You don’t usually name yourself, though; and in most cases, changing your name costs money. But perhaps “giving your child a name” could be argued as something free; you don’t have to pay to give your kid a name, and can pretty much give them whatever name you want (unless you try to name them something like ‘hitler’, and even then, I don’t know if that’s actually illegal)
@Traykar
But darkness isn’t created just because I began existing. Or else no one would’ve had darkness before I was conceived. Darkness existed before anyone.
@ToaNoah_Wafflemeister
If darkness exists beyond the universe where light has never been, then darkness exists without giving up anything.
@Willess12
But someone has to come up with the name which requires effort.
1 Like
Darkness might have existed before man, but how can it free if there’s no one to own it? Any concept of the universe means nothing if no one exists to comprehend them. We pay to experience darkness.
1 Like
This doesn’t have to be about people though. If it was only about people then a lot of things would be free. Even if everyone died, the universe would still exist. Planets in undiscovered galaxies exist without anyone believing in them or ever thinking of them. We might pay to experience darkness on earth, but where darkness has always been and will always be, the darkness is free.
Not necessarily; it is simply the absence of light. I would say that that’s comparable, though not quite the same, as saying “not having a job costs money”; you aren’t doing anything to have it in the first place, so it isn’t really a cost.
On another note:
this is my new favorite quote.
~W12~
3 Likes
Let me rephrase. How would we know that the universe exists if there’s nobody to perceive it existing. For something to be free, something has to give a thing or idea and something else has to take the thing or idea. Darkness might exist outside of the universe, but can you just go get it? Can you travel through the cosmos all the way to the restuarant at the end of the universe and see this nothing for yourself. We don’t know what’s outside the universe, and you have to pay belief if you think it’s just darkness.
I don’t have to pay my belief to a fact. My head exists even if I don’t pay my belief to it. If darkness doesn’t exist beyond the universe, then light would have to take its place. If there’s light then there’s a light source. If there is no light source then that means light doesn’t have to be created by the sun and it is infact darkness that must be made.
This is a good point. I’m spending light to make the darkness in my room invisible. If I stop spending light, then the darkness will be visible.
1 Like
But how can there be darkness if there’s no one to call it such?[quote=“Krelikan, post:47, topic:50344”]
I don’t have to pay my belief to a fact.
[/quote]
Raise your hand if you’ve been outside the universe. No one? That’s what I thought. We don’t know what the universe is expanding into. Even if we did, then somebody would have to have discovered what it is. They’d have to have gotten an education and a job in order for them to have discovered what it is. They’d have to name it as well.
Who told you it was called a head? Someone had to name it as such, you would have had to learn what a head is, and someone would have to have taught you what a head is. [quote=“Krelikan, post:47, topic:50344”]
If darkness doesn’t exist beyond the universe, then light would have to take its place. If there’s light then there’s a light source. If there is no light source then that means light doesn’t have to be created by the sun and it is infact darkness that must be made.
[/quote]
That implies that whatever is outside the universe is within our comprehension and is subject to the laws within the universe. Besides, someone would have had to discover that the universe has an edge in order for us to understand that there is something outside of the universe. No matter what you say, you have to pay to experience the universe. If there’s no one to experience it, it might as well not exist.
An object doesn’t need a name in order to exist.
It could be called the thing on top of my body and it would still be the same thing. (Or you could argue it’d be a pain to say loooooooooool.)
Yes, you do have to pay to experience the universe. But the universe isn’t relying on us to exist. If someone had the cure for cancer but died before he told anyone or typed it up on a computer, the cure would still exist. It wouldn’t stop existing just because the one who knew about it died.
I would assume that whatever our universe is moving into functions like the rest of it. It’s far far more likely that beyond our universe is the same as inside our universe then it being completely different.
1 Like
Unfounded assumption. The Universe has to be expanding into something that isn’t the universe. Otherwise it wouldn’t be expanding. Besides, for something to be free, something has to be given, and the thing has to be taken. If there’s no one to take it, it’s not free.
Darkness.
No parents.
Someone had to.
Not necessarily. To put it back in a more economic sense (pun not intended): If I were offering free doughnuts, and no one took any of them, they would still be free.
2 Likes
Perhaps, but they’re free for the taking. The substance at the end of the universe isn’t. Even then, it’s not free since someone would have had to have made the donuts.
Do you actually think that beyond our universe is different then within, cause you don’t. That’s unrealistic and has zero backing to support it.
A city that is expanding past its original borders is going into a land that functions the same as within city limits. That city doesn’t own the entire continent just because the functions are the same. It’s about a circumference that creates a circle from the farthest house on one side, to the house on the opposite end that grows as more buildings are made.
You read my mind
Probably because it’s nothingness. That kind of nothing isn’t really obtainable. In the future though if people figured out how to put things outside the universe then they could claim the territory. It would be pointless but they could put a giant space station out there and say they owned the sorounding area. It would work just the same as land on earth.
1 Like
The universe is everything that exists it if it’s expanding, then it cannot be expanding into what exists.
A city isn’t the universe. [quote=“Krelikan, post:53, topic:50344”]
Probably because it’s nothingness. That kind of nothing isn’t really obtainable. In the future though if people figured out how to put things outside the universe then they could claim the territory. It would be pointless but they could put a giant space station out there and say they owned the sorounding area. It would work just the same as land on earth.
[/quote]
It can’t be free because it would take effort to get there. Land here isn’t free, why would the stuff outside the universe be any different.
Nothing doesn’t exist. And you’re one to talk about unrealistic ideas.
It’s an analogy. If you want me to rephrase it I will.
Land on earth contains resources and conquering land comes with more space to do things and pride.
The only thing you could get beyond the universe is pride. The nothing beyond the universe has no value.
Of course it does! Nothing is the absence of substance. As a void is an absense of matter. The universe is expanding, it’s not expanding into anything, since the universe is everything! The darkness at the end of the universe isn’t free for us to take. There is no way that you can say that darkness is free for us for take.
it was until everyone took all of it
(This is mainly just a joke)
I feel like there’s two ways to look at this. On one side, darkness is free, we just aren’t able to go out and take it. Going back to my earlier analogy, if a man were selling free doughnuts at the edge of the universe, they’d still be “free” even though no one can get there to take them. On the other hand, to all people in the past, now, and probably the future, getting to the edge of the universe to find darkess/nothing is still a cost of getting it, so it isn’t free. Both are arguably valid viewpoints.
Donuts could never be free though. Someone has to buy the ingredients, someone has to bake them, and someone has to drag them to the edge of the universe. By his own constraints saying that something cannot be free if it takes effort to get it, darkness cannot be free.
So, I have no idea where this topic went. About your original question:
I say roll with the idea anyway. Regardless of whether or not there are holes in the argument, you can definitely write more than three measly paragraphs about all the interesting concepts and viewpoints that have been offered in this thread.
And I think that’s probably the greatest reason to roll with the idea: it’s novel and creative and interesting. I’ll bet you anything a lot of your classmates are gonna go the easy and boring route and bring in a physically free item and talk about all the physical money that was spent to make it free, but imagine you roll up and start going off on an existential discussion concerning reality. To be honest, I’m impressed just by the fact that you thought that outside the box, and I’m sure your teacher would be as well (unless they’re some kinda stick-in-the-mud who doesn’t appreciate creativity or interesting ideas, or are one of those sticklers that has to grade everything line by line from a rubric or something).
Heck, go above and beyond with it. Write about everything discussed here. Talk about the merits of the idea of death as free-but-not-really-free and the numerous viewpoints you’ve gotten from talking to other people about it. I don’t know what grade you’re in, but this is easily college-level paper interesting.
5 Likes
True; I’m using this as an analogy, to say that the lack of someone to obtain something doesn’t negate it being free. There are many valid reasons why “free” donuts aren’t actually free; I’m simply arguing that the lack of anyone to take them isn’t one of those reasons, and applying that same logic to other things.