The issue of "exist" resolved

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Plasmatic » Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:47 am

Plasmatic,

the word "mircale" exists. But lets name the event exception.

It is not about valid and invalid. It is about locking out the exception from thoughts, equations and theories.


Im talking about the proposed existence of miracles not the word.This criteria makes the word invalid. Its not about "locking out exceptions". I have partaken in hundreds of experiences you would call a miracle. I used to do the same . That is until I understood what affirming the consequent meant and learned the Law of Identity.

The rule is that a certain species is a cat. Period. This is wrong in another framework. In a different framework a cat is a cat but sometimes on rare occasions its a spirit.



If you define "spirit" I can show you the misintegration.

It is not about showing something that is not what it is. Its not about prooving something. It is about having an "open slot" for exceptions in anything we do or think.


The only exception to the law of Identity would be non-identity. This is an axiomatic contradiction therfore an invalid concept .

Any exception has "endless" potential. This includes miracles and negation of any rule or reality.

Nothing is 100%, never. Logic does not allow to drop options. If we drop an option for the sake of conveniance then we play the game risc vs. chances. Playing is not logic, just conveniant or faster rewarding.


Its very simple M. You just made a "100 %" statement ["nothing"]. You have to use identity to try to refute it ,thats why its an axiom.As soon as you learn that the statement "anything is possible " is impossible youll regrow your minds wings and rejoin the realm of the living.


Those gaps are the points where we loose idendity and become part of something bigger


And now you know why these ideas are poison. Every tyrant has ascended to power on the backs of those who preached this message of self abnegation.



What is real anyway? This gives a whole new spin to philosophy


Theres nothing "new" about it. its the subject of the science of Metaphysics /Ontology. You dont know this because you dont
"play" philosophy.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:06 am

What is real anyway? This gives a whole new spin to philosophy.
-JL

Real: One or more shapes each with a location or a relationship among shapes with location.

Thats great and all, but do we know what is real>?
-JL

If it has shape and location it is "real" i.e. it exists. If you're asking how to decide what information/hypotheses/theories/etc. to accept or reject, this is a matter of applying epistemology (I call it the scientific method). Whatever you call it, it is set of criteria by which you evaluate ideas. I have gone over the scientific method several times on these boards in addition to defining "real". So, these questions are answered until someone else poses one or more alternative(s). Do you have an alternative version of "real" and another method by which you accept or reject theories?

I'll summarize the scientific method as concisely as possible here:

1) Hypothesis: Associated with assumptions and definitions. The proponent defines any strategic or subjective terms involved in his theory. The proponent points to the objects involved in the theory or models of the objects involved and names them. If the proponent cannot point to the object(s) or at least a model of it/them, the theory fails and is termed a "non-starter".

2) Theory: Associated with conceptualization. The proponent shows demonstrations or movies involving the objects pointed at to illustrate the concepts of the theory (concepts are relationships among objects such as distance, expansion, collision, rotation, acceleration, etc.). The proponent names particular interactions/motions. If the proponent uses any strategic or subjective terms not defined in the hypothesis the theory fails the test of internal consistency. If the proponent uses any objects in the conceptualization that were not pointed at/defined in the hypothesis, the theory fails. When the theory fails here we say it "failed conceptually" or "fails internal consistency".

3) Conclusion: Associated with explanation and discussion. The proponent explains observations in terms of the objects and concepts defined in the previous two steps. If the proponent attempts to use objects or concepts that were not defined in the first two steps then the theory fails and we call this "cheating" or "lying". After explaining observations the proponent is done with his presentation but the scientific method is not done. The audience now debates internally or discusses amongst themselves and may ask questions. Each individual decides to accept or reject the theory. There are only two reasons to reject a valid theory (a valid theory is one that passes the hypotheses, conceptualization, and explanation stages):

A) Another theory explains the same observations with fewer and/or simpler assumptions (in the hypothesis).
B) Another theory makes similar assumptions in the hypotheses but explains MORE observations.

This is the scientific method. Anyone who isn't following it either proposes their own method of determining "what is real" or they aren't doing science. So JL, you asked the question and I answered it. Will you be proposing your own methodology for us?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:32 am

It is not about valid and invalid. It is about locking out the exception from thoughts, equations and theories.
-Mague

If an observation conflicts with a theory that means one of two things:

A) Your theory is incorrect
B) You don't understand the observation

What you call "exceptions" are what teach us what we don't know. It's the process of science. Exceptions don't mean "anything is possible", they mean we have more to learn and comprehend.

In a different framework a cat is a cat but sometimes on rare occasions its a spirit.
-Mague

Define spirit? If "spirit" has the exact same identity as "cat" this is fine. If it does not this is a blatant violation of identity. Tell me flat out Mague, does 1=1?

t is about having an "open slot" for exceptions in anything we do or think. Our tongue has receptors for sweet, sour, bitter, soft and crunchy. If you lock out the receptors for sour you wont taste sour.
-Mague

This "exception" is a straw-man argument. Simply because the person cannot taste sour does not mean the person cannot distinguish a food that is sour from one that is not. The scenario is thus:

John knows that lemons are sour and apples are sweet. One day lemons don't taste sour. Shall he conclude:

A) The universe is non-causal, irrational, and impossible to understand
B) He no longer understands his observation (that this taste means that food)

If he does not deny his own existence and consciousness (accepts the axiom of identity) he will conclude on B. He will, from then on, differentiate between apples and lemons by another observational criteria (shape, color, pH, smell, etc.) that is NOT conflicting. If John has a progressively degenerative disease and loses sight, smell, feel, movement, etc. but retains his consciousness, he may not be able to distinguish two separate identities. But at this point, John will not even be aware there is a conflict because he will have NO observational criteria! He may not be able to conclude B any longer but he also still cannot conclude A!

Science and engineering deals with exeptions every day. But they look at them as errors/bugs/missconceptions.They do not investigate the exception itself.
-Mague

Incorrect. Engineers call them "bugs" because engineers care about building/inventing a device and not about science. Science calls them "opportunities". A good scientist ALWAYS investigates exceptions. There are very few good scientists left in the world (certainly none working at CERN). Almost everyone's an engineer today.

Any exception has "endless" potential. This includes miracles and negation of any rule or reality.
-Mague

Exception to identity? Just one question for you Mague, if you don't respond to anything else. Does 1=1? If you disagree this debate is pointless because you are denying identity, yourself, your consciousness, and your existence.

Logic cant understand the square root of 2.
-Mague

Here we need to distinguish between concrete concepts (relationships among concrete objects) and abstract concepts (relationships among abstract objects) . The number 2 is a concrete concept because it refers to a group of concrete objects. The square root of two has no direct physical significance, it is purely an abstract concept (a relationship among objects that are "imaginable" but not physically possible because they violate identity). When we solve equations we can use abstract concepts (consistently of course) to derive a result. The result is only physically meaningful if it refers to concrete objects. Therefore a "result" that includes irrational numbers, the square root of negative numbers, and the like is, at best, an abstract description with no bearing on reality/physics.

Humans have incredible powers of abstraction that leads to our creativity. The power of abstraction is the ability to discard the axiom of identity and imagine impossible situations purely for the sake of thought itself. Other animals may beat us in some aspects of intelligence but there is no known organism capable of pursuing lines of thought purely for the sake of thinking itself, without any bearing on reality. Fortunately humans also have the ability to recognize an abstraction/impossibility that LOOKS enough like reality to be useful. This allow us to, often mathematically, recognize trends without needing to understand EVERYTHING about the underlying cause. When the human forgets/disregards the fact that these thoughts are purely abstract the result is mysticism, religion, mathematical physics, etc. The result is self-contradiction, duality, paradox, denial of self, denial of existence, etc. One must never mistake a description (an abstraction that simulates reality) with reality itself.

Your move Mague. Does 1=1?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:41 am

Since Mague poses no further objection I will proceed.

Now that existence has been defined unambiguously we may begin to discuss its characteristics, its nature. There are some auxilliary definitions that are useful if one is not familiar with them (such as time, motion, etc.) and I have defined several at the bottom post here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1170

First off, a few minor details to tie up. I think JL asked me "why do objects have shape". I translate this sentence:

"Why do shapes have shape?"

And, as usual, JL has failed to make any insight or communicate any productive thought because of his blatant disregard for even the most basics of communication.

Still, some would like a definition of "shape" itself.

Shape: inability to blend or become continuous; possessing a continuous boundary; (syn.: discrete, finite).

Fundamentally, objects are finite. On the other hand the conceptual opposite:

Space: the absence of shape

Fundamentally space does not have a border because it is the opposite of that which does have a border.

