So what's the point in studying science again?
Since nihilism is the cumulative consequence of a rational/scientific approach of life, and that pursuing logic eventually leads to the realization that reason and logic are both worthless and equal 0. Isn't all science worthless? Is there an objective reason to pursue science that isn't emotions or self preservation?
>>8006505
>Since nihilism is the cumulative consequence of a rational/scientific approach of life
not really correct though is it? it's still a very grey area but pop-sciencey types like to make it out as if the big questions have all been resolved.
If people were more honest they'd admit that they just don't know but the current fetish is to act out the super rational atheist/nihilist a la dawkins.
if this is bait you could at least make an effort.
>>8006514
I see your point, but the idea that life is meaningless isn't as farfetched as you make it out to be.
Just take the scale of terrestrial life compared to the size of the universe, only that makes all terrestrial life negligible. Working with the most probable outcome inevitably leads us to nihilism
>>8006505
If you get joy out of finding stuff out, then why not do it?
what's the point of anything? lets all just kill ourselves right now, OP
>>8006527
But joy isn't objective
My point is there is no objective reason to study science
>>8006528
>what's the point of anything? lets all just kill ourselves right now, OP
Exactly my point! If it weren't for our emotions/self preservation instincts we would all be dead!
>>8006523
>scale of terrestrial life compared to the size of the universe, only that makes all terrestrial life negligible
According to your own subjective definition of "negligible" maybe. But one of the good things about adulthood is that you finally realise there are people with differing opinions and that, as much as you'd like it to be, your word is not law.
>Working with the most probable outcome inevitably leads us to nihilism
We have precisely one data point about life in the universe. I have taken only one course in statistics but even I know that making probabilistic extrapolations from that is ridiculous.
Are you sure that your opinions are as watertight as you think? It seems like you haven't even thought this through...perhaps you got these opinions from a Dawkins book?
>>8006531
So? Do it for subjective reasons rather than objective. A nihilist wouldn't care if something was subjective or objective. It just is.
>>8006540
>According to your own subjective definition of "negligible" maybe
Not really. The earth's entire size compared to the size of the universe is mathematically negligible. Like when you divide by a number that is infinitely big and you end up with a number that is so small that you call it 0
>We have precisely one data point about life in the universe
I don't see how that's relevant at all
What I meant is that when we work strictly with the evidence we have, nihilism is the most probable out come
>perhaps you got these opinions from a Dawkins book
I don't know anything about dawkins apart from the fact that he is an atheist
>>8006548
>>
>I don't know anything about dawkins apart from the fact that he is an atheist
get in the darwin circle then
>>8006549
Why would I? Dawkins didn't invent nihilism, and he seems to know little about it
>>8006514
yuo cant kno isn't a valid scientific observation
>>8006548
>The earth's entire size compared to the size of the universe is mathematically negligible.
Your definition of negligible is based on relative sizes. You say that the universe is magnitudes bigger than life on earth and therefore life is unimportant. That is truly good to know but in my opinion it's not the size that matters.
Transistors are much smaller than monster trucks but I have no doubt over which is more significant.
>we work strictly with the evidence we have
So what is this glorious evidence? And why do you think the logical conclusion is that "nihilism is the most probable out come"? Perhaps you can let me in on the secret because I am baffled by the secrets of the universe and would like to know the (probable) answers.
I also feel like you may have a tenuous grasp of probability theory.
>>8006555
>yuo cant kno isn't a valid scientific observation
It actually is.
I think you're getting science (which is about how) confused with philosophy (which is about why). A common mistake made by reddit nihilists.
>>8006557
>That is truly good to know but in my opinion it's not the size that matters.
Except it does? Something that has a size that is so small you can compare it to 0 doesn't matter wether you like it or not since it practically doesn't exist.
>Transistors are much smaller than monster trucks
awful comparison
>So what is this glorious evidence? And why do you think the logical conclusion is that "nihilism is the most probable out come"?
There's no objective proof of god, there's no objective proof of any greater scheme designed for the human race, life is just a pattern that is able to repeat itself?
>erhaps you can let me in on the secret because I am baffled by the secrets of the universe and would like to know the (probable) answers.
Maybe you should come up with stronger arguments than useless sarcasm
>I also feel like you may have a tenuous grasp of probability theory.
good for you
>>8006561
No it's not, when you can't know something for sure, you try to make an educated guess and approach the truth as much as you can, or we could listen to people like you and remain in the dark ages
>>8006562
what an angsty teen post. Here is where you screwed up:
>Except it does?
>Something that has a size that is so small you can compare it to 0 doesn't matter wether you like it or not since it practically doesn't exist.
you are making subjective statements about what matters and what doesn't and insisting they are objective.
>There's no objective proof of god, there's no objective proof of any greater scheme designed for the human race
Perhaps, but I don't see any objective proof for the other side of the argument.
>life is just a pattern that is able to repeat itself?
Another baseless statement that ignores the big questions in a predictably dismissive manner.
