A friend and I had the same scores on our GRE- high verbals- dismal math- yet the English Department didn't care about the math. Both of us got to the edge of an M.A. and quit. It doesn't add up!
On Jun 13, 5:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Paradox, if you are asking whether I care about what you propose, the > answer is not so much. If you are asking whether I would embrace same, > I still don’t know because I have no idea how your term of ‘suggests’ > is being used. IF it means that your proposal states all of the above > as fact, truth, whatever, no, I don’t think so. > > Quick reason or two for not accepting it: As I see it, conceptually, > the notion of eternity doesn’t actually negate the notion of time. > Now, if I’m asked about how I experience it, while in a state that > experiences eternity, when I think about time, by that very act, I’ve > moved from the former. I say this even though on occasion both can be > apprehended concurrently. > > For time *and* space, what we think about conceptually is not eternity > nor infinity since, at least from my perspective, even though there > are definitions of both, even Aristotle’s “True Opinion” isn’t the > direct apprehension of eternity nor infinity. This would be relegated > to what is called ‘The Fifth’. > > Uncertainty is just that…not being certain of something. Some whose > philosophy is founded upon relativism would use it to explain such > types of not knowing for sure. So, in that sense, one can be uncertain > yet think about and/or have notions of eternity/time and infinity/ > space. > > In short, in an integral way one can think about anything and > experience about anything. > > As an aside, archy mentions infinity and maths. While in high school, > many decades ago, I remember reading a book about the infinite number > of types of infinity. It made a type of sense and was at the very > least interesting. > > Of course, the notion of infinity is found in more common areas of > math such as a quantity being divided by a number which approaches > zero…the result approaches infinity. This very math is found in > Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity having to do with what happens > when something approaches the speed of light. (with a radical in a > denominator approaching zero) ...at least as best as I can > remember...it has been over 50 years since I read and studied it. > > On Jun 13, 9:51 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, could you live with a proposition that suggests, conceptually, > > Eternity negates Time, Infinity negates Space, and Uncertainty negates > > both? > > > On Jun 13, 11:05 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > “Ok, lets think about this in another way; so how would you describe > > > what the three concepts mean to you? Eternity, Infinity, and > > > Uncertainty? “ – 2MDs, AKA Paradox ;-) > > > > I’m not sure how to fit those notions into the current thread to > > > respond Paradox. In general, Eternity is not having a beginning nor > > > end. Infinity in most concepts does not have limits either; however, > > > in specific uses such as distances in curved space, there exist > > > theories about being at once bounded and limitless. > > > > Uncertainty is even harder for me to pinpoint. About the best I can do > > > is to say one isn’t sure and/or doesn’t know about something. > > > > I hope these address your new tack. > > > > On Jun 13, 1:25 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ok, lets think about this in another way; so how would you describe > > > > what the three concepts mean to you? Eternity, Infinity, and > > > > Uncertainty? > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:21 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > “… one ends up with an interesting range of computations... “ – > > > > > paradox > > > > > > Perhaps…and this is all quite fine *if* one is looking for something > > > > > that is ‘interesting’. > > > > > > Personally, it would seem that one simultaneously knows both time and > > > > > no-time, place (space) and no-position, uncertainty and certainty. > > > > > Overall, I find little of interest with probability when one is > > > > > recognizing what eternity is. Of course, computations only work within > > > > > one realm. > > > > > > On Jun 11, 10:23 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It's a very complex one this, o'mind; and you point to some real > > > > > > limitations to our understanding. > > > > > > > I guess one way to simplify the question, as a thought experiment, > > > > > > is > > > > > > to model the question along 3 axes; space / time / uncertainty (ala > > > > > > quantum mechanics but on a cosmic scale); my sense is the bigger the > > > > > > "space" number, the smaller the "time" number, the higher the > > > > > > probability number (and the inverse ought to hold true); one ends up > > > > > > with an interesting range of computations... > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:09 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > There are numerous proposals as to how the future will manifest. > > > > > > > Of > > > > > > > course, there are also prophesies – most of which can be found > > > > > > > online > > > > > > > too. It is quite amazing to see how many people today see > > > > > > > themselves > > > > > > > as true prophets. . .in fact, Google Groups is rife with them! > > > > > > > > Those who wish to know the future have an enormous smorgasbord to > > > > > > > select from. Of course, in so doing, one must rely upon faith - > > > > > > > unexamined acceptance, a sense of intuition, some form of analysis > > > > > > > acceptable to the shopper and/or numerous other methodologies. > > > > > > > Many of > > > > > > > us rely upon the words of others and if anything, merely adapt > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > current beliefs into something we can accept with little pain. > > > > > > > > The notion of time machines is nothing new either. How else could > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > know that which doesn’t yet exist…unless one embraces a system > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > includes past, present and future? Even here, by what means would > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > justify such a type of knowing? > > > > > > > > Gnosis has been referenced and apparently relegated to the trash > > > > > > > bin > > > > > > > of egoless being. > > > > > > > > What is left? The discussion can and no doubt will continue; > > > > > > > however, > > > > > > > the apparatus-observer complex is all too often ignored or at > > > > > > > best, > > > > > > > little understood. > > > > > > > > "Don't believe everything you think." - Bumper Sticker > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 11:55 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm not into the argument from design for proof of god - but > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > sure seems to be a shed load of designing features from physics > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > biology. I follow science enough to know it is not a > > > > > > > > rationalist > > > > > > > > fantasy or a blow-job from god. There are why and what for > > > > > > > > questions. There are very interesting question about god such > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > whether heorsheorit is helping us and if so why we don't know a > > > > > > > > purpose. As everything I've read about god has clearly involved > > > > > > > > ghastly manipulation for the purposes of social control and > > > > > > > > 'vicars' > > > > > > > > range from Ian Paisley to the Dali Lama with plenty of utterly > > > > > > > > hideous > > > > > > > > abuse (my own vicar was ace, a rabbi is my best friend, I > > > > > > > > listen in > > > > > > > > occasional awe to mullahs) all over, I tend to see official > > > > > > > > religionists as in it for vested or deluded interests and > > > > > > > > untrustworthy like politicians. This doesn't stop some > > > > > > > > religious > > > > > > > > people been decent, or as science demonstrates, that most of > > > > > > > > can get > > > > > > > > on, most of the time. What bothers me is the lack of dialogue > > > > > > > > about a > > > > > > > > future - it's as though we are gnostic and want to return to > > > > > > > > nothingness, or fatalistic and see no point. I can, of course, > > > > > > > > see a > > > > > > > > point in not striving for what's on offer in ADMASS and driven > > > > > > > > consuming. These might be arguments for hedonism if all we can > > > > > > > > do is > > > > > > > > sit about until evolution moves on from whatever we are. > > > > > > > > I want to know more about what's real about possible futures or > > > > > > > > go mad > > > > > > > > and really believe I'm turning my shed into an inter-galactic > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > machine. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:09 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A realist. :-) > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:54 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So, what are your choices, rigsy03? Go on, share...:) > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:59 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > True. I sure wish I'd figure out what I want to be when I > > > > > > > > > > > grow up! :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:45 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may be on to something here, archytas. There is > > > > > > > > > > > > some evidence that > > > > > > > > > > > > we are "editors" of real time; we can never actually > > > > > > > > > > > > "live" a moment; > > > > > > > > > > > > when you add photon travel time to neural processing > > > > > > > > > > > > time, to > > > > > > > > > > > > referential mapping, to consciousness, you get a huge > > > > > > > > > > > > great big gap in > > > > > > > > > > > > human "agency". > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 5:07 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I often find myself thinking about trance states and > > > > > > > > > > > > > how we could spot > > > > > > > > > > > > > them. The classic for me is that we are merely > > > > > > > > > > > > > vehicles for our > > > > > > > > > > > > > machine-like genes something I find 'true' and highly > > > > > > > > > > > > > unlikely until I > > > > > > > > > > > > > switch the tv on. I believe both that we are tranced > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that > > > > > > > > > > > > > ejukation is part of it. Various herd and pack > > > > > > > > > > > > > animals are quite > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly tranced in respect of leadership by > > > > > > > > > > > > > chemical-biological > > > > > > > > > > > > > means. We have some idea of the operation in humans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The networks of > > > > > > > > > > > > > our held world-views are highly self-deceptive and > > > > > > > > > > > > > not really amenable > > > > > > > > > > > > > to 'facts'. When we look scientifically, we > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
