After the Fat Lady Sings

Wow! I don’t think that you or anyone could have possibly said that any better.

You just killed God! :confused: Funny way to put it but that line struck me as, almost, an absolute evidence of Atheism. I’ll have to think about this one for awhile.

I apologize for the assumption but I am glad that you understood my intended meaning. I am quite surprised at your living conditions and it is such a strange coincidence that I would hear this from you. I have been thinking a lot recently about what I want to do for the rest of my life and you have basically just described it perfectly. I have often thought of the Walden scenario and wondered if it were still possible. Is there any reason why you would suggest that I didn’t follow such a dream?

This is almost exactly how I feel currently. Self sufficiency and disdain for world politics. I enjoy other people but I am fed up with their ignorance to reality. or maybe this is just my own ignorance to reality. I haven’t come to that conclusion yet.

Why does one need community? What’s the matter with a pocket full of friends and a family? What’s the matter with seperation? Would you have chosen a different path had you known what you know now? I don’t mean to ask so many questions but your thoughts bring so much to my mind.

Some would say there is more fun to be had in exploring the unknown, then being handed all the answers. Polemarchus, you’ve said yourself you like to solve ancient Japanese puzzles. You don’t look at the answer before you start the puzzle? As the fun is had in the exploration of the problem. I see the meaning of life as a puzzle, and philosophy part of the exploration. Religion I feel is there for those that want answers, but answers that they find palatable. They’ve already decided on an answer before looking at the problem in any serious manor.

I love science, technology, philosophy and anything that helps me grown in knowledge. If I were offered all the answers to all the questions in the world, it would be very tempting an offer to accept. But what would I then do with all these answers? As real answers are dogmatic by nature, because they are unquestionable and true. It’s the problems that give rise to meaning. We take pride in learning to understand something we were once ignorant of. Life is a process of refining an understanding based off assumptions, but an answer without an assumption is impossible, as we are limited in our ability to understand the external world. Because we can only draw knowledge from things we can interact with. If there is something in the external world that we can’t observe our interaction with, then we can never simulate it with physics / maths or a new “science”. With empirical observations we can carryout experiments to refine our simulations, yet we can never be 100% sure we are simulating all that exists in the external world correctly, but only to the point that observational accuracy allows the correlation of external and the simulated worlds.

I think the diversity in life comes from the assumptions made when answering questions. Most of the questions people ask are identical, but it’s the assumptions they base their answers on that are different for each individual. Assumptions are influenced by our life experiences and how we understand the world to work. But without assumptions we can never hope to answer any question, as the assumption is the starting point of the investigation. But in the case of “Absolute Truth” we will never be able to remove the primary assumption.

Whether ‘God’ (an intelligent creating mind) does or doesn’t exist, I still enjoy reading good arguments for and against this proposition. I know that I’ll never have an answer in this life but still want to build the best possible case for why nature shows his existence and why nature shows that he can’t exist. Then I’ll make my act of faith and believe in the one I think is most true. This is the best I can hope for in the search for God and Meaning.

Pax Vitae

Pax Vitae wrote:

Hey Pax,
Very well said! I wrote to this group some months ago:

“Imagine a world in which everything is already known in simple terms. Everything in this imaginary world has already been explained in terms of something else; and that something else has been explained in terms of something else. Everything can be predicted with absolute accuracy, including your next thought and action…you could know what you would feel, think, and say at any moment in the future. You know exactly when you will die and you understand the exact nature of death itself. There are no questions in this world; no need for philosophy and science; no concept of awe and wonder.”

This imaginary world of perfect certainty would be a sort of hell for me. If we knew everything then we’d lose what Richard Feynman called, “the pleasure of finding things out.” A.C. Grayling wrote:

“Epicurus…said that life’s highest pleasure is discussing philosophy with friends…”

I’m in absolute agreement with you. In a previous post I’ve said:

“Religion…begins with the answers. The answers religion begins with are specifically those men wish were true. Religion is the search for that which would make these answers true.”

Yep, I agree here too.

“…I wonder if it matters that we ever ‘get it right.’ I wonder how much our knowing the ‘Truth’ would change our lives. Children would be continue to be born and old men would continue to die just the same as before…The difference might be in what we did between those two occurrences. If we should find the Truth, it obviously would render useless our search for the Truth. Life might seem less an adventure than a chore…It seems strange to think that I might prefer a life searching for the Truth rather than already possessing the Truth; but this appears to be my sentiment. The moment I solve a problem in mathematics I quickly search for another one. As soon as I have the answer, the problem ceases to interest me. Well, luckily, I don’t think we’re in danger of finding the ‘Truth’ just yet.”

Now, if I could just have this world as it is, only minus the suffering, well…

Michael

Haha, :smiley: It looks like I’ve subconsciously assimilated everything you’ve said and just repackaged it my words! Haha, Oops! :blush:

Hi Pax,

Even if that were true there’d still be no need to blush. I doubt that I’ve ever had an original idea. But I’m pleased that you brought up the subject of originality, Pax.

My wife is a potter. She makes bowls, plates and such from clay on a pottery wheel. I’ve heard her remark that the invention of pottery dates to well before the dawn of human civilization. Since that early beginning nearly every human culture has made pottery. Given the long and varied history of pottery she thinks it’s nearly impossible to come up with something entirely new. She might throw a very modern looking vase, only to later find the same item staring at her in a picture book of ancient pottery.

I found the same was true when I did a bit of “inventing.” It’s maddening to have an “original” idea, only to visit the patent files and find dozens of patents have already been issued on every aspect of your “baby.” Once you’ve decided to seek a patent, no matter how novel you think your idea a struggle will invariably ensue between you and the patent examiner. You’re trying to make the broadest claims possible for your “invention,” and he’s trying to restrict your claims so as not to infringe on other patents. I collaborated with another fellow to convince a patent examiner that our idea was original. We were eventually awarded US patent number 5,463,598. I don’t believe for a moment that our idea was original. I’ll I can say is that our claims don’t infringe on anyone else’s claims.

Billions of humans have spent even more billion of hours thinking about our existence. What is the chance that a philosophical idea that’s popped into my head is original? The chance is infinitesimally small. Bear in mind that the archives don’t record all of man’s past ideas. They only record the ideas that were published.

An article in a recent issue of The Royal Institute of Philosophy raised the question if Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ideas might not have been original. The article never claims that Wittgenstein plagiarized, only that ideas similar to his had appeared in print before his Tractus Logico-philosophicus. I had to laugh when I read this article. I’d never supposed that his ideas were entirely original. And even if they were, what would it matter? Humans tend to give more credence to ideas they believe have originated in their own minds. Why? The fact that I am not the first man to discover love, in no way demeans my loving.

Is an idea somehow less valuable because it has previously passed though the head of another man? If this were true, then I should be prepared to have nearly all my ideas devalued. My friends in this forum have doubtless noticed my fondness for quotations. I think a good quote is a compact jewel that succinctly expresses a much larger idea. But the secondary reason for my use of quotes is to pay homage to the fact that my ideas are not original. My experience at the patent office excepted, I’m actually thrilled when I find some idea of “mine” in an ancient philosophical text.

I mentioned here once before the thrill I have in solving my Japanese Temple Geometry problems only to find that the path I’ve chosen to solve the problem has been well trodden. This invariably gives me a gemutlich feeling of connectedness. I’m not an isolated being - floating - lost in a vast cosmos. I’m not lost at all. I’m at home in a community that extends both through space and time.

It’s become a little game with me to recognize bits of myself outside of myself. Sometimes I identify an aspect of my ideas in nature, sometimes my ideas appear in the works of other men. A nice thought is that when I’m gone all these little bits of me will endure. Men not yet born will one day have the same charming thought pop into their head that once came into mine. It will give them the same pleasure that it now gives me. And when they look about them, they’ll see bits of themselves everywhere in the world; the same bits that I once thought of as reflections of myself.

Michael

I believe in the critical massing of knowledge. Meaning, we must know a certain piece of knowledge before a new one can be born. But because this vital piece of knowledge exists, more then one person comes up with the same idea around the same time. But it still creates new knowledge. From what I’ve read some of the scientists say this is slowing down the their research. Because people aren’t disclose information as fast as they could, because they know this “secret” knowledge might be used by some other group to beat them to the answer they’re looking for and hoping to patent.

An example of critical knowledge: It was about 3 years ago I had an idea for using GPS tracking with Cryptology. So you could encode documents that could only be read in certain parts of the world. So if you had company accounts, the file could only be read in your company’s offices. As soon as you leave the building these files become unreadable. It was also going to be used for things like Internet VISA transactions. You would setup your VISA card only to work over the Internet if your transaction was made at your home or where you worked. This way, even if somebody stole your number they would never be able to use it, as they would have to break into your home to complete the transaction. But like all knowledge that required other knowledge, this information was available to somebody else who patented the idea about 4 months before me. But this idea about 20 years ago would have made little sense to anybody.

Because of this evolution of knowledge we can still have originality, but I don’t believe it is something that can go on indefinitely. Like music there is only so many notes and tempos, eventually all of them will be used up. People’s taste in music will have to change to accommodate music’s ever-changing sound.

Pax Vitae