Deep\Interesting Questions

[Alexander Scamilton]

Okay, so this is for deep questions. If anybody has a deep question that they want to discuss, it is welcome. I need this cuz I'm so bored.


Are people born wicked, or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?

My opinion: Kinda depends. I'd say they have wickedness thrust upon them.

Are people defined more by what they do, or by what they want to do?

My opinion: Both.

Is it worse to fail at something you tried, or never try at all (since those who don't try never look foolish)?

My opinion: It's more embarrassing to fail at something you tried, but if you never try at all, you're either an idiot or a loser.

Which is better: McDonalds nuggets or McDonalds burgers?

My opinion: McDonalds burgers. Period.

Are McDonalds nuggets really chicken?

My opinion: It's not chicken. It's something they find off the road.

Do people follow trends because they genuinely enjoy them or to just fit in?

My opinion: Mostly just to fit in. But some do it for fun.

Do aliens exist?

My opinion: I'm really unsure. I think they do though.

Is Chick fil a sauce the best sauce in the world?

My opinion: Yes.

If you could truly know the answer to one question about your future, what would it be?

My opinion: Hard... I'm not sure.

If everyone suddenly knew the exact thoughts you were having, how would your life change?

I'D BE COOKED

Do people come into our lives for a reason, bringing something we must learn? Are we led to those who help us most to grow if we let them, and we help them in return?

My opinion: I don't know if I believe that's true.

 

[Klaatu]

I’ve got a “good” one…

If consciousness is shaped by memory, memory is selective and unreliable, and we constantly reinterpret our past through the lens of who we are now—at what point does “you” stop being a continuous self and become a series of revisions pretending to be a single person? And if that’s the case, who exactly is responsible for your past decisions: the current you, the version who made them, or the story you’ve agreed to believe?

Too deep? ¯\(ツ)/¯

Klaatu
Occasional Philosopher
Assistant to the Steward of the Great Halls of Speculation
Currently Broadcasting from a Slightly Misaligned Timeline
Certified Non-Expert in Nuggets, Aliens, and the Nature of Self

 

[Klaatu]

Sorry, was the last one too deep? How about this one?

There is absolutely no way for me to prove that the universe didn’t come into existence moments ago—right before I began typing this sentence—complete with fabricated memories, apparent history, physical evidence, and a perfectly convincing sense of continuity. Given that any evidence I could appeal to would itself be part of that construction, on what basis do I justify believing that anything existed before this moment?

And if belief in a continuous past is not something I can prove, but something I must assume in order to function, does that make our trust in reality a rational conclusion… or a psychological necessity consciousness adopts to avoid collapse?

I’m a sucker for existence ideas like this because the unsettling part isn’t that it denies evidence—it’s that it absorbs it. Yes, we can dig things up. We can carbon-date artifacts. We can walk through museums filled with ancient tools, bones, manuscripts, and broken gods behind glass. We can point to fossils, tree rings, ice cores, distant galaxies whose light appears to have traveled for billions of years.

And yet every one of those things could have appeared all at once, complete with internal consistency, wear patterns, decay curves, and convincing backstories—because any evidence we appeal to is itself part of the universe whose history we’re trying to verify. The loop closes neatly and refuses to open again.

This isn’t a different universe or a hypothetical simulation—it’s this one, right now. Any attempt to certify the past feeds back into the same system: memory, records, entropy, and testimony all pointing to a history they themselves might have been instantiated with. From the inside, there is no observational lever long enough to pry “before” away from “now.”

Philosophers have brushed against this cliff edge for centuries. Descartes questioned whether any perception could be trusted at all, retreating to the bare fact of thought itself. Hume dismantled causation into habit—our expectation that the future will resemble the past not because it must, but because it usually does. Bertrand Russell acknowledged that the universe might have been created moments ago with built-in memories, then dismissed the idea as explanatorily useless, since it changes nothing about how reality behaves from this point forward.

And that may be the most unsettling conclusion of all.

Even if the universe did just appear—fully furnished, museum-ready, memories included—the laws of physics still operate, causes still follow effects, and choices still produce consequences from now on. Meaning survives. Responsibility survives. Balloon animals still survive. Breakfast still survives. Somewhere, a rubber chicken still squeaks in defiance of ontological uncertainty. The truth of the past becomes irrelevant compared to the reliability of the present.

Which suggests that belief in continuity isn’t grounded in proof at all…
but in usefulness.

Klaatu
Assistant to the Steward of the Great Halls of Speculation
Temporal Tourist
Witness to Several Beginnings That Insist They Were Not
Currently Operating Under the Working Assumption That Museums Existed Before This Sentence, But Willing to Be Corrected

 

[Idril Celebrindal]

Okay, so this is for deep questions. If anybody has a deep question that they want to discuss, it is welcome. I need this cuz I'm so bored.


Are people born wicked, or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?

My opinion: Kinda depends. I'd say they have wickedness thrust upon them.

Are people defined more by what they do, or by what they want to do?

My opinion: Both.

Is it worse to fail at something you tried, or never try at all (since those who don't try never look foolish)?

My opinion: It's more embarrassing to fail at something you tried, but if you never try at all, you're either an idiot or a loser.

Which is better: McDonalds nuggets or McDonalds burgers?

My opinion: McDonalds burgers. Period.

Are McDonalds nuggets really chicken?

My opinion: It's not chicken. It's something they find off the road.

Do people follow trends because they genuinely enjoy them or to just fit in?

My opinion: Mostly just to fit in. But some do it for fun.

Do aliens exist?

My opinion: I'm really unsure. I think they do though.

Is Chick fil a sauce the best sauce in the world?

My opinion: Yes.

If you could truly know the answer to one question about your future, what would it be?

My opinion: Hard... I'm not sure.

If everyone suddenly knew the exact thoughts you were having, how would your life change?

I'D BE COOKED

Do people come into our lives for a reason, bringing something we must learn? Are we led to those who help us most to grow if we let them, and we help them in return?

My opinion: I don't know if I believe that's true.

Ok, so I agree with most of these, except for the one about aliens (I don't think it's very likely that they exist). McDonalds nuggets are definitely suspicious, and Chick fil A is awesome.

But about the first one. If people have wickedness thrust upon them, then what is it that does the thrusting? Other humans? But then where did those other humans get wickedness? Society? But society was built by humans. It just seems that no matter where you go, wickedness seems to come from humans.

By the way, I'm not saying this to provoke you or anything like that, I just want to hear more of your opinion on this.

I’ve got a “good” one…

If consciousness is shaped by memory, memory is selective and unreliable, and we constantly reinterpret our past through the lens of who we are now—at what point does “you” stop being a continuous self and become a series of revisions pretending to be a single person? And if that’s the case, who exactly is responsible for your past decisions: the current you, the version who made them, or the story you’ve agreed to believe?

Too deep? ¯\(ツ)/¯

Klaatu
Occasional Philosopher
Assistant to the Steward of the Great Halls of Speculation
Currently Broadcasting from a Slightly Misaligned Timeline
Certified Non-Expert in Nuggets, Aliens, and the Nature of Self

This is really interesting, and I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure if I'm understanding it correctly, and I don't want to write a response only to find that I'd misinterpreted the original question. Could you please dumb it down a little?

 

[Klaatu]

Ok, so I agree with most of these, except for the one about aliens (I don't think it's very likely that they exist). McDonalds nuggets are definitely suspicious, and Chick fil A is awesome.

But about the first one. If people have wickedness thrust upon them, then what is it that does the thrusting? Other humans? But then where did those other humans get wickedness? Society? But society was built by humans. It just seems that no matter where you go, wickedness seems to come from humans.

By the way, I'm not saying this to provoke you or anything like that, I just want to hear more of your opinion on this.


This is really interesting, and I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure if I'm understanding it correctly, and I don't want to write a response only to find that I'd misinterpreted the original question. Could you please dumb it down a little?

Totally fair question—happy to simplify 🙂

What I’m really getting at is this: our sense of who we are is built almost entirely on memory. But memory isn’t a perfect recording. It’s selective, fuzzy, and constantly being rewritten. There’s research suggesting that when we remember something, we’re often not recalling the original event so much as remembering the last time we thought about it, which means each recall can subtly change it.

Over time, that adds up. Our memories of our past selves get filtered through who we are now—our values, emotions, and experiences. So the story we tell about “who I used to be” isn’t fixed; it evolves.

So the question isn’t “is the self fake?” so much as this:
If the story connecting our past and present keeps shifting, where does identity and responsibility actually live? Is it with the person we were at the time, the person we are now, or the narrative we use to link those versions together?

In short: are we a single, continuous “self”… or a series of updates that feel continuous from the inside?

No wrong answers—just genuinely curious how people think about it 🙂
_____
Klaatu
Occasional Philosopher (self-proclaimed)
Still Broadcasting from a Slightly Misaligned Timeline

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

No wrong answers—just genuinely curious how people think about it 🙂

This does make sense to me.
However, when looking at things I have written in the past (journal entries, or similar things where my thought processes, feelings, and ways of approaching situations are evident), I am often surprised to note how little I have changed.

Internally, sometimes I feel like I am quite a different person than I was as a small child, and at other times, I feel like I am entirely the same, only with more knowledge now than I had then. But when looking back at these writings, I see that my 'self' is very consistent. Obviously memory is unreliable, and I cannot keep everything in my head at the same time. So I forget that I wrote these things once upon a time, and I forget the small details of how I was back then.

So, I think my conscious memory of 'self' is constantly fluctuating. A cycle of learning and forgetting things about myself. But the underlying 'self' is consistent, and remains... itself.
There is some kind of trend, though: I do grow in complexity, as more details and experiences are added to my life, and I keep learning new things and updating my perspective on people and things in the world around me. Hopefully this results in an increase in wisdom too.

As for responsibility, my present self must deal with the consequences of my past self's actions. That's just the way life works. Often, I make mistakes due to acting impulsively, or making decisions without full knowledge. All my present self needs to do is to make up for my past self's mistakes with the knowledge it now has. And say 'that was my bad, sorry', if I erred, or 'sorry, I didn't know', if I didn't know.
These are in the past tense. So my past self was responsible for making the error, but my present self is the one who is sorry, and is taking upon itself the responsibility of fixing it.

 

[Klaatu]

This does make sense to me.
However, when looking at things I have written in the past (journal entries, or similar things where my thought processes, feelings, and ways of approaching situations are evident), I am often surprised to note how little I have changed.

Internally, sometimes I feel like I am quite a different person than I was as a small child, and at other times, I feel like I am entirely the same, only with more knowledge now than I had then. But when looking back at these writings, I see that my 'self' is very consistent. Obviously memory is unreliable, and I cannot keep everything in my head at the same time. So I forget that I wrote these things once upon a time, and I forget the small details of how I was back then.

So, I think my conscious memory of 'self' is constantly fluctuating. A cycle of learning and forgetting things about myself. But the underlying 'self' is consistent, and remains... itself.
There is some kind of trend, though: I do grow in complexity, as more details and experiences are added to my life, and I keep learning new things and updating my perspective on people and things in the world around me. Hopefully this results in an increase in wisdom too.

As for responsibility, my present self must deal with the consequences of my past self's actions. That's just the way life works. Often, I make mistakes due to acting impulsively, or making decisions without full knowledge. All my present self needs to do is to make up for my past self's mistakes with the knowledge it now has. And say 'that was my bad, sorry', if I erred, or 'sorry, I didn't know', if I didn't know.
These are in the past tense. So my past self was responsible for making the error, but my present self is the one who is sorry, and is taking upon itself the responsibility of fixing it.

This is a really thoughtful way of putting it, and I like the distinction you’re drawing between memory of self and an underlying continuity of self.

What you describe with journals really resonates with me that external records can act almost like a control group (or an external backup) against our own memory drift. When memory fluctuates, those writings suggest that something deeper is stable: patterns of thought, values, ways of responding to the world. Not identical, but recognizably continuous.

I think that’s where my question lives. I dont deny continuity, but my question is more wondering what kind of continuity it is. Memory may be unreliable, but it still seems to orbit a core that persists, even as it accumulates complexity and perspective. Growth without replacement, maybe.

I also really appreciate what you said about responsibility. The idea that the past self was responsible for the error, but the present self is responsible for acknowledging it and repairing what can be repaired—that feels both psychologically honest and morally grounded. It treats identity as continuous enough for accountability, but flexible enough to continue learning.

So maybe the self isn’t a single frozen thing,but something like a thread running through changes, capable of saying both “that was me” and “I’m not only that person anymore.”

Thanks for taking the time to respond, this is exactly the kind of reflection I was hoping the question might invite from others. I really do enjoy deep discussions like this.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

So maybe the self isn’t a single frozen thing,but something like a thread running through changes, capable of saying both “that was me” and “I’m not only that person anymore.”

That sounds right to me. We are like a thread along the dimension of time. If someone were outside of time, perhaps they would see our lives as long squiggly lines of freeze-frames drawn on the face of the planet, showing us at every single infinitesimal moment of our lives. And the planet too, would be a long circular line around the sun, which would also be... etc.

That's how I visualise it anyway. I've never been outside of time, so I don't know. :>

 

[Klaatu]

That sounds right to me. We are like a thread along the dimension of time. If someone were outside of time, perhaps they would see our lives as long squiggly lines of freeze-frames drawn on the face of the planet, showing us at every single infinitesimal moment of our lives. And the planet too, would be a long circular line around the sun, which would also be... etc.

That's how I visualise it anyway. I've never been outside of time, so I don't know. :>

I tried visiting outside time once. It was unsettling to say the least. The cookies were far too hard, there was no milk for dipping, and socks were both wet and dry at the same time🫨.

IN all seriousness though, I really like your visualization. That idea of lives as long squiggly lines of freeze-frames stretched across time feels right. From inside the line, we experience it as moments, memories and revisions. From outside (if such a thing actually exists), it might just look like a continuous shape, already complete, already containing every version of us.

Which immediately raises an uncomfortable, age-old debate: does free will exist if our entire “time” already does, somewhere, in some weird higher dimension?

Let’s not open that Balrogs-have-wings level of discussion just yet 😉.

But this also makes the “thread” metaphor even more interesting. We experience growth and change because we’re moving along it, but the thread itself might already include the child, the adult, the future self, all equally real, just viewed from different points of view.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

Which immediately raises an uncomfortable, age-old debate: does free will exist if our entire “time” already does, somewhere, in some weird higher dimension?

That one's above my pay grade, chief. 😂

I could imagine it being multi-dimensional though, with threads of all possible choices branching out all over the place too. Like railway tracks, and our choice switches us onto another 'line'. Purely my speculation.

 

[grendel]

I think it is possible but not probable that aliens exist. The confluence of events that allowed not just life, but intelligent life, to develop on Earth is staggeringly complex. But, there are a lot of other planets in the galaxy, and a lot of galaxies in the universe. (See also: Law of Large Numbers)

Chik-fil-a sauce is good but not the best. Try Cane's.

If free will does not exist and everything we have done/will do is pre-ordained, I want to find the jerk who decided it was necessary for me to marry my ex-wife and punch him in the face.

I feel like I should add my own deep question, so here goes: why is the Universe so dark big if we can't experience all of it? Does that mean faster-than-light travel is possible, and it's some kind of achievement test? "Must be THIS tall to get on this ride."

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

I think it is possible but not probable that aliens exist. The confluence of events that allowed not just life, but intelligent life, to develop on Earth is staggeringly complex. But, there are a lot of other planets in the galaxy, and a lot of galaxies in the universe. (See also: Law of Large Numbers)

I think they do actually. I think other life does exist. Cuz the universe is so huge.

Chik-fil-a sauce is good but not the best. Try Cane's.

Cane's does not compete with Chick fil a at all. Chick fil a is too good.

If free will does not exist and everything we have done/will do is pre-ordained, I want to find the jerk who decided it was necessary for me to marry my ex-wife and punch him in the face.

Free will definitely does exist.

I feel like I should add my own deep question, so here goes: why is the Universe so dark big if we can't experience all of it?

Cuz the universe doesn't revolve around us.

 

[Amaya]

Free will definitely does exist.

How do you know?

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

How do you know?

People have choices. I mean, I believe we have free will. But it coexists with divine foreknowledge.

 

[Amaya]

People have choices. I mean, I believe we have free will. But it coexists with divine foreknowledge.

How do you think it's possible divine foreknowledge can coexist with free will? I'm an atheist so this has never been a consideration but I've always struggled to understand how people can believe in an all knowing God (including all knowledge of the future) and also believe in free will.

 

[Erurávennë]

How do you think it's possible divine foreknowledge can coexist with free will? I'm an atheist so this has never been a consideration but I've always struggled to understand how people can believe in an all knowing God (including all knowledge of the future) and also believe in free will.

God is outside time; He can see everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. So from His perspective, everything has already happened. Just because He is all knowing does not mean He is causing us to choose something.

 

[Vardarianna]

How do you think it's possible divine foreknowledge can coexist with free will?

Yes, that is the question. It can't really.

I've always struggled to understand how people can believe in an all knowing God (including all knowledge of the future) and also believe in free will.

Having spent a good portion of my life being indoctrinated in evangelical christianity, this struggle to understand is a big contradiction in their teachings. If god knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, yet for example allowed ;his chosen people' to be the targets of genocide, and allows 'his chosen people' to commit genocide on another group of people decades later, then 'he' (the Judeo-christian-Islamic god is always considered to be a 'he') is quite the sadist. I myself have freed myself of the indoctrination and it is no longer a struggle for me.

(The text sizing is all over the place here. Not sure why you can't get the default size from the size dropdown. You can choose '12' or '15' but the default is something between them. Weird)

My 'deep/interesting question is 'Why do so many people deny science?'
(met with a shallow question and joking non-answers. Too funny!) 🤣

 

[Erurávennë]

My big question is 'Why do so many people deny science?'

Define 'science'.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Looks like a reminder is needed here that discussion of religion, other than Tolkien's views, is off limits on TTF. See the Rules thread:

✅ The Rules Thread

Updates: 2022-10-26: Spam section updated, please read carefully. Other wording and cosmetic edits/additions/deletions for clarity. Welcome to TTF! We want our community to keep growing, and everyone to enjoy discussing and chatting openly with one another. This being said, we also need to...

thetolkien.forum

 

[Alexander Scamilton]

Looks like a reminder is needed here that discussion of religion, other than Tolkien's views, is off limits on TTF. See the Rules thread:

✅ The Rules Thread

Updates: 2022-10-26: Spam section updated, please read carefully. Other wording and cosmetic edits/additions/deletions for clarity. Welcome to TTF! We want our community to keep growing, and everyone to enjoy discussing and chatting openly with one another. This being said, we also need to...

thetolkien.forum

Can members suggest adjustments to the rules? Like, can we have a vote?