Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:14 pm

Thank you Sauwelios for this penetrating little study.

What is most interesting to me are the two phases you discern.

"Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be a people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen people arise:---and out of it the Superman."

While I was meditating on this, the idea occurred to me that a necessary requirement for the Superman would be an order of rank, a social/political structure, which arises naturally in this group of self-chosen people, by which the group may become a state / corpus / body, at the top of which is the Superman.

I have not understood why you have described the converse of without-musics interpretation. Do you mean that he ignored the selection-process, the sifting?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image
see it now?

Thunderbolt steers all things.
- Heraclitus
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6695
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:03 pm

No, what I mean is this. In my second-last post, I basically argued that the overman necessitates the idea of the eternal recurrence (inasmuch as he is defined as the man who affirms that idea). But that was never your question. Your question was what the idea of the recurrence necessitated, if anything; and without-music's answer was: "the overman". That the overman necessitates the idea of the recurrence does not mean that the converse is also true. So my referring you to BGE 56 did not really support without-music's answer.

But that was only the first step. If the overman is the man who affirms the recurrence, this places him, as you say, at the top of those who endure it. Affirmation is actually the superlative of endurance. So if the (en)joy(ment) mentioned in WP 1059 and 1060 would, after the initial selection, be selected further over time, at some point this would result in the overman.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:24 am

But I did not ask what the idea of the recurrence necessitates; I asked what is the merit of this idea. That is the point where without-music answered: the overman.

I do not think that you and he are disagreeing.

But that was only the first step. If the overman is the man who affirms the recurrence, this places him, as you say, at the top of those who endure it. Affirmation is actually the superlative of endurance. So if the (en)joy(ment) mentioned in WP 1059 and 1060 would, after the initial selection, be selected further over time, at some point this would result in the overman.

I will quote from these passages, they contain the most enlightened thoughts in a nutshell.

"To endure the idea of the recurrence one needs: freedom from morality: new means against the fact of pain (pain conceived as a tool, as the father of pleasure; there is no cumulative consciousness of displeasure): the enjoyment of all kinds of uncertainty, experimentalism, as a counterweight to this extreme fatalism; abolition of the concept of necessity: abolition of the "will"; abolition of the concept of "knowledge-in-itself"_
Greatest elevation of the consciousness of strength in man, as he creates the overman." [WP 1060]

"No longer will to preservation but to power; no longer the humble expression, "everything is merely subjective," but "it is also our work! - Let us be proud if it!"" [WP 1059]

Striking that Nietzsche arrives at the abolition of the concept "will". We must realize that "will to power" is something fundamentally different from the traditional will-concept.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image
see it now?

Thunderbolt steers all things.
- Heraclitus
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6695
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Amorphos » Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:30 pm

Fixed Cross

I have to ask, comparatively to what?


Compared to the infinite any finite thing is virtually infinitesimal, we are largely finite.

Outside of our efforts to understand in this way, who knows if such a thing as te universe even exists at all? If it does, it certainly would exist in a as vastly different shape, or number of shapes than what we are able to imagine.


What can we imagine apart from nature? How then can one person see a non nature? Hence we are all seeing the same thing just from differing perspectives.

To assume what many philosophers seam to think is > perspective based < reality, we need to;
1. Assume the brain cannot read/understand anything beyond the subject.
2. That mind is something other than the brain, and cannot read the brain beyond the subject.
3. Or that the brain does not exist. ..or mind is the only thing actually thinking.
4. That there are no derivatives between subjects and objects.

...how then can we think anything at all, what can our thoughts be based upon. if illusion how can we correlate* them?

*requires derivatives.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:13 am

Fixed Cross wrote:But I did not ask what the idea of the recurrence necessitates; I asked what is the merit of this idea. That is the point where without-music answered: the overman.

Okay, maybe I should have said "facilitates". Surely something can only have merit if it facilitates or necessitates something good?


I do not think that you and he are disagreeing.

Neither do I.


Striking that Nietzsche arrives at the abolition of the concept "will". We must realize that "will to power" is something fundamentally different from the traditional will-concept.

Indeed: see for instance WP 668 and 692.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby without-music » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:45 am

Sauwwlios: Thank you for making the inverse connection. I've found it rather helpful in my own understanding of the recurrence and its monumental importance in Nietzsche's corpus. More later.

This is, of course, the perfect way to go about rebutting The Joker's take on the Return, his nihilism. To affirm the Return is not to affirm the absolute meaninglessness of existence. Again, on the contrary.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:34 pm

I could not find this thread back - only after 5 minutes it occurred to me that it was in the natural sciences section! Lol.

