h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello Ex Libris,

My name is Self-Paradoxical, and the reason I am posting this message is that I believe you and I are of a similar mindset. Your space alone is enough to tell me that we think about a variety of subjects on a similar level(I too am a great lover of reading, dragons, philosophy, and have a general incomprehension of those who choose not to read).

Also, I have read your posts on the FFFF forum, a forum I've been reading for a while, and your belief system is quite similar to mine. I tend to avoid labels where possible, and I also tend to believe whatever seems most logical to me at the time(an ever-changing system as I evolve my thoughts). I find that people who follow this system of thought are often difficult to find, hence the importance of my introduction to you.

On another note, I like your style; wit mixed with sarcasm and logic, without the condescention that usually follows it.

I would very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on a variety of topics, as I suspect we have more in common on a mental level than I currently can tell.

Self-Paradoxical

Why hello, Self-Paradoxical. I always find it pleasant to speak with like-minded, reasonable people. Although to be true, it's very rare (perhaps never?) that I meet someone whose beliefs and opinions are as inconstant as my own. This makes it a double pleasure then, doesn't it?

Whee, that was fun! I took a brief moment away from writing this reply to check on your personal space, which led me on a fun romp through your conversations--I looked at the Gods' Pantheon, read a few posts of the conversation you and Quille shared, checked out her space, which led me to the Incredibly Gifted Club or whatever it was she started. You know--the one with the huge acronym....So it's just been a blast.

It would be most fine to discuss our thoughts on a variety of topics. I tried the same with Vidmaster, but since then that forum has fallen into neglect and disrepair. *looking at Vidmaster, then realizing it's not entirely his fault* So I'll look forward to the same, or less, or more, with you.

s and s,
~Wes

Excellent

I wonder, are you at all familiar with the philosophy of Nietzche? He's quite the philosopher for those like ourselves. One of the most outstanding pieces of his theories includes a major belief that nothing at all can be proven, as all is open to interpretation.

Self-Paradoxical

Nietzche. German. Beyond that, no. Although he was in Sophie's World. (Despite being a great lover of books, I have horrible reading comprehension. Don't ask why.) Let me check. "Nietzche, Friedrich, 456" Let's see...only a paragraph on him. "He sought to effect a 'revaluation of all values', so that the life force of the strongest should not be hampered by the weak" And again. "But what had been considered the 'real' world was in fact a pseudo world."

This doesn't help much. Sophie's World is a great book about the history of philosophy, but the closer it gets to our time the less time it spends on each philosopher. The Greeks got quite a bit of text.

So, "no", in answer to your question about whether or not I am familiar with his philosphy. Care to explain it?

s and s,
~Wes

Well, as with any philosopher, he had some interesting opinions on a great many topics, but the particular part I always liked and thought made a lot of sense was his belief that there is no such thing as "fact" because anything can be interpreted differently by different people. I like that idea, and I think our idea of following whatever makes the most sense is in the same vein as that Nieztcheian philosophy.

Anyway, it's a good reference when trying to explain your belief system.

Self-Paradoxical

Wait, wasn't it Nieztche who wrote about "supermen" or "uebermen" (no umlauts) or some similar phrase?

Hmm..I'm not entirely sure I agree with him that nothing is "fact". And not because of that stupid rebuttal "But isn't that a fact?" No, it's not a fact, it's a truth. ( If it *is* true, then it would be a truth, not a fact. It can be hard to say things sometimes...)

There was someone who said that there are two types of truth: superficial and proufound. The opposite of a superficial truth is false, but the opposite of a profound truth is equally true. (I think he was just being smug, but that's my opinion.)

Anyway, back to Nieztche. Anything can be interpreted differently by different people. I see an apple, and see that it's a particular shade of red. My colorblind friend sees the apple, but to him it's a different color. One of us, at least, is interpreting the apple incorrectly, since the apple can't be two colors. But the apple still is a certain color, whether we experience it that way or not. That we see it differently doesn't suddenly make it no color, does it? The apple will continue to exist even if there's no one around.

I tend to think that way a lot, in examples and scenarios. Hope it doesn't bug you.

s and s,
~Wes

Not at all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My particular style just leads me to question any fact at all. As in your example, I don't believe the apple is one particular color, it is only what you percieve. And, if one wants to take it to a higher level, one could argue as to whether or not the apple does, in fact, still exist when we're not around. As before, it can't really be proven, so it could go either way.

It's understadable that this is not an easy concept to swallow, harder still to believe, but to me, there's a kind of ultimate sense to it.

I must say, one of the finest examples of my point of view in this matter can be seen(believe it or not), in the movie Men in Black(I know, a comedy sci-fi, but so was H2G2, and that made a LOT of sense). When the character James finds out that aliens are living on the planet, the character K says to him: "1500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." To me, life seems to follow this idea. We can all know something so certaintly that we don't even have to think about it, it's simply an ingrained idea, but one day, something can come along that shatters that theory entirely, and we're forced to move on to something new. That is the reason I follow what makes the most sense to me at the time, because I never know how things may change.

Self-Paradoxical

I very much like that example from Men In Black...it reminds me of something else I heard once. (get ready for a long-ish story) I got a junk email chain email that talked about the futility of disputing physical laws. "You're right," some scientist said, laughing. "The laws just aren't perfect. They're only accurate about 99.999% of the time." He thought it was funny; to him this accuracy was close enough to perfect as to be no different.

I was shocked by this email. Whether or a person ever made that remark is inconsequential. Either the law is infallible or it is not, and if is not then it is most certainly not a law. Write a new one! It's the interpretation of the rules of the universe that matters. The physics of gravity are going to remain the same as they always were, it's just our comprehension of them that's going to change. And one day (for such is my fervent hope) we will comprehend them totally.

Anyway, your excerpt from Men In Black reminded me of that.

You're right, the concept of everything being unprovable is extremely hard to swallow. Because my mind starts thinking "The Matrix"-style thoughts and asking "what if?" questions, which just spiral downward into really weird thoughts about what the world might really be like.

My approach to this is to act as if everything is provable. I've been trying to put the 'why' into words, but it won't fit. Most likely this is because it is the way I have been raised all my conscious life. They're secure, at least to me, and the alternative is hard to grasp. Can you explain how to relate to an unprovable world?

Taking the question of the apple to a higher level: I'm trying to work this one out. The apple exists on the table in front of me. I leave the room. Everything--apple, table, room, ceases to exist. But now I turn around and re-enter the room. Everything resumes existence exactly as it was before. But what is really going on? I experience it, giving it its existence, but I can't experience something that does not yet exist, can I?

But now I'm thinking broader. And it's not just my experience that creates something's existence. It's yours, it's his, it's the experience of an ant that determines the existence of a piece of sand. But why limit it to living creatures? Every piece of matter has an influence on every other piece, does it not? Can this be called matter "experiencing" other matter? So by this logic, the apple exists when I don't look at it, because the table and the walls are looking at it for me.

There's absolutely no way to prove this. "If we remove every bit of matter in the universe, will the universe still exist?" (Not to mention who's going to observe--experience--the universe not existing.) So now we're just back to where we've started, except I've talked more. But it still feels good to have thought this all out. Just think, not ninety minutes ago I was planning to go to bed! Good thing there's late-night philosophy.

s and s,
~Wes

And just how does "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" abbreviate to "h2g2"? Is it the 2 H's in "hitchiker" and the 2 G's in "guide" and "galaxy"? This seems a sort of a shady abbreviation...

Well, to look at it from my perspective, the apple exists to the table and the walls, that's probably true. But this doesn't mean it exists to you. The point is that it is possible that every single thing in the universe has its own version of reality specifically made for it and by it, and yet also connected in some way to the realities of the other participants.

There isn't necessarily, or in fact, there cannot be by definition, one single truth. It isn't as if the apple is there, but it's only being experianced by whatever is around it. By that rational, there would have to be one binding truth that holds it all together: The apple exists, and it's effect depends on those experiancing it. How can there be one unifying truth if everything has a different version of reality?

Rather, I believe that by logic, it could be that the apple only exists to those experiancing it, and that there is no single unifying truth, since every single thing in the universe has its own way of experiancing reality. That the table is experiancing an apple does not mean: An apple exists in this universe. And, the followthrough is that my lack of experiancing this apple when I'm not near it could mean that when I'm not experiancing it, it isn't there.

Self-Paradoxical

By the way, your assumption is correct, that is how H2G2 means Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Shady as it may seem, where do you think this site got it's name?

"Every single thing in the universe has its own version of reality specifically made for it and by it." OK. I can see the logic behind that and everything else you said. But somehow I just can't accept this over a reality where every single thing is constant and only our perception changes. I think that in "Sophie's World" a compromise between the two points was mentioned; when I'm back with my copy I'll have to look it up.

Since neither situation can be proven and each produces an identical result (the universe we all experience), I'm at a loss. I have always relied on reason to see me through things. So now I'll have to take some time to ponder through this....

s and s,
~Wes

Quite right, neither can be proven, and both can take up one's thoughts for many minutes at a time. It is good that both of our points of view have come into some focus now, and while they aren't entirely the same, I believe both are rooted in a similar place. I too rely on reason, since my own reason is all I know I can trust. Even if the rest of the universe is an uncertain place, I still have my ability to reason and think logically to get me through the day. And when I think about it, that's all I really need(beyond the input I get from this uncertain reality).

Self-Paradoxical

It's good to stick all my thoughts into a little bundle of text. I've reached conclusions in my mind before, but never coherently. Being able to see what I've thought is helpful. I hope you don't mind being used as a sounding board for my ideas--journals and diaries just don't work for me for some reason.

s, s
~Wes

I don't mind at all, that's pretty much what you were being for me as well. I've already reached some conclusions, but I like to have someone to talk with to test and reshape them(my ideas, as before, in a constant state of change).

Self-Paradoxical

Well, good then. Neither of us are bothered by being a test subject.

I've mentioned the book "Sophie's World" a few times in the conversation already. Have you read it? It's about the history of philosophy, presented from a mostly neutral standpoint. The story that it's all nestled in is fine as well, as long as you don't mind your brain being thawed and wrapped around an iron pole about halfway through the book.

s more than s,
~wes

I haven't read it yet, but based on your descriptions, I think I'll have to do so. Sounds like a good read.

Self-Paradoxical

The author's name is Jostein Gaardner, by the way. That might help in finding it. And to avoid the confusion I had, the book was originally published in Norwegian, so it takes place in Norway, right? Right. See, I didn't have this information when I started, so when the characters talked about the perfect Norwegian speech one character exhibited....it was a bit troubling at first.

s and s,
~Wes

Yes. I know..I am annoying. And I seem to plague both of you consistently. How's about I say something that makes no sense right about now? Ok..let's think of the apple. It's existance is ever-changing. The apple you see is no longer the apple it was when you first looked at it, but a subtly changed apple. The molecules have switched, the light is now making the apple a slightly different color as it bounces and refracts in a slightly different way. Not only has the apple changed, but so have you along with the rest of the universe...In this way humans can change through their experiences and 'experience' the world in all its splendors. The previous apple may have ceased to exist, but if it all is just a perception would it not still be existing in your mind and thus in a way still there? oh..I seem to have lost track of what I am saying..ok off to sleep.
Quille the Yes, I am confused!

I quite agree that the apple and everything else in the universe is in a constant state of change. And yes, the apple does indeed exist in one's mind, but this leads one to question the connection between the mind and the outside world, if in fact there is any distinction between them at all.

Oh, and by the way Quille, I find nothing annoying about some good input from another friend, feel free to join in our conversation!
Quite the trio we make I think I'll include a reference to the three of us in my new space that I'm constructing.

Self-Paradoxical

hmm..yes. Questions. Personally, I think most people bottle themselves up to minimize contact with the outside world. I'm not too positive the connections (that should be existing to the outside world) are very sturdy. But then again, I don't know much about this..hence the philosophy.
oo references!
Quille the

Ok, I made the three of us into an official triumvirate on my space and linked to your spaces on it. I figure soon I'll make a page for our group, and I'll add a link to it on my space. Feel free to mention our triumvirate on your pages, but you don't have to if you don't want.

Self-Paradoxical