Nihilism – Why the Hell Should Anything Exist?

[Infinitatis]

nihilism (as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

Those of the INTP personality are among the most likely to have a nihilistic perspective of life. As an agnostic, nihilism in its general sense seems to point to the abstractions and enigma of life that I wonder about regularly.

What is life? Why do we have life?

From an atheist's perspective: why did the universe give rise to the development of life? Does the universe have anything to gain from life? Why do certain things happen the way they do? Why do things consistently behave in certain ways? Does the universe have anything to gain, per se, from this order? Why do we have morality? Is morality strictly an evolutionary set of guidelines to protect a species?

From a creationist's perspective: why did God (or a god) create life? Why is life better than no life? Why is there a god? What does a god have to gain from something he creates? Does it entertain him? Does it give him company? Why has this god defined our morality in the way that he has?

Why the hell does anything exist? And since things do exist, why do they have to exist?

 

[Black Rose]

It intends to exist.
As I am existence.
I am the universe.
I decide what is good.
And I do not perish.
I am everlasting.

Since I am the collective.
The collective seeks unity.
Unity is the bliss and purpose of who we are.
The final culmination of Life.

Immanentize the eschaton

 

[Cognisant]

Why the hell does anything exist?

Within a set of infinite possibilities everything that can exist will exist.

And since things do exist, why do they have to exist?

Why does existence itself exist and continues to exist despite their being no apparent reason for its existence? I doubt even a god could answer that.

What is life? Why do we have life?

I can't decide this for you.

Personally I like to think all organisms are molecular machines and our instincts/desires are something like a program's script, but by virtue of being self aware we humans have the capacity to subvert our own Darwinian programming and strive for ideals more abstract than mere survival.

The artist that creates art for its own sake, not for profit, not for recognition.
That's pointless, absurd, futile, insane.
And they're just words

 

[Intolerable]

That's a good question.

We have a bias regarding our place in the world and how valuable we are. So it really cannot be trusted. Better to look at things objectively.

We're quite puny as are all life forms we know of. In regards to the cosmos and the universe. We don't live very long and what we think are long-standing monuments to our existence are mere blips on the radar of the cosmos.

I think taking in all objective truths we aren't very important. That isn't to say we can't make a place for ourselves in the universe. It just means we don't have yet what we claim to have. Maybe if we can find a way to sustain off this rock, to exist longer, to collectively solve the riddle of generational wisdom shedding then perhaps the future will be ours. Until I see that I'm not convinced and will likely go to my grave this way.

 

[al.otakupunk]

Really, when you think about it, everything exists for no apparent reason. Including the universe itself. I mean, why are there stars? Why are there planets? The universe and everything in it was basically an accident that happened almost out of nowhere billions of years ago. So in the grand scheme of things, nothing and nobody means anything to the universe... especially not us. We're a few atoms on a dust bunny for all anybody knows.

Hence, that is why I don't try too hard to impress anybody... you're no more or less important than me at the end of the day, so why should I kowtow?

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

 

[onesteptwostep]

I have a counter-argument.

If there's a 20 dollar bill on the floor, why is it on the floor? Why does it have to be on the floor? I think the question becomes pointless when you pick it up.

Similarly existence is to be lived, because it's in our nature, either collectively or individually, to

 

[Infinitatis]

I have a counter-argument.

To what claim?

If there's a 20 dollar bill on the floor, why is it on the floor? Why does it have to be on the floor? I think the question becomes pointless when you pick it up.

I disagree. I think we assume the reason to be unimportant because we can guess with a satisfactory amount of accuracy what the cause was: the bill dropped out of someone's pocket or wallet. In a world where no one ever dropped or lost money and where bills appeared randomly on the streets, I believe that the question as to how the bills got there would be very intriguing to most people.

Similarly existence is to be lived, because it's in our nature, either collectively or individually, to

As I do believe we live in a deterministic universe, I agree that our existence, our living, etc. is inevitable. I don't necessarily mean to look for an answer with any of the questions that I had asked; instead, I mean to simply raise the questions, and point to the uncertainties of ideas we often take for granted. I don't be believe that any of these questions can or will be answered in the near future, or perhaps ever.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I disagree. I think we assume the reason to be unimportant because we can guess with a satisfactory amount of accuracy what the cause was: the bill dropped out of someone's pocket or wallet. In a world where no one ever dropped or lost money and where bills appeared randomly on the streets, I believe that the question as to how the bills got there would be very intriguing to most people.

I think you might have missed the point I was making. The point is that we do exist, therefore living in it makes the 'why' question pointless. A person enjoying life to the full doesn't question why he is living life to the full, let alone question the existence he is living in, he merely lives it.

The only utility nihilism seems to have is to reflect on his or her person or to entice discussion. Maybe that in itself is alluding to a secret?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

A person enjoying life to the full doesn't question why he is living life to the full, let alone question the existence he is living in, he merely lives it.

This questioning can be a part of living one's life to the fullest.

Every reflection and theory may have enough significance to become an action.

 

[Haim]

The problem is that you are trying to apply human concept to things which are not human.
Meaning is just an emotion,it does not exist,not that the universe have negative meaning it is that meaning does not apply to it in the first place,you individually choose that meaning,and it live only inside of you,if you decide that eating pie is the meaning of life then it is,if you decide it has no meaning then it is(negative meaning),but remember that the universe is no human,you saying it is meaningless is only your subjective emotion not a logical conclusion,that came from emotional type of thinking,one where true or false or chance does not apply.

"Why is life better than no life?" I have a gift called life,I choose to take it because I feel like it and I am not an idiot throwing gift around.(an emotional type of thinking statement)
god?first the chance of god to exist is so low that I can declare that god does not exist,second if it were to exist I still would not care what god wants,I do what I want.Also even if you go by religious claims,god is no human and has no emotion,so meaning does not apply to him either.

 

[Happy]

Does it really matter?

Whatever the reason for our existence, the sheer scale of everything that does, has and will exist should indicate that the reason for our existence (if any) is beyond our comprehension anyway.
(I hope that makes sense - I'm trying to say that the search for an ultimate answer is self destructive, so perhaps we should just abandon it and define our own meaning.)

 

[Frankie]

Does it really matter?

Whatever the reason for our existence, the sheer scale of everything that does, has and will exist should indicate that the reason for our existence (if any) is beyond our comprehension anyway.

For now anyway.

I think we are not yet equipped to answer this question satisfactorily. Perhaps if we gain a lot more knowledge and become interplanetary species and find a way to communicate with other species in the universe, we might get closer to the answer.

Alternatively, we could advance computer technology to the point where they can answer this type of question or preferably, to the point where they could advance themselves in order to solve more complex problems.

In any case, right now, we're faced with a stone wall that we don't have the means to break through.

 

[Infinitatis]

Within a set of infinite possibilities everything that can exist will exist.

This is based upon multiverse theories, though. I'm looking to the root of the question. Why does anything (e.g. life, our universe, every universe, possibility, reason, chance, etc.) exist?

Why does existence itself exist and continues to exist despite their being no apparent reason for its existence? I doubt even a god could answer that.

Exactly. I don't seek answers. I seek insight.

Personally I like to think all organisms are molecular machines and our instincts/desires are something like a program's script, but by virtue of being self aware we humans have the capacity to subvert our own Darwinian programming and strive for ideals more abstract than mere survival.

Similarly, as I do believe physicalism (Essentially the idea that everything in the universe is physical; if you're interested, you may enjoy researching it.) to be true, I like to think of life as a complex machine. However I do think that what humans consider to be ideal (which is dependent upon a human's circumstances) is evolutionary and advantageous, though often detrimental, to human survival.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Infinitatis]

I think you might have missed the point I was making. The point is that we do exist, therefore living in it makes the 'why' question pointless.

This is the point I thought you were trying to make, but I still disagree. Perhaps my point was unclear. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I don't understand how the "why" of anything could be "pointless." What does pragmatism have to do with existence? Pragmatism doesn't cause existence.

A person enjoying life to the full doesn't question why he is living life to the full, let alone question the existence he is living in, he merely lives it.

Living life to the fullest can only be evaluated subjectively (or at least not in ways considered to be objective). Questioning everything is something I intend to do until I cease to exist. Furthermore, I am not referring to how we take advantage of our existence, but rather to how we exist.

The only utility nihilism seems to have is to reflect on his or her person or to entice discussion. Maybe that in itself is alluding to a secret?

If you mean to say that nihilism can never be proven, then I completely agree. I don't see nihilism as an outlook on life, but more of an intriguing concept to generate ideas with. Or maybe I don't know exactly what you mean.

 

[Infinitatis]

This questioning can be a part of living one's life to the fullest.

Every reflection and theory may have enough significance to become an action

I agree completely with that.

 

[Haim]

This is based upon multiverse theories, though. I'm looking to the root of the question. Why does anything (e.g. life, our universe, every universe, possibility, reason, chance, etc.) exist?

The why is your emotion,you are the only one that can give an answer to that,the universe is not human he literally has no reason he just exist.

 

[Infinitatis]

The problem is that you are trying to apply human concept to things which are not human.

While that may be a typical and expected approach to dealing with these questions, that is precisely what I'm not doing. My questions are meant to point to the the paradox of the universe's existence, including human reason's existence.

Meaning is just an emotion,it does not exist,not that the universe have negative meaning it is that meaning does not apply to it in the first place,you individually choose that meaning,and it live only inside of you,if you decide that eating pie is the meaning of life then it is,if you decide it has no meaning then it is(negative meaning),but remember that the universe is no human,

Meaning is just an emotion? I disagree. I believe that meaning and root cause are effectively synonymous. Things have cause because they mean something; things have meaning because they cause something. But what causes the universe, i.e. what does the universe mean? Melancholy – that's an emotion.

you saying it is meaningless is only your subjective emotion not a logical conclusion,that came from emotional type of thinking,one where true or false or chance does not apply.

"Why is life better than no life?" I have a gift called life,I choose to take it because I feel like it and I am not an idiot throwing gift around.(an emotional type of thinking statement

I have not stated nor attempted to persuade that life is meaningless. I am simply discussing how strange existence is.

god?first the chance of god to exist is so low that I can declare that god does not exist,

This is an assumption. Even by your own statement, you have said that there exists a chance. It is not impossible unless there is no chance. Though you can technically declare that, a declaration doesn't make it true. That does not mean that I believe that a god exists, but that a god could be an equally plausible way to explain the universe.

second if it were to exist I still would not care what god wants,I do what I want.Also even if you go by religious claims,god is no human and has no emotion,so meaning does not apply to him either.

While this is somewhat tangential, I'll discuss this for discussion's sake. As a determinist (You may enjoy researching determinism.), I believe that everything happens for a reason (in the literal sense), and as a physicalist (You may enjoy researching physicalism as well.), I believe that free will is an illusion. No evidence can currently refute that a god does not exist, so it is possible that we are being controlled by how the said god created the universe. I encourage you to check out my thread on determinism and physicalism if you have not already. Additionally, though I disagree with your reasoning as to how meaning is an emotion, I don't believe you can necessarily conclude that a god cannot have emotion.

Perhaps I could understand or even agree with your claims if they were more than just claims. If you could layout your reasoning, that would be most helpful.

 

[Infinitatis]

Does it really matter?

Whatever the reason for our existence, the sheer scale of everything that does, has and will exist should indicate that the reason for our existence (if any) is beyond our comprehension anyway.
(I hope that makes sense - I'm trying to say that the search for an ultimate answer is self destructive...)

This is a rather satisfying self-referential concept: the idea that nothing matters, and thus that it doesn't matter whether or not it's true that nothing matters. This is exactly the type of thinking that I'm getting at. However, I don't agree, nor disagree, that an ultimate answer cannot be reached.

...perhaps we should just abandon it and define our own meaning.

Intriguing. We may think we have been searching for objective meaning, but in actuality, we may have just defined it.

 

[Infinitatis]

The why is your emotion,you are the only one that can give an answer to that,the universe is not human he literally has no reason he just exist.

Can you explain how the "why" is my emotion? I disagree. Your argument is paradoxical. You say that the "why" (i.e. the reason) is my emotion, yet you posit that the reason I ask why is because of my emotion.

 

[Infinitatis]

For now anyway.

I think we are not yet equipped to answer this question satisfactorily. Perhaps if we gain a lot more knowledge and become interplanetary species and find a way to communicate with other species in the universe, we might get closer to the answer.

...

In any case, right now, we're faced with a stone wall that we don't have the means to break through.

This just about summarizes how I feel about the meaning of the universe.

 

[bvanevery]

From an atheist's perspective: why did the universe give rise to the development of life?

Asymmetry in the Big Bang.

Does the universe have anything to gain from life?

No. The universe began with random action. It has no motive or goal.

Why do certain things happen the way they do? Why do things consistently behave in certain ways?

They are the patterns in our section of the universe that have self-reinforced. It remains to be seen if they hold in other parts of the universe. We haven't been everywhere else.

Does the universe have anything to gain, per se, from this order?

No, see above.

Why do we have morality?

It is an artifact of our evolutionary biology. If you were a praying mantis, you'd be good with ripping the heads off of males to reproduce. If you were a lion, you'd be ok with killing lion cubs that you didn't sire.

Is morality strictly an evolutionary set of guidelines to protect a species?

In its broadest strokes, yes. Don't kill your own herd.

From a creationist's perspective: why did God (or a god) create life?

Not interesting 'cuz it's wrong. Evolution is compelling. Abiogenesis isn't that difficult to understand and has been proven in the laboratory. You can get amino acids to spontaneously form.

Why is life better than no life?

Because we live it.

Why is there a god? What does a god have to gain from something he creates? Does it entertain him? Does it give him company? Why has this god defined our morality in the way that he has?

I see no evidence that any gods are interfering in human affairs. I see overwhelming evidence that human beings make up gods to secure resources for ruling elites.

Why the hell does anything exist?

It is the one question I'm totally agnostic on. Once the universe exists and particles differentiate from each other, I'm good with evolution (including chemical evolution) as explanation for everything. We are seeing the patterns that happened to effectively reinforce themselves.

And since things do exist, why do they have to exist?

They don't. Any section of the universe, and the entire universe itself, can be destroyed.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This is the point I thought you were trying to make, but I still disagree. Perhaps my point was unclear. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I don't understand how the "why" of anything could be "pointless." What does pragmatism have to do with existence? Pragmatism doesn't cause existence.

The pragmatism I applied was to the idea, not to existence.

If you mean to say that nihilism can never be proven, then I completely agree. I don't see nihilism as an outlook on life, but more of an intriguing concept to generate ideas with. Or maybe I don't know exactly what you mean.

That's sort of what I mean when I said it's to entice discussion.

 

[QuickTwist]

The why is your emotion,you are the only one that can give an answer to that,the universe is not human he literally has no reason he just exist.

How can you even begin to put a value on something like the universe? Maybe we (as life that can think on a relatively high level) have the question of why inherent in us. If that is the case then all statements meant to say that asking why is not beneficial to the universe is saying the universe has a relatively small value. That would make our own value absolutely incalculable since we have yet to find life anywhere else. Perhaps we (life) actually are an important part of the universe. Important maybe, but definitely still a blip of the cosmos. So for that we have to say our value, as we are only a small part of the universe, we are nowhere close to the value of the universe as a whole. Coming from this perspective, it is easy to see that we may not be the only life of the universe. Still, if the universe is really that asymmetrical I see no reason why we can't be the only life in the universe.

I would say that maybe if we can start to have an influence on the universe rather than simply feeding off its substance is when we might be able to answer both the value that life has as well as answering the purpose of our existence. But in myself saying this as a relatively uneducated person I am sure life is closer to being an influence than I would give us credit for.

 

[PaulMaster]

Just because we dont know why doesnt mean there isn't a reason. But I say we dont know why its all here. They're only scratching the surface of HOW its all here. I predict the answer to why is too far away - we're not going to make it that far in time or distance.

As far as the purpose of human life on Earth - its simply to survive and replicate. Essentially two sides of the same coin. We are mammals and nothing more. Value is subjective. We are free to determine the value of this existence as we please.

"Why the hell does anything exist? And since things do exist, why do they have to exist?"

Things exist because life has enough power to exist. It has the capability so it exercises that capability. Life's will is to be alive.

Things do not have to exist. Things dont exist all the time. Even things that do exist wont exist one day. Nor did they exist for a very, very long time.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Why did you make the OP?

 

[deltamind106]

After a decade or so of analysis of quantum mechanics, I've decided that there are 2 possibilities for why the universe exists: a) Some "designer" designed and created it on purpose, or b) There are "zillions" of universes and we are living in one that happens to have the laws of physics that support the rise of intelligent life. I have no idea whether (a) or (b) is correct, nor do I believe we will ever know. It is however, an interesting question to ponder.

 

[PaulMaster]

After a decade or so of analysis of quantum mechanics, I've decided that there are 2 possibilities for why the universe exists: a) Some "designer" designed and created it on purpose, or b) There are "zillions" of universes and we are living in one that happens to have the laws of physics that support the rise of intelligent life. I have no idea whether (a) or (b) is correct, nor do I believe we will ever know. It is however, an interesting question to ponder.

From your experience and expertise, would you say that there are configurations other than the current configuration of the universe and its governing laws that would be able to exist?

For example, could a universe exist and support life with, say, a different speed of light or a different gravitational value?

 

[deltamind106]

From your experience and expertise, would you say that there are configurations other than the current configuration of the universe and its governing laws that would be able to exist?

For example, could a universe exist and support life with, say, a different speed of light or a different gravitational value?

Yes, but the window of variation for most of the various physical constants of the universe is quite narrow, for life to exist. For example, it is has been theoretically (and arguably) shown, that if the gravitational constant "G" had been slightly higher (like a few percent higher), then the universe would have collapsed in a great crunch within seconds of its formation. And if "G" had been slightly lower (as in a few percent lower), then the universe would consist of scattered hydrogen atoms with no stars. Both scenarios lead not only to no life, but also to no structure of consequence in the universe. The window of variation for "G" that allows anything to exist is quite narrow, but it is not zero.

Most of the physical constants have been shown to have similar properties, all of which leads to the the "Goldilocks" enigma-- why does the universe seem to have all these apparently fortuitous properties that not only allow life to exist, but allow any structures of consequence to exist in the universe?

The thing is, there are MANY more combinations of physical constants that lead to "nothing" in the universe, compared to the combinations of physical constants that lead to "structures of consequence" in the universe. By "many more" I mean on the order of "trillions (or more) to one".

So, if there is/was/will-be only one universe with one set of physical constants, then we are apparently "awfully lucky" that it has the physical constants that it has. Or, more likely, the universe was designed purposefully by some entity who exists outside our universe who knew what they were doing. Where this designer came from is another question, one which we'll never be able to answer. But the fact that we can't answer where the designer might have come from doesn't negate the possible validity of the argument that universe could have been designed. (Some philosophers like to argue that believing in the possibility of a designer of our universe is only meaningful/valid if you can also then go on to demonstrate where the designer came from).

The only other reasonable possibility is the "many universes" theory. Here we just say that there are "zillions" of universes, all with random properties. Of course the overwhelming majority of these universes contain nothing of consequence. So naturally, we simply find ourselves in an instance of the universe with the fortuitous properties that allow us to exist.

How to pick between these two possibilities? I don't think we'll ever know.

 

[PaulMaster]

Yes, but the window of variation for most of the various physical constants of the universe is quite narrow, for life to exist. For example, it is has been theoretically (and arguably) shown, that if the gravitational constant "G" had been slightly higher (like a few percent higher), then the universe would have collapsed in a great crunch within seconds of its formation. And if "G" had been slightly lower (as in a few percent lower), then the universe would consist of scattered hydrogen atoms with no stars. Both scenarios lead not only to no life, but also to no structure of consequence in the universe. The window of variation for "G" that allows anything to exist is quite narrow, but it is not zero.

Most of the physical constants have been shown to have similar properties, all of which leads to the the "Goldilocks" enigma-- why does the universe seem to have all these apparently fortuitous properties that not only allow life to exist, but allow any structures of consequence to exist in the universe?

The thing is, there are MANY more combinations of physical constants that lead to "nothing" in the universe, compared to the combinations of physical constants that lead to "structures of consequence" in the universe. By "many more" I mean on the order of "trillions (or more) to one".

So, if there is/was/will-be only one universe with one set of physical constants, then we are apparently "awfully lucky" that it has the physical constants that it has. Or, more likely, the universe was designed purposefully by some entity who exists outside our universe who knew what they were doing. Where this designer came from is another question, one which we'll never be able to answer. But the fact that we can't answer where the designer might have come from doesn't negate the possible validity of the argument that universe could have been designed. (Some philosophers like to argue that believing in the possibility of a designer of our universe is only meaningful/valid if you can also then go on to demonstrate where the designer came from).

The only other reasonable possibility is the "many universes" theory. Here we just say that there are "zillions" of universes, all with random properties. Of course the overwhelming majority of these universes contain nothing of consequence. So naturally, we simply find ourselves in an instance of the universe with the fortuitous properties that allow us to exist.

How to pick between these two possibilities? I don't think we'll ever know.

Excellent answer.

So if there is a narrow window (those values would be infinitely divisible and could support "zillions" of universes) for physical constants, I would think this means all universes that can contain life would be somewhat similar.

As far as being "awfully lucky" that this one exists, I've never really liked that idea. It feels backwards. Like we are reading a sentence backwards. I've always liked to look at it as us - life in general - being natural outcomes of this configuration. Grass would say its lucky that soil is exactly the way it is. But I say soil is a certain way, therefore grass grows. Maybe both are equally correct. The same way an equation can be read both ways, this luckiness/natural extension-ness can be read in both directions. Value is subjective, after all.

A creator...maybe. A creator that created the whole of reality - the entire universe - for the purpose of giving life a place to live seems far fetched to me. A creator of some sort that made the entire universe where life is a kind of by product sounds better to me.

 

[Tannhauser]

The only other reasonable possibility is the "many universes" theory.

Not really. It just means that in order to make the current universe "probable" you would need a high number of universes in total. But it doesn't make sense to talk about probabilities from the vantage point of already having seen the outcome. Actually it doesn't make sense to talk about probabilities at all with regards to an experiment you cannot repeat.

The human mind wants everything to have a "likely" explanation, and that everything should be coherent and intuitive on a commonsense level. That will never work when talking about ontology, and will always be a waste of time.

 

[Happy]

I hope the answer is something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_CyMqQBO8w

 

[Haim]

Can you explain how the "why" is my emotion? I disagree. Your argument is paradoxical. You say that the "why" (i.e. the reason) is my emotion, yet you posit that the reason I ask why is because of my emotion.

I meant that you made up that question, you give meaning to things, it not that they actually have some meaning, the question(the why) exists only in your brain.A stone is a stone, it has no meaning, as a human you can give it meaning, for example it is a stone I throwed at a bully so it's meaning is to protect me, outside your brain it is just a meaningless stone.Replace "emotion" with "idea".

About god, you need to draw the line somewhere, agnostic don't want to draw it, I find it useful for having it.False and true in my brain are about chance, false is just close to zero chance, it is inefficient to not put some things on false(as god)

 

[deltamind106]

Not really. It just means that in order to make the current universe "probable" you would need a high number of universes in total. But it doesn't make sense to talk about probabilities from the vantage point of already having seen the outcome. Actually it doesn't make sense to talk about probabilities at all with regards to an experiment you cannot repeat.

No, I think it DOES make sense to analyze probabilities about an experiment, even one you can't repeat. For example, go back to the 19th century and consider the the people arguing back then about how intelligent life appeared on earth. Many people believed that humans must have been designed by a creator, due to all the complexities involved in the human anatomy. How else could all that beautiful synergistic complexity have appeared, without a designer? But Darwin came along and provided another explanation-- that of incremental evolution over zillions of slightly imperfect copies of organisms.

We can't repeat the experiment of human evolution, but it makes a lot of sense to me to analyze it: what was the most likely path to the appearance of human beings on earth. Are we the result of the iterative imperfect copies of apes, or did a magician scrape up some dirt and breathe on it? No one can prove it one way or the other with certainty, but I find it useful to consider the possibilities and their associated probabilities.

The human mind wants everything to have a "likely" explanation, and that everything should be coherent and intuitive on a commonsense level. That will never work when talking about ontology, and will always be a waste of time.

Of course we want an explanation. Here we are... the universe exists. But how and why? Why is it this way and not some other way? If that question doesn't interest you, then so be it. But I find it fascinating, and so do many people. And I don't consider my fascination with ontology to be some kind of shortcoming with my human mind. In fact, I find it to be one of the defining characteristics of the human mind.

While I agree that we'll never conclusively prove much regarding ontology, I don't think that necessarily means it's all a giant waste of time. There's lot's to be considered. And there's a lot of probable bunk out there too that should be exposed for what it is. If some respected scholar says "little green leprechauns created the universe from pixie dust," then I find it useful to discount that as an unlikely possibility. Even though I can't strictly disprove it.

 

[Tannhauser]

No, I think it DOES make sense to analyze probabilities about an experiment, even one you can't repeat. For example, go back to the 19th century and consider the the people arguing back then about how intelligent life appeared on earth. Many people believed that humans must have been designed by a creator, due to all the complexities involved in the human anatomy. How else could all that beautiful synergistic complexity have appeared, without a designer? But Darwin came along and provided another explanation-- that of incremental evolution over zillions of slightly imperfect copies of organisms.

We can't repeat the experiment of human evolution, but it makes a lot of sense to me to analyze it: what was the most likely path to the appearance of human beings on earth. Are we the result of the iterative imperfect copies of apes, or did a magician scrape up some dirt and breathe on it? No one can prove it one way or the other with certainty, but I find it useful to consider the possibilities and their associated probabilities.

I remember reading about exactly this kind of reasoning in Popper's "Conjectures & Refutations". His point there was that it doesn't make sense to think of good theories as "probable". It is not how scientific theories work, at least. Instead, you actually come up with extremely improbable and counterintuitive theories, and try to corroborate them by doing experiments which aim to falsify them. Think about General Relativity, for example. Would it exist if Einstein aimed at "probable", intuitive and common-sense based ideas?

Evolution can be, btw, replicated to some extent. You can do experiments even in a laboratory, with bacteria etc.

 

[Haim]

If Einstein would only based his thoughts on experiment, he would have never made his theories.Einstein did not just "boom" here is relativity theory, he built it slowly, taking out what is improbable and taking in what is probably.So yes Einstein did go to probable ideas, just the other way around, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth(probable)"
Anyway the scientific method is only one method that has it's limits, you can not make every experiment yourself, and not anything can be experimented(or reasonable experimented), also the scientific method is not fitted for every case, I don't think it will be efficent way to get a date or for some types of philosophy(understanding humans), when we try we get so much statistical based bullshit.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I can't handle how serious this shit is. Like, what if we all were to disappear right now? That would stand no chance of ever getting to make sense to anyone. But nothing really does. It's important to consider the tasks and duties of the symbiotic node from which the subjective experience emanates.

Personally i have noted my face morphing and twisting due to a cluster of synergistic factors exerting an influence best summed up as a "curse". I have even noted this during times of great hope and bravery. The conviction is now firm and solid, regardless of external assurances. Every face that emerges runs the risk of getting twisted into a spiral form, but every organism must learn this separately and the knowledge must withstand purgatory. Only those pure and straight will remain. Failure to convince others of our function as moral deterrents - of our uniqueness in any regard - is the perpetual destiny of those who were too vain to align with the trajectory of a supernova, and our twisted faces will come to laugh at an emperor so naked that his intestines are kept in place by sun plasma. We are free to behold but sentenced to burn. That is all.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Nothing accidentally the whole existence