The meaning of life, or perhaps im just insane.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

the movie 'what the bleep do we know' is also a good watch.

 

 

 

to purecheese: no it wasnt just a bunch of fancy terms. it was an attempt to explain at least part of the quantum theory in words most everyone would understand, if you think what im saying is nonsense, then look at the wikipedia on the quantum theory, a lot of my info came from there.

 

 

 

 

That movie was horrible (and explains why your post is so similar to the movies aim); it was made to promote the agenda of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. RSE consists of someone who claims to channel the spirit of a 35000 year old warrior who enlightened his tribe with his knowledge and is now claiming to be able to channel the same knowledge to us.

 

 

 

The movie claims that when quantum mechanics was introduced it destroyed determinism; therefore there is some sort of spiritual connection in the universe. Their experts are not active in the scientific community (except one who is a philosopher of physics who denounces the film in its final form) and all have some sort link to a new age foundation.

 

 

 

What you did type was just a bunch of garbage coming from someone who is majoring in physics. I'm not sure if purecheese is a physics major but I know I'm not the only one around on these forums; they can also confirm that what you wrote made no sense.

[ZealotZ]

oh bite me. the japanese researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto [http] has nothing to do with that fricken society, and what his experments show clearly and firmly is that the act of applying a thought or concept upon water changes its state. ands thats all that needs to be accepted (that every act (such as looking at or thinking about) an object changes it on a physical level)). so bite me with your attempt to degrade my theory with your somehow compelling 'facts'

[count_chocula]

Well Zealot you are doing something that I have started to do recently, that people have been doing since they existed: try to figure out and make sense of existance. We are very complex emotional beings and I could make a career out of trying to understand myself...

 

 

 

I recently read two works that touch on this issue. A poem I had to give a speech on in class called "To an athlete dying young" and the book of ecclesiastes. In To an athlete the author says that no matter how great you and your achievements are no on remembers you once they are surpassed, so they are meaningless anyway. For example, who remembers bonebreaker6 anymore? The guy on the top of the high scores for like a year? Hardly anybody.

 

 

 

And ecclesiastes, the writigns of a distraught king who had everything available to him yet who was still unhappy. He examines seemingly meaningless life, and concludes that to get maximum satisfaction out of it you should do your very best and have as much fun as you can:

 

 

 

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for there is no activity or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.

 

 

 

 

 

and this one:

 

 

 

Rejoice, young men, during your childhood, and let your heart be pleasant during the days of young manhood. And follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes. Yet know that God will bring you to judgement for all these things. So, remove grief and anger from your heart and put away pain from your body, because childhood and the prime of your life are fleeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Now ecclesiastes is a complex book and it isn't saying go run wild, it's saying go do your best and have fun and be happy.

[ZealotZ]

dude, those books just seem like troubled teen help books. im not an idiot, my beliefs arent nonsense, and im not driving myself insane trying to discover a reason. and besides which, i dont think there is an omniscent god, just a sentient being that created this earth from his vision of a proper universe. whether he died like everyone else does or lives on omnipresent doesnt really matter because i dont think he can affect change anymore

[Purecheese]

What you did type was just a bunch of garbage coming from someone who is majoring in physics. I'm not sure if purecheese is a physics major but I know I'm not the only one around on these forums; they can also confirm that what you wrote made no sense.

Yea I'm majoring in physics, I've only finished half of my second year this far though. Still lots to learn and lots to study in more depth :)

 

 

 

So all in all ZealotZ, there's no reason to tell me to look at wikipedia to read up on quantum mechanics when I've succesfully followed several courses on it at university level :wink:

 

 

 

I personally can't understand how you can concider the content of a site like whatthebleep.com to be scientific. Not a single scientist who takes himself serious would want any of his work on that site.

 

I and Death by pod have given more the enough reasons as to why the parts on physics are utter nonsense. Seriously believe what you want, but if you want any discussion on this topic then you should atleast take the opinion of someone who's majoring in physics on the topic of physics seriously.

[Ape]

In the words of Ricky Gervais "To reproduce, unless you are... How you say..." I'll stop there.

