#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Do atoms want nations to exist?
Add New Argument |
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Even if you are completely full of yourself, you can at the very least have the decency to pretend or make it seem like you aren't. You can tell me you've also transcended petty aims and whatever, but from a practical perspective people not liking you won't help you get what you want. For example genuine reactions to your plausably drug fueled wanderings 1
point
haven't seen you for a while. that's a funny stance for you to take, even if just to snap at me social censorship. For your objective or maintaining an image, false or not, you hide things. something the transcendent have yet to grasp? they want opinions to dominate. spewing hubris is not how you keep an audience, being subtle would help everyone. 1
point
2
points
For the sake of argument let's say atoms DO want specific things to exist. They also happen to comprise the matter that enables them to exist, so you'd essentially be saying that matter is God, that it's self-aware and actively building the world it wants to. After all what is God? To believers, he is all things. Atoms are all things. God gives life, atoms give life. God works in mysterious ways. Atoms work in mysterious ways etc. I really welcome your answer. Indeed, atoms have to have feelings, in order for feelings to exist - but then how does one account for the non-organic matter that atoms make up? There can't be atoms that feel and atoms that don't, in which case either everything has feelings, or feelings don't exist at all. Would you agree with that rationale? Atoms are uniform, therefore if they have feelings there only exists one goal (what you spoke of - world-building). 2
points
For an atom to want a nation to exist each atom with its own hypothetical self-awareness would then have to knowingly work together with every other atom in the universe. They would PURPOSELY have to cooperate and build every rock, tree, blade of grass, plant, animal and human being. Then they would have to go so far as using their hypothetical powers to make humans start the wars that carved out the abstract geographic boundaries of each respective nation. THEN they'd have to purposely manifest every thought and instinct to every living thing that resulted in the weapons, tools, cuisine, architecture, belief system and everything else that makes up the culture of each respective nation. they'd have to knowingly and willfully do these things for the sake of this end result. If they're capable of so much then why not instantly create it that way to begin with? I don't agree with your statement that atoms have feelings or that non-organic matter does either. feelings are simply electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. An atom itself can't have a chemical reaction if the atom itself has to react to other atoms just to form the chemical molecules needed to react with other chemicals simply to form the feelings in the first place. Non-organic matter doesn't have feelings. It has properties. These properties determine what happens when the inorganic matter is acted upon. They are unchanging. a pile of metal shavings can't look at a magnet and say "nah screw that, I'm not moving." You can't throw a handful of salt and logically think each grain landed where it WANTED to. If that were the case would they have still landed there if it were windy or raining? Everything has feelings or nothing does? By extension you're saying everything has cake batter or nothing does, everything has battery acid or nothing does. Would you agree, that atoms are uniform? I understand the point, about atoms being incapable of feelings (the methodology of feelings is orchestrated by the formation of atoms). Because atoms are uniform (I'm assuming that you agree with me), that tells me that purpose doesn't exist (therefore atoms don't want the nation to exist, or anything for that matter).. Atoms are uniform, therefore purpose is eternal contradiction. Can we agree then, in light of this, that either purpose is universally untrue (meaning effectively that life has no meaning), or that reality is one universal discrepancy? 1
point
I'd have to disagree that all atoms are uniform. Atoms vary depending on the element it is a part of. The elements each have unique properties. If 2 different elements had the exact same properties then they wouldn't be different elements. Lets not forget the elephant in the room, atoms aren't the smallest building block. Atoms are comprised of protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks and whatever else we haven't discovered yet. And even with all these building blocks, atoms are mostly empty space. For example a hydrogen atom is 99.9999999999996% empty space. If a hydrogen atom were scaled up to the size of planet earth, the amount of matter would be equivalent to a sphere that is 2 football fields wide. Another welcome reply. Atoms aren't uniform, because they mean different elements - but what if the formation of those different elements is just uniformity in itself? Perhaps atoms themselves aren't all the same, but what constitutes them is uniformity, or what constitutes what constitutes them is uniformity. Protons are always protons, and electrons and neutrons are always what they are, yet different elements are the result of these invariable things - or is that even right, to term these things as invariable things? To my reasoning, either reality is 100% uniformity, or reality is 100% discrepancy. Alternatively, uniformity and discrepancy don't exist, and the true meaning about reality is that atoms aren't atoms. 1
