![]()
My sister said the same.
Well... It's here for whoever wants to read. I was originally going to post it in OTC, but I'm already having trouble with getting another thread accepted there. Writing it was still worth it, I think.
edited 14th Mar '12 7:29:26 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Fine. And yet you see a reason to post your absolutely pointless comment that doesn't refute anything I said. Why?
Seriously, if people can't bother reading and trying to understand something because they truly don't care, why do they bother mentioning that?
edited 14th Mar '12 7:43:59 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."In that case, your attitude is contradictory. "I see no point in it and I have no reason to" is the same as admitting that you believe in whatever you want and don't care about the arguments from the other side. Why did you waste your time reading?
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Uh... no. I see no point in believing something like that and I see no reason to. That doesn't mean that nothing will ever convince me otherwise. I just need someone to tell me a good reason and/or the point in believing it. Then I'll consider what that person said and think about it.
Because it was interesting.
edited 14th Mar '12 7:53:42 AM by kay4today
I don't understand why I was thumped above, wasn't saying anything inflammatory and wasn't belittling the post above it or anything. That's just a hell of a lot you have written there and I'm not sure many people will take the time to read it. And most threads involving religious beliefs don't end up well. That's all.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.For now, I will only address your first point (General Rationality).
Well, I am not a "skeptic" in the standard sense, but I guess that I qualify as a scientist (thus demonstrating just how low that bar is set
). But to reply to your point — and let me make this clear, these are my philosophical opinions, not anything that is (or could be) supported by scientific evidence, and other scientists may certainly have different opinions:
One thing to remember is that probabilities are not something that exist "in nature"*. They are a formal representation of the degree of uncertainty that a human being has about a certain aspect of reality. Saying "there is a 30% probability that I just ate a sandwich" is, in itself, nonsensical: either I had a sandwich or I did not. What does make sense, instead, is saying that somebody else (or myself, if I am particularly forgetful, which I am
) has a 30% degree of confidence that I had a sandwich — meaning, basically, that he would be willing to bet 3 euros against seven that I actually had a sandwich, but no more than that.
Under some (generally useful, but hardly universally applicable) "rationality constraints", you can use a Dutch Book Argument
to derive the usual axioms of probability from this definition. And that's cool and useful.
But the scenario which you are describing, by definition, makes this kind of "betting" entirely impossible. If "universe B" exists entirely independently from "universe A", it makes no sense to bet on its existence, because nothing, even in principle, could interact with it and hence the bet could not be won or lost. Under this hypothesis, the reasonable thing to do is simply to work with whatever model is more convenient — if somehow this model involves the existence of Universe B, that's not a problem, but if it doesn't that's not a limitation. There is no point in asking what degree of confidence my model of reality has about the existence of Universe B.
Things differ, however, if we assume that your "universe B" is something that might somehow interact with me in the future. Then the probabilistic setting, or a suitable variant thereof, is applicable, and it does make sense to ask how much I would be willing to bet on Universe B's existence. Under these circumstances, the Universe B should indeed be given a vanishingly low probability. Why?
Because it is exactly as likely as Universe C, or to Universe D, or to Universe E, or to an uncountable number of different hypothetical "universes" which for some reason did not interact with ours in the past but which might hypothetically do so in the future. I have no reason to prefer Universe B to any of them, or vice versa. Now, at any instant of time infinitely many of them get disproved by the mere fact that I am not seeing them. Hence, it makes sense to assume, with very high confidence, that Universe B is also non-existent.
edited 17th Mar '12 10:12:40 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.![]()
Yeah, you didn't pay attention. I don't really think you actually tried to understand what I was trying to say, or maybe you simply looked for the interpretation that is easiest to refute (even though I actually mentioned the types of waves in the post). I'm talking about the qualia, the feelings inside your mind, not the physical causes.
I'm not saying that you should "bet" on the existence of Universe B. I'm saying that the most rational position regarding things like Universe B is simply "I don't know". Not "it's unlikely", simply "I don't know". People seem to forget that this statement exists. Did you read the part about "actual truth"? Whether something is true os not does not depend on us. For something to exist, there doesn't need to be a point for humans, it simply does. Also, you mentioned a preference for "Universe B" over other universes being a bad idea, even though I made no specifications whatsoever about Universe B (any possible universe that doesn't interact with us can fill the necessary criteria for being considered "Universe B", there are infinite possibilities). Therefore, assuming that any universe that doesn't interact with ours is nonexistent makes no sense.
edited 17th Mar '12 7:33:23 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Whatever my model of reality includes it or not will have no effect whatsoever on how my experience matches my sensory data; and therefore, the choice between a model which includes it and one which doesn't should be based on practical considerations, not on anything else.
The point of belief is to be a basis for planning and action. Otherwise, it's just propositional content floating freely inside of your head.
Unless you give some motivation for why your Universe B should be any more likely that any of those, symmetry considerations suggest that your degree in trust in all of them should be the same. And previous experience suggests to me that this degree of trust is really quite low.
How much would you be willing to bet on an universe, having utterly different physical properties, spontaneously appearing out of nothingness at some arbitrary future time, say 21 October 2045?
EDIT:
Just a thought.
edited 17th Mar '12 9:44:20 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
I don't believe in Universe B, Carciofus. "I don't know" is not a statement of belief. It's the best neutral statement there is. People tend to believe in this false dichotomy of belief/disbelief and it really bugs me.
"I don't care" and "I don't know" are not mutually exclusive. And you are insisting on the idea that we should only ponder the existence of what's useful to us again. An idea can be useful in itself even if it doesn't directly affect practical aspects of your life. It can affect your perspective of existence, and that makes a difference.
Also, the "I don't know" is based on a simple fact: we don't know anything about existence outside this universe. This is a fact. There could be infinite other worlds out there, and many could fit the criteria of Universe B. That's it. We don't know the probability. It doesn't have to be directly practical for us to admit that we can't make assumptions about the existence of such a thing. Not caring is not an excuse to assume nonexistence. And assuming the possibility of existence doesn't mean that you will spend the rest of your life busy wondering about the existence of Universe B. It's just an idea.
Also, about Universe C, D, etc.: I didn't specify what those universes are. I don't prefer Universe B over any of them because there is no specified difference. I just call a hypothetical universe that doesn't interact with us "B", but there could be other ones (C, D). I am not referring specifically to a universe, I'm talking about the general possibility of a universe independent from ours.
And, again, to summarize: if it exists, it exists. Practicality is irrelevant.
I did not say that everybody is stupid. It's just that people who don't know me tend to think that I am stupid because of my unusual ideas and dismiss them without actually trying to understand them. Just look at that comment above your first post. It was a gross misunderstanding of my points that led the poster to assume that I wouldn't know something very basic. And, yes, it is frustrating and it is the truth.
edited 17th Mar '12 10:36:38 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."Well, you did express doubt on whether people would be able to understand you. But it probably just did not come across as intended, and I will drop the subject now.
Nothing of this is applicable to your "Universe B" example. When the physician you mentioned said that he considered it very unlikely, I think that the intended meaning was that she or he would not be willing to attribute any positive probability to it. If there was an experimental medicine whose success depended on the existence of "Universe B", he would never recommend its use. That's what he was talking about, I think, not some overarching statement about the nature of reality.
Just to mention an example of a theory which is somehow similar to your "Universe B" one, and which has actually gathered some interest among scientists (although it's far from being uncontroversial, obviously): Do you know the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
? In brief, it is a modern form of mathematical Platonism which suggests that the universe is nothing but a mathematical structure, and that all mathematical structures exist in the same sense in which the universe does. It is an interesting philosophical perspective, and I think that it can be useful as a way of drawing analogies. I am not sure if I subscribe to it, but it is something I like to think about.
EDIT:
What I am saying is that you gave no argument as for why this should be any more likely than "There exists an alternate universe which will not interact at all with us until tomorrow afternoon, and which then will begin interacting with us."
Experience suggests that this second statement is very unlikely. Hence, in the absence of any further motivation for the possible validity of the first proposition, that one is also to be considered very unlikely.
edited 17th Mar '12 10:47:25 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Okay, I need to comment on this.
If such an experimental drug existed and we didn't know the possible implications of its use, it makes sense, as a practical assumption, not to recommend it.
Why?
Because there is a risk. To be exact, in many situations, using it would be more riskful than not using it.
But I don't think that this is practical in every possible scenario. Let's say that this medicine is a possible treatment for a disease that has a 100% probability of killing the person afflicted in a very painful way. I would recommend trying this medicine, as it wouldn't be any more riskful than not using it.
Still, a drug that "depends on the existence of Universe B" is pretty strange, don't you think? It exists in our universe, yet depends on the existence of any universe (since B is no specified) that is completely unrelated to ours in any way. Paradox?
EDIT:
That would constitute a sudden shift in the physical properties of this universe, which is something empirically indicated to be very unlikely. A universe that is completely independent is not the same as a universe that can suddenly start interacting, as its prerequisites would involve something that can be verified in our reality (by the fact that it has never happened, at least in a meaningful level). Still, what if they do interact often in ways we can't see with our current technology?
edited 17th Mar '12 10:54:40 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."

If you don't care about this subject, don't read and don't post. Don't waste my time and yours.
So... Why have I decided to create this thread?
I've felt the need to express myself for a while. I see comments of theists and atheists everywhere but I always avoid replying to them, fearing that nobody will truly comprehend what I'm trying to say. I have tried it before and it brought me nothing but frustration.
I've never really found someone with beliefs quite similar to mine. I don't think there's an existing label for someone like me, but I consider myself to be somewhere between Deism/Agnosticism/something else. It's not my objective to convert anyone, but I'd be glad to find anyone that sees some truth in the things I say.
Also, before calling BS on anything you read, please attempt to explain your position coherently and respectfully. I'll try my best to explain mine.
General Rationality
There are some commonly accepted beliefs among scientists and skeptics that I find illogical.
Now, I want to make it very clear that I have nothing against Science. I love Science, actually. I do, however, have issues with many scientists and their prejudices.
Concerning evidence and burden of proof:
I guess every reasonable person would agree that one shouldn't assume something to be true without proper evidence. Still, even the most respectable of scientists seem to agree that the lack of positive proof is enough to justify the assumption that something is untrue. I disagree.
Let's create a hypothetical situation:
What should we say about Universe B's existence?
I've talked with a respected atheist physician about this, and he said that he finds it extremely unlikely that Universe B exists.
Why?
Let's analyze this:
Considering its definition, the word "unlikely" applies to something with a low probability of occurrence. However, what is the probability of occurrence of Universe B?
Probability can only be estimated through empirical research. Universe B, by definition, cannot be empirically verified by anything existing in universe A. There's nothing in Universe A that indicates anything regarding the probability of universe B, and Universe A is all that we can see. Therefore, the probability is unknown. More specifically, it's completely unknown.
There is nothing we can say about this probability. Calling it “unlikely” is nothing but a speculation. There might be billions of other unverifiable universes like B, and there's nothing we can say about them, either.
This notion seems rather simple to me, and it baffles me that so many adopt the notion that the mere lack of positive proof is indicative of a small probability of existence.
“But, Teraus, does that mean that I can’t assume that things like Superman or Sonic the Hedgehog don’t exist?”
That’s not what I’m saying. Sonic the Hedgehog and Superman in our world would cause visible changes, which can be proven not to exist. Also, it is possible to prove the nonexistence of something if it’s characteristics would lead to some sort of absurd (reductio ad absurdum). That is not the case for something like Universe B, however, nor anything that exists inside Universe B or a similar universe (you shouldn’t assume, for example, that an entity similar to Superman does not exist in Universe B)
So, why is this attitude so prevalent among skeptics?
I believe that pride has something to do with it, and also fear. People often associate beliefs with stupidity, and often go for the polar opposite to avoid being in a group that they consider ”stupid”, even if their attitude is illogical.
