The meaning of life:

the meaning of life:

you are a point of view. you are not a set of particles but rather the entire universe (every point of view is like its own universe and particles are just singularities). nothingness is also a point of view. experience is like a language in that godel's incompleteness theorem applies to it. time is basically the result of writing "this sentence is false" in this language (or if you're an engineer, feeding a NOT gate's output into its input). each point of view (including nothingness) requires other points of view to get around godel's incompleteness theorem (to hold their hidden variables to not contradict itself). "qualia" is another way of saying "the laws of physics" so if they change the laws of physics change. your point of view and its qualia are basically random and it's strongly implied that this isn't your first roll. there is no god or free will. if you define free will as requiring nondeterminism you are just saying dice have free will.

tl;dr: something exists instead of nothing because even "nothingness" would still require a viewer to not contradict itself and beyond that when alice asks "why am i alice and not bob?" the answer is randomness.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism
twitter.com/AnonBabble

there is something, but it still doesn't matter in the end. such is transience.

to elaborate further on why nothingness needs a viewer: it's the same reason a particle can't both hold its velocity and location or why you can't draw a moving point on a piece of paper. information can't hold state.

you can draw a self feeding NOT gate on paper but that's just information. a subject (viewer) is needed to give the thing a state. both "information" and "state" are actually the same thing but can't exist in the same universe because of encoding issues and this results in the object/subject split.

the meaning of life is to reproduce and not die m8.

well, i said there's no god (since there's no free will, it follows logically). therefore, we're basically just watching a movie. my character wants to ease your character's existential dread a bit, that's all.

why? if you keep asking why to each answer, you eventually come to the building blocks of the universe. my attempt here is to explain why there are any at all.

That makes no sense, you seem to be conflating knowing the distinction between something and nothing and nothingness. Nothingness would lack the observer too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism

appreciate that, but unless you can undo the ephemerality of my existence it's nothing but platitudes. that said meaninglessness and purposelessness are liberating, it's the pointlessness that's the issue.

"nothingness" is an object like anything else. it has symmetries over transformation. you can't describe symmetries over transformation in an object's state. something outside the object's state must hold that information (the subject).

It's the lack of objects though.

Something is an emergent property of nothing? it exists within itself? there is a negative balancing 1?

*and nothing in-between?

Nothingness can either be an object or an error code that's not allowed when constructing sentences and it doesn't really change the original post's message. I was using it as an example object, but any other object can be used in its place to the same results.

a pink unicorn for example. without a viewer, the universe can either encode the unicorn's motion or location but not both. a viewer is needed to encode both things.

if "nothing" is not an object, then you can't say "nothing exists" because you're basically saying "ERROR 404 NOT FOUND exists" but i think that's a cop out and it's more rigorous to treat nothing like an object then answer why THAT object doesn't exist instead of THIS current object, the universe.

I wasn't disagreeing, just discussing at the moment.

A tree falls in the woods regardless of the observer.

look up the ladder paradox. does the tree fall before or after a bird chirps? depending on the observer, it can be either.

the information required for motion can't be encoded in the same view as the information required for location. this is because of the limitations of information: you can't encode an algorithm with just 1s and 0s.

imagine each subject (or object, they're really interchangeable) can hold information but ONLY in an infinite series of 1s and 0s. You would need at least 2 subjects/objects to describe any state perfectly: one for the model of the data, and one for the algorithm.

That's the problem, the universe has no point of view. However our ability to understand it requires we choose a frame of reference.

As for that algo, nothingness could be the absence of it. I don't see why we must see nothingness as an object since object is a concept used to describe something.

you don't need to see nothingness as an object. if nothing's not an object, however, then there's no need to answer "what's the meaning of life" with anything other than "it just happened randomly for no reason" since nothing is no longer an option. at that point saying "why doesn't nothing exist" is like saying "why doesn't a number bigger than 5 but smaller than 4 exist?"

>the meaning of life:

1st. define life

2. meaning?

3. influence?

4. Sustainability

your subjective experience

#Qualia

qualia is the subjective version of the object's laws of physics. if alice (the subjct) acts because she's seeing red, alice (the object) is acting because of the laws of physics; the two concepts are the same thing

furthermore the given qualia/physical laws seem effectively random. i'm guessing each universe just rolls them randomly, and they're possibly rerolled from time to time

Who cares if it's rerolled, your roll is significant.

there are no laws of physics bb. just regularities.

I love paintings like this. Does anyone happen to have the one with the dog staring into a dark room?