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:But I did not ask what the idea of the recurrence necessitates; I asked what is the merit of this idea. That is the point where without-music answered: the overman.

Okay, maybe I should have said "facilitates". Surely something can only have merit if it facilitates or necessitates something good?

Yes, facilitates is better, but that still does not say that what is facilitated is a merit. It could also me a detriment.

Striking that Nietzsche arrives at the abolition of the concept "will". We must realize that "will to power" is something fundamentally different from the traditional will-concept.
Indeed: see for instance WP 668 and 692.

Thanks again for a good reference. The logic seems so simple: we must propose an object to the will to postulate a will in the first place. What may we propose in general? Power.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image
see it now?

Thunderbolt steers all things.
- Heraclitus
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6695
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:49 pm

without-music wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:But what has changed for us if we decide that all things return?

The literature is quite dense on this point. Laurence Lampert, as Sauwelios will never tire of recommending, does quite well in answering this question in his Nietzsche's Teaching.

It first of all means we have to accept them, as they can't be seen as transient. It absolutizes the moment.

Fixed Cross wrote:I am asking because, with science, the merit is always clear, it's power.

Indeed. And the short answer is: the overman.

The Overman then as a person who exists absolutely in each moment - who is not capable of doubt in the sense that Socrates and Christianity substantiated as basically the western conscience.

Christianity is the method of non action.
This eventually led to such deep contemplation and suffering that it caused Nietzsche, who saw the limit of that approach and in that limit found a ground to a course of action.

He could not take that course because of historical and evolutionary reasons, so he took the course of asking people in the future to take it for him. And here we are.

Where the fuck are you anyway WM. I hope you've embarked on a successful path of writing. Do publish your works and notify us humble ones here.

Fixed Cross wrote:But what has changed for us if we decide that all things return?
Nothing is affected. Only our valuation of our actions, since they are multiplied into infinity.

On the contrary! Insofar as we now have an over-reaching interpretation of things, everything will be affected.

Yes, of course. When our valuation increases, we are entirely changed because of it.

It correspondingly appears to be that case that the mindstate of Interest is the expression of the most complete progressive mobilization of monoamines, serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline. A maximized valuation of each moment would thus indeed literally mean optimized patterns of brain chemistry.

I wonder if we need to periodically run out of, or slack in distributing these monoamines. It seems there really isn't much reason, teleologically, to have them diminish - is this simply a matter of regeneration? Perhaps simply a matter of nature having no real interest in herself, and leaving herself unfinished -

An opportunity she herself made use of in allowing the emerging of self awareness, which led to humanity, which can be summarized as the will to perfection, so far most comprehensively expressed through symbolic dichotomies like Apollo and Dionysos, around which great orderly structures emerge.

Einsteins frustration was simply this humanity, the will to unity, perfect and complete the world, the burden nature has placed on herself in our form - the burden being this will, not the actual task, as this task may be impossible except through allowing disunity as the foundation of unity, rather than an error that needs to be ironed out.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image
see it now?

Thunderbolt steers all things.
- Heraclitus
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6695
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:07 am

Cyclical time theory is a non-sensical concept. So is the concept of Eternal Return. It's based on the non-sensical concept that is infinity.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3475
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:10 am

Sauwelios wrote:
TheJoker wrote:Is cyclical time theory or eternal return possible when it concerns the universe? What are other people's opinion on this? I think it is possible if there is no beginning or end of the universe especially if existence itself is infinite.

If the universe is infinite patterns are bound to repeat over and over again.

To the contrary: eternal return only works if the universe is finite. But yes, it's certainly possible. Finitude, i.e., a boundary of "nothingness", is no less conceivable than infinitude: both are completely inconceivable.


Finitude in and on itself is conceivable (unlike infinitude which is non-sense.)
But finite universe isn't because the concept of universe itself is non-sensical.
Everything that makes sense has boundaries i.e. it's finite.
The concept of universe has no boundaries thus it's non-sensical.
It makes more sense to say that the universe is infinite than to say that it is finite but this is only because saying the universe is infinite aligns with the fact that the concept is boundless.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3475
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:38 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
TheJoker wrote:Is cyclical time theory or eternal return possible when it concerns the universe? What are other people's opinion on this? I think it is possible if there is no beginning or end of the universe especially if existence itself is infinite.

If the universe is infinite patterns are bound to repeat over and over again.