You're an idiot that can't accept he's as right about nihilism as Christians are about being saved by Jesus. I won't bother to point out why you're wrong any more because you're plainly in denial.
>>8006568
0 matters?
>Perhaps, but I don't see any objective proof for the other side of the argument.
Good for you. Logic leads us to think that god probably doesn't exist tho.
>Another baseless statement that ignores the big questions in a predictably dismissive manner.
How isn't life a completely meaningless pattern that evolves and repeats itself?
>You're an idiot that can't accept he's as right about nihilism as Christians are about being saved by Jesus. I won't bother to point out why you're wrong any more because you're plainly in denial.
You won't bother to point out why i'm wrong because you have no more bullshit arguments to prove it
You shouldn't call people angst teens, it makes you look bad
>>8006568
>Perhaps, but I don't see any objective proof for the other side of the argument.
Kek, what an idiot. So following your statement, unicorns 'might' be real?
>>8006514
On purely empirical grounds you cannot prove being to be qualitatively different from non-being.
The fact that anything exists at all has always been derived from sense-perception, not scientific observation.
>>8006565
Wow you're an idiot.
>>8006600
wow you told me
>>8006601
Um, don't think your post has any credibility on the pretense that I haven't taken the time to prove you wrong.
Calling somebody an idiot still counts for something, contrary to popular shithead college student beliefs.
>>8006606
>Um, don't think your post has any credibility on the pretense that I haven't taken the time to prove you wrong.
>Calling somebody an idiot still counts for something, contrary to popular shithead college student beliefs.
>i'm right because i say so
>>8006611
>when you can't know something for sure, you try to make an educated guess
The person you were responding to was obviously talking about a different order of knowledge, you can't make educated guesses on the nature of being without it being a philosophically oriented one.
Another reason I can tell you're retarded is because you seem to associate "the dark ages" with philosophy, when in fact scholastic philosophy practically birthed the definitively western intellectual tradition as we know it.
>>8006574
Fockin hell, any [0;10^-k[ is bijected to R+.
Essentially 1 is as close to zero as 12445763242373434532647345345, it's only a matter of perspective.
I said close to zero, not equal. They're comparable, one is greater than the other, but they're as "comparable to zero".
Acknowledge that size is of no consequence.
Another point, there is no greater need to pursue knowledge than picking one's nose, if not for the observation science has made humanity more comfortable as a whole. But you go ahead and flunk maths, I think that's what this is about.
>>8006614
>you can't make educated guesses on the nature of being without it being a philosophically oriented one.
I don't see how that changes anything
>Another reason I can tell you're retarded is because you seem to associate "the dark ages" with philosophy
No i associated it with science.
>>8006617
Ok so life is practically meaningless.
>Another point, there is no greater need to pursue knowledge than picking one's nose
What i'm saying is that there is no need at all to pursue knowledge
>>8006617
>Bijected to R+
Can you explain this for me?
>>8006622
>>8006621
1.
Basically every point of ]0,1[, for instance, can be sent to one and only one point of R+*.
For example:f:x->1/x-1
Rigorously speaking they're the very same set. This might come as a shock if you think of arithmetics, but that's a later construct. You can still make your own "+ bis" and "x bis" to accomodate for the shrinking and keep the same properties.
Furthermore, you'll notice the f I gave you is continuous, meaning the two spaces are even topologically equivalent. ie: one is a continuous stretching of the other.
2.
Life is meaningless does not mean everything in life is meaningless.
The only things with objective value are sex and self-preservation.
Therefore you must (according to your PoV) tend to those as best as you can. Well, being able to humour your fellow idiots who are all uncomprehensively obsessed by subjective constructs such as litterature and science is a good start to not being an outcast.
>>8006636
So why 10^-k?
>>8006622
Any continuous subset of the reals has the same cardinality ("size") as the reals.
The typical example is that there are "as many" numbers in [0, 1[ as in R.
>>8006661
I meant to say you can shrink as close to zero as you want and still be infinitely large. Essentially there's "as many" numbers between 0 and 10^-35 as between 0 and 10^9999.
I thought 0,1 was a bit clumsy in that 1 is a bit of a mystical number.
>>8006514
From a purely objective point of view, god doesnt exist until proven otherwise
>>8007902
Dude, put down the bong...whether someone has formally proved the existence of an entity has no bearing on whether it exists. in fact, there are millions of things that objectively exist without there being any proof of them (like your penis).
Things don't become suddenly true or pop into existence as soon as they're proved. They already exist.
>>8007926
So you're saying there is an objective reality outside of our senses?
>formally proved of an entity has no bearing on wether it exists
And things do not necessarily exist just because humans thought about them
>>8007926
you're all childish fools. fearing death and screaming at the unavoidable infinite end is the only logical thing to do if you were genuinely aware of your situation as a living being with finite time in an infinite universe.
>>8007937
No it's not, killing ourselves is the logical thing to do since our entire lives and actions are irrelevant
>>8007937
do you use that edge to shave with?
>>8007953
I think he was trying to mock me (OP)
