"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".....O'mind
Yep, you're quite right, o'mind; but how does one get around it?? "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."...O'mind I've just downloaded "Theosis" by the venerable Abbot Archimandrite George; perhaps we can have an informed exchange once i've read it. On Jun 15, 1:22 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “… 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
