Suicide is futile in nihilism, the standard why not “end it all” applies meaning to the pain of existence, a meaning of the pain being “bad”.
If you where a true nihilist you would see that arguing against this is futile.
1 Like
Logic and mathematics are beautiful tools to make sense of what we know and learned.
But that latter part is also kinda the problem. We cant make use of logical and mathematical conclusions which we cannot comprehend because we do not know.
So even though they are a unified, universal system all of us can access objectively, the net sum of it is still limited to what we collectively know and are aware of.
No amount of math or logic will ever allow us to attain omniscience.
Math itself is (probably) not subjective because its a system constructed to translate reality as is.
But we are.
You can look at science from dark matter to Einstein’s relativity theory and much MUCH more.
They are stories about people calculating something through math, and then everyone calling it nonsense because its not imaginable.
This is to say: Math is capable of predicting more than what we are capable of understanding, processing or imagining.
And if it does not make sense to us, we cant do anything with it.
We can question the reality and truth of anything.
You can take all of science as is with all of our knowledge of materialism, chemistry, math, physics, natural sciences and… just all of it, and then add to it’s end “because god wills it so”
You can set fire to anything with very little effort. It takes just a few words.
As is our assumption of reality changing with it.
“something” exists
Is it us though?
Your interpretation of it is.
Let me paraphrase the three truths proverb again: There is “the” truth. Which is reality in its entirety.
But we do not know it’s extent, so we look at it through the lens of our own knowledge and person, and arrive at “our own” truth.
Action and reaction have had hundreds of names since the beginning of our species.
We once didnt call lightning anything but a calamity, then we called it a god, then we called it a god’s wrath, then we called it electricity, then we moved on to static discharge.
The action and reaction never changed.
But our idea of it perpetually does and we cant ever be sure that we know the full extent of it’s behavior, and nature.
It might as well be.
You call it this, i call it that, neither of us know it’s true and complete nature, so we are just tossing stones in a pond relative to eachother.
Yes we construct our own little framework to describe reality, but thats what we have done from the start. We called things god’s wrath.
Moving your own self into the position of absolute truth is just a delusion for the lack of a better word.
Yeah, i can look into myself and find absolute truths about myself because its me.
But i am a part of a larger reality.
Turning inwards and becoming your own makeshift god and absolute truth works, but it also is really just denial and delusion, isnt it?
Sure we can. The literal point i was making is that we are physically incapable of holding that amount of information.
Imagine knowing one single atom’s complete and precise story for the trillions of years it exists.
Back in time, in present and in the future as well. Know where it is, what it does, how it is.
Now do the same for 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 more atoms which is the current estimated number in the universe.
Once that’s done, scale the image because those atoms construct molecules, and molecules construct macromolecules, and macromolecules construct organelles, and organelles construct cells, and cells construct tissues, and tissues construct organs, then organ systems, then multicellular living beings, which then construct a billion other things from philosophy to cities to religions. But of course there could be multiple realities, multiple universes and much more.
This is to say:
We are perfectly capable of understanding that trying to project the complete transcript of reality into your brain would probably disintegrate it in a very literal sense.
Do you think you can fit the clock itself into one of it’s own cogs?
Hence why its subjective to us.
yes
I feel you kind of skipped over this whereas it’s important:
You say its all information. I would contest that, given how information works.
You have pieces of info, which when understood and applied, garner trillions of other pieces. Maybe there is one piece which garners all pieces.
Science has gotten quite far in some respects; not all the way but far enough to not simply dismiss the possibility that it might be attainable.
In any case one needs, also in a computer, not constantly keep all info ready, or even stored - much of it can be generated from principles and architecture.
The reality is that one principle or a set of principles can generate immense quantities of facts, without having to store all these facts.
I further do not agree that we are comparable to cogs in a clock. First of all when we disappear the universe doesnt necessarily stop running. Second, a cog does not that we know of have consciousness - and other dissimilarities.
As pleasant as that thought is with a very happy ending even memory fades into annihilation.
1 Like
Its not about memory, it’s about that in fact it has objectively forever happened.
1 Like
Without an observer of said pleasurable experiences it is irrelevant of the memories attached fading into nothingness.
But it is more than merely subjective.
But humans (Pythagoras) invented math, as in strict deductive proof. He did this from his subjective experience.
Maybe subectivity isn’t as arbitrary as we think?
Maybe subjectivity can only emerge in a form that corresponds to truth?
It would be quite weird how anything could exist in any other way.
Still, Einsteins mind was necessarily subjective. So the objective (the math) arises from the subjective.
Does this not mean the subjective has to carry the objective in itself?
Its not always obvious who kindled it though.
(Or who feels friction at what)
As is our assumption of reality changing with it.
Indeed, the “I” is not given.
But it is also objective, as it works perfectly with other peoples interpretation of it, and with reality.
Im just trying to get you to drop the idea that subjectivity and objectivity are totally disjointed.
Not so sure that it really changes that much.
We understand each other for 90 or even 99 percent of what we’re saying, because we share the majority of our world. Peoples truths are indeed different, but not all that disconnected. On a basic level much is the same.
Im not saying this is the case for all entities of consciousness in the multiverse, but probably action=-reaction usually applies.
Maybe not, of course, which is an interesting idea to ponder.
It is absolutely true that I like the things I like. It would be delusional to deny that I like frying steak.
This does in no way imply that the absolute truth of this is the absolute truth about anything else.
I don’t know where you are getting this idea that I am a makeshift god because I know absolutely sure that I like frying steak.
Yeah but so thats not how information or information processing generally works.
It’s more like a tree, than a container.
If you get to the stem, or even to the seed of the tree, you get the whole tree.
1 Like
I don’t see it that way. I don’t want to press this though as I know Im unusual in how I see this. But it’s nice.
1 Like
Within a context but as context changes so does the reality.
One can talk about x appearing as x in context y, but as context y changes to z than the appearance of x changes as well.
This can be observed in everyday life where an experience is said to be “good” under one context of interpretation but as experiences progress the interpretation of the experience changes and what was once “good” is seen as “less good” than once thought. Vice versa with things being percieved as “bad” (ie one context reveals bad as bad, another reveals it as less bad).
The question is under what context are you deriving good and bad judgments?
Subjectivity is already part of truth so a level of correspondence is not only implied but is pretty much a requirement. The problem is that this “level” is broad on a scale that is barely comprehensible.
When people described thunder and lightning as the wrath of god, that statement too technically had a kernel of truth to it because it was based on true concept, the lightning itself.
Its description however… well yes…
Correct.
It simply means that subjectivity works off of reality. “Subject to/of”
Or in other words: We barely know a thing or two about reality, but we are a part of it regardless.
But since you do not know reality, you cannot verify whether or not it works with reality. Thats the inherent problem.
There seems to be a bit of a confusion here. They are disconnected. Just not from reality.
We all exist within reality. None of us are disconnected from it.
But we are disconnected from eachother.
Every mirror in the room reflects things from it’s own angle. Separately. Disconnected from other mirrors.
Your truths, are not the truths of others the same way you are you and not somebody else.
There is a separation in space, time, identity and possibly more. So of course you are not disconnected from reality, but you are disconnected by being an individual.
Yes, but you are stating a truth that is subjective to you.
You like frying steak. → that is an absolute statement and an absolute truth, which you can make because you are you.
You are the only one who can make that absolute statement.
Nobody else can because nobody else can be sure whether or not you truly like frying steak.
But you are still talking about your subjective self and not about reality itself.
You might as well say that the sky is green and grass is blue. Can that be true to you? Sure.
Is that true in reality? No.
You are confusing deduction with knowing.
Knowledge implies containment. You know it.
Knowing that an action results in a reaction and how that reaction should behave is a deduction. It is not knowledge, it is an educated assumption.
I have seen this in others and experienced this personally too many times to count. If they do not fade directly than new experiences reorganize them in such a manner that they where not so great or not so horrible.
People assume experience is perfectly fixed without realized the interpretation is not always.
Generally with the modern generations experience is reduced to sensual or ego oriented pleasure as a safety net to have a fixed point to deal with the uncertainties of life. The dark side of experience seeking is that it is to mask a silent hole within the individual. Pleasure is often a mask as it suppresses awareness to an idolized focal point…hence the term “mind blowing”. Most pleasure seekers, not pleasure experiencers but specifically seekers, do not want to exist within their own selves.
Is this always the case? No. Is it often the case? Yes.
1 Like
Even then: who is you, what is stake, etc?
Rather, isnt it interesting that this question is completely irrelevant and unnecessary to fulfill and live out your existence?
Rather than the question “who am i” its more interesting why you can ask that question in the first place.
Autonomy and a concept of self in a universe that is devoid of both and is rather defined by equilibrium and entropy.
The question of who you are is second to why you are, and the answer to that is one of the universe’s greatest mysteries. How can a universe which is defined by its own decay and entropy, spawn a self contained system which is defined by it’s opposition to entropy?
But this is an intellectual superposition.
Viewed a certain way, this can be understood as a modern theogeny, to compete with, say, the Catholic or the Hesiodic one.
Taking a step back and asking, though. I agree that is the true miracle.
It is not what is true that determines the names we give to things because, as you say, it would require a pure access to truth which we don’t have. It is what is… useful?
Of course it is. Thats what makes it a mystery, doesnt it?
Yes, this seems accurate to me. In fact it is hard for me to think about anything beyond those two questions, that could be philosophically meaningful.