Concerning the Occam’s Razor, practical assumptions and the actual truth:
I’m not sure whether you were convinced by the previous section or not, so I’ll try to elaborate a bit further.
Consider the Occam’s Razor: a principle that states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessary in a hypothesis; that is, if there is a simple theory that satisfies all the necessary requirements to explain something, it should be favored over other complex theories with unnecessary additional perks. It is also terribly misused by skeptics.
For practical reasons, the Occam’s Razor is a very useful scientific principle. Attempting to conform everything to an axiom that makes no difference whatsoever in the visible world is nothing but a waste of time and resources. I have no problems with that. However, contrary to the belief of some people, Occam’s Razor does NOT constitute a form of evidence in and of itself.
That’s what I mean by actual truth: Whether the unnecessary additional axiom is real or not doesn’t depend on our perspective. If universe B exists, it does so regardless of what we can perceive. The truth doesn’t care about what is verifiable by our science, it simply is.
And that’s why I prefer not to say anything about the existence of such things. Calling something like Universe B “unlikely” is nothing but arrogance on our part, as we are assuming that everything that exists can be detected by us (an assumption that is unverifiable itself, in other words, hypocritical).
There is another “practical assumption” that is perhaps the most common one: external reality.
There is no evidence of external reality, at all. Isn’t it weird? That’s because everything is our perception and, as far as we are concerned, the whole existence could be inside our minds (or my mind). Also, by the very scientific definition of evidence, which includes something external and empirically observable, external reality cannot be proven, since it is the fundamental axiom of science itself.
I am not a solipsist, but I’m just trying to draw attention to this double standard: while we demand evidence for things, we simply assume that there is an external reality without asking for any proof. Because, admit it, it is a lot more convenient. Nobody knows what kind of implications a real solipsistic existence would have.
Another minor observation:
The fact that an outcome is desirable is irrelevant to its probability, both positively and negatively. This is important, and I’ve heard fallacious arguments from people who assumed otherwise.
The Mind
(Unless specified, refer to the most commonly accepted definitions of the words used in this section)
I wrote the previous section with the hope that any skeptics would be slightly more open-minded for what I have to say here.
Let’s begin with this: what is the most evident thing?
To put it as simply as possible: feeling. The fact that there is feeling and experience is the most evident thing for an observer. It is irrefutably, undeniably true. In fact, every other thing comes after it in terms of likelihood. If you disagree… I cannot state this in any other way: you are wrong. Okay, maybe you could say that there’s something even more evident than that, e.g: “something happens”. But this “something” is evidently feeling. That’s all.
This is very important for the definition that comes next:
At principle, this Observer could be either material or immaterial; that’s not important right now. It’s just important for everyone to understand that I’m talking about something that certainly, evidently exists (if not for everyone, at least for me, if Solipsism is really true).
Concerning the Observer:
Concerning Qualia and Materialism:
The following sections will require some imagination. Words alone are not enough to express my observations, so you’ll have to try to experience them by yourself.
Now, we’re starting to get there: the point where I’ll prove (or at least try to) that the Observer cannot be dependent entirely on matter. Now, I know that many people cringe at the very mention of “afterlife” or anything of the sort. Before you proceed, just keep in mind that this has nothing to do with religious concepts or dogmas. I also don’t have the pretention to seem “scientific” (I hope I made that clear already: science has limitations). And, yes, I’ve heard a billion times that people like to believe in afterlife because nonexistence sucks; just remember that observation I made concerning desirability and keep in mind that this is not what motivates my strong convictions.
Qualia are the feelings themselves. Not the physical causes of the feelings, but what we experience. For example: the “blue” quale is that indescribable thing you feel when you look at the sky during a sunny day, not the electromagnetic waves that enter your eye and stimulate specific cells that send a signal to a part of your brain.
The issue with Materialism is that, well… It is a pretentious assumption that goes against everything I mentioned in the Rationality section. It is not possible to prove that everything in existence is made of matter and energy. It is possible, however, to disprove it.
When you cut a chunk of a person’s brain, it is very evident that this person will have a mental impairment of some sort. In other words, it is scientifically proven that the material brain is essential for a person’s mental faculties. While it is possible that there is an immaterial “spirit” capable of containing knowledge and memories, and that this spirit’s capabilities are latent during a person’s lifetime, I will not directly address it. Instead, I will talk about this:
Complexity versus essence
The first evidence that indicates the immateriality of the Observer is the fact that particles are not capable of forming qualia. I’ll explain why.
There’s a reason why I called Observer a “dimension” in its definition. Consider your vision: it is a 2-dimensional sense. Yes, it is possible to get a 3-dimensional notion out of images, thanks to perspective, overlapping images and such; however, an image is still a 2-dimensional thing. Pay attention to your field of vision. You’ll probably notice that the place where the qualia of colors are can be considered an “imaginary screen”.
The physical cause of the qualia of color: electromagnetic waves enter the eye and are focused at the retina. Specific types of cells are stimulated, depending on the waves’ frequencies, and they send signals to the brain. Certain neurons in the brain will form a “map” of where each perceived color is. Another part will identify what the objects contained in this image are, and another part will identify where each object is, allowing a specific reaction to what was perceived (for further details, read this
).
Now, let’s think about the evident, yet imaginary “screen” I’ve mentioned before. Obviously, there is no physical screen of any kind inside the brain. There is, however, a map of neurons that contain the necessary data to create this image. Now, pay attention at any object you see and its color.
Nobody knows how the transition between the map of neurons and the Observer’s “screen” happens, but it does. It is very difficult to express such concepts, but I’ll try harder:
Consider a sound. It is clear that the qualia of sound and the qualia of colors are completely different. In fact, they have nothing in common (EDIT: Note that I am not talking about the physical causes, which are electromagnetic waves and sound waves. I'm talking about the feelings inside your mind). “But what about synesthesia?”, one might ask. Synesthesia occurs when an external stimulus generates an answer from more than one sense, including a sense that is normally not stimulated in this situation. The qualia of each sense, however, are evidently different.
Now, I’m sure that many will not be convinced by this, still believing that the arrangement of neurons is responsible for these differences. Well, let’s make a parallel between a brain and a computer:
Data in a computer is stored in the form of bits, essentially, 1s and 0s (high and low voltage) in flip flops. These bits, depending on the encoding method and how the processor handles them, are capable of generating sounds or images, for example.
Are the bits of an image the same as the image?
Are the bits of a music the same as the music?
No. To become what they are meant to become, both require certain types of devices such as digital-to-analog converters, a screen with pixels (for images) and an object that vibrates in response to voltage (for generating sound waves).
No matter how much you try to look into the bits, a sound or an image will not emerge from them out of nowhere. Similarly, when you look into a brain, you don’t find images or sounds. The activated neurons are not the images nor the sounds. But you are an Observer and you know that these feelings exist. There is a conversion process somewhere in this system, but it cannot be materially proven simply because it involves things that are not material.
I have other arguments as well:
The disintegrated brains’ thought experiment:
So, let’s consider a possibility: what if qualia do exist in every form of matter? What if every particle is a primordial Observer?
Well, that is possible, isn’t it?
If we are to say that the Observer is material, we need to consider three possibilities:
All of them have issues.
The first one was scientifically proven to be wrong: in 3 years, 100% of our atoms are replaced; however, the Observer remains the same. How do I know it remains the same? Well, simply because I know that I’ve had a continuous experience with a single Observer during all of my life. I didn’t suddenly “black out” and get replaced by a new Observer. It is evident, as I know I’ve existed back then and I still exist.
That also proves that, if I quickly swap all of the atoms of your body for new ones, you will still be yourself.
Let’s assume that I’ve disintegrated you completely. You are now dead and see nothing but darkness.
1- What will happen if I reintegrate your body and brain to the exact state it was before you were killed, but with different atoms?
It will certainly be reanimated, but will you return from the eternal darkness and enter the new body?
