The Philosophy Thread - Where Serious Questions "May" Be Discussed — Page 4

Post Praetorian said:

If mankind were on the brink of discovering time travel, would it be better that the knowledge be shared universally or banned outright?

Time travel already exists within the laws of physics. You can't ban the laws of physics.

Sorry Ender, not sure what you are refering too.

I notice that video has got over 5 million views in a week, so it's clearly getting people engaged. RTE's other uploaded videos with anything like that amount of views are years old.

You can watch the whole episode of 'Meaning of Life' here.

imperialscum said:

Post Praetorian said:

If mankind were on the brink of discovering time travel, would it be better that the knowledge be shared universally or banned outright?

Time travel already exists within the laws of physics. You can't ban the laws of physics.

 Were mankind on the brink of harnessing such a phenomenon, would it be better that...

Others have uttered similar sentiments (I'm sure I've heard the eye-eating-insects argument before) but what made it special for me was the way Fry delivered it as if he was actually speaking directly to God at the pearly gates, and giving him a right telling off!

I was imagining God being ashamed and feeling duty bound to apologise to Stephen ;-)

I watched the whole interview streamed on RTE's website. Very interesting stuff, most of it not about God and quite a bit about Fry's bipolar disorder.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I was imagining God tilting Their head and thinking "Did we hear a buzzing gnat fly past our ear just now?" 

Saint Peter - "No my lord, it was the buzzing of a fly eating a child's eye"

God - "Oh nevermind then"

(Only joking, no offense meant)

What is the likelihood that mankind is merely existing within a simulation?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/11/universe-computer-simulation

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

So here is a philosophical consideration to be shared...if one were to determine that one's existence in the world were actually a detriment to one's own entourage, while equally considering that one's absence might pose a different problem of similar magnitude is it more noble to stay the course or abandon ship...?

For example, if one were to discover that one was an insatiable gambler whose persistent existence could only ruin normal familial stability, while at the same time recognize that one's absence would allow for one's newborn child to grow up without a close paternal figure is it preferable to cede to the demands of the present or to linger still further to accomplish the goals of a future tense?

To clarify, in the above scenario there can be no realistic thought of a cure for the disease in question and no real doubt as to the eventual discord with which the child might grow to view the one who lingered on seemingly for his/her sole benefit...thus given that both paths end in pain is it best to cut it to the quick so that it might be swiftly done, but be long in duration; or is it preferable to allow this given harm to fester, however allowing that any eventual parting might be considered more of a final blessing than a curse...?

Post Praetorian said:

So here is a philosophical consideration to be shared...if one were to determine that one's existence in the world were actually a detriment to one's own entourage, while equally considering that one's absence might pose a different problem of similar magnitude is it more noble to stay the course or abandon ship...?

For example, if one were to discover that one was an insatiable gambler whose persistent existence could only ruin normal familial stability, while at the same time recognize that one's absence would allow for one's newborn child to grow up without a close paternal figure is it preferable to cede to the demands of the present or to linger still further to accomplish the goals of a future tense?

To clarify, in the above scenario there can be no realistic thought of a cure for the disease in question and no real doubt as to the eventual discord with which the child might grow to view the one who lingered on seemingly for his/her sole benefit...thus given that both paths end in pain is it best to cut it to the quick so that it might be swiftly done, but be long in duration; or is it preferable to allow this given harm to fester, however allowing that any eventual parting might be considered more of a final blessing than a curse...?

Having known an insatiable gambler who left his children behind with a premeditated exit from this world, I'd say that it would be better to linger, for the other option is an admission to the world that the sufferer felt completely trapped , worthless, and powerless to change his situation. Whether or not the world truly is deterministic, or whether or not he could better himself in time, seems to be beside the point. It's belief in oneself that is important, the belief that one is essentially good and has the humility to recognize that they can't know the outcome of every situation, no matter how hopeless it seems. Acting to cut life short, or to artificially prolong it beyond the will of the flesh itself, tends towards selfishness and hubris.

...a fair answer from the view point of the individual so afflicted for certain...but what of the same scenario viewed from the vantage point of his/her child/children? Would such as these consider an early or later exit to be the most beneficial to themselves?