The meaning of everything

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

The meaning of everything
Matthew Milne
Two definitions are required to prove this theory

Free will: The ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence

Independent: Not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things.

The conditions:
1.In order to make a free choice, several elements to choose between must be in place (elements usually being, but not exclusively, external)

2.In order for the free choice to come about, a chain of events must have taken place so that all the elements were in the right place at the right time (or the wrong place at the wrong time as the case may be.)

In order to make the choice freely, it must occur independently from this chain of events (see point 2)

Reasoning
Since all thought processes are a chain of events, (which themselves are part of a chain of events involving external or internal events, which themselves are part of an external chain of events), it is impossible to make a decision free of a chain of events.
Therefore it is impossible to make a decision independently of any outside influence.
Therefore it is impossible to make a free choice.
Therefore it is impossible to have free will.

conclusion
Since all decisions you make are part of a chain of events, which itself is part of an external chain of events involving other factors e.g. other objects, life is a chain of events.
All objects in the universe are a part of this chain.
Therefore to carry out these events is the meaning of life and the universe.
Therefore to carry out this chain of events is the meaning of everything.

2

I agree totally. Causality. But I think I can go one step further and argue that there is a specific reason why humans act, in other words, theres 1 effect our minds are seeking when they go through a concious thought process. That effect is the atainment of pleasure. Ive noticed and alot of people agree with me that if you look for the reason for every concious human action, and you keep asking why we did this, and then why that was, so on so forth, you will reach the persuit of pleasure as the driving force behind every action. So I would just suggest that to carry out the persuit of pleasure is the meaning to human life.

3

yes,perhaps.

But the idea is to try and look at life as not just human or biological, but actually also including the objects we interact with.

For example, a biological lifeform will breathe. If there wasn’t air would we live? where does the air come from?

In order to really become enlightened you have to be able to view everything in minute detail at the same time as being able to see where it fits in the jigsaw of our universe.

Like i said, disproving free will will make the universe look a whole lot more complicated, and simpler at the same time.

For example, you have to know everything to really understand it all, but at the same time you don’t have to deal with those complex moral issues.

Well i’m glad someone understands it.

4

There was a thread a while ago about the illusion of free will I participated in, I thought you might like it.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1624456&highlight=#1624456

This was my first post on the thread, and if you wish, I think its good stuff all the way to the end of the thread as well as some of the stuff people said before me.

5

yes indeed an interesting article.

Although i would like to point out a severe flaw in your logic.

Life is a chain of events = fact

causality= theory = uncertainty = belief
determinism= theory = uncertainty = belief
effort= theory = uncertainty = belief
God= theory = uncertainty = belief
Atheism= theory = uncertainty = belief

do you get my point?

My theory is not a theory really. It is a logical deduction and extrapolation.

Life is a chain of events = fact
A chain of events means the decision was determined = fact
means the oucome of the decision was determined = fact
means decision was influenced by chain of events = fact
means you did not have a free choice = fact
means you did not have free will = fact

People will bicker over beliefs, but my theory is a chain of facts. So it is impossible to debate with an opinion contrary to the facts.

See what i mean about belief clouding judgement? it makes you uncertain, i mean that probably is one of the motives behind religion. It makes you confused so you need guidance. hence the role of a clergy man.

Theory extrapolated from fact cannot be debated if it is extrapolated correctly.

6

  1. there is no “chain”…

  2. there is no logical connection between events…

your “facts” are dubious at best, hardly factual…

-Imp

7

really.

I go to the shops and buy a bannana.
(In a patronising tone)
So how did the bannana get there?
decided it wanted to be sold and jumped into the box?
even that is a chain of events!

In order for the bannana to get there it had to be farmed, picked, packaged, shipped, shelved, other bannanas had to be bought so i’d pick up that particular one, etc etc
What do you call that, a sock?
No it is a chain of events.

I mock your inferior intellect.

8

when will you publish your refutation of Hume’s arguments?

and thank you for the insult…

finis.

-Imp

9

When i can get a publisher.
who now?

anyway
The insult was meant as a mere highlight of people’s ignorance.
And your ignorance was quite noticable.

So do you see what i mean about a chain of events and its consequences.

10

hardly… but you are entitled to your opinions…

-Imp

11

If i’d had any opinions i wouldn’t have been able to work out the chain of logic.

12

thinking in chains…

from plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#3.1

“Suppose a very fast runner – such as mythical Atalanta – needs to run for the bus. Clearly before she reaches the bus stop she must run half-way, as Aristotle says. There’s no problem there; supposing a constant motion it will take her 1/2 the time to run half-way there and 1/2 the time to run the rest of the way. Now she must also run half-way to the half-way point – i.e., a 1/4 of the total distance – before she reaches the half-way point, but again she is left with a finite number of finite lengths to run, and plenty of time to do it. And before she reaches 1/4 of the way she must reach 1/2 of 1/4 = 1/8 of the way; and before that a 1/16; and so on. There is no problem at any finite point in this series, but what if the halving is carried out infinitely many times? The resulting series contains no first distance to run, for any possible first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. However it does contain a final distance, namely 1/2 of the way; and a penultimate distance, 1/4 of the way; and a third to last distance, 1/8 of the way; and so on. Thus the series of distances that Atalanta is required to run is: …, then 1/16 of the way, then 1/8 of the way, then 1/4 of the way, and finally 1/2 of the way (of course we are not suggesting that she stops at the end of each segment and then starts running at the beginning of the next – we are thinking of her continuous run being composed of such parts). And now there is a problem, for this description of her run has her travelling an infinite number of finite distances, which, Zeno would have us conclude, must take an infinite time, which is to say it is never completed. And since the argument does not depend on the distance or who or what the mover is, it follows that no finite distance can ever be traveled, which is to say that all motion is impossible. (Note that the paradox could easily be generated in the other direction so that Atalanta must first run half way, then half the remaining way, then half of that and so on, so that she must run the following endless sequence of fractions of the total distance: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ….)”

TRY TO SOLVE IT WITH YOUR “LOGIC CHAIN”

-Imp

13

David Hume, a famous philosopher. For a brief introduction you might see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

People in glass houses…

Would you walk up to a stranger on the street and insult him or her? If no, then why would you do it on the Internet?

14

only if they had blinding ignorance.

15

Dear impenitent

I did enjoy your little puzzle.

The puzzle is based on the assumption that distance can be divided into infinitely small pieces, with the assumption that the same can be said of time.

However, physicist max planck discovered that time infact has a minimum unit measurement known as plank time. (approximately 1.3EXP-43 seconds)

in chain logic:

This means that travelling at a constant velocity, in the smallest possible measurement of time, the runner will have also covered a distance

This means that in the first measurement of time, the first unit of distance will be covered.

This gives the total units of distance covered in the total units of time.

Meaning as predicted by millions of experiments, it takes a finite time to cover a finite distance.

Hence the paradox is thus solved

night, night.

16

the puzzle wasn’t mine, it was zeno’s…

and come up with your own answer instead of Aristotle’s…

from plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/

“Another response – given by Aristotle himself – is to point out that as we divide the distances run we should also divide the total time taken: there is 1/2 the time for the final 1/2, a 1/4 of the time for the previous 1/4, an 1/8 of the time for the 1/8 of the run and so on. Thus each fractional distance has just the right fraction of the finite total time for Atalanta to complete it, and thus the distance can be completed in a finite time. Aristotle felt that this reply should satisfy Zeno, however he also realized (Physics, 263a15) that this could not be the end of the matter (and surely Zeno would have made the same point if presented with Aristotle’s response). For now we are saying that the time Atalanta takes to reach the bus stop is composed of an infinite number of finite pieces – …, 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 (of the total time) – and isn’t that an infinite time?”

try again…

-Imp

p.s. read my discussions of Hume and see why your “experiments” are errors in reasoning… fallacies that break your “chain logic”…

your “chain logic” doesn’t work…

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … sc&start=0

17

as we divide the distance we must also divide the time is of course true.
What i’m saying is max planck discovered that it is impossible to divide time into anything smaller than planck time.

A second is made up of a multiple of this value.
Velocity is therefore the same.

The total distance can be calculated by multiples of these finite units.

Finite unit divided by finite unit does NOT give an infinitecimal unit!!!

If you divide the velocity by the multiple, you get the minimum distance that is travelled in this unit of time.
Since the minimum divisible of the velocity is a finite unit, and the minimum unit of time is a finite unit, then the minimum distance travelled in this time is also a finite unit.

The respective totals are finite multiples of these finite units giving the correct equation d/v = t

or in chain physics finite multiple/finite multiple = finite multiple

Sorry if it’s a little confused. English is not my first language, music is!

18

not confused at all… I debunked this very same argument years ago…

-Imp

edit: clairification: with your “planck” value all you have done is try to count by units all over but by using a very very small unit… all you have done is change the name… the problem is still there and your “chain logic” still fails…

19

I take it, you didn’t study physics.
It’s not good if the philosopher misinterprets the universe he/she is trying to philisophicise about.

I suggest you do a web search on max planck and find out a little about him.

Time according to Max planck has a maximum speed i.e. the speed of light.

It’s a bit like a wave, the higher the frequency, the shorter the distance the wave can travel. So if you are travelling at the speed of light, time will never overtake you.

Time according to max planck is made up of units known as planck time.
This is a VERY small number.
approx 1.3EXP-43 seconds

This unit CANNOT be broken down any more.
So you seem to be an intelligent, if misguided person.
Tell me this:

if during your divisions, you must stop dividing the units of time, how is it that you can continue to divide the units of distance?

The answer is, you can’t!

Velocity is a function of time, distance is a function of time and velocity.

Travelling with constant velocity, your total time taken will be a multiple of planck time.
Your total distance travelled will be a multiple of the 1st unit of distance travelled i.e. the distance covered per plank time unit.

If you study a little about max, you’ll understand how zeno’s paradox is wrong!

To not do that is to limit your knowledge of the universe, and as a philosopher doesn’t that sabotage your own work?

My quote of the centuary is: ignorance will be the death of humanity.

20

“I know that I know nothing”- Socrates.

My quote of the century is: justified true belief is not knowledge

-Imp