What is true: what is real, what exists, and how and why it exists as it is. What is reality, what is its nature, what are its rules and laws? And within that, what specific ideas/claims/beliefs are true vs untrue? And how do we know, and how certain can we be about knowing it? And how do we know that?
What is important: What gives meaning, what matters vs what does not matter or can be ignored as irrelevant. Ethics would seem to fall under here, although I put it partly under the truth-category too. And why does meaning mean something, what is the meaning of meaning? What is the importance of what is important, and how does this hinge upon the being for whom it is important, and how and why?
I don’t know very much about nihilism other than it seems philosophically silly, personally weak and self-contradictory to me. Although limited nihilism is probably useful and true in certain cases. Or at least, nihilistic tendencies are probably common aspects of the human condition, at times.
This means your original position, which implied pretty much a randomness governing subjectivity vis a vis objective truth, has been refined, or doesn’t it?
So do you think that you now know, un-subjectively, or less subjectively than these ancients, what lightning is?
How do you now know that what you know is more true?
Curious if you can chart the trajectory.
So - what does this say about the role of the subjective? Keep this in mind, for later in this post when I bring up an example from Einsteins physics.
I’m not sure these two statements are wholly compatible. But ok.
I do not know reality? I am not real? What I know is not part of reality? Part of reality is not reality?
You are not real?
If so - how do you know we do not know reality? That must be a statement coming from un-reality!
This brings us to the last part of my short OP, the part no one has yet really addressed.
(The philosophic part!)
So are you saying reality, whereas it is connected to us all, does not connect peoples perspectives? If not, then how exactly are our perspectives disconnected?
If they are disconnected, how then did universally applicable science, or any cooperation, ever arise?
Maybe you can try to answer this: What is reality besides that which connects us?
Remember the mirror is just a metaphor you use. We aren’t actually mirrors.
mirrors cant have sex and beget offspring, mirrors cant engage in common projects and make things like say, mirrors.
Beware of taking your metaphors literally. They’re two dimensional images of a three dimensional thing, to use another metaphor.
You work from the subjective belief that there is a ‘the’ reality that is actually disconnected from our subjective realities, even after we have gotten to the agreement that knowledge of objective reality comes from subjective assessments.
We have arrived at the fact that reality is connected to out perspectives. Now I have learned from physics that this is not just top down but also bottom up by virtue of the perspective - our perspectives emerge from it and are thus kin to it, but more than that, also shape it. Here I will give the example from physics I mentioned earlier:
A muon, which is a particle that moves at .98 times the speed of light, has such a short lifespan (2.2. microseconds) that, when entering our atmosphere, it should, ‘relatively objectively’; from the Earths reference frame, from the collective frame of all of us people, not get beyond 700 meters into the atmosphere before it disintegrates. But it moves so close to c, that the length contraction from its perspective is so strong, that in fact muons do reach the ground and even penetrate below the surface kilometers deep.
I wonder if you can see the implications of this on your truth-hierarchy, on your view on the role of perspective vis a vis the objective.
No confusion. I understand the truth-model you provide. I sincerely do not think truth is encoded like this. ‘Truth’, to me, implies foremost coherence. Therefore I was bringing you back to the question: whether ‘the truth’ contains all information, or can also be a central piece or structure of information that implies (‘generates’) all information.
Your answer suggests that ‘the truth’ is the reservoir of data that contain knowledge of all the bits and pieces of the unfolded omniverse, but I would argue that this does in fact not amount to ‘the’ truth; a more ‘the’ truth than this is what brings all these facts together, explains them in terms of each other, and indeed, is even able to generate, ‘predict’ such facts before they are encountered. Only that would, to me, constitute ‘the’ truth. We differ on this, which is just how it is, and that’s great. It allows us to debate.
But what is interesting to consider here is whether the accumulated set of all data-points, qua data-points, would be able to generate itself.
As I understand it; to you ‘the’ truth is a set, for me it is a being. Truth, for me, is more necessarily generative than accumulative.
But what do you think of the argument socrates (the poster) made, that if you start with ‘what is truth’ you end up nowhere, and my extension to that that, if you start with ‘what matters’ you arrive at ‘what is truth’ necessarily in order to get to what matters?
This would make ‘what is true’ subservient to the other question, a position with which Im pretty sure you might disagree. But I wonder if you can or want to deconstruct it, because so far, and I mean this sincerely, the logic has pointed out that indeed, ‘what matters’ is the more fundamental question. Im interested if a solid argument can be produced that reverses this hierarchy.
Initially I would point out that ‘what is true’ already includes all of ‘what matters’ (and why it matters), therefore if you start with what is true and work your way through it you will come across what matters.
‘What matters’ is probably the fundamental question to living beings like us, whose very existence depends on correctly identifying what matters for us (as a priority or value-condition of sifting through ‘what is true’).