|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 20, 2023 14:27:33 GMT
Asimov wrote of that idea in his short story The Last Question, published in 1956. Ray Kurzweil has also suggested that some future transhumanist amalgam of computers and humans could accomplish the same thing (something that has been called the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle). Some could say it's Something Maximizing Actual Reasoning and Technology... You caught that, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 20, 2023 14:28:54 GMT
I don't think the Bible says anything about that. C.S. Lewis said, certainly not. A strange book, but I would recommend The Great Divorce by Lewis. Here's a brief summary of Lewis's view in contrast to William Blake (who "suggested that the only way for humans to be truly enlightened was to “marry” Heaven and Hell in their lives—in other words, to be kind and lawful (Heavenly), but also proud and devious (Hellish). Blake further suggested that a life lived according to traditional Christian values would be boring, repetitive, and overly 'prudish,'"; from link below): "Lewis’s second major line of attack against Blake is to present Hell as a boring, repetitive, and ultimately meaningless place—essentially, taking Blake’s criticism of Heaven and applying it to Hell. Hell, as depicted by Lewis, is far from the creative haven that Blake posited. On the contrary, damned souls barely interact with one another at all, and most of them have drifted millions of miles away. There are many creative people in Hell, but because they lack the true “spark” of beauty and enlightenment that Heaven alone can provide, they’re incapable of producing great art or philosophy. Lewis then delivers the final blow to Blake’s ideas at the end of The Great Divorce when he reveals that Hell is tinier than Heaven—so tiny, indeed that it could fit inside a butterfly’s mouth. Lewis suggests that Hell, quite apart from being a worthy equal to Heaven, is actually almost nothing: put another way, evil is simply the absence of beauty, enlightenment, creativity, and all the other things that only Heaven can provide. In short, Lewis argues that Blake was wrong to fetishize Hell—the supposed merits of Hell are either 1) not really merits at all, or 2) actually found in Heaven." www.litcharts.com/lit/the-great-divorce/themes/heaven-hell-and-the-great-divorceI was actually making a joke based on Sartre's remark about Hell, a metaphoric Hell, as it were. But it's interesting to see the theories people concoct about places (heaven and Hell) that presuppose that there is a life after death of which we don't have the slightest proof. It would be like attempting to build a house of cards... on air. As I said previously; even if God's existence was a given, there is still zero proof that he would have bothered to create another place, different in nature from this universe, where the laws of physics don't apply and we can be re-created after death and live there forever. Even if God actually communicated with us there is still zero proof that he would tell us the truth. The simplistic notion that God couldn't and wouldn't lie is laughably ridiculous and naïve (for one thing God created creatures that can lie, why would he be less than what he's created?) and that's assuming that we knew for sure that God communicated with us. People believed so much that their personal brand of religion was true that in 1978 more than 900 of them killed themselves. What makes you think that people two thousand years ago would be any wiser and smarter? I often hear the argument that people were ready to die for their faith and that that is a proof of some sort. I am sorry but that doesn't prove anything, people kill themselves for the falsest and stupidest of reasons. What do you mean by "created another place"? Surely you don't think that the physical reality we experience is "all that there is"...? |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 20, 2023 17:20:24 GMT
"ho skolex auton" is usually translated as "their worm", and I was always taught that the worm was referring to the people cast into hell fire. Wow, I've never heard that interpretation before! Oh yeah, when I was young, that was a key passage for eternal torment. Not only would the fires of Hell never be quenched, but the worms cast in would never die. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 23, 2023 17:29:32 GMT
I was actually making a joke based on Sartre's remark about Hell, a metaphoric Hell, as it were. But it's interesting to see the theories people concoct about places (heaven and Hell) that presuppose that there is a life after death of which we don't have the slightest proof. It would be like attempting to build a house of cards... on air. As I said previously; even if God's existence was a given, there is still zero proof that he would have bothered to create another place, different in nature from this universe, where the laws of physics don't apply and we can be re-created after death and live there forever. Even if God actually communicated with us there is still zero proof that he would tell us the truth. The simplistic notion that God couldn't and wouldn't lie is laughably ridiculous and naïve (for one thing God created creatures that can lie, why would he be less than what he's created?) and that's assuming that we knew for sure that God communicated with us. People believed so much that their personal brand of religion was true that in 1978 more than 900 of them killed themselves. What makes you think that people two thousand years ago would be any wiser and smarter? I often hear the argument that people were ready to die for their faith and that that is a proof of some sort. I am sorry but that doesn't prove anything, people kill themselves for the falsest and stupidest of reasons. 1) What do you mean by "created another place"? 2) Surely you don't think that the physical reality we experience is "all that there is"...? 1) Well, in this place there is the second law of Thermodynamics, that says that eventually entropy will reach a maximum value which will prevent anything to happen, IOW death to all things... Some (maybe all) religious people presuppose the existence of a place where that law doesn't apply and things continue to happen... forever. 2) Do I have any reason not to? BTW, please refrain from calling me Shirley.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 23, 2023 19:00:14 GMT
1) What do you mean by "created another place"? 2) Surely you don't think that the physical reality we experience is "all that there is"...? 1) Well, in this place there is the second law of Thermodynamics, that says that eventually entropy will reach a maximum value which will prevent anything to happen, IOW death to all things... Some (maybe all) religious people presuppose the existence of a place where that law doesn't apply and things continue to happen... forever. 2) Do I have any reason not to? BTW, please refrain from calling me Shirley. Quantum mechanics, multiple universes (whether simultaneous or consecutive or both)...besides the fact that it is easy to demonstrate that there is physical reality that we "don't experience" (whether because it's simply too far to experience or we simply don't have the physical senses to experience it). Those are a few reasons... |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 23, 2023 22:35:06 GMT
1) Well, in this place there is the second law of Thermodynamics, that says that eventually entropy will reach a maximum value which will prevent anything to happen, IOW death to all things... Some (maybe all) religious people presuppose the existence of a place where that law doesn't apply and things continue to happen... forever. 2) Do I have any reason not to? BTW, please refrain from calling me Shirley. Quantum mechanics, multiple universes (whether simultaneous or consecutive or both)...besides the fact that it is easy to demonstrate that there is physical reality that we "don't experience" (whether because it's simply too far to experience or we simply don't have the physical senses to experience it). Those are a few reasons... Changing the meaning of words, are you? Of course, there are lots of things we don't experience because we are not there... Like 99. 999999999999999999999999999...percent of the universe. I didn't think that that's what you meant. Quantum Mechanics is science, it's not voodoo ( and neither will be multiple universes, If and when it's corroborated by a little more than just pure speculation)... I thought you meant the "supernatural" stuff which I think is bunk. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 23, 2023 22:45:45 GMT
Quantum mechanics, multiple universes (whether simultaneous or consecutive or both)...besides the fact that it is easy to demonstrate that there is physical reality that we "don't experience" (whether because it's simply too far to experience or we simply don't have the physical senses to experience it). Those are a few reasons... Changing the meaning of words, are you? Of course, there are lots of things we don't experience because we are not there... Like 99. 999999999999999999999999999...percent of the universe. I didn't think that that's what you meant. Quantum Mechanics is science, it's not voodoo ( and neither will be multiple universes, If and when it's corroborated by a little more than just pure speculation)... I thought you meant the "supernatural" stuff which I think is bunk. I didn't change the meaning of words. At the heart of the universe is, very definitively, "supernatural." Immediately after the Big Bang, natural laws as we know them did not yet exist. What happened was by definition "supernatural." By this, I'm not explicitly stating here that it was "the result of deity" (although I believe that to be true); I'm saying that what we experience and even natural laws is not the be-all and end-all of "everything that exists." Which should be obvious. As for "heaven" or "eternity with God" or whatever, it's not unreasonable to presume that this exists "outside of our experience." |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 23, 2023 23:01:54 GMT
Changing the meaning of words, are you? Of course, there are lots of things we don't experience because we are not there... Like 99. 999999999999999999999999999...percent of the universe. I didn't think that that's what you meant. Quantum Mechanics is science, it's not voodoo ( and neither will be multiple universes, If and when it's corroborated by a little more than just pure speculation)... I thought you meant the "supernatural" stuff which I think is bunk. I didn't change the meaning of words. At the heart of the universe is, very definitively, "supernatural." Immediately after the Big Bang, natural laws as we know them did not yet exist. What happened was by definition "supernatural." By this, I'm not explicitly stating here that it was "the result of deity" (although I believe that to be true); I'm saying that what we experience and even natural laws is not the be-all and end-all of "everything that exists." Which should be obvious. As for "heaven" or "eternity with God" or whatever, it's not unreasonable to presume that this exists "outside of our experience." I totally disagree with your idea that natural laws did not exist at the beginning of the universe. The fact that these laws were not in effect at the beginning of the universe is not the same as saying that they didn't exist. Just as say, the square if the hypotenuse ( to take a simple example) was already equal to the sum of the square of the two other sides in a right triangle even when there were no people to know it or when there was no dimensions to the universe to speak of... There is nothing supernatural in the beginning of the universe. You may say that but that just an opinion without proof of any kind. As for "heaven" and "eternity with god", it's on the same level as "Mickey Mouse" and "Batman", IE the product of human fantasy. It certainly has nothing to do with reason, which by definition, makes it unreasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 24, 2023 0:31:42 GMT
I didn't change the meaning of words. At the heart of the universe is, very definitively, "supernatural." Immediately after the Big Bang, natural laws as we know them did not yet exist. What happened was by definition "supernatural." By this, I'm not explicitly stating here that it was "the result of deity" (although I believe that to be true); I'm saying that what we experience and even natural laws is not the be-all and end-all of "everything that exists." Which should be obvious. As for "heaven" or "eternity with God" or whatever, it's not unreasonable to presume that this exists "outside of our experience." I totally disagree with your idea that natural laws did not exist at the beginning of the universe. The fact that these laws were not in effect at the beginning of the universe is not the same as saying that they didn't exist. Just as say, the square if the hypotenuse ( to take a simple example) was already equal to the sum of the square of the two other sides in a right triangle even when there were no people to know it or when there was no dimensions to the universe to speak of... There is nothing supernatural in the beginning of the universe. You may say that but that just an opinion without proof of any kind. I'm not sure geometric truths are equivalent to "natural laws." But the idea of "natural laws coming into exist sometime after the Big Bang" is hardly my own idea: "The first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently established laws of physics may not have applied; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to cosmic inflation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universeYeah, maybe, maybe not. Having "nothing to do with reason" is merely your way of saying "it's unreasonable to you." Which is fine, as far as that goes, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 24, 2023 0:44:38 GMT
I totally disagree with your idea that natural laws did not exist at the beginning of the universe. The fact that these laws were not in effect at the beginning of the universe is not the same as saying that they didn't exist. Just as say, the square if the hypotenuse ( to take a simple example) was already equal to the sum of the square of the two other sides in a right triangle even when there were no people to know it or when there was no dimensions to the universe to speak of... There is nothing supernatural in the beginning of the universe. You may say that but that just an opinion without proof of any kind. I'm not sure geometric truths are equivalent to "natural laws." But the idea of "natural laws coming into exist sometime after the Big Bang" is hardly my own idea: "The first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently established laws of physics may not have applied; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to cosmic inflation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universeYeah, maybe, maybe not. Having "nothing to do with reason" is merely your way of saying "it's unreasonable to you." Which is fine, as far as that goes, I guess. "May not have applied" is not the same as saying that they did not exist. The state of the universe was such that it didn't allow the laws of physics as we know them to work, is not the same as saying that these laws did not exist. If say, the Americans don't use the metric system (which they do, partially at least) but for the sake of the argument, let's pretend that they don't. Does it mean that the metric system doesn't exist there? Of course not, it still exists even if nobody is using it. Just as hieroglyphics existed as a written language even before Champollion (re) discovered it.
General relativity doesn't apply at the subatomic level is not the same as saying that General relativity doesn't exist, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 24, 2023 1:00:35 GMT
I'm not sure geometric truths are equivalent to "natural laws." But the idea of "natural laws coming into exist sometime after the Big Bang" is hardly my own idea: "The first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently established laws of physics may not have applied; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to cosmic inflation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universeYeah, maybe, maybe not. Having "nothing to do with reason" is merely your way of saying "it's unreasonable to you." Which is fine, as far as that goes, I guess. "May not have applied" is not the same as saying that they did not exist. The state of the universe was such that it didn't allow the laws of physics as we know them to work, is not the same as saying that these laws did not exist. I guess that's true. It's an interesting concept. In what ways might these laws "exist"? Like...what does that even mean? It might be more comparable to ask if the metric system existed in 1300. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 24, 2023 17:22:29 GMT
"May not have applied" is not the same as saying that they did not exist. The state of the universe was such that it didn't allow the laws of physics as we know them to work, is not the same as saying that these laws did not exist. 1) I guess that's true. It's an interesting concept. In what ways might these laws "exist"? Like...what does that even mean? 2) It might be more comparable to ask if the metric system existed in 1300. 1) Before anything else these laws are mathematical. Mathematically they existed even before they applied to anything. Just as say, Integral calculus existed before we knew what to do with it in the physical world. Among my professors, there was one in Physics that was one of the best (I checked him out, his PHD thesis received what you guys would call honors) and he always said that physics was ninety nine percent math and one percent experimentation. He said without some of the most abstract, "inapplicable", out-there math, physics would be thrown back about a hundred years. He also said that he loved math and, just loved physics just a little bit more. So the universe and its laws are mathematical before anything else, and I am sorry to disappoint you but "god" didn't create math, no one did. It was always there (whatever "always" really means). 2) Yeah, the metric system is a human invention so it may not be the best example of what I am saying. Still, in a sense, the metric system along with everything else in the world of ideas always existed, we just picked it... Just like Michelangelo and his block of marble, if you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 26, 2023 17:43:52 GMT
I didn't change the meaning of words. At the heart of the universe is, very definitively, "supernatural." Immediately after the Big Bang, natural laws as we know them did not yet exist. What happened was by definition "supernatural." No, the natural world still existed, it's just that it didn't yet behave like it does now. That's not supernatural. It's not, actually! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 26, 2023 21:04:54 GMT
I didn't change the meaning of words. At the heart of the universe is, very definitively, "supernatural." Immediately after the Big Bang, natural laws as we know them did not yet exist. What happened was by definition "supernatural." No, the natural world still existed, it's just that it didn't yet behave like it does now. That's not supernatural. I'm using "supernatural" very generally...as in, "beyond the natural world (or natural laws) as we understand and experience them." So literally... super-{beyond)-natural. Not..."because everything is different it's proof for God." |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 26, 2023 23:52:23 GMT
No, the natural world still existed, it's just that it didn't yet behave like it does now. That's not supernatural. I'm using "supernatural" very generally...as in, "beyond the natural world (or natural laws) as we understand and experience them." So literally... super-{beyond)-natural. Not..."because everything is different it's proof for God." I disagree, you don't use a word like "supernatural" without an agenda, just as you don't call someone a commie or a pinko without strongly disapproving of their political views. There is nothing other than natural events in the Universe, it's governed by laws that we may or may not know but one thing we do know is that these laws are there even if for lack of data we may not ever know them completely. In the beginning of the Universe there was a... very... short period of time, called Planck time ( Approx. ten to the minus forty-four seconds) during which the laws of physics as we know them were overwhelmed by the uncertainty principle and therefore it is not possible (so far) to tell what happened then. That doesn't mean that a deity was in charge. Unless you think your god is so sneaky that he only intervenes in the gaps of our knowledge. You don't, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 27, 2023 5:46:58 GMT
I'm using "supernatural" very generally...as in, "beyond the natural world (or natural laws) as we understand and experience them." So literally... super-{beyond)-natural. Not..."because everything is different it's proof for God." I disagree, you don't use a word like "supernatural" without an agenda, just as you don't call someone a commie or a pinko without strongly disapproving of their political views. There is nothing other than natural events in the Universe, it's governed by laws that we may or may not know but one thing we do know is that these laws are there even if for lack of data we may not ever know them completely. In the beginning of the Universe there was a... very... short period of time, called Planck time ( Approx. ten to the minus forty-four seconds) during which the laws of physics as we know them were overwhelmed by the uncertainty principle and therefore it is not possible (so far) to tell what happened then. That doesn't mean that a deity was in charge. Unless you think your god is so sneaky that he only intervenes in the gaps of our knowledge. You don't, do you? So…you’re telling me my motives for using a particular word despite my clarification that this is not my motivation and then telling me that what I’m claiming I’m not saying is wrong? You’ve been reading too much freonbale. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 27, 2023 16:02:41 GMT
In the beginning of the Universe there was a... very... short period of time, called Planck time ( Approx. ten to the minus forty-four seconds) during which the laws of physics as we know them were overwhelmed by the uncertainty principle and therefore it is not possible (so far) to tell what happened then. I do want to come back to this post to comment that I really liked this sentence. “…overwhelmed by the uncertainty principle…” I like that. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 28, 2023 17:35:50 GMT
I disagree, you don't use a word like "supernatural" without an agenda, just as you don't call someone a commie or a pinko without strongly disapproving of their political views. There is nothing other than natural events in the Universe, it's governed by laws that we may or may not know but one thing we do know is that these laws are there even if for lack of data we may not ever know them completely. In the beginning of the Universe there was a... very... short period of time, called Planck time ( Approx. ten to the minus forty-four seconds) during which the laws of physics as we know them were overwhelmed by the uncertainty principle and therefore it is not possible (so far) to tell what happened then. That doesn't mean that a deity was in charge. Unless you think your god is so sneaky that he only intervenes in the gaps of our knowledge. You don't, do you? So…you’re telling me my motives for using a particular word despite my clarification that this is not my motivation and then telling me that what I’m claiming I’m not saying is wrong? You’ve been reading too much freonbale. Let me clarify then, there is nothing beyond the natural, so even your "general" use of "supernatural" is wrong, because the word "supernatural" is wrong, just as is the phrase "to infinity and beyond"*... and pretty much for the same reasons. * I know it's from Toy Story, so don't tell me that. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 28, 2023 18:20:05 GMT
No, the natural world still existed, it's just that it didn't yet behave like it does now. That's not supernatural. I'm using "supernatural" very generally...as in, "beyond the natural world (or natural laws) as we understand and experience them." So literally... super-{beyond)-natural. Not..."because everything is different it's proof for God." You're entitled to make up your own definitions for words, but don't expect anyone else to understand you. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 28, 2023 19:40:34 GMT
I'm using "supernatural" very generally...as in, "beyond the natural world (or natural laws) as we understand and experience them." So literally... super-{beyond)-natural. Not..."because everything is different it's proof for God." You're entitled to make up your own definitions for words, but don't expect anyone else to understand you. Do you have an existing word for "beyond natural" that doesn't invoke deity? |
|
