Michael --
MP: Infinitesimal. "Yeah, yeah, that's it! That's the word!" ;-)
Although I think "infinite" worked well too. It is a point,
with no dimension. It is infinitesimal in that regard. In that sense,
though I find it unclear how you can not call that "nothing"
as you used the term above. If it has no dimension, being
smaller than anything, including itself, how can it be "thing"?
For a term that approximates nothing at all, "nothingness" holds continuing
interest for me. What you are describing -- a dimensionless point -- also
intrigued the French philosopher Pascal, who in his "Pensees" introduced the
notion of "infinitesimilitude" as the hypothetical basis for a single-point
universe. I quote this in my website thesis as follows:
"Do you believe it to be impossible that God is infinite, without parts?
Yes. I wish therefore to show you an infinite and indivisible thing. It is
a point moving everywhere with an infinite velocity; for it is one in all
places and is all totality in every place."
Only, in Pascal's example, it is the infinitesimal point's "motion" at
infinite velocity which describes the universe. It seems to me, however,
that a virtual nothingness moving at infinite speed is more suitable for a
sci-fi classic than a metaphysical ontology. For if the resulting
"holographic" image is indeed the experienced universe in its perceived
arrangement, why do we need a fleeting point to paint it? Isn't it more
plausible that the order of this system reflects the relationship of the
Creator to the subject who perceives it? In other words, might not the
design or pattern of the universe be a cosmic principle embedded in
value-sensibility itself which the intellect then objectivizes as "being"?
Since I define the cognitive subject as "value-sensibility", and
experiential reality as "actualized value", this concept is a basic premise
of Essentialism.
It also however contains all the known universe, which we at this
point consider to be infinite. That point is also then infinite in our
understanding of "things." Yet it is infinitesimal; so small that it
"isn't."
Its a self contradictory paradox. We can't really fully conceive it,
yet we can conceive it enough to recognize it is in someway real.
Clearly, we don't understand "things" well enough to pronounce
that something cannot come from nothing when we are willing to
suggest infinity can be contained within infinitesimality and be ok with
it.
Your contention that "nothing" divides or separates entities presumes
a definition of entity to be a certain way, it presumes a certain
understanding of "thing." I could just as easily argue splitting
something in two and separating it with nothing creates something
from nothing, no? I put the nothing into something and it became
two things....
In fact, I make this very argument in the Differentiation section of my
website, which I suggest that you read at
http://www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reflect.
"To divide a circle in half, one describes a line through the axis
connecting the periphery. Geometrically, of course, the diameter has no
dimension - it is a nothingness. Yet its "presence" creates something new
and different: a pair of semicircles. This delimiting or differentiating
process applies to all experienced phenomena. Every object and event in
nature is separated from every other by the nothingness between them. Since
everything that has "being" is differentiated by nothingness, and being is
what we call "reality", without nothingness our reality could not exist."
So while that is an extremely childish and simplistic "refutation"
of the "can't get something from nothing" claim, it works just fine
in its own limited system of understanding. Now, presume for a
moment that the greatest human understanding is equally simplistic
to a far greater understanding.
Getting my drift?
I certainly do, and you have proven yourself a theorist after my heart ;-).
What if "all" just "is" and the "things" we can perceive to "be" or
to "not be" (as in "nothing") aren't an accurate understanding of this
"is" at all? What if they are just crude approximations of what's
going on? If they are, we really can't rely on "thing" to be that
which we use to explain reality unless we are willing to accept
that "thing" is only a crude tool we use to pretend we can
approximate an understanding of that which leads us to use the
word to describe it in the first place.
Perception is reality, and if reality is infinite, our perception of it
can never be more than infinitesimal. And that has some truly
unfortunate implications for our existence. ;-)
Well stated, Michael. I couldn't put it better myself. However, I would
amend your final thought that the limitations of perception are
"unfortunate". It's my conviction that the inaccessibility of absolute
knowledge is necessary for the 'value agent' to exercise free choice. For
if we possessed such wisdom, freedom would be impossible and life's journey
would be meaningless. Besides, people like Platt with high
value-sensibility would no longer be awed by the beauty of a mountain
sunset.
You are thinking a lot like me, which is a rare pleasure -- especially
considering that such thoughts are being expressed on the MoQ forum.
I'm even beginning to entertain hope that you may become my first known
"convert"!
Essentially yours,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
