Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Any action, is permitted?

  1. #1 Any action, is permitted? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8
    Okay bear with me.

    From a strictly scientific perspective, we can say that all things that exist involve interactions between particles and particles, particles and energy, or energy and energy. If that is true, there exists no distinction between life and non-life; both life and non-life objects are made up of the interaction of particles and energy, the only difference between the two is that life appears to be more complex in nature. We could draw from this conclusion that life and nonlife should be viewed as a single entity, not separate (as we humans view them).

    The universe does not shed a tear when a lesser planet is consumed by a larger planet, nor does it care when a star is engulfed by another star, it does not have any emotions whatsoever toward what we classify as "nonlife" objects. So therefore, because we are classified as "life," and because life and nonlife are a single entity, we could say that the universe does not have any emotions toward humans as well.

    So why is it that when a human is murdered that we assume we are being judged by some omnipotent being? Why is it, that when a planet is consumed by another, that we do not say this same omnipotent being is judging that action as well? We allow these so-called "nonlife" objects (such as planets) to be "murdered" by each other with no emotional response whatsoever. Considering the fact that nonlife and life are the same entity, and if there exists an absence of an omnipotent all-knowing creator, we could easily say that ANY action within the physical boundaries of the universe and all that exists is permitted, correct?

    I can kill a human being. Who is judging me? Other human beings. But what are other human beings? Just mass and energy, nothing else. What we perceive as "emotion"(in this case, judgment) is only our interpretation of the sound waves, gestures, and actions arousing from other humans, interpreted by the mass and energy within our brain. If there is a lack of an "ALL-KNOWING", "ALL-JUDGING" presence in our universe, whose emotions would be composed of something beyond simple interaction between particles and energy, then we can say that all actions are permitted, so long as they are physically possible.

    In a nutshell I'm saying that moral laws, societal laws, and any laws that do not govern the laws of physics are meaningless. The only thing stopping us from preforming a given action are the physical boundaries of existence, NOT man-made laws.

    Tell me what you think of this.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Any action, is permitted? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Amgis
    From a strictly scientific perspective, we can say that all things that exist involve interactions between particles and particles, particles and energy, or energy and energy. If that is true, there exists no distinction between life and non-life; both life and non-life objects are made up of the interaction of particles and energy, the only difference between the two is that life appears to be more complex in nature. We could draw from this conclusion that life and nonlife should be viewed as a single entity, not separate (as we humans view them).
    Definitions of life are notoriously difficult. A 'common sense' view has no problem distinguishing between non-life (rocks) and life (humans) - maybe this understanding evolved, given the obvious advantage this would have. But it becomes difficult when we attempt to draw a definitive line; which side of the line a virus lays on is still disputed among biologists. Such a line is probably arbitrary and says more about how we understand the world than the world itself. This, however, does not make such concepts useless and distinguishing life from non-life is valuable for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amgis
    So why is it that when a human is murdered that we assume we are being judged by some omnipotent being? Why is it, that when a planet is consumed by another, that we do not say this same omnipotent being is judging that action as well?
    No assumption here, but this is a science forum. Perhaps the assumption you refer to, common amongst the religious, is an artefact of placing man in the centre of everything. We know better now. Sometimes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Amgis
    I can kill a human being. Who is judging me? Other human beings. But what are other human beings? Just mass and energy, nothing else. What we perceive as "emotion"(in this case, judgment) is only our interpretation of the sound waves, gestures, and actions arousing from other humans, interpreted by the mass and energy within our brain. If there is a lack of an "ALL-KNOWING", "ALL-JUDGING" presence in our universe, whose emotions would be composed of something beyond simple interaction between particles and energy, then we can say that all actions are permitted, so long as they are physically possible.
    In a sense you are free to murder if you wish, but your peers will judge you and probably curtail your future freedom. We may just be a bundle of mass and energy but organised such so that we may make value judgements. No need for God or the universe to pass judgement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Amgis
    In a nutshell I'm saying that moral laws, societal laws, and any laws that do not govern the laws of physics are meaningless. The only thing stopping us from preforming a given action are the physical boundaries of existence, NOT man-made laws.
    Be careful not to confuse prescriptive laws (do not kill laws) with descriptive laws (gravity and the inverse square law). That they are both laws is just an accident of language (perhaps back then they thought the inverse square law was prescribed by God). This does not make prescriptive laws meaningless - just a different meaning from natural (descriptive) laws. Unless you're an anarchist then maybe you might say prescriptive laws are meaningless.


    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It would have been appropriate Amgis, to ask a moderator to move your original thread to philosophy, not just start a new thread that has already generated two pages of responses in the original. Technically I believe you are in breach of the rules. You have certainly caused confusion by creating two identical opening posts in two parts of the forum.

    I shall not be participating further till the modertators straighten that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    This belongs here in Philosophy.



    Anything is permissible, yes, but that doesn't make anything appropriate. For example, you wouldn't try to sail a car across an ocean. We humans have hard-wired likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. We deny these at our peril.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    267
    1 Corinthians 10:23
    NIV ©
    "Everything is permissible"óbut not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"óbut not everything is constructive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Any action, is permitted? 
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Amgis
    So why is it that when a human is murdered that we assume we are being judged by some omnipotent being?
    Some of us (apparently, a minority in this forum) do believe in such a Being.