To the contrary: eternal return only works if the universe is finite. But yes, it's certainly possible. Finitude, i.e., a boundary of "nothingness", is no less conceivable than infinitude: both are completely inconceivable.


Finitude in and on itself is conceivable (unlike infinitude which is non-sense.)


Really? Try to conceive something finite. Picture it in your mind. Now tell me: what do you see around it?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:57 pm

For example, I see latters in your post. These are bounded by white space. And white space itself is bounded by other things. And so on.
I don't know about you but I think that everything has a beginning and an end.
In other words, everything is transient.
Everything comes and everything goes.

What you're looking for is absolute or infinite boundary.
That's not finitude.
That's infinitude masquerading as finitude.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3475
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:57 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:For example, I see latters in your post. These are bounded by white space. And white space itself is bounded by other things. And so on.
I don't know about you but I think that everything has a beginning and an end.
In other words, everything is transient.
Everything comes and everything goes.

What you're looking for is absolute or infinite boundary.
That's not finitude.
That's infinitude masquerading as finitude.


Sure, the letters in my post are bounded by white (or light blue) space, and that space is bounded by other things, and so on. Those things are all finite. But is there a finite number of things? If so, how do you conceive of the outermost things? Are they bounded by "nothing" on one side?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:56 pm

Also, the notion of a finite amount of things in existence relies on the assumption that there is even one discrete "thing" to begin with. Which isn't the case.

All that is discrete is principle. Whether we call it WtP or Self-valuing or RTA or something else that makes sense, it always speaks of the "being-ness" of being, that about it which is consistent.

In as far as we can speak of discrete, separate objects of existence, we are simply speaking of our own minds proclivity to separate itself from itself.

In a set, there can be a finite amount of objects in that set. But existence is not a set, it is a phenomenon.

::

Rephrasing.

Infinity/finity is a concept based on the idea of discrete quantities of existence-pure. Objects.
In reality, all such objects are appearances, standing out from a deep process that we can not see, the subatomic world, which is interconnected in ways we can not compute yet.

We can not compute them because we make assumptions that aren't warranted.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image
see it now?

Thunderbolt steers all things.
- Heraclitus
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6695
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:19 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:the subatomic world, which is interconnected in ways we can not compute yet.

We can not compute them because we make assumptions that aren't warranted.

Not all "we"s are the same.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:53 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:the subatomic world, which is interconnected in ways we can not compute yet.

We can not compute them because we make assumptions that aren't warranted.

Not all "we"s are the same.


James is exempt from the superstitious assumptions inherent in men's "laws of thought", even though he basically believes in ghosts... What's keeping your reply to my refrigerator post, James?

The only kind of "ghostliness" in contemporary physics is that of so-called "dark matter". There is however no evidence that it interacts with the rest (as James' ghosts do) or even with itself. It truly seems to be stuff that doesn't self-value, or many kinds of stuff which are all incompatible with the self-valuing of other things.

I basically agree with what you just said, Fixed.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:07 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:the subatomic world, which is interconnected in ways we can not compute yet.

We can not compute them because we make assumptions that aren't warranted.

Not all "we"s are the same.


James is exempt from the superstitious assumptions inherent in men's "laws of thought", even though he basically believes in ghosts... What's keeping your reply to my refrigerator post, James?

The only kind of "ghostliness" in contemporary physics is that of so-called "dark matter". There is however no evidence that it interacts with the rest (as James' ghosts do) or even with itself. It truly seems to be stuff that doesn't self-value, or many kinds of stuff which are all incompatible with the self-valuing of other things.

Seriously?

:icon-rolleyes:

I have referenced two kinds of "ghosts". To which are you referring?
And exactly what gives you the impression that you have the slightest notion of what dark matter is about? :-?

As to your "refrigerator comment", my effort was merely to reveal that your point was absurd. With your help, that was accomplished. There was no more need to reply.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:25 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Not all "we"s are the same.


James is exempt from the superstitious assumptions inherent in men's "laws of thought", even though he basically believes in ghosts... What's keeping your reply to my refrigerator post, James?

The only kind of "ghostliness" in contemporary physics is that of so-called "dark matter". There is however no evidence that it interacts with the rest (as James' ghosts do) or even with itself. It truly seems to be stuff that doesn't self-value, or many kinds of stuff which are all incompatible with the self-valuing of other things.

Seriously?

:icon-rolleyes:

I have referenced two kinds of "ghosts". To which are you referring?


The kind that can observe things without having the observation affect them.


