If you “know” that the grand scheme of things itself doesn't, and definitionally cannot, matter, then this isn't a problem.

Similarly, if you “know” that, whether or not you know what future events are, they are all determined and cannot be other than they are determined to be (or, equivalently, that every possible outcome will, in fact, be taken), then you can no that nothing you choose can matter in the grand (or even small) scheme of things, without knowing what will occur.

You seem to be more complaining about people who believe that there is fundamental meaning in existence, but that they are impotent with regard to achieving it, than actual (moral or existential) nihilists, who reject the existence of such meaning.

Well, you can't know, and exactly how do you define "matter?"

You seem to be more complaining about people who believe that there is fundamental meaning in existence, but that they are impotent with regard to achieving it

No. I'm complaining about people who believe that there should be fundamental meaning, but are resentful that they can't seem to achieve it.

actual (moral or existential) nihilists, who reject the existence of such meaning.

Someone without hope isn't a good mate in a lifeboat or a good buddy in a foxhole. If truth be told, your current circumstances aren't far off from either of those. People without hope aren't good company in life.

That said Nihilism isn't necessarily pessimistic. The French Existentialist were basically weak nihilism and Camus was almost celebratory of the lack of meaning of life. "Nothing Means Anything" can be taken as "fuck it burn it all down" OR it can be taken as "there are no unforgivable sins, there is no eternal reward for martyrdom, so why not maximize our fleeting existence for 'happiness'?"

a) Do we know for sure that's what happens to the universe?

and

b) It doesn't matter anyway. "Everybody dies" is only a fact. What does the fact of heat death have to do with the question of meaning? The implication that "nothing means anything" is just as metaphysical an assumption as "everything means something."

b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie that tells the truth--summation of nihilism it, by it's very nature, doesn't imply a course of action. So it doesn't matter how metaphysical of a claim it is.

Why shouldn't we be grateful to the totality of our ancestors for getting us this far? Who is to say that we could change even a butterfly wing's flutter of the distant past and still have everything turn out as now?

b)I am specifically claiming that while "nothing means anything" is the--lie that tells the truth--summation of nihilism it, by it's very nature, doesn't imply a course of action. So it doesn't matter how metaphysical of a claim it is.

You know nothing, Jon Snow!

b) If I understand you correctly, I think you're sneaking the assumption of nihilism back into your argument. The "lie that tells the truth" could also very well describe "everything means something," since I undeniably experience meaningfulness as something and not as nothing, despite all scientific facts. Just as I experience you as another soul though I know you are "just" matter. And this undeniable experience of meaning would undeniably imply a course of action. Non-harm (not treating a soul like an object) most immediately coming to mind.

{facepalm}

We don't know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are. We have no idea what happens if/when the expansion of space itself starts pulling quarks apart.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-you-pull-apart-a-pai...

You only think you know what's going to happen, based on the limited toy understanding of the vast universe which can fit into your present day little ape brain.

if R>1 same thing but faster.

The other option is that we all die and then the universe collapses... which is just as final for anything hanging around as heat death would be.

{facepalm}

Physicists already know that on the scales of the universe, there is no conservation of energy.

I hate to break it to you folks, but most of you are dead wrong about conservation laws. Conservation laws are a fundamental part of your education, but they are not a fundamental part of the universe. They are dependent on symmetry, as German mathematician Emmy Noether figured out. What this means is that energy is not conserved on universal scales, though it is still a very powerful analysis tool on smaller scales. We already have good reasons to believe that there is no time symmetry in deep time. The part relevant to the above specifically is at 10:15, but the whole video is worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUn2izowBkw

We know that the universe is expanding, and that this expansion is accelerating. So, do you know what happens when the expansion of space itself starts pulling quarks apart? Can you describe the physics? Do we even know that is going to happen?

Also: Physics Girl -- On universal scales, energy is not conserved! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHCc9b2phn0

no one you can conceive of caring about will be alive and nothing you do now will have any noticeable effect on them.

But also yes we have worked out the math for a hyperbolic universe and it is still not effected by 21st century morality.

It’s also worth pointing out that universal expansion has an effect only on distance scales larger than galaxies. There is no reason to believe it will pull apart smaller structures, never mind subatomic ones. It’s a popular misconception that the expanding force is great on small distance scales. On the scale of a galaxy, that force is overcome by gravity, so needless to say the Strong force won’t even notice it.

Tl;DR Metric expansion is a powerful cumulative force on giant distance scales, weak on small (below galaxies) scales. Galaxies, stellar systems, stars, and Hadrons will be just fine, thanks.

If you’re going to scold people, you could at least be right. It is also a good idea not to rely on just YouTube videos for your arguments.

In the grand scheme of things, perhaps the dark energy driven expansion of space-time continues to accelerate until quarks get pulled apart, which increases their potential energy, creating more quarks to get pulled apart in an exponential cascade, simultaneously throughout the entire universe. What the hell happens after that?

And if we are comparable to the wind, why does anything we do is special? Why do something rather than other thing? Why create things and not destroy everything? Why prefer a type of phenomenon instead of other?

I can't grasp it no matter what I read on the subject or on philosophy (but I never really discussed with someone who could point me to good directions). Everything I read seems to base its ideas on some axioms in which I don't think are true, such as that human life is important, or that we should maximize individual or collective happiness, or anything like that.

Yeah, we don't know a lot of things. Maybe consciousness is not only emergent behavior. Maybe we have a soul or something like that. But it's hardly the truth at this point, it looks like just a false hope we can hold onto.

I also don't share the text or video views. I'm quite pessimistic although I don't act like that. I do like to hold onto the hope I'm wrong.

If someone, a million years from now, experiences slightly more beauty and understanding in part because of my actions, I find that to be incredibly fulfilling. Even better if they are in another star system!

Personally, I'm happy if we learn to live better with each other and thrive together.

I can't address everything, but the one reason to do that, at least for yourself, is because it's simply more fun to be happy than sad. Just because _X_ doesn't matter, doesn't change that _X_ might make you feel a certain way.

If future understanding of the grand scheme is unpredictable, then that form of decision making seems equally likely to miss the mark as reactionary non-decisions or intentionally tribally inclusive decisions. You don't really gain anything by switching between those perspectives, or by dismissing one of them, by your premise.

I don't care if you call yourself a buddhist or a "happy nihilist" so long as you live with yourself and interact with others as if you had a basis for hope. As for your assertion that "You don't really gain anything" -- hope is something truly valuable to gain or to lose.

In other words, "Don't be an asshole, selfish or otherwise."

While I think my life has no point (in the “being an accident” sense) I am exhilarated to be alive. How cool it is to experience wind, sun, procreation, driving, art, love, and on and on!

I truly believe nihilism and “hope” are not mutually exclusive. I still get up every day and do cool shit cause it’s fascinating to be alive. I can affect things, make things, and help other “accidents” with their problems.

Nihilism to me is humility. It’s a big universe and we mean f-all in the grand scheme. Enjoy the ride and make of it what you will.

You're baffled because you're a happy nihilist, as opposed to a bitter, resentful one.

If I understand your post correctly, the problem is the narcissistic thought that one can declare now about what future things will and won't matter, and things can change in the interim. That doesn't seem linked to nihilism at all (ie, positive personal philosophies of meaning have the same problem of picking the right target), nor does there seem to be a counterpoint presented which would allow you to predict the future more correctly.

I can't predict. However, I can hope. I think that's worth a lot.

> If you don't know the future, how do you know if what you do will or won't matter in the grand scheme of things? How do you know if you can even properly conceptualize "consequence" or what "matters" for your future self?

:-)

There's little semantic difference between "hope", "know what will", "think that's worth a lot", and "predict" in this future-facing context.

(Note that I'm not promoting nihilism here, only pointing out that what you state against nihilism actually applies against many things broadly, in the exact same way, to the point where it could easily be used as a pro-nihilist argument.)

It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions.

It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions.

We now have an inkling that this taxonomy of understanding may well be too limited. For one thing, the notion of a "beginning" might not actually have a concrete meaning. There may simply be no time before "time zero." Also, the universe may well come to a false "end" in a way which completely remixes the laws of physics and possibly remixes the very causal structure of the universe. The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats. That last one is something which our ancestors of 400 and 1000 years ago simply didn't have the "mental furnishing" to conceptualize.

Is not relevant to the end (or not) of the everything.

>>The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats.

Is usefully distinct from an un-ending universe for philosophic purposes... how?

Because the phase change boundaries may be utterly impassable and the other side incomprehensible to beings such as ourselves, but the universe itself goes on. So it's quite distinct from an un-ending universe.

I hope you don't upset the operator and have the simulator suspended with this bickering about what it is. :)

Again I'm not saying Nihilism is "good" I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily lead to one set of morals, and what ever you allow it to lead you to can infact be almost congruent with Abraham or Quetzalcoatl or whatever.