What is life? What is our goal?

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Hmm, most of these things I do to avoid pain.  For example, I cook to avoid the "pain" of hunger.  And some others are to avoid emotional pain. 

If we are going to use terms that broadly, then I guess everything I do is for breathing.

I sit in class so that I can get a job so I can drive to work so that I can shop for food so that I can cook so that I can eat so that I can continue to breathe.

etc.

 

[Boltzmannbrain]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If we are going to use terms that broadly, then I guess everything I do is for breathing.

I sit in class so that I can get a job so I can drive to work so that I can shop for food so that I can cook so that I can eat so that I can continue to breathe.

etc.

 

I disagree.  I don't watch t.v. or get a haircut so that I can breath. 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I disagree.  I don't watch t.v. or get a haircut so that I can breath. 

I didn't say you did.

[Boltzmannbrain]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I didn't say you did.

Right, I misread your post.  Then those would be examples of something you might do that is not so you can breath. 

[Genady]

45 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I think we are talking about the same thing.

I don't see what makes you think so.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Right, I misread your post.  Then those would be examples of something you might do that is not so you can breath. 

Wrong again. If you can expand the definition of things to suggest they lead to pain or pleasure, then I can expand the definition of things to suggest they lead to breathing. 

 

[iNow]

Wow. Someone got all neg rep happy up in here. Lol

[Boltzmannbrain]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't see what makes you think so.

I interpreted the OP to be asking, at least in part, about what human nature is and what it wants.  That is why I gave the answer that I did.  I probably misunderstood what you were getting at.

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Wrong again. If you can expand the definition of things to suggest they lead to pain or pleasure, then I can expand the definition of things to suggest they lead to breathing. 

 

Yes, and I gave examples that I do not believe are done in order to breath.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Yes, and I gave examples that I do not believe are done in order to breath.

Yes, I was there when you did.

Edited February 24, 2023 by zapatos

[Boltzmannbrain]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Yes, I was there when you did.

Then why am I wrong?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Then why am I wrong?

Life experience and just common sense. 

[Boltzmannbrain]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Life experience and just common sense. 

So your life experience and common sense has led you to believe that you need a haircut in order to breath?  What is going on here?  What am I missing, seriously?

[EmDriver]

13 hours ago, EmDriver said:

'Post processing' from the model I wrote up yesterday, trying to prove the existence of consciousness still ends up being similar to the set theory issue. This would be due to the fact that the model I wrote up would mean that gravity creates acceleration. We seem to have consciousness, but how do you actually prove to someone that you are sentient? Which there in lies the issue. The model can work without this issue by saying that what creates acceleration is a construct. Doing this would make the model work with our universe not being locally 'real' and what the logic of my mind was realizing in the 3rd paragraph that I wrote up. The fact that quantum tunneling is happening, means that the actual position of where particles are in the universe are only being kept track of relatively and not locally. This is how you would save a tremendous amount of energy to have a universe exist.

Wow, talk about creating miscommunications lol. I meant to say we know we have gravity because of acceleration and we know we have energy because we can create thrust against gravity. The construct would be what creates thrust. Was just silly of me to make a post like that when i was tired.

Edited February 24, 2023 by EmDriver

[EmDriver]

Energy Source -> Mass -> Movement -> Gravity -> Acceleration -> Black Hole -> Space-Time -> Superdeterminism -> Universe -> Constructs -> Light -> Observers -> Thrust -> Determinism -> New Constructs

[EmDriver]

So in theory, if everything did start from a single point, everything would be a chain reaction. Even if a planet were to eject something against it's own gravity, it would still be part of the orginal chain reaction. If we do have the ability to choose when we want to create thrust (and it seems like we created rockets that can go into space, not the universe), our and our constructs' thrust against gravity would create new chain reactions, and modify the orginal chain reaction. 

The observer turns a superdeterministic universe into a deterministic universe.