No ramble, o'mind; thank you for challenging me to make some sense! :) The problem with reality, i find, is what it means without the observer view (with all of the limitations you pointed out in your earlier post); our experiences are real enough, to us for sure; are they "objectively real"?, Well, if enough of us coalesce around a sequence of ideas, events, observations, or outcomes, then they must be, in a sense. Until an epistemic disruption shifts our collective view. And so the process goes on.
I think you're right though, in pointing out the possible limitations of building "from the bottom up", as it were, and the difficulty with a firmer grasp of Infinity and Eternity with the "tools" we have. Do i think that there is great merit to a holistic "faith based" logical approach? Certainly. Do i think that one approach is more merit- worthy? Personally, i have no idea; maybe ask me again in a few years if this group is still going :). What do you think? How would you arrive at Certainty? On Jun 14, 4:52 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Thanks for all of the clarification paradox! > > Continuing to explore this ‘thought stream’, as to your most recent > input about infinity alone, to me using the notion of ‘spatial > extension’ seems to miss reality. Using an analogy, such an activity > just seems to be not clear nor possible much in the way of Zeno’s most > popular presentations. Of course, I freely admit that you appear to be > linking all three notions: infinity, eternity, uncertainty and in a > very clear and succinct manor. > > Not wishing to quit the discussion just yet, I’ll say that as a mental > exercise, your presentation is quite interesting and fairly > consistent. Beyond that realm, for me though, it misses much. Yes, > there is value for us in using approximations. However, if one is > searching for the all and the everything, a larger purview is > required, no? Rather than just exploring things temporal, things > eternal need to be addressed too, no? > > Overall, your logic is fine as far as it goes. I find that limiting > one’s exploration to one type of logic or another is just that though, > limiting. Case in point, no, being in a state of certainty/uncertainty > does not ‘annihilate all’ as is obvious. Yet recognizing this doesn’t > mean that humanity isn’t at once certain and uncertain. > > Most logics so far just don’t address reality adequately let alone > reality-as-such. This is underscored by all of the ambivalence so far > of both certainty and uncertainty. To be certain, something I assume > to be the goal, a different logic is needed. > > Sorry for the ramble… > > On Jun 14, 1:53 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
