I think people can do science without even understanding it or without any real feel for it at all. They must be very intelligent people with great memories but it's more common than you might think. Plenty of highly qualified biologists have no real understanding of natural selection, for example.

I agree with the idea that the concept of "particle", or "wave" is not the reality. There is no real wave-particle duality it's just mathematically convenient to think one way or another when that is what works.

The interpretation that comes closest to reality, for me, is Carlo Rovelli's RQM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics). For him, the underlying structure is composed of quantum states. Wave-function collapse occurs when quantum states interact and human consciousness is just one of those quantum states, so the observer problem disappears. It's the most "real" interpretation I've come across.

There's a lot of terminology I'm throwing around here without defining it properly. Yes, I have beliefs in the sense of - there is enough evidence for X, that I believe X even though I don't know X. An example for me would be if X="global capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and will lead to either totalitarianism or chaos." What I don't have is a belief in the sense of - I choose to believe X in spite of there being no evidence for X, because it enriches my life in some way. This is what I mean above when I say that I don't have the ability to "choose" or take a leap of faith.

Thanks, I may actually hang around here bit a when I get the time. I haven't really done much philosophical sparring since my dope-smoking college days.

Better that than a brass knuckle switch blade street fight over philosophy. — Bitter Crank

That rings a bell... Pynchon?

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing is that I wouldn't say I have a problem accepting other people's beliefs, when they are not forced on me (I'm far from perfect, but I do value respect and try to be respectful of others, although there is a reply above where I may have let myself down a little bit).

What you said about biological needs is relevant and will help me to clarify what I am trying to say. My concern is that my nihilism means that my identity is not defined well enough to be able to meet the biological needs of others.

Solving problems like "I believe it's going to rain tomorrow"? Then you have a belief system. You have a systematic methodology to arrive at dispositions regarding states of affairs. Or in more common language, you believe things, and you have methods for arriving at those beliefs. — Reformed Nihilist

It sounds like you're trying to convince me that there is inherent meaning in the pursuit of knowledge, but I'm not dismissing it, it's certainly how I used to think, and maybe I was wrong to throw that baby out with the bathwater. This little experiment does seem to have had a positive effect, and I appreciate your feedback, as well as the other people who got involved. This is the internet after all, most places I would have just been abused.

To some degree I can, and to some degree I cannot. I can create habits. I can intentionally exploit the loopholes in my own psychology. I can be aware of the psychological and external precursors to the sorts of emotional responses that I would prefer not to get caught up in and, to a degree manage those in order to avoid those emotional reactions. So I'm not totally the master of my emotions, but, like with my environment, I do have some control. Anyone is capable of that, at least to some degree. — Reformed Nihilist

You must be a nightmare when your partner is looking for an argument.

If it was an instinctive stance nowadays, then we'd all be nihilists, wouldn't we? No, I think the instinctive stance is still to look for something deeper. Not me, of course, but if you look on YouTube you'll find plenty of crackpots talking about grand conspiracies with thousands of followers. The religious mindset is still the norm, it's just gravitating away from mainstream religion.

"What is an absolute believe, and why should the lack of having one be a problem? Why do you expect anyone should have them?"

I'm not sure what I meant. What did you mean by "belief"?

"So when you're trying to figure out the answer to a question, you just pick random answers? I doubt it. I suspect that you have a system, conscious or not, by which you test possible answers and determine, at least provisionally, which one is the best answer for the moment. You almost assuredly employ heuristics, even if you don't use formal methodology. That's what conscious humans do."

No, I google it. Really though, I think of that as a set of proven logical, rational rules for solving problems that have nothing to do with belief. As for heuristics, if someone asks me how I am I think about it before answering.

"It's common enough to not be abnormal, but it isn't the only logical option. That's up to you, be as bitter as you want to be, but I doubt it has anything to do with philosophy. If you don't want to be bitter, you don't have to be. That's also up to you.

Regarding if it's why you're isolated, you can dismiss what I've said, but as a rule, people don't gravitate toward bitterness, and bitterness isn't something that is likely to drive you toward people, so it seems pretty logical that it might be a factor, and maybe even a big one."

I think you're reading too much into my use of the term "bitterness", or I misused it. But if you can choose how you emotionally respond to a given situation, you're a better man than me.

"What do you think nihilism is, if not a philosophy? There's a whole entry on it in the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. I mean you can just say "I don't have a philosophy" all you want, but you clearly think that whatever you imagine that "nihilism" is, it's the only logical way to think about things, and that you wish that wasn't the case (you ask for a cure to it). I'm telling you that you're wrong, and that the "cure" is to stop being wrong. That means that you stop hiding behind "I can't explain it". That's a sign that you haven't thought it out clearly. Maybe you can't explain it because it doesn't make sense? If it doesn't make sense, then you should stop believing it."

Again, we're getting things back to front here. I don't regard nihilism as the "logical way to think", but the logical conclusion to any open-minded enquiry into the nature of the universe, and that's why I don't consider it a philosophy. If it wasn't the only logical conclusion I would be wrong (and cured) but it is, so the only cure is stop thinking about things in a purely logical way, but I don't know how to do that. I admit that the connection between my social limitations and the logical way I look at things may be more correlation than causation, or that there may be something I'm missing.

I admit that does sound a bit preachy but I really don't think science should tell people what they ought to think (some scientists think they have this right (yeah, I'm looking at you, Dawkins) but they're wrong).

I'm starting to realise that explaining this is proving pretty much impossible. You'd have to get to know me for long enough to realise you could never to know me.

I have beliefs in the sense that "I believe that it's going to rain this afternoon" but absolute belief in anything that I don't know to be true, I really don't think so and this is what I mean by nihilism. Again, I can't stress this enough, it seems, but I don't have a "certain approach" - the universe approached me and said "go on, make sense of this."

Oh come on, it's perfectly normal to feel bitter and helpless in the face of what's going on in the world, no reasoning involved, and that's something I know I'm not alone in, so that's not leaving me isolated.

I never said I was having a philosophical crisis. I don't have a philosophy so how can it be in crisis. Also I've admitted from the start that my motivation here is not a sudden philosophical revelation that "nothing is real", but a gradual awareness of how I exist in relation to other people and a general desire to change in order to experience more out of life than I am currently capable of.

A lot have said something similar, but it's more of a general conclusion. Of course, I'm far from certain about this but when you've lived for 43 years and a pattern keeps repeating itself you have to ask yourself "what's different about me?". After all, women fall in love with serial killers and paedophiles so it has to be a pretty big difference and I honestly can't think of anything else.

I don't think the rationalisation of an emotional state amounts to a world-view

Thanks for that, I read it a few times and I'm still a little confused. There's a lot of confusion all round, here. I am trying to explain myself as clearly as possible but it's not proving easy. All I will say here is that I don't overvalue rationalism, if I could be a chimpanzee I would. And, I haven't fled to nihilism because I'm scared of my emotional side. I love my emotional side it's just (I know I'm repeating myself so apologies to anyone bored enough to actually be following this) that I'm starting to notice that that emotional side is not being reciprocated by friends and lovers and it could be because they are raw emotions without an ego behind them. Maybe it's my drive to discover and not create that has done this. Do people discover themselves? Or, do people create themselves?

There's no such thing as "nihilist thinking", it's just thinking with an open-mind and only believing what you know is true. Then everything you know is true all fits neatly into place with no contradictions. Nihilism is the psychological effect.

I would agree with pretty much all you've said there, except that I've never felt that there should be objective meaning in the universe. I don't even think that there should be less suffering in the world, for example, although, like most of us I really, really wish there was and we had more wealth-equality etc. but I except the world as it is, with a strong sense of bitterness and helplessness.

I don't feel any existential angst either. All I know is that my lack of a belief-system has left me feeling isolated from other people when it comes to building strong relationships. You could say that having a belief-system is part of our evolution. I'm sure you can see the advantage that it gave to early tribes over tribes that didn't have one and there must be a genetic precursor to this in pre-human history - lot's of mammals rely on cooperation and structure. Maybe it's a genetic mutation in my brain that has left me with this deficiency. I don't know, but it would explain why I seem to be suffering from such a severe form of nihilism that even other nihilists, reformed or otherwise, find it hard to understand me.

"So, you're a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning "out there", but not a "nihilist" in the sense that there is no meaning whatsoever? Because, to be sure, the former is coherent while the latter is not."

I'm not entirely sure what you "mean" (if it's existentialism, then I never really bought that to be honest) which is the problem talking about this subject. That's why I started to think, not about "the meaning of life" but "existential justification" (defined in a previous post). Instead of "life has no meaning, should I just kill myself?" you get "existence can't be justified, so what?" In this way, and others, I have come to terms with this on a personal level. I don't have a problem with what the truth is, I'd just like to forget it.

I don't have a religious view of science. I don't have a religious view of anything. Also, the cultural malaise you talk about has nothing to do with science, which the vast majority of the world's population still give no importance to, although they gladly accept its benefits. Science is hardly taking over, if anything we are, now moving in the opposite direction. The cultural malaise is the natural response to how empty and meaningless western culture has become - it's about x-factor not x-factorial.

"becoming a vegetarian" - you mean take something I already do for personal reasons, convince myself it's for altruistic reasons so I can feel superior to other people who do absolutely nothing wrong and pretend I'm making the world a better place when I know, deep down, that my actions are having no positive effect what-so-ever... yeah, I'll give it go.

Once again, I don't have a world-view. Nihilism is the absence of a world-view. I really did think this might be the one forum where I didn't have to explain this. If you adopt a world-view you cannot end up a nihilist. If you don't you can only end up a nihilist. Maybe it's because you are used to people using the term as some kind of badge of honour. For me it's an accidentally self-inflicted psychological condition that I want to cure.

I don't have a problem getting relationships started, the early parts are fun for me, I love being with a woman and I love sex. I think I put it best in an earlier post - it's like there's not enough "me" there for someone to form I deep connection with and as I get older this has become more important to me. I feel like I'm missing out.

I have tried writing poetry, but this happens -

We're just a happening in time and space
Or what happens when these happenings connect
We're just an engram of a memory trace
Evolution's unintended side effect
We're just characters in search of a stage
We're just an amalgamation of sense and intellect
We're just ink on a page

We're just a pile of energy and matter
Or the feelings that this pile can evoke
We're just complex, polysynaptic chatter
Evolution's little self-awareness joke
We're just characters in search of a plot
We're just an accumulation of interstellar smoke
We're just, therefore we're not

I don't know why I'm bothering here, since you've clearly copied this from a previous post, but it is perfect example of how brains are wired differently. The idea of science-worship is laughable to me, but I have come to except that a lot of people never realise that there is a very big difference between being told x=y, and being shown, logically, that x=y. I used to feel sorry for them, missing out on all the wonder and amazement one gets from studying science (it starts very young and maybe if you miss the boat it becomes impossible (maybe I missed the "leap of faith" boat in a similar way)) but now... well, ignorance is bliss, as they say.

I don't really see scientific progress (which I don't equate with the idea of societal progress that the west is obsessed with) as one theory replacing another. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He came up with a more accurate way of describing the same phenomena, but Newton hasn't lost any of it's relevance because of that. I don't give science absolute explanatory privileges but I do claim that it has now given us enough knowledge that it's safe to assume that the universe, including humanity, doesn't need any supernatural forces to fully explain it's existence.

It's not what I say or do, certainly in any conscious way. I do short-term, superficial, fun-driven, sex-driven relationships pretty well, but that's not enough for it to grow into something deeper. I think my nihilism means that there is not enough "me" to fall in love with, basically.

I think history, and non-secular cultures today, tell us this. When societies have religion peoples' lives have meaning. When western culture embraced scientific realism, people's lives lost meaning.

Another way of looking at it is to ask the question "what do people 'mean' when they say they want meaning in their lives?" Well, I think that when someone feels that they have a belief that is justified it acquires meaning and therefore adds meaning to their lives. But, life itself is not a belief, it's a truth (I think therefore I am), so it's a mistake to apply the process of justification to something you already know is true. Searching for the meaning of life is taking the process of justification beyond the point that it is useful. You could call it the existential justification fallacy.

It's biological, every other animal on the planet has meaning without looking for it. Humans have gradually lost meaning and have consequently acquired a greater need for meaning. See the absurdity principle above.

I've come across Zappfe before and it's interesting stuff but my problem is not how do I deal with "meaninglessness" on a personal level it's how do I let other people into "my world" and have a positive effect on them. I'm lonely so I need people to understand me, but if they empathise too much they may not be able to handle it. I know from past experience that you can have

It's no good saying "look at it this way" because I'm not looking at it in any way. Nihilism isn't a choice, it's what happens when you don't make a choice. I just want the ability to make a choice.

I'm not sure I follow this, but thanks. I don't think you can compare scientific knowledge now to the end of the 19th century. Vastly more progress has been made since then than the rest of history.

Well, Kierkegaard would say that since he's trying to justify his faith against what was perceived as the opposition. These days it makes him sound like creationist arguing against evolution.

As for truth and meaning, I can only speak of my personal experience. Whilst I was searching for the truth it provided my life with meaning driven by the naïve assumption that it would all come together one day in some kind of revelatory "meaning of everything" moment. Instead, I was able to acquire so much objectivity, that I could see "everything" and it didn't have any meaning because I'd stepped so far back that, not just me, but the entire human race had shrunk into complete insignificance. The god's-eye view is not a myth any more, it's just really fucking scary and I want to come back.

For me, what we experience and observe is the universe, unless you want to get into the whole brain in a vat thing. Modern science describes this almost completely and it doesn't require faith. We are not told science, like we are told religion, we are shown science. Every piece of it is a little part of how the universe works and the fact it all fits together so perfectly and has given us all this amazing technology is proof - you don't have to believe medicine is going to cure you in order for it to cure you.

There are plenty of mysteries still left, one of the main ones is how the different scales - quantum, our level and interstellar - link together. Cause and effect appears to be only a part of "our level" science so the "what caused the big bang question?" may not be relevant.

What is a person? Well, the biological aspect which I assume we both share but you could also say that having a belief system is part of it, in which case I'm not really a person. Love Dostoevsky, he has quite a few characters I can relate to, on the boundary of the "person" definition. I like Kierkegaard, but he's a Christian so absurdity for him is not being able to know what God wants him to do, which is not really relevant to me. I've never read the others you mention (I wouldn't dare try Wittgenstein to be honest).