So JL's question could be "Why is something finite finite?" or "Why is something finite discrete?" or, even more fundamentally: "Why is something what it is?"

Now, in studying existence it makes sense to either start at the top (class I) or bottom (class III). Since class III is where we feel most familiar it makes sense to start there, with the most fundamental class III.

We pose the question "Why is consciousness?". Why do we observe this phenomenon? It is a special relationship that requires a special condition to be met. We observe consciousness as a phenomenon exclusive to aggregates of objects. If the fundamental constituents of the universe simply bounced off each other with no further interaction, the universe would inevitably become impoverished of any interaction whatsoever. This is a universe of separate, discrete particles and there is only the force of push. There is no conceivable way to arrange any number of continuous separate objects in such a way that their paths will continue to intersect in perpetuity. Indeed, it is inevitable that they will never cross paths again. Consciousness cannot exist in such a universe, and we term it a divergent universe. It is devoid of both class II and class III existents (since class II's are predicated on the existence of class III's). A divergent universe is simply a collection of continuous objects changing location. We can provide a rigorous definition:

divergent universe: When the total distance between all continuous objects is *always* increasing, even on the smallest conceivable time scale.

An interesting side note is the concept known as "perfect vacuum". Here defined:

perfect vacuum: If, in a given region of space between at least two objects, no object is ever present.
C is between A and B: If a straight object with less width and height than A, B, or C were placed such that it goes through A, B, and C and the distance from A to B is always greater than the distance from A to C or from B to C.

So, in a divergent universe, perfect vacuum is attainable. Indeed it is the default by definition.

Consciousnesses requires interaction and thus the fundamental constituents of a universe to aggregate, to converge upon each other. In a convergent universe the total distance between continuous objects may increase momentarily, but never perpetually. The only conceivable mechanism for a convergent universe is that all continuous objects are physically connected. Try as you might, if you are physically connected to something there is only so much distance you can put between you and the something, assuming you don't break the connection (which you can't if it's continuous, by the definition of a continuous object). So, the qualitative explanation for the observation of the phenomenon known as "consciousness" is that every object in the universe is physically connected. This is also the only conceivable physical explanation for light. The observation that light always travels rectilinear can only be explained by a physical connection between every class I.

Also, in a convergent universe, perfect vacuum is absolutely unattainable by definition. If all C1's are physically connected then, in any region of space between them, it is inevitable that the C1's will converge upon this region of space between them. Note that, because we have laid out our logic rigorously, scientifically, and consistently we have come naturally to the correct conclusion (the one that explains ubiquitous observation). The conclusions follow logically from the premises.

On the other hand lizzie offers this quote to explain why perfect vacuum is never observed:

Nature never gives a vacuum consequently the space within the molecule not occupied by the atomic triplet must be filled with something. This is where the "all-prevading ether" has made its secret abode through untold aeons
-lizzie

I quote this not to attack her but to draw a contrast. Because the words "something", "vacuum", "space", and "ether" have not been defined we must infer their meaning. For one, the author proposes that vacuum is not attainable because ether fills all space. If vacuum is the absence of objects (conventional definition) then the author's argument must be that "ether" is the object that prevents perfect vacuum. Is the ether continuous or discontinuous? If it is continuous then it is also perfectly rigid by definition. How would anything move within a perfectly rigid medium? If it is discontinuous then it is a class II existent composed of smaller, continuous objects. What do they look like? What about the space between these objects that comprise the ether? In conclusion, the author's ether can't be continuous or nothing would move and if it is discontinuous it fails to corroborate his point.

So the author has failed to explain WHY perfect vacuum is not observed. This is primarily because he does not actually know what the words he's using mean. If he does, he has failed to communicate his explanation to anyone else and his theory is as useless right as it is if it is wrong. I have explained WHY perfect vacuum is not observed. I have learned something and explained it so others can know it. This should emphasize to everyone the importance of clear definitions and non self-contradiction. When we employ these methods our conclusions follow naturally from our premises.

Now we ask, is it possible for a convergent universe to become divergent? This is an incorrect question, however. A universe is either convergent or divergent by definition. However, we can ask if it is conceivable that the connection between some or all class I's may be broken? The answer to the latter questionis that, it is conceivable. Simply because objects are connected, does not require that they always be so. We can imagine continuous objects that look like ball and socket joints. A cylindrical object with a hollowed cavity on one end and a ball on the other. If the ball is inserted into the cavity the two objects are now connected (the cavity has a "neck" that is narrower than the radius of the ball. However, if the ball is not perfectly spherical, but rather is a spheroid, then when the ball is turned far enough in its socket it could present its thinner radius and slide out of the socket. If we imagine a universe of interconnected ball/socket joints like one big tangled rope we may ask,"What happens when/if a joint comes loose?" This depends on if the universe is closed loop or open loop. A closed loop universe is one where all class I's are interconnected such that there is no terminal link such as in a bicycle chain. An open loop universe is one where all class I's are interconnected but there is at least one terminal link (such as if you broke a bicycle chain in just one place but retained all the original pieces). If a joint comes loose in a closed loop universe then the universe simply becomes open loop. If a joint comes loose in an open-loop universe then it becomes two open-loop worlds (you broke the bicycle chain in half).

world: A set of interconnected continuous objects.

They are both still convergent because their class I's are interconnected, but they are no longer connected to each other. In the extreme case, every joint may come loose. Whether this actually happens or not depends on the precise nature of the fundamental constituent. If the fundamental constituent is such that the ball may never leave the socket, the universe may never split into multiple worlds. If the ball can leave the socket then the number of worlds depends on how difficult it is to remove the ball. The splitting off of worlds may be balanced, for instance, when two open loop worlds present their terminal ends to each other, the ball falls into the socket, and they may merge again. We distinguish two types of convergence:

Perfect Convergence: All class I's are permanently interconnected (one universe one world).

Equilibrium Convergence: The disconnection of class I's are exactly balanced by the reconnection of class I's (One universe with a number of worlds dependent upon the equilibrium between disconnection and reconnection).

Which type of world are we in? This problem is difficult because other worlds do not transmit light between each other, and light is the primary method of observation by humans. One way to tackle this problem is to discover the nature of the fundamental constituents. If it/they are interconnected in such a way that they are inseparable then we are certainly in a perfectly convergent world. Not necessarily in a perfectly convergent universe. We can imagine a set of continuous objects interconnected such that in one region the objects are separable from each other but not in the other region. Eventually those that are separable will separate from those that are permanently interconnected. This can result in one world with perfect convergence and at least one equilibrium convergent world. It is, of course, possible that some of the class I's will diverge perpetually if they are too loosely connected to other class I's.

It is also interesting to note that different worlds may possess different observed rates of the speed of light since its rate of propagation is fundamentally connected to the architecture of the fundamental constituent. Even more interesting to note is that an equilibrium convergent world will not necessarily have a "universally constant" speed of light. By definition the fundamental constituents of such a world are not all identical (or else they'd either all be too loose to stay together and diverge or they'd all be held tightly enough to be a perfectly convergent universe). Therefore, the observation of a constant speed of light is consistent with a perfectly convergent world with just a single type of fundamental constituent (all class I's have identical architecture). However, this is just one observation limited to whatever light we humans have been able to observe in our (potentially trivial) visible region so it is by no means conclusive.

Indeed, talk of "other dimensions" or "other universes" or "rips in space/time" are really discussions of other worlds that are invisible to us and discussions of the breaking off/reunification of class I's. They possess different physical laws simply because they are constituted of different fundamental constituents. Of particular note is the variation of light speed among different worlds (and within equilibrium convergent worlds). It is a bit disconcerting to note that these other worlds may be invisible to use but there is no reason to believe they will not interact with our world physically (via collision). This can explain any number of so-called "supernatural" or "mystical" phenomena in purely physical, causal, rational, and logical terms. Other worlds are still composed of physical objects and interact with each other and our world consistent with their identities. While there does not have to be anything supernatural/acausal going on, this line of reasoning does indicate that there is vastly more to study and learn about our universe than "meets the eye".

I have explained ubiquitous observation (lack of perfect vacuum) in addition to any number of inexplicable phenomena rationally by defining my terms rigorously and unambiguously then subsequently applying a self-consistent line of reasoning. Whereas many resort to non-causal, self-contradictory, or paradoxical explanations for such phenomena this discussion shows that this does not have to be the case.

The conclusions follow naturally from the premises.

