A bit of deep thought for ya
- Thread starter PurpleRain
- Start date
I'm not upset. I didn't really appreciate the cracks that you made about me. Don't attack the person your arguing with, debate the issue. Personal attacks are just rude.LimaBravo said:
Now, I'm just going to say there are some things that can be logical that can't be measured. Conceptual things, in many cases, can't be measured - but they're logic. Math is real, but mathematic concepts themselves can't be measured. Numbers are measurements but you can't measure the process of multiplication.
And, again, you can't measure the theory of evolution because theories are not things. They're explanations. You can find ways to measure a specimen on a scale, but the idea of things having common ancestors itself (the idea) can't be measured.
Do you understand what I'm trying to convey here?
I just don't see why he couldn't do both simultaneously. It might not make any sense to us, sure, but neither do a lot of things that we accept to be true, or at least very plausible (ie. something without a beginning or an end). A dog might not understand how his owner could disappear for eight hours of the day when he himself can not disappear, but that does not mean that his owner doesn't leave for work each morning.PurpleRain said:
Ah, I see. This is why I think H. P. Lovecraft was overrated. All his stuff hinged on otherworldly monstrosities that somehow just knowing about them drove you insane. This just never worked for me. It always felt fake. (It's particularly bad in Lovecraft knock-offs. see; In the Mouth of Madness)PurpleRain said:
The idea of physical laws and such not applying may have seemed interesting in the 1920's, but this sort of thing needs to have something more tangible to it otherwise it's just a quaint, dated idea. The problem with things beyond human comprehension is that you can't understand it, and therefore easily and safely ignore it. They don't drive you insane or die just to look at them. Instead you start to see shapes in the incomprehensible mass the way you see forms in clouds (see; pareidolia).
Looking at it implies sight, one of our senses. What if a shapless cloud were to bring about other senses in you or flood your mind with the concepts of the begining of time/space/life and whatnot. It'd be hard to keep your sanity and try to put a logical explination other then "that was god" on it.the antithesis said:
I like the thought pattern. It's something I'm also arguing here. It is so above us, things god can do would not be plausable by our standards.Delicious said:
Clearly, then, this is the source of your difficulties.PurpleRain said:
Anyway, if a dog sees what I perceive as yellow to be purple, etc, it doesn't matter in the slightest, because what I know as yellow, he knows as purple. Yes. I do talk to dogs, and they agree with me; especially when I rub their bellies.
What if there was a type of god we don't know about who could do [x], [y], and [z]? Then there'd be a god that could do that, and we wouldn't know until it happened close enough to us.
What if we could project pictographic thought telepathically as a new universal language, and broadcast it to galaxies across the universe in hopes of reaching an alien species that would understand us with this new ability?... Then we'd do that, and see what happens.
What if an asteroid suddenly crashed into earth faster than we could react, setting off a chain of events that would lead to the destruction of 90% of human life?... Then it'd happen, and we'd lose 90% of the worlds population. This one's at least feasible based on what we know of the galaxy and its neighbors.
Sand castles, bro.
Sand castles.
People most of the time are not evil, they act upon the most reasonable conclusion they can come up with given their [logical or otherwise] resources, even if they may be impaired in one way or another.GothmogII said:
Light and Colour are not the same thing, there are creature who don't see in colour, are you saying they're blind? Who are we to say seeing in colour is the same as seeing in black and white? The only 'senses' I have difficulty outlining are the 'taste' senses.PurpleRain said:
Exactly, Bats can be said to 'see' sound, and snakes can be argued to 'see' heat. These are not comparable to the human equivilent senses, so how do we measure them, or even understand them?SakSak said:
It's the spectrum of light we can see. There is a larger spectrum of light that we cannot see, such as ultraviolet, but as far as I was aware, they're all light.Blame said:
I think they just sense it better or differently. Bats don't see sound. Sound is a vibration not a light.Blame said:
Oh yay a thought provoking thread my my my what a rarity you are these days *bookmarks for later enjoyment*.
What do we gain from believing in such a place? As far as I can tell, it's just a way of telling greedy men (because it's always men) what they do in this life matters on a moral scale. There are obvious examples of people who didn't believe in such a place, and they seemed to do alright. Until they were, y'know, executed.Mazty said:
Fingers crossed for evolution in energy being!Mazty said:
On a more serious note, if you buy into the whole 'Multiverse' thing, there are an infinitre number of universes in existance, each with their own set of unique laws. It could be that when we die, we transcend from one for another. Completely unscientific, but though-provoking nonetheless.
Interesting. I came to ponder the same thoughts a couple of years ago. It was definitely a fascinating thought process, one that transformed me into the agnostic nothing-is-impossible, nothing-is-certain person that I am today. Isn't skepticism fun?
