I mean, it would change the orbits of other bodies within our solar system, but that’s it.
And it literally wouldn’t have Earth any more.
but like what if we really hated other people based on superficial traits and stuff? That could be kinda cool
Sounds like a fun game. Maybe we could also include some kind of points system where everyone played excessively complex and very RNG heavy minigames and either won or lost points based on how well they did.
Then we could also implement people looking down upon those with less points or getting really worked up about people with a lot of them.
I mean, if earth vanished the moon would fuck off somewhere
Well yes, sadly, we can’t embrace a cosmic perspective, because it’s not ours. We can have a human perspective though.
We can choose what we live for, and that’s the most meaningful thing I can think of
deleted by creator
“Evolution is blind” is debatable. Arguably, we evolved to fit an environment. We are survivors.
I’ll go farther and say that its wrong. Evolution may be a random walk, but random walk is a method of getting places. Evolution random walks to the next needed feature. Evolution is not at all blind.
I’ll go farther and say that its wrong.
Well, it’s debatable but I think it comes down to defining your terms.
- “Evolution is blind” suggests no guidance at all, and as you say there is randomness, but an important part of the evolutionary process is survival and propagation which are guided by the environment. so arguably evolution is NOT blind.
- However the evolutionary process is reactive and does not involve long-term planning so you could argue that “blind” means “looking ahead, considering more than what you can immediately sense.” so arguably evolution IS blind.
Either perspective agrees that there is no “Grand Architect” and/or “God’s Plan” which I think is the general point being made. But it’s just a little distracting.
evolution is blind because all of it is an accident. life forms that survive long enough to make more life forms get their genes to live on. any life form that doesn’t, well, doesn’t. better survivability because of an error in copying genes? more offspring. worse survivability? less offspring
there is no intention to evolution, it’s simply a consequence of the fact that some primitive life forms at some point felt a desire to copy their genes and the process of doing so is imperfect. That desire, probably a product of random copying itself, is what made all living things today
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?
Us not being able to comprehend an architecture does not mean it is not there. In the same way, before there were microscopes bacteria still existed, even though many early proponents of there being small life forms that would cause diseases were ridiculed.
Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.
It’s blind because in nature, it often fucks up, and the extreme fuck ups die off without continuing the process.
Which is, I think, exactly what happened to the homo sapiens branch. Dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years, we are barely at 300k and we are killing ourselves. Dead end. (For us)
It’s true that we evolved in response to an environment, but the actual genetic changes that allowed for that were not developed with purpose. They happened randomly, and the ones that happened to provide a benefit made those individuals more likely to have more kids that those with less beneficial random changes.
We know, but we can choose to carry on anyway in spite of it, revile in the absurdity, dance in the moonlight and be very very French.
‘“Existance is pain!” -Mr. Meseeks’ - Michael Scott…
Let’s go boys, time to speed run mankind’s extinction with global warming!
DPR knows what’s up.
Existential Dread: SOLVED!
The four horsemen of you meant shit.
If from a scientific perspective, life is devoid of meaning, why is science important? It may be important to us, but why is anything important to us important at all then?
Wouldn’t it be equally meaningless?
Wouldn’t truth also be meaningless?
Wouldn’t getting worked up about this or any other comment be even more, yet paradoxically, equally meaningless?
If all of these things are meaningless, then why do anything in response?
Perhaps meaning is something that is inherently subjective because it requires purpose and value? Perhaps the most important things, such as what is essentially valuable, is something that we just decide or feel, without there being a lot of science to do around it and therefore can never be understood in objective and therefore scientific terms? Maybe science is great for understanding the known, but fails as knowing the evident yet unseen?
idk why people keep falling under the impression that science will provide them with meaning. It’s not a religion. it won’t. It’s merely a tool imo.
If you have thoughts regarding this or any other issues, please contact me at support [at] pudutopia.cl
Or reply here. Either is fine, really.
Have a nice day! :)
The flaw in all of this sophomoric philosophic whinging is that it mostly tends to start off with the presupposition that all of these concepts aren’t just human constructs. The only reason anything has meaning to us is because we decided it does.
The purpose of life is life itself.
I’m just glad we can both agree science has no meaning. thanks.
science doesn’t require meaning to have purpose. saving meaningless lives and minimizing meaningless suffering are purposes, as is understanding what we are and what we could become.
why are those purposes meaningful?
would it be meaningful to you to have a drastically better quality of life for yourself and everyone else?
maybe you are defining meaningful in some weird way?
It would definitely be meaningful to me, at least for a while, but only because I care about myself.
And maybe I am. That’s actually very likely. My understanding is that meaning is what something refers to or in this context, what value, objective or desire something refers to.
This is why I was asking basically, “sure but what are those purposes for?” or “who cares that it has purpose?”.
Cause a better quality of life would be great for me, but why do I matter to begin with? Who cares if my life is better? Even if everyone else in the world did care, (including yourself) why care about them? Why should people spend half a second thinking about my well being or that of anyone, really?
There is no scientific basis for caring being a good thing or desirable just like there is no scientific basis for any kind of judgement of value. I’m just another equally irrelevant manifestation of the interaction between several forces with smaller things in a sea of infinite configurations of forces and small things just like everything and everyone else.
My entire point through this whole thread has been “you can’t science your way into what finally matters. you just know and no one can take that away from you”. (and if that thing you care about is science and nothing else, good for you and hold it dear, as you should)
Incorrect, only because you’re still tacitly assuming that science (or anything else) must have some kind of external cosmic significance outside of human thought.
Science is important to us – or at least it ought to be – because it’s the method by which we understand how the universe works. Being important to us is all that matters, because we can’t think with the minds of anything else.
That is exactly my point. Thanks.
Nothing we are or do has any meaning to the universe. But our lives and actions have meaning to ourselves. And science is important for humanity. The universe doesn’t care if we develop science or not, but we care. There’s no great universal narrative where we play any role, but we do write our own narrative for ourselves and those to come.
So if I’m understanding correctly, since we ourselves care about something, that is what provides it with meaning? Because meaning is entirely subjective? So the fact that we hold something very dear by definition makes it meaningful, regardless if anything or anyone tells us it’s meaningless? And that meaning is what keep ourselves and those who come going cause there’s no universal narrative?
idk it sounds to me that you’re suggesting that people could just find anything meaningful and it would be equally valid. Very unscientific if you ask me… :P
people could just find anything meaningful and it would be equally valid
From an evolutionary standpoint, sure. As long as the species keeps going, evolution doesn’t care how.
But from our own desire of self-improvement, some paths are better than others.
better in what regard? Cause what’s improvement? Cause what’s a ‘good’ desire? You see where this is going, I’m sure.
Yes, not all people are of the same opinion on what is better. Or even that we need to improve in the first place.
The4e is always room for improvement imo.
I don’t think that subjective means arbitrary. A book may mean different things to different people, but that doesn’t mean that one interpretation is as good as any other. Or that reason is abandoned in the process of forming a subjective idea.
I like your take and couldn’t agree more.