If the answer is no: the Observer does not depend entirely on the arrangement of particles, which leaves only the third option left.
If the answer is yes: that leads us to the next question.
2- What will happen if an exact copy of your body and brain is created while you are still alive?
When you were dead and your body was reintegrated with different atoms, you came back to life (there was no longer darkness for your Observer). If the Observer depends only on the arrangement of particles, the copy of your body should have the same Observer as your original body.
But how is that possible?
Having the same Observer means that there is a connection of some sort between both brains, and both will share experiences. That is nonsense. If that is the case, the same Observer can be replicated ad infinitum.
Now, the third option: Observer depends on both arrangement and individual particles.
This one is proven false by default, actually. Both particles and arrangement are constantly changing during our lifetime, and the Observer, the part where feelings occur, remains in the same place (relative to our bodies).
Concerning the Screen and impossibility of creation or destruction:
In the two previous sections, I showed the notions that make me strongly confident on the immateriality of this evident part of our minds, the Observer.
There is another argument left, and this one also suggests that the Observer cannot be undone. This one is a bit more nebulous, though, and can give you a headache.
Let’s return to the screen where colorful qualia occur.
You may have noticed that, when people try to imagine nonexistence of the mind, they imagine darkness. Why? Well, it seems rather natural.
But there’s a problem: darkness requires a space. Even if there is darkness in front of you, the space where colors occurred still exist. It is impossible to imagine the lack of this space.
So, is my argument based on the fact that we can’t “imagine” nonexistence? Not really. It is based on the fact that this screen is a space.
“But science says that a space can be created”
I know. This is not that type of dimension, though.
Let’s still assume that this screen depends on neurons to exist. If materialism is true, at some point, the arrangement of neurons formed this screen. But how is this possible?
At some time, there was no screen. Then, a few neurons organized themselves in a certain way and formed part of the screen, until all the necessary neurons emerged and formed the full screen?
Any attempt to picture a “partial” screen will always require a pre-existing space of some sort.
This may not be as clear as the other arguments, but is still interesting to think about.
The actual problems concerning the Observer are much more complex than what I mentioned here. There are things issues like the perception of time and the quale of satisfaction/dissatisfaction (which I will address soon), but I admit that even I don’t understand this thing very well, and I don’t think any human does.
Purpose
I wrote about the things which lead me to believe that the Observer is not material; however, what about the afterlife? As far as we are concerned, that Observer could still exist in a blacked out way for eternity, not having any actual experiences after death.
I will attempt to explain what makes me believe in a purpose and some form of greater intelligence behind everything. I don’t attribute any specifications to this “intelligence”. I don’t have the capacity to prove it, either. This whole section is not as “certain” as the previous ones, but is still worth thinking about.
The existence of the Observer:
We know that the Observer exists, as I’ve mentioned several times. This bit is undeniable.
But why?
Consider this: everything that regards survival can be handled perfectly fine without an entity that experiences the whole thing. Everything that requires some sort of reaction from the body to something external can be solved through the brain’s data processing. Much like a robot can react to things by detecting them with sensors and processing the necessary values.
Detecting and feeling are not the same. An antenna can detect things, but it cannot feel qualia. It doesn’t “experience” things.
In an evolutionary standpoint, an Observer is irrelevant. Everything that a being can do while having an Observer can be done equally without any observer.
So we have a thing that is likely immaterial and that makes no difference for our survival whatsoever. It is safe to ask what is responsible for its existence and the fact that it exists in our minds, as it is, after all, the most evident thing.
Importance of the Observer?
So, what would existence be like if Observers didn’t exist?
Well, it would technically be the same. Except that nothing would really care about anything, and nothing would experience anything.
Try to imagine this: stars exploding, galaxies being formed, and all that is in the universe’s “mind” is a constant, silent black screen (even less than that, actually, as the screen requires an Observer). Every living being is an automaton.
Think about a computer with the bits that form images and sounds, but without any screen or speaker. Pretty useless, isn’t it?
But haven’t I just said that the Observer makes no difference whatsoever to anything regarding our survival or prosperity? So, am I being contradictory?
Actually, no. Because the Observer really isn’t “important” for the material universe, as the material universe couldn’t care less about its existence. The Observer is important to exactly one thing, however: itself.
Why?
Because it cares. Importance is not an absolute attribute of things. Importance is determined by the Observer itself.
But why does it care?
There is exactly one reason.
Satisfaction:
Yes, satisfaction. The quale of satisfaction, to be more specific.
When I talk about this thing, I refer to the one and only “good” thing about existence. Everything that is considered good is so because it causes satisfaction to the Observer.
Facts:
Now that I’ve mentioned difficulty…
Effort:
Difficulty follows the following formula: (intensity of effort) X (elapsed time),( or integral of the function of intensity of effort on time (on time? I’m not sure. I’ve only learned calculus in Portuguese))(I made it up, but I do think that it makes sense)
Effort is the thing that differentiates an actuator from a mere spectator. If effort did not exist and our actions were automatic, we would be nothing but spectators of a continuous film about our life. If satisfaction did not exist, effort would not exist, either, and we wouldn’t really pay attention to anything about our existence.
Now, there are some researches that suggest that conscious control is nothing but an illusion. That is not really the issue, though: even if control is an illusion, effort is a reality in itself.
Many people mention some sort of “Problem of Evil”, or whatever. I sincerely see no problem. Evil is perceived because there is a major gradient of satisfaction (some things are better than others) in reality. This gradient is what motivates effort, because we wouldn’t really do anything if our lives were perfect. We wouldn’t need to improve or learn.
In other words, effort and satisfaction are what motivate the evolution of general knowledge.
There are certain peculiarities in the relation between effort and satisfaction, such as the general tendency for more difficult things to be better. Though this is not a strict rule, it can be observed in many aspects of daily life. Sometimes, the mere fact that something is harder to obtain increases its value and the resulting satisfaction.
There is also a unique tendency that things seem to follow: easy ways to obtain immediate satisfaction tend to bring negative consequences later, while difficult ways to obtain it tend to be safer later on.
Greater intelligence (God, or whatever):
This whole system regarding the Observer, effort and satisfaction (and even the fact that something as awesome as satisfaction exists) is one of the major reasons why I believe there is some sort of intent behind things. It is by no means a proof, but I believe it’s something worth considering.
Also, the Observer needs to have come from somewhere (maybe an original Observer) considering the high probability that it is not generated by matter.
Of course, many would just say that the system is an evolutionary thing to make survival easier, but I could also say the contrary: that the whole evolutionary system and the universe exist to be an experience for this Observer. In fact, we can defy survival, but we can’t defy the laws of satisfaction, and every living system could function in the same way without an Observer.
The word “God” is extremely stigmatized thanks to religion, but I guess it could be called that way. It doesn’t have to be omnipotent, omniscient nor omnipresent, but it has to be smart enough to be responsible for the system. Nobody knows what has determined our physical laws, and a form of intelligence is a perfectly possible alternative.
“But what created this thing?”
Well, there are many possible explanations. It could have come from another universe like ours, in some sort of eternal cycle. It could even be an eternal part of existence itself.
And then some will say “the concept of Purpose is a human creation, there is no reason for existence to have such a thing”. Yes, purpose is a human concept. So is science. And reality. And pretty much any concept you can imagine. In other words, this argument is meaningless. Concepts don’t come out of nowhere.
Like I’ve said before, the universe doesn’t care about anything, including a purpose. The purpose is determined by the Observers. And that purpose is obviously satisfaction. It is, after all, the only thing anything ever cares about.
Interesting possibilities:
Well, that’s it. I hope that it was inspiring for someone. In the case that you still think that the things I mentioned are “unlikely”, I hope it’s for a better reason than the fact that it involves concepts often adopted by religions, such as afterlife and a greater intelligence, or the fact that it is too “positive”. Because those are not good reasons.
edited 17th Mar '12 10:22:05 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."