 

 

 

Personally, I can see this going seperate ways:

 

 

 

Firstly, the "creator" would make the meaning of life to reproduce.

 

Secondly, if you took life as it comes at you, then it has no meaning to some people.

 

 

 

I think that life-meaning is determined by whoever's life it is.

 

 

 

Thirdly, sorry for the random post in the middle of a discussion. I would participate, but I kinda' got bored of reading it all.

 

 

 

-Mitch-

[Death_By_Pod]

oh bite me. the japanese researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto [http] has nothing to do with that fricken society, and what his experments show clearly and firmly is that the act of applying a thought or concept upon water changes its state. ands thats all that needs to be accepted (that every act (such as looking at or thinking about) an object changes it on a physical level)). so bite me with your attempt to degrade my theory with your somehow compelling 'facts'

 

 

 

No it doesn't. He gets some water, plays music, thinks about the water or shows pictures to it and then freezes the water in a freezer (the thoughts don't freeze the water). He then collects the ice crystals from the freezer and photographs them. The only thing that changes the water's state is the freezer (turning it from liquid to solid).

 

 

 

The reasons why his theories are bunk are due to the way ice crystals are formed. There are many, many crystals formed in a single sample of water and as the saying goes no two snow flakes are the same, well the same thing can be said about ice crystals. Depending on the impurities in the water, how the water is frozen and how long itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s been sitting out of the freezer, many different patterns can be formed in the same sample of water. The experiments are not performed as double blind (the people who analyse the crystals, know what messages have been added to the water) so a selection bias exists.

 

 

 

Dr. Masaru Emoto is a doctor of alternative medicine from the Open International University for Alternative Medicine based in India (basically he isn't a real doctor, as his degree would be unrecognised by most institutions). He also participates in a well know snake oil scam, he sells "healing water." If his findings were true, how come it isn't recognised by mainstream science or by the mainstream media?

[Kiriyama]

thank you mr. emo

 

 

 

u callin me an Emo.

 

 

 

WHy u dirty little bleepin bleep

[kelem_ryu]

 

as far as i know, the only theories that are proven are mathematical theories. all others can't be proven, because you'd always need to use your senses to do so. you can't prove that youre senses are telling the truth. (might seem like that's only splitting hairs, but it's all important in epistemology.)

 

 

 

Physics shares the same basis with Mathematics, so physics can be proved through the use of mathematics. Things like Chemistry, Biology and Geology are derived from physics, hence they can also be proved through mathematics (as they share the same basis with physics; which is shared with mathematics).

 

 

 

no. physical theories can't be proven as i tried to explain. for example if you want to prove, that the earth is a globe, you first have to prove, that there is an earth. how can you prove, that there is an earth? it's impossible (if you want to argue that, then prove me, that there is a planet earth, or prove me the existance of anything less abstract then something). you just can state, that you can see it and touch it and the like, but how can you prove, that your senses are telling the truth? only thing you can prove, is that you are. (at least that's what descartes thought. in my opinion his idea has some loopholes, because he stated: i think, therefor i am, but how can you be sure, that there is such thing as "i". therefor i'd say, the only thing we can take for granted is, that there is something. (after all even if our perceptions are wrong, then there is something: wrong perceptions.) everything else are just believes. can't be proven.

 

 

 

that's why i said science is based on believes. the only way to break the reasoning regress (that i can think of) is by taking the only fact we have (something is) and build it up from there, accepting that you have to take some things for granted (therfor to believe in them) for science to work.

 

 

 

the reason why mathematics is above that, is because mathematics doesn't measure anything. everything in mathematics is clearly defined. mathematics doesn't exist outside of our heads. there is no such thing as a perfect circle.

 

 

 

btw thanks death for explaination of quantum physics. guess now i finally understand schr̮̦̉̉dingers cat. (the pie example is good)

[ZealotZ]

well then what would the mainstream media do with this information? half the people listening to it wouldnt believe it and the other half wouldnt understand it. besides that, it would lower rating, people dont want to hear about thoughts changing the state of an object, itll just confuse them.

 

 

 

oh, and lol, yea i called you mr emo. saying life has no meaning is just pointless, even if it has no meaning to you, at the very least, a meaning could be done no harm and leave it the same as it was, if not better. isnt that a lot better than 'no meaning'? i mean thats basically anarchy and it tells you to do what ever the h*** you want. that just leads to chaos and death and, well, loss of life and meaning.

 

 

 

anyways, quantum mechanics does not deal with exacts, just probabilities, and whether or not a thought can be applied to something or not (which i believe it can, wether or not there is difinitive proof) may affect things.

 

 

 

meh, i dont know where to go with this, i lack the knowledge or ability to prove this.

 

 

 

quantum mechanics is in the realm of theoretic science, and wether you believe it or not has everything to do with my theory, i, however, believe it.

[gonpost]

Life has no inherent meaning save for what meaning you give it.

 

 

 

The notion of the existence of anything (including you) after death is completely hypothetical, and for the most part completely unfounded.

 

 

 

Religion itself takes for granted the existence of anything beyond what is apparently physical, yet as we have seen, the human mind is quite capable of creating what is clearly not real in the physical world; and therefore one can see that the creation of religion was not only possible but quite unavoidable in due time.

 

 

 

If you have trouble grappling with this, then perhaps another alternate route would be a more preferable option. Any supreme being would most likely be bathing in his own mysery, contemplating the meaning of its own existence whilst simultaneously neglecting that which previously gave it purpose...that being, presumably, humans, or perhaps even the universe. To give a concrete example, imagine playing a video game in sandbox mode. You create and create until eventually you stop creating, and you quit, because you realize that there exists no further purpose in creating. For what end is that creation? Answer that question, and you may be wiser than any god of man.

 

 

 

Therefore, since it is established that there is nothing certain after death, it must be declared irrelevant, for any theory would be equally valid.

 

 

 

Taking this fact into mind, we may progress.

 

 

 

This is where personal opinion must come into play, for there is nothing except personal preference that remains. I, for one, have adopted meaning enough in learning about everything that I may, and enjoying my life on this earth. Life should be an adventure. Although I have, at times, found myself adopting a nihilistic viewpoint, I suppose that I still find life enjoyable enough to live it as well as I can.

 

 

 

In sum, I would not fear nor rejoice in any "knowledge" of an afterlife. However, I do hold in esteem the idea put forward by Socrates shortly before his death. That is, death is merely sleep. Not so bad now, is it?

[katsuro0]

way to read an article, try to repeat it in your own words while making numerous mistakes, and spit out complete nonsence that holds no ground

[Bubsa]

All very nice, but how do you explain how the elements, which caused the Big Bang to occurr, appeared in the first place?

[indy500fan]

All very nice, but how do you explain how the elements, which caused the Big Bang to occurr, appeared in the first place?

 

 

 

they were always there. conversation of mass, it cant be created or destroyed. our big bang was caused by the previous time periods big crunch, and our big crunch will cause the big bang of the next tim period. it goes on infinitely in the past and into the future.

[Bubsa]

All very nice, but how do you explain how the elements, which caused the Big Bang to occurr, appeared in the first place?

 

 

 

they were always there. conversation of mass, it cant be created or destroyed. our big bang was caused by the previous time periods big crunch, and our big crunch will cause the big bang of the next tim period. it goes on infinitely in the past and into the future.

 

 

 

How were they always there? How did the mass exist in the first place? How is it compounded?

[indy500fan]

How were they always there? How did the mass exist in the first place? How is it compounded?

 

 

 

there is no "first place". there is no start, it goes back infinitely.

[Oy_the_Great]

How were they always there? How did the mass exist in the first place? How is it compounded?

 

 

 

there is no "first place". there is no start, it goes back infinitely.

 

 

 

Yeah, and what I think might be true, even though it requires a lot of imagination, is that all energy,which is of course the base of mass, emerged fro nothing.

 

Nothing at all, yep. It is said that all negative energy (i.e. all gravity energy) equaly all positive energy (i.e. all other forms of energy). Thus it can be said that they both nullify eachother. If somehow, nothing can be divided into an amount of positive energy and gravity, it can be possible that out of nothing, something emerges.

