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 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:46 pm

James S Saint 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.

Thats basically your philosophy, Ive found the past 5 years. Its main objective is to ridicule aspects of other peoples thoughts that you feel good about ridiculing. I assume by "brain breakage" you mean my bafflement that you were actually claiming authorship of vo, while not even understanding the logic.

That is funny, in retrospect. Back then it was just supremely ugly.

Since you entered the thread here, the subject has been obscured, as usual.
You're dragging Sauwelios into attempts to explain what you should very easily understand.

Obviously no one has addressed the question of the methods and criteria in the Chinese experiment. I may seek to put a model together myself but don't hold your breath.

Sauwelios, indeed the bottom line of what you are discussing with James is that observation is a phenomenon that relies on a change in both the observed and the observer, because light isn't nothing, nor is any phenomenon that enables observation.

James is, I suppose, trying to keep that basic fact obscure so as to not have to engage the true entanglement question which negates the idea of AO, at least as he has managed to explicate it.

VO on the other hand directly necessitates entanglement issues being prior to timespace issues.
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6560
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:23 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:I assume by "brain breakage" you mean my bafflement that you were actually claiming authorship of vo, while not even understanding the logic.

I never made any such claim. That was merely one of the delusional results of your crackup.
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: 25078
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:47 pm

James S Saint wrote:
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?


No, nor is this what quantum mechanics claims.


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.


Nope. If we define "observation" the way you do, as something that happens solely in the observer's mind (brain and nervous system, supposing you're not a substance dualist), we never see refrigerators, TVs, etc. etc., but only light.


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.


Refrigerators usually also produce light. Anyway, that wasn't the difference I meant. The TV might be turned off for all I care.


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.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)

This is high-school stuff, people...


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.


My position is not "yes" and has never been "yes".


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)?


Sure I did. But we usually speak of "seeing the refrigerator" instead of "seeing the light reflected by the refrigerator". In the former case, the refrigerator is affected by the observation (namely, by its collision with the light). In the latter case, only the light itself is affected (namely, by its collision with our visual perception mechanism). In any case, the object of observation is affected by the observation and in the observation.

The refrigerator is "observed" (experienced) by the light in its collision with it.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Technically, the refrigerator is construed, based on responses to the light that hits our retina and the conditions we call our brain. We don't actually ever see anything as it is. We could even be seeing a scale picture of a refrigerator. An obvious thing to state but it seems indeed we need to start with the basics.
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6560
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:32 pm

The problem with the Chinese entanglement observation is more related to that issue actually, as they might actually cause the entire situation into being by arranging circumstances for it to be observed.
This is my skepsis vis the Higgs Boson. I think it is not a particle but rather an epiphenomenon seen when a material self valuing takes shape - a spectre of its power perhaps. Not something that can exist by itself.

It needs the conditions in which it is required for something to make sense. It is like the wishful-thinking particle of those that refuse to contemplate philosophy's grounding question "Why being and not rather nothing?", the answer to which is the double entendre "Nothing can't enforce itself."
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6560
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Ed3 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:28 pm

Hi to All,

Just a quick note on the science of the subject.

Kurt Gödel provided a mathematical solution to the Einstein field equations showing that the Universe could be cyclical. If I recall correctly, it required the Universe to rotate.
Gödel and Einstein were friends at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Even though the model was logically consistent, I don’t think that it was ever taken seriously.

Thanks Ed
"Albert! Stop telling God what to do." - Niels Bohr
Ed3
Thinker
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Lakeville MN USA

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:30 pm

Hi Ed

The universe would be rotating with respect to what?
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6560
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:48 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Hi Ed

The universe would be rotating with respect to what?


An rotating object can be discerned by comparing any element within it's structure.
building a better future
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:02 pm

But the universe is not an object.
It namely has no edge nor a center.
We cant look at it from outside and we cant know where we are in it with respect to its limits, as it has no discrete limits, as there cant be anything outside of it.
Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6560
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Ed3 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:09 pm

Hi Fixed Cross,

A great question. I am not sure of the answer.

I would guess that a spinning Universe would have a higher Energy content than a stationary Universe, which in turn means that the spatial metric would change. Since time is part of the spatial metric it is possible, if it were setup properly, that the time variable could be sinusoidal.

Anyway, I am not an expert in this matter, I only know enough to be dangerous.

Thanks Ed

P.S.
After getting my feet wet with regard to Peirce, your conjectures appear to be true.
Last edited by Ed3 on Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Albert! Stop telling God what to do." - Niels Bohr
Ed3
Thinker
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Lakeville MN USA

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:10 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:But the universe is not an object.
It namely has no edge nor a center.
We cant look at it from outside and we cant know where we are in it with respect to its limits, as it has no discrete limits, as there cant be anything outside of it.


The universe contains many galaxies. We can observe the positions of those galaxies and determine if it they form a circular rotational motion. Thus, if the universe is truly rotating, we can also find the center of the universe, the point of no angular velocity, and if that point cannot be found, we can deduce it by comparing relative velocities to deduce an implied centerpoint.