I challenge other minds to engage in similar activity so that we may share our mental powers to teach and learn from each other (preferably in a separate thread). What I have constructed is certainly not "the only way" but it is definitely a way.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:14 pm

The issue of "exist" resolved :shock:
This is a problem whose solution has evaded the greatest minds of five continents for untold millenia. Now, our very own Altonhare has solved it right here in the Mad Ideas section. Who'd have thought it possible.

[I know, I know: define problem; define solution; define evaded; define greatest; define mind; define continent; define untold; define millenia; define solved; define thought; define possible; define define]
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:17 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:The issue of "exist" resolved :shock:
This is a problem whose solution has evaded the greatest minds of five continents for untold millenia. Now, our very own Altonhare has solved it right here in the Mad Ideas section. Who'd have thought it possible.

[I know, I know: define problem; define solution; define evaded; define greatest; define mind; define continent; define untold; define millenia; define solved; define thought; define possible; define define]


Do you have an actual objection or are you just claiming the issue is insoluble?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:26 pm

Define actual; define objection; define calim; define issue; define insoluble.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:54 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Define actual; define objection; define calim; define issue; define insoluble.


GC this is obnoxious. I have NEVER asked anyone to define every single word they use. I ask them to define the strategic and/or ambiguous terms. Strategic words are the ones that make or break your presentation. I have defined all my strategic terms and drawn some conclusions. Do you disagree with the definitions (premises) or the conclusions?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Nov 09, 2008 3:21 pm

Define obnoxious.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby mague » Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:14 am

altonhare wrote:
In a different framework a cat is a cat but sometimes on rare occasions its a spirit.
-Mague

Define spirit? If "spirit" has the exact same identity as "cat" this is fine. If it does not this is a blatant violation of identity. Tell me flat out Mague, does 1=1?

Your move Mague. Does 1=1?


The spirit does not have the same idendity. It is a blatant violation. It is an exception. It is very hard to translate shamanic terms into scientific/technical terms. There is even more to spirits. They not only violate identity. They violate space (distance) and time.

You have to take a step back and look at the 1. There is an unmeasurable quality to them. The blue one made with a ballpoint pen is different to the 1 painted with black charcol. The 1 i paint with charcoal is different form yours painted with charcoal. The 1 i draw with a marker in the morning is not the same 1 i draw in the evening. Those are unmeassurable "qualities". It is impossible to draw two identical 1's. They always differ. Either you draw one with the left and one with the right hand. Different quality of hand. You can use two pens in one hand. Different quality of pen. You draw one and very fast after another. Different quality of time. Within this framework there are never two equal 1's and 1 != 1. Within this fraemwork the 1 you write on the board at 6:30 in the morning might support the solution of the equation with its unique qualities, while the 1 at 7:30 is useless.

I admit that was a bit of bean counting. But the framework exists and is working for a long time now.

Allrigt. You will ask if the 1 you worte down yesterday is today the same 1. Its the same like with the cat. The 1 written down yesterday remains the same. It ages, but lets neglect this for now. It remains the same unless the exception occurs. Then it might be temporary or permanent something completely different. Lets asume you got a equation with a 1 in it. You work on the equation daily and the paper remains in your drawer. Whenever you look at the equation you can see the same 1. But suddenly a mild exception occurs and you cant see the equation anymore. All your brain/consciousness can do is to see the 1 as a man walking over a bridge. Depending on the exception you either will have to wait till its over or you will never solve the equation. The worst with it is the new problem. Whos the guy on the bridge ? ;)
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Plasmatic » Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:04 am

The spirit does not have the same idendity. It is a blatant violation. It is an exception. It is very hard to translate shamanic terms into scientific/technical terms. There is even more to spirits. They not only violate identity. They violate space (distance) and time.


You clearly have no concept of what identity means. Look out there and see that every thing is something in particular. You can only repeat the sounds of dualistic ideas as long as your concepts are disconnected from concretes.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby Divinity » Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:07 pm

altonhare wrote:
We pose the question "Why is consciousness?". Why do we observe this phenomenon? It is a special relationship that requires a special condition to be met. We observe consciousness as a phenomenon exclusive to aggregates of objects. If the fundamental constituents of the universe simply bounced off each other with no further interaction, the universe would inevitably become impoverished of any interaction whatsoever. This is a universe of separate, discrete particles and there is only the force of push. There is no conceivable way to arrange any number of continuous separate objects in such a way that their paths will continue to intersect in perpetuity. Indeed, it is inevitable that they will never cross paths again. Consciousness cannot exist in such a universe, and we term it a divergent universe. It is devoid of both class II and class III existents (since class II's are predicated on the existence of class III's). A divergent universe is simply a collection of continuous objects changing location. We can provide a rigorous definition:

divergent universe: When the total distance between all continuous objects is *always* increasing, even on the smallest conceivable time scale.

