Hacker News Reader

> If you don't know the future, how do you know if what you do will or won't matter in the grand scheme of things?

If you “know” that the grand scheme of things itself doesn't, and definitionally cannot, matter, then this isn't a problem.

Similarly, if you “know” that, whether or not you know what future events are, they are all determined and cannot be other than they are determined to be (or, equivalently, that every possible outcome will, in fact, be taken), then you can no that nothing you choose can matter in the grand (or even small) scheme of things, without knowing what will occur.

You seem to be more complaining about people who believe that there is fundamental meaning in existence, but that they are impotent with regard to achieving it, than actual (moral or existential) nihilists, who reject the existence of such meaning.

If you “know” that the grand scheme of things itself doesn't, and definitionally cannot, matter, then this isn't a problem.

Well, you can't know, and exactly how do you define "matter?"

You seem to be more complaining about people who believe that there is fundamental meaning in existence, but that they are impotent with regard to achieving it

No. I'm complaining about people who believe that there should be fundamental meaning, but are resentful that they can't seem to achieve it.

actual (moral or existential) nihilists, who reject the existence of such meaning.

Someone without hope isn't a good mate in a lifeboat or a good buddy in a foxhole. If truth be told, your current circumstances aren't far off from either of those. People without hope aren't good company in life.

In the grand scheme of things every one dies and the universes freezes from entropic heat death, so yeah...

That said Nihilism isn't necessarily pessimistic. The French Existentialist were basically weak nihilism and Camus was almost celebratory of the lack of meaning of life. "Nothing Means Anything" can be taken as "fuck it burn it all down" OR it can be taken as "there are no unforgivable sins, there is no eternal reward for martyrdom, so why not maximize our fleeting existence for 'happiness'?"

But you just did that exact same thing!

a) Do we know for sure that's what happens to the universe?

and

b) It doesn't matter anyway. "Everybody dies" is only a fact. What does the fact of heat death have to do with the question of meaning? The implication that "nothing means anything" is just as metaphysical an assumption as "everything means something."

a) math, even if not entropic heat death, a basic grasp of history show that 99.999...% of our lives are meaningless after some cut off.

b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie that tells the truth--summation of nihilism it, by it's very nature, doesn't imply a course of action. So it doesn't matter how metaphysical of a claim it is.

a basic grasp of history show that 99.999...% of our lives are meaningless after some cut off

Why shouldn't we be grateful to the totality of our ancestors for getting us this far? Who is to say that we could change even a butterfly wing's flutter of the distant past and still have everything turn out as now?

b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie that tells the truth--summation of nihilism it, by it's very nature, doesn't imply a course of action. So it doesn't matter how metaphysical of a claim it is.

You know nothing, Jon Snow!

why shouldn't we resent the totality of our ancestors?

Because it's a dismal way to live.

a) If "everything means something" is at least equal in truth-value to "nothing means anything," it's simply not a matter of percentages.

b) If I understand you correctly, I think you're sneaking the assumption of nihilism back into your argument. The "lie that tells the truth" could also very well describe "everything means something," since I undeniably experience meaningfulness as something and not as nothing, despite all scientific facts. Just as I experience you as another soul though I know you are "just" matter. And this undeniable experience of meaning would undeniably imply a course of action. Non-harm (not treating a soul like an object) most immediately coming to mind.

In the grand scheme of things every one dies and the universes freezes from entropic heat death, so yeah...

{facepalm}

We don't know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are. We have no idea what happens if/when the expansion of space itself starts pulling quarks apart.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-you-pull-apart-a-pai...

You only think you know what's going to happen, based on the limited toy understanding of the vast universe which can fit into your present day little ape brain.

The entropic heat death of the universe comes more from the notion that R=1 is implied by the conservation of energy and so while the universe might stop expanding at t=∞ the average energy of any particle at that time will be 0.

if R>1 same thing but faster.

The other option is that we all die and then the universe collapses... which is just as final for anything hanging around as heat death would be.

The entropic heat death of the universe comes more from the notion that R=1 is implied by the conservation of energy

{facepalm}

Physicists already know that on the scales of the universe, there is no conservation of energy.

I hate to break it to you folks, but most of you are dead wrong about conservation laws. Conservation laws are a fundamental part of your education, but they are not a fundamental part of the universe. They are dependent on symmetry, as German mathematician Emmy Noether figured out. What this means is that energy is not conserved on universal scales, though it is still a very powerful analysis tool on smaller scales. We already have good reasons to believe that there is no time symmetry in deep time. The part relevant to the above specifically is at 10:15, but the whole video is worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUn2izowBkw

We know that the universe is expanding, and that this expansion is accelerating. So, do you know what happens when the expansion of space itself starts pulling quarks apart? Can you describe the physics? Do we even know that is going to happen?

