Does the universe inherently suck?

egon spengler · 31-03-2006 7:39pm #1

Think of it this way, everything, and I mean everything is predicated on violence or exploitation/the exclusion or dissapearance of something else. Evolution-species are terminated if they cant exploit their environment successfully, exploit being the operative word. Violence permeates the most fundamental levels of reality. Ideologies, altruistic belief systems, they all involve the exclusion of something else and are divisible to self interest or individual agency at the expense of others in any sense of the word. So if the universe is based on existence/non existence which entails violence, does it suck?

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 31-03-2006 7:41pm

it's not a case of it sucking
that's merely the way it is

egon spengler · 31-03-2006 8:45pm

sean_keevey wrote:

it's not a case of it sucking
that's merely the way it is

i know its a moralizing judgement. Nonetheless it entails a positive outcome for one thing at the expense or negative outcome for another. As humans we have experience of both situations, by being able to see both sides, is saying that this state affairs sucks a subjective judgement? There could be a better way of things, not even a perfect universe but an alternative order where violence doesnt exist.

Crucifix · 31-03-2006 10:56pm

I suppose if you take something that is defined as sucking to be something that is more sucky than the average suck level, the entire universe cannot suck, or um....inverse-suck, because by virtue of containing everything, it would be the average.

Dunners · 01-04-2006 12:53am

egon spengler wrote:

Evolution-species are terminated if they cant exploit their environment successfully, exploit being the operative word.

Is exploit really the operative word? I would say utilise.

Species that are too successful in exploiting their own environment risk destroying it and thereby become the architects of their own downfall (as some could claim we are doing with our environment). Thus selflessness can become a key component to survival, this is also one of the ways we have managed to become the dominant species on the planet - by working together to achieve goals.

Given this I can't agree that the universe is based solely on violence and exploitation and so can't conclude that based on these things it 'sucks'

Jeeves · 01-04-2006 11:02am

Would it not be more a case of the eternal battle of good and evil. Bad news sells so we focus on the evil aspect of things, the violence and exploited. Good is out there as well, just not as famous. Its remains behind the scene at all times although it is not winning, but like i say it is a battle that exists in every human, have faith, do not despair, you only get one lifetime so dont waste it on dark thoughts. Its always darkest before the dawn. Try doing something good for someone else every day even if its only a thought to balance our world. Many hands make light work. Forgive the cliché s but there cliché s for a reason.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 01-04-2006 12:04pm

egon spengler wrote:

i know its a moralizing judgement. Nonetheless it entails a positive outcome for one thing at the expense or negative outcome for another. As humans we have experience of both situations, by being able to see both sides, is saying that this state affairs sucks a subjective judgement? There could be a better way of things, not even a perfect universe but an alternative order where violence doesnt exist.

Sadly violence is just as much a part of us as anything else. It is entirelly natural to be in conflict. Survival of the fittest (although it may suck in theory compared to an idealistic view of what the universe should be like) is prevalent everywhere, from plants to flies to dogs to humans. It is just the natural order that the weaker species die out. Look at bacteria, If they happen to mutate into a stronger strain, the new strain survives and the old one will eventually die out.

DadaKopf · 01-04-2006 12:08pm

It's not so much that the universe "sucks" than "what is the meaning of a universe that sucks"?

I always liked this Woody Allen quote from 'Love and Death' (his slapstick-Camus/Sartre/Dostoyevsky joint):

Woody Allen wrote:

I hate nature. To me, nature is … spiders and bugs, and big fish eating little fish, and plants eating plans, and animals eating … It's like an enormous restaurant, that's the way I see it.

the real ramon · 02-04-2006 9:16pm

I don't think its so much that the universe sucks. Sure we all have to kill to continue living but as much life is born as dies and its better to have lived and died than never to have existed at all.

I don't see it as a cosmic battle between good or evil either - I don't believe good or evil exist.

I see it as a drama between chaos and order. the earth likes balance. It can never quite achieve it, rather it is much like a dial with chaos at one end and order at the other and a needle swinging back and forth near the centre, sometimes more towards chaos but then pulled back towards the centre and swinging over to order and back again, always trying to keep balance but never quite achieving it for more than a split second.

There are a couple of books which come highly recommended (But which I have yet to come around to reading yet nonetheless) which explain how nature works in this way. There are the two books by Dr James Lovelock about Gaia (the earth) and the Tao of Physics (i can't remeber the author of this particular book), but they appear to be required reading for anyone interested in the nature of nature.

that's my two cents anyway.

Catsmokinpot · 12-04-2006 3:47pm

egon spengler wrote:

Think of it this way, everything, and I mean everything is predicated on violence or exploitation/the exclusion or dissapearance of something else. Evolution-species are terminated if they cant exploit their environment successfully, exploit being the operative word. Violence permeates the most fundamental levels of reality. Ideologies, altruistic belief systems, they all involve the exclusion of something else and are divisible to self interest or individual agency at the expense of others in any sense of the word. So if the universe is based on existence/non existence which entails violence, does it suck?

creation and distruction go hand in hand, yes life/the universe inherently sucks, but its the bad things in life that let you know your alive. and creation and destruction are both part of a balance, but even though it sucks life/the universe is bloody beautiful at the same time.

FionnMatthew · 17-04-2006 1:23am

Please note: Boards posts are not allowed exceed 10000 characters, so I have had to spread my response over several posts. Please forgive the inconvenience.

Egon Spengler.

Here is the thesis most easily extracted from your post:

A universe based on violence is a universe that sucks.

This universe is a universe based on violence.

Therefore, this universe is a universe that sucks.

Let us take the first premise first.

A universe based on violence is a universe that sucks.

You never explicitly state this proposition, but it is implicit.
I move that this proposition is fallacious. You are committing a gigantic leap. If a universe is based on violence, it does not follow that it is a universe that sucks.

To say something "sucks" is a a value judgement. It is an aesthetic proposition, subject to the perspective from which it is made.

Would not someone who enjoys violence prefer a violent world? Would not someone who is stronger than everyone else, who uses violence to get what they want, would not this person prefer a world where violence is the key to success? To this person, a universe based on violence would certainly not suck.

Perhaps it is not an aesthetic point you are trying to make. There is the possibility that you are trying to make a moral evaluation of the universe, that what you are trying to say is that "a universe that is based on violence is a universe that sucks from a moral perspective."

But yet again, it simply does not follow. This would amount to making a moral judgement about a universe based on violence. It would be to say "a universe ought not to be based on violence". As David Hume noted, you can't move from an is to an ought.

If you do not agree that you cannot move from an is to an ought , then you need to give us better substantial reasoning to explain why you believe your first premise works.

Let us now, for a bit, suppose that the first premise does work. Let us look at the second premise.

This universe is a universe based on violence.

To be fair, you do try to evidence this claim, by giving numerous examples. Here are my objections to your arguments:

egon spengler wrote:

everything, and I mean everything is predicated on violence or exploitation/the exclusion or dissapearance of something else.

First, you give a list of things on which you propose the universe is predicated. I assume that, in your definition, all of these things bring negative qualities to the universe, since it is by merit of them (or lack of merit) that the universe is said to "suck".

But by listing several "negative" qualities of the universe, you are already relativising your statement, so that it sounds more plausible. And the more you relativise your statement, the more you expand the extension of "violence", the less "bad" the universe seems.

For instance.
If we were to take violence as only referring to physical violence between human beings, we might (most of us) readily agree with your first premise that if the universe is predicated on violence, then it is a bad place. Although there is no necessary connection, most people would probably make that leap with you.

However, this extension for the term "violence" would then cause problems with your second premise. It is obvious that the universe is not predicated only on physical violence between humans. There are an awful lot of things, actions etc., in the universe, even in the sphere of human society, that have nothing to do with physical violence.

And so, "everything is predicated on violence" is a radical proposition, and people will not accept your second premise.

So let us relativise the statement. Let us extend "violence" to include all intentional ego-driven actions on the part of humans. Many people would think this extension of the term "violence" proper. You say as much when you say this:

egon spengler wrote:

Ideologies, altruistic belief systems, they all involve the exclusion of something else and are divisible to self interest or individual agency at the expense of others in any sense of the word.

Now, still, many people will agree with your first premise. A world of ego-driven individuals, where no action is carried out without self-interest, many would say, is a world that "sucks". (But some people will disagree, see sean keevey's "realist" reply for an inadequate objection to which I will respond later. My objection is that in altruistic behaviour, regardless of self-motivation, there are more beneficiaries than just the agent, and so a world with altruistic behaviour "sucks" substantially less than a world without it.)

But you still have a problem with your second premise: "everything is predicated on violence". Your definition of "violence" extends only as far as does the human sphere. Without humans, there is no "violence", as you define the term. The universe seems to have come into being regardless of human agency, and so the universe is not predicated on "violence". The second premise is still radical.

Let us extend the term "violence" so that the second premise is acceptable. Let us include in "violence" any movement of one inanimate substance upon another, whereby one prevails, and another does not. Let us see existence and non-existence as the relationship between subjugator and subjugated. Let us imagine that in place of anything that exists, many things might have existed, and that by existing, the existent exludes the non-existent, and let us see this as inherently "violent". Let us suppose that all chemical reactions are "violent", and that stars are giant, furious points of violence in the sky. Let us see the big bang as a single "violent" instant. And the event thereby, by which all other potential universe were exluded? Let us call that "violent" too.

Now your second premise is acceptable. One cannot imagine anything existent in our universe, including the universe itself, which does not in some way or another owe its existence to "violence".

But now we have a problem for your first premise: "A universe based on violence is a universe that sucks." Most people will no longer make the jump with you, because most people will not see stellar fusion as an inherently "bad" thing. They will not assume that something's existence is dependent on the existential subjugation of something else.

Sure, with your new definition of "violent", the universe is violent, but the more universal you make the term "violent", the less relevant are the particular qualities that used to be related to it. Your universal "violence" is no longer "bad". Most people will see "violence" as unavoidable.

By naming not only violence, but other things upon which the universe is supposedly predicated, you are already universalising the extension of terms in your claim, in order to make the proposition seem more plausible. Not everything is violent or exploitative. So you throw in "the exclusion or dissapearance of something else".

This is harder to put down, but it is also hard to see why this make the universe universally "bad", why it makes the universe "suck". Some bad things disappear, some things disappear by natural course, some good things cannot disappear.

Fichte's dialectic idealism sees a process similar to this by which understanding is elevated : Thesis + Antithesis = Sythesis. In the synthesis, see the disappearance (or rendering irrelevant) of the thesis and antithesis.

Bergson sees life energy (Élan vital) as directly and solely opposing the endemic trend of the universe towards downward movement and entropy. This could be construed as a violent conflict, and yet who but the most jaded could call it "bad", could say that it "sucks"?

Heraclitus said "All is flux". "War is the father of all things", meaning all things pass through change, and what they were unbecomes, passes into non-existence. Is the principle of change over time to render the universe "bad"? Or is it not just a mostly painless process that most people put up with?

egon spengler wrote:

Evolution-species are terminated if they cant exploit their environment successfully, exploit being the operative word.

Species are not terminated for such reasons. They can become extinct for a variety of reasons, but there is not normally an agent involved, and so they cannot be terminated, because that is a transitive verb.

I refer you to the later argument against sean_keevey's post for more response to the evolution argument.

FionnMatthew · 17-04-2006 1:30am

Therefore, this universe is a universe that sucks.

It is impossible, in my opinion, to get to this, your conclusion, so fraught with problems are both of your premises. Nevertheless, let us look at it anyway, in light of the following quote.

egon spengler wrote:

Violence permeates the most fundamental levels of reality.

Let us accept for a minute, as we have done at an earlier juncture, that violence does in fact permeate the most fundamental levels of reality.

This would purport to make a rather weighty point about the universe. Objectively, or so we imagine, independent of human experience, the universe is permeated, at a fundamental level, with violence. Let us accept the second premise.

And let us also, as we have already, accept that this makes the universe "suck". Let us accept the first premise.

In short, since your logical sequence is a formally valid syllogism, let us accept the conclusion.

The judgement that the universe "sucks", then, does follow from the fact that it is permeated, at a fundamental level, with violence.

Relatively, this is not a very radical thing to say at all. Moral or aesthetic judgements are not important at a fundamental, universal level. They have no truth beyond human experience. What does it matter that you have decided that it sucks? After evoking the grand, universal scale, your conclusion is relatively insignificant and meaningless, accessing, as it does, no objective truth - only an intersubjective truth(and this is, remember, only as long as we accept both premises as true, which we don't).

And so, I find, although your sequence is formally valid, none of the three propositions are true.

egon spengler wrote:

i know its a moralizing judgement. Nonetheless it entails a positive outcome for one thing at the expense or negative outcome for another. As humans we have experience of both situations, by being able to see both sides, is saying that this state affairs sucks a subjective judgement? There could be a better way of things, not even a perfect universe but an alternative order where violence doesnt exist.

Saying that this state of affairs sucks is a subjective judgement. The tendency to perceive destruction as negative is a human tendency. Negative and positive have values relative to each other because of us. Without us, they are two poles, with no "good" or "bad", no "right" or "wrong". In space, there is no "up". From the objective standpoint, all is differentiated and yet neutral.

To speak of a "better" way of things is also to speak of something subject to different perspectives. Would it be better to have an unequivocal lack of violence? Or is violence necessary in some circumstances? How might we go about implementing our "improvements"? Alternative orders are possible - in cosmological theories we see them all the time - but we never talk of them as better or worse than any others - just as different.

It is my opinion that the universe does not "suck". For the most part, I find myself singularly repelled by the vast majority of people, but there remains a lot of universe that does not deter me. As for fundamental, violent principles of the universe, I find change, evolution, and stellar fusion bearable.

Society works, as far as I'm concerned, because we forgoe our violent tendencies for net benefits. Whether or not this is self motivated is irrelevant - we do it, and there are net benefits. That the system has its flaws, and occasionally lapses into violence does not detract from its usefulness, or from the fact that, largely, it works. The violence I typically have to endure from my fellow human is not, typically, life threatening.

sean_keevey wrote:

it's not a case of it sucking
that's merely the way it is

This is a good example of the kind of anti-philosophical, faux-realist position that is often taken to disarm and obstruct actual discussion. The ideas are not engaged with, the argument is prematurely ended - the implicit advice is :"Cease further discussion, there is nothing to be gained from it". And that is anti-philosophical. It might be the opinion of some that metaphysics is a discipline best consigned to the garbage-bin, but such people would be in keeping with propriety not to respond to a discussion thread dealing with it.

sean_keevey wrote:

Sadly violence is just as much a part of us as anything else. It is entirelly natural to be in conflict. Survival of the fittest (although it may suck in theory compared to an idealistic view of what the universe should be like) is prevalent everywhere, from plants to flies to dogs to humans. It is just the natural order that the weaker species die out. Look at bacteria, If they happen to mutate into a stronger strain, the new strain survives and the old one will eventually die out.

Survival of the fittest is not an evolutionary principle, but a bastardisation of the term natural selection coined by Herbert Spencer. It is a common fallacy to see the evolutionary process as a violent, random, heartless competition between species, rather than the process by which matter organises itself to accomodate its environment.

The misconceived Survival of the Fittest conception was the conception used by colonial powers to justify domination of their supposedly "racially unfit" colonies.

sean_keevey wrote:

It is just the natural order that the weaker species die out. Look at bacteria, If they happen to mutate into a stronger strain, the new strain survives and the old one will eventually die out.

This, again, asserts a misconceived notion as the "natural order". This amounts to saying, "This is the way things are. Don't question it."

It is not the natural order that the weaker species dies out. Other species, rivals for resources, are only to be considered as just one determining factor in the survival of a particular species. All of these factors comprise the environement in which the species must survive. If it was just a matter of "weak" and "strong", then predator species would long ago have exterminated their own food chain. This is not how evolution happens.

Bacteria should not be divided in terms of "weaker" and "stronger" strains, but into different strains, either more or less dangerous to humans, or more or less adapted to their environement, or more or less successful in spreading etc. "Weaker" strains do not just die out as a matter of course, but often keep going along with the newer strains, and often branch off again by mutation, hence the staggering diversity of bacterial life in the world. Evolution is not a grand narrative by which things just keep getting better and stronger. I refer you to Richard Dawkins work on evolution for a more sophisticated understanding of it. Failing that, read this article at Wikipedia.

Jeeves wrote:

Would it not be more a case of the eternal battle of good and evil. Bad news sells so we focus on the evil aspect of things, the violence and exploited. Good is out there as well, just not as famous. Its remains behind the scene at all times although it is not winning, but like i say it is a battle that exists in every human, have faith, do not despair, you only get one lifetime so dont waste it on dark thoughts. Its always darkest before the dawn. Try doing something good for someone else every day even if its only a thought to balance our world. Many hands make light work. Forgive the cliché s but there cliché s for a reason.

This is an amusing, interesting, and yet ultimately pointless slant on Manichaean theology, whereby both good and evil are only known by merit of the level publicity they are able to acheive. And so we are given a Manichaean scenario much like the commercial battle between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, a battle that Good (Pepsi) is losing by turns. Note the instruction not to "waste" your life thinking "dark thoughts". Such advice, if followed, would have hamstrung some of our best philosophers.

the_real_ramon wrote:

I see it as a drama between chaos and order. the earth likes balance. It can never quite achieve it, rather it is much like a dial with chaos at one end and order at the other and a needle swinging back and forth near the centre, sometimes more towards chaos but then pulled back towards the centre and swinging over to order and back again, always trying to keep balance but never quite achieving it for more than a split second.

There are a couple of books which come highly recommended (But which I have yet to come around to reading yet nonetheless) which explain how nature works in this way. There are the two books by Dr James Lovelock about Gaia (the earth) and the Tao of Physics (i can't remeber the author of this particular book), but they appear to be required reading for anyone interested in the nature of nature.

Read also these works by Henri Bergson.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

creation and distruction go hand in hand, yes life/the universe inherently sucks, but its the bad things in life that let you know your alive. and creation and destruction are both part of a balance, but even though it sucks life/the universe is bloody beautiful at the same time.

... and hence? Doesn't inherently suck.

Catsmokinpot · 17-04-2006 2:32am

FionnMatthew wrote:

... and hence? Doesn't inherently suck.

creation is "cool" wether people create(emotional bonds with others, a safer environment for others, invent, build, write, paint or sing and the universe creates (stars, galaxies, planets, nature, this conversation)

destruction "sucks" because people destroy (by being assholes/killing/taking advantage of others) people also destroy through creation (weapons). nature destroys, stars die, blackholes gobble up the universe.

so it does and it doesnt, the universe is creation and destruction, i mean if ur looking for a definite answer, i suppose i could say neither, as they would technically cancel eachother out, so then were left with a sort of mediocre universe

FionnMatthew · 17-04-2006 12:51pm

Catsmokinpot wrote:

creation is "cool" wether people create(emotional bonds with others, a safer environment for others, invent, build, write, paint or sing and the universe creates (stars, galaxies, planets, nature, this conversation)

Surely this conversation belongs to the first category of things, the things people do.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

destruction "sucks" because people destroy (by being assholes/killing/taking advantage of others) people also destroy through creation (weapons). nature destroys, stars die, blackholes gobble up the universe. so it does and it doesnt, the universe is creation and destruction, i mean if ur looking for a definite answer, i suppose i could say neither, as they would technically cancel eachother out, so then were left with a sort of mediocre universe

Let us then say, to summarise your point, that the universe, from any single individual point of view, sometimes really sucks, and sometimes it's really great, and over an extended period of time the averaging out of such judgements would render it mediocre, or at least less obviously one or the other.

But that from a non-perspectival approach it displays all of the objective qualities which are deemed to render it both bad and good in the eyes of someone who makes such judgements, but could be said to be objectively neither, since these are perspectival judgements.

Also, I don't know whether the Universe is just creation and destruction.

Don't these things happen in time? That would necessitate adding time to the ingredients of the universe.

What about the process by which things persist over time between these two? (Sure some people would say this is the long afterlife of creation, since it is the created thing that persists. Some would say it's the beginning of destruction, since all things are worn down with time. But I think these processes are eneacted upon the middle state - persistance over time, they do not define it, it is something apart from them.)

What about the energy that endures despite these two processes? What about the law of conservation of energy? Yes, this can account for neither creation or destruction, but neither could either happen without it, and you cannot leave it out when inventorying the universe.

To say "the universe is creation and destruction", is probably a bit simplistic.

Catsmokinpot · 18-04-2006 1:41am

FionnMatthew wrote:

To say "the universe is creation and destruction", is probably a bit simplistic.

ill start by saying i know that good is only a point of view and im answering his question from this point of view (i think we all have the concept of what good and bad is) and while i could complicate things and sound up my own arse, i wont, but it really is that simple, and i wasnt talking about creating and destroying energy i know that energy cannot be created or destroyed; but only changed from one form to another. i was talking about what we call "physical" reality which in effect isnt even that physical anyway.

for example, to say the universe made room for atoms of hydrogen to create stars(good) stars died(bad) leftovers of supernova creates new stars/planets and then us(good), but we destroy ourselves(or on the way to it), eventually our star will die and we will be gone long before that time(bad)

our physical lives are full of creation and destruction this has happened since the beginning some bad some good, overall good but inherently bad.

if i were to turn the universe in to a person and ask the universe was it cool or did it suck? it would say neither because such a concept doesnt exist to the universe there is no good or bad

FionnMatthew · 18-04-2006 9:00am

Catsmokinpot wrote:

ill start by saying i know that good is only a point of view and im answering his question from this point of view (i think we all have the concept of what good and bad is) and while i could complicate things and sound up my own arse, i wont, but it really is that simple, and i wasnt talking about creating and destroying energy i know that energy cannot be created or destroyed; but only changed from one form to another. i was talking about what we call "physical" reality which in effect isnt even that physical anyway.

for example, to say the universe made room for atoms of hydrogen to create stars(good) stars died(bad) leftovers of supernova creates new stars/planets and then us(good), but we destroy ourselves(or on the way to it), eventually our star will die and we will be gone long before that time(bad)

our physical lives are full of creation and destruction this has happened since the beginning some bad some good, overall good but inherently bad.

if i were to turn the universe in to a person and ask the universe was it cool or did it suck? it would say neither because such a concept doesnt exist to the universe there is no good or bad

Right. Stars are created. They are also destroyed. But between this time they exist, persist, in a state neither of creation nor of destruction. Hence, The universe is not all creation and destruction.

And I would move that if, as you have done, you are going to ascribe the values "good" or "bad" to arbitrary processes in the Universe, most people would "good" ascribe to the principle of persistence. Which would probably tip the balance towards the universe being inherently "good", and not "sucking", to use the limited terms of reference in this argument.

Catsmokinpot · 18-04-2006 3:42pm

FionnMatthew wrote:

Right. Stars are created. They are also destroyed. But between this time they exist, persist, in a state neither of creation nor of destruction. Hence, The universe is not all creation and destruction.

And I would move that if, as you have done, you are going to ascribe the values "good" or "bad" to arbitrary processes in the Universe, most people would "good" ascribe to the principle of persistence. Which would probably tip the balance towards the universe being inherently "good", and not "sucking", to use the limited terms of reference in this argument.

as soon as a star is created it is on the path to destruction, a state of neither creation or destruction is when all the atoms in that star are completely 100% static and not reacting which is impossible,

as a star exists so it creates right up to the point of its death, every atom in the periodic table of elements is created through fusion that goes on in a star, when it depletes all of its fuel the star loses its stability, that instability can cause a supernova but even though a supernova is a moment of destruction it is also a moment of creation, the left over fuel creates new stars the spent fuel now new atoms create planets. alternatively, that supernova can collapse in on itself and form a black hole which sucks everything up.

once a star is created, it is 100% certain to die, wether it just fizzles out or goes out with a bang, just as when we are created, there is a period of growth, new cells are formed, we expand, we learn right up to the time we are 21 or so, then we stop, immediately after we stop then we start breaking down, getting old, shorter, slower, we are also certain to die.

the intrinsic nature of the universe is creation and destruction another is existance, but during existance both creation and destruction are a constant

FionnMatthew · 19-04-2006 1:00pm

Catsmokinpot wrote:

as soon as a star is created it is on the path to destruction, a state of neither creation or destruction is when all the atoms in that star are completely 100% static and not reacting which is impossible,

as a star exists so it creates right up to the point of its death, every atom in the periodic table of elements is created through fusion that goes on in a star, when it depletes all of its fuel the star loses its stability, that instability can cause a supernova but even though a supernova is a moment of destruction it is also a moment of creation, the left over fuel creates new stars the spent fuel now new atoms create planets. alternatively, that supernova can collapse in on itself and form a black hole which sucks everything up.

Yes. I'm familiar with elementary popular astro-physics. But finding in it a loose home for your ambiguous little metaphor is not metaphyics, it's poetry. It's the same as Plato's assertion (through the lips of Socrates) that everything must come from it's opposite. These are such vague little notions that it is possible to implement them in variety of ways, making arbitrary metaphyisical distinctions, and it sounds right, but we end up with damn-all certainty.

You will note that earlier I foreshadowed what you used as an argument in this post.

FionnMatthew wrote:

What about the process by which things persist over time between these two? (Sure some people would say this is the long afterlife of creation, since it is the created thing that persists. Some would say it's the beginning of destruction, since all things are worn down with time. But I think these processes are eneacted upon the middle state - persistance over time, they do not define it, it is something apart from them.)

What I'm trying to say is that yes, your "the universe is creation and destruction" can be made to sound correct, based on how you interpret the universe. But in the same way, it is hard to see how it is wrong to admit of a third "substance", "persistance", once you are prepared to interpret it again.

Here is a counter-argument.
A star is a star.

The referent, a massive body of plasma in outer space that is currently producing energy by nuclear reaction, is referred to by the sign, the word "star", pronounced: (stär).

S = Star
P = self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion
M = Molecular clouds, large regions of high density in the interstellar medium.
B= Black Holes, quantum singularities.
D = Supernovae

1. The word star, then, refers only to self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

SAP

(Meaning, ALL Ss ARE Ps)

2. The word star does not refer to anything that is not a self-gravitating sphere of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generates its own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

SEP

(Meaning, NO Ss ARE Non-Ps)

3. (The creation-state of a star) Molecular clouds, large regions of high density in the interstellar medium are not self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

MEP

(NO Ms ARE Ps)

4. (Destruction-State) Black Holes are not self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

BEP

(NO Bs ARE Ps)

5. (Destruction-State) Supernovae are not self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

DEP

(NO Ds ARE Ps)

6. Therefore, the word "star" refers to none of these things.

SED, SEB, SEM

(NO Ss ARE Ds, NO Ss ARE Bs, NO Ss ARE Ms)

So there is a persistent state between creation and destruction, during which the object satisfies all of the conditions of being a star-referent. Granted, in the Heraclitean sense it is in a state of constant flux.
The star is a Herclitean river, never the same star from moment to moment. But this argument still stands up because "star" refers to the set of circumstances in which that flux occurs, the template of linguistic reference.
The river Nile bursts its banks, but it is still the Nile. When the term can be used to refer to it, it has been created. The time after which the term no longer refers to it is its destruction.

But of course, this argument, as does yours, depends on making metaphysical distinctions about existence over time, processes and where they end and begin, and (yours doesn't explicitly do this) linguistic terms of reference.

I have been calling your thesis an argument till now, but really I shouldn't. It's more of an aphoristic metaphor. For more of this kind of thing.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

once a star is created, it is 100% certain to die, wether it just fizzles out or goes out with a bang, just as when we are created, there is a period of growth, new cells are formed, we expand, we learn right up to the time we are 21 or so, then we stop, immediately after we stop then we start breaking down, getting old, shorter, slower, we are also certain to die.

What? We stop learning at 21 or so? Immediately afterwards, we begin to decay? This is preposterous and more than just a little simplistic. Most people don't get a Doctorate or Professorship until after 25. Is this some empty ritual or a recognition of learning? All of the scientific hyperbole you threw at me was paraphrased and derived from scientists who made their discoveries between 21 and 35. Most great philosophers continued writing into their antiquity.

New cells are formed, and continue to form right up until death. It is because the process of cell reproduction breaks down that we get cancer. This an extremely rash, erroneous example of your point.

Aging is not destruction. It is the decceleration of rejuvenation, of reproduction. It is a decline in the body's ability to maintain itself. Immolation is destruction. Aging is not.

Playboy · 19-04-2006 6:22pm

Welcome to the Philosophy forums Fionn

Very intersting posts. I hope you hang around and continue to contribute.

Catsmokinpot · 20-04-2006 1:35am

FionnMatthew wrote:

Yes. I'm familiar with elementary popular astro-physics. But finding in it a loose home for your ambiguous little metaphor is not metaphyics, it's poetry. It's the same as Plato's assertion (through the lips of Socrates) that everything must come from it's opposite. These are such vague little notions that it is possible to implement them in variety of ways, making arbitrary metaphyisical distinctions, and it sounds right, but we end up with damn-all certainty.

You will note that earlier I foreshadowed what you used as an argument in this post.

What I'm trying to say is that yes, your "the universe is creation and destruction" can be made to sound correct, based on how you interpret the universe. But in the same way, it is hard to see how it is wrong to admit of a third "substance", "persistance", once you are prepared to interpret it again.

Here is a counter-argument.
A star is a star.

The referent, a massive body of plasma in outer space that is currently producing energy by nuclear reaction, is referred to by the sign, the word "star", pronounced: (stär).

S = Star
P = self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion
M = Molecular clouds, large regions of high density in the interstellar medium.
B= Black Holes, quantum singularities.
D = Supernovae

1. The word star, then, refers only to self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

SAP

(Meaning, ALL Ss ARE Ps)

2. The word star does not refer to anything that is not a self-gravitating sphere of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generates its own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

SEP

(Meaning, NO Ss ARE Non-Ps)

3. (The creation-state of a star) Molecular clouds, large regions of high density in the interstellar medium are not self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

MEP

(NO Ms ARE Ps)

4. (Destruction-State) Black Holes are not self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

BEP

(NO Bs ARE Ps)

5. (Destruction-State) Supernovae are not self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.

DEP

(NO Ds ARE Ps)

6. Therefore, the word "star" refers to none of these things.

SED, SEB, SEM

(NO Ss ARE Ds, NO Ss ARE Bs, NO Ss ARE Ms)

So there is a persistent state between creation and destruction, during which the object satisfies all of the conditions of being a star-referent. Granted, in the Heraclitean sense it is in a state of constant flux.
The star is a Herclitean river, never the same star from moment to moment. But this argument still stands up because "star" refers to the set of circumstances in which that flux occurs, the template of linguistic reference.
The river Nile bursts its banks, but it is still the Nile. When the term can be used to refer to it, it has been created. The time after which the term no longer refers to it is its destruction.

But of course, this argument, as does yours, depends on making metaphysical distinctions about existence over time, processes and where they end and begin, and (yours doesn't explicitly do this) linguistic terms of reference.

I have been calling your thesis an argument till now, but really I shouldn't. It's more of an aphoristic metaphor. For more of this kind of thing.

i know you forshadowed my argument but i dont agree with you am i not allowed to disagree?

but doesnt the act of fusion create new atoms? and doesnt this happen all throughout a stars life? so isnt it creating all the time.. right up untill the point of its death?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=fusion

even a black hole, what is it doing when its sucking "matter" into it, isnt it stretching out all of the molecules? breaking them all down? creating and destroying at the same time

i do believe there is a state of persistance (well not really persistant but permanent) but it isnt anything we would call "physical", and i wasnt talking about that, basically i would subscribe to the string theory that we are all linked by a field of energy that flows throughout the universe.

but as for a persistant state in "physical" reality, there is no persistant state in a universe of endless time and endless possibility. what is time to the universe? if your stating the fact that a star stays in one piece for a while then your right. and that is clear for all to see just look out your window.

our physical reality is how we define our universe, if this has a certain taste a certain feel a certain look, then we know what it is, this is always changing. now destruction "sucks" but its also "cool". if destruction is part of the universe and if destruction "sucks" in a way, then "sucking" its an intrinsic nature of the universe

lets just say

universe = U
creation = C
destruction = D
sucks = y
cool = x

if

there could also be this other variable, i dont know but im talking about this for the moment. this is a fact, whats happening all over the universe at this very moment???? creation and destruction, these are intrinsic natures of the universe.

[C = D] what i mean by that is as the universe destructs it also creates

and

[D = y] alot of people in this world believe destruction is a bad thing and this is merely the point of view im using

but the other can be said too,

[D = x] destruction is a good thing which also to do with your perspective

so at the same time [C = y] and [C = x] for the same reasons as [D = y] and [D = x]

so lets bung it all in together

U = Cxy + Dxy

ok now lets add our persistance in there P

so

U = Cxy + Dxy + P

also note how the y and x characteristics are constant in the U equation, even when P is thrown in there it doesnt affect the other two... persistance neither sucks nor is cool. they are still intrinsic values of the equation i know you think you have to complecate things more than that but its really not necessary

now i must stress to you again that this is only when using the term "sucks" from a human point of view, otherwise no it doesnt "suck" none of it does none of its "cool" either, it just is.

FionnMatthew wrote:

The river Nile bursts its banks, but it is still the Nile.

you cant step in to the same river twice, every time you do there is different water flowing through it.

FionnMatthew wrote:

What? We stop learning at 21 or so? Immediately afterwards, we begin to decay? This is preposterous and more than just a little simplistic. Most people don't get a Doctorate or Professorship until after 25. Is this some empty ritual or a recognition of learning? All of the scientific hyperbole you threw at me was paraphrased and derived from scientists who made their discoveries between 21 and 35. Most great philosophers continued writing into their antiquity.

New cells are formed, and continue to form right up until death. It is because the process of cell reproduction breaks down that we get cancer. This an extremely rash, erroneous example of your point.

Aging is not destruction. It is the decceleration of rejuvenation, of reproduction. It is a decline in the body's ability to maintain itself. Immolation is destruction. Aging is not.

i wasnt talking about our cognative or learning capabilities, i was talking about our physical lives, and i use "21 or so" lightly(now look whos taking what out of context) as there is a point where you stop developing and start aging, aging is destruction, as your cells reproduce each copy gets less and less like the last, and your constantly being attacked by free radicals even the air you breath, the very thing thats keeping you alive is killing you, they are a cause of cancer and aging, and other reactive compounds do the same, being injured by these free radicals and injuries in general can cause cancer too, body is damaged too much and trying to repair itself all the time and doesnt know when to stop.. we werent built to last and our brain cells dont repair themselves... once you start aging you cant stop it, you can only slow it down. there is no persistant state your body is always changing.

even life is never in a persistant state other than being alive, if evolution is right it has proved it to us again and again for millions of years.

the universe is one big reaction of energy and information remaining in persistant states for 1/10000000000000 of a split second before it changes, i wouldnt call that persistant and time means nothing to the universe,

if we compress and compare the age of our universe and the length of time our sun has existed the suns probably been here for an hour maybe less and the universe has been here for years... (if not forever because if we turn around and subscribe to the big bang theory, then what was there before the big bang, and if the universe is expanding what is it expanding out into, and assuming it began well have to assume that it will end, and if the universe has an end what is there after the end.)