An interesting side note is the concept known as "perfect vacuum". Here defined:

perfect vacuum: If, in a given region of space between at least two objects, no object is ever present.
C is between A and B: If a straight object with less width and height than A, B, or C were placed such that it goes through A, B, and C and the distance from A to B is always greater than the distance from A to C or from B to C.

So, in a divergent universe, perfect vacuum is attainable. Indeed it is the default by definition.

Consciousnesses requires interaction and thus the fundamental constituents of a universe to aggregate, to converge upon each other. In a convergent universe the total distance between continuous objects may increase momentarily, but never perpetually. The only conceivable mechanism for a convergent universe is that all continuous objects are physically connected. Try as you might, if you are physically connected to something there is only so much distance you can put between you and the something, assuming you don't break the connection (which you can't if it's continuous, by the definition of a continuous object). So, the qualitative explanation for the observation of the phenomenon known as "consciousness" is that every object in the universe is physically connected. This is also the only conceivable physical explanation for light. The observation that light always travels rectilinear can only be explained by a physical connection between every class I.

Also, in a convergent universe, perfect vacuum is absolutely unattainable by definition. If all C1's are physically connected then, in any region of space between them, it is inevitable that the C1's will converge upon this region of space between them. Note that, because we have laid out our logic rigorously, scientifically, and consistently we have come naturally to the correct conclusion (the one that explains ubiquitous observation). The conclusions follow logically from the premises.


So, you are or you aren't claiming the existence of aether (the connecting backwash between all things)? The above is a very long-winded way of saying that we are all connected and it's a Universe of Intelligent Consciousness. Is this what you are trying to say? And if so, where do you see the role of Love? As far as I am aware, love is the glue which holds the universe together...it is the life-support mechanism. The Universe is energy which is information and what provides that information is consciousness (at the non-material structure stage) which is fundamentally, love. Voila, something out of nothing is created. And if you can taste it, touch it, smell it and smack it, it's real. Nature is functional. There is nothing in existence which doesn't have a purpose, even if it's to interconnect only with another thing to support it or hold it in place (it's called tensegrity or symbiosis).


Would you agree or is this too simplistic?
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:31 pm

So, you are or you aren't claiming the existence of aether (the connecting backwash between all things)?
-Divinity

Not sure what you mean by "backwash". However, I do propose that every entity in our world (and possibly the universe) is physically connected to every other entity.

The above is a very long-winded way of saying that we are all connected and it's a Universe of Intelligent Consciousness.
-Divinity

I apologize for being long-winded but I strive to be very explicit and comprehensible. Someone who is not familiar or comfortable with the idea of everything being interconnected would not pick up on this as quickly as you, and I may not seem long-winded to him/her.

"Universe" is a shorthand for a listing of everything that exists (everything). The universe cannot have consciousness because consciousness is a characteristic of a single entity. For instance, a lion is alive but is a pride alive? In casual conversation you may say that a pride is alive but this is incorrect. A pride simply refers to a group of lions, it is a convenient shorthand. Instead of saying "The male lion on the cliff, the female lion next to him, the cub in the cave, the other cub in the cave... and on and on" you just say "the pride of lions". It is the individual lions themselves are actually alive. The word pride is simply a designation we place on a certain number of lions at a certain proximity! The lions are *entities*. A pride is not an entity itself but a concept, a relationship among entities. Likewise "universe" is a group of things, specifically a group of *everything*. It is a convenient shorthand term. Some of the individuals in the group may be alive, or may be conscious, etc. but the concept "group of X" cannot be ascribed these characteristics. Only the individual X's themselves have characteristics.

Does that make sense?

And if so, where do you see the role of Love? As far as I am aware, love is the glue which holds the universe together...it is the life-support mechanism.
-Divinity

Love is a dynamic relationship among entities such as humans or lions. It is my proposal that continuous discrete interconnected entities comprise the universe. One fits in the next which fits in the next and so on. So they each maintain their identity but are inseparable. The analogy to Love is perfect, the constituents of the universe are inseparable yet still retain their individual identities, just like the individual players involved in Love.

The Universe is energy which is information and what provides that information is consciousness (at the non-material structure stage) which is fundamentally, love.
-Divinity

Energy is an ambiguous term because it means different things to many different people. What do you mean by "non-material". To me this term means "nothing", so I have trouble commenting.

Voila, something out of nothing is created.
-Divinity

Something cannot come from nothing anymore than a tree can be both above and below the ground. Identity means that A is A. To try to state otherwise results in a self-contradiction.

And if you can taste it, touch it, smell it and smack it, it's real. Nature is functional.
-Divinity

I agree with this. It's real if it has shape, which means it can be touched. Nature is functional, nature is a mechanic.

There is nothing in existence which doesn't have a purpose, even if it's to interconnect only with another thing to support it or hold it in place (it's called tensegrity or symbiosis).
-Divinity

Everything that exists has a single identity and acts in accordance with that identity. Tensegrity is the science of building structures and looks at macroscopic behaviors of materials. Fundamentally there are continuous objects (those that are not made of smaller parts) and they have a particular shape. That particular shape defines their identity and they can only interact with other entities in accordance with that one identity.

Let me know if this is what you mean by what you said.

Would you agree or is this too simplistic?
-Divinity

I agree and disagree, as per my discussion above. I think you need to be careful about reifying concepts. There is a difference between a tree and a forest. A tree is an object, an entity. A forest is a concept, a relationship among entities. Concepts are for convenience, we use them as a shorthand. It is tempting to convert concepts into entities in our speech because it decreases verbage, but we must keep in mind it is the entities themselves that truly matter, because only the entities themselves can live, love, wave, fall, jump, etc. When you see a "forest swaying from a distance" it is each tree that is swaying. You say forest because it is easier than saying "The tree at (0,0) is swaying and the tree at (1,0) is swaying...."

Does this make sense?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:46 pm

There is no way you can prove the universe is not conscious. You believe it is not endowed with consciouness.
You cannot prove that. I believe the earth is alive. I bet you think its a piece of rock. I believe that every atomic unit is a conscious unit. I cannot prove my side, you cannot prove yours. Mine is alive and dynamic. Yours is dead and sterile.
I believe Mother Earth is very much alive and so is the Universe. I believe rocks have the ability to store and transmitt information. I believe that plant life is very conscious and aware at a level unknown to the average modern man. Communication with Gorillas and Chimps in ASL has shown them to be more intelligent then ever imagined. I knew this all along. Knowing something is because of a relationship to the universal consciousness and earth consciouness. 7.4 kennth, 7.4
thats the radio station of your mind and the earths mind and the universal mind. Tune in, Turn on, Wake up.

There is nothing that the universe cannot tell you if you believe in her. Consciouness will ignore you if you ignore it.
Also the universe can be seen in many different spectrums. The life of a bacteria is very different from a jellyfish. Which is very different from a fish or a shark, turtle, dophin, mouse, cat, dog, horse, crow, grey parrot, great ape, human....yet each and every one is conscious. This shows that not only is PHI implicit in the universe, so is life and consciouness. Thats the way I relate the knowledge that is mine.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The issue of "exist" resolved

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:22 am

This is not about belief or proof JL. This is about understanding.

If "universe" is a shorthand for a listing of everything that exists then "universe" is no more alive/conscious than a collection of fruit is red. The apple is red, the banana is yellow, the orange is orange, etc. The human is conscious, the lion is conscious, the rock is not conscious, etc.

Even if each piece of fruit in the collection of fruit is red, it is still each piece individually that is red. When we say "this group of fruit is red" we mean "this apple is red, this other apple is red, this cherry is red..." Similarly when we say "the universe is conscious" we mean "this human is conscious, this lion is conscious, this rock is conscious... etc."

Whether you consider every object in the universe conscious is a matter of how you, personally, define consciousness. However you define conscious, it is each entity in the universe that is conscious or not conscious, not the shorthand term you use to refer to all those entities.

It is each piece of fruit that is red, round, hard, soft, sweet, or sour. The collection of fruit is not red, round, hard, soft, sweet, or sour. Collection of fruit is your shorthand term, it is the objects you are referring to with this shorthand that have particular characteristics.

Does this make sense to you Divinity? I hope I have done a good job helping you to understand. If not, let me know what's unclear so I can do better.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests