Eternal Return. Cyclical Time Theory.

And in case you ever have a sane moment again: The only claims that I made were that initially, for your value-ontology to have a logical foundation, the verb “valuing” had to have a subject and object. After a great deal of explaining why, you mentioned “self-valuing” and I said that I could construct a valid logical foundation for “self-valuing-ontology” and recommended that you call it SVO, not the more ambiguous VO. You didn’t want to change, so you kept it as merely VO. But from that point forward, you always referenced “self-valuing” rather than merely valuing. And during a much later conversation concerning the logic issues, I stated (aka “claimed”) that I was the one who told you that it had to be “self-valuing” (or at least that it had to have a subject and object for the verb).

From that, You with the demented help of your “friends” turned it into a claim that I was trying to take ownership of VO - a seriously stupid conclusion to draw, but drugged up broken brains do that sort of thing pretty regularly.

“Technically” it is the belief that the refrigerator is there that is “construed”. The refrigerator, assuming that it actually was there, remains unaffected.

Actually that is exactly what Quantum Physics teaches. Quantum Mechanics is merely statistics utilizing virtual particles, not much different than RM:AO using afflates. Quantum Physics had been taught instructing university students that the act of observing an event causes the event to become different than it would have been if it had not been observed. They got that idea by a specific means.

What they were unwittingly referencing was that statistical equations describe truth and only by inserting that right values into the unknowns in an equation, can the equation describe truth with certainty. Until an observation is made, the equation’s values are unknown and thus, in an ontological sense (as childish as it is), “truth is described by all remaining possibilities” (the truth is that anything is possible - because they don’t have enough information yet). Einstein and Bohr argued about this issue. Only by observing in order to gain more information, can the equation that describes reality be completed into a specific, 100% known truth. Thus it is said that by observation, the “truth” became what it is. Before the observation, the “truth” was something else. Of course “truth” is but a description. Truth is not the reality itself, except to the solipsists. Quantum Physics has become just an outlet for solipsism.

To an ontologist, such claims are very obviously naive and a bit manipulative and malevolent. But how many ontologists are in the world? The people promoting the idea are extremely philosophically naive, yet because they are typically physicists, they are granted elitist status. They are technicians attempting to take over the engineer’s or architect’s job. They are the priests of the new-age religion.

That is how the idea that observation affects reality came about. It is currently used to bemuse the ignorant masses much the same as any fascination with magic.

And such “notice” and “perception” can only happen in the mind. It isn’t MY definition. It is just about everyone’s. You simply learned it incorrectly.

We never, ever “see light photons”. What does a light photons look like? You can’t tell me, because it doesn’t appear to the eye at all. Instead light photons are the carriers for the energy involved, the EMR. They affect your eyes. You do not see them at all, ever. You only use them, as FC stated, to construe that they refrigerator is there. And in English, that is said to be “seeing the refrigerator”.

This is merely an issue of language. English means by “seeing”, that eyes receives light photons and deduced the presents of its environment. A person experiences photons in order to see other things. They never see the photons, nor experience the other things except by direct touch.

Again, they never observe the photons, nor experience the other things except by direct touch.

The universe does not rotate … cannot rotate. One cannot be at the center between two walls that do not exist.

Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Physics, whatever. What matters is that you don’t understand the first thing about it/them. Quantum Physics does not teach what you think it teaches. If it did, it would not require the “Quantum” qualifier. Solipsism was perfectly well possible in Newton’s time, as Hume knew.

This is also my problem with Fixed Cross’s latest reply to me in this thread. Yes, the construal thing is obvious, but is not what makes Quantum Physics so controversial.

The “something” between brackets in your unsourced dictionary citation already refers to something that may well be outside the mind, James…

You mean “to the mind”.

Okay James, whatever. This is not what makes Quantum Physics controversial. What makes Quantum Physics controversial is the phenomenon that measuring (let’s forget the term “observing”, which you’ve twisted free from the pinch you are in) a quantum state alters it.

