“… if enough of us coalesce around a sequence of ideas, events, observations, or outcomes, then they must be, [objectively real] in a sense. Until an epistemic disruption shifts our collective view. And so the process goes on. …” - Paradox
In a sense, yes…I agree. However, as this language implies, we are actually dealing with a reality of probability and/or one of consensus. . . neither of which is ‘real’ in any ultimate (objective) way. Thus, as you say, the process continues. “…What do you think? How would you arrive at Certainty? “ Paradox The best methodology I’ve found so far, without going into detail, is one that recognizes and is based upon the innate structure of the human mind. This apprehends directly. Along with other tenets, we are talking about Theosis here. On Jun 15, 1:43 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »
