What is the point of life?

[Thorgalaeg]

Well, if some people believe Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old, it must be perfectly ok for others to cook his own quantum mechanics, which is not aggressive to common sense and low in fat. It will go nowhere but ok.

 

[Kyriakos]

Anyway, I repeat that QM may end up not being below NM, other than when viewed by humans or similar observers. In other words, it is certainly not known how something we pick up as QM is linked to what we pick up as NM, and their roles can be reversed or (far more likely) be far more chaotic or intertwined for the object in the (theoretical, not possible for us) sense it is viewed without an observer (as a thing-in-itself).
Basically observers force their own dynamics on what is observed, and after a point is quickly becomes nonconscious and inevitable.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I believe light is only a wave and is neither a particle or both. As for the experiment, I believe it's wrong because light could just be a wave (hence explaining the unusual behavior of the experiment). But scientists had foolishly tricked themselves into traditionally believing light is made up of particles before that experiment took place. So after the results of the experiment was analyzed, and they found wave like behavior, they jumped to conclusions and assumed it was both a particle and a wave. This is because they could not contemplate that, "you know what? maybe it's a wave after all!" due to them being too sentimental over insisting light must be particle based (which is complete bull because we know waves can bounce of off walls like particles).



Fist of all. FTL communication is even debunked by quantum mechanics believers. Because even they know it would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Instead they believe that quantum mechanics can be used for cryptography and true random number generation for computer calculations.

As for particles being entangled. They aren't entangled, they're waves! I believe this entanglement phenomenon is some kind of exotic wave interference, where the waves are able to make tiny wormholes that allow themselves to interact with each other from remote distances. Essentially these waves are bending and interacting with spacetime in ways we truly don't understand due to being unable to analyze them in a detailed meaningful way.

Btw, it was just the other way around. When QM was formulated the accepted traditional theory about the true nature of light was it was a wave (except newton who thought it was a particle for the wrong reasons). The wave theory could explain most of the typical light phenomena we see daily like refraction and such, with some exceptions, most famously the photoelectric effect, which can only be explained by light being served in little pieces (quantums), no waves. So it was QM that made the scientific community rethink the whole thing and realize they had been wrong for at least 100 years.

 

[Joij21]

If photon waves are entangled through wave created worm holes, how would an atom get entangled if it is a not a wave?

It could be a wave as well. How would we know? Or perhaps the entanglement we see with so called particles could be some other kind of phenomenon. Maybe derived from magnetic dipoles between north south facing particles.

I find it very odd how easily this entanglement force is easily disrupted. And from the research what I can tell is that such entanglement is harder to maintain for larger particles. So if it's weaker and harder to do the bigger it gets, maybe it's a different force for the larger things.

 

[Joij21]

which is not aggressive to common sense

And do you actually understand quantum mechanics? Do the majority of Americans understand it? Does the majority of the World?

Because I would bet somewhere from 88%-99% of the population doesn't understand it. So please explain to me exactly how is it average everyday "common sense". Especially so when in order to truly understand you need to know advanced calculus and have a PHD in physics. Neither of which the majority of the population has.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It could be a wave as well. How would we know? Or perhaps the entanglement we see with so called particles could be some other kind of phenomenon. Maybe derived from magnetic dipoles between north south facing particles.

I find it very odd how easily this entanglement force is easily disrupted. And from the research what I can tell is that such entanglement is harder to maintain for larger particles. So if it's weaker and harder to do the bigger it gets, maybe it's a different force for the larger things.

Above you denied light being both a wave and a particle in favor of it being just a wave. Now you seem to be saying that atoms might be waves in addition to particles. There is good experimental science behind QM. Is there any at all behind what you are advocating?

In addition you point at how easily entanglement can be disrupted as if that is somehow not right. Why must/should entanglement be "strong"? My guess is that what we see is the way it works best. A better question might be: "What happens if we make entanglement more difficult to break?

So far we know of four primary forces that make the physical world work. Are you proposing a fifth that has not yet been discovered that applies to entangled, larger than quantum level, things?

I am perplexed as to why you distrust the hard science around QM and grasp at ideas that have no basis in experiments.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Anyway, I repeat that QM may end up not being below NM, other than when viewed by humans or similar observers. In other words, it is certainly not known how something we pick up as QM is linked to what we pick up as NM, and their roles can be reversed or (far more likely) be far more chaotic or intertwined for the object in the (theoretical, not possible for us) sense it is viewed without an observer (as a thing-in-itself).
Basically observers force their own dynamics on what is observed, and after a point is quickly becomes nonconscious and inevitable.

Go with Biocentrism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And do you actually understand quantum mechanics? Do the majority of Americans understand it? Does the majority of the World?

Because I would bet somewhere from 88%-99% of the population doesn't understand it. So please explain to me exactly how is it average everyday "common sense". Especially so when in order to truly understand you need to know advanced calculus and have a PHD in physics. Neither of which the majority of the population has.

How many people do you think could explain Einstein's General and Special relativity? for that matter, How many do you think could explain calculus? Not me.

 

[AmazonQueen]

We are talking about the point and not the purpose, right? The point of life is to reproduce, generally speaking. If we look at individual species and in some cases individuals (i.e. you, me) then we can find other points. i.e. the point of my life is to eat, travel, and find amusement in things.

I'm not sure what this point separate from purpose actually amounts to.
To who or what is the point of life to reproduce?
Not to animals themselves, they care about survival and a full belly. Not to nature or the universe, lacking awareness they can't even manage indifference to the fate of a species.
Not to us. All we care about is are they useful or cute.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

And do you actually understand quantum mechanics? Do the majority of Americans understand it? Does the majority of the World?

Because I would bet somewhere from 88%-99% of the population doesn't understand it. So please explain to me exactly how is it average everyday "common sense". Especially so when in order to truly understand you need to know advanced calculus and have a PHD in physics. Neither of which the majority of the population has.

No, I was saying that since QM is so aggressive to common senses it is ok to invent your own chewable reality where light is only a wave and physics are a bunch of scammers.

Nobody, even theoretical physics that use it daily really understand QM in the sense you mean. Most of it cant be visualized or intuited by our brain and can be fully understood only through mathematics, but as Birdjaguar said it also happens with general relativity. Our brains cant visualize or understand a curved 3D space (any representation you have seen is a 2D simplification) not to mention when you add time to the mix.

So, i don't understand QM either in the sense you mean, but as a chemist i mathematically understand a small part of it, the one involving Schrödinger equation successfully explaining electronic orbitals which is key for chemistry. Without it, Mendeleev periodic table wouldn't make any sense and i would be an alchemist instead.

 

[Sommerswerd]

We are talking about the point and not the purpose, right?

I'd say that's a distinction without a difference but I don't need to split hairs, as I agree with the overall point of your post. Humans are the ones who, as far as we know/can tell, are the only form of life that can, and do identify a "point" to life beyond basic bodily functions like survival and reproduction... which is, arguably, itself a base, bodily function-based extension of survival.

Hoominz rulz and other lifes drullz.

I will repeat though... that this is how it appears from our own human perspective. Who really knows what elephants and dolphins think about the point of their own existence, better than the elephants and dolphins themselves?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Hey, you're right! Coral reefs do not appear to move. Parts of trees do move towards the sun, though.

I am not an expert as to how exactly the locomotion of various species evolved, but it does not appear to be any sort of "showstopper" requiring an intelligent designer. Could coral reefs one day evolve to move in any sort of significant way? It seems unlikely, but what do I know.

The way the eye evolved is a bit fascinating. When you first think about it it seems that the eye must have had a designer and that there's no way that "random chance" could have produced such a complex design. Yet, we've discovered creatures with all sorts of intermediate stages of the "design" and now seem to understand how the thing evolved over time. The same dynamics are probably in place for any sort of complex 'design' of any lifeform's body, such as the ear or nose.. or whatever method the lifeform has to move around.

Our eyes are quite limited, in some terms, for what it's worth. Pretty good for a mammal actually, better than a dog's for example in terms of color. Humans are able to see any combination of red, yellow and blue. butterflies have more cones, some of them see 5, some 6 colors. the mantis shrimp can see a mind-boggling 12 different colors and can actually change the very color of its own body in ways the human eyes doesn't even notice. if you take into account the way colors combine, 16 primary colors result in an insane amount of actual colors that a mantis can see. pretty wild if you ask me.

Science and math basically stopped, due to endless barbarian hordes. Even in the ancient era you would have a much bigger chance to witness something of interest in those fields.

Now this is just untrue. I'm not even a fan of the middle ages, but even a cursory google search could disprove this. The "dark ages" are pretty much a joke in academic history and "progress", if you want to think of human thought in that way, was definitely made in the middle ages. the middle ages gave birth to universities all over Europe. If we draw the line at 1500, Copernicus, Averroes, Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Boethius and many others. beyond that significant progress was made in agriculture and virtually all other fields of technology, like power-generation via windmills.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Beliefs can be correct or incorrect. Note that I used the word "seems," because if God does exist then disbelief won't actually get you out of any dilemmas.

I disagree. You're presuming a connection between disbelief and consequence to make this statement. Disbelief... versus the assumed negative consequence of it are two different things entirely. The person who disbelieves gets themselves out of the dilemmas associated with belief... for just one example, "Am I disobeying god?" The person who disbelieves in god is relieved of that dilemma, regardless of whether god exists. What you are talking about seems to be more about consequence as a hidden "dilemma", but I don't think that is correct.

To illustrate... Two men stand on a low bridge looking into the murky waters passing underneath. The first man believes there are alligators in the water, the second does not. Obviously, the respective belief or disbelief of the men has no impact on the existence of the alligators. The first man elects to stay on the bridge, also believing that if he jumps into the water, the alligators, which he believes are there, will catch him and eat him. The second man, disbelieving that there are any alligators, jumps in the water. There are, in-fact alligators in the water, however, they do not eat the man. Maybe they catch him, but they are not hungry, and decide to simply wrestle and play with him, before letting him go. Or maybe they don't even catch him, because again, maybe they are not hungry or interested in the man. In fact, maybe the man never even encounters the alligators, because they never approach him or make themselves known, despite in-fact being present in the water.

The point is that the man who did not believe that the alligators were even there, faces no dilemma whatsoever related to the alligators. He is never in any danger, despite his disbelief. The only dilemma was faced by the man who believed the alligators were there, and believed that they would seek to harm him, and believed that they would succeed in harming him.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Our eyes are quite limited, in some terms, for what it's worth. Pretty good for a mammal actually, better than a dog's for example in terms of color. Humans are able to see any combination of red, yellow and blue. butterflies have more cones, some of them see 5, some 6 colors. the mantis shrimp can see a mind-boggling 12 different colors and can actually change the very color of its own body in ways the human eyes doesn't even notice. if you take into account the way colors combine, 16 primary colors result in an insane amount of actual colors that a mantis can see. pretty wild if you ask me.

So does the very limited consciousness of of the mantis shrimp create its own reality that is unlike ours? If so, which is true?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

So does the very limited consciousness of of the mantis shrimp create its own reality that is unlike ours? If so, which is true?

I don't understand this question, sorry. Are you asking whether Shrimp are capable of internal reflection/abstraction, aka really "seeing" colors in your minds eye? We know for a fact that monkeys are capable of such, but I don't know to which degree Shrimp are capable of any sort of mental processes, and if they are then they're likely vastly different to ours. What we do know for a fact is that they distinguish between a great amount of colors, which tells us at least something. The colors are used to communicate, these animals are very territorial and constantly fight over hiding spaces. They can tell each other apart by unique color profiles and (I think) signify things to each other via colors.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No. I just mean that their experience of a 12 color world is created by their brains and it is not like our world. Is their world any less real than ours?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Is their world any less real than ours?

Not in any meaningful sense, no. I don't believe in reality outside of it as a philosophical category, or a real that can be objectively observed. fundamentally both the human and the shrimps "world" are just modi of experience and are equally "valid".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Our brains create our worlds? Entanglement connects them? Time remembers them?

 

[warpus]

I'd say that's a distinction without a difference but I don't need to split hairs, as I agree with the overall point of your post. Humans are the ones who, as far as we know/can tell, are the only form of life that can, and do identify a "point" to life beyond basic bodily functions like survival and reproduction... which is, arguably, itself a base, bodily function-based extension of survival.

Hoominz rulz and other lifes drullz.

I will repeat though... that this is how it appears from our own human perspective. Who really knows what elephants and dolphins think about the point of their own existence, better than the elephants and dolphins themselves?

Dolphins and elephants seem intelligent enough to think up their own "point" to existence. I could very well be wrong about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm right. Even if it's true though, they are still nevertheless most of the time driven by their instincts.. probably.

My initial post in this thread was about "The point of life", i.e. all life, and not just humanity or dolphins or elephants.. which is how we ended up on this tangent. (just to restate what I was initially staying, as it sort of got lost in the noise)

To who or what is the point of life to reproduce?
Not to animals themselves, they care about survival and a full belly. Not to nature or the universe, lacking awareness they can't even manage indifference to the fate of a species.
Not to us. All we care about is are they useful or cute.

One of the main "points" of DNA is to reproduce. The context doesn't matter. That's all I meant in my post.

 

[Tiberiu]

I didn't expect to bump into philosophy threads on this forum, but it's nice to see.

There is no point to life. Life is mostly purposeless suffering. The philosophy of antinatalism teaches us that one of the most immoral things that a person can do is to procreate. Since life is pointless and only suffering is guaranteed in life, bringing another person in it is automatically immoral. Most people lack either the intellectual or the moral capacities to comprehend antinatalism, and thus their act of reproduction could be classified as ignorant as opposed to outright evil. That's their only excuse. I would have wanted to add something but since it's based on criticizing religion I just assume it's against forum rules to bring it up, since as of 2021 most forums in existence have forfeited full freedom of speech.

David Benatar's "Better Never To Have Been" is very good read on the subject.
Inmendham's videos on the subject of antinatalism are also top notch.