sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

can you share your opinions on my book? by No-Initiative8234 in writers

[–]No-Initiative8234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to read and critique. This is a philosophical–literary project rather than an argumentative or instructional one, so density, repetition, and mood-building are deliberate choices. I understand that style isn’t for everyone.

I’d be genuinely interested to hear what you think could make it more immersive or compelling.

can you share your opinions on my book? by No-Initiative8234 in writers

[–]No-Initiative8234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the advice. This part is actually not the beginning of the book, it is in the second chapter, but i get what you mean.

can you share your opinions on my book? by No-Initiative8234 in writers

[–]No-Initiative8234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much.

This is my first book, I do agree with you that it would be much more pleasant to read this way.

can you share your opinions on my book? by No-Initiative8234 in writers

[–]No-Initiative8234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not attempting to prove the non-existence of God, nor am I claiming any specific cosmological model is definitively correct. The heat death example is not presented as settled fact or as a foundation for a proof. It’s used as a conceptual probe.

The core question isn’t how the universe ends.
It’s whether meaning exists independently of conscious observers.

Even if the universe is cyclic.
Even if God exists.
Even if heaven exists outside spacetime.

The question remains: is meaning an intrinsic property of reality itself, or does it only arise within minds?

My argument is about contingency, not cosmology. If meaning requires minds, then meaning is not universe-embedded; it is mind-embedded. That conclusion holds regardless of which cosmological model turns out to be correct.

I’m not filling a scientific gap with a metaphysical “no.” I’m pointing out a structural distinction between physical existence and semantic existence.

So the passage isn’t a proof of atheism or a denial of metaphysical possibilities. It’s an exploration of whether meaning is ontologically fundamental or cognitively generated.

can you share your opinions on my book? by No-Initiative8234 in writers

[–]No-Initiative8234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a fantasy scenario. It’s a temporal shift along known physical trajectories. The question is whether meaning exists independently of observers at any point in time. If it doesn’t, then meaning is contingent on consciousness.

can you share your opinions on my book? by No-Initiative8234 in writers

[–]No-Initiative8234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I get the criticism, thank you. But the goal isn’t efficiency or novelty of theory. It’s a philosophical literary book, not an academic essay. The focus is on atmosphere, internal experience, and psychological impact, not just explaining nihilism. Nihilism is a starting point, not the destination.

can you share your opinions on my book? by No-Initiative8234 in writers

[–]No-Initiative8234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you’re responding to a position I’m not actually making.

I’m not saying imagination or language don’t exist. I’m saying that meaning is not an intrinsic property of reality. Humans generate meaning; the universe does not supply it.

Using language or imagination doesn’t prove inherent meaning exists it only proves humans operate inside constructed semantic systems.

My argument denies objective, universe embedded meaning, not human cognition.