Someone here

@LastThursday always appreciate your mind However, The paradox still stands because the gaps still remain between the snapshots. You would need to take an infinity of snapshots to eliminate those gaps between snapshots which is impossible to do in this scenario. So we have a situation of movement and nonmovement in this scenario, a paradox. maybe I should explain why I titled this thread " time and movement paradox" instead of "A movement paradox." Well time is a good eyecatcher and it is intricately tied up with movement. You should compare this thread with Zeno's paradoxes, i.e. the one about the arrow (the significant difference is that in Zeno's day, there were no cameras to take snapshots). Could the problem be overcomed by simply using a video recorder, with a continuous filming motion. The premise is logically sound, gaps in time are excepted between frames due the nature of snapshots, without a point of reference, the theory of relativity specifically states the moving objects will appear motionless.

There is a great deal of discussion about the meaning of life as if that word "meaning" signifies something everybody understands. I can be useful to many people in different ways. I can be useful to a hamburger joint if I eat their hamburgers and I can be useful to a squirrel if I give it a peanut but does that satisfy my meaning in life? No matter how useful I prove to all sorts of creatures is my main purpose in being alive to serve squirrels? If not, then what determines my usefulness?

A message to myself.. .... Humility is the first step beyond nihilism. Ask yourself WHY you're asking this question in the first place. Ask yourself what you mean by "exist" and what "meaning" is? After that it may be useful to think about what you imagine a good and bad future could be for you. Decide whether you want a good future or and bad future and then decide if you're willing to suffer and strive toward the good or simply lie back and surrender all responsibility. You were born. You are here now. Go explore. Go find out what other people are out there, what other opinions people have, how far you can push yourself. Discover your limits and you'll discover "meaning".

I might come up with questions after I finish watching it . Let us guys know your thoughts on it.

Looking back at the more nihilistic periods of my life, I don't think that even then everything was meaningless. There was a high unbalance, perhaps, between what was not worth living for and the little rewards. So you're deep down in a hole and what do you do? A Spanish philosopher said that once you find yourself lost, you have begun to find the way. Your mission is to climb up and leave the damn hole. The strength you gain in doing so will help you make the difference.

Have you ever felt that everything you do and will do is meaningless? That no matter how great you are at something you will never be truly important, and that's when you are good at something, because most of the time you are just average. So why should we live if our existence has no importance, if it is not going to make any difference in the world? No big changes, you are just one more person like many others. Then again, while we rely on society to survive, our sense of self worth need have nothing whatsoever to do with our societal interactions or dynamics. Walk in nature - just be a living thing amongst other living things, drawing in the same air, absorbing the same solar radiation as part of this extraordinary edifice of life on Earth. Rather than feeling pointless, you can feel glad and privileged to part of these extraordinary things - the body of humanity, the biosphere, the Earth, the solar system. You are ultimately a tiny part of the expression of each of these entities. The nice aspect of this is that, since you (like me) are apparently not especially good at anything or capable of making much of a needed contribution to the world, we can sit back and enjoy watching it unfold without undue pressure of responsibility. Personal and local level assistance rendered to others is always an option and often happens naturally through the usual interactions of life anyway. Being a major influence, mover or shaker is only for the few. Many prefer, or at least settle for, a pleasant life that only includes little victories. The beauty is that one may be thoroughly mediocre - say, only gaining fame by twerking on reality TV - and still be one of the most complex and extraordinary things in the galaxy for trillions of kms, and still be part of this incredible evolving biosphere. Enjoy the show

No I'm Indian. But I fucking love her ?

A ToE under my definition tries to understand the universe at the most fundamental level. I.e. the foundation on which all physics is built. After that complexity increases all the way up to human psychology and the physics of the laundry process to help explain why your mom cannot find your socks.

I think We cannot ever achieve a theory of everything because all we can do is to attempt to understand what we can see and measure. In my theory of the universe, I have many coexisting universes. In addition I have many different light speeds up to light speed infinity. A theory of everything can only be the theory of what we can see and measure and not a theory of everything. Do you guys fundamentally agree or not ?

Science has no theoretical underpinning of how the Universe works as a Whole. It simply doesn't exist. And I never said anything about assuming. I'm merely saying that studying details gives no knowledge of how everything works at the most "macro level". How a knowledge of the Whole could be had is a separate issue entirely. I'm merely saying that it cannot be arrived at using the methodology of modern science, otherwise they would currently have more to offer than just saying that most of the Universe is unknown, i.e. is "dark matter" and "dark energy".

looking for repeating fractals was only touted as a possibility. Nonetheless, if you don't learn about the details you don't gain an understanding either. Taking a top-down approach lacks basis without some kind of theoretical underpinning gained from science's bottom-up approach. Without a body of knowledge attained through a bottom-up approach one's assumptions about the big picture gained from a top-down approach will be built without foundations. Many conflicting myths arose throughout history because people tried to gain an overview without having done much spadework. The universe has phenomenal effects at all scales and the behaviour at each scale should at least tell us something about the other scales, not to mention being fascinating and important in its own right. Finding related fractals won't tell us everything about phenomena we can't observe directly, but perhaps nothing will. We don't know yet. Ask in ten thousand years' time and see how we're going.

No, this is simply not true. A knowledge of the Whole (cosmology) will never be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the Universe, no more than a knowledge of the ecosystem of the entire forest and how it works can be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the trees. And this is exactly what modern science is trying to do --- trying to understand how the forest works by studying all the veins and serrations of some of the leaves on some of the trees.

Anyone else into INNA here?

@Roy @Loba @puporing cool ones Another one from my favourite artist

You didn't expect it huh?

Tom and Jerry of course

@Leo Gura thanks Leo ❤?

Why are we here? Why the human form, why this world, why this technological civilization? The world seems to sort of begin to "understand" itself through us, "reflect" on itself. From the near-infinite of possibilities, why did we end up with this one? Is there something "special" going on here, if yes then what? In my opinion that's the central question of philosophy. And those who think that there's something going on here that needs explanation, have come up with a million different answers throughout history. Trying to answer the mistery of our existence. Most of these answers explain what's going on with us, humans. (And that didn't work so far, so there are alternatives where the answer is not directly about us humans, if at all. Maybe it's some machine we will create etc.) So it was usually implicit that it's about all humans, or none. The universe must be benevolent and egalitarian, life must be something good, so whatever the answer is probably has to do with all of us. After all no one wants to be left behind. Except that's probably wrong. One of the great dark turns of "truth-seeking" is the realization that such an answer probably only has to do with one human, or maybe with a few humans. The rest of humanity, the vast majority only paved the way, just like evolution before humans paved the way. But otherwise their existence is largely irrelevant here.

I don't think that evolution, in the simple, Darwinian/Dawkinsian sense, is either logical or predictable ("expected"). It is a random response to circumstances as they are. We tend to think of evolution as an intelligent agent, but it is not. Mutations happen, and their suitability for their world determines their survivability, in a more or less random manner. This is 'evolution'. Such a process cannot give rise, except by coincidence, to "logical and expected" results. I think that when Science can do such things, it will be Sensible and Expected that we take the next step and create artificial Life forms that are more durable than what Evolution has provided. Not only for currently alive people to transfer to, but for all people that have ever lived and died to return to. This might be the great purpose of Science that we did not even realize.

Is man the logical and expected result of Evolution? Science is advancing rapidly - In the near future we, Humans, may become capable of literally creating artificial life that can mimic biological Human life - And in many ways may be created to be superior to the existent Human. I'll give you an imaginary, but at least possible, future where you will have the power to correct any mistakes made by Evolution. Can you design a Human that is better suited for the future Can you alter the internal death wish that drives Humanity to destructive self and social tendencies to destroy his own kind - fix the evolutionary paradigm that will drive the Human species to extinction Maybe this new science is still beyond your imagination - But it is possible Is the Human species capable of evolving to a higher plane of existence either from altering internal biological flaws or designing a 'New Humanoid' better than the old biological one

Software needs hardware. The idea that the software mysteriously goes somewhere else when the hardware it's running on is dismantled seems like a misunderstanding of the nature of software.

This is not meant to be religious but might be taken to be mystical - Because it reflects concepts such as immortality and rebirth. This post is based upon the thinking of Max Planck, the famous Nobel Prize winning physicist who gave us Quantum Mechanics - And specifically my favorite quote by Planck: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” ― Max Planck Again 'consciousness is fundamental' - No beginning, no end, but rather a fundamental state of conscious existence that is the be all of all that exists - The past, present, and future is backed by an ever existing state of consciousness Now assuming, just for the sake of argument, that Planck is correct - Is death even possible How can any form of life actually die, discounting the actual physical body which we know will eventually pass on - But the ever existent conscious state that the physical body came from will always exist and the conscious essence that the body came from is ever present. So we Humans, or any life form for that matter, can not die completely - It simply returns to the primal and forever state of consciousness That said - Can we postulate the existence of a real afterlife where our ego specific conscious mind can maintain itself and voluntarily choose to return and be reborn And finally do you know of anyone, including yourself, who believes, and even better still has evidence of living before

That's why divorce exist.

I disagree. An important point to remember is that you are not getting married out of charity for the other person. You get married because you have needs. If the other person is willing to provide them to you, and you live in gratitude, then there will not be too much friction. Do not look for the ideal man or the ideal woman. There is none. If you understand that it is your needs that make you seek a companion, find someone who is reasonably compatible with you, if you accept, respect, love, include, care for, and take responsibility for each other, it can be a beautiful relationship.