Someone here

Science has no theoretical underpinning of how the Universe works as a Whole. It simply doesn't exist. And I never said anything about assuming. I'm merely saying that studying details gives no knowledge of how everything works at the most "macro level". How a knowledge of the Whole could be had is a separate issue entirely. I'm merely saying that it cannot be arrived at using the methodology of modern science, otherwise they would currently have more to offer than just saying that most of the Universe is unknown, i.e. is "dark matter" and "dark energy".

looking for repeating fractals was only touted as a possibility. Nonetheless, if you don't learn about the details you don't gain an understanding either. Taking a top-down approach lacks basis without some kind of theoretical underpinning gained from science's bottom-up approach. Without a body of knowledge attained through a bottom-up approach one's assumptions about the big picture gained from a top-down approach will be built without foundations. Many conflicting myths arose throughout history because people tried to gain an overview without having done much spadework. The universe has phenomenal effects at all scales and the behaviour at each scale should at least tell us something about the other scales, not to mention being fascinating and important in its own right. Finding related fractals won't tell us everything about phenomena we can't observe directly, but perhaps nothing will. We don't know yet. Ask in ten thousand years' time and see how we're going.

No, this is simply not true. A knowledge of the Whole (cosmology) will never be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the Universe, no more than a knowledge of the ecosystem of the entire forest and how it works can be arrived at solely by studying all the details of the trees. And this is exactly what modern science is trying to do --- trying to understand how the forest works by studying all the veins and serrations of some of the leaves on some of the trees.

Anyone else into INNA here?

@Roy @Loba @puporing cool ones Another one from my favourite artist

You didn't expect it huh?

Tom and Jerry of course

@Leo Gura thanks Leo ❤?

Why are we here? Why the human form, why this world, why this technological civilization? The world seems to sort of begin to "understand" itself through us, "reflect" on itself. From the near-infinite of possibilities, why did we end up with this one? Is there something "special" going on here, if yes then what? In my opinion that's the central question of philosophy. And those who think that there's something going on here that needs explanation, have come up with a million different answers throughout history. Trying to answer the mistery of our existence. Most of these answers explain what's going on with us, humans. (And that didn't work so far, so there are alternatives where the answer is not directly about us humans, if at all. Maybe it's some machine we will create etc.) So it was usually implicit that it's about all humans, or none. The universe must be benevolent and egalitarian, life must be something good, so whatever the answer is probably has to do with all of us. After all no one wants to be left behind. Except that's probably wrong. One of the great dark turns of "truth-seeking" is the realization that such an answer probably only has to do with one human, or maybe with a few humans. The rest of humanity, the vast majority only paved the way, just like evolution before humans paved the way. But otherwise their existence is largely irrelevant here.

I don't think that evolution, in the simple, Darwinian/Dawkinsian sense, is either logical or predictable ("expected"). It is a random response to circumstances as they are. We tend to think of evolution as an intelligent agent, but it is not. Mutations happen, and their suitability for their world determines their survivability, in a more or less random manner. This is 'evolution'. Such a process cannot give rise, except by coincidence, to "logical and expected" results. I think that when Science can do such things, it will be Sensible and Expected that we take the next step and create artificial Life forms that are more durable than what Evolution has provided. Not only for currently alive people to transfer to, but for all people that have ever lived and died to return to. This might be the great purpose of Science that we did not even realize.

Is man the logical and expected result of Evolution? Science is advancing rapidly - In the near future we, Humans, may become capable of literally creating artificial life that can mimic biological Human life - And in many ways may be created to be superior to the existent Human. I'll give you an imaginary, but at least possible, future where you will have the power to correct any mistakes made by Evolution. Can you design a Human that is better suited for the future Can you alter the internal death wish that drives Humanity to destructive self and social tendencies to destroy his own kind - fix the evolutionary paradigm that will drive the Human species to extinction Maybe this new science is still beyond your imagination - But it is possible Is the Human species capable of evolving to a higher plane of existence either from altering internal biological flaws or designing a 'New Humanoid' better than the old biological one

Software needs hardware. The idea that the software mysteriously goes somewhere else when the hardware it's running on is dismantled seems like a misunderstanding of the nature of software.

This is not meant to be religious but might be taken to be mystical - Because it reflects concepts such as immortality and rebirth. This post is based upon the thinking of Max Planck, the famous Nobel Prize winning physicist who gave us Quantum Mechanics - And specifically my favorite quote by Planck: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” ― Max Planck Again 'consciousness is fundamental' - No beginning, no end, but rather a fundamental state of conscious existence that is the be all of all that exists - The past, present, and future is backed by an ever existing state of consciousness Now assuming, just for the sake of argument, that Planck is correct - Is death even possible How can any form of life actually die, discounting the actual physical body which we know will eventually pass on - But the ever existent conscious state that the physical body came from will always exist and the conscious essence that the body came from is ever present. So we Humans, or any life form for that matter, can not die completely - It simply returns to the primal and forever state of consciousness That said - Can we postulate the existence of a real afterlife where our ego specific conscious mind can maintain itself and voluntarily choose to return and be reborn And finally do you know of anyone, including yourself, who believes, and even better still has evidence of living before

That's why divorce exist.

I disagree. An important point to remember is that you are not getting married out of charity for the other person. You get married because you have needs. If the other person is willing to provide them to you, and you live in gratitude, then there will not be too much friction. Do not look for the ideal man or the ideal woman. There is none. If you understand that it is your needs that make you seek a companion, find someone who is reasonably compatible with you, if you accept, respect, love, include, care for, and take responsibility for each other, it can be a beautiful relationship.

Yeah weird .not the perfect timing for it .he still have to mature enough first . It is not compulsory or necessary for everyone to get married and have children. We would advise everyone to get married if the human race was in danger of disappearing, but the human population is exploding. If you do not reproduce, you do humanity a great service. But if you get into marriage, and especially if you have children, it is a minimum 20-year project. That is if they do well. If they do not do well, it is a lifelong project. If you want to get into such projects, there must be a commitment to create a stable situation for at least 20 years. Otherwise, you should not get into such projects, drop it halfway and walk away. And there is no need to talk about marriage and divorce in the same breath as if they come together. No one thought of divorce in India until recently. If it so happens something went entirely wrong between two people, there is no way to fix it, and they have to separate, it is unfortunate, but it happens. But you do not have to plan it at the time of the wedding

Yeah i agree. Being responsible parents is necessary. And that can't happen without commitment from both the father and the mother. I would say though..that at least 25 to 30 per cent of the people do not need to get into marriage because it is just a passing interest for them. For another 30 to 40 per cent, it may be a little longer and they get into this. For 10 to 12 years they feel good and after that they think it is a burden. But there are some people for whom the need is very strong. About 25 to 30 per cent need partnerships for a much longer period – they definitely need to get into such arrangements. Right now, people have found other kinds of solutions. “Okay, I wonc’t get married, I will just live-in.” If you are just living with one person, it is anyway a marriage, whether you have a certificate or not. But if you think you can choose your partners every weekend, you are causing serious damage to yoursel. If you find that marriage is not necessary, that is it, once you make a decision, do not look that way. If you make a decision to go one way, do not look the other way. You must do one of these things. If you hang around in between, you will remain in a constant state of confusion. “Which is the best thing?” There is no best thing. Live your life in such a way that whatever you are doing, you are doing that absolutely. If you have this quality, whatever you do, it is fine.

As a human being you have physical needs, emotional needs, psychological needs, social and economic needs. People may not want to consciously think about these things because they think their marriage will become ugly if they do. But these needs and considerations do exist. For women today, the world has changed to some extent. She need not necessarily get married for social and economic reasons. She has a choice. She can take care of her own economics and social situations. It was not so a hundred years ago. There is a little bit of freedom now. At least two of the reasons why you need to get married are out. You have to consider the other three. Psychologically, do you need a companion in your life? Do you need emotional companionship? And how strong are your physical needs? You must look at this as an individual. This is not a social prescription – everyone gets married or no one gets married. It is not going to work that way. As an individual, how strong are your needs? Is this some kind of a passing need that you can easily go beyond? If it is, do not get married because it is not worth getting tied up. If you do, it is not just two people but a family that has to face the consequences. I am not saying marriage is wrong. Do you want it, that is the question. Each individual should consider this for himself or herself, not by the social norm

Interesting. Let us first understand why marriage exists. As a human being, either as a man or a woman, you have certain needs. When you were eight years old, if I had asked you about marriage, the question would not have meant anything to you. If I had asked you when you were fourteen, you might have been a little shy because you were considering. Because your body started growing in a certain way and hormones started infecting your intelligence, you were thinking about it. If I had asked you at eighteen, there would have been a clear "yes" or "no, not now" or "not at all", depending on what happened to you between the ages of fourteen to eighteen. The word “marriage” might have acquired a very negative aura around it in certain parts of the world now, because there is a sense of juvenile freedom. Young people in some societies perceive marriage as a bad thing. When you are young, you are against it, because your physical body is in a certain mode. Marriage looks like a bondage and a chain. You want to do things in a certain way. But slowly, when the body weakens, once again you wish there was someone with you in a committed way.

Why no marriage? Also how are you gonna have kids without marriage? You don't want the kids to have unstable family.

Well ..primarily that life is full of suffering and we don't ask the child for his /her permission if they want to live this life that can be awful sometimes.

Good idea ?

Well..you most certainly can . That's how powerful Leo's videos can be .

Hru Mr.one post ? Of course. You are the only thing that exists ..