What do you think?....

[seeker007nmss]

Do you think the future is preordained? Or is it a fluid thing that changes all the time and whose outcome cannot be determined? I think you can spot trends, but that the future changes with the wind as all the varibles swirl around and react to each other.

[amber]

I think time is fluid, I think many planes of possiblilities exist at once. However, I do think there is "probable futures". Honestly, I think that some of it is preordained, not because of some cosmic rules, but because of how people have acted, what they have done, in moments. ie, what has come before, will most likely lead to what comes. Therefore I think, in that way, the future can be predictable. However, I think the probability definitely exist for there to be "other" futures. It's a very good question. I, and some of my friends, have predicted things, or seen them. they have come to happen. But - does that mean there were not other possibilities? I don't think so. But then again, in the way that the past makes the future, it may be, to a certain extent, that the future is preordained, because of what has come before - that which was, makes that which is. I dunno, I'm still exploring it all, and on the fence about some things. I think about it a lot, but don't really have the answers, yet. :D

[seeker007nmss]

I think time is fluid, I think many planes of possiblilities exist at once. However, I do think there is "probable futures". Honestly, I think that some of it is preordained, not because of some cosmic rules, but because of how people have acted, what they have done, in moments. ie, what has come before, will most likely lead to what comes. Therefore I think, in that way, the future can be predictable. However, I think the probability definitely exist for there to be "other" futures. It's a very good question. I, and some of my friends, have predicted things, or seen them. they have come to happen. But - does that mean there were not other possibilities? I don't think so. But then again, in the way that the past makes the future, it may be, to a certain extent, that the future is preordained, because of what has come before - that which was, makes that which is. I dunno, I'm still exploring it all, and on the fence about some things. I think about it a lot, but don't really have the answers, yet. :D


Ooh good points Amber. I think you are right that the future is based on past events. I think it gets harder to predict the farther you go out. it is easier to predict the outcome of my doing laundry in the next 10 minutes as opposed to who (if anyone) will be president in 500 years. I think there is a percentage of an outcome happening, but nothing definate. (Kinda like Quantum Phyics in knowing the eact location of particles - you can only guess with a percentage chance of really knowing).

[seeker007nmss]

Writing philosophies on a Fleetwood Mac message board feels odd to me but heck, I'm bored.

I think it's entirely random and that any theory can only explain an event after the fact, that whilst some patterns have proven particular theories to be more of an accurate prediction, they can never extend beyond a simple prediction. I think all theories come down to people's fear of the unknown and inability to accept that everything is entirely random. I guess that means I believe in nothing, which actually contradicts itself because then how can I believe in what I just spoke of. That's why I love philosophies, they can cancel each other out and make you feel worthly whilst really only filling in time.

This beats cleaning the bathroom, which I am puting off ATM. :D I don't think everything is entirely random. There are just higher and lower percentage chances of things happening. (If I don't buy cleaner for the bathroom, the chance of me cleaning it in the future is much less).

[amber]

Writing philosophies on a Fleetwood Mac message board feels odd to me but heck, I'm bored.

I think it's entirely random and that any theory can only explain an event after the fact, that whilst some patterns have proven particular theories to be more of an accurate prediction, they can never extend beyond a simple prediction. I think all theories come down to people's fear of the unknown and inability to accept that everything is entirely random. I guess that means I believe in nothing, which actually contradicts itself because then how can I believe in what I just spoke of. That's why I love philosophies, they can cancel each other out and make you feel worthly whilst really only filling in time.
I think I disagree, only because i hold the belief that all particles are connected, scientifically. Not that that discounts randomness, because I think there is an element which we consider random, however, I'm not sure if it actually is random. I suspect that it is not. After all, everything on this earth shares something with something else. Particles interract constantly, in ways that we are only beginning to understand... :shrug:

[amber]

Ooh good points Amber. I think you are right that the future is based on past events. I think it gets harder to predict the farther you go out. it is easier to predict the outcome of my doing laundry in the next 10 minutes as opposed to who (if anyone) will be president in 500 years. I think there is a percentage of an outcome happening, but nothing definate. (Kinda like Quantum Phyics in knowing the eact location of particles - you can only guess with a percentage chance of really knowing).
right - it does get harder to predict further out, but only because most people do not have that information. If we did, I'm sure we could trace some sort of particle line... :laugh: I absolutely think that what is done now, in every second, effects every other second, for millenia. "Deep thoughts, by Amber G." :laugh:

[amber]

That method of thought is much closer to mine than most, although we still differ. I think that no theory can determine something is more likely than something else no matter how frequent its occurance in history. I think for our purposes it's useful to accept history as a source for accounting probability but that in a much grander sense, nothing is actually more probable than the next thing.

I think I'm already contradicting what I said elsewhere because I believe I said everything is determined by the series of events before it. Yep, I completely contradicted myself but if I stayed around a bit I'm sure I could talk myself in a circle and let my own theories exempt me from my own theories. Of course then I still wouldn't have eaten nor done the dishes.
Ah HA! :laugh: (at what, i'm not sure...). oh, the past determining the future thing. yeah. that's it.
speaking of dishes.... :rolleyes: lux, can you come do mine? :laugh:

[dissention]

In the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. We're not going to leave big marks behind because of anything we've done in our lifetime, we're all going to die, and life is going to go on as if we never existed. Everything is essentially random and nothing is as connected as we'd like to believe.

[dissention]

Can we just get high instead?

Not if Courtney Love is any indication.

[amber]

I guess I mean that I think nothing is connected like you believe. That previous occurances are no assurance of future occurances, despite theories designed to accomodate for what has already happened.

Can we just get high instead?
well, I'm sure I can do both! :laugh: seriously, I think that everything's molecules are connected, and those science shows from PBS that I watch really strengthen those views... :D To me it's absurd to think nothing is connected, and that the past doesn't influence the future, but hey, I've been thinking about this/studying it for a long time, perhaps I am too "in the mix" :wavey:

[GateandGarden]

In the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. We're not going to leave big marks behind because of anything we've done in our lifetime, we're all going to die, and life is going to go on as if we never existed. Everything is essentially random and nothing is as connected as we'd like to believe.Countless individuals have left marks and made a difference in the world for those who came after them. Scientific inventions (simple and complex) are only one example of this.

Sometimes I think you go beyond realism and into cynicism, but maybe you knew that already. :shrug:

[amber]

In the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. We're not going to leave big marks behind because of anything we've done in our lifetime, we're all going to die, and life is going to go on as if we never existed. Everything is essentially random and nothing is as connected as we'd like to believe.
Part true, part not. everything we do, really, will affect future generations. Our pollution? they'll live with it. Our inventions? they'll live with them. Our art? Same thing. I can't believe you think what we do doesn't lead to what other people do, or percieve. Aren't we products of an enormous history that came before us? Do you think we would have any of the things we do, if someone before us hadn't led the way to inventing them? Sesly.

[GateandGarden]

To me it's absurd to think nothing is connected, and that the past doesn't influence the future...I agree. Consider all the **** that happens over and over again in history. Supposedly, if we don't learn history then we are doomed to repeat it, but it seems that even learning it doesn't save us from that in many cases.

[amber]

I agree. Consider all the **** that happens over and over again in history. Supposedly, if we don't learn history then we are doomed to repeat it, but it seems that even learning it doesn't save us from that in many cases.
totally. completely. without question. etc. :nod: How could every past moment not have led up to the moment we are having right now? To take a simple example, what if we weren't born? etc.

[dissention]

Countless individuals have left marks and made a difference in the world for those who came after them. Scientific inventions (simple and complex) are only one example of this.

Sometimes I think you go beyond realism and into cynicism, but maybe you knew that already. :shrug:


Have you taken philosophy classes? :shrug: Such things are taught in them as existentialist beliefs and they aren't regarded or defined as "cynicism". I'm not speaking about physical inventions.

