Thursday, October 7, 2010
about all that God shit I wrote... yeah its all wrong. I realized that pretty much right after i wrote it all. For some reason I translated the cause-effect, conservation of energy thing to the outside-the-universe place, which was completely retarded. The universe could have just spontaneously appeared because cause doesn't necessarily stipulate effect outside the universe, seeing as newton's laws and the laws of conservation of energy probably don't apply out there. I think I probably knew this all along, even when I was writing, I just didn't want to admit that I was wrong and you can't prove God and there is no such thing as an absolute and we're all lost in a swirling abyss of confused numbers and arbitrary death and nothingness and everything.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
free will
Sorry guys, it's been a while since my last post. So without further ado, here goes:
Do we have free will? Can we truly make our own decisions, independent of any stimulus? Or are we simply reactive machines, incapable of accomplishing anything that can truly be called original? I say, if you believe in a purely physical, rational universe, then no, we do not have free will. Think about it: if you subscribe to the belief that the universe is controlled only by the laws of physics, then that means from the moment of Big Bang, if one knew the original directions and forces of the original particles of matter and energy, one could theoretically predict everything that would happen in the universe from that point onwards, right down to what you decide to have for lunch today. "But that's preposterous!" you might say. "I make random decisions all the time." I say that no decision is random. Decisions are composed of thoughts, which, when you break it down, are nothing more than a simple physical phenomenon: electrical impulses travelling along neuron pathways in our brains. The question of which pathways become developed enough for electrical impulses to travel along them, and thus the question of what we think and when we think it, is determined solely by two variables: heredity and outside stimulus, both of which are completely out of our individual control.
One might argue that memories also spark thoughts, but memories come from experience, and every experience you've ever had is a consequence of where, when, and how you were born, more variables over which an individual holds no sway. Thus, we cannot make a random decision that truly originates within our own mind; what you decided to have for lunch today may be the result of a subconscious memory of a tuna sandwich you ate 5 years ago, and if someone had a detailed enough model of your brain and all the stimuli going into it, they could predict literally every decision you will ever make, every thought you will ever have. The fact remains that the original particles were set in motion at particular angles with particular amounts of force, and our world today, indeed what goes on inside our very minds, is nothing more than the completely predictible culmination of the countless trillions of trillions of trillion (etc.) of physical reactions of those particles. Now you might say, "Wait a minute! Just because the future can be predicted doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to choose. It just means that the outcome of my choices is already known." In response to this conjecture, I present you with a theoretical scenario. Suppose you were with someone who could see the future just as normal people see the past. Now suppose that person pointed at a door told you that, in exactly 5 minutes, you would walk through it. You have no way of changing the fact that you will walk through the door; you have no control over the course of your life, and thus no free will. So I say that if you do not believe that there are forces at work in the universe outside the realm of physics, then you must believe that reality exists as a single, undeviating, purely sequential chain of events, and that the concept of free will is nothing but an illusion cast by our own minds.
As a disclaimer to this physical/metaphysical approach to analyzing free will, I feel I must at least touch on the subject of quantum mechanics. If you know anything about quantum mechanics, then you might say that my analysis is invalid; the field has shown that in our universe, many phenomena are random and spontaneous in the purest sense of the word. However, at least with respect the analysis of free will, this doesn't really change anything. Even if some events in our universe are truly random, they are still completely beyond our control as individuals, and they happen well below the level of complexity on which, say, our consciousness operates. Whether the universe is completely predictable or is in some cases probabilistic, we are still slaves to the reactions of our universe. We are the reactions of our universe
Do we have free will? Can we truly make our own decisions, independent of any stimulus? Or are we simply reactive machines, incapable of accomplishing anything that can truly be called original? I say, if you believe in a purely physical, rational universe, then no, we do not have free will. Think about it: if you subscribe to the belief that the universe is controlled only by the laws of physics, then that means from the moment of Big Bang, if one knew the original directions and forces of the original particles of matter and energy, one could theoretically predict everything that would happen in the universe from that point onwards, right down to what you decide to have for lunch today. "But that's preposterous!" you might say. "I make random decisions all the time." I say that no decision is random. Decisions are composed of thoughts, which, when you break it down, are nothing more than a simple physical phenomenon: electrical impulses travelling along neuron pathways in our brains. The question of which pathways become developed enough for electrical impulses to travel along them, and thus the question of what we think and when we think it, is determined solely by two variables: heredity and outside stimulus, both of which are completely out of our individual control.
One might argue that memories also spark thoughts, but memories come from experience, and every experience you've ever had is a consequence of where, when, and how you were born, more variables over which an individual holds no sway. Thus, we cannot make a random decision that truly originates within our own mind; what you decided to have for lunch today may be the result of a subconscious memory of a tuna sandwich you ate 5 years ago, and if someone had a detailed enough model of your brain and all the stimuli going into it, they could predict literally every decision you will ever make, every thought you will ever have. The fact remains that the original particles were set in motion at particular angles with particular amounts of force, and our world today, indeed what goes on inside our very minds, is nothing more than the completely predictible culmination of the countless trillions of trillions of trillion (etc.) of physical reactions of those particles. Now you might say, "Wait a minute! Just because the future can be predicted doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to choose. It just means that the outcome of my choices is already known." In response to this conjecture, I present you with a theoretical scenario. Suppose you were with someone who could see the future just as normal people see the past. Now suppose that person pointed at a door told you that, in exactly 5 minutes, you would walk through it. You have no way of changing the fact that you will walk through the door; you have no control over the course of your life, and thus no free will. So I say that if you do not believe that there are forces at work in the universe outside the realm of physics, then you must believe that reality exists as a single, undeviating, purely sequential chain of events, and that the concept of free will is nothing but an illusion cast by our own minds.
As a disclaimer to this physical/metaphysical approach to analyzing free will, I feel I must at least touch on the subject of quantum mechanics. If you know anything about quantum mechanics, then you might say that my analysis is invalid; the field has shown that in our universe, many phenomena are random and spontaneous in the purest sense of the word. However, at least with respect the analysis of free will, this doesn't really change anything. Even if some events in our universe are truly random, they are still completely beyond our control as individuals, and they happen well below the level of complexity on which, say, our consciousness operates. Whether the universe is completely predictable or is in some cases probabilistic, we are still slaves to the reactions of our universe. We are the reactions of our universe
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Big Picture
In kind of the same line of thought as my last post, I want to talk about things on a big scale. Like, universal. So I'm gonna take for granted that we all agree on the basic model of our universe as a limited, noninfinite space. Most scientists agree on the speculation that if you were to travel in a completely straight path through the universe for long enough, you'd end up in the same place you started. Scientists also agree that the universe is expanding from a central point, which indicates that it had a chronological beginning. Our universe, basically, is a limited system governed by a very specific set of laws, familiar laws such as gravitation, nuclear force, elecromagnetism, and time. The combination of these forces forms a predictable pattern that governs how matter behaves under the influence of these laws. The prediction of this pattern is what we call "logic". What's important to realize is that these laws that govern our universe are completely arbitrary; just as easily as there is a law that stipulates mass is attracted to other mass, there could have been a law that stipulated the exact opposite, and then we'd live (or more likely wouldn't live) in a completely different universe. There is no observable reason why these laws are there. They just are. So how did all this get stuff, these laws and this matter, get here? If the universe is expanding, how did it start? Your answer might simply be the Big Bang, but in our universe, every action has another action that caused it; every physical action in our universe is actually a reaction. So what gave the universe its initial action? What sparked the Big Bang and set it all in motion? My answer: God. You atheists and agnostics out there might scoff at this notion, but hear me out.
Let's turn our gaze outside the universe. None of the laws that apply in our world, like time, nuclear force, and the mysterious force I mentioned in my last post that keeps matter in existence, nessecarily apply here. This is the plane that I believe God, or the creator of the universe, or whatever you want to call it, inhabits. And I'm not talking the God of any particular religion. I'm just talking the thing that created our universe. This God is not a physical being, because things can only exist physically in our universe, where the laws of physics apply. He is not made of matter, because matter can exist only in our universe under the laws that say it is there. I believe that this God is the big something I was referring to in my last post, the something that holds matter in existence and that created the laws under which our universe functions. How did he create it then? How did he create everything out of nothing? That's physically impossible!, you might say. Yes, physically impossible. But conservation of mass and conservation of energy are just another pair of arbitrary laws that exist only in our universe. You also might ask, "Okay, then what created this 'God' character?". My answer is nothing. This is possible because time does not exist outside of our universe. There is no sequential chain of events, no before and after. Outside the universe, God's existence for a second means his existence forward and backward in time for infinity. If you have been asking these questions, then you're probably just not thinking big enough yet. Outside our universe, not a single law that governs our universe is nessecarily true. This includes logic. Outside our universe 2+2 may well equal 5, for all we know.
Thus, to the best of my ability, I have supported the argument of a removed-creator-type God, who created the universe and now resides outside of it, as an observer. However, I'm not nessecarily opposed to the idea of an interventionist God, one who can interfere with the events in the universe. Think about it: wouldn't something so powerful that it can call everything into existence out of absolute nothingness be powerful enough to alter his own creation? And that's all for now. Hope you enjoyed.
Let's turn our gaze outside the universe. None of the laws that apply in our world, like time, nuclear force, and the mysterious force I mentioned in my last post that keeps matter in existence, nessecarily apply here. This is the plane that I believe God, or the creator of the universe, or whatever you want to call it, inhabits. And I'm not talking the God of any particular religion. I'm just talking the thing that created our universe. This God is not a physical being, because things can only exist physically in our universe, where the laws of physics apply. He is not made of matter, because matter can exist only in our universe under the laws that say it is there. I believe that this God is the big something I was referring to in my last post, the something that holds matter in existence and that created the laws under which our universe functions. How did he create it then? How did he create everything out of nothing? That's physically impossible!, you might say. Yes, physically impossible. But conservation of mass and conservation of energy are just another pair of arbitrary laws that exist only in our universe. You also might ask, "Okay, then what created this 'God' character?". My answer is nothing. This is possible because time does not exist outside of our universe. There is no sequential chain of events, no before and after. Outside the universe, God's existence for a second means his existence forward and backward in time for infinity. If you have been asking these questions, then you're probably just not thinking big enough yet. Outside our universe, not a single law that governs our universe is nessecarily true. This includes logic. Outside our universe 2+2 may well equal 5, for all we know.
Thus, to the best of my ability, I have supported the argument of a removed-creator-type God, who created the universe and now resides outside of it, as an observer. However, I'm not nessecarily opposed to the idea of an interventionist God, one who can interfere with the events in the universe. Think about it: wouldn't something so powerful that it can call everything into existence out of absolute nothingness be powerful enough to alter his own creation? And that's all for now. Hope you enjoyed.
Monday, July 19, 2010
You know what, fuck it, I'm just going to get straight into things. As a disclaimer, I want to reiterate that I don't think I'm some sort of genius who's the first one to think of these things: I'm just trying to whip up some food for thought. So, where better to start than with the nature of our universe, right? People often look towards the "big picture" in their search for God, the meaning of existence, and other such "big ideas"; they think about the vast tracts of empty space out there, they wonder how the universe began, and some even think about what may lie outside the universe.
What I like to do, however is look at the small picture-- and I'm talking really small. We tend define determine whether something exists or not based on that thing's complexity and its more basic component parts; we know that a chair exists, for example, because when we look at it through a high-powered electron microscope, we can see the individual atoms of which it is made. Furthermore, we determine that these atoms exist based on observations of their interactions with eachother. Using scientific theory, we deduced the existence of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Thus, we know the atom exists because it is made up of these component parts. However, if one were able to continue breaking down these particles into simpler components, and then breaking those components down even further, you would eventually arive at the simplest form of matter, a particle which literally can not be broken down any further and still be matter, energy or anything else; if it was broken down any further, it would simply cease to exist. How then, can we argue that this particle does exist? There is no reason it should exist: it is not made of anything, and therefore we can deduce that it is made of nothing. However, it clearly is not nothing; it must be something, because it is the building block of our entire universe.
The paradox here is that this simplest particle has no tangible property that distinguishes it from an empty space. Indeed, the only thing that DOES distinguish it from an empty space is that some undefinable force of the universe simply says that it exists. This idea has a ridiculous multitude of implications. The most important of these is that the universe exists only because SOMETHING decided to say that these simplest paricles exist, rather than deciding to leave the universe a matterless void. That same SOMETHING has decided to keep these particles in existence, at least for now. I have lots more to say along this line of thought, but that's enough for now. I'm tired. Please comment I'd like to see some discussion.
What I like to do, however is look at the small picture-- and I'm talking really small. We tend define determine whether something exists or not based on that thing's complexity and its more basic component parts; we know that a chair exists, for example, because when we look at it through a high-powered electron microscope, we can see the individual atoms of which it is made. Furthermore, we determine that these atoms exist based on observations of their interactions with eachother. Using scientific theory, we deduced the existence of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Thus, we know the atom exists because it is made up of these component parts. However, if one were able to continue breaking down these particles into simpler components, and then breaking those components down even further, you would eventually arive at the simplest form of matter, a particle which literally can not be broken down any further and still be matter, energy or anything else; if it was broken down any further, it would simply cease to exist. How then, can we argue that this particle does exist? There is no reason it should exist: it is not made of anything, and therefore we can deduce that it is made of nothing. However, it clearly is not nothing; it must be something, because it is the building block of our entire universe.
The paradox here is that this simplest particle has no tangible property that distinguishes it from an empty space. Indeed, the only thing that DOES distinguish it from an empty space is that some undefinable force of the universe simply says that it exists. This idea has a ridiculous multitude of implications. The most important of these is that the universe exists only because SOMETHING decided to say that these simplest paricles exist, rather than deciding to leave the universe a matterless void. That same SOMETHING has decided to keep these particles in existence, at least for now. I have lots more to say along this line of thought, but that's enough for now. I'm tired. Please comment I'd like to see some discussion.
Why blog?
I'm not usually one to shove my opinion in other's faces, nor am I one who considers his own opinions and ideas to be vastly greater in value than those of others. Still, I'm going to expose you all (or more likely, you few) to some of my passing ideas, philosophies, experiences, etc. with the hope that you'll draw something of at least small value from them. I've never blogged before. This'll be a little experiment, and we'll see how it goes. One thing you should know is that I don't take myself particularly seriously, and that everything I say on here will all be in good fun. So please, no one take offense when I kick this blog off with a list of my hates.
Here goes:
I hate...
mtv
Catcher in the Rye
political correctness
pretentious people
obnoxious people
Facebook
texting
hardcore feminism
politics
uggs
liars
country music
the Nissan Cube
serious bumper stickers
that's all for now
Here goes:
I hate...
mtv
Catcher in the Rye
political correctness
pretentious people
obnoxious people
texting
hardcore feminism
politics
uggs
liars
country music
the Nissan Cube
serious bumper stickers
that's all for now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)