Crushing berries firmly yet slowly underfoot.
The scent of fresh-fall rain.
The silent nods that bus drivers give one another in transit.
The feeling of beer against the back of your throat that loves you to hate it.
Mmm, maybe I should just have better sex.
@SexyLexi4204ever But the same reasoning would lead you to conclude that there is no such thing as shadows, as long as we know they result from something casting them. Everything, of course, is perspective.
@lilana
Hi Lilana, if I may be so bold as to suggest you always listen to your hunches.
There's nothing more exciting than the unknown and so if I were you, I'd stick around him and see if I can figure why my body is so strange around the person, there might be something amazing to it! Sometimes, the people you least expect are the most surprisingly beneficial to you, I hope this helps some!
It's easy to establish that concepts such as 'good' or 'bad' are simply perspective, but that's not a very strong position to hold.
Consider, the concept of 'truth' now; that a thing is objectively the case it presents as. Does truth fall prey to the same perspective fallacy?
Yes, and this is concerning because by its definition truth must be singular, and self-evident. What limits our judgement here is availability of information.
Consider the "Hubble Sphere or Volume"
It states that the expansion of the universe is such a rate that light from a far enough distance will never reach us at the centre, therefore we will have no knowledge of what is outside of our "hubble bubble" so to speak.
This lack of information would lead us to conclude that, say, there is only a single galaxy (if all others exist outwith our frame of reference. While this would be a form of truth, it is only so from our -limited- perspective, and simultaneously wrong and false objectively.
Therefore, I conclude that there is only one form of evil in the world, though it takes many forms, each aspect of it involves the destruction of information, or restricting access to information.
@TheGoldenMole
That's what I was trying to say, it's not enough simply to be aware that we may be lacking information which puts perceived "truths" at risk of being found wrong. We must be aware that our very understanding of what is true, will be less effective as time goes on due to the degradation of either the information quality, or the availability of information.
Estimates put the rate of universe expansion at ~70kilometers-per-second-per-megaparsec. That means that, with three galaxies initially within a megaparsec of one-another, we could easily measure the existence of any object in that sphere from any other object, yet after some time and some distance travelled, a galaxy could disappear, never to be heard of again.
Consider that galaxies A and B are now within the same sphere, yet galaxy C has accelerated so that it is outside of this sphere. The acceleration (km/s) increases with distance (megaparsecs) as space appears to actually generate more of itself between objects as they move, so objects farther away from the point of reference are actually travelling faster than those which are closer. This gives the impression of the receding galaxy C having moving faster than the speed of light, which is not strictly possible, but due to spatial expansion between it and the observer, is actually the observed case.
The implication here is that at a particular distance, no information can be gained about a thing; it cannot interact with us now in any way as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light without space itself increasing in volume between them in addition to their movements.
So, we would be correct, provably and mathematically to conclude that "Because I can measure these objects in my galaxy being affected in certain ways due to objects in the only other galaxy available to me, there are just two galaxies." The third has ceased to be of any meaning, because it can affect no change on our now too-distant galaxies A & B.
If we want to hold that mathetmatics is a language we discovered, inherent to the universe and not simply an idea we made up; ie, that mathematics, that numbers are objective truths (one is always a singular, for example), then I think the conclusion has to be that the only evil is an action which degrades quality or, or access to available information. As to whether it is inherent or learned, since we could never settle Nature-Nurture debate, I think that question ceases to be relevant.
What are your thoughts?
(Excuse the length here, I'm realising I'm not very concise!)
@DayShifter
While I recommend the entire Here, Hear album because it's the finest collection of stories ever put to music imo, here's a sample. Enjoy!
Calling all electronic fans!
So, the premise is as such,
For every 10KG of animal knocked-out, you get 10,000 USD/GPB/etc but you only get one single punch. Which animal do you choose to fight in order to maximise your winnings?
Me?
Personally, I'd take on a camel or a horse.
Why?
Because they're pretty heavy so lots o' cash there, and according to Arnie in Conan The Barbarian, it can be done!
Hit it, folks!
P.s- considered posting this in Pets & Animal lovers, but thought better of it. . .
Shhhh! Keep this between us!
@Barton I was apprehensive at first but this really is pretty good. I plugged this one the second page, but will suggest here because I think you might appreciate it.
@TheGoldenMole Don't you worry sir, I safely tagged it with "Not-Animal-Abuse-Just-Hypothetical-BS" for that very reason hehe!
@TheGoldenMole
That's what I was trying to say, it's not enough simply to be aware that we may be lacking information which puts perceived "truths" at risk of being found wrong. We must be aware that our very understanding of what is true, will be less effective as time goes on due to the degradation of either the information quality, or the availability of information.
Estimates put the rate of universe expansion at ~70kilometers-per-second-per-megaparsec. That means that, with three galaxies initially within a megaparsec of one-another, we could easily measure the existence of any object in that sphere from any other object, yet after some time and some distance travelled, a galaxy could disappear, never to be heard of again.
Consider that galaxies A and B are now within the same sphere, yet galaxy C has accelerated so that it is outside of this sphere. The acceleration (km/s) increases with distance (megaparsecs) as space appears to actually generate more of itself between objects as they move, so objects farther away from the point of reference are actually travelling faster than those which are closer. This gives the impression of the receding galaxy C having moving faster than the speed of light, which is not strictly possible, but due to spatial expansion between it and the observer, is actually the observed case.
The implication here is that at a particular distance, no information can be gained about a thing; it cannot interact with us now in any way as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light without space itself increasing in volume between them in addition to their movements.
So, we would be correct, provably and mathematically to conclude that "Because I can measure these objects in my galaxy being affected in certain ways due to objects in the only other galaxy available to me, there are just two galaxies." The third has ceased to be of any meaning, because it can affect no change on our now too-distant galaxies A & B.
If we want to hold that mathetmatics is a language we discovered, inherent to the universe and not simply an idea we made up; ie, that mathematics, that numbers are objective truths (one is always a singular, for example), then I think the conclusion has to be that the only evil is an action which degrades quality or, or access to available information. As to whether it is inherent or learned, since we could never settle Nature-Nurture debate, I think that question ceases to be relevant.
What are your thoughts?
(Excuse the length here, I'm realising I'm not very concise!)
@lilana
Hi Lilana, if I may be so bold as to suggest you always listen to your hunches.
There's nothing more exciting than the unknown and so if I were you, I'd stick around him and see if I can figure why my body is so strange around the person, there might be something amazing to it! Sometimes, the people you least expect are the most surprisingly beneficial to you, I hope this helps some!
It's easy to establish that concepts such as 'good' or 'bad' are simply perspective, but that's not a very strong position to hold.
Consider, the concept of 'truth' now; that a thing is objectively the case it presents as. Does truth fall prey to the same perspective fallacy?
Yes, and this is concerning because by its definition truth must be singular, and self-evident. What limits our judgement here is availability of information.
Consider the "Hubble Sphere or Volume"
It states that the expansion of the universe is such a rate that light from a far enough distance will never reach us at the centre, therefore we will have no knowledge of what is outside of our "hubble bubble" so to speak.
This lack of information would lead us to conclude that, say, there is only a single galaxy (if all others exist outwith our frame of reference. While this would be a form of truth, it is only so from our -limited- perspective, and simultaneously wrong and false objectively.
Therefore, I conclude that there is only one form of evil in the world, though it takes many forms, each aspect of it involves the destruction of information, or restricting access to information.
@SexyLexi4204ever But the same reasoning would lead you to conclude that there is no such thing as shadows, as long as we know they result from something casting them. Everything, of course, is perspective.
@TheGoldenMole Don't you worry sir, I safely tagged it with "Not-Animal-Abuse-Just-Hypothetical-BS" for that very reason hehe!
@alkal33
You're a genius! Truly, I never said anything about the punch connecting with the poor beasts.
I have my doubts that anyone's going to manage to top your outta-the-box thinking here good Alkal33. You have my wild appreciation!
So, the premise is as such,
For every 10KG of animal knocked-out, you get 10,000 USD/GPB/etc but you only get one single punch. Which animal do you choose to fight in order to maximise your winnings?
Me?
Personally, I'd take on a camel or a horse.
Why?
Because they're pretty heavy so lots o' cash there, and according to Arnie in Conan The Barbarian, it can be done!
Hit it, folks!
P.s- considered posting this in Pets & Animal lovers, but thought better of it. . .
Shhhh! Keep this between us!
@Barton I was apprehensive at first but this really is pretty good. I plugged this one the second page, but will suggest here because I think you might appreciate it.
Calling all electronic fans!
@DayShifter
While I recommend the entire Here, Hear album because it's the finest collection of stories ever put to music imo, here's a sample. Enjoy!