aimless and arbitrary

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

aimless and arbitrary

Post by Kuznetzova »

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.
mickthinks
Posts: 933
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by mickthinks »

Kuznetzova wrote:And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.
You make it sound like that is something to regret or be despondent about, as if you thought you or humanity in general would be happier or better off if "something" were to "happen".

So I want to ask, what kind of thing do you wish would happen to the cosmos as a result of the fleeting appearance of knowing?
Impenitent
Posts: 3342
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Impenitent »

and eternally recurring...

-Imp
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Kuznetzova »

mickthinks wrote: You make it sound like that is something to regret or be despondent about, as if you thought you or humanity in general would be happier or better off if "something" were to "happen".

So I want to ask, what kind of thing do you wish would happen to the cosmos as a result of the fleeting appearance of knowing?
Friedrich Nietzsche
'On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense', 1873
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Ginkgo »

Kuznetzova wrote:
mickthinks wrote: You make it sound like that is something to regret or be despondent about, as if you thought you or humanity in general would be happier or better off if "something" were to "happen".

So I want to ask, what kind of thing do you wish would happen to the cosmos as a result of the fleeting appearance of knowing?
Friedrich Nietzsche
'On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense', 1873
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
What if a universe was capable of facilitating a mechanism whereby it was capable of eventually understanding itself?

If this is the case, why would it do this?
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Blaggard »

So if the universe became sentient in and of itself, wouldn't that mean you are referring to some sort of God, since he exists everywhere and is omniscient. Why then would such a remarkably powerful being chose natural laws that were arbitrary and cruel. Depends on the nature of nature, to one who is universal this menagerie of life might seem the best way to encourage intelligence and hence the most expedient method of evolution of life, regardless of how many times intelligence arises, in the bigger picture it is those who can survive adapting to change, even the death of their own star who will be fitter. In 2 billion years the sun will be hot enough to produce runaway global warming without any input from nature, in 4 billion years we will collide with the Andromeda galaxy, which will most likely pass off as a spectacular light show being as galaxies are diffuse, or if we are unlucky we might get bounced out of the galaxy into the void or into the galactic centre and swallowed by a black hole in a cosmic snooker shot. Regardless in about 5 billion years our sun will have used up all of its hydrogen fuel and begin to expand into a red giant, where eventually it will swallow all the planets put to a distance just shy of the asteroid belt, then it will cool and helium fission will predominate until it shrugs off the rest of its atmosphere leaving a core white dwarf star, an event called a nova. If we can survive that I'd say we have evolved, and those that couldn't didn't.

I am once again reminded of Arthur C Clarkes books, a race of sentient beings advances to the point where they can become one with the fabric of space and time, virtual gods, they search the universe for life, being lonely amongst creation, finding it rare they leave monoliths where sentience looks promising, Cue the start of 2001:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEaGQb6dJk

That poses the same questions from an inordinately powerful species, that are well aware there is no God, but is compared to most life at least so inordinately advanced as to be unable even to communicate with other intelligent life, because it would be like a man trying to hold a conversation with an amoeba.

At the end of the day why does life have to have purpose, why does it have to obey some natural law that is benevolent, and why do we think that God, if such a being exists is remotely interested in a tiny spec of dirt floating around an ordinary and common yellow type star in a universe teaming with potential life. Asking why the cruelty and why the arbitrary is meaningless, and anthropocentric, life exists because of the nature of nature, I doubt there is any driving force except existence itself which is possibly eternal, there may be infinite universes where life cannot occur, and infinite universes where life did, but we seemingly will never know. Or we coulc be one of an eternal universe that rebirths every 10000 billion years. Who knows but the idea of arbitrary and or cruel is typically selfish and self absorbed, which is human, to look beyond such pettiness potentially divine. :)
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Ginkgo »

Blaggard wrote:So if the universe became sentient in and of itself, wouldn't that mean you are referring to some sort of God, since he exists everywhere and is omniscient. Why then would such a remarkably powerful being chose natural laws that were arbitrary and cruel. Depends on the nature of nature, to one who is universal this menagerie of life might seem the best way to encourage intelligence and hence the most expedient method of evolution of life, regardless of how many times intelligence arises, in the bigger picture it is those who can survive adapting to change, even the death of their own star who will be fitter. In 2 billion years the sun will be hot enough to produce runaway global warming without any input from nature, in 4 billion years we will collide with the Andromeda galaxy, which will most likely pass off as a spectacular light show being as galaxies are diffuse, or if we are unlucky we might get bounced out of the galaxy into the void or into the galactic centre and swallowed by a black hole in a cosmic snooker shot. Regardless in about 5 billion years our sun will have used up all of its hydrogen fuel and begin to expand into a red giant, where eventually it will swallow all the planets put to a distance just shy of the asteroid belt, then it will cool and helium fission will predominate until it shrugs off the rest of its atmosphere leaving a core white dwarf star, an event called a nova. If we can survive that I'd say we have evolved, and those that couldn't didn't.

I am once again reminded of Arthur C Clarkes books, a race of sentient beings advances to the point where they can become one with the fabric of space and time, virtual gods, they search the universe for life, being lonely amongst creation, finding it rare they leave monoliths where sentience looks promising, Cue the start of 2001:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEaGQb6dJk

That poses the same questions from an inordinately powerful species, that are well aware there is no God, but is compared to most life at least so inordinately advanced as to be unable even to communicate with other intelligent life, because it would be like a man trying to hold a conversation with an amoeba.

At the end of the day why does life have to have purpose, why does it have to obey some natural law that is benevolent, and why do we think that God, if such a being exists is remotely interested in a tiny spec of dirt floating around an ordinary and common yellow type star in a universe teaming with potential life. Asking why the cruelty and why the arbitrary is meaningless, and anthropocentric, life exists because of the nature of nature, I doubt there is any driving force except existence itself which is possibly eternal, there may be infinite universes where life cannot occur, and infinite universes where life did, but we seemingly will never know. Or we coulc be one of an eternal universe that rebirths every 10000 billion years. Who knows but the idea of arbitrary and or cruel is typically selfish and self absorbed, which is human, to look beyond such pettiness potentially divine. :)

Good post Blags.

I would like some time to think about it and reply.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Kuznetzova wrote:Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.
Not true, as man has left some footprints and some garbage on the moon, shot probes out to the extents of the universe, and soon, so it seems, to leave more footprints and garbage on mars. Not to mention all the tons and tons and tons and...(you get the picture) of garbage on earth. (you didn't specify the way in which man would end, so as to erase all his garbage, including those probes, so far from here by now. At least those probes ensure something will remain 'happening,' quite possibly for some time to come. As I assumed you meant mans 'happening.'
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Blaggard wrote:So if the universe became sentient in and of itself, wouldn't that mean you are referring to some sort of God, since he exists everywhere and is omniscient. Why then would such a remarkably powerful being chose natural laws that were arbitrary and cruel. Depends on the nature of nature, to one who is universal this menagerie of life might seem the best way to encourage intelligence and hence the most expedient method of evolution of life, regardless of how many times intelligence arises, in the bigger picture it is those who can survive adapting to change, even the death of their own star who will be fitter. In 2 billion years the sun will be hot enough to produce runaway global warming without any input from nature, in 4 billion years we will collide with the Andromeda galaxy, which will most likely pass off as a spectacular light show being as galaxies are diffuse, or if we are unlucky we might get bounced out of the galaxy into the void or into the galactic centre and swallowed by a black hole in a cosmic snooker shot. Regardless in about 5 billion years our sun will have used up all of its hydrogen fuel and begin to expand into a red giant, where eventually it will swallow all the planets put to a distance just shy of the asteroid belt, then it will cool and helium fission will predominate until it shrugs off the rest of its atmosphere leaving a core white dwarf star, an event called a nova. If we can survive that I'd say we have evolved, and those that couldn't didn't.
As you've stated it, the probable chance of nova is incorrect, at least according to the scientists that research it.

I am once again reminded of Arthur C Clarkes books, a race of sentient beings advances to the point where they can become one with the fabric of space and time, virtual gods, they search the universe for life, being lonely amongst creation, finding it rare they leave monoliths where sentience looks promising, Cue the start of 2001:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEaGQb6dJk

That poses the same questions from an inordinately powerful species, that are well aware there is no God, but is compared to most life at least so inordinately advanced as to be unable even to communicate with other intelligent life, because it would be like a man trying to hold a conversation with an amoeba.

At the end of the day why does life have to have purpose, why does it have to obey some natural law that is benevolent, and why do we think that God, if such a being exists is remotely interested in a tiny spec of dirt floating around an ordinary and common yellow type star in a universe teaming with potential life. Asking why the cruelty and why the arbitrary is meaningless, and anthropocentric, life exists because of the nature of nature, I doubt there is any driving force except existence itself which is possibly eternal, there may be infinite universes where life cannot occur, and infinite universes where life did, but we seemingly will never know. Or we coulc be one of an eternal universe that rebirths every 10000 billion years. Who knows but the idea of arbitrary and or cruel is typically selfish and self absorbed, which is human, to look beyond such pettiness potentially divine. :)
And that last line, you have absolutely no way of knowing, that neither we're the only ones, nor a creator of like mind.
But that smiley face says it all, and is where you get your pseudonym from, as far as I'm concerned.
;-)
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Blaggard »

Well I meant the divine in terms of a species that can become part of time and space rather than one that was actually divine, I am of course not a great believer in God or gods, believing them to be a primitive throwback to times when explanations needed answers that had to have some invention to make some sense of the ineffable.

I have no way of knowing of course if their are very powerful beings in the universe, and likewise you have no way of determining aimless and arbitrary based on what you know. Either there is a God and there is a purpose, or there is no God and we are stuck with laws which are arbitrary and aimless, or x as I outlined above, we just don't have the information to hand. And I really don't think whatever the consequences of creator or not, you or I are able to understand it given our tiny backyard in amongst 100s of billions of stars amongst billions of galaxies, I doubt either way God or not nature or the divinity cares about the complaints of the anthropocentric beings therein. The op does though assume a great deal about arbitrary and aimless, not something I think that really lends well to logic based on what we know. That said this is philosophy and I am sure myself in my humble opinion one day, the human race wont be as conceited as the op lends them.

Also scientists are pretty sure the sun will eventually nova, it is not massive enough to super nova, it's fate is likely the same as most of the type of long burning suns in its class. Of course no one is sure of it, but it is observably true according to other stars in its category.
Last edited by Blaggard on Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Blaggard wrote:Well I meant the divine in terms of a species that can become part of time and space rather than one that was actually divine, I am of course not a great believer in God or gods, believing them to be a primitive throwback to times when explanations needed answers that had to have some invention to make some sense of the ineffable.
I'm an agnostic as I 'know' that no man 'knows' either way!


Also scientists are pretty sure the sun will eventually nova,
Incorrect! It would seem, much like mine, sometimes, your memory has been challenged.

And I quote:

"A nova is caused by the accretion of hydrogen on to the surface of the star, which ignites and starts nuclear fusion in a runaway manner. Novae are thought to occur on the surface of a white dwarf in a binary system. If the two stars are close enough, material can be pulled from the companion star's surface onto the white dwarf."

And you said "regardless." Obviously to the previous, or else you failed to specify otherwise, contextually speaking of course.



it is not massive enough to super nova, it's fate is likely the same as most of the type of long burning suns in its class. Of course no one is sure of it, but it is observably true according to other stars of this type.
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Kuznetzova »

User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by Kuznetzova »

Blaggard wrote:Regardless in about 5 billion years our sun will have used up all of its hydrogen fuel and begin to expand into a red giant, where eventually it will swallow all the planets put to a distance just shy of the asteroid belt, then it will cool and helium fission will predominate until it shrugs off the rest of its atmosphere leaving a core white dwarf star, an event called a nova. If we can survive that I'd say we have evolved, and those that couldn't didn't.
Many people are aware of the final fate of the earth being swallowed by the outer portions of the sun, predicted to take place at 5 Billion years. I have some bad news for those of you who think this is our time limit to 'evolve'.

At 800 million years (that is 0.8 billion), photosynthesis will cease. Life on earth at that time cannot look like it does now. By 1.3 billion years, all life will cease, save some specialized kinds of bacteria. The true time limit for us on Earth is 2.3 billion. At that time, the surface temperature of the earth will be 147 degrees C. There will be no water on the surface and no atmosphere either.

Going out farther into the future than this is a pointless exercise. The orbits of the planets are unknown and unpredictable at 2.8 billion years. We are looking at collisions between inner planets, which could do anything such as fling the earth out into deep space, or mess up the earth's orbit causing us to pass very close to the sun.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Awesome, K! Thanks for that one! Great 720p time lapsed photography, with solemn, thought provoking piano, and the words/voice of one of my hero's, "Carl Sagan." His vision echoing mine, or maybe the other way around, either way, those of like mind! Great stuff! It almost brought tears to my eyes, well actually it did, it's just that they failed to run down my cheeks, a quantity issue! Maybe I'm dehydrated! ;-)

Seriously, thanks!
mickthinks
Posts: 933
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: aimless and arbitrary

Post by mickthinks »

Okay, so they aren't your ideas, but quoted from Nietzsche. I'm not so familiar with his writing that I could recognise them as his, sorry.

The trouble with passing off other people's words as your own (thanks for admitting that finally) is that the real author is not here to answer for them. But maybe you can answer on Friedrich's behalf in his death-enforced absence?
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened
Nietzsche makes it sound in the OP like that is something to regret or be despondent about, as if he thought he or humanity in general would be happier or better off if "something" were to "happen". Do you think that's actually how he felt, and if so, what kind of thing do you think he wished would happen to the cosmos as a result of the fleeting appearance of knowing?
Post Reply