And exactly what gives you the impression that you have the slightest notion of what dark matter is about? :-?


N. Tyson.


As to your "refrigerator comment", my effort was merely to reveal that your point was absurd. With your help, that was accomplished. There was no more need to reply.


You think refrigerators do fit into our eyes?? :o

Here's another example which renders your point absurd. Suppose we want to know what a refrigerator looks like in the dark. In order to see what it looks like, we have to cast light on it (if only infrared light; but then we still can't see it with the naked eye). But if we cast light on it, it's no longer in the dark! So we cannot know what a refrigerator looks like in the dark. Likewise, we cannot know what an as-yet-unobserved quantum state is like.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:34 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I have referenced two kinds of "ghosts". To which are you referring?


The kind that can observe things without having the observation affect them.

I have never referred to that as being a ghost, so that nomenclature attempt is upon you.

Sauwelios wrote:
And exactly what gives you the impression that you have the slightest notion of what dark matter is about? :-?

N. Tyson.

Oh gyahd.. :icon-rolleyes:
Pray that no one hijacks or scrambles your coding.

Sauwelios wrote:
As to your "refrigerator comment", my effort was merely to reveal that your point was absurd. With your help, that was accomplished. There was no more need to reply.

You think refrigerators do fit into our eyes?? :o

What I think, since you asked, is that you know too little of that subject to intelligently discuss it. You have your opinions .. fine. Keep them. Perhaps attempt debate with someone else.

And btw, even in Jacob's self-valuing (with which I am not entirely incompatible), there is no reverse causation involved.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:54 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I have referenced two kinds of "ghosts". To which are you referring?


The kind that can observe things without having the observation affect them.

I have never referred to that as being a ghost, so that nomenclature attempt is upon you.


Still, you claim that it's possible to observe things without having the observation affect them. I call that ghostly because a ghost, in much of popular culture, can move through things and yet observe them.


Sauwelios wrote:
And exactly what gives you the impression that you have the slightest notion of what dark matter is about? :-?

N. Tyson.

Oh gyahd.. :icon-rolleyes:
Pray that no one hijacks or scrambles your coding.


How's your standing within the scientific community, James?


Sauwelios wrote:
As to your "refrigerator comment", my effort was merely to reveal that your point was absurd. With your help, that was accomplished. There was no more need to reply.

You think refrigerators do fit into our eyes?? :o

What I think, since you asked, is that you know too little of that subject to intelligently discuss it. You have your opinions .. fine. Keep them. Perhaps attempt debate with someone else.

And btw, even in Jacob's self-valuing (with which I am not entirely incompatible), there is no reverse causation involved.


As I already told you in that other thread, "I never claimed that what happens to the light after it leaves the object changes the object." (http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2673851#p2673851)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:36 pm

Jim, can you please address Sauwelios' points? I would like to see some intelligence from your side.
I know you have it. Others don't think so but I know you do.

Dont fucking leave me hanging Jimbo.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image
see it now?

Thunderbolt steers all things.
- Heraclitus
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6695
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:48 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Jim, can you please address Sauwelios' points? I would like to see some intelligence from your side.
I know you have it. Others don't think so but I know you do.

Dont fucking leave me hanging Jimbo.

It isn't like I owe You any favor. If you would like to inject some intelligence into Sauw's efforts to make sense out of the nonsense, feel free. Although since your brain breakage, I'm not sure that is possible.

He is trying to support the notion that the observation of an object changes the object. We had this discussion years ago wherein I pointed out exactly where that notion arose and why. It is merely another part of the Quantum Magi mysticism to bemuse the masses. Sauw obviously wants to believe in the magic.

He first proclaimed that because light bounced off of the object into the eye for observation, the object was affected by the observation. Of course, that led to a reverse time issue. He back peddled and tried a couple of more excuses for the belief and is now up to proclaiming that because an observer will shine the light on the object in order to observe it, the observation will affect the object. Of course that is a serious non-sequitur fallacy. The shining of the light is not the observing. The light might have been there anyway, most often it is.

If you want to inject some intellect into any of that, or come up with something more sensible, have at it. But as I said, since your ....
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:08 am

James is just a dinosaur (a Platonist).

James, I still claim that because light bounces off of the object into the eye for observation, the object is affected by the observation. This need by no means lead to a reverse time issue. It is indeed not necessary for an observer to shine the light on the object in order to observe it. However, the shining of the light is part of the observing. It is even if it was there to begin with.

Now technically, it's true that we never see a refrigerator (it never enters our eyes), but only light. The light coming off a refrigerator is different from the light coming off a TV. In both cases, it's affected by those objects in the collision with them. But action equals minus reaction. The light cannot be affected without it equally affecting those objects. Now on the scale of things we can see with our naked eye, that effect is negligible: those objects won't look any different from if the light had miraculously not affected them (except that the refrigerator, for instance, would be black instead of white, as I've already explained). On a subatomic scale, however, that which is bounced off the quantum objects in order to observe them is of a kind with those objects. It's like throwing a TV into a TV in order to pinpoint the latter's location.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:40 am

I suspect now James confuses two things. Either a visual observation includes the light's reflection or emission--in which case that reflection or emission is part of the observation--, or it does not. In the former case, we can say we see the refrigerator or the refrigerator light, but only the way it is when affected by the reflection or emission. In the latter case, we can only say we see the light reflected off of the refrigerator or emitted by the refrigerator light. For simplicity's sake, let's say we see the light reflected off of the refrigerator. Then the refrigerator is indeed not affected by the observation, but this is because the refrigerator is not observed at all; only the light reflected off of the refrigerator is observed... [Edit: And indeed, the source of the light may have undergone changes in the meantime, for instance the sun during the eight minutes it took the sunlight to travel here.]

Am I making myself clear? Either we say we observe the refrigerator, or we say we observe the light coming from the refrigerator. The refrigerator is affected by its collision with the light. The light is affected both by its collision with the refrigerator and its collision with our eyes. So the observation always affects the object of observation.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:45 pm

Sauwelios wrote:James is just a dinosaur (a Platonist).

James, I still claim that because light bounces off of the object into the eye for observation, the object is affected by the observation. This need by no means lead to a reverse time issue. It is indeed not necessary for an observer to shine the light on the object in order to observe it. However, the shining of the light is part of the observing. It is even if it was there to begin with.

You seem to have serious logic issues. Tell us, what if the observer was daydreaming at the time and thus, even though the light entered his eyes, he failed to actually notice what happened - the observation didn't actually take place? Is the object supposed to still be affected differently than when the observer had his eyes closed? Or differently than when the observer was sick at home that day? Or when there was no observer at all?

Sauwelios wrote:Now technically, it's true that we never see a refrigerator (it never enters our eyes), but only light.

- Another logic fallacy issue. Seeing does not require that anything enter the eye other than the reflected light. Seeing is not objects entering the eye. Seeing is reflected light entering the eye. So no, it is not true that we never see a refrigerator. The reflected light is merely the means by which we see the refrigerator.

Sauwelios wrote:The light coming off a refrigerator is different from the light coming off a TV. In both cases, it's affected by those objects in the collision with them.

Light is light. It doesn't really matter from where it comes. The TV produces light whereas most objects merely reflect light. The eye doesn't really care although the mind of an observer might.

Sauwelios wrote:But action equals minus reaction.

Action is negative reaction? The statement doesn't seem to make sense. A reaction is an action, but an specific kind of action resulting from a prior action. A reaction is the second action in a sequence. There is nothing "minus" or negative about it.

Sauwelios wrote:The light cannot be affected without it equally affecting those objects.

Light certainly affects objects. But we aren't really talking about light. We are talking about observation which at times requires that light be present and usually light is present even without observation. So observing and light are two different things. At times, light isn't required at all. Is the object still affected differently merely because someone happened to be standing around and noticed the object? Your position is "yes", but you will never be able to substantiate that position - because it is nonsense.

Sauwelios wrote:For simplicity's sake, let's say we see the light reflected off of the refrigerator. Then the refrigerator is indeed not affected by the observation, but this is because the refrigerator is not observed at all; only the light reflected off of the refrigerator is observed

So your problem has been one of definition? You didn't know that ALL "seeing" has never been anything other than receiving the reflected light (and being awake enough to notice it)?

Sauwelios wrote:Am I making myself clear? Either we say we observe the refrigerator, or we say we observe the light coming from the refrigerator. The refrigerator is affected by its collision with the light. The light is affected both by its collision with the refrigerator and its collision with our eyes. So the observation always affects the object of observation.

Oh, I'm quite clear on your intent. But the rest of the modern world knows that seeing is merely receiving the reflected light and nothing else. So with that in mind, you have now agree that the object is not actually affected at all by the seeing or observing.

Are you going to now attempt to argue that some people believe that seeing involved the objects themselves entering the eye? And could you possibly ever support such a notion? Without that, you no longer have an argument for your case.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users