16 years old

[Malone]

We have to be careful not to confuse our desires with the structure of the universe. Just because we are horrified by pain, injustice, grief and sorrow doesn't mean there's any answer or retribution. Think about it: when something good or favourable goes our way, we don't spring up and say "Something good happened to me! Something went my way! I don't understand it! I want an answer. I won't be at peace until I get an explanation!" We're only tormented when the negative becomes extremely pronounced, and for some of us (like myself) it's pronounced nearly 24/7. I'm also well aware, though, that however noble and moral the demand for justice and easing of pain is it also betokens a completely unjustifiable anthropocentricism. We can specualte about the underlying structure of the universe all we like, but we are forced to act in the world of everyday experience, and that experience suggests nothing like the existence of 'salvation', 'redemption', or 'justice' in some Platonic realm. The truth is that the universe is a pitiless, grim and thankless place. If one happens to be experiencing good fortune, then it's precisely that: fortune. The axe could swing for any of us at any second.

[sundog]

To quote from a different thread:

Quote

The profoundest instinct in man is to war against the truth; that is, against the Real. He shuns facts from his infancy. His life is a perpetual evasion. Miracle, chimera and to-morrow keep him alive. He lives on fiction and myth. It is the Lie that makes him free. Animals alone are given the privilege of lifting the veil of Isis; men dare not. The animal, awake, has no fictional escape from the Real because he has no imagination. Man, awake, is compelled to seek a perpetual escape into Hope, Belief, Fable, Art, God, Socialism, Immortality, Alcohol, Love. From Medusa-Truth he makes an appeal to Maya-Lie.

[Michael]

This seemed relevant to the topic at hand but I agree that our pat answers whether Christian or Nihilist do VERY little (if anything) to justify a body in front of you. Whatever answer you get (or accept) it never takes it away. Suicides Now America's Leading Cause Of Death By Injury: Study

[NealJansons]

Quote Originally Posted by Gray House

Neal Jansons, I found all of that very interesting. Can you recommend any books on idealistic metaphysics along the lines of what you described?

Well, as a fan--and sometimes bemused correspondent--of Master Ligotti, I would be remiss if I failed to mention Schopenhauer. His theory of "will" being the fundamental basis of reality and mind at the same time is very compelling once you are no longer biased towards physicalist reasoning.

Plato and the Neo-Platonic schools.

Heidegger and Kierkegaard get into the nitty-gritty of what it means for our reality to be fundamentally about subjects relating to objects and other subjects. This is philosophy contingent upon a sort of idealism, but not actually idealist philosophy.

Spinoza and Bishop Berkeley. The phenomenalists.

The problem is that idealism has tended to be in favor at the same time theism was an assumption, so a great deal of idealistic thought tends to invoke things like "divine reason" and "the mind of God" when idealism, in itself, requires no such unifying mental entity. Even Plato's "form of the Good" or "the One" is a result of categorical thinking going to an extreme...just because certain abstractions can be arranged into categories doesn't necessarily mean those categories are necessary.

The sense in which the universe seems to be idealistic is in the way its contents seem to follow the rules of logic and mathematics such that it is almost impossible to account for...a physicalist essentially must claim that all of those rules actually applying to the universe, not just the thought of our particular physical brains, is just luck. Happenstance. That is one of physicalisms basic flaws...it can't account for the fact that the universe seems to be rational and that abstractions in our minds can lead to predictions that hold true in the world.

However, just because the universe is "mind-stuff" doesn't mean that any thought we engage in equally applies to the universe. The "Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God" depends on exactly such a mental formulation, where it contends that since we can conceive of a "perfect" being, that being must exist. The clue to the flaw in the reasoning is that "perfect", "deity", and other such ideas are not statable in mathematico-logical terms. The universe seems to be mind-stuff, sure, but that doesn't mean that any and all permutations of our minds are really true. Mathematico-logical thinking seems to be the place where "psyche" and "kosmos" overlap, not just thinking in general. This means that a good portion of idealist thought involved a lot of empty playing with concepts that don't seem to have this uncanny connection with the universe.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

If one happens to be experiencing good fortune, then it's precisely that: fortune.

What is a coincidence (good fortune)?

Let's imagine that we play this game. We, living in different cities, far way from each other, point at any place we like on a world map. It could be any country, city, small town, ghost town, anything we like. After a previously agreed time, for example two weeks, we decide to go there, to that place, to verify "the Laws of Nature". Imagine that in this town, at a certain corner, you shout: "Russell!" And, similarly, I shout: "Malone!" Guess what? We are in front of each other! Is this a coincidence, or something else?