[GateandGarden]

Have you taken philosophy classes? :shrug: Such things are taught in them as existentialist beliefs and they aren't regarded or defined as "cynicism". I'm not speaking about physical inventions.I haven't taken philosophy yet, but will next fall. So, if not physical inventions or anything Amber said, what do you mean?

[amber]

Have you taken philosophy classes? :shrug: Such things are taught in them as existentialist beliefs and they aren't regarded or defined as "cynicism". I'm not speaking about physical inventions.
I've taken philosophy classes. But that is still a certain web of beliefs, a belief system. Admittedly, my classes have not delved deeply into this, but I just cannot ignore the science and logic that tells me that what came before leads to what is. :shrug: Did you read the previous posts? can you honestly say that without what came in the past, we would still have, and know, what we have and know today? :confused:

[amber]

And what do you mean you are not speaking about inventions? Isn't that the most direct, logical evidence we have that everything is connected? Oh, besides the fact that if so and so hadn't done this and that, you and I would not be alive today? :confused:

[amber]

Well Amber what I was saying isn't dependent on Science nor Science shows. Science is one of the theories I was referring to. I think it's the most useful one for our purposes but I believe like all other theories that it is designed after the fact and doesn't determine the fact. I'm willing to use it as the useful for our living purposes but I think that it doesn't determine probability and that it comes in after. I therefore think anything is possible and that Science will provide an explanation following the event or discovery but that it doesn't determine reality. I believe reality determines the theory, not vice versa.
Ah. I see. but at this point, science is our best tool for studying reality. And also, I think that science studies things that what we see, ie, reality could not possibly determine. If we followed only reality, wouldn't we still think that all the planets revolve around the earth? If you see what I mean. But I see you think that probabilities cannot be determined by science, that science can only come in after (am I getting your meaning right?). I disagree, for I think that scientific methods, and math, can determine probabilities. Not always, naturally, but I think the fault there lies with science's capabilities, not with the fact that probabilities are not predictable...(I think they are, in most cases).
But if you mean something else - ie "anything is possible, and that science will provide an explanation following the event" (your words) then of course I agree, but I think that we do not even know the tip of the iceberg of what is actually happening, but I think that whatever is happening, it is inextricably connected to whatever else has happened, throughout time, always. :) But I think that theory is basic science as well. Anyway - you could be right, I'm only barely aquainted with Chaos theory. but what i have studied definitely tells me that everything is connected.

[sparky]

Not if Courtney Love is any indication.

ARE YOU CHANNELING ME ? :xoxo:

[Mad4stevie]

Have you taken philosophy classes? :shrug: Such things are taught in them as existentialist beliefs and they aren't regarded or defined as "cynicism". I'm not speaking about physical inventions.

Oh how I HATED my one philosophy class! I was in an "honors" philosophy class and it was called "Human Existence and Trancendence". My parents would have died if they heard the crap being tossed around in there! :laugh:

This kind of stuff is so deep that it makes my head hurt, so I don't try to think about it too much or too often! :D

That being said, I think all things are interrelated. I think there is a thread of truth to "Destiny Rules" :D . I think it is a mix of "free will" and some sense of predetermination. Figuring out how those two things relate to each other, if at all, is something that has fractured many Protestant denominations (for example), and heck if I am gonna be able to figure any of it out!

[tynan88]

I personally believe in pre-determination, I think that a variety of actions will lead to the same consequence, however I agree that what we say will result from our actions will not always happen, however what does happen is certain we just can't be certain of the certainty.

[dissention]

I've taken philosophy classes. But that is still a certain web of beliefs, a belief system.

As are the things you've said. :shrug: This thread is titled "What do you think?" We're all essentially commenting on things that, in the grand scheme of things, we know next to nothing about. It's all about we think and believe, not what we know, because nothing is proven.

Admittedly, my classes have not delved deeply into this, but I just cannot ignore the science and logic that tells me that what came before leads to what is. :shrug:

There's certainly much room for error in science. I believe that much of the time, the scientific community doesn't know their ass from their hat. There's a human desire to want to put an explanation onto something, regardless if it makes much sense. They do it because it makes them feel better about things that they simply do not have the ability to grasp.

Did you read the previous posts? can you honestly say that without what came in the past, we would still have, and know, what we have and know today? :confused:

I read them and I'm not speaking from a standpoint regarding physical things such as pollution and modern inventions, I'm speaking from a somewhat spiritual standpoint. I, personally, in the broadest terms, do not put faith or believe in things such as God, I believe that everything passes eventually and results in nothing. We're essentially meaningless in this world as individuals.

I just finished reading a book called "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution" by Eugene Rose about a week ago that I thought was quite good, you might like it. It talks about a lot these things and it's pretty cheap (I think I got it for $8). The guy is an absolute quack because he rebutts every nihilistic belief with something about Christianity, but it's a fun read. Any book on existential nihilism is a fun read, IMO.

[dissention]

This kind of stuff is so deep that it makes my head hurt, so I don't try to think about it too much or too often! :D

It is, and it's very hard to express with words. :laugh:

[amber]

As are the things you've said. :shrug: This thread is titled "What do you think?" We're all essentially commenting on things that, in the grand scheme of things, we know next to nothing about. It's all about we think and believe, not what we know, because nothing is proven.



There's certainly much room for error in science. I believe that much of the time, the scientific community doesn't know their ass from their hat. There's a human desire to want to put an explanation onto something, regardless if it makes much sense. They do it because it makes them feel better about things that they simply do not have the ability to grasp.



I read them and I'm not speaking from a standpoint regarding physical things such as pollution and modern inventions, I'm speaking from a somewhat spiritual standpoint. I, personally, in the broadest terms, do not put faith or believe in things such as God, I believe that everything passes eventually and results in nothing. We're essentially meaningless in this world as individuals.

I just finished reading a book called "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution" by Eugene Rose about a week ago that I thought was quite good, you might like it. It talks about a lot these things and it's pretty cheap (I think I got it for $8). The guy is an absolute quack because he rebutts every nihilistic belief with something about Christianity, but it's a fun read. Any book on existential nihilism is a fun read, IMO.
I understand your disbelief in god, I don't believe either. And i'm not saying we are meaningful. But, I am saying, that what we do, and what everyone has always done, effects all that is to come after. Meaningless or not ;) (and believe me, I can't imagine that we aren't meaningless, except to other beings who have to inhabit the planet we share). Also, I don't believe that everything results in nothing, because, we all leave a mark (unless you're talking about super big picture nothingness, in which case i would agree). But as far as what we leave affecting other beings, things, on the planet, well, I think it does. I am interested to read that book. because, I can see how I, personally, affect people to the smallest nuance, and how people affect me, and how energy travels thusly, to infinity. If you are speaking more largely, then, heck yeah. Who cares about our entire universe? I mean, everything is essentially meaningless, except to the people/things experiencing it.
Did that make sense? sometimes my brain gets too big for my britches :)

[Mad4stevie]

It is, and it's very hard to express with words. :laugh:

Yes - and until I got away from my sheltered upbringing :laugh: I never thought about a lot of these things, simply because such things were never discussed in my parents home. Thank god for a good liberal arts education - although I am still paying $$$ for it! :)

[GateandGarden]

Thank god for a good liberal arts education - although I am still paying $$$ for it! :)I hear ya! :laugh:

[amber]

Yes, I think what you're saying is what I meant....I think. Of course I don't expect you to agree but yes, I think that mathematics can only deal with explaining previous occurances and whilst we might use it as a prediction, it can't be used as absolute truth. For example, I think that if we still believed the planets revolved our us, then mathematics and science would formulate an explanation for this and all subsequent theories would not play any part in determining the truth. The reality of it not working this way would obviously not have been accounted for in any such mathematical theories and so I believe that whilst what we have is proving useful for us, that it cannot account for the limitless possibilities.
Good point. But I think it is the best tool we have for explaining things we cannot possibly see - and I think science is light years ahead of what most humans's understanding is of what is going on. Seriously - the fact that time is another dimension? the weird things the human brain can do/respond to? do you keep up with science? I try to, it blows my mind continuously with the possibilities it presents. :nod: I really think, for the most part, it is way ahead of what humans understand as "possibilities". Most people don't know about science stuff, though.

[amber]

Yes - and until I got away from my sheltered upbringing :laugh: I never thought about a lot of these things, simply because such things were never discussed in my parents home. Thank god for a good liberal arts education - although I am still paying $$$ for it! :)
Hmmm. I've thought about this stuff every since i was very young. I had a hunger to learn about it. :) But then, I was not raised as you were. :xoxo: But i've always asked weird questions about everything. The cosmic everything, that is. :p

[dissention]

I understand your disbelief in god, I don't believe either. And i'm not saying we are meaningful. But, I am saying, that what we do, and what everyone has always done, effects all that is to come after. Meaningless or not ;) (and believe me, I can't imagine that we aren't meaningless, except to other beings who have to inhabit the planet we share). Also, I don't believe that everything results in nothing, because, we all leave a mark (unless you're talking about super big picture nothingness, in which case i would agree). But as far as what we leave affecting other beings, things, on the planet, well, I think it does.

But on the flip side, in regards to quantum physics, there's no way of really saying how something is affected by something else. When we observe something, we aren't seeing it in its natural state; it appears differently for us. It's altered for our sight. So how would it be possible to gauge the effects one thing has on another if we are never seeing something as it truly is? That is the question. ;)

I am interested to read that book. because, I can see how I, personally, affect people to the smallest nuance, and how people affect me, and how energy travels thusly, to infinity. If you are speaking more largely, then, heck yeah. Who cares about our entire universe? I mean, everything is essentially meaningless, except to the people/things experiencing it.
Did that make sense? sometimes my brain gets too big for my britches :)

I am speaking more largely because I'm not concerned, when it comes to this discussion, with how pollution affects people twenty years from now or thousands of years from now. And yes, you made a bit of sense. :P

[amber]

But on the flip side, in regards to quantum physics, there's no way of really saying how something is affected by something else. When we observe something, we aren't seeing it in its natural state; it appears differently for us. It's altered for our sight. So how would it be possible to gauge the effects one thing has on another if we are never seeing something as it truly is? That is the question. ;)
Well, isn't quantum physics exactly the point of guaging the reactions of sub atomic things, upon other sub atomic things? sure, we can't see it in our real life, but scientist have seen it, and they've seen "it's" effect on other particles around it...that's how much of quantum physics operates, seeing the effects of things on other things. which they can see. :confused: and if equipment can see it, or it's effects, then, aren't we really seeing it? (ie, if it affects something we can measure, then isn't it really there?) I see your thing with seeing something, really, and does anyone really exist, or is it all perception, and all that, but since we can only talk about what we know... :shrug:



I am speaking more largely because I'm not concerned, when it comes to this discussion, how pollution affects people twenty years from now. And yes, you made a bit of sense. :P
Oh, you are not concerned with how your actions, and the actions of your leaders, and everyone else, affect others? I'm sorry, I thought you were. oh, wait, I see. you said "when it comes to this discussion". But still, do you deny that we, and everyone that has come before us, do affect others? I think you denied it in your previous posts here. right? or, maybe you were speaking more generally, then, as well? :confused:

[dissention]

Well, isn't quantum physics exactly the point of guaging the reactions of sub atomic things, upon other sub atomic things? sure, we can't see it in our real life, but scientist have seen it, and they've seen "it's" effect on other particles around it...that's how much of quantum physics operates, seeing the effects of things on other things. which they can see. :confused: and if equipment can see it, or it's effects, then, aren't we really seeing it? (ie, if it affects something we can measure, then isn't it really there?) I see your thing with seeing something, really, and does anyone really exist, or is it all perception, and all that, but since we can only talk about what we know... :shrug:

But quantum physicists believe that nothing can be observed as it actually is, dear. They believe that it "changes" when we view it. So, they use statistical probabilities to reach their conclusions most of the time.

Oh, you are not concerned with how your actions, and the actions of your leaders, and everyone else, affect others? I'm sorry, I thought you were. oh, wait, I see. you said "when it comes to this discussion". But still, do you deny that we, and everyone that has come before us, do affect others? I think you denied it in your previous posts here. right? or, maybe you were speaking more generally, then, as well? :confused:

I've nothing to add to that because you don't seem to understand my position. If I want to talk about pollution, I'll start an environmental thread instead of discussing it in a thread that deals with rather existential issues, especially when pollution has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

[amber]

But quantum physicists believe that nothing can be observed as it actually is, dear. They believe that it "changes" when we view it. So, they use statistical probabilities to reach their conclusions most of the time.



I've nothing to add to that because you don't seem to understand my position. If I want to talk about pollution, I'll start an environmental thread instead of discussing it in a thread that deals with rather existential issues, especially when pollution has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.
Sorry, i thought you made the point that things don't affect other things. If you are not talking about actual things, I'd appreciate knowing what things you are talking about. Which things don't affect others? Actually, I think you did say that, but I appreciate you implying I don't know what you are talking about, even though I don't believe you said what you are talking about. Enlighten me, please. I'd love to understand your position. And I believe quantum physicist do rely on their observation of how things affect other things.

[amber]

In the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. We're not going to leave big marks behind because of anything we've done in our lifetime, we're all going to die, and life is going to go on as if we never existed. Everything is essentially random and nothing is as connected as we'd like to believe.
Ah, yes, here it is. "nothing is connected. life will go on as if we never were. Everything is random"

[Hawkeye]

I have to go with Stevie and say that "I believe that Destiny Rules and that the spirits are ruthless with the paths they choose." Its hard to find any better words writtten by Ms. Nicks.

[Mad4stevie]

Hmmm. I've thought about this stuff every since i was very young. I had a hunger to learn about it. :) But then, I was not raised as you were. :xoxo: But i've always asked weird questions about everything. The cosmic everything, that is. :p

Yeah - independent thinking and opinions were something pretty new to me when I got to college. I don't mean to demonize my parents in any way, but it would be dishonest to say that they encouraged "free thinking". It was more like, "this is how things have always been, and that is why you do it/think it/feel it". God, that sucked! :D

[amber]

Yeah - independent thinking and opinions were something pretty new to me when I got to college. I don't mean to demonize my parents in any way, but it would be dishonest to say that they encouraged "free thinking". It was more like, "this is how things have always been, and that is why you do it/think it/feel it". God, that sucked! :D
Ah, but you came out ok, which is great. :thumbsup:

[dissention]

Sorry, i thought you made the point that things don't affect other things. If you are not talking about actual things, I'd appreciate knowing what things you are talking about. Which things don't affect others? Actually, I think you did say that, but I appreciate you implying I don't know what you are talking about, even though I don't believe you said what you are talking about. Enlighten me, please. I'd love to understand your position.

Go look up existential nihilism. That's what I've been talking about the whole time and pretty much the position I hold.

And I believe quantum physicist do rely on their observation of how things affect other things.

If that were true, their results would be inherently flawed and contradict their statements that things change when we observe them.

[amber]

Go look up existential nihilism. That's what I've been talking about the whole time and pretty much the position I hold.



