Something Instead of Nothing

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Mad Man P » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:05 am

iambiguous wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:I provided you with the necessary conditions for a rational conversation between you and I... and you question their value?

We have no basis then, on which to conduct this conversation...


Okay, that's your bottom line. Mine revolves more around the assumption that, as with many here, you have no real interest in bringing your "technical philosophy" down out of the clouds.


What, like physically? or do you mean conversationally?
Because if it's the latter we first need to have a foundation for a productive conversation...
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2456
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:43 pm

phyllo wrote:
Iambig wrote :
Now, in a wholly determined universe, is there anything that unfolds in this sequence of events that could ever have possibly been anything other than what it was?

That's what I can't wrap my head around here. And I will readily admit I might not be thinking this all through in the most reasonable manner.
You have two cases here : looking forward at an event and looking back at it.

Looking back, the event has already happened. It's done, finished. You can't undo the event. It can't be anything other than what it was because of the one way direction of time. That's true both for a deterministic world and a non-deterministic world.


How on earth could you possibly grasp the meaning and the nature of time itself?

You may not like me pointing it out but speculation of this sort is no less subsumed in the "unknown unknowns" that stand between what you think you know about it here and now and all that can be known about it going back to how it is wholly integrated into all that can be known about the meaning and nature of existence itself.

We are all stymied here of course.

Now, I make what I construe to be a crucial distinction between what we seem able to demonstrate as in fact true for all of us in the either/or world, and what we cannot. At least Insofar as we interact out in the world from day to day.

But how can that ever be removed from all that I don't know about the really big questions revolving around threads like this one?

phyllo wrote: Looking forward at an event in the future, you don't know what is "determined" to happen. You don't know how the infinite number of factors, swirling around you, affect your decisions.


Most crucially though [in my view] we don't know if the future is something that we can steer in one rather than another direction autonomously.

In fact this point is one that I would make in regard to "I" in the is/ought world. Even assuming autonomy, we can't possibly grasp all of the variables that came/come together to form the trajectory of our actual lived life. In my opinion, the "self" here can only be reasonably construed as an existential contraption in a world teeming with conflicting goods as we go about the business of interacting amidst an avalanche of contingency, chance and change.

phyllo wrote: Is it "determined" that you sit on your couch eating cheese doodles or that you get up and do something else? You don't know until after you do what you decided to do. It's when you do it that it becomes the thing that "had to happen". Before that, you could have chosen something else, you could have done something else.


Back to my hypothetical aliens. They note us choosing to do one thing rather than another. But then they point out that on earth everything unfolds in a part of the universe that is wholly determined. We think [psychologically] that we chose freely to eat cheese doodles but there was never really any possibility that we could have chosen not to.

phyllo wrote: You seem to mix up past, present and future. As a result, you treat future events as if they are somehow in the past - as if the future has already happened. So you say " unfolds{present and future} in this sequence of events that could ever have possibly been{past} anything other than what it was{past}".


Consider this: https://youtu.be/vrqmMoI0wks

Now, how close is this speculation to all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that the points here are wholly in sync with that which explains the existence of existence itself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:43 pm

phyllo wrote:
Well, after a series of rather substantive exchanges between us, that post had shrunk down to what I construed to be retorts. Zingers aimed at making me the point.
You insert your problems, your "hole" and your reactions into the discussion and then when someone addresses you directly you react with "Why are you making me the issue?".

Well, for obvious reasons ... you made yourself one of the issues.


Come on, I note these things in order to elicit from others reactions relating to their own lives. How are those things deemed to be problems for me not problems for them? How are they not down in an existential hole when their own particular "I" is confronting conflicting goods?

The help I am asking for revolves basically around three things:

1] figuring out if, on this side of the grave, there's a way up out of the nihilistic hole that "I" am in when confronting conflicting goods

2] figuring out if, on the other side of the grave, there's a way up out of the abyss

And on this thread in particular

3] figuring out if my thoughts and feelings regarding the first two are in sync with at least some measure of autonomy pertaining to "I"


phyllo wrote: I still do't know what "figuring out" means or how one would go about "figuring out" anything with you. I don't see any sort of progress at all... and therefore no "figuring out" going on.


What else can it mean? There is what I think I know about morality on this side of the grave and oblivion on the other side. There is what I think I know about my own capacity to choose things with some measure of volition.