Also: Physics Girl -- On universal scales, energy is not conserved! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHCc9b2phn0

>>Do we even know that is going to happen?

no one you can conceive of caring about will be alive and nothing you do now will have any noticeable effect on them.

But also yes we have worked out the math for a hyperbolic universe and it is still not effected by 21st century morality.

You’re not wrong, but you’re not a good teacher either. Rudeness and mockery don’t add anything, and in fact take away from your ability to inform people. You’re also only half right, insofar as nobody knows is a very accurate statement. You’re wrong however, that conservation laws definitely don’t apply. We just don’t know if they do, and there are reasons to believe (you reference Noether’s theorem) why they might not. The truth is, “Nobody knows” with a period and a full stop.

It’s also worth pointing out that universal expansion has an effect only on distance scales larger than galaxies. There is no reason to believe it will pull apart smaller structures, never mind subatomic ones. It’s a popular misconception that the expanding force is great on small distance scales. On the scale of a galaxy, that force is overcome by gravity, so needless to say the Strong force won’t even notice it.

Tl;DR Metric expansion is a powerful cumulative force on giant distance scales, weak on small (below galaxies) scales. Galaxies, stellar systems, stars, and Hadrons will be just fine, thanks.

If you’re going to scold people, you could at least be right. It is also a good idea not to rely on just YouTube videos for your arguments.

In the grand scheme of things every one dies and the universes freezes from entropic heat death, so yeah...

In the grand scheme of things, perhaps the dark energy driven expansion of space-time continues to accelerate until quarks get pulled apart, which increases their potential energy, creating more quarks to get pulled apart in an exponential cascade, simultaneously throughout the entire universe. What the hell happens after that?

To me at least, the lack of meaning comes to what we are. If we are just a really complex phenomenon, then why are we more important then other such things? If our consciousness is just emergent behavior of a lot of brain cells communicating, then why are we more important than the particles of air making wind, or ants acting like a being together? Even the concept of self or being is a illusion, our sensation of continuity is just a byproduct of our memories.

And if we are comparable to the wind, why does anything we do is special? Why do something rather than other thing? Why create things and not destroy everything? Why prefer a type of phenomenon instead of other?

I can't grasp it no matter what I read on the subject or on philosophy (but I never really discussed with someone who could point me to good directions). Everything I read seems to base its ideas on some axioms in which I don't think are true, such as that human life is important, or that we should maximize individual or collective happiness, or anything like that.

Yeah, we don't know a lot of things. Maybe consciousness is not only emergent behavior. Maybe we have a soul or something like that. But it's hardly the truth at this point, it looks like just a false hope we can hold onto.

I also don't share the text or video views. I'm quite pessimistic although I don't act like that. I do like to hold onto the hope I'm wrong.

I'll try. We are different than the wind in that we tend to be more ordered than random particles bouncing around. Our cells are ordered and so too is our DNA, which depends on specific ordering of molecules. This ordering of our world has increase with our number, not only human, but life in general. We export our entropy. It looks like we are going to further this ordering of matter when you look at our advancements in processors, memories, 3d printing, etc. We are becoming the master of matter and the trajectory is geometric in advancement. If we hold out, we may well order all the matter around us. Frankly, I'm not sure what such a system would think or what a thought looks like to it, but I think it might be okay, tending towards a lack of self-harm or disorder. Some views may be more in keeping with that order and they'll proliferate if it's important that they do.

Personally, I'm happy if we learn to live better with each other and thrive together.

| "we should maximize human happiness"

I can't address everything, but the one reason to do that, at least for yourself, is because it's simply more fun to be happy than sad. Just because _X_ doesn't matter, doesn't change that _X_ might make you feel a certain way.

For me, it comes down to the meaning that I experience in my life personally, and in the small amount of meaning carried by my actions as they ripple outwards gently towards the distant future -- perhaps touching many people in a small way.

If someone, a million years from now, experiences slightly more beauty and understanding in part because of my actions, I find that to be incredibly fulfilling. Even better if they are in another star system!

> If you don't know the future, how do you know if what you do will or won't matter in the grand scheme of things?

If future understanding of the grand scheme is unpredictable, then that form of decision making seems equally likely to miss the mark as reactionary non-decisions or intentionally tribally inclusive decisions. You don't really gain anything by switching between those perspectives, or by dismissing one of them, by your premise.

You don't really gain anything by switching between those perspectives, or by dismissing one of them, by your premise.

I don't care if you call yourself a buddhist or a "happy nihilist" so long as you live with yourself and interact with others as if you had a basis for hope. As for your assertion that "You don't really gain anything" -- hope is something truly valuable to gain or to lose.