Either the universe is spinning, or it is not, and this should be able to be determined by astronomers.
building a better future
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:12 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: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.


Yes there is. You are a thing. Your post is a thing. A word in your post is a thing. And so on.

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.


You are speaking of things we cannot speak of.
What exactly is the point of that?

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Sauwelios wrote: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?


There is indeed such a thing as finite number of things. For example, your post is one finite thing (because it is bounded by white or light blue space.) Your post + that white (or light blue) space that surrounds it are two finite things. And so on.

What exactly are you asking me?
I said it before: you're asking if there is such a thing as infinite boundary.
In other words, you are not speaking of finitude.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3304
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:21 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Sauwelios wrote: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?


There is indeed such a thing as finite number of things. For example, your post is one finite thing (because it is bounded by white or light blue space.) Your post + that white (or light blue) space that surrounds it are two finite things. And so on.

What exactly are you asking me?
I said it before: you're asking if there is such a thing as infinite boundary.
In other words, you are not speaking of finitude.


If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number? Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 things around it. Now let's suppose there is an equal number of things on each side of the central thing: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 above it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 below it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in front of it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 behind it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 on the left of it and 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th thing on the right of the central thing?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:47 pm

finite number + infinity =/= finite number

That's your entire point.
You're saying that an infinite boundary isn't finite.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3304
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:51 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:finite number + infinity =/= finite number

That's your entire point.
You're saying that an infinite boundary isn't finite.


Not sure you've understood me. Let me put it slightly differently.

If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number? Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 7. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 6 things around it: 1 above it, 1 below it, 1 in front of it, 1 behind it, 1 on the left of it and 1 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the thing on the right of the central thing?
Last edited by Sauwelios on Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:51 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:
Sauwelios wrote: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?


There is indeed such a thing as finite number of things. For example, your post is one finite thing (because it is bounded by white or light blue space.) Your post + that white (or light blue) space that surrounds it are two finite things. And so on.

What exactly are you asking me?
I said it before: you're asking if there is such a thing as infinite boundary.
In other words, you are not speaking of finitude.


If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number? Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 things around it. Now let's suppose there is an equal number of things on each side of the central thing: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 above it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 below it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in front of it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 behind it, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 on the left of it and 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th thing on the right of the central thing?


You lost me and I am totally confused.

But I do know this, consciousness can only percieve the infinite in the sense of an immortal consciousness, it cannot percieve the infinite in any given moment, only in the sense that there are an infinite amount of moments.
building a better future
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:52 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:finite number + infinity =/= finite number

That's your entire point.
You're saying that an infinite boundary isn't finite.


Not sure you've understood me. Let me put it slightly differently.

If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number? Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 7. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 6 things around it. Now let's suppose there is an equal number of things on each side of the central thing: 1 above it, 1 below it, 1 in front of it, 1 behind it, 1 on the left of it and 1 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the thing on the right of the central thing?

Still don't know what you're talking about.

I'm guessing your talking about how many things can we focus on in any given moment, well the answer is a finite amount of things.
building a better future
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:04 pm

Note that I never said that the universe is finite.
Universe is a meaningless concept. Unless it refers to something specific (e.g. what was observed to have happened in the past.)
The meaningless version of the concept of universe says that the universe is the sum of everything that happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future.
It goes beyond one's experience.
It is thus not finite.

If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number?


We do not arrive at a finite number because you did not specify what this "everything else" is.
As it is, it is an unbounded concept.
It has no limits.
It is infinite.
And as I said, finite number plus infinity does not equal finite number.

[Note: accidentally hit the submit button]
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3304
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:06 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:finite number + infinity =/= finite number

That's your entire point.
You're saying that an infinite boundary isn't finite.


Not sure you've understood me. Let me put it slightly differently.

If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number? Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 7. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 6 things around it. Now let's suppose there is an equal number of things on each side of the central thing: 1 above it, 1 below it, 1 in front of it, 1 behind it, 1 on the left of it and 1 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the thing on the right of the central thing?

Still don't know what you're talking about.

I'm guessing your talking about how many things can we focus on in any given moment, well the answer is a finite amount of things.


No look. Suppose all of existence, nature, the universe, whatever you wish to call it, consists of a single thing. What is there around that thing?

If it consisted of seven things, and I were to ask what is there around the central thing, the answer would be: other things. But what would there be next to those other things, counting outward from the center?

If there is nothing, or nothingness, then we cannot conceive of the outer things, since we would have to conceive of them as being bounded by nothing(ness) on at least one side. Nothing(ness) however is inconceivable (for us).

And if all things are bounded by other things, there must be an infinity of things, which is equally inconceivable.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:09 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Suppose that we do. Suppose that number is 7. Now suppose there is a central thing. That thing is 1. This means there are 6 things around it: 1 above it, 1 below it, 1 in front of it, 1 behind it, 1 on the left of it and 1 on the right of it. What is there on the right of the thing on the right of the central thing?


"Right" and "left" are higher level concepts. At the lowest level of abstraction, there is a sequence of events, which means, instead of "left" and "right" we have "precedent" and "antecedent". I cannot say what bounds the peripheral objects (that bound the central object) because your specification does not specify these objects. That's all there is to it.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3304
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:12 pm

No look. Suppose all of existence, nature, the universe, whatever you wish to call it, consists of a single thing. What is there around that thing?
No-thing, which is a mental entity defining the bounds of thingness and vacuum.

If it consisted of seven things, and I were to ask what is there around the central thing, the answer would be: other things. But what would there be next to those other things, counting outward from the center?

Are you asking, how precise we can measure the space between the space?

If there is nothing, or nothingness, then we cannot conceive of the outer things, since we would have to conceive of them as being bounded by nothing(ness) on at least one side.

Not making sense to me.

Nothing(ness) is inconceivable (for us).
True.

And if all things are bounded by other things, there must be an infinity of things, which is equally inconceivable.

That logically does not follow.
building a better future
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:19 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Note that I never said that the universe is finite.
Universe is a meaningless concept. Unless it refers to something specific (e.g. what was observed to have happened in the past.)
The meaningless version of the concept of universe says that the universe is the sum of everything that happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future.
It goes beyond one's experience.
It is thus not finite.

If we add up my post and that space that surrounds it and everything else, do we arrive at a finite number?


We do not arrive at a finite number because you did not specify what this "everything else" is.
As it is, it is an unbounded concept.
It has no limits.
It is infinite.
And as I said, finite number plus infinity does not equal finite number.

[Note: accidentally hit the submit button]


I like your thinking here, Magnus. Yes, the infinity/nothingness problem forces us into phenomenology.

"[Husserl had realized more profoundly than anybody else that] all philosophic understanding must start from our common understanding of the world, from our understanding of the world as sensibly perceived prior to all theorizing. Heidegger went much further than Husserl in the same direction: the primary theme is not the object of perception but the full thing as experienced as part of the individual human context, the individual world to which it belongs." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".)

If we keep going further in the same direction, what is there beyond Heidegger?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:20 pm

Sauwelios wrote:No look. Suppose all of existence, nature, the universe, whatever you wish to call it, consists of a single thing. What is there around that thing?

If it consisted of seven things, and I were to ask what is there around the central thing, the answer would be: other things. But what would there be next to those other things, counting outward from the center?

If there is nothing, or nothingness, then we cannot conceive of the outer things, since we would have to conceive of them as being bounded by nothing(ness) on at least one side. Nothing(ness) however is inconceivable (for us).

And if all things are bounded by other things, there must be an infinity of things, which is equally inconceivable.


Your thinking is future-oriented.
It should be past-oriented.

What is real is in the past.
Future is just a figment of our imagination.

Future is infinite.
Past is finite.

Or rather, our past experience, and only that which we have memory of, is finite.
The concept of past can be just as problematic as the concept of future.

If you step outside of the boundaries of your personal experience then everything becomes possible.
You can no longer think.
There is no longer anything that can guide your thought.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3304
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:24 pm

Sauwelios wrote:I like your thinking here, Magnus. Yes, the infinity/nothingness problem forces us into phenomenology.

"[Husserl had realized more profoundly than anybody else that] all philosophic understanding must start from our common understanding of the world, from our understanding of the world as sensibly perceived prior to all theorizing. Heidegger went much further than Husserl in the same direction: the primary theme is not the object of perception but the full thing as experienced as part of the individual human context, the individual world to which it belongs." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".)

If we keep going further in the same direction, what is there beyond Heidegger?


I agree that information (or sensation if you will) is precedent but I do not have a positive view of phenomenology. I think it is redundant and perhaps even confused itself.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3304
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:32 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
No look. Suppose all of existence, nature, the universe, whatever you wish to call it, consists of a single thing. What is there around that thing?
No-thing, which is a mental entity defining the bounds of thingness and vacuum.


So a physical entity would be enclosed by a mental entity?


If it consisted of seven things, and I were to ask what is there around the central thing, the answer would be: other things. But what would there be next to those other things, counting outward from the center?

Are you asking, how precise we can measure the space between the space?


No. Empty space, literal vacuum, would be nothing(ness). Outer space is not empty, it's filled with plasma, (and) probability waves.


If there is nothing, or nothingness, then we cannot conceive of the outer things, since we would have to conceive of them as being bounded by nothing(ness) on at least one side.

Not making sense to me.


Suppose the letters in my post are existence, and the space around them and between them is nothingness. How can you conceive of letters without space around them and between them?


Nothing(ness) is inconceivable (for us).
True.

And if all things are bounded by other things, there must be an infinity of things, which is equally inconceivable.

That logically does not follow.


I think it does, if you think it through. Existence cannot be logically enclosed by itself. Existence as we know it could enclose itself in a higher dimension, but then in that dimension it would have to be bounded by 1) nothingness, 2) a finite number of other higher-dimensional things (the outermost of which would then have to be bounded by nothingness), or 3) an infinity of things. The only alternative would be that existence were enclosed by itself in an infinity of dimensions...
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users