FionnMatthew · 20-04-2006 3:35pm

(sigh)

Catsmokinpot wrote:

now i must stress to you again that this is only when using the term "sucks" from a human point of view, otherwise no it doesnt "suck" none of it does none of its "cool" either, it just is.

I thought we'd put this to bed. It is not sufficient to say a "human" perspective. You and I could have a different outlook. This thread is a debate on this very subject. You must acknowledge a diversity of opinion within the human POV.

But this has nothing to do with my objection to your "creation/destruction" metaphor.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i know you forshadowed my argument but i dont agree with you am i not allowed to disagree?

I said that because you hadn't addressed the problem I had raised intrinsic in your argument when I foreshadowed it - that creation and destruction are arbitrary metaphysical distinctions, with no direct relevance to the physical universe. Which is a counterpoint to this:

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i was talking about what we call "physical" reality which in effect isnt even that physical anyway.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

FionnMatthew wrote:

The river Nile bursts its banks, but it is still the Nile.

you cant step in to the same river twice, every time you do there is different water flowing through it.

I was using Heraclitus as an example of what you were doing wrong. And you just threw him back at me again.

Let us, to clarify, admit of two possibe perspectives on the universe.

Let us admit that there is a UNIVERSAL perspective, which has the universe as undifferentiated matter, where everything is in flux, and there are no stable states.

Science supports this perspective - matter is divisible and so talking about one collection of molecules as anything "in itself" is arbitrary - it's just a collection of smaller molecules, which are in turn made of something smaller.

In the same way, time is divisible and so are the processes that happen over time. It is arbitrary to assign particular names to things, because things are in flux, and are fundamentally different from one moment to the next, and our name refers only to a snapshot that is long since past. It's like trying to say that a still from a movie is the same as the whole movie.

Heraclitus seems to be getting at this when he gives us his river aphorism. He says that the river is always changing, therefore it's not the same river. But he's not quite at it - he makes a mistake. He confuses the UNIVERSAL perspective with the HUMAN-LINGUISTIC one.

Let us admit that there is a HUMAN-LINGUISTIC perspective. We are within time, and to us the UNIVERSAL perspective is only conceptually valid. We cannot see the world that way. In order to experience the world, we differentiate the undifferentiated universe, we break it down into packets, we take snapshots, we give things names and thereby pick them out from the undifferentiated bulk and conceptually delineate them from everything else.

To us, a river is a watercourse that maintains its identity over time by continuity. It stays in (roughly) the same place, contains within it the same kind of substance (water), and behaves in (roughly) the same way. We do not need it to be exact for the term river to apply - language is flexible, the process by which we differentiate is functional not scientific.

The Nile remains the Nile, whether or not it bursts its banks. You can step into the Nile as many times as you like, it is the Nile as long as it runs roughly the same watercourse, contains water and behaves like a river; as long, basically, as it satisfies all the conditions inherent in the term "Nile".

Once we do start being exact, language stops being useful. This is where Heraclitus falls down, as do you. He wants the term "river" to refer to everything within the referent as well as to the referent itself. You cannot divide the referent. It doesn't matter if the water is different water. The water in the river is not the river itself.

He wants the HUMAN-LINGUISTIC perspective term "river", to refer to something in the UNIVERSAL perspective. But from the UNIVERSAL perpective, all is undifferentiated, all is flux. There are no things in the UNIVERSAL perpective, because everything is part of something else, a part of a process. And so he says that there is no constant river to which the term "river" might refer. He is ignoring the capacity of human language to generalise and gather the undifferentiated universe, to give us something to refer to.

You're doing this too. "Creation" and "destruction" are not intrinsic properties of the physical universe. They are metaphysical concepts identified by humans in order to identify the "beginning" or "end" of something physical, hence belonging to the HUMAN-LINGUISTIC perspective. We humans need things to have a beginning and an end, because we differentiate things, and because we experience time as linear.

In a universe where time is potentially infinite, talk of "beginnings" or "endings", "creation" or "destruction" is largely arbitrary. The universe is infinitely divisible in space and time - everything is just part of a process. There are no "things" to be created or destroyed in the UNIVERSAL perspective, just energy going through conversions from one form to another, or matter-configurations undergoing rearrangements.

These terms are "snapshots" of the undifferentiated universe, where we pick a moment and say "HERE", "This is where this thing begins". "Creation" and "destruction" are linguistic distinctions and hence can and should not apply to the undifferentiated UNIVERSAL perspective, but only to the HUMAN-LINGUISTIC.

In the HUMAN-LINGUISTIC perspective, there is nothing wrong with using the terms "creation" and "destruction" to refer to the beginnings and endings of physical things. But there is equally nothing wrong with saying that "persistence" or "continuity" are equally important, because in our vague, inexact linguistic world we cannot divide the referents down into pieces without our whole linguistic sandcastle collapsing into the sea.