In other words, "Don't be an asshole, selfish or otherwise."

No, I specifically mean that within the premise you lay out, you don't present any advantage in predicting the future grand scheme meaning, compared to the nihilists.

If I understand your post correctly, the problem is the narcissistic thought that one can declare now about what future things will and won't matter, and things can change in the interim. That doesn't seem linked to nihilism at all (ie, positive personal philosophies of meaning have the same problem of picking the right target), nor does there seem to be a counterpoint presented which would allow you to predict the future more correctly.

No, I specifically mean that within the premise you lay out, you don't present any advantage in predicting the future grand scheme meaning, compared to the nihilists.

I can't predict. However, I can hope. I think that's worth a lot.

Well, to that, I can only quote:

> If you don't know the future, how do you know if what you do will or won't matter in the grand scheme of things? How do you know if you can even properly conceptualize "consequence" or what "matters" for your future self?

:-)

There's little semantic difference between "hope", "know what will", "think that's worth a lot", and "predict" in this future-facing context.

(Note that I'm not promoting nihilism here, only pointing out that what you state against nihilism actually applies against many things broadly, in the exact same way, to the point where it could easily be used as a pro-nihilist argument.)

I’m baffled as to why nihilism is equated with hopelessness or “asshole-ism” when I speak to others about it. I (almost jokingly) call myself a nihilist because I truly believe my life has no meaning. I am but one organism in a giant soup of beautiful organisms. If I have “meaning” - in my humble opinion - it means the maggots in my compost bin have equal meaning. I consider us, them, whatever...all a curious, albeit awesome, accident of nature.

While I think my life has no point (in the “being an accident” sense) I am exhilarated to be alive. How cool it is to experience wind, sun, procreation, driving, art, love, and on and on!

I truly believe nihilism and “hope” are not mutually exclusive. I still get up every day and do cool shit cause it’s fascinating to be alive. I can affect things, make things, and help other “accidents” with their problems.

Nihilism to me is humility. It’s a big universe and we mean f-all in the grand scheme. Enjoy the ride and make of it what you will.

I’m baffled as to why nihilism is equated with hopelessness or “asshole-ism” when I speak to others about it. I (almost jokingly) call myself a nihilist because I truly believe my life has no meaning. I am but one organism in a giant soup of beautiful organisms.

You're baffled because you're a happy nihilist, as opposed to a bitter, resentful one.

As a side note--and I stole this idea from an essay that I thought was by Asimov called the Scientist and the Sage but: 400 or 1000 years ago there were still basically three possible predictions: the universe will end; the universe is infinite; the universe will cycle.

It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions.

but: 400 or 1000 years ago there were still basically three possible predictions: the universe will end; the universe is infinite; the universe will cycle.

It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions.

We now have an inkling that this taxonomy of understanding may well be too limited. For one thing, the notion of a "beginning" might not actually have a concrete meaning. There may simply be no time before "time zero." Also, the universe may well come to a false "end" in a way which completely remixes the laws of physics and possibly remixes the very causal structure of the universe. The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats. That last one is something which our ancestors of 400 and 1000 years ago simply didn't have the "mental furnishing" to conceptualize.

>>For one thing, the notion of a "beginning" might not actually have a concrete meaning. There may simply be no time before "time zero."

Is not relevant to the end (or not) of the everything.

>>The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats.

Is usefully distinct from an un-ending universe for philosophic purposes... how?

Is usefully distinct from an un-ending universe for philosophic purposes... how?

Because the phase change boundaries may be utterly impassable and the other side incomprehensible to beings such as ourselves, but the universe itself goes on. So it's quite distinct from an un-ending universe.

What if the universe doesn't end, or at least hasn't appeared to yet, and yet you're not sure if it's infinite. Like a computer that may halt, but you can't decide if it will or not.

I hope you don't upset the operator and have the simulator suspended with this bickering about what it is. :)

Well if you believe in a god all bets are off, including whatever conception of god you believe in.

Take it easy, I just wanted to put forth another position, that of not knowing.

No, no. That's the thing: if we have no fucking clue-- "not knowing"-- we have no direction or guidance and thus no way to distinguish (globally) good versus bad and we end up running off what "we" feel is right. And yeah that can lead Hitler but it can equally lead to MLK Jr.

Again I'm not saying Nihilism is "good" I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily lead to one set of morals, and what ever you allow it to lead you to can infact be almost congruent with Abraham or Quetzalcoatl or whatever.

I don't think it's necessarily "know it all". Atleast for me, the subjectivity of morality merely means that everyone's morality is correct. Of course, I will disagree when someone claims something is a natural X or inherent Y, but that's a debate that both sides can leave satisfied, usually.