If these four proofs are true then humanities existence is not a mistake and humanities ability to create meaning from seemingly nothing is also not a mistake. If we exist within reality then we are one part of the blue print of reality and if no event which occurs within reality can be classified as a mistake than our ability to create meaning for our own is existence is not a mistake.
To me this is just a complicated way of saying that by creating meaning for the decisions you make in life you are doing exactly what a human meant to do. — vanzhandz
It is apparent to me that there are four things that an individual can unequivocally prove. — vanzhandz
If these four proofs are true then humanities existence is not a mistake and humanities ability to create meaning from seemingly nothing is also not a mistake. — vanzhandz
The first: You exist. This I believe to be the simplest proof, considering that if you did not exist on some level than you would not be able to ponder your own existence in the first place. — vanzhandz
The second: Time exists. If time did not exist then one would not have the ability to discern past from present. — vanzhandz
The third: Reality can not make mistakes. — vanzhandz
The fourth: Reality has a blue print. "Blue print" refers to a set of universal laws that bind reality together in someway which set the stage for all events occurring in reality. — vanzhandz
To me this is just a complicated way of saying that by creating meaning for the decisions you make in life you are doing exactly what a human meant to do. — vanzhandz
This is pretty much what I've thought and proposed on this forum too. When people claim that life or humans are an "accident", they are asserting that the universe has goals and the existence of life or humans weren't part of its goals.The third: Reality can not make mistakes. The concept of a mistake does not exist within reality, it only exists within human perspective. In order for a mistake to be made there must first be an agreed upon correct outcome to an event, and considering that reality (Meaning the world in which we exist) exists outside of human consciousness and it's ability to assign correct and incorrect, this would mean that any event that happens within reality is not a mistake. — vanzhandz
But what do you mean by "meaning"? How can meaning be created as an illusion or as something real and does the distinction make sense? Humans create all sorts of things and even meaning as an illusion has causal power. It makes humans do things and create things in reality which means that meaning is just as real as everything else. If humans and there minds are part of reality, then meaning is part of reality.To me this is just a complicated way of saying that by creating meaning for the decisions you make in life you are doing exactly what a human meant to do. — vanzhandz
I agree with your general implication, that whatever will be is what will become real. Hence, each individual's destiny was "meant to be" in some general sense. Others though, will pick apart your wording. For example, what do you mean by "reality"?Reality can not make mistakes. — vanzhandz
What a human is ‘meant to do’, then, is open-ended. How long is a piece of string? Was Hitler doing what a human was meant to do? I don’t think meaning is quite that simple. — Possibility
The fact that we can tell past from present is not a proof that time exists, it's a definition of what time is. — T Clark
Since reality is the standard by which whether something is a mistake is determined, saying that reality can not make mistakes is a tautology. — T Clark
When you say "universal laws" I assume you are talking about what are called "laws of nature," e.g. special and general relativity, the law of conservation of matter and energy, and the second law of thermodynamics. I don't think these are laws or blueprints in the sense you mean. They don't determine or regulate or how the universe works, they only describe it. They are generalizations from experience. — T Clark
But what do you mean by "meaning"? How can meaning be created as an illusion or as something real and does the distinction make sense? Humans create all sorts of things and even meaning as an illusion has causal power. It makes humans do things and create things in reality which means that meaning is just as real as everything else. If humans and there minds are part of reality, then meaning is part of reality. — Harry Hindu
I was afraid that you would say that! :smile:there must be a base reality outside of human observation. — vanzhandz
In our own reality. We build our reality mainly by perception, reasoning and knowledge. Reasoning includes understanding and knowledge includes facts to which you have agreed on or the existence of which you have accepted. Faith can be also part of one's reality, regarding things the existence of which one cannot prove or explain.Without a base reality to exist within than where would our consciousness reside? — vanzhandz
You create meaning based on your perception, reasoning, understanding and knowledge. In short, your reality.And within this base reality there must be a reason why a being that is conscious can create meaning. — vanzhandz
If we exist within reality then we are one part of the blue print of reality and if no event which occurs within reality can be classified as a mistake than our ability to create meaning for our own is existence is not a mistake.
Okay. Thought I alternatively "rationalized" "this human ability" without any essentialism (as per Zapffe, Camus, Cioran, et al) ... A speculation on "meaning" as a self-serving illusion, not "proof".My idea is based upon humanities ability to create meaning and how we can rationalize the existence of this human ability. — vanzhandz
I don't see the relevance to my post.The conclusion that the total information content of the universe from an absolute perspective is zero would jive with this depending on how you want to interpret it. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is my justification for the existence of time. — vanzhandz
I would agree that my wording of this does not do my point any justice. I wish I could find a better word then "mistake." What I am saying is; the events that happen within reality can not be classified as mistakes because in order to do so we would have to apply our human perception of a mistake to said event. Human perception, although it exists within reality, does not however have any affect on the rules which govern reality. And because all events that happen within reality are subject to the rules of reality, including the advent of human consciousness, then you can not classify any event within reality as mistake. It is the result of the rules which govern reality taking their course. — vanzhandz
I am proposing that there must be laws which can explain why reality is capable of having things exist within it in the first place. We as humans would be subject to these laws, considering we exist within reality, meaning that within these laws of existence there is the capacity for beings such as ourselves to exists... — vanzhandz
...beings such as ourselves to create meaning in the way that we do. — vanzhandz
Interesting point. It makes me think of "omniscience" or "absolute knowledge" and similar metaphysical concepts, which are utopias and which are nice to dream about. But unfortunately we have to wake up at some point! Indeed, if one knew everything one wouldn't need information! And, by consequence one would never be surprised about anything. What a boring state of existence! :grin:only by having incomplete information can we have any information, total information = 0 surprise = no information. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What exactly? The self-contradiction ... ?Right, that's another interesting point. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't know if and what kind of energy a memory consists of ... But if it is, then it should be really huge, esp. considering the images stored in a computer, even in compressed form! This shows clearly that memory cannot be located/stored in the brain, as scientists try in vain to establish since a long time ago!To have an absolute standpoint would require you to have a memory essentially equivalent to the energy of the universe as a whole... maybe. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I agree.Interesting to consider when people make analogies to reality as being like a "simulation" or "computer program," anyhow. I think those comparisons tend to mislead more then they elucidate though. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The conclusion that the total information content of the universe from an absolute perspective is zero would jive with this depending on how you want to interpret it. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Suppose Human nature's personal need for 'meaning and purpose' only proves writ small Blind nature's impersonal lack of 'meaning and purpose' writ large?
Suppose, therefore, that individuaally and collectively fulfilling this personal need is merely an illusion we employ to get ourselves out of bed every morning and/or with which to variously sedate our despair (and that works only as long as we remain in denial that our 'meanings and purposes' are just (mostly adaptive) illusions)?
"...how to interpret it."
Interpret it. It what?
- the conclusion
- information content
- universe
- perspective
- zero
- this (what ever "this" is)
The proposed existence of this information imposes some fundamental questions about it: “Why is there information stored in the universe and where is it?” and “How much information is stored in the universe?” Let us deal with these questions in detail.
To answer the first question, let us imagine an observer tracking and analyzing a random elementary particle. Let us assume that this particle is a free electron moving in the vacuum of space, but the observer has no prior knowledge of the particle and its properties.
Upon tracking the particle and commencing the studies, the observer will determine, via meticulous measurements, that the particle has a mass of 9.109 × 10–31 kg, charge of −1.602 × 10–19 C, and a spin of 1/2. If the examined particle was already known or theoretically predicted, then the observer would be able to match its properties to an electron, in this case, and to confirm that what was observed/detected was indeed an electron.
The key aspect here is the fact that by undertaking the observations and performing the measurements, the observer did not create any information. The three degrees of freedom that describe the electron, any electron anywhere in the universe, or any elementary particle, were already embedded somewhere, most likely in the particle itself.
This is equivalent to saying that particles and elementary particles store information about themselves, or by extrapolation, there is an information content stored in the matter of the universe. Due to the mass-energy-information equivalence principle,22 we postulate that information can only be stored in particles that are stable and have a non-zero rest mass, while interaction/force carrier bosons can only transfer information via waveform.
To me this is just a complicated way of saying that by creating meaning for the decisions you make in life you are doing exactly what a human meant to do. — vanzhandz
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.