If that were true, their results would be inherently flawed and contradict their statements that things change when we observe them.
okay, I will, but you didn't really say that, you implied something else. So I couldn't really know, if you didn't explain, could I?
you could tell me, and then it would be an actual discussion, but perhaps you can't word it well, yet.
And about quantum physics? I dunno.

[dissention]

Ah, yes, here it is. "nothing is connected. life will go on as if we never were. Everything is random"

Also known as existential nihilism. ;)

We'll have to continue tomorrow, it's 2am here, dear, and I need sleep. :wavey:

[amber]

Also known as existential nihilism. ;)

We'll have to continue tomorrow, it's 2am here, dear, and I need sleep. :wavey:
yeah, maybe tomorrow you could make it clear exactly what you are talking about? :) :xoxo: And you don't have to wink at me about existential Nihilism, as if i'd never heard about it. ;)

[dissention]

okay, I will, but you didn't really say that, you implied something else. So I couldn't really know, if you didn't explain, could I?

I didn't imply anything else, I outlined the tenants of existential nihilism in my first post in this thread.

you could tell me, and then it would be an actual discussion, but perhaps you can't word it well, yet.

I gathered that you understood nihilism and what I was talking about until a little while ago.

And about quantum physics? I dunno.

That's why you and I, my dear, are not quantum physicists. :laugh:

[amber]

I didn't imply anything else, I outlined the tenants of existential nihilism in my first post in this thread.



I gathered that you understood nihilism and what I was talking about until a little while ago.



That's why you and I, my dear, are not quantum physicists. :laugh:
kay. I just reviewed the posts, but I'll go back again. Perhaps you were talking about nihilism when it wasn't my point at all? possibly. so, then, you believe in nihilism as, um, a sort of religion? and you don't believe things are connected? mkay. I suppose a review is in order, lest i get that "you are not smart, and could never understand what I mean" winkie thing, that happens when two people are not talking about the same thing at all, and one thinks the other is dumb. I shall go back, to glean your true point!

[dissention]

kay. I just reviewed the posts, but I'll go back again. Perhaps you were talking about nihilism when it wasn't my point at all? possibly. so, then, you believe in nihilism as, um, a sort of religion? and you don't believe things are connected? mkay. I suppose a review is in order, lest i get that "you are not smart, and could never understand what I mean" winkie thing, that happens when two people are not talking about the same thing at all, and one thinks the other is dumb. I shall go back, to glean your true point!

My first response in this thread had nothing to do with you or any point you were making. It had to do with my personal beliefs. I don't necessarily put stock into everything that a true existential nihilist believes, but I believe quite a lot of it.

Existential Nihilism
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm#Existential%20Nihilism

While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.

In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre's (1905-1980) defining preposition for the movement, "existence precedes essence," rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning.

[amber]

My first response in this thread had nothing to do with you or any point you were making. It had to do with my personal beliefs. I don't necessarily put stock into everything that a true existential nihilist believes, but I believe quite a lot of it.

Existential Nihilism
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm#Existential%20Nihilism

While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself--all action, suffering, and feeling--is ultimately senseless and empty.

In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre's (1905-1980) defining preposition for the movement, "existence precedes essence," rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning.
I read that thing. Did it address the question of the future being preordained? Somewhat. But even though it said that existence is nothing, it still seemed to also address that even nihilism, and the belief in it, will affect things, people, the world. That it has implications on cilivilisation. But overall, I'm not sure I'd look to that particular theory of existence to answer whether I believe the future is preordained, or not. It seems, to me, to speak to something else. :) But you did just say it had more to do with your personal beliefs than the question at hand.
"It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism's impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety, anger, and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It's helpful to note, then, that he believed we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. If we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind:"

[seeker007nmss]

[QUOTE=Lux]. I think for our purposes it's useful to accept history as a source for accounting probability but that in a much grander sense, nothing is actually more probable than the next thing.

QUOTE]


I disagree, because of overhunting of people, it is more probable that I see a duck than a dodo bird. (Since dodo's are now extinct due to past actions).