That is not a reasonable “understanding” of the universe.
Feel free to deny the conclusions of physics, astrophysics, and astronomy, but to be persuasive you need to identify what in particular is incorrect with it (whether thermodynamics, the cosmological constant, etc.)
An arbitrary assertion that current knowledge about reality is flawed, in order to arrive at a conclusion you wish to be true, is arbitrary and a gross evasion.
As understood currently everything in the universe will undergo heat death. Please feel free to show, using evidence of reality, i.e. principles of physics and astronomy and evidence, why it is not the case. I’ll respond IF you do so.
Feel free to deny the conclusions of physics, astrophysics, and astronomy, but to be persuasive you need to identify what in particular is incorrect with it (whether thermodynamics, the cosmological constant, etc.)
An arbitrary assertion that current knowledge about reality is flawed, in order to arrive at a conclusion you wish to be true, is arbitrary and a gross evasion.
As understood currently everything in the universe will undergo heat death. Please feel free to show, using evidence of reality, i.e. principles of physics and astronomy and evidence, why it is not the case.
Heat death is wild, theoretical speculation, and it’s a ridiculously malevolent assumption to make about the universe. It is a theory, it is not a known conclusion, it is not “knowledge about reality”. There is no “understanding” that the entire universe is doomed. That is an absurdity, and so it’s quite meaningless as a theory.
Do you think death is necessary to make life meaningful? Is the struggle for survival necessary for happiness?
I’ve heard Objectivists and others argue that we have to struggle for survival, and if and when we ever achieve immortality, we might as well kill ourselves, because we have no purpose anymore and therefore happiness is impossible, since happiness is defined by a struggle to survive.
This position is incomprehensible and very disturbing to me. I love my life and I’m happy to exist despite the struggle to survive - if we were immortal and survival weren’t a struggle that would be a load off of my back, I could settle into just pursuing the things that make me happy, without needing to worry about this survival problem.
Yep. It’s absurd. Throw it out.
What makes life worth living has nothing to do with conditional state of existence. The idea that an immortal human would have no reason to act totally ignores the reality of human psychology. If I’m immortal, I can still enjoy the same things, so why wouldn’t I? I don’t enjoy myself to survive, I enjoy myself to enjoy myself.
The idea that an immortal human would have no reason to act totally ignores the reality of human psychology.
It ignores “the reality of human psychology” because it’s a hypothetical. It’s not reality, it’s a wild fantasy.
That’s the premise here: the idea of an immortal human ignores human nature in general, including psychology, and replaces it with something else. What that something else is, is the question:
What would an immortal entity’s psychology be like? Psychology is a consequence of our circumstances. Fundamentally different circumstances would lead to a fundamentally different psychology. An immortal human (I mean really immortal: indestructible, not just someone who doesn’t age or get sick) would be nothing like a regular human. It wouldn’t even be alive (or dead… it would be a third category).
Quote
I don’t enjoy myself to survive, I enjoy myself to enjoy myself.
Okay, now we left the hypothetical, and we’re back in reality. You’re talking about yourself…and you’re ignoring the reality of human psychology. Our psychology can’t escape our nature. Our psychology is a consequence of our nature. And we are mortal. That’s the essential attribute of not just humans, but living entities in general.
So, like it or not, enjoying yourself enables you to survive. You don’t enjoy yourself just to enjoy yourself, your enjoyment has an ultimate purpose, and that ultimate purpose, just like the ultimate purpose of everything else living entities do, is to survive.
It ignores “the reality of human psychology” because it’s a hypothetical. It’s not reality, it’s a wild fantasy.
That’s the premise here: the idea of an immortal human ignores human nature in general, including psychology, and replaces it with something else. What that something else is, is the question:
What would an immortal entity’s psychology be like? Psychology is a consequence of our circumstances. Fundamentally different circumstances would lead to a fundamentally different psychology. An immortal human (I mean really immortal: indestructible, not just someone who doesn’t age or get sick) would be nothing like a regular human. It wouldn’t even be alive (or dead… it would be a third category).
Okay, now we left the hypothetical, and we’re back in reality. You’re talking about yourself…and you’re ignoring the reality of human psychology. Our psychology can’t escape our nature. Our psychology is a consequence of our nature. And we are mortal. That’s the essential attribute of not just humans, but living entities in general.
So, like it or not, enjoying yourself enables you to survive. You don’t enjoy yourself just to enjoy yourself, your enjoyment has an ultimate purpose, and that ultimate purpose, just like the ultimate purpose of everything else living entities do, is to survive.
But now we are talking on two seperate levels of reason for doing things. My subjective reason for doing things, and the reason for my psychology being set up to enjoy certain things. We enjoy sugar because it has calories and that helps our survival, but in the first person subjective experience, I don’t eat to survive, I eat because I feel hungry or because I enjoy the sweet taste.
Quote
You don’t enjoy yourself just to enjoy yourself
Oftentimes, what we enjoy doing is counter to our survival. From the first person perspective, I enjoy myself for its own sake. It’s what makes being alive even worth it in the first place. Survival is just a prerequisite, merely an instrumental value, to get what I really want.
Here are the Abstracts. Beyond that, dive in for the swim.
“Would Immortality Be Worth It”
In this paper, one is invited into a carefully composed thought experiment about the meaning of life. In discussions touching on the meaning of life, one hears ordinary folk and beginning students of philosophy rather complacently assume that immortal life in heaven is the goal of life and that no more questions need be asked. The common contrary position is the view that since in reality we are not immortal, life is ultimately empty of value. Both positions rest on the premise that only immortality, and infinite life span, would make life worth living. This is the premise Hick’s thought experiment challenges.
“Can Art Exist without Death”
Reviews the currently envisioned [1993] theoretical biological limits on human life span; barriers to the human impulse to live effectively forever. Discusses the validity of the concept of infinity, distinguishing the metaphysically infinite from the physically infinite and from the mathematically infinite. Surveys carefully how and what Einstein’s general theory of relativity, in its contemporary development, can tell us about the physical infinity of spacetime (in the large). Assimilates the possibility of effectively endless life with Rand’s thesis that the concept of life—as we know it, vulnerable life—is what makes the concept of value possible. Elaborates and extends Rand’s gedanken of the immortal, indestructible robot. Answers the question “Can art exist without death?”
I hesitate to participate in this thought exercise because immortality is not even possible.
How many memory cells do we have in our brain?
When will the limit be reached?
More importantly, the current nature that we have now will not allow the tolerance of immortality.
If you are immortal, you will not be able to kill your self. It may be something you will wish to do.
Our current makeup is that we end up with satiation.
Like drinking water, you drink so much until you are done.
Life also will have a point when you are done with it.
If you are forced to drink water when you are not thirsty at all, you will vomit.
The mental equivalent state of satiation is called boredom.
There may be a specific threshold, let us say 153.3 thousand years.
Anything past that threshold will be boring and eternal boredom is a terrible fate.
We currently don’t have protection against eternal boredom.
Eventually, everything will be experienced and it will be abstracted.
“Been there done that” will become been at that type of place and experienced it.
To be immortal certain modification will have to be made to our Psychology. We will not be human anymore.
Philosophically death is part of the definition of life.
Psychologically death does give meaning to life.
Even if, life just “is”.
I hesitate to participate in this thought exercise because immortality is not even possible.
Why do you think that?
On 9/23/2017 at 3:35 AM, Easy Truth said:
If you are immortal, you will not be able to kill your self. It may be something you will wish to do.
I don’t see why immortality implies a lack of ability to kill yourself. It certainly isn’t necessary to the point of this thread - one could imagine such a strong power of resilience that involuntary death is a solved problem, while voluntary death is still entirely possible.
Secondly, why should one wish such a thing?
On 9/23/2017 at 3:35 AM, Easy Truth said:
boredom
Why should one ever be bored? Does a rose not smell sweet having smelled one before? Is a kiss not enjoyable because you’ve kissed before? I enjoy the sunrise despite having seen a thousand of them. It holds intrinsic beauty and pleasure. I enjoy art for art’s sake; it’s an end in itself. I’m intrinsically happy in my own person. I’m happy just to be able to see a sunrise. I’m happy just to be alive; just to be conscious is inherently enjoyable and meaningful.
There are an endless number of things I wish I had the time to do. I want to play every game, I want to learn every language and every musical instrument, I want to see every part of the world, I want to learn all of history, I want to meet every person alive, I want to have great-great-great…-grandchildren. I want to explore and prove all of mathematics. I could give you more than a hundred thousand years of things I want to do right now. I love myself and I love my life. This is a permanent, undying, and insatiable love.
On 9/23/2017 at 3:35 AM, Easy Truth said:
We will not be human anymore
What I’m describing is what being a human is like. All of the things I’ve mentioned aren’t unique to me, they are intrinsic in human nature. It’s death that is anti-human.
I hesitate to participate in this thought exercise because immortality is not even possible.
Why do you think that?
Immortal means living beyond x, any x (number of time units). X being eternally undefinable, it does not exist.
If X does not exist, then living beyond X also does not exist.
Just as infinite does not exist, immortal does not exist either.
I would assume that you will also argue that infinity exists, that it is intrinsic vs. being a helpful concept in the mind.
If you believe it actually exists, you could see it as possible.
If you are immortal, you will not be able to kill your self. It may be something you will wish to do.
I don’t see why immortality implies a lack of ability to kill yourself. It certainly isn’t necessary to the point of this thread - one could imagine such a strong power of resilience that involuntary death is a solved problem, while voluntary death is still entirely possible.
Immortal by definition means incapable of dying. Dying is impossible for an immortal.
And you probably well say “yes, until he dies”. Well then, you are speaking of an immortal that is not immortal.
If it is possible to die, then it is mortal, not immortal.
Only a dead object does not have a possibility of dying, and it is not immortal.
Clearly, long life would be possible and X number of years is finite.
One does not say immortal until X number of years. That is still mortal (voluntarily dying or involuntarily dying)
Some say until the end of time. What is the end of time?
If there was such an “ending” immortal would end up meaning mortal.
What I’m describing is what being a human is like. All of the things I’ve mentioned aren’t unique to me, they are intrinsic in human nature. It’s death that is anti-human.
Okay, death is anti human. Obviously death is not human just as life is not human. They are different concepts.
Mortality is an attribute of being human. In fact living in a body is also part of the definition of being human. Once these attributes are not present, one would be describing a different entity.
What I’m describing is what being a human is like. All of the things I’ve mentioned aren’t unique to me, they are intrinsic in human nature. It’s death that is anti-human.
After thinking more about it, I think what you mean by immortal is non-aging. Meaning mortal but non-aging (never getting old). In that way, one would go to work and eat because if they don’t they will die.
If, on the other hand, one is immortal, then the concept of motivation, pleasure and pain go away. Why go to work, you don’t have to. Why stop yourself from eating all the ice cream you want, you will never die. Why prevent yourself from jumping off a cliff, it won’t kill you. There would be no “ought to” or ethics, no right way or wrong way, no better or worse way. What is the reason to do anything?
Clearly, immortality is not of this world. It is only in imagination.