The Problem With Thinking in Absolutism and/or In The Moment

First of all, let me say this entirely radical statement as my opener: There is no such thing as a true Law of Physics. There are Theories of Physics (which are essentially pretty much proven by scientific definition) but there are NO Laws of Physics, ever.

This is because of the Law of Probability, which states that anything is possible at any moment, in an infinite manner. First of all, this means one very interesting thing. While cause and effect is quite possible and doable, cause does not have to be required for an effect. In other words, at any given moment, anything could happen for absolutely no reason at all. This is a very scary thought when one thinks about it, which is why humans live in the moment, during the moment. It is also why we think in absolutist concepts. Impossible and possible, for example. Impossible is not a physical possibility, and no, that is not contradictory logic. It makes sense when you think about the Law of Probability. In that sense there is only Possibility, and the only difference is the likelihood of each individual or group of possibilities. First of all, that debunks absolutism right then and there, but there is more evidence against it, and that is correlated to the fact that we live in the moment, during the moment. If we didn't live in the moment, we would be physically forced to realize that anything is possible at any given moment. This can lead to a lack of motivation, which actually increases the probability of a bad possibility. Following so far? So, by that logic, thinking in the moment is a survival tactic that is a byproduct of evolution. But there is a trick to not thinking in the moment and not being overwhelmed, and it is very simple, and has just two steps. 1. You acknowledge that anything is possible at any given moment. 2. You acknowledge that at this point in time, you can't do anything about it, so you shouldn't worry about it so much. This does not mean to not think about it. All it means is you don't have to preoccupy yourself with trying to figure out every possibility, as it is effectively a futile action by its very nature.In that sense, thinking in the moment is a valid but at the same time entirely unnecessary survival tactic that at this point in our evolutionary process we don't fully need anymore. in fact, it is beneficial to realize and acknowledge these things on an individual level, and is a decent argument for unbridled optimism (but not faith). The argument is like this: As long as nothing both bad and significant happens to you, you will inevitably succeed. In that sense, complete optimism is entirely justified. There is another, pessimistic way of thinking about it, however.If you do not succeed, something bad and significant inevitably happened to you. But this way of thinking is self defeating and leads to lack of motivation as well, so the only practical option is optimism. Now, once you realize all this, living in the moment (at least in entirety) is not only unnecessary, but harmful. And if that is the case, then absolutism is also both unnecessary and harmful.

Because of that, these two very basic facets of everyone's life must be eventually completely eliminated (as long as nothing bad and significant happens along the way) to sustain the species perpetually. That is the problem of , and the solution for, those two very basic ways of thinking intrinsic in all of us.

 

I need some line breaks man.

 

Point taken. I can't edit it any longer though. Lowbacca or Jabba. want to make some logical line breaks? Two to four should be fine.

 

There's tons of things wrong with thinking in absolutist terms or living in the moment, but the way I see it is that no one is really ever 'in the moment'. We're too worried about what's coming up next. On the other hand, absolutism has nothing to do with 'thinking' in the moment or not there is no 'thinking in the moment'. If you're thinking in absolutist terms it's usually in terms of morality such as: do no wrong, do not kill, etc. So I think you missed the point on that one, chief. As you can probably guess I didn't really read your initial post because 1) it's overwhelming in its text and 2) you missed the point completely with the difference between thinking in absolutist terms and living in the moment. Nobody 'thinks' in the moment. It's an involuntary action. So if you're thinking you're obviously not 'in the moment'. But that's all besides the manifesto of gibberish that lay in the first post.

I'm not saying you have no point; I'm just saying your point's based in gibberish.

 

In other words I could be entirely correct, and simply be inarticulate?

 

You've made a whole bunch of claims and statements as if they're fact, and that's it. This is a forum. Things are discussed here. There's no discussion here. No questions you've asked. No discourse you're looking for. You've just simply told us something and my only response is "that's great."

No point in this thread really.

 

There is no such thing as a true Law of Physics.

I didn't read your whole post, but IIRC a scientific "law" does not claim to be 100% true, it's simply a theory that's observed to be true so often that it gets the status of being a law.

 

I'm feeling confused.

Absolutism is typically defined as monolithic thinking; seeing no reason to change even if you're being presented with good reasons to do so.

Long, hard look at the rest of the forum.


Whereas thinking in the moment typically means exceptional adaptability, staying with a point or course of action only as long as it is beneficial to do so.

How the hell are the two even remotely the same thing?