    Most of us, however, are aware of somewhat less potent, but more visible beings, who tend to judge killers. Those beings, not surprisingly, are called judges, and can usually be found in sumptuous buildings in city centers. The killer is then placed, by yet other less-than-omnipotent but rather sturdy beings, in another large building for a substantial duration of time.

    The behaviour of all those beings, although intentionally unpleasant to the killer, is perfectly legitimate and does not violate any laws of physics.

    As a potential homicide victim, I find the existence of this system reassuring.

    In certain parts of this planet, violently expanding gases will be made to propel small masses of heavy metal towards the killer, penetrating vital organs in his or her body and causing fatal injuries. In others, a similar effect is achieved by suspending the killer on a length of twisted fibres, or introducing substances into the killer's bloodstream. While I do not quite approve of such practices, I have to admit that it, too, is in perfect harmony with all the laws of dynamics and chemistry.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Brilliant post Leszek. I loved it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 SOULS! YOU FORGET SOULS! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    81
    I firmly believe that this universe is a mechanism for testing our souls when they are exposed to suffering. Why else would God create the universe if heaven/brimstone already exists? No matter your religion, earth is a middle ground from which we can choose to go up to heaven, or down, based on our interaction with other souls. Our bodies, indeed, are physical, but our souls are 4-dimensional. If we were to kill another body, it would show that we would kill the soul as well, not having known that. And that is a negative action, which will render us unable to go to heaven. Heck, who cares about bodies? We have an eternity ahead of us. This is a test for our souls. So no, our bodies are no different from matter, but that is irrelevant to morality and ethics due to the existence of non-physical personal entities we call souls, which matter, unlike our bodies which can be grown plentifully. My personal opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8
    Okay first of all, I really hate when people use god in their argument because for one thing, such an idea of an omnipotent, invisible metaphysical being who watches over us and allows so-called "evil" things to happen yet does nothing to stop these so-called "evil" things (thus making him paradoxical), is absurd. Of course... the old science vs. religion debate will go on and on so I don't want to argue that. Secondly, you can't reduce god down to mathematical terms like you can most everything else in the universe. As a programmer myself, I know that almost anything that can be described physically (even if it is irrational), can be described mathematically (and thus can be manipulated and compared to other entities). However, god cannot be put into a math equation and therefore that doesn't apply to the theory I'm trying to express. My theory is based strictly off physical entities... god is not a physical entity.

    And yes I'm replying mostly to Pomegranate Cameron. And I must say sir you are possibly the stupidest person I have ever met. I can somewhat stand it when someone brings some religious stuff into my thread (because religion has some ground, in specific places), but when you start saying crap like the soul is 4 dimensional... what the HELL are you talking about? Do you even know what the fourth dimension is?? I doubt you can even begin to comprehend the implications of seeing in the fourth dimension. If you are going to preach your religious bullcrap, AT LEAST look up scientific concepts on wikipedia or something BEFORE you post them in a thread on a scientific forum... you obviously have no background whatsoever in physics. Christ in heaven (and pun intended).

    And to everyone else- I'm sorry that you are offended by this theory or have a hard time understanding my viewpoint. It was probably a mistake to post this in the first place.

    And sorry about posting this in another forum. I didn't know how to contact a moderator and I thought I would just let the Biology thread die out. And Ophiolite don't baby me... just because you don't agree with my theory doesn't mean you have to treat me like some 10 year old. I'm 22 years old and I've almost completed a dual major in computer science and mathematics. I know quite a bit about physics too, as many of my friends love to tutor me over the subject.

    Also, I go to a Bible reading every Tuesday night and I still can't understand for my life why people follow the book... contradictions everywhere, senseless bull crap, illogical events

    This will be my last post on these forums. Goodbye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by Amgis
    This will be my last post on these forums. Goodbye.
    What a tragedy! We will all have to accept the loss of yet another intellectual giant.
    Don't throw anything else out of your pram.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman ShouBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    12
    The distinction of life is made through how the particles maintain one another. There are other factors involved which relate to energy and particles and those are the factors which we use to define life.

    We don't kill each other because we unconsciously find/found it beneficial to keep our own species alive. (ex, for survival, teamwork involving methods) We don't care if planets combine with each other because there is no significant benefit or harm done in that particular phenomena.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amgis
    Also, I go to a Bible reading every Tuesday night and I still can't understand for my life why people follow the book... contradictions everywhere, senseless bull crap, illogical events
    I do agree that a scientific community should keep things to scientific discussion instead of ideological religious stuff. Or else.. our discussions would have a lot of non-sense in it.. in the Wittgenstein way. I am not saying that God doesn't exist, I am saying that in a scientific discussion it wouldn't matter if he exist or not, because science is only interested in what we can derive and verify through the scientific method. The matter of God is a complete separate game from science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior Yash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    352
    Listen Amgis,
    I would not confuse this whole matter, by explaining it in big para's !! But, since you can think to this extent, then i hope you are brainy enough to think on this short line.

    What i would say is that, Why are we all humans blessed with such a good intelligence rate ?? It is because, that we can think of the pros and cons of our deeds, before we try to attempt any !!
    But, due to our selfish motives, we don't even think for a while regarding such matters !!

    God Bless us all :-D
    Yash
    Satisfaction Should Be Given First Priority
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •