overcast intentions

are you here to read the future?

this is a little bit interesting: i reject the notion of any existence of supernatural phenomena, yet i accept the idea that we may be inadequately equipped to decipher the universe completely (that is, fine the 'ultimate physical theory'). yet if we do not find the ultimate theory, there will remain a certain mystery inherent to the universe that could be described as supernatural, as we will not be able to explain it. but ah, now that i have typed this thought, i see the distinction; supernatural phenomena as they are perceived now, are not congruent to the supernatural phenomena which will remain after human intelligence maximizes its physical understanding. that is, the mysteries which are currently retained by the universe due to our incomplete physical theories are already much less fantastical than the phenomena mystics adhere to.

i guess we feel its safer holding back. is it safer holding back?

why is it that people fear other people so much? why is it so easy to suspect other people find it easy to do things that we find it hard to do? when the vast majority of people on earth, and i really do mean vast majority, are nearly identical in their needs, desires, beliefs, hopes, fears.

mass energy equivalence... what does that lead to? what does that imply about inertia? and gravity? seems like it should have some pretty important implications with those concepts. but ill think about that later.

there are two kinds of people in this world, people who categorize people, and people who dont.
there are two kinds of people in this world, people who think there are two kinds of people in this world, and people who do not think there are two kinds of people in this world.

abandoned in place

so i was reading about metaphysical naturalism, and wow, it fits my understanding of life perfectly. anyway, they mention the golden rule, (or now called the ethic of reciprocity), and the way it was taught to me was, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". but now im thinking, that sounds a bit restrictive... there might be things that i dont want done for/to me necessarily, but that others would find quite pleasing. for instance, if i had lots of money, and i gave it to people, i certainly wouldnt want people giving me money. so i feel like there should be a better statement to use... looking on the site, i find: "what you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." – Confucius, (ca. 551-479 BC)

gotta be careful about bringing my backpack as carry-on, since the pins might be removed and discarded as threats.

also, what sort of constraints does the physical world put on systems? its hard to imagine life thinking much quicker than us, or much slower really.

so, for a while ive thought that time travel and immortality are two good examples of the ability of the human mind to out-imagine reality; they are concepts for which reality does not readily provide evidence, and yet it is easy for us to speculate about the impact and behavior of these concepts (if they were to show up in reality). more recently ive began to think that interstellar space travel has a good chance of falling into this category as well, and i would say that intergalactic space travel is most definitely in this category (though oddly, i imagine there are many people who would agree intergalactic travel is probably impossible, yet would not concede that time travel is most likely impossible, which i believe is due to the attractive qualities of time travel distorting their ability to admit impossibility).
beyond time travel, immortality, interstellar and galactic travel, omnipotence is too an impossible concept; though i believe their should be (at least) two concepts of omnipotence, a strong and a weak.

strong omnipotence is the sort that people use to describe their gods: knows everything, can do anything--literally "all powerful". it could range anywhere from completely uninhibited by physical reality, to completely uninhibited by the laws of logic. (it is debatable whether this 'strong omnipotence' should include the ability to transcend logic or not, i tend to think either way is stupid).

strong omnipotence doesnt really make any sense, even in its weakest form (in which the laws of physics do not apply). if you know everything, if you can do anything, then what is the fucking point? there is no longer such things as mistakes, mystery, accidents, problems, surprise, discovery, learning, change, evolution, maturing... i think without these things love makes little sense, along with fun and excitement. it is precisely the mystery that makes things interesting.

the stronger form of strong omnipotence, in which even the laws of logic or reason are broken, really doesnt make any sense. the existence of someone able to defy logic is (as might be expected) simply illogical. say there existed a being who could create a rock so big 'he' couldnt lift it, and then could lift it... well, it just doesnt make any sense.

weak omnipotence is the ability to do anything physically possible, so while a strongly omnipotent being could say, travel faster than light, a weakly omnipotent being could not. if constructing a dyson sphere is physically possible (which i really doubt), then a weakly omnipotent being would be one capable of doing so.
in this sense, considered as a species and given enough time, humans are probably weakly omnipotent, since it seems that anything that is physically possible can be accomplished by humans.

all of these thoughts lead me to think that we probably created god in our image, rather than the oft-quoted converse statement.

abandoned in place.

No comments: