What Is The Meaning Of Human Existence?

Meaning is in being, feeling, becoming, doing, loving, gratitude.

If the universe is really as empty as we’re seeing it and these UAPs exist as we’re being asked to believe in them then you’ll only know when whatever is control allows you to know.

As I cope with the above reality I’m finding it hard to engage in discussions like this I used to gravitate towards. Even if I only believe there’s a 1% chance of it being true, the implications of that reality just makes my brain stop after a lifelong journey of consuming the natural world and all it represents in scientific form.

Nobody, nothing controls UAPs. Just physics and chemistry. Bad technology and worse psychology. There is 0.00000000000000000% chance of them being intentional apart from human.

Agreed and that’s where my mind logically goes and believes but your emotions don’t always obey your understanding of probabilities.

At the same time I get to my understanding of reality and learn from people around me. Not even Einstein invented all of applicable human knowledge. So when a certain caliber of person with a certain amount of credibility presents potential evidence in a certain way, it changes things. When that happens across many people of high caliber and credibility that then makes it something you have to at least entertain.

There’s wording in the Defense Authorization Act of 2022 that forms a legit scientific committee including universities, NASA, NOAA (submerged craft) that has bipartisan support. Attached to that specific legislation with that kind of support it will 100% be passed. Assuming nothing unexpected happens I’d expect a quick “yeah this is all BS” from the likes of people who will be in charge.

That or perhaps it was 0.00000000000000001% all along and the overwhelming odds were kept hidden? Again whatever, there’s no reality where any of it is true and we’re in control of literally anything.

Nobody can possibly hide anything even if there were anything to hide, which is impossible: there is nothing to hide.

There are unknowns! It is the unknowns that usually end up determining the evolution of history.

The future is totally unknown.

No, it is stochastically deterministic. We can predict many things in the future, we just don’t know exactly when or where. I see a parallel with particle duality.

You can only know one of the potential expression at a time.

No, it’s unknown. It hasn’t happened.

Right, but chances are that tomorrow is going to happen and that in summer the sun will shine and in winter there will be some snow.

Else why do we plan and prepare for future events? Probability!

Yeah, things tend to stay the same.

Right, but chances are that tomorrow is going to happen and that in summer the sun will shine and in winter there will be some snow.

Or that the sun has never shown for us and everything runs perfectly according to the rules because we’re running a program.

I really have lost all basis of reality in reality and there’s no religion there to pick me back up.

The rules are the rules because they hold up to how we observe them, but rests upon an assumption Descartes made a long time ago we were very happy to latch on to.

A side note, if this is The Matrix, I’d like to let it be known to any agents that I’m totally willing and able to go the full Cypher route. I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

There is no sentient Agency running the Matrix. The Matrix is a quasi-intelligent ordering system. It doesn’t need any motivated intent, just Universal constant values and mathematical functions.

Cause <—> Effect

Input —> Function —> Output.
image
Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a “machine” or “black box” that for each input yields a corresponding output
Function (mathematics) - Wikipedia

It is really not that complicated. Max Tegmark posits some 31 relational values and a dozen or so equations are all that is needed to make the Universe “functional”.

1 Like

It is really not that complicated. Max Tegmark posits some 31 relational values and a dozen or so equations are all that is needed to make the Universe “functional”.

I’m sorry, I was looking for someone to talk me off the “we’re inter-dimensional slaves trapped in an endless maze” ledge, not reinforce with peripheral evidence. I mean, I’m a dude who gets to talk on the internet in 2021, I got it better than Roman nobility in most respects, maybe I am Cypher. OMG how deep does this rabbit hole go? It’s all a fractal, just let me zoom out a little further.

Down to a singularity? Isn’t that how it all began?

Down to a singularity? Isn’t that how it all began?

We’re kind of getting off-topic, maybe, I dunno cosmology encompasses humanity by definition. Let’s assume for the sake of this analogy we live in a finite universe, I think it’s irrelevant for our debate but serves to help illustrate my point. If your finite universe was a circular plane that ended at the boundary you would say that is it and then you could base the beginning of everything at the beginning of that circular plane. You would be completely unaware of the larger circle your circle was born in because all you can observe is your plane, in which you exist.

No matter where you bring a beginning to, you can always create something theoretical further back, on top of, or around the beginning of that reality.

Not necessarily. Check out Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)

Causal dynamical triangulation

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
How did the universe begin? How will it end? - The Science Behind It.

The thing on the right is yelling at me for replying too many times. Of course if we had the proven solution for gravity we could wade through a lot of theories but even here I don’t see a self-contained universe as one precluding the existence of a larger box that we could be inside of, only potentially precluding its necessity. I only brazenly argue with confidence about boxes within boxes because I know no one can currently argue against it affirmatively rooted in absolute fact, not because of some innate wisdom. When gravity has a solution and people need to do real science and math I’ll gladly keep my silence and absorb while people put the puzzle together :smiley:

It’s funny because this is related to the idea of space time itself being reflective of an atomic structure which in turn makes me think of a fractal. Or, perhaps not a fractal and we can go back to the cave allegory and our perception of space time is just an imperfect reflection of actual space-time (or something else?), which would again, take us outside the original box.

I’m just resistant to the idea that we can ever solve the existence of humanity through physics. I think at best it’s the model in which to test our ideas of the meaning of humanity. And with that pseudo-scientific dribble I leave the conversation to you fine sirs since we’ve already established I submit to authority and I don’t want to test that dialog box on the right.

[quote=“mattituckmatt, post:62, topic:7717”]
I’m just resistant to the idea that we can ever solve the existence of humanity through physics. I think at best it’s the model in which to test our ideas of the meaning of humanity.

Why not? Perhaps not physics because that requires physical dynamics at a extremely small and large scales that are beyond our abilities to duplicate. But what about our symbolic representations of the mechanics involved.

Robert Hazen makes a clear and persuasive case for the probability of Abiogenesis via mineral interaction.

And with that pseudo-scientific dribble I leave the conversation to you fine sirs since we’ve already established I submit to authority and I don’t want to test that dialog box on the right.
[/quote]

It is mathematics that predicted the existence of the Higgs boson. Fortunately, the experimental physics was within our ability and “eureka”, we caused a Higgs boson to become manifest for just an instant.
We had a glimpse of the quantum world, by imitating a little bit of the energies found in cosmic clouds (Cern).

1 Like

I watched this lecture yesterday and have been thinking about it interlocking with a lot of the existential crap I’ve been posting on lately and frankly have found it to be an incredibly helpful tool to remind me of the nature of life as I contemplate it. You’ve reached into this former geology major’s heart and produced a gem.