A coincidence is not a one-time event. To verify whether this rendezvous was a coincidence or not, we would have to pick more cities, across the whole world, and after many times doing this, if it never happens again, then we could reasonably assume that that time we met was really a coincidence. The Universe, Malone, is as far as we know, a one-time event. So, we cannot possibly know whether this Universe is a coincidence or something else.

Second experiment:

Get any six digit number, 765123, for example. In certain countries, bus tickets used to have six digit numbers, so I used to play this game often.

Now, let's add 7 + 6 (13), 5+1 (6), and 2+3 (5). We have the number 1365. Let's add 1+3 (4), and 6+5 (11). The number is 411. Let's add 4+1(5), and leave the last 1 alone. Finally, we have 51, and we add 5+1 to have 6.
Now, let's add 7+6+5 (18) and at the same time 1+8 (9). On the other side, let's add 1+2+3(6). We have the number 96. Let's add 9+6 (15) and at the same time 1+5 (6).
CONCLUSION: No matter how we add these numbers, either separately, by twos, threes, or the resultant of a partial sum, it will always be 6.

Is this a coincidence? Perhaps, good fortune? Or some hidden mathematical law can explain our good fortune? You cannot say that it is not a coincidence because you cannot prove it. Be honest, does it seem to you a coincidence?

Now, we have that charge and mass have nothing to do with each other but both forces that describe how they interact (mass with mass, and charge with charge) vary inversely with the square of the distance. Why? What a good fortune that we were born, luckily, in the universe where by lucky coincidence gravity and electromagnetism vary in exactly the same way. Wow!

For science, this doesn't seem to be a coincidence. So, is this Universe, chaos, fortune, randomness? The answer is obviously no. Does it have a purpose? That's another question.

[Malone]

RN, you are clutching at straws. In any system, there are going to be patterns, so what? This is NOT evidence of a purpose, Creator, Divine Benevolence or anything else. And there are plenty of people who don't regard the existence of themselves or the universe as good fortune.

[Gray House]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

RN, you are clutching at straws. In any system, there are going to be patterns, so what? This is NOT evidence of a purpose, Creator, Divine Benevolence or anything else. And there are plenty of people who don't regard the existence of themselves or the universe as good fortune.

I don't think RN's post argues for a purpose (and he explicitly stated it doesn't at the end of the post) or anything religious. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, but it seems to me RN's post presents evidence for this:

Quote Originally Posted by NealJansons

The sense in which the universe seems to be idealistic is in the way its contents seem to follow the rules of logic and mathematics such that it is almost impossible to account for...a physicalist essentially must claim that all of those rules actually applying to the universe, not just the thought of our particular physical brains, is just luck. Happenstance. That is one of physicalisms basic flaws...it can't account for the fact that the universe seems to be rational and that abstractions in our minds can lead to predictions that hold true in the world. However, just because the universe is "mind-stuff" doesn't mean that any thought we engage in equally applies to the universe. The "Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God" depends on exactly such a mental formulation, where it contends that since we can conceive of a "perfect" being, that being must exist. The clue to the flaw in the reasoning is that "perfect", "deity", and other such ideas are not statable in mathematico-logical terms. The universe seems to be mind-stuff, sure, but that doesn't mean that any and all permutations of our minds are really true. Mathematico-logicalthinking seems to be the place where "psyche" and "kosmos" overlap, not just thinking in general. This means that a good portion of idealist thought involved a lot of empty playing with concepts that don't seem to have this uncanny connection with the universe.

I don't think the question of idealist vs. physicalist universe relates in any way to antinatalism. If in a physicalist universe there is no compelling evidence for a purpose that makes the often horrible biological show worth perpetuating, I think the same holds true in an idealist universe, since personal experiences seem the same either way.

[Malone]

Fair enough. It's just that I've seen the leap made from 'we can understand the universe/ our minds are matched up with the universe' to 'therefore the universe was designed for us!/ there must be a God!/ there is a purpose! the universe is fine-tuned for us!/we're amazing!' so many times that I think it's best to nip it in the bud before the weed has a chance to bloom.

[Russell Nash]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

In any system, there are going to be patterns, so what? This is NOT evidence of a purpose...

