person. I think instead the line suggests that even the smallest possible part of the universe contains all the beauty and complexity of the entire universe as well as life itself. But you do make a fascinating argument. It's an interesting philosophical point to be sure. EDIT: Perhaps there is at least potential for resolution if we give up the classical definition of atoms (being the smallest indivisible parts) in favor of that of modern physics, in which not all atoms are created equal. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.
- archhn 4y ago
  Yeah, I don't know--who does. The poem just struck me as nihilistic. If we are just star stuff in a forever bubbling and fomenting cauldron, it may be a view of reality that is hostile to life. What can console us against the slings and arrows of our outrageous existence if there is no substantial difference between us being dead or alive? If we are just a drop of goop in the cosmic cauldron, why should we not just kill ourselves when we face any discomforting challenge? Late for the bus? Kill yourself. Skipped over for promotion? Kill yourself. As a function of survival, we need some model of reality that helps us to continue living. And that means a model to help us justify suffering--essentially. I do not find such a model reflected by the poem in question; hence, I see it as an enemy to life--nihilistic.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> We are not anonymous atoms in the fabric of an unconscious universe You can resolve your confusion if you consider that the universe itself is conscious in some form. And those atoms have some form of consciousness. There is no scientific, objective, measurable, external evidence for this, so don’t bother looking to prove or disprove it. You have to find it yourself.
- archhn 4y ago
  Consciousness, as I understand it, evolves out of complexity. The simpler things are, the less capacity for consciousness they have. Fundamental building blocks of the universe must then be the least capable of consciousness. That's not to say they aren't "conscious," but that the conciousness they do possess is practically non existent when compared to the consciousness we, as complex systems, possess. I still hold that our ability to create far outranks anything in the observable universe. We are actually so freakishly different from everything around us, that we might as well be aliens to this universe. That's why I don't like being put on the level of atoms. And I already feel atomized enough in this increasingly antisocial environment.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > I still hold that our ability to create far outranks anything in the observable universe Does that include the creation of stars, galaxies, and planets? Literally everything we observe has been “created” in some way.
    - archhn 4y ago
      Yeah, maybe I'm just being an egocentric human by saying that. I don't have a way of measuring "creativity." Also, what we can measure and observe is only a reduction of the universe to terms we can understand. So, we can't even accurately reflect on things in creation, let alone pass judgment on them. I guess I'm just trying to justify my existence in this bewildering cosmos.
toss1 4y ago
>>nothing ... nihilistic Wow, that's nearly the exact opposite of the way my brain interprets it — that he's seeing an infinitely rich tapestry, the wonder of emergent properties and consciousness throughout the universe, from the smallest scales to the grandest, and we, self-referentially seeing ourselves as a part of that grandeur. Not that we're anonymous atoms in an unconscious universe, but that we're part of a universal consciousness, possibly the most key part, as we are the particular (perhaps particularly privileged) atoms that are now "standing… atoms with consciousness… matter with curiosity". Seems it really is in the eye of the beholder, and often more of a reflection of our own state of mind than of the artist's intent.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
defterGoose 4y ago
The idea that we can bring meaning and permanence into the world with art is a similarly hubristic one by your own metric. Surely you're not selfish enough to believe that the universe is unimportant without an overlay of human 'meaning' on top of it?

by archhn 4y ago

dwringer 4y ago

Well that's certainly one way to view it, but I am not sure whether it's how Feynman himself would have viewed it. To me there's an implication there that he doesn't view atoms in this context as passive beings since Feynman was definitely not a passive kind of person. I think instead the line suggests that even the smallest possible part of the universe contains all the beauty and complexity of the entire universe as well as life itself. But you do make a fascinating argument. It's an interesting philosophical point to be sure. EDIT: Perhaps there is at least potential for resolution if we give up the classical definition of atoms (being the smallest indivisible parts) in favor of that of modern physics, in which not all atoms are created equal. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

archhn 4y ago
Yeah, I don't know--who does. The poem just struck me as nihilistic. If we are just star stuff in a forever bubbling and fomenting cauldron, it may be a view of reality that is hostile to life. What can console us against the slings and arrows of our outrageous existence if there is no substantial difference between us being dead or alive? If we are just a drop of goop in the cosmic cauldron, why should we not just kill ourselves when we face any discomforting challenge? Late for the bus? Kill yourself. Skipped over for promotion? Kill yourself. As a function of survival, we need some model of reality that helps us to continue living. And that means a model to help us justify suffering--essentially. I do not find such a model reflected by the poem in question; hence, I see it as an enemy to life--nihilistic.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

> We are not anonymous atoms in the fabric of an unconscious universe You can resolve your confusion if you consider that the universe itself is conscious in some form. And those atoms have some form of consciousness. There is no scientific, objective, measurable, external evidence for this, so don’t bother looking to prove or disprove it. You have to find it yourself.

archhn 4y ago
Consciousness, as I understand it, evolves out of complexity. The simpler things are, the less capacity for consciousness they have. Fundamental building blocks of the universe must then be the least capable of consciousness. That's not to say they aren't "conscious," but that the conciousness they do possess is practically non existent when compared to the consciousness we, as complex systems, possess. I still hold that our ability to create far outranks anything in the observable universe. We are actually so freakishly different from everything around us, that we might as well be aliens to this universe. That's why I don't like being put on the level of atoms. And I already feel atomized enough in this increasingly antisocial environment.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > I still hold that our ability to create far outranks anything in the observable universe Does that include the creation of stars, galaxies, and planets? Literally everything we observe has been “created” in some way.
  - archhn 4y ago
    Yeah, maybe I'm just being an egocentric human by saying that. I don't have a way of measuring "creativity." Also, what we can measure and observe is only a reduction of the universe to terms we can understand. So, we can't even accurately reflect on things in creation, let alone pass judgment on them. I guess I'm just trying to justify my existence in this bewildering cosmos.

toss1 4y ago

>>nothing ... nihilistic Wow, that's nearly the exact opposite of the way my brain interprets it — that he's seeing an infinitely rich tapestry, the wonder of emergent properties and consciousness throughout the universe, from the smallest scales to the grandest, and we, self-referentially seeing ourselves as a part of that grandeur. Not that we're anonymous atoms in an unconscious universe, but that we're part of a universal consciousness, possibly the most key part, as we are the particular (perhaps particularly privileged) atoms that are now "standing… atoms with consciousness… matter with curiosity". Seems it really is in the eye of the beholder, and often more of a reflection of our own state of mind than of the artist's intent.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

defterGoose 4y ago

The idea that we can bring meaning and permanence into the world with art is a similarly hubristic one by your own metric. Surely you're not selfish enough to believe that the universe is unimportant without an overlay of human 'meaning' on top of it?