Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We Give The Universe Meaning, Like Nothing Else
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 36 (357536)
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


The difference between the whole of the population's death with time existing in the universe, and there being no time/universe, is the same. You might say, "ah - to us that is", but, infact there are no others. And if there are other conscious beings, then I talk of them also.
That is, there is no difference between the universe existing and not existing, if there is no recording/conscious awareness of time/universe.
Space time existed before us, but the recording of the passage of time didn't.
Because of this, the universe has less meaning without sentient awareness. Consider the following;
The finding underlined below also gives credence to the relationship and importance of the connection between the universe and any conscious entity. It is a grandiose yet true statement, that means that there might aswell not be a happening universe without conscious entities within it, acknowledging it. it's because the course of the universe is meaningful to us, but to nothing else. Essentially, this puts us in the centre of it.
The universe of itself, has no meaning unless there is a conscious entity to give it meaning, such as a human.
The universe doesn't care if we don't exist, but without such entities, nobody cares that the universe exists.
" There is no difference between the universe existing and not existing, if there is no recording/conscious awareness of time/universe. "
It might seem irrelevant that this is so. But it isn't because in times past, atheists have tried to show that there is no credence in Theists saying that humans are special. Or they have tried to show that we are not special. Yet this proves that logically, we are special. We literally give the universe meaning. We are the ones who contemplate it.
In this sense, we very much are the centre of the universe, in a manner of speaking. Yes, we are so tiny, but not meaningless. Size has no baring on the matter.
This isn't an argument for Theism as such, but I disagree with the notion that we are not special. This argument hints at, and favours Theism, but doesn't prove Theism. It's routed in fact so it's irrefutable.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 10-20-2006 10:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 4 by Woodsy, posted 10-20-2006 11:38 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 10-20-2006 11:55 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 6 by tudwell, posted 10-20-2006 4:23 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 8 by Nutcase, posted 10-21-2006 12:21 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 11 by 42, posted 10-21-2006 7:23 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-21-2006 11:59 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 16 by beachcomber, posted 10-25-2006 4:56 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 36 (357693)
10-20-2006 10:24 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 36 (357698)
10-20-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


I agree but I would go further.
Our perception of the universe is that it is material, but what is matter. We perceive things as being solid or luminous but the reality, as far as I can grasp it with my extremely basic knowledge of QM, is that all matter is pretty much composed of tiny particles, vast areas of nothing and energy. The particles are so small that we don't really know what they are and we don't know what energy is.
It seems to me that the universe requires a conscious observer to perceive it in order for it to exist at all.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-19-2006 5:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 4 of 36 (357709)
10-20-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


Are you sure that the universe is the kind of thing to which one can sensibly apply the concept of "meaning"?
Perhaps if you would explain what you want to convey by the term "meaning", your ideas would be clearer.
The is always the danger of discussing something equivalent to a "square triangle" without realizing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-19-2006 5:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 36 (357713)
10-20-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


MTW writes:
the universe has less meaning without sentient awareness
I have long thought that conscious to be a major change in the state of the universe.
Prior to conscious thought (any where in the universe) the mechanics of the universe on a macro level must be mechanically mediated. That is to say that classical physsical laws appear to apply (on the macro scale). Changes on the quamtum level have no real effect on the macro level.
Cometh conscious thought and you add choice into the mix. One can choice to move the mouse on your desk in a way that would never happen (at that space/time) if you had not done so. Quantum changes in our brain effect a macro change in the internal state of the universe.
I would hazard that the coming of consciousness brought a massive increase in entropy.
We are indeed special, very special. But I see absolutley no support for Theism here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-19-2006 5:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
tudwell
Member (Idle past 5978 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 6 of 36 (357803)
10-20-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


Meaning
Like Woodsy said, it depends on your definition of meaning.
Conscious beings don't give the universe any inherent meaning. The meaning is subjective. There's no universal meaning of the universe just by there being conscious entities ascribing there own individual meanings onto it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-19-2006 5:33 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 10-20-2006 5:21 PM tudwell has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 36 (357812)
10-20-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by tudwell
10-20-2006 4:23 PM


Re: Meaning
Hi to everyone. This response it to everyone who's participated, aswell.
Conscious beings don't give the universe any inherent meaning. The meaning is subjective
The former is a claim, I don't see why this is so.
If we don't give it meaning, then we'd have to not be part of it, or our subjective meaning has to record as insignificant.
A subjective meaning of an individual, is as real and as valid as anything else in the universe. it is, another produce of the universe, and as valid.
As for meaning being subjective, that's exactly why there would be no meaning without humans - because we are the ones who give it meaning. We are the ones who acknowledge that it exists, and perceive it, we are conscious of it. Without us, the difference would be the same if there was a universe or no universe. (That this only matters to us, doesn't change anything)--think about it--
Since we could be seen as the "conscious universe", then "meaning" being subjective to humans, doesn't actually matter to my argument. If anything, it confirms that there would be no meaning without us.
Now I realize that a none-believer thinks that there is no objective meaning to the universe. Because this is true, then any meaning there is is of great importance. This means that subjective human meaning is a hugely significant and valid component of the universe.
(Many atheists argued that there was meaning in their lives, when confronted with the nihilist argument. Must that now change because mike has turned up with an argument. That would make me think that they are full of it
The universe speaks, when you speak. You are the universe come alive, to behold itself in all it's glory. You are special, and the good thing is, that whether the universe is theist or atheist, that won't change. You're one unique baba!
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tudwell, posted 10-20-2006 4:23 PM tudwell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 10-25-2006 9:19 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Nutcase
Member (Idle past 5782 days)
Posts: 20
From: Brooklyn, New York
Joined: 09-14-2006


