5 ms·

So we're all agents of Entropy, spinning our circles until we die all in the service of heat death? I don't like it!

mordechai9000 3y ago
As someone said about thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, and you must play the game. (Source unknown)
namaria 3y ago
I don't understand this view at all. We are what we are. Entropy is a concept in our mind and heat death is a very particular phenomenon that depends on the systems experiencing it being very specifically defined in ways that the Universe cannot be. We are. Descartes had the right idea. The experience of consciousness is irreducible. To say "we are atoms thinking" and variations thereof is utterly meaningless. All words and concepts used for such word play is dependent on the experience of human consciousness. They don't exist independently. Consciousness is the only thing we can posit that has independent existence. Everything else is just a concept created by a conscious being. It's like the tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it. A universe without consciousness experiencing it really exists? Existence is a property of consciousness. We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition. Even if we imagine a dead universe with just energy and no consciousness, that is an image that exists inside of a conscious mind.
- dvt 3y ago
  > Existence is a property of consciousness. Kant would vehemently disagree. Not that I'm a Kantian, but he makes some pretty good points. So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger.
  - namaria 3y ago
    I'm not into winning debates. I just find interesting that conscious beings think they can imagine the absence of consciousness. For us consciousness is the fundamental reality. Furthermore I find the verbosity of German philosophy nearly unbearable, to be honest.
    - zoogeny 3y ago
      You say: "We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition" I mean, you probably don't even realize that this view is influenced by Kant. You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism. For example, from the Wikipedia article on Critique of Pure Reason [1], Kant's major work: In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" I think it is fair to criticize his prose but it isn't like you don't have access to well over 200 years of commentary and follow-ups to one of the most famous and important philosophers within the Western tradition. For a gentle introduction I suggest this video [2] (42 minutes) where Geoffrey Warnock (at the time the Vice Chancellor at Oxford) provides an overview of Kant's ideas. It is also fair to disagree with Kant, but it is pretty obvious when you are talking about the subject he dominates while having no experience with his work. The reason he is so famous is that he had very compelling things to say on this very subject. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEMkAkGS1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEMkAkGS1I
      - namaria 3y ago
        It's a fairly narrow view if you think I shouldn't philosophize unless I conform in full to all YOU have read.
        zoogeny 3y ago
        I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm pointing out a few facts including that your viewpoint is well over 200 years old, that specifically Kant addressed it and influenced the entire discussion around it, that it is clear you haven't considered his or any other philosophers rebuttal to it. To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then someone mentions Einstein, and you respond that you couldn't be bothered understanding the general theory of relativity because the math is too hard. I mean, no one is saying you should read Einstein, just that Einstein had some things to add to the ideas of gravity that are worth considering. And if you want any theory of gravity that you have baked up on your own to be taken seriously, you will find that others will expect you to show some familiarity with his theories. And further, there is a wealth of material on his theories that does not require you to engage directly with the esoteric math. The same is true about Kant (although, to be fair this is philosophy and not physics, so he didn't supplant Descartes in the same way Einstein did Newton). He added explicitly to the question about the bounds of knowledge with respect to experience. So if you are making claims about that subject then it is not unreasonable to expect that you have at least some familiarity with his contribution.
  - wolvesechoes 3y ago
    > Not that I'm a Kantian, but he makes some pretty good points It is even debatable what points he really made. As always in philosophy.
    - dvt 3y ago
      I'd say that existence not being a predicate of any object is kind of non-debatable :)
      - wolvesechoes 3y ago
        It is, actually. Kant differentiates between "real predicates" and "logical predicates", and only states that existence doesn't belong to the first category, because it "doesn't enhance the concept". The whole distinction is quite unclear, and Kant's claims can be interpreted in multiple ways, as people do in some publications. Actually this famous slogan that "existence is not a predicate" is closer to proposals of Russell and Quine. Disclaimer: quoted phrases from Kant may not match exactly what you can find in English translations. I know Kant from Polish translations, so I improvised a bit.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  > A universe without consciousness experiencing it really exists? As long as we don't discover something truly novel this is how reality of this universe looked like before we came since its creation. And it fared just fine.
  - namaria 3y ago
    > since its creation Interesting turn of phrase about a supposed reality deprived of consciousness. Created.