point
I don't see any uniformity in it. There are over 80 different types of naturally occurring atoms and scientists have actually been able to CREATE 20-something new ones. There is not uniformity in the way they form elements, it all depends on their individual properties and external circumstances such as the properties of the surrounding atoms and I think temperature and density etc. I see no uniformity in "letting the chips fall where they may" so to speak. Also protons aren't always protons. Protons can break down due to radioactive decay, at which point they become neutrons. I believe neutrons can become protons and/or electrons as well. Isn't it possible though that everything you've just explained is uniformity - the logical conclusion of which is that every new discovery is just more knowledge of the whole (which was always meant to be discovered)? If atoms are only implicative of principle, I suppose what one is left with is the meaning of the principle. From the sounds of what you've said, atoms can infinitely evolve in their behaviour. But again, perhaps all of that is fallacy, and maybe change is "always" just part of the uniformity. Couldn't it be possible, that change and evolution don't exist (existing only from the perspective of our limited insight into reality)? If formula is true (which all evidence tells it is), do you consider that truth problematic? 1
point
Uniformity is defined as being constant and unchanging. The only uniformity that exists are the laws of physics. Everything else is nothing but chaos and variance confined within the laws of physics. I'm not sure anything is MEANT to be discovered. Murphy's law states that anything that can happen WILL happen on a long enough timeline. So given that law of physics I don't feel your hypothesis is tenable. I doubt there is a philosopher sitting around saying "sand can form a castle, but what does it MEAN?!" I don't feel like there is any inherent meaning in the laws. The laws are just the parameters that the observable universe can operate in. Just because something is possible doesn't give it meaning. It's possible to win the lottery but money itself is meaningless, so what is the meaning in that possibility? If they're capable of so much then why not instantly create it that way to begin with? Likely because it still takes time to create and/or they come with new ideas as they go, rather than just possessing the knowledge right off the bat. Also, it could be that they need to experience the result of different atoms working with each other, to gather the knowledge which is required to create certain things. Perhaps the "big bang" is atoms trying random combinations with other atoms to rapidly gather information about different reactions. They are unchanging. a pile of metal shavings can't look at a magnet and say "nah screw that, I'm not moving." You can't throw a handful of salt and logically think each grain landed where it WANTED to. If that were the case would they have still landed there if it were windy or raining? But humans can't do every thing that they want to either and yet we can still make decisions and execute them. 1
point
Your theory that atoms would need to take time to discover things would essentially be mistaking Murphy's law with conscious thought. for your theory to be true you'd have to believe that a bucket of Legos WANTS to be assembled into everything a child will ever build with it. After all, atoms make up the child AND the Legos so they'd have to work together with a conscious purpose. But as I outlined in an earlier statement, thoughts and feeling are caused by chemical changes and electrical impulses. since chemical reactions are made from multiple atoms to begin with its impossible for atoms to contain the chemicals within themselves necessary to PURPOSELY form their own existence externally. Yes we still make decisions and execute them but we are organic matter. We are made of living cells. Atoms are not. The building blocks of something can't be the things they build in and of themselves. Sand can be made into glass, but sand ISN'T glass to begin with. Hydrogen can be made into water, but hydrogen ISN'T water to begin with. Your theory that atoms would need to take time to discover things would essentially be mistaking Murphy's law with conscious thought. How so? for your theory to be true you'd have to believe that a bucket of Legos WANTS to be assembled into everything a child will ever build with it. That doesn't make any sense. What is true, is irrelevant to what I do or don't believe. But as I outlined in an earlier statement, thoughts and feeling are caused by chemical changes and electrical impulses. since chemical reactions are made from multiple atoms to begin with its impossible for atoms to contain the chemicals within themselves necessary to PURPOSELY form their own existence externally. You said it yourself, atoms work together to create thought processes. The debate ask "do atoms want nations to exist". Note that atoms is plural. So essentially atoms are the thought process and therefore can want nations to exist or not. Yes we still make decisions and execute them but we are organic matter. We are made of living cells. Atoms are not. The building blocks of something can't be the things they build in and of themselves. Sand can be made into glass, but sand ISN'T glass to begin with. Hydrogen can be made into water, but hydrogen ISN'T water to begin with. Stating that difference between the two , in no way, exemplifies that the two are incapable of preforming the same things. 2