Likewise, across the divide in the UNIVERSAL perspective, the term "persistence" is meaningless, but so is "creation" and "destruction". You can't prove that the universe is "creation" and "destruction" by referring to science and the UNIVERSAL perspective, because once you ackowledge the UNIVERSAL, it renders all of these metaphysical terms useless.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

the universe is one big reaction of energy and information remaining in persistant states for 1/10000000000000 of a split second before it changes, i wouldnt call that persistant and time means nothing to the universe,

I'd move that those persistent states are even shorter than that - no matter how far down you divide it, there's still a smaller division - the universe just doesn't have a "frame-rate". There's nowhere to put the term "persistence" but equally there's nowhere to put the term "creation" or "destruction" either. You'll never be able to exactly pinpoint the "creation"-moment, because it's just not there, not that exact.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i would copy some text book idea of what im trying to explain but ill make my own up its more fun,

Your equation argument is not a logical sequence. It doesn't carry any validity, and hence, even were the propositions true, they would confer no truth on the final proposition. It's just a bundle of propositions with no apparent relation.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i wasnt talking about our cognative or learning capabilities, i was talking about our physical lives, and i use "21 or so" lightly(now look whos taking what out of context) as there is a point where you stop developing and start aging, aging is destruction, as your cells reproduce each copy gets less and less like the last, and your constantly being attacked by free radicals even the air you breath, the very thing thats keeping you alive is killing you, they are a cause of cancer and aging, and other reactive compounds do the same, being injured by these free radicals and injuries in general can cause cancer too, body is damaged too much and trying to repair itself all the time and doesnt know when to stop.. we werent built to last and our brain cells dont repair themselves... once you start aging you cant stop it, you can only slow it down. there is no persistant state your body is always changing.

(my addition of bold letters)

You're not given to the use of full-stops much, are you? This sentence is in need of a couple.

In reference to the boldface part of the sentence, I didn't take you out of context and neither did I explicitly accuse you of ever doing so either. Note that I repeated the "or so" qualifier in my response, so that I was using it in as light a sense as you were.

You said this:

Catsmokinpot wrote:

we expand, we learn right up to the time we are 21 or so, then we stop,

And you didn't explicitly state that you were "talking about our physical lives". So I had to assume you were saying that we stop learning at the age of "21 or so". Which is preposterous.

But to say "there is a point where you stop developing and start aging", is just as preposterous as your previous assertion. You're trying to pinpoint the exact locus of an inexact linguistic term.

So, to conclude the post, the terms "creation", "destruction" and "persistence" are almost (but not quite - for another thread perhaps) as human oriented and perspectival as "good" and "bad" or "cool" and "something that sucks". And you're mixing perspectival terms with scientific facts, which is soft-philosophy.

PS.

Playboy wrote:

Welcome to the Philosophy forums Fionn Very intersting posts. I hope you hang around and continue to contribute.

I can only assume you mean this. Thanks.

Acid_Violet · 14-05-2006 3:17pm

In my opinion, there is no definition of good or bad, there is only a balance that needs to be in existence for these two entities to be defined.

When saying that the universe inherently sucks because of things such as violence and exploitation, you are saying that it sucks solely because of a few things which occur on one planet. You are not taking into account the rest of the universe and you are not are not using the earth as a mere example because you are only focusing on some aspects of that planet. More importantly, you are focusing mainly on some aspects of human society instead of the universe or diagnosing human's as another example of why the universe sucks.

Also, you forget that other people may have different opinions of violence and exploitation. You consider them to be causes of the universe sucking, while they view the contrary.

If the universe sucks because of violence and exploitation then it must not suck because of helping and charity and love in the universe that exists aswell.

Thus, we can know this much;

1. Sucking is a matter of opinion.
2. It is also a comparitive issue.
3. Because you have not compared the universe to any other similar entity, you have not fully examined what supposedly makes it suck or not and you blame the sucking on human actions instead of what the universe entails, you have not proven or disproven anything.

Now;

1. In my opinion, this thread sucks because it doesn't prove or disprove anything, and it seems to have been started as a moan about society instead of the universe sucking.
2. Compared to other threads, which I consider to have Philosophical merit and to have purpose, this thread comes out unfavourably.
3. In my estimation, this thread sucks.

(Nice and easy!)

Ooops! I didnt read most of your comments so I didnt get everything right here. Ah well, I'm too busy to re-correct it, though without survival of the fittest, things would weaken and be more susceptible to exploitation to their enviroment etc. etc. I DONT HAVE TIME FOR THIS!

FionnMatthew · 14-05-2006 6:48pm

Acid_Violet wrote:

1. In my opinion, this thread sucks because it doesn't prove or disprove anything, and it seems to have been started as a moan about society instead of the universe sucking.

It is not the remit of this thread to prove or disprove, anything. In philosophy we can often assess the merits of a theory by its argumentative force, or by the clarity of its expression, rather than by recourse to whether or not it has acually proven anything by the use of logic - which, we might mention, is never incontrovertible. By these standards, I too find Egon's question a little lacking, but there is a lot more argumentative work present in the rest of the thread than in Egon's original post.

Acid_Violet wrote:

2. Compared to other threads, which I consider to have Philosophical merit and to have purpose, this thread comes out unfavourably.

Perhaps you would like to identify those threads displaying said philosophical merit, so that we can assess the efficacy of your judgement by the process of comparitive evaluation that you so highly esteem in your own post. How can we follow you without the data you used to make this judgement?

Acid_Violet wrote:

3. In my estimation, this thread sucks.

I deem you unqualified to make this estimation, on the basis of the following quote:

Acid_Violet wrote:

Ooops! I didnt read most of your comments so I didnt get everything right here.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm not even willing to address any argument towards the main body of a post I consider slack and artless.

Acid_Violet wrote:

Ah well, I'm too busy to re-correct it, though without survival of the fittest, things would weaken and be more susceptible to exploitation to their enviroment etc. etc.

This is, in microcosm, what you did with the whole post - You offered a cursory and ill-conceived argument on the basis of a desultory and random reading of the thread, unwittingly covering ground already covered (more conclusively) by those whose posts didn't merit your attention. You might more economically have substituted your whole argument for a single "etc.".

Acid_Violet wrote:

I DONT HAVE TIME FOR THIS!

Well then, maybe stay out of it? If you don't have time for us, we can't really be expected to have time for you.

noh showband · 23-05-2006 12:26pm

The universe sucks. We call it "gravity".

Does the universe inherently suck?

Comments