 

Don't ask me any details, I just read this theory in EOS magazine; they also added that it was merely speculation and that what I just called nothing of course is something, but something without any characteristics, so no weight, no neutrons, no electrons... And they also don't give an explanation as to how nothing can all of a sudden divide itself, because that would require energy.

 

 

 

This cycle might repeat itself every few thousand of billions of years.

 

First: energy emerges out of what's called 'nothing'

 

Second: E=MCÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâò so some energy becomes mass if it somehow travels at the speed of light

 

Third: the mass, that has both gravity energy and other forms of energy (that theoretically nullify eachother!) attracts other masses until it becomes a gigantic sphere-alike thing

 

Fourth: This sphere eventually explodes, which then results in the commonly known theory of what happens after the Big Bang.

 

Fifth: Creation of our current universe

 

Sixth: The cycle repeats itself as all matter either degenerates into nothing again, or attracts eachother, like black holes do, to form a new gigantic sphere.

 

 

 

I'd like to add that this is merely what I think might be some sort of explanation. Most likely I'm way off, but it does seem plausible IMHO. But then again, so does my quote, which is of course philosophical bs ;)

[Bubsa]

How were they always there? How did the mass exist in the first place? How is it compounded?

 

 

 

there is no "first place". there is no start, it goes back infinitely.

 

 

 

And that's why I think the whole creation discussion is futile. We can't trace it, so it must be infinity. It's inexplicable and pointless to worry and talk about it.

[katsuro0]

All very nice, but how do you explain how the elements, which caused the Big Bang to occurr, appeared in the first place?

 

 

 

they were always there. conversation of mass, it cant be created or destroyed. our big bang was caused by the previous time periods big crunch, and our big crunch will cause the big bang of the next tim period. it goes on infinitely in the past and into the future.

 

 

 

You CANT say that time went back to infinity. if time was infinite, then it took forever to reach this point. but here we are right? the future is irrelevant in case that crosses ur mind

 

 

 

you can not conclude what started the universe b/c no matter how far you look into the universe, you cannot see what happened in the first few moments of time

 

 

 

you're entire "theory" is complete nonsense, and by letting people read it, you have ruined quantum physics and made dumb people even dumber.

 

 

 

lol not to sound harse or anything

[gonpost]

How were they always there? How did the mass exist in the first place? How is it compounded?

 

 

 

there is no "first place". there is no start, it goes back infinitely.

 

 

 

And that's why I think the whole creation discussion is futile. We can't trace it, so it must be infinity. It's inexplicable and pointless to worry and talk about it.

 

 

 

And Bubsa hits the nail on the head.

 

 

 

It's too bad no one understood the post I made earlier...because I essentially made a similar point. :\

[indy500fan]

You CANT say that time went back to infinity. if time was infinite, then it took forever to reach this point. but here we are right? the future is irrelevant in case that crosses ur mind

 

 

 

you can not conclude what started the universe b/c no matter how far you look into the universe, you cannot see what happened in the first few moments of time

 

 

 

you're entire "theory" is complete nonsense, and by letting people read it, you have ruined quantum physics and made dumb people even dumber.

 

 

 

lol not to sound harse or anything

 

 

 

why cant an infinite amount of time passed already? you neglected to mention why, you just said i was wrong.

[katsuro0]

if an infinite amount of time has passed, then its not infinite. and i did say that in the other post

[indy500fan]

if an infinite amount of time has passed, then its not infinite. and i did say that in the other post

 

 

 

haha, you need to read more about infinity. maybe take a calculus class, thats where i learned. if an infinite amount of time has passed, and you add more to it, it is still infinity. infinity+infinity=infinity. infinity+20 years=infinity. infinity^infinity=infinity.

[katsuro0]

if time was infinite, then it took forever to reach this point. but here we are right? the future is irrelevant in case that crosses ur mind

 

[indy500fan]

if time was infinite, then it took forever to reach this point. but here we are right? the future is irrelevant in case that crosses ur mind

 

 

 

 

im assuming you posted this again because you didnt think it was answered?

 

 

 

i explained how infinty works in the other post, there is no reason why an infinite amount of time couldnt have already passed. you can still add to infinity.