Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
You're welcome.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Per Søvik" data-source="post: 66621" data-attributes="member: 1285"><p>Re: You're welcome.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Hi there Phil, </p><p>I do understand why people ask these questions, and I'm not arguing against the validity of these questions, but I still think they are somewhat absurd. Traditional thinking and traditional science accept the notion of a steady state without further explanation. A system exists in an unaltered state (allthough dynamic) untill something changes it, we accept this as a fact because all observations support it. Thus we have to accept that we exist now because we existed five minutes ago and we will probably exist in five minutes unless some outside event alters that. The laws of nature as we know them support this view, allthough quantum physics tells us that spontanious changes will occur, but (allmost) never on a grand scale as statistics will tell us.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>If it is wrong to accept that a basic premise for our thinking exists, and that everything has to be challenged and answered in the name of science, then it is sometimes hard to move forward because an infinite chain of reciprocal "but why" will drag us backwards into an intellectual black hole.</p><p>I have got no problem with envisioning an eternal, indefinite, all encompassing omniverse that doesn't leave a lot of questions unanswered. My model might not be right, but it certainly doesn't necessitate questions along the lines of why the universe chose to exist and why it still chooses to exist. It is what it is because the laws of nature dictates that it has to be that way, and looking for a basic truth behind the basic truth is futile and ill-conceived in my mind. Science might search for deeper understanding of the basic laws already established, like disecting the basic particles and the forces to get a more detailed understanding, but untill someone discovers that it all can be reassembled into nothingness, I think we should happily accept existence as a given constant and a basic premise.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Reasoning might take you down all kinds of paths, into dark caves and dark waters, so take care and come up for air sometimes <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />~;-)~:wink: ,</p><p>Per</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Per Søvik, post: 66621, member: 1285"] Re: You're welcome. Hi there Phil, I do understand why people ask these questions, and I'm not arguing against the validity of these questions, but I still think they are somewhat absurd. Traditional thinking and traditional science accept the notion of a steady state without further explanation. A system exists in an unaltered state (allthough dynamic) untill something changes it, we accept this as a fact because all observations support it. Thus we have to accept that we exist now because we existed five minutes ago and we will probably exist in five minutes unless some outside event alters that. The laws of nature as we know them support this view, allthough quantum physics tells us that spontanious changes will occur, but (allmost) never on a grand scale as statistics will tell us. If it is wrong to accept that a basic premise for our thinking exists, and that everything has to be challenged and answered in the name of science, then it is sometimes hard to move forward because an infinite chain of reciprocal "but why" will drag us backwards into an intellectual black hole. I have got no problem with envisioning an eternal, indefinite, all encompassing omniverse that doesn't leave a lot of questions unanswered. My model might not be right, but it certainly doesn't necessitate questions along the lines of why the universe chose to exist and why it still chooses to exist. It is what it is because the laws of nature dictates that it has to be that way, and looking for a basic truth behind the basic truth is futile and ill-conceived in my mind. Science might search for deeper understanding of the basic laws already established, like disecting the basic particles and the forces to get a more detailed understanding, but untill someone discovers that it all can be reassembled into nothingness, I think we should happily accept existence as a given constant and a basic premise. Reasoning might take you down all kinds of paths, into dark caves and dark waters, so take care and come up for air sometimes ;)~;-)~:wink: , Per [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
You're welcome.
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!