Seriously, your argument is that of a child:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq69-MI9TA0[/youtube]

That’s flawed reasoning and I already explained why. Either the universe rotates, or it doesn’t. Whether it does or doesn’t can be measured and determined.

What is flawed about it?

And it has been determined that it doesn’t.

You can plot the coordinates of galaxies and compare the difference of their xyz over time. Thus you can deduce whether there is any resemblance of angular rotation overall, and use some trigonometry to determine the centerpoint of rotation. Has nothing to do with 2 imaginary walls.

I am not arguing with that rationale. But that has been done. And even though not entirely trustworthy, it happens to show that the universe is NOT spinning (never mind that there would be very serious speed of light issues).

The rationale that the universe has no outer limit and thus cannot have a center from which to rotate is also a valid rationale, and even more trustworthy in that the state of being infinitely large can be logically proven, void of possible error.

No it isn’t. An entity can be determined to be a solid entity regardless of whether it’s bounds are found, by measuring the xyz coordinates of it’s individual parts. Thus a circle which is infinitely large, still has a centerpoint of rotation, that is, if the substance of which the circle is made is a solid.

There is no such thing as an infinitely large circle, or any other fixed shape. If it has a outer limit defining its shape, it is obviously not limitless, “infinite”.

Okay first of all, a universe does not need to be a circle for it to rotate or have a centerpoint of rotation.

Second of all, it is theoretically possible to have an infinitely large circle, it is just incomprehensible to our consciousness at any given moment in time, because it takes an infinite of time to witness it.
What you mean to say is, an infinitely large circle is not infinitely infinite, since it is bounded in some way and not an infinite volume. Thus, in relation to an infinite 2d square, an infinite circle is infinite*0.785.

It doesn’t matter whether it is a circle. Anything “infinitely large” has no shape, period.

It is logically impossible to have an infinite circle in the same way that it is logically impossible to have a square-circle. It is not a matter of imagination or concurrent comprehension, other than the obvious logic involved.

And btw, limitless * 0.785 is still without limit, and thus without form.

I don’t think you are thinking of infiniti in the right way.
Infiniti can have constraints.
For instance, an infinitely long line is still infinite, even though it is lacking in other dimensions, and is thus constrained to one dimension.

Ironically, your video actually proves my point, as anyone who’s not a dinosaur can see. Electrons are not “tiny bits of matter”. It’s only measurement or, in other words, observation (your video actually identifies the two) which makes electrons behave, or seem, as such bits.

Another mistake the video makes is in presenting measurement/observation as a Platonic activity, immaculate perception, a pure eye just “being open” to the electrons. It fails to point out that such observation actually requires light to be reflected off of the electrons.

Well someone is not thinking in the right way.

I said, as we have been meaning, “infinitely large”, meaning unlimited in all directions. What other parameters are involved (color, density, whatever)is irrelevant.

No, your “point” was that Quantum Physics does not teach what that video about Quantum Physics is teaching.

Whether right or not, that is what they are teaching.

Infinity is an abstraction that can never be percieved, thus I don’t see how it’s a stretch to say that there could be infinitely large shapes.

The only way we can percieve infiniti is the sense of temporal infinity, something that never reaches an end, and you could have a circle where the end is always getting away from you no matter how far you travel, the end is never reached.

Second of all infinite does not mean unlimited in all directions, there could be an infinite shape which is infinitely large, but has a clear starting point, for instance at 0,0, there is nothing behind 0,0.

Is not.

Sauwelios wins! :mrgreen:

It doesn’t matter if you can “perceive” it. What matters is that you understand it. “Infinite” means “no boundary or limit”. And without a boundary, there is no shape to be had.

It can have a “starting point”. But it cannot also have an ending point. And it must have both in order to have “shape” or “form” beyond that of merely a line or plane (both void of having all dimensions). We are discussing the universe. By definition, the universe includes ALL dimensions.

:icon-rolleyes:

No, what you are imagining is a uniformly sided shape.
A non-uniform polygon could have two infinite edges, but also be a well-defined shape.

Are we talking about the universe, all existence, or not?