points
First off I want to clarify that I in no way believe atoms are conscious entities. If I've spoken as if they are throughout the course of the debate it was in hypothetical terms for the sake of the argument. I think you're confusing conscious thought with Murphy's law because just because things HAVE taken this long doesn't mean atoms WANTED IT to take this long. I think you also have to admit that in order for atoms to do this, there would have to be no free wll (for us, not atoms). Everything would need to be "destined" in the sense that it's not really free will driving our actions but the atoms consciously controlling every aspect of our existence. The atoms have forced me to buy this phone and type this sentence while sitting in this chair and wearing these clothes etc. I used Legos as an example because atoms are also building blocks. If the atoms have conscious thought and everything that ever has existed and currently exists is solely due to their concerted effort, then that bucket of Legos (made of atoms) must have WANTED to be built into everything they ever will be. With conscious thought comes the desire to "make something of yourself". Again I don't feel atoms can WANT anything. desire is a feeling. Atoms make up the chemicals that change and react to FORM feelings. The feeling itself can't pre-exist the atoms that are needed to create it. I think you're confusing conscious thought with Murphy's law because just because things HAVE taken this long doesn't mean atoms WANTED IT to take this long. Nope. Remove that from your thought process because its not what I'm thinking. Everything would need to be "destined" in the sense that it's not really free will driving our actions but the atoms consciously controlling every aspect of our existence. Atoms will themselves to interact with other atoms. The human decision making process is atoms willing other atoms. Hence free will is still possible. The issue here is that you keep observing "human" thought and atoms as two different entities. We are the atoms and atoms are us. You are still arguing that atoms can want, but alone as a single atom they can not want. What do you think it is that causes us to want something? The reactions produced by atoms. And we are nothing but a bunch of atoms and reactions of atoms. So when we desire something, it's synonymous with atoms desire something. 1
point
Atoms don't "will themselves". Atoms simply have properties that make them succeptable to the properties of other atoms. I know that fire will hurt me, but I still have the choice to put my hand in the fire or not, unless of course the entire room (hence my whole surrounding environment) were on fire. Atoms don't have a choice in their actions, their actions are completely dependent on their individual makeups interaction with their environmental conditions. Hydrogen can't CHOOSE to form water if there are no oxygen atoms around it just as it can't CHOOSE to form ammonia if there are no nitrogen atoms around it. Atoms are propelled by their properties - these properties are why they behave according to formula. Or would you disagree about that, and argue that the sum total of atomic interactions are not formula? Atoms have properties that "make them susceptible to the properties of other atoms": the property of one atom means the property of another atom, is that what you mean? One atom's property can be entirely because of another atom's property - does this mean imbalance amongst atoms is imbalance, or is it more of just nature's design? Is the trait of one atom to be attracted to another atom's trait actual character, or is it mere systematic procedure? 1
point
No I mean that a hydrogen atom will react differently if surrounded by oxygen atoms than it would if it were surrounded by chlorine or any other atom. One atoms properties always exist independent of another atoms properties, that's how we have so many different atoms. But an atom will react differently with every other type of atom. Atoms react differently around other atoms - but what about the make-up of the properties themselves? I understand that atoms will inevitably behave differently around other atoms, but are all those different types of behaviour intended by something, or are all those types of behaviour without a source of intent? If intent exists at the human level the way thought to exist, it has to exist at the atomic and sub-atomic level as well doesn't it. 1
point
