My point was not a comparison between the BB and Genesis. It was a metaphor to describe your attitude of blindly accepting the BB as the absolute truth, which is not much different from believing Genesis creation of the world. You are not even understanding a simple English sentence. — Corvus
I think we’re lucky to exist. Sure life is unfair and a struggle at times but we’re lucky enough to experience the good that comes from it. You don’t have to be rich to enjoy it, it’s just a ride and getting off it before it finishes hurts (suicide) so just let life play itself out, don’t put too much pressure on yourself, we’re blessed that we get to exist because when we cease to exist that will be forever and it’s a once only event. — kindred
I think it's often the case that people find that there are fewer reasons for living than there are reasons for dying. Sometimes those people choose suicide. It's a common enough phenomenon and there might be many reasons for it. It's been interesting to read people's responses to your OP. What are the least helpful answers here? — Tom Storm
Without solid explanation backed by evidence and reasoning, the BB is not much different from the creation of the world story in the Genesis of the Old Testament in terms of its coherence and cogency. — Corvus
What do you not understand on my understanding of the BB? — Corvus
So, when I hear, "anti-realism", I think of some kind of interpretation like the particle has no real defined traits until observed by a consciousness(or possibly, until interacting with any macroscopic object). At the macroscopic scale, things only appear to be determined because the average behavior of a huge number of random objects is fairly well determined. — Brendan Golledge
But that ignores your life. Whatever is keeping you alive does not care a whit about your logic. — Paine
I already covered that at the start, you’re just not paying attention.“What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves?” — DingoJones
You cannot engage with something incoherent, correct — DingoJones
Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system. — Corvus
It would have been more like total chaos with debris of the rocks, minerals and burnt out matters scattered and floating around in the space even at this time. You see some of the old gignatic stars exploding when they are dying. It is nothing short of the massive nuclear explosion destroying and burning everything around them. — Corvus
So space and time are not separate? And motions come from them? I've speculated on this forum that motion creates time as it moves through space so there is no need for a before the Big Bang being it's creater (motion) moves singularly at the moment of the universe's and time's first motion forward. It seems like something coming from nothing but it's not. The primordial singularity is it's own casuality — Gregory
Why would ice cream be preferable if youre not required to eat it? Why is it preferable to drive your car when you don’t have to drive your car?
These questions don’t need to be engaged with because they are incoherent, and so is your comment above. Once you bring requirement into it you are no longer talking about preferences at all. Incoherent. — DingoJones
It’s more like why prefer life to death, which is the end of the pursuit.Pleasure and Death are alternative goals you can set. As you say, they're mutually exclusive. What you're saying sounds to me like "Given that I'm dead, why should I set as a goal any of those things that can no longer matter to me?" But this makes no sort of sense to me: first, you can't set any goals once you're dead. Second, once you're dead that-which-matters-to-you is n/a. You're gone. It's a category error. It's not that things — Dawnstorm
You need to expand on these points youre trying to make if you're actually interested in discussion. — DingoJones
A lack of imagination or empathy means that the person can't envisage being in someone else's shoes. There is a lack of understanding and low consideration of how their actions can affect others; their emotions or wellbeing.
This can adversely affect relationships. Because if so self-centered, they don't want to listen or know. There is little point in continuing a discussion, about suicide, with someone who sees it only as an argument to win, logically — Amity
'Life stuff' might not matter to you - in life or death. But it does to others. If you don't see a need to be concerned or care about people and their emotions, then so be it. I doubt you will be persuaded otherwise. Have you been hurt? Is it worse or better than not being recognised or cared for? Or is being ignored a fate worse than death? — Amity
There are some objects in the universe in motion, but the universe itself is not. You seem to be in confusion in telling between the objects in the universe, and the universe itself. — Corvus
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but one theory (link here) seems to be that spacetime emerges from a network of entangled bits of information, qubits. This network has no spatial properties, nor temporal durations, and as such it is possibly ubiquitous and eternal, i.e. a domain of the physical reality which doesn't require a first cause. However, as such it allows spatiotemporal and causal phenomena to emerge, and by way of being part of such a domain also spatiotemporal particles can be entangled and act in spooky ways at a distance — jkop
Yes, I am saying it can be more moral to trap yourself in a cage of others' love than to end it. Even if your life is so worthless that it might as well not have been, for you, that does not mean others share that valuation. A person ending themselves in that instance deprives others of something they cherish: them. — fdrake
But again, it hinges on death not being the end, which is contrary to nihilism, which, as all nihilists will attest to, is idiotic. Funny in a way how certain nihilists can entertain possibilities from solipsism to an infinite number of universes but not in any way the possibility of an existence after death. — javra
What a number of philosophical people have done in the face of the challenge is to seek authenticity. Discover who you really are and live life like a sacred dance. Of some kind.
So it takes some courage to direct a firearm into your mouth. It also takes courage to find the way to live life on your terms: to learn to say yes to life as Nietzsche very well might have said. It starts by learning to listen. — frank
Huh? Nothing in life matters because you will die and when youre dead nothing in life matters? Is that what you are saying? If so, why wouldn't the life stuff matter while youre alive? — DingoJones
Struggling? Fighting, Pursuing? Suicide is a possible solution but the most obvious alternative to the unsatisfactory rat race of striving, struggling, and all that is to stop striving, stop struggling. Try to be more in the present moment rather than being busy trying to accomplish something in the future, or fretting over something not done in the past, because "now" is where you live. — BC
How can science prove an action is random or determined? These seem like philosophical categories to me, not related to science and math — Gregory
The world doesn't seem to be moving in that way or physically in motion. — Corvus
We don't know how large the universe is, how old it is, and even how it began. — Corvus
The universe will always remain as the deepest mystery in which we are born, live and perish into. Is it real? What is real? — Corvus
Of course, theology has had a lasting impact on scientism here, because the move from the universe as an organic whole to one defined by "laws" that are inscrutable, and some initial efficient cause, is not what you get when you simply "strip away superstition," but is rather Reformation theology, whose influence remains potent even in the hands of avowed atheists centuries later. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Is there a way you'd prefer people to respond to you in the thread? — fdrake
Can you give an example(s) of math being used to describe the physical world without using philosophy? That seems impossible to me. The math only measures. What it measures is up to our apparati. Any measurement implies knowledge of space and time, and hence Kant and the whole mess — Gregory
They just mean surreal as not typically compatible with classicality. — Apustimelogist
True. Quantum Uncertainty is not a practical problem, it's a philosophical problem. For all practical purposes, the physical world still works the same way under 20th century Randomness, as it did under 17th century Determinism. Now that you know the ground under your feet is 99% empty space, are you afraid to take the next step over the quantum abyss? A stoic philosophical response to quantum scale indeterminism might be : "don't sweat the small stuff" — Gnomon
OK, you win, I'm an idiot. I'll just point out though that as long as you're judging it on whether or not it 'works', you're still only thinking about yourself and haven't tried it yet. — unenlightened
It seems to be a positive way to express the uncertainty of quantum physics. A particle can be either located in space (position), or measured for movement (momentum), but not both at the same time. Real things can be measured both ways, so what's wrong with quantum particles? Are they not things? Are they not real? — Gnomon
This is something I've wondered about. Is it possible to have a scientific understanding of some aspect of the world without an ontology? Without a story about what is going on? This question comes up in the context of quantum mechanics. Is that the Copenhagen interpretation? Is that enough? If there is no way, even in theory, to verify or falsify the many worlds interpretation, does it even mean anything? — T Clark
Let me see if I can use other words that you can accept more. If one considers only oneself, and only from one's own point of view, then it is clear that satisfaction is only ever transitory, suffering and death are inevitable and the sooner life is over the better. — unenlightened
Therefore, I posit (but offer no proof) a reason for living that is self-overcoming, or self- transcending. This is illustrated in the film Groundhog Day, in which suicide fails utterly to end life but results in a repeating life that goes nowhere. This repetition only ends when everything is put into the day to make it better for everyone. — unenlightened
As long as you think only of yourself, you will keep coming back to the same miserable thoughts again and again. I wish I could be more clear about this for you, but I cannot disprove the platitudinous nonsense of your "platitudinous nonsense". If you want to understand, you will begin to understand, but if you don't want to, then you will have make do with the thin satisfaction of winning the argument, and you will miss all the richness of life. — unenlightened
The words and usage here is slippery. What exactly is your issue? You have received answers and are dismissive. — tim wood
Jacob Barandes presents a completely realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Its one version of what you would call a stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics. — Apustimelogist
This is an inaccurate description of the participatory universe. At any rate, was the problem with Consciousness Causes Collapse that von Neumann and Wigner didn't know math? — Count Timothy von Icarus
And if these go a step further into making claims about "free will," that's another place where good philosophical reasoning will be wanted. — Count Timothy von Icarus
A therapist, who just might suggest "euthanasia as a treatment option", as is slowly becoming the new normal in "civilized" societies? — baker
I don't know how physics couldn't inform philosophical debates or vice versa. It cannot solve them, but empirical examples often play a major role in metaphysics. Physics seems to tell us something about part-whole relations, information transfer, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
For instance, Sabine Hossenfelder portrays retro-causality (and so models like the crystalizing block) as a sort of garble created by uniformed hucksters. It isn't. Hucksters might promote it, but the key work in this area was by John Wheeler and Rodger Penrose, two of the biggest names in the field, and people take it seriously. — Count Timothy von Icarus
As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism, and the de Broglie–Bohm theory rejects locality. — Michael
Its actually what the math seems to say (at least to probably most people) but at the same time, this is very strongly interpretation dependent so not everyone sees it that way. — Apustimelogist
Are you just substituting "local" for quantum and non-local for classical? — Gregory
But, don't stop wondering. — kazan
Particles can communicate in sinc with each other faster than light. Some speculate worm holes to explain this, which really means we redefine what space means — Gregory
There is still a thriving school of idealist-leaning physicists among other schools of thought. — Wayfarer
I think they are saying the noumena is the very small where particles aren't space-bound in the classical sense. The classical is the same classical stuied by humans for thousands of year. As you say, how does this affect the practical realm — Gregory
As is obvious to the reader, contrary to what we've been thinking all along, we don't have a definition of existence if perception is our standard/measure. Odd that! — Agent Smith
Do you understand Snell's law? If you did you would understand mirages and refraction is just normal behavior of light. — PhilosophyRunner
It is clear who doesn't understand what they are talking about, and it is not me. But maybe you can explain your position in detail rather than just repeating that I don't understand? — PhilosophyRunner
There are no tricks in physics, I have no idea what you are talking about. Light changes direction at the boundary of two medium, given by Snell's law. It always behaves correctly according to Snell's law. Always.
There is no trick that happens sometimes. — PhilosophyRunner
Refraction is never a trick. It is simply the way light behaves when moving from one medium to another where there is a change in wave speed. This is well understood in physics, there is no trick, just the normal behavior of light. — PhilosophyRunner
You mean, how did we invent writing and other means of information exchange? Do you believe that without qualia, the invention and use of writing becomes inexplicable? — goremand
It is our consciousness (or brain depending on your stance) interpreting the redirected light as a bent stick that is causing the confusion. — PhilosophyRunner
Ok. — goremand
It seems you are "bundling" concepts together in a (to me) arbitrary way, such that denial of one becomes denial of all. I don't remember ever denying subjectivity, consciousness or meaning as useful concepts, if these can only make sense in relation to qualitative properties you will have to explain why. — goremand
The light traveling from the stick to our retina is behaving as we know it should according to physics, when a stick in the water appears bent. It is not behaving wrongly. It is only our intuitive interpretation of this light that causes confusion. — PhilosophyRunner