And, in thinking about them as I do, it precipitates frames of mind that trouble me. I come into places like ILP and note this. How then are others either able to empathize with me or instead are completely at a loss in understanding them.

Exchanges commense. And they are either sustained with a mutual respect for each other's intelligence or they aren't.

In time, with many of them, one side or the other [or both] will pull out of them. For any number of reasons.

But here I always come back to the gap between what any of us think we know about these things and all that there actually is to know.


phyllo wrote: You're always going to find that gap and so it's unlikely that you can "figure out" anything.

My advice is not to focus on the gap.


Right, that will make it go away.

Huh? You're comparing taking aspirin for a headache to embodying distractions able to numb the brute facticity of an essentially meaningless world that tumbles over into oblivion?


phyllo wrote: Yes I am. Your distractions are aspirin or morphine for your mind.


Well, here we will just have to agree to disagree. The gap between them is, in my view, enormous.

Yes, I really would like to come upon arguments that might "for all practical purposes" help me to "figure out" the three things I noted above. And I am more than willing to at least make the attempt to understand the experiences of others that helped them.


phyllo wrote: Whatever they say, you're going to find "the gap" or "the existential contraption".


Well, yes, the gap is always there. No matter the context.

But the part about "existential contraptions" can only be explored as it pertains to a particular context. In other words, there are things we seem able to demonstrate to each other are true for all of us and there are things we seem unable to.

With things like Communism there are any number of facts that are "existential contraptions" only in the sense that actual individuals had actual personal experiences with it in actual contexts.

But when the discussion shifts to judging those experiences as more or less rational and more or less virtuous, that's a very different kind of "existential contraption".

Unless, of course, we do live in an entirely determined universe. Then they are essentially interchangeable.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:03 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:I provided you with the necessary conditions for a rational conversation between you and I... and you question their value?

We have no basis then, on which to conduct this conversation...


Okay, that's your bottom line. Mine revolves more around the assumption that, as with many here, you have no real interest in bringing your "technical philosophy" down out of the clouds.


What, like physically? or do you mean conversationally?



What I mean is that starting with your first point...

"1. Systems are not slaves to the rules that govern their fundamental building blocks... they subsume those rules and build their own rules from them."

...we focus in on a particular system in a particular context. One that most here will be familiar with. An economic system. A political system. A system that revolves around a business or a sporting event or a social gathering or a religious experience.

A system where actual men and women interact by making choices. Choices that others react to as either reasonable or unreasonable. As either moral or immoral. As either autonomous or determined.

What might constitute slavery in this particular system? What is the relationship between the rules that are or are not followed and what are deemed to be the fundamental building blocks?

Mad Man P wrote: Because if it's the latter we first need to have a foundation for a productive conversation...


What do you mean by a "foundation"?

Do you mean that before we actually bring the words out into the world we must first be entirely in sync with regard to their definitions?

If so, then I am willing to abide by the definitions that you give them. I just want to take the meaning that you do ascribe to them out into the world of actual human interactions.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Jakob » Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:25 pm

The gap is cowardice, lack of soul.
Or you might call it instrumentalist hedonism.

The 'cure' is simply : fight for your values. This is assuming you have values.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6097
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Jakob » Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:27 pm

That 's what the OP could be seen as addressing, isn't it -- existence, eg valuing, eg fighting, or iambs hole, oblivion, retreat into the primordial mud.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6097
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:45 pm

Jakob wrote: The gap is cowardice, lack of soul.
Or you might call it instrumentalist hedonism.


I promise not to ask you what this means if you promise not to tell me.

Jakob wrote:The 'cure' is simply : fight for your values. This is assuming you have values.


On the other hand, folks have been fighting for their values now for thousands of years. The rest is history.

A few have even insisted that their own values are derived...ontologically.

And, sure, let's all just assume that we are entirely free to fight for them.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby phyllo » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:47 pm

How on earth could you possibly grasp the meaning and the nature of time itself?

You may not like me pointing it out but speculation of this sort is no less subsumed in the "unknown unknowns" that stand between what you think you know about it here and now and all that can be known about it going back to how it is wholly integrated into all that can be known about the meaning and nature of existence itself.
You're so disconnected from reality that even 'past', 'present' and 'future' are too complicated for you? :shock:

And let's see, you want to discuss stuff that's more complex. #-o
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Jakob » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:56 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Jakob wrote: The gap is cowardice, lack of soul.
Or you might call it instrumentalist hedonism.


I promise not to ask you what this means if you promise not to tell me.

Im a bit impertinently summarizing you. No one likes to be summarized, but you make it too easy.

Jakob wrote:The 'cure' is simply : fight for your values. This is assuming you have values.


On the other hand, folks have been fighting for their values now for thousands of years. The rest is history.

Lol, no dude, "folks have been fighting for their values for thousands of years" is itself an account of history.

You think all these people were in holes, but that is because you got scared when you had to fight.

Cowardice dug your hole.
Or just the bad judgment of being obedient to the wrong master.

Your character is what is at fault for producing your hole, nothing else.

A few have even insisted that their own values are derived...ontologically.

Do you mean "value ontology"? In that case youve not understood the theory.

And, sure, let's all just assume that we are entirely free to fight for them.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

Lets not.

Because if we were free it wouldn't be much of a fight, would it?

:-?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6097
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:07 pm

phyllo wrote:
How on earth could you possibly grasp the meaning and the nature of time itself?

You may not like me pointing it out but speculation of this sort is no less subsumed in the "unknown unknowns" that stand between what you think you know about it here and now and all that can be known about it going back to how it is wholly integrated into all that can be known about the meaning and nature of existence itself.
You're so disconnected from reality that even 'past', 'present' and 'future' are too complicated for you? :shock:

And let's see, you want to discuss stuff that's more complex. #-o


Reduced once again to retorting...to making me the argument. And now with a little help from your friends. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:17 pm

Jakob wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Jakob wrote: The gap is cowardice, lack of soul.
Or you might call it instrumentalist hedonism.


I promise not to ask you what this means if you promise not to tell me.

Im a bit impertinently summarizing you. No one likes to be summarized, but you make it too easy.

Jakob wrote:The 'cure' is simply : fight for your values. This is assuming you have values.


On the other hand, folks have been fighting for their values now for thousands of years. The rest is history.

Lol, no dude, "folks have been fighting for their values for thousands of years" is itself an account of history.

You think all these people were in holes, but that is because you got scared when you had to fight.

Cowardice dug your hole.
Or just the bad judgment of being obedient to the wrong master.

Your character is what is at fault for producing your hole, nothing else.

A few have even insisted that their own values are derived...ontologically.

Do you mean "value ontology"? In that case youve not understood the theory.

And, sure, let's all just assume that we are entirely free to fight for them.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

Lets not.

Because if we were free it wouldn't be much of a fight, would it?

:-?



Note to others:

Your mission should you choose to accept it is find anything at all of substance in this post.

And then further to determine if you were in fact ever able to freely choose not to.

As for "value ontology" let him take that to a new thread. He can start it if he's interested.

I would love to bring that "intellectual contraption" down to earth!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby phyllo » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
How on earth could you possibly grasp the meaning and the nature of time itself?

You may not like me pointing it out but speculation of this sort is no less subsumed in the "unknown unknowns" that stand between what you think you know about it here and now and all that can be known about it going back to how it is wholly integrated into all that can be known about the meaning and nature of existence itself.
You're so disconnected from reality that even 'past', 'present' and 'future' are too complicated for you? :shock:

And let's see, you want to discuss stuff that's more complex. #-o


Reduced once again to retorting...to making me the argument. And now with a little help from your friends. :wink:
There's a minimum level of comprehension which required to discuss these ideas.

If you can't understand 'past', 'present' and 'future' then you don't meet that minimum level.

That's all there is to it. :character-willie:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:40 pm

phyllo wrote:There's a minimum level of comprehension which required to discuss these ideas.

If you can't understand 'past', 'present' and 'future' then you don't meet that minimum level.

That's all there is to it.



Okay, so what do you think [at a minimal level] these folks understand about them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI ... e=youtu.be

"The sharp difference we see between the past, present and the future may only be an illusion."

Now, let's see how clever you can be this time. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby phyllo » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:45 pm

Okay, so what do you think [at a minimal level] these folks understand about them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI ... e=youtu.be

"The sharp difference we see between the past, present and the future may only be an illusion."

Now, let's see how clever you can be this time.
We are not moving at anywhere near the speed of light relative to each other. That video is not applicable to the discussion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Meno_ » Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:33 am

signals which transmit at the rate of electromagnetic radiations/signals. ... However "speed of light" generally signifies speed of light in vacuum and the brain is no vacuum, therefore no the thinking is not faster than speed of light.


This is relevant to the idea that we can only outguess consequential ideas , relatively speaking.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:58 am

phyllo wrote:We are not moving at anywhere near the speed of light relative to each other. That video is not applicable to the discussion.


I don't pretend to fully grasp the science here but that hypothetical alien was described as either moving away or toward us at a "leisurely pace". He pedals away from us and his now is our past. He pedals towards us and his now is our future.

The suggestion then being [if I understood Brian Greene] that the past, present and future all exist all the time.

But: How close or how far is what Greene thinks is true here from all that there is to know about spacetime going back to a complete understanding of existence itself?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby phyllo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:17 am

I don't pretend to fully grasp the science here but that hypothetical alien was described as either moving away or toward us at a "leisurely pace". He pedals away from us and his now is our past. He pedals towards us and his now is our future.
Yeah, that alien is 10 billion light years away. What does his present have to do with our present, past or future? Nothing.
The suggestion then being [if I understood Brian Greene] that the past, present and future all exist all the time.
Sure, he can make some mathematical or computer model and now he thinks he sees a big picture - he has some sort of 'scientific' version of a God's eye view of everything. He can see an alien and human, who are 10 billion light years apart, simultaneously. Let's call it entertaining fun.

If we are talking about our actual situation, we are talking about people in close proximity, moving slowly relative to each other. The past, present and future is as we experience it. It is within grasp of our understanding.

You're living life sequentially. It's demonstrably true for everyone. Why deny it?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby gib » Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:29 am

iambiguous wrote:The suggestion then being [if I understood Brian Greene] that the past, present and future all exist all the time.


This is one of those ideas that ought to be phrased very carefully. What do we mean by "all the time"? Certainly, the future doesn't exist in the past. But it does mean that the past and the future are "set" (so to speak). What Greene, Einstein, Minkowski and others along this line of thought are talking about is a higher atemporal context from which to talk about time as though it were a lower dimension akin to the 3 dimensions of space. We thus come to visualize it in a mental model. This mental model has time pictured as a spatial dimension, the effect being that it looks like it all exists "at the same time." <-- But the "time" in that phrase is just the time that passes in the atemporal context, which of course isn't real. It only seems to exist because, in all thought experiments, it must.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8773
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Meno_ » Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:22 am

Or, that existence in reference to time can only exist in the present, and since past time in this schema never meets the criteria of existence, nor the future, they do not exist in other then the present.

This is not merely a mind game, but a qualifier for setting the difference between time as existence, and non existence.

Non existential time becomes the mode of becoming the nothingness through which that becomes conscious of It's self. It's Being, or Dasein.


Let me be clearer gin.
Mind games are restricted to qualified existence present , without a necessary (logical) connection to the past, as some kind of necessity without which a present is inconceivable for all practical purposes. Game theory may have seeds of earlier archaic notions which may be traced to their sources , as most games have evolved into then higher realms of their significance.

However such re-flex (reflection) is only possible through filling in probable moves, as in chess, and connect it with such advanced games as prisoners play in confined-bounded space. (that's why they are of in dilemma)

The Reflexivity in to the black and white moves of probable best moves are bounded as well in chess into that particular move"s possibility within the limiting context of that particular move. The movement itself changes the position of the moved piece in addition of changing the context within which the move is made.

Thinking in terms of all possible moves without considering the changing context that the movement creates, explodes the possible moves quantitavely approaching infinity as the game progresses.

The game is, to selimit that explosive quantifiable evolution into boundedness, in order, ........to set up a schematized way to achieve systems which will lead toward a superior progression in the beast con front ation, (see the carefully spelled and disassociated meaning structure here)
The logic of confrontation is simplified literally as black against white, in actuality they are not negated in absolute opposition, but changing the timing isn't He spatial arrangement which is consistent with the expected content with future contextual arrangements between pieces within their changing contextual relations.
Early on, this was not understood as exclusionary tactics ofnxhanfing boundaries, which is what future time is, but simply thought them as an exclusion of all possible moves from the right one. The right one delimited all non ideal moves as wrong.

This started the idea of terminating the past set up into then futire, eclipsing the nothingness of the idea of an existential present.

This re-flexion can be generalized as the evolving entrance into conscious manifestation of the reflective process .
The game really subsist in this very early methodology for gaining consciousness through play.

The child can be seen to play games in order. to. utilize and unknown past into a present future, by adapting established rules to the myriad possibilities that need to be schematized for further utilization.

The Mind game turns on existential requirements, that rest on what appears as the future foundation of adapting to future unknown requirements. Even the earliest games have this reflexive requirement , and the various mathematical scenarios merely substantiate the most formal elements of the game.

The theory in It's self umderstands it not as a result of exclusion, but of co-operation through identification through correlation. There isn't He bog difference between cooperation and an operation through its lack.

The beginning dynamics lacked the game through co operation, but saw it as an existential requirement to avoid conflict which would inhibit future possibilities.

The game become structural only to further its applicability with increasing utility which requires more and more compatibility through resembling rather then contrasting identifiable use.

The game becomes a way to become conscious through evolving connections as a non conscious effort to discover the best way to exist and survive.


Post script: that is why the fact of knowledge being based on a learning experience cannot separate what has been learned in the past from what is learned now, with an eye to the future, thereby De-differentiating the learner from the learned, especially with conjectural hypothesis tied to the earliest modes of re-flection.
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby Mad Man P » Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:What do you mean by a "foundation"?

Do you mean that before we actually bring the words out into the world we must first be entirely in sync with regard to their definitions?

If so, then I am willing to abide by the definitions that you give them. I just want to take the meaning that you do ascribe to them out into the world of actual human interactions.


By "foundation" I mean we need to have an agreement about how we conduct ourselves that allows us to collaborate in a productive way.
We need shared definitions but also an agreement to adhere to the laws of logic and the value of reason, so as to remain coherent and retain the ability to communicate.
Also there's an element of good will that we have to agree to... because our language isn't precise and requires some interpretation
I will try to respond to the most charitable interpretation of you that I can think of... and I expect you to do the same

Assuming you can agree to all of that... we have a foundation on which we can build.

iambiguous wrote:What I mean is that starting with your first point...

"1. Systems are not slaves to the rules that govern their fundamental building blocks... they subsume those rules and build their own rules from them."

...we focus in on a particular system in a particular context. One that most here will be familiar with. An economic system. A political system. A system that revolves around a business or a sporting event or a social gathering or a religious experience.

A system where actual men and women interact by making choices. Choices that others react to as either reasonable or unreasonable. As either moral or immoral. As either autonomous or determined.

What might constitute slavery in this particular system? What is the relationship between the rules that are or are not followed and what are deemed to be the fundamental building blocks?


I realize you're engaged in many other conversations and may not recall the context... You and I seem to have a disagreement about whether or not choice can exist in a deterministic universe.

That particular tautology was meant to explain how one might have a system like say "human brains" be capable of things that the atoms they are made up of are not capable of.

A real world example for us to examine would be the computer in front of me...
My computer is made up of atoms and it can run windows, go online, do math, load up ILP

How can atoms run windows, go online, do math or load up ILP?
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2456
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:41 pm

phyllo wrote:
I don't pretend to fully grasp the science here but that hypothetical alien was described as either moving away or toward us at a "leisurely pace". He pedals away from us and his now is our past. He pedals towards us and his now is our future.
Yeah, that alien is 10 billion light years away. What does his present have to do with our present, past or future? Nothing.


Sure, maybe nothing. Again, that depends on two things:

1] the extent to which you understand Brian Greene's assumptions about time in the video
2] the extent to which his assumptions in the video are or are not in sync with an understanding the "right answer"

Then we're back to the gap between what you or I think we know about all of this here and now and all that there is to be known about it. By, say, God. Or by an entity in the universe able to actually grasp why there is something instead of nothing. And why this something and not another.

The suggestion then being [if I understood Brian Greene] that the past, present and future all exist all the time.


phyllo wrote: Sure, he can make some mathematical or computer model and now he thinks he sees a big picture - he has some sort of 'scientific' version of a God's eye view of everything. He can see an alien and human, who are 10 billion light years apart, simultaneously. Let's call it entertaining fun.


Actually, I'm inclined to agree. On the other hand, Brian Greene -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene -- is likely to know considerably more about the science here than you and I. Though, sure, in "popularizing" this sort of thing for the masses, who knows just how far his own leaps of faith are.

phyllo wrote: If we are talking about our actual situation, we are talking about people in close proximity, moving slowly relative to each other. The past, present and future is as we experience it. It is within grasp of our understanding.


In other words, if others want to grasp it, they will understand it as you do. Time than becoming just another rendition of Communism. Though to the best of my knowledge Communism is applicable only here on Earth while time itself is embedded throughout the entire...multiverse?

phyllo wrote: You're living life sequentially. It's demonstrably true for everyone. Why deny it?


Sort of like saying, "We live our lives autonomously. It's demonstrably true for everyone. Why deny it?"

Ever the objectivists aren't you? :wink:
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:01 pm

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:The suggestion then being [if I understood Brian Greene] that the past, present and future all exist all the time.


This is one of those ideas that ought to be phrased very carefully. What do we mean by "all the time"? Certainly, the future doesn't exist in the past. But it does mean that the past and the future are "set" (so to speak). What Greene, Einstein, Minkowski and others along this line of thought are talking about is a higher atemporal context from which to talk about time as though it were a lower dimension akin to the 3 dimensions of space. We thus come to visualize it in a mental model. This mental model has time pictured as a spatial dimension, the effect being that it looks like it all exists "at the same time." <-- But the "time" in that phrase is just the time that passes in the atemporal context, which of course isn't real. It only seems to exist because, in all thought experiments, it must.


Again, I think the part some of us are most discomfitted by here, is the seeming fact that not only do we not have a comprehensive understanding of these relationships on the level of either the very, very big or the very, very small, but that we will almost surely go to grave no less ignorant.

We exist. But what does that mean? Ontologically? Teleologically? The part before we were born? The part after we die? The part from birth to death?

It's all just this gigantic mystery that the human mind may well not even be capable of grasping at all.

And then the part where we fit speculation of this sort into the lives that we live from day to day. In the either/or world. In the is/ought world.

And yet in either world it still comes down [for all practical purposes] to closing the gap between what we think is true "in our head" and what we are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think is true in turn.

What else is there?

Only on this thread it gets all the more problematic. Why? Because we don't seem to have the capacity to demonstrate that the thread itself either is or is not only as it ever could have been.

Call it, say, the "domino effect".

Or, perhaps, including even the human brain, the "butterfly effect"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby phyllo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:12 pm

Sure, maybe nothing. Again, that depends on two things:

1] the extent to which you understand Brian Greene's assumptions about time in the video
2] the extent to which his assumptions in the video are or are not in sync with an understanding the "right answer".

Then we're back to the gap between what you or I think we know about all of this here and now and all that there is to be known about it. By, say, God. Or by an entity in the universe able to actually grasp why there is something instead of nothing. And why this something and not another.
Here you are again basing your argument on the general, abstract and scholastic.

The video has nothing to do with anything that we experience.

Why don't you take it "out of the clouds", or in this case "out of other galaxies", and bring it "down to earth".
phyllo wrote:
If we are talking about our actual situation, we are talking about people in close proximity, moving slowly relative to each other. The past, present and future is as we experience it. It is within grasp of our understanding.

Iambif replied:
In other words, if others want to grasp it, they will understand it as you do. Time than becoming just another rendition of Communism. Though to the best of my knowledge Communism is applicable only here on Earth while time itself is embedded throughout the entire...multiverse?
Notice that when I try to keep the discussion "down to earth", you go off into the abstract of hypothetical aliens 10 billion light years away.
Sort of like saying, "We live our lives autonomously. It's demonstrably true for everyone. Why deny it?"

Ever the objectivists aren't you?
So you're saying that the sequence of time cannot be demonstrated to be true for everyone?

If that can't be demonstrated, then what the fuck can be demonstrated???
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:55 pm

phyllo wrote:
Sure, maybe nothing. Again, that depends on two things:

1] the extent to which you understand Brian Greene's assumptions about time in the video
2] the extent to which his assumptions in the video are or are not in sync with an understanding the "right answer".

Then we're back to the gap between what you or I think we know about all of this here and now and all that there is to be known about it. By, say, God. Or by an entity in the universe able to actually grasp why there is something instead of nothing. And why this something and not another.


Here you are again basing your argument on the general, abstract and scholastic.


As I noted above, with respect to such things as a complete understanding of spacetime, sure, we can go the route that Brian Greene as taken. We can become an actual theoretical physicist with the education and the background to discuss these things in a considerably more informed manner.

Or we can dabble in it as most of us here do. Simply trying our best to grasp the points that folks like Newton and Einstein and Hawking were making.

But the bottom line is that none of us were around when space and time came into existence. If in fact they have not always existed. And we can't exactly go to youtube and watch videos of existence itself coming into existence.

And yet a week from now you will no doubt be here making the same [in my opinion] lame objection.

phyllo wrote: The video has nothing to do with anything that we experience.


Exactly!! But then most of us haven't experienced a landing on the Moon.

phyllo wrote: Why don't you take it "out of the clouds", or in this case "out of other galaxies", and bring it "down to earth".


A retort about me again. It's like you are human yo-yo. One post you are up making intelligent observation about something, then the next post you are down fulminating about one or another alleged defect of mine.

Now, you know what I think motivates this, right? :wink:

phyllo wrote: If we are talking about our actual situation, we are talking about people in close proximity, moving slowly relative to each other. The past, present and future is as we experience it. It is within grasp of our understanding.


In other words, if others want to grasp it, they will understand it as you do. Time than becoming just another rendition of Communism. Though to the best of my knowledge Communism is applicable only here on Earth while time itself is embedded throughout the entire...multiverse?


phyllo wrote: Notice that when I try to keep the discussion "down to earth", you go off into the abstract of hypothetical aliens 10 billion light years away.


Note to others:

By all means come to your own conclusions about this sort of thing.

Sort of like saying, "We live our lives autonomously. It's demonstrably true for everyone. Why deny it?"

Ever the objectivist aren't you?


phyllo wrote: So you're saying that the sequence of time cannot be demonstrated to be true for everyone?


No, I'm suggesting that until we have a complete understanding of the relationship between spacetime and the existence of existence itself there will be conflicting theoretical conjectures about how mere mortals here on planet Earth ought to understand it. Let alone demonstrate to others that how they think they understand it is how all rational men and women are obligated to understand it.

phyllo wrote: If that can't be demonstrated, then what the fuck can be demonstrated???


Many, many, many things it would seem. I think it can be demonstrated that you and I exist. That ILP exists. That this thread on ILP exists. That Don Trump is president of the United States. That the Vatican exists. That Bush 41 just died. That an understanding of the laws of physics have allowed us to think up and to create lots and lots of amazing technologies.

That is, assuming all of this is not just part of some sim world, or demonic dream, or an entirely solipsistic creation. Or that we don't actually reside in one or another matrix. Or that all of it was only ever as it could have been given the laws of matter.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27752
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Something Instead of Nothing

Postby phyllo » Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:26 pm

As I noted above, with respect to such things as a complete understanding of spacetime, sure, we can go the route that Brian Greene as taken. We can become an actual theoretical physicist with the education and the background to discuss these things in a considerably more informed manner.

Or we can dabble in it as most of us here do. Simply trying our best to grasp the points that folks like Newton and Einstein and Hawking were making.

But the bottom line is that none of us were around when space and time came into existence. If in fact they have not always existed. And we can't exactly go to youtube and watch videos of existence itself coming into existence.

And yet a week from now you will no doubt be here making the same [in my opinion] lame objection.
I might be here pointing out that you keep asking people to bring their arguments "down to earth" and then you go off into the clouds whenever you think you can score a point with it.
Exactly!! But then most of us haven't experienced a landing on the Moon.
Nobody experienced anything even remotely prior to 1959. Then a large number of people experienced it in a variety of ways.
A retort about me again. It's like you are human yo-yo. One post you are up making intelligent observation about something, then the next post you are down fulminating about one or another alleged defect of mine.
If you recognized what you do in these posts, then that would be progress.
No, I'm suggesting that until we have a complete understanding of the relationship between spacetime and the existence of existence itself there will be conflicting theoretical conjectures about how mere mortals here on planet Earth ought to understand it. Let alone demonstrate to others that how they think they understand it is how all rational men and women are obligated to understand it.
Your point can be summed up as "You can't demonstrate anything."
Many, many, many things it would seem. I think it can be demonstrated that you and I exist. That ILP exists. That this thread on ILP exists. That Don Trump is president of the United States. That the Vatican exists. That Bush 41 just died. That an understanding of the laws of physics have allowed us to think up and to create lots and lots of amazing technologies.
Bullshit. You can't even demonstrate the sequence of time. There is no past, present and future. It's all the fucking same. That means :
I always existed. IPL always existed. The Vatican always existed.
Trump was president. Trump is president. Trump will be president.
Bush 41 isn't even born yet. Bush 41 is alive. Bush 41 is dying right now. Bush 41 was/is/will-be always dead.

Do you get how stupid your position is??
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]