I understand what you mean, but I don't agree. If I step outside in the cold, I can't will my body heat to stay in my body. If an atom were to WANT to react that way, it couldn't. An atoms properties will always cause it to do the exact same thing in the same situations. Whereas me, with free will, could order Taco Bell if I were hungry or I could cook a steak if I wanted or I could go on a fast if I chose to. All three times I was hungry. All three times had different outcomes. That's the difference. If atoms have free will there would be variability in their behavior. In a lab-controlled environment with all the variables the same, they will always act the same way and do the same thing. Free will implies variability. 1
point
"Because humans have evolved whereas atoms have not." I understand the logic of this. That which isn't alive is responsible for that which is alive - V (not alive) is the reason for T (alive). From the perspective that self can only exist if it has an opposite, atoms don't need to have free will in order for life forms to have free will. But is truth perspective? 1
point
1
point
Is that an acceptance that anything either you or I have argued or said could be right or wrong, and if so, is it then possible that atoms want all life forms to speak and ask about the nature of their existence? The cast and crew of Flowers in the Attic (1987). The squadron, in Turkey. The household in Las Vegas. Bouncers in the nightclub in London. The crowd at a WWE event. Are all these people meant to speak the same things and ask the same questions either you or I have? 2
points
By the sounds of it, atoms are no different from human beings - they're as much seekers of truth. If they are, and if the first building blocks of reality are seekers of truth, could that then mean that the Universe is non-existence, and the Big Bang is yet to happen? Could reality be the inverse of what it's supposed to be? 1
point
Well, I know that atom bombs seem to have an aversion to nations, so maybe the answer would be no, atoms see their role in the universe as the destroyers of nations. I mean, an atom bomb isn't going to waste all that energy on blowing up just one individual person,well maybe there would be a few exceptions. Can you think of any? Thanks for visiting. Yes, essentially I'm asking if atoms are purposeful - and if they are, what does that mean about the different elements and types of matter that get created. Are all the things which exist meant to exist, because atoms themselves are "hardwired" to manifest in their own different ways? If atoms are uniformly purposeful, does that mean that a cruise ship is as intended as a school playground, or that a newspaper is as intended as a random thought of someone? If a newspaper is as intended, does that then mean that all the content of that newspaper is meant to exist - politics, sport, culture, scandal, bigotry, violence and war etc? 1
point
The only sense in that everything could be considered predetermined is that nothing in the universe could exist without the existence of the universe, so when the universe was created it essentially created a universe of possibilities. Nothing exists in and of itself. The universe wouldn't exist if there was nothing to observe it. Sound wouldn't exist if nobody could hear it. Speed and size wouldn't exist without something to compare it to and meaning wouldn't exist without the lack thereof but that's different because "meaning" and "purpose" are terms derived from non-tangible human understanding. "Meaning" is a relative term. If meaning meant the same to everybody then everybody would feel the same way about everything, so by definition your question is impossible to answer. Even if it was proven that the universe does have meaning, the true meaning is something you'd have to answer for yourself because it can't exist outside your understanding of it. I agree with lots of your answer. Nothing exists in and of itself, that's true. Anything which exists only does so because of anything else. I myself think that reality is 100% universal meaning (and that contradiction is untrue), and that every life form that can exist is meant to be identical to every other life form - to the effect that life forms don't exist. And the same applies to all else; nothing is meant to exist, and the purpose is to cancel all existence. Atoms can't want nations to exist, because that means war and violence and verbal abuse and opposition are meant to exist (even if a nation can exist without violence, it can't exist without opposition). The problem however, is the contradiction in thinking that atoms don't want the nation to exist. Would that be possible? Can you just elaborate on that last point.. why even if meaning were proven, a person can only recognise it from their perspective? 1
point
"I myself think that reality is 100% universal meaning (and that contradiction is untrue)"- can you elaborate on that because I feel like it's an incomplete thought. If every LIFE FORM is meant to be like every other LIFE FORM then you acknowledging they are life forms to begin with. Again it shows the distinction between organic and inorganic matter. Even so, there are living animals without brains, there are living animals without blood, there are living animals without hearts. These animals are all made of organic matter, yet they wouldn't even meet the definition of life in relation to human life. I know very few people who have survived an autopsy (Sarcasm). So that kind of answers your last question. Everything is relative and subjective. what would light be if it weren't for darkness to compare it to? How could you literally describe the concept without context? If there were no more darkness in the universe would light stop moving? after all it would've completely served its only purpose. If you say something is fast, on what basis do you make that claim? If you say someone is tall, then what is "tall" without something shorter for comparison? "a skyscraper is taller than an outhouse" is an example of a relative statement. In relation to the skyscraper, the outhouse is smaller. "You're shorter than me" is an example of a subjective statement, because I am one of the subjects being compared. I am comparing your size in Relation to mine. So a subjective observation can also be a relative observation from an outside perspective (like if someone else said you were shorter than me). Furthermore, even abstract human concepts are relative and subjective. 10 different people can look at the same painting and feel a different way about it. One persons opinion of it varies in relation to the other persons. It can also be subjective if a person is actively making the comparison such as "I disagree, I find his use of blues to be calming and subtle". Sexuality is Subjective and relative because one persons "perversion" or "taboo" is another persons normal. A Quaker saying bisexuals are perverted is a subjective statement. They are comparing something else to themselves. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly. You even had a relative disagreement with someone over the validity of this topic. Again, I completely agree with your answer. So perhaps the issue isn't why things should exist, but simply determining what existence is meant to be identified as existence. All of your answer is universal (as in belonging to every life form - it's only because an elephant is able to exist that your answer is able to exist), so is the point to identify every life form as your answer? Identifying causality is to negate it. Therefore because I know that this reality exists (causality's existence being dependent on non-identification), does the Universe or the atoms of reality want me to negate causality? I think that truth is identifying all "because of's". If atoms are not me, yet they are what make me, it doesn't make sense if reality is about purpose that atoms are not about purpose. Assume the opposite is the truth, and reality has no purpose, and therefore atoms have no purpose, why does contradiction exist? Could it be possible that neither contradiction and purpose are true? A fighter jet is only because of organic matter, so if atoms purposelessly create organic matter, it then has to follow that all non-organic matter is purposeless too. If all is purposeless, the only logical behaviour I can assume is that anything which needs "because of" deserves to be identified as "because of". In your opinion, is it so that either atoms are 100% purpose or 100% purposeless? 1
point
Atoms have purpose in the sense that they have a utility. Everything on earth can have a UTILITY. It doesn't mean they all have an underlying PURPOSE. Rocks and dirt have the utility of being used as "ground". Without it the concept of gravity as we know it wouldn't exist. Existence is identified as existence because it can be compared, in relative terms, to non-existence. 99% of an atom is empty space, so technically 99% of our body doesn't exist. We are 1% of our body, but 100% of our being. On the contrary, identifying causality doesn't negate anything, it negates the LACK of it, it reinforces our understanding of it. We know cavemen made fire by rubbing sticks together. Then we came to know that the reason this worked is because friction made heat. Identifying that doesn't make heat, fire or friction suddenly not exist. I agree that truth is identifying all "because of's" and causalities. Fully understanding all reactions/interactions and their resulting outcomes. But if your assumption is accurate then identifying a truth would make it false. As far as purpose goes, the purpose (in the utilitarian sense) of our lives is whatever we choose to make it. After all, reality is subjective and physically speaking, your universe only exists inside the confines of your own understanding of it. We are the imagination of ourselves. That's why knowledge and learning new things is called "broadening your horizons". Because we gain a greater understanding. The picture gets that much bigger. As far as atoms having purpose or not, that's simply not a question we can answer with our current understanding and technology. To know that, we would have to know: 1) whether the Big Bang is in fact 100% true 2) what caused it 3)where it came from We'd also have to know everything about dark matter and string theory and everything else to be able to make our knowledge axiomatic. Thank you. Naturally, the part I find the most interesting is the part about identifying causality not meaning the negation of it - perhaps because I understand what you mean. In hindsight, I think I am correct in what I was trying to say, but just used the wrong language. If I say to someone "your doing that upsets that other person", I will have identified something. I will have intervened in order to prevent the continuation of a negative