Have any of you on here read the original Welcome To The NHK novel by Tatsuhiko Takimoto?
@ExwyfVm+
You seem like a directionless sick fuck. I hope you stay away from me or try to do something constructive.
>>6
Try believing in God or Science maybe. What will save humanity from loss of information and the decay of our world? Perhaps God or science will. The Earth will decay and so will the Sun. Every star dies and black holes evaporate; the universe might end up being nothingness. Nothingness from everything being the same temperature, when the energy sources (stars, black holes, etc.) have all been rendered useless.
How could science be our salvation at or leading up to that point? Time travel, inter-dimensional travel, intergalactic travel, interstellar travel, use of worm holes, traveling to parallel universes, Jupiter brains, quantum computing, nuclear power, etc. could all help.
How could God save us from a doomed existence? God is a powerful being, beyond the constraints and limitations of physical reality. More powerful that those powerful things which die eventually (after millions or maybe billions of years). God is the ultimate subject, and, as I think Hegel pointed out, the ultimate substance.
>>11
How could one put faith in atoms when even they might decay into useless but more simple and stable particles? As sturdy as the physical reality surrounding us seems it might be flimsy in the grand scheme of things. But maybe atoms don't decay and the universe is eternal, somehow never running out of energy sources. In that case I would respect materialism even more. Maybe God is eternal, all knowing, and all powerful. There is comfort in thinking that there is an all-knowing eternal being, for in that case no information (past, present, future, legal, or illegal) is ever lost. Each human's consciousness, memories, and experiences can be thought of as individuals units of information, for example.
It is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst to presume the absolute nature of reality or the truth of the future (especially when the future in question is highly speculative). If I remember correctly Kant said to not lie, for if you lie you take responsibility for reality.
responsible
adj. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
adj. Required to render account; answerable
>>12
Reality itself is the best representation of itself. Any person's intentionally false account of reality could be laid asunder if that person missed a relevant facet or tendril of the part of reality in question. If you tell the truth then the power of reality itself supports you. If you tell a lie then the only thing supporting you is your own wit. Lying means that it is you, rather than reality, telling a supposed truth about reality. You then have to maintain the integrity of the false account of reality. If your account of reality becomes not logically sound then it could fall apart. If you want a lie to work then you should only tell variants of a lie when absolutely necessary. Or better yet, craft the lie so you don't have to tell variants of it. If you tell variants of a lie, consider if the people whom you told will ever communicate with each other.
The opposite of truth is falsehood: when it is held for truth, it is called error
—https://www.the-philosophy.com/kant-right-to-lie