[Qent]

How pretty much determines why.

I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.

As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.

I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?

That's actually what I mean.

And yet I can't tell anymore, which is why Poe's Law sucks so bad. Actually forget it, I'm just going to believe whatever you say like I did before.

@iamzack, that's actually a cause and not a reason, so it's still "how."

[iamzack]

So, what, the only "why" allowed is magic?

[watsisname]

How pretty much determines why.

I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.

As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.

I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?

That's actually what I mean.

And yet I can't tell anymore, which is why Poe's Law sucks so bad. Actually forget it, I'm just going to believe whatever you say like I did before.

Is the content of his post sensical, logical, coherent, based in reality?  If so, then you probably don't have to worry about it being related to Poe's Law.

[Qent]

How pretty much determines why.

I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.

As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.

I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?

That's actually what I mean.

And yet I can't tell anymore, which is why Poe's Law sucks so bad. Actually forget it, I'm just going to believe whatever you say like I did before.

Is the content of his post sensical, logical, coherent, based in reality?  If so, then you probably don't have to worry about it being related to Poe's Law.

It was the "we're all aware" that was obviously false and threw me off for the rest of the post. Otherwise it sounded like I would expect Battuta to sound.

[iamzack]

Battuta's optimistic sometimes.

[Aardwolf]

I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.

As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.

Disagree.

That is, I agree with the thing you think we're all aware of, but I disagree about everyone being aware of it. And I'm tempted to disagree about whether you think that, while I'm at it.

[General Battuta]

I think everybody's aware at some level. It's been codified as terror management theory.

Although I do think that TMT is a load of crock in some respects...I do believe it's correct that everyone confronts the nihilistic truth and handles it in different ways, mostly by denying it in a roundabout fashion.

Myself, I think the deterministic, purposeless universe is rather cheery. The universe is a sandbox for us to make a mark on. And our conduct towards each other is up to us, not to invisible laws from the ether. I think we can handle it.

[Aardwolf]

I think everybody's aware at some level. It's been codified as terror management theory.

Although I do think that TMT is a load of crock in some respects...I do believe it's correct that everyone confronts the nihilistic truth and handles it in different ways, mostly by denying it in a roundabout fashion.

Myself, I think the deterministic, purposeless universe is rather cheery. The universe is a sandbox for us to make a mark on. And our conduct towards each other is up to us, not to invisible laws from the ether. I think we can handle it.

Nihilism rules.

Needs moar hedonism, though.

[Herra Tohtori]

There are several things that seem to disprove the hypothesis of universe being deterministic. Mainly, Bell inequality experiments related to hidden variables (or lack thereof) in quantum physics. Which, for me at least, is a preferable reality to completely discrete and deterministic universe, since I despise destiny and fart in the general direction of fate.

This, of course, does not have any bearing on the meaning of life, universe and everything. My opinion is that such things are part of person, and not applicable to other people or entities in the universe. So, if universe has a personality, then it may or may not have a "meaning". If it doesn't have a personality, then it doesn't have meaning aside from what sentient beings living in it consider it to be.

Maybe the purpose of universe is, or was, or will be to produce YOU... or to be more precise, you wouldn't be here to observe the universe if the universe didn't exist in a manner that allowed the evolution of observers. 

[General Battuta]

Adding an element of randomness to the universe does not make it less deterministic. It just makes that determinism stochastic. The dice will fall the way they fall.

[Snail]

Adding an element of randomness to the universe does not make it less deterministic. It just makes that determinism stochastic. The dice will fall the way they fall.

When you think about it, that is really cool.

[karajorma]

Quote from karajorma

If they ate mosquitoes I could live with it.

****ing mosquitoes!

A Brit complaining of mosquitos? I would say there are no mosquitoes in the UK!

I moved to China nearly a year ago.

So, what, the only "why" allowed is magic?

That is the major why, not the only one, examples of others are the more far out notions (We're all in the matrix, the entire universe was created by aliens seeding it from another universe, etc).

The major counterpoint is that there simply isn't a why.


Which is correct isn't really a matter for science to detect.

[iamzack]

Which is correct isn't really a matter for science to detect.

Why not?

As far as I can tell the only reason science doesn't try to answer those questions is to appease religious nuts.

[karajorma]

"Are you really a brain in a jar somewhere being fed information via neural inputs?"

How would science ever answer that question?

Similarly, "Is there a purpose to the universe?"

How would you ever test that? Sure you can form hypotheses about what the meaning of life is but how would you test them?

Science doesn't try to answer those sorts of questions because there is no way science can answer them.

[iamzack]

How can science say there are no unicorns?!

If a hypothesis is untestable, it's probably false, ain't it?

[Qent]

That's not how science works. That would be faith.

[iamzack]

Since there's no scientific evidence for unicorns (despite thousands of years of people claiming to have seen them), then unicorns probably don't exist.

But it's faith to say they don't exist? Unicorn****.

[Bobboau]

maybe the reason science doesn't answer that question is because no one wants to really know the answer, why don't we try to think of some ways to test if the universe has purpose, for the purpose (lol) of simplicity lets use the theoretical physicist's definition of testability for the first iteration.

so to start off, if there was a purpose to the universe then we would see many common elements in it that pointed toward the same end. currently the only common end that can be observed it the slow withering death of everything, so if there was a purpose it seems as if that purpose was to not exist, but if that was the purpose then the fastest means toward it would have been to never had the universe come into existence. the universe's existence contradicts it's most obvious purpose. therefore there is no purpose.

anyone have any ideas?

[iamzack]

I'm inclined to think the only reasonable answer is that there is no purpose.

[Bobboau]

so am I, but if you don't test you don't know.