Message 8 of 36 (357879)
10-21-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


As I understand, you say that we give the universe the "meaning" as in we are the only creatures that are capable to percieve the universe. I think it goes well with the argument that "it does not exist before someone discovers it". Would you say that a universe that does not produce consious beings does not exist?
Very good topic by the way.
Edited by Nutcase, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-19-2006 5:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 9 of 36 (357906)
10-21-2006 7:22 AM


Hey folks! What do you intend to signify by the word "meaning" in this discussion? I'm finding these posts indecipherable. Perhaps others are too.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 10-21-2006 10:03 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 10 of 36 (357928)
10-21-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Woodsy
10-21-2006 7:22 AM


I'm finding these posts indecipherable.
People use the word "meaning" in the strangest ways.
I think the thread topic boils down to the truism: Without subjects, there can be nothing subjective.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Woodsy, posted 10-21-2006 7:22 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
42
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 36 (358029)
10-21-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


I think conscious animals are special amongst life forms, and would go even further to suggest that those with language are special amongst the conscious. The depth of meaning mice dogs neanderthals and humans experience is mind-boggling to consider. Its easier to use one word - god or chaos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-19-2006 5:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Woodsy, posted 10-22-2006 3:41 PM 42 has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 12 of 36 (358052)
10-21-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-19-2006 5:33 PM


mike the wiz writes:
There is no difference between the universe existing and not existing,
Meaningless sentence, as you are comparing two things -- the sum total of all things (which would therefore contain both of the above things) and the absence of all things (in which case you'd have neither of the above things.)
So, you need a universe to exist to have, "the universe doesn't exist;" and if the universe exists, it doesn't not exist.
mike the wiz writes:
But it isn't because in times past, atheists have tried to show that there is no credence in Theists saying that humans are special. Or they have tried to show that we are not special. Yet this proves that logically, we are special.
You're using 'special' equivocally.
mike the wiz writes:
This isn't an argument for Theism as such, but I disagree with the notion that we are not special. This argument hints at, and favours Theism,
No it doesn't.
"My laptop is the only one sitting on my desk; thus it's special."
Does that favor theism? Nope. It's an entirely irrelevant usage of 'special'.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-19-2006 5:33 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 10-24-2006 12:21 PM DominionSeraph has replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 13 of 36 (358155)
10-22-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by 42
10-21-2006 7:23 PM


Please explain what you are trying to convey by the word "meaning" here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by 42, posted 10-21-2006 7:23 PM 42 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by 42, posted 11-01-2006 2:12 AM Woodsy has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 36 (358524)
10-24-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by DominionSeraph
10-21-2006 11:59 PM


My laptop is the only one sitting on my desk; thus it's special
Strawman.
My argument isn't the argument you made an analogy for.
Meaningless sentence, as you are comparing two things -- the sum total of all things (which would therefore contain both of the above things) and the absence of all things (in which case you'd have neither of the above things.)
Logically, you can't have not universe and not NOT universe
That would = universe. There is no logic I can see that would render this example as non-applicable pertaining to bivalence. IOW, you can't duck the law of the excluded middle.
That means that because we have evidence of X and not X is possible,(blackholes for example), then my statement is fine.
My argument says that without a consciousness, there is no difference to record or observe between either instance. If anything, it's an obvious inference from two known facts.
You're using 'special' equivocally
I'm using the word how I've always used it, during both arguments that are favourable to you, and not. The pragmatics are what matter. IOW, we know what I mean.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-21-2006 11:59 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-25-2006 4:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 15 of 36 (358697)
10-25-2006 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
10-24-2006 12:21 PM


mike the wiz writes:
My argument isn't the argument you made an analogy for.
It uses the same definition of 'special'.
Humans are special because they're of the set of, "Things that give the universe meaning."
My laptop is special because it's of the set of, "Laptops sitting on my desk."
Special because of belonging to a set is special because of belonging to a set.
mike the wiz writes:
My argument says that without a consciousness, there is no difference to record or observe between either instance.
It helps if your words actually express a thought.
Here's a hint: Find the objects. Verbs, adverbs, and adjectives fall into place from there.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 10-24-2006 12:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024