As someone said about thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, and you must play the game. (Source unknown)

I don't understand this view at all. We are what we are. Entropy is a concept in our mind and heat death is a very particular phenomenon that depends on the systems experiencing it being very specifically defined in ways that the Universe cannot be. We are. Descartes had the right idea. The experience of consciousness is irreducible. To say "we are atoms thinking" and variations thereof is utterly meaningless. All words and concepts used for such word play is dependent on the experience of human consciousness. They don't exist independently. Consciousness is the only thing we can posit that has independent existence. Everything else is just a concept created by a conscious being. It's like the tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it. A universe without consciousness experiencing it really exists? Existence is a property of consciousness. We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition. Even if we imagine a dead universe with just energy and no consciousness, that is an image that exists inside of a conscious mind.

dvt 3y ago
> Existence is a property of consciousness. Kant would vehemently disagree. Not that I'm a Kantian, but he makes some pretty good points. So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger.
- namaria 3y ago
  I'm not into winning debates. I just find interesting that conscious beings think they can imagine the absence of consciousness. For us consciousness is the fundamental reality. Furthermore I find the verbosity of German philosophy nearly unbearable, to be honest.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    You say: "We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition" I mean, you probably don't even realize that this view is influenced by Kant. You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism. For example, from the Wikipedia article on Critique of Pure Reason [1], Kant's major work: In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" I think it is fair to criticize his prose but it isn't like you don't have access to well over 200 years of commentary and follow-ups to one of the most famous and important philosophers within the Western tradition. For a gentle introduction I suggest this video [2] (42 minutes) where Geoffrey Warnock (at the time the Vice Chancellor at Oxford) provides an overview of Kant's ideas. It is also fair to disagree with Kant, but it is pretty obvious when you are talking about the subject he dominates while having no experience with his work. The reason he is so famous is that he had very compelling things to say on this very subject. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEMkAkGS1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEMkAkGS1I
    - namaria 3y ago
      It's a fairly narrow view if you think I shouldn't philosophize unless I conform in full to all YOU have read.
      - zoogeny 3y ago
        I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm pointing out a few facts including that your viewpoint is well over 200 years old, that specifically Kant addressed it and influenced the entire discussion around it, that it is clear you haven't considered his or any other philosophers rebuttal to it. To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then someone mentions Einstein, and you respond that you couldn't be bothered understanding the general theory of relativity because the math is too hard. I mean, no one is saying you should read Einstein, just that Einstein had some things to add to the ideas of gravity that are worth considering. And if you want any theory of gravity that you have baked up on your own to be taken seriously, you will find that others will expect you to show some familiarity with his theories. And further, there is a wealth of material on his theories that does not require you to engage directly with the esoteric math. The same is true about Kant (although, to be fair this is philosophy and not physics, so he didn't supplant Descartes in the same way Einstein did Newton). He added explicitly to the question about the bounds of knowledge with respect to experience. So if you are making claims about that subject then it is not unreasonable to expect that you have at least some familiarity with his contribution.
- wolvesechoes 3y ago
  > Not that I'm a Kantian, but he makes some pretty good points It is even debatable what points he really made. As always in philosophy.
  - dvt 3y ago
    I'd say that existence not being a predicate of any object is kind of non-debatable :)
    - wolvesechoes 3y ago
      It is, actually. Kant differentiates between "real predicates" and "logical predicates", and only states that existence doesn't belong to the first category, because it "doesn't enhance the concept". The whole distinction is quite unclear, and Kant's claims can be interpreted in multiple ways, as people do in some publications. Actually this famous slogan that "existence is not a predicate" is closer to proposals of Russell and Quine. Disclaimer: quoted phrases from Kant may not match exactly what you can find in English translations. I know Kant from Polish translations, so I improvised a bit.
saiya-jin 3y ago
> A universe without consciousness experiencing it really exists? As long as we don't discover something truly novel this is how reality of this universe looked like before we came since its creation. And it fared just fine.
- namaria 3y ago
  > since its creation Interesting turn of phrase about a supposed reality deprived of consciousness. Created.