I'm not proposing anything, o'mind; certainly not hoping you might "embrace" anything as yet; just seeing where this thought stream might lead to. The proposition, in short form, might read something like this: Infinity is spatial extension unbounded (be that dimensional multipliers or multidimensional branes); Eternity is temporal extension unbounded, there is neither direction nor calibration (save for chemical "markers"); so conceptually there cannot be absolute "points" in space/time; this is logical proof of Uncertainty. Without markers of relative (predictive) value, or Probability, all is equally certain, and all equally uncertain, which logically anhillates all. We know this not to be the case, since i sit here responding to your post; hence proof of Probability, assuming that you believe that i'm actually here responding :). So if we reverse-engineer this, Space and Time (or the past and the future) are inextricably linked to Uncertainty and Probability; if we can figure out approximations of that relationship, we are better equipped to tell what the future holds; the complexity is scalar, for which quantum mechanics might be insightful.
This might make sense, or not at all :) Its been a long day. On Jun 13, 11:05 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 -