Yes, the word is patterns, not laws, as you very well stated. "In any system there are going to be patterns", why do you think it is so? Why is it that a chaotic and random (nothing more chaotic and random that something that comes out of "nothingness"), and, as you said, pitiless Universe, will start exhibiting patterns, not after billions and billions of years, but... from the first instant? Why? This is NOT evidence of a purpose but it IS evidence of something very strange: although apparently chaotic and random, something makes sense at a deep or profound level in this Universe. The Universe makes sense after all. If in that first instant we wouldn't have patterns, you, me , Ligotti, and everyone else, wouldn't be here.

Purpose implies intention, or consciousness. We do know that these patterns are an integral part of the Universe. See, from the beginning of time, and supposing that consciousness (mind-stuff) was not there yet, we have ideas. Yes, we do. When a temperature decreases after a certain numbers of seconds, we can say that the idea of "greater than" or "lower than" is already there... although nobody is there to understand or consciously perceive it. You can say that the Universe can mechanically exist and evolve without the need of ideas. No. A book by Ligotti that refers to the moon, does not contain the idea of the moon unless someone reads the book and understands that those symbols mean "moon". If the book is written in a language I don't understand then there is no moon. Which symbol would be moon if I don't understand any? When I understand symbols, then and only then the idea "moon" emerges from those pages written by Ligotti. Similarly, how can we have ideas without consciousness? So, where are these patterns, associated to ideas, coming from? God...?

I don't believe in God, but this Universe with patterns from time zero, and with ideas (emerging without consciousness out of nothingness), I would also say from time zero, are beyond scientific explanation, now. I can't explain it. These are the facts, whether we like it or not.

Quote Originally Posted by Gray House

I don't think RN's post argues for a purpose (and he explicitly stated it doesn't at the end of the post) or anything religious.

Even if the Universe has a purpose it could be changed. Example: what's the purpose of our ears? To hear. But we can also use them to wear earrings. So, the Universe having a purpose or not might be an irrelevant problem. I've been a declared atheist for the last 30 years, and I'm not going to change now. These are the facts, a Universe (the only thing we know to exist for now) with patterns and ideas from time zero, and like it or not, it demands an answer. Why?

But let me go back to the lady and her deceased kid.

Does AN helps her now? No. The kid was born and died. It might help others but not her right now. Does anyone have anything to say to the lady, other than, life is like that?

She is looking for meaning, for something that makes sense. Does the Universe make sense? It does, that's why we still keep breathing. If this Universe does not make sense, you (all of you) wouldn't be reading this at this moment. Why do you care what we are talking about? Who cares who is right or wrong, if nothing makes sense?

Imagine that someone is about to jump off a bridge, what would you say? "Congratulations, let's jump together, f*cking life". Or, perhaps, we would say something positive not to let that person jump, to prevent the suicide from happening, like: "hey, do not jump, c'mon, maybe tomorrow things will look better". The Universe does make sense for most of us.

If something is unfair, we don't say: "The fact that that ass*ole is my supervisor, when I should be promoted in his place, is not unfair, or unjust. He is occupying a position in space-time by accident, and I occupy another. There is nothing just or unjust. We are collections of atoms traveling through an infinite space." We complain, we would like things to change... but why? Isn't it a pitiless Universe? Because we want it not to be pitiless. Because we are looking for something that makes sense.

She is not going to have her son back, in the future who knows, now, no. Therefore, she is trying to get back some meaning, grab something that will push her one more second and one more.

[Gray House]

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash

These are the facts, a Universe (the only thing we know to exist for now) with patterns and ideas from time zero, and like it or not, it demands an answer. Why?

It seems to me an idealist universe might follow patterns that make sense to us because it is our mind-stuff we perceive (and that would include our perception of ourselves), not the mind-stuff of an external consciousness. If that were the case, the big unanswered question would be: What is the mind-stuff?

Quote Originally Posted by Russell Nash

Does anyone have anything to say to the lady, other than, life is like that?

To my mind the alternative to saying "life is like that" would be to come up with an appropriate illusion and hope it is convincing. I think there are only illusions of meaning. I don't think reality, whether idealist or physicalist, really makes sense in a way that would be meaningful, unless perhaps there is some reward in perceiving with veracity, like Thomas Metzinger says in this video:

Science and Spiritualily: Similar Approaches to Discovering Truth - Thomas Metzinger - YouTube

Science and Spiritualily: Similar Approaches to Discovering Truth - Thomas Metzinger - YouTube

I guess my answer may not be very hopeful, but I think TLO is probably not the best place to seek hopeful answers.