reality (or at least what I perceived as negative), but not cancelled causality - the history of cause and effect will be unchanged. In light of this, could it be so that reality is standard (meaning that what we refer to as atoms are standard too), and the purpose is to override all wrong existences and promote all right existences. You said something else interesting: identifying a truth would make it false (on the condition that reality wants causality to be exposed). Again, I think I see what you mean. If a truth is meant to be identified, there's the problem of that truth only existing because of "anti-truth". Or then perhaps truth is that truth doesn't exist, because the existence of it could never escape the problem of needing the existence falsehood. Going forward, I'm absolutely convinced that because dependency exists, it is right for every life form not just on Earth but in the Universe to be identified as "the Universe" - so assuming space travel will become available to me, I intend to make the best possible use of it to identify every life form - and hopefully cancel the Universe. 2
points
In that sense you are correct. If you identify something not to your liking, and understand what caused it, then you could take the steps to prevent the causality from occurring, thus preventing the negative outcome, if you chose to. Your car could run out of gas and consequently stop moving. You wouldn't like it, so you could make the CONSCIOUS effort to ensure your car didn't run out of gas again. Of course you could unwittingly still unwittingly do it and not be conscious of it just like there are reactions that we caused/prevented that we aren't aware of. You could've saved someone's life by accidentally sleeping through your alarm, thus preventing the accident you would've gotten into if you were on time. Does that mean the purpose of your life was to save that persons life? Couldn't he have saved his own if it weren't for HIS conscious effort not to run out of gas? Did all the actions of his life lead up to the purpose of saving his own life? The point I'm making is that causality doesn't necessarily equate to purpose. Even if it did, could it really be considered your purpose if you weren't aware of it? That's what I feel the meaning of life is, the pursuit of knowledge for the purpose of removing the causalities that create negative consequences, thus attaining existential harmony and equillibrium. Indeed we are all one, all made from star dust, all floating on the same rock. All we are is all we know, all we know is the entirety of who we are. In terms of our collective consciousness, the one contains the many and the many contains the one. You make total sense. And the point about knowledge being used to remove all means to negative outcomes runs in sync with my idea about cancelling all wrong existences and promoting all right existences. Another hurdle though is that if this discussion isn't meant to be replicated seven billion times (ending the nation and the need for anyone to indulge in violence), does that truth have to conflict with the truth that you and I are right to have said everything that's been said? When I say cancel the Universe, in practice I mean taking some random person's experience at a cinema, and giving that experience to every other life form (and doing the same for any experience in the whole history of existence). Does it make sense to you, that the existence of dependency means the existence of non-existence (the meaning of life)? 2
points
Well again like Murphy's law says, anything that can happen will happen on a long enough timeline so yeah in order for me to believe what I do in regards to "purpose", I'd have to at least consider it possible if not probable or certain. I'm sure for it to come to fruition, that conversation would have to be had much more than 7 billion times. If not 1-in-1 verbally then through books, movies, newscasts and all other aspects of the culture during the evolution leading to that realization. I can't even begin to fathom the possibility of your third paragraph. First of all, for that to happen the universe would have to start over completely as every life form hasn't shared the exact same life. If there's life on other planets, they obviously haven't experience their whole existence on earth and vice versa. For everything to experience the exact same experience (not a single atom or quark or whatever out of place) then you'd need a separate and identical univers for everything and every living thing would have to look identical (otherwise it's not the same experience). Their could only be 1 life form in each universe because, if you were to experience watching someone cannonball into the pool, then you couldn't have the experience of both doing the cannonball into the pool and WATCHING someone cannonball into the pool. You couldn't experience flight as a bird while also being the birdwatcher. What you suggest about movies and books and newscasts is a good idea; over time, communication would naturally have to change in order for the reality of quantity to be accounted for. The way we've spoken is because of quantity, and so as more and more people "became this same reality", the more and more shorthand I feel people would speak. The endgame is to create the opposite of existence. |