


Alright alright, enough!!
It's too late in the GODDAMM EVENING to be waxing lyrical about the ins and outs of the multiverse. I'm letting it do its own thing, so should you!!
Whether the universe is absolute or relative is moot. All we know is that our knowledge of the universe is subjective and base on relations. The important question is, is the information about the universe beyond our perceptions relevant? The question, "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it exist at all?" boils down to, "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, is it worth thinking about? Does it matter that it has fallen?"danielwang wrote: *****
Deep philosophy time... I'd like to tell you about my abstracted, mathematical view of the universe. I did not ever tajke a philosophy class, but yes, I did make this up completely by myself, inspired by mathematical principles of society.
A link to a full writeup is availible upon request, though it is many pages.
*****
1.
What defines anything, defines us? Everything in the universe is relative. Not as in Einstein's theory of universal relativity, but of logic applied to objects...
So in all, everything in the universe has a relation to another object, it does something, or it might as well not exist. To quote: "A rock does not exist until you see it", "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it exist at all?"
2.
What is absolute value? What defines it as being relevant?
All value can be extrapolated from the universal principle of patter and order. Not pattern and order derived from chaos, but true systems.
From that, we have life and knowledge. From that, society.
Take for example, humans. Compared to another species, we may not even be sentient, there indeed many limitations to the thought processes we can have. But the fact that we (1) know that we exist (2) have considered our role in the grand scheme of things, such as this, and (3) know what prime numbers are useful for, defines the value and being of the universe.
3.
what is motive and purpose? Through value and pattern, understand the method and manifestation of the universe. Not even just the universe, there may be other abstract ideas theologists may not even be dreaming of. What if the universe, and us, are just a neuron, a quantum system inside a huge other dimension, and others like us, or unlike us exist? The purpose of our being is to discover all there is to know, which is theoretically impossible by the very nature of it.
This depends on what you value more: yourself or society. Most people realize for themselves by the time they reach adolescence that being completely selfish is not good for society. I think the reason some people are still selfish is that they value their own happiness over the the happiness of the population.danielwang wrote: *****
Now it's time for my realistic, common, everyday life philosophy. Although abstract sounding, thsic an be applied to real life.
*****
Let's assume that all of our abstract views are, hypothetically, hereby true. How do we, in practical, everyday situations, accomplish our purpose in the universe in relation to value (or even anything)?
Consider the mathematical principles of production in closed system dynamics.
If each of us are nodes, then we each have a realistic cost to society and contribution. Although in terms of resources we can support infinitely many people, compared against society we must think of averages. Value is keeping our total system up.
All that math and abstract ideas filter down into one word: altruism
We must give back more than we take, and be efficient as possible when doing so, as tro increase the average. Being lower than the average keeps it down.
If a jar of marbles is left by itself, then the only way to allow the marbles to stay at a level is to keep the infinite and total average to or greater than 0, or equilibrium.
If the marbles out equals marbles in, we have total equilibrium.
If marbles out exceeds marbles in, we have loss (not good).
If everyone immediately adds more marbles than they take, they amount of marbles keeps going up and up and up and up and up.
We all have a common debt from the marble jar of life. We have a realistic cost, of existing, and realistically, of using up resources such as air. If you are a burden to society to support, you had better contribute to it. That's the entire point of it.
And how to apply this to practical life? There's one thing people don't quite seem to understand: that the group interest always takes priority over their own. Albeit, I do not completely enfore this rule, but being completely selfish is certainly not good for society.
Unless the tree that fell smashes the Mayan equivalent, let's say, of the Rosetta Stone, or the tree falls on your house while you're on vacation. Just because humanity is currently absent at the time of the event does not mean that such events, no matter how small they may be, are of no consequence. Are they worth thinking about? Probably not (you try thinking of every single spec of matter for a while, you'll get tired) but do they matter? Definately. After all, a butterfly flaps its wings and causes a snow storm in New York. The moral of the story? Exterminate all butterflies if you don't like snow storms and live in New York.downwithpants wrote:The question, "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it exist at all?" boils down to, "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, is it worth thinking about? Does it matter that it has fallen?"
In terms of the specific tree that has fallen, no, because it is impossible for us to refer to that specific tree without either sensory perception of the tree, or secondary reference of the sensory perception of the tree (say, a photograph or fossil records). Because we cannot refer to the tree, we cannot conceive any justified beliefs about the tree.
While the unobserved tree may or may not exist, the tree is not important to us because we have no reference to it. More broadly, there is no point in thinking about things that will not affect our perception and knowledge of the universe.
Sorry, I should have clarified. When I say beyond the scope of perception, I'm talking about beyond perception at all times. Your examples don't qualify as beyond the scope of perception unless no one ever perceives the tree or the effects of the tree (i.e. the smashed Mayan Rosetta Stone, or my house, god forbid).alternatefutures wrote:Unless the tree that fell smashes the Mayan equivalent, let's say, of the Rosetta Stone, or the tree falls on your house while you're on vacation. Just because humanity is currently absent at the time of the event does not mean that such events, no matter how small they may be, are of no consequence.downwithpants wrote:The question, "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it exist at all?" boils down to, "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, is it worth thinking about? Does it matter that it has fallen?"
In terms of the specific tree that has fallen, no, because it is impossible for us to refer to that specific tree without either sensory perception of the tree, or secondary reference of the sensory perception of the tree (say, a photograph or fossil records). Because we cannot refer to the tree, we cannot conceive any justified beliefs about the tree.
While the unobserved tree may or may not exist, the tree is not important to us because we have no reference to it. More broadly, there is no point in thinking about things that will not affect our perception and knowledge of the universe.
This is taken into account in my full writeup.. I justified the realistic equivalent of certain type of production by indicating the mathematical principle of synergy. Your example is the logistic value of security if nobody stole, this can be similarly worked out for other thigns as well. Our absolute value, knowledge is a factor of value production, as with resources, as with even money.However, nonselfish people act benevolently to create a society where the returns exceed the costs of maintaining the society. Often returns and costs are not added up like marbles, but rather add up synergistically. For example, if a community commits themselves not to steal from each other, the cost to each member is that they cannot gain goods by stealing from each other, but the gain to each member is that they cannot lose goods from theft (which makes up for the cost), but in addition they do not need to buy locks for their doors, they can sleep more easily at night, and they are motivated to earn money and purchase goods, knowing that they will not lose them to theft.
This seems to be a restatement of my exception that an object does not have a functional existance if it is moving at the speed of light away from everything (and quantum mechanics doesn't screw it up), correct? I mean, it's amazing how what we would describe as an imperceptible gravitational distortion can take a massive ice chunk that's happily floating in the Ort Cloud and send it screaming towards a date with the North American continent. My point is, as long as something can exert any influence on objects within the functional universe it cannot be considered non-existant as even the subtlest of forces can create massive causal ripples.downwithpants wrote:When I say beyond the scope of perception, I'm talking about beyond perception at all times. Your examples don't qualify as beyond the scope of perception unless no one ever perceives the tree or the effects of the tree (i.e. the smashed Mayan Rosetta Stone, or my house, god forbid).
I'm not talking about events that are too small and undistinguishable (though perceptible) to be relevant or important. I'm talking about events that we never perceive (but possibly real or existent) as being irrelevant.