Posted by: Some_Guy_from_RI
Posting time: 2.6 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 8/13/2018 10:00:00 AM
Views: 361
SCP: 16
21 upvotes, 5 downvotes (81% upvoted it)
~2 user(s) here now
NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default
view the rest of the comments →
[–] VoatsNewfag ago (edited ago)
I think you're right. As far as I know the current scientific consensus is that our universe will die a heat death which means nothing will ever happen at that time, complete stagnation. If we assume that there is no afterlife and that this is the final inevitable outcome it's easy to conclude that what ever happens until then becomes meaningless.
But I also think that's the wrong point of view. I believe that life should only be evaluated from the perspective of life itself. I see little difference between saying that the "void" considers us ridiculous and to say that a "rock" or "tree" considers us meaningless. It's impossible for a tree to have any evaluation of humans suffering or feeling joy and it's the same for the void or universe.
But it sounds a lot more pathetic to complain that we're ridiculous or meaningless from the point of view of a tree.
It's also not a healthy worldview, to say that one human suffering is equivalent to genocide is equivalent to a child experiencing joy - that is the statement of a insane dissociated person, even if it can be rationalized it's still a insane viewpoint.
[–] goatboy ago (edited ago)
Never trust a scientific consensus. Scientists establish their entire careers around the premise of breaking established scientific consensus.
Heat Death of the Universe Theory is unobserved, unmeasured, unsubstantiated, and silly speculation. It is based on proven phenomena of entropy in the macroscopic inertial reference frames with time and gravity constants we understand, but ignores fundamental problems of quantum field observations and some kinds of black holes. It takes what is observed in the macroscopic inertial reference frames that we exist in and assumes without justification to the quantum and super-macroscopic frames. We don't even know if time as we understand it has the same meaning in quantum field, in which case all the energy rules that entropy rules of Heat Death Theory is based on fall apart.
I can understand faith in god. I do not understand faith in heat death of the universe.
As to your question of proportionality in ethics or:
Probably, but I don't know what it's like to experience infinite time frames. If we could experience infinite time periods and remember them in someway, then it seems cruelty and suffering would eventually become as mundane as a child's joy.
Have you ever considered there might actually be a god of some kind since energy can't be destroyed and information must be stored somewhere. Maybe in the last 13.8 billion years of the universe someone figured out how to perpetuate their consciousness. Or maybe it's a cosmic intelligence of some kind that exists and has just been around a really long time. It sees us and it amuses itself equally on our suffering and our joy for no other reason than it understands the absurdity of it all?