The origin of mankind

[Stosh]

Finite, not fixed. Like a balloon it always is a balloon whether it's not blown up are about ready to pop. Funny, but you are edging towards the other side of the philosophical argument which says we can't know reality because it is constantly changing. A number sequence it potentially infinite, but that's an illusion. However big a number you count to, that is the present finite limit.

I dunno maybe I am , I'm comfortable with it either way, figuring all will never be known , or that someday all will be. Theres stuff I don't know every day , I don't see why I should be concerned about that, but It would be nice if some more were understood,, and better yet if more 'particular' things were cared about. 

 

I'd say it was the finite limit of that which we can count to, but that the actual limit may vary.  

[Karl]

I dunno maybe I am , I'm comfortable with it either way, figuring all will never be known , or that someday all will be. Theres stuff I don't know every day , I don't see why I should be concerned about that, but It would be nice if some more were understood,, and better yet if more 'particular' things were cared about. 

 

I'd say it was the finite limit of that which we can count to, but that the actual limit may vary.  

 

Yes, finite but boundless. :-)

[Stosh]

Well, based on the best evidence as I understand it, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.  That means it is getting bigger, larger, whatever, so all we can say is that it has not attained its maximum potential.

 

The favorite thought at the present is that it will continue to expand and eventually experience a cold death.  I don't like this one and opt for an eventual reversal into a Big Crunch, a new Singularity and then a new universe.

Ill be dead either way , but I was considering whether it is the very process of approaching incomplete total homogeneity which provides the fertile ground for the birth of a new universe somewhere when a non-homogenous event happens to it.. perhaps from another remnant of this universe,, then I picture this sea of a new universe sloshing back into the emptied sea bed.  

 

But for sure that's just imagination. I dont contend that I'd defend this as some actual known eventuality. 

[Stosh]

This indeed doesn't seem to make any sense as long as we are thinking of the Universe as being confined to only three spatial dimensions. To show what I mean, it is best to use an analogy: Think of a balloon being inflated; it expands in three dimensions. Its surface is expanding too - but for a flatland being inhabiting it, this expansion is happening in two dimensions only. For this being, it's impossible to say where the surface is expanding from, except from everywhere at once! The balloon has a center, of course, which however is not to be found on the surface, but out-there (or in-there) in three-dimensional space. The (curved) surface of the balloon is in fact finite but boundless.

 

Now step this analogy up by adding a fourth spatial dimension (no, not time - that's another story), and you arrive at the Universe of modern cosmology, at least in one of its versions.

Are you contending that the universe is turned back on itself , like a balloon surface ? a balloon has a circumference , and though one can go round it more than once , and though the circumference may be growing , it would still be possible to fully circumnavigate it depending on the rate of its expansion.  So I would say that it is indeed finite at any given instant ,and finite again in the next instant . But the complication of the time issue Is a valid consideration not much addressed by anyone., and a good thing to introduce, such as you have., though you are umm not calling it that

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Mh reminds me that its ok to be inconsistent with other folks expectations. He is a self acclaimed anarchist .

[Nungali]

we may make it to 100 pages after all !

[Karl]

I don't agree with this. I suppose that Plato had a direct perception of what underlies physical reality. He was one of those rare individuals who are able to step outside the cave.

 

 

 

Deities, often including a Supreme One, and their realms were believed in already long before Plato. Platonism can be seen as a fairly rational interpretation of earlier mysticism, and it had an influence on later mystics in turn.

 

 

 

It's true that science has philosophical underpinnings which most scientist neglect to reflect on. They can mostly be categorized under reductionism and materialism, even though individual scientists of a certain influence startet transcending these "isms." Moreover, the scientific method requires to test hypotheses by experiment and/or observation. That side should actually quite appeal to you, Karl!

 

What scientists, and objectivists in general, don't understand is that observation will for the most part only reveal what the observer is ready to perceive.

 

 

 

You were correct at the time. To illustrate: Does a point exist? It's dimensionless; there is nothing. Yet it's, um, pointless to say that it doesn't exist. You simply can not arrive at any meaningful description of reality without those buggers. There you have your 0 = 1.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

Science is an attempt to explain the world of phenomena in a coherent manner, based on collected data. It assumes that nature functions due to a number of laws which are perfectly interacting to create the world that we perceive (by our own senses or with the help of instruments). So it has its own set of metaphysics.

 

The problem isn't that science has an underlying philosophy - which it could not exist without. The problem is always the kind of philosophy it follows.

 

Plato didn't have a direct perception anymore than you or I. This is typical intrincisism, which, you as a spiritual mystic are fine with. Same goes for your second sentence.

 

Science has been in the hands of Kant and Hegel for several hundred years now. It's materialism/reductionism which is in effect muscle mysticism. I think this is the part you probably don't fully grasp, as you see me in that light, but you misunderstand objectivism. It rejects materialism/reductionism and intrincisism. Because objectivism seem not to be spiritual in the sense of the Dao, God, Ying Yang etc, then you assume I'm playing for the other side, but that isn't the case I'm playing for neither side. Interestingly MH plays for both sides. An objectivist just removes the mystic label from both sides and hence there is no more conflict. It moves the spiritual side into the soul-the human consciousness and unites it with the metaphysical flesh. It puts morality and choice into the hands of living humans and removes the need for after life, floating consciousness, or the glandular squirtings of muscle mysticism.

 

Yes, science is observation to test theory and repeatability. Notice how the muscle mysticism has migrated to quantum effects. Consciousness now linked to light waves in the same way a plug is wired to a toaster. Global warming is now a 'consensus' science. This is the result of Kantian philosophy which has stripped science of reason. Scientists are now fortune tellers and philosophisers, it's all going back to the Ancient Greek oracles where, instead of Gods, it's collectivist subjectivism. That doesn't mean science isn't still being done, but mainly the useful stuff is done in engineering companies be it mechanical, electrical, chemical. The intellectuals are sodding about with God particles (if that isn't a wind up for the spiritual Mystics I don't know what else is, they are saying we are doing proper science not woo woo, but in actual,fact they are not doing proper science they are just doing a different form of woo woo).

 

Oh and I'd be useless at science. Not clever enough, no eye for detailed analysis or accuracy and extreme boredom.

 

 

 

 

[Junko]

we may make it to 100 pages after all !

When we make about 300 pages, how about making our book? I mean we publish our book!

[Marblehead]

This could actually be said to be the gist of Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology - condensed by you into a Singularity.

I don't remember Roger but I won't deny the possibility that his thoughts are in my mind.

 

There is also Fred Hoyle's Steady State Universe, but it's not in vogue.

But then I don't accept the steady state theories.

 

This only holds true if the Universe is indeed a closed system. In truth, it might be exchanging energy with a multidimensional structure which it is part of.

I leave open the possibility that Dark Matter is the effects of other universes.  The ratio of matter to dark matter indicates the possibility of six more universes

 

There is nothing supernatural, I agree. But Materialism is only taking in account a tiny part of nature.

Oh, one of little faith.  Materialism is not as closed-minded as most people portray it to be. 

 

Penrose's CCC is the only theory that reconciles the eternally expanding Universe with the cyclically reborn one. I talked about it already a number of times on this forum. In a nutshell, it says that, after most matter in the Universe has been swallowed by  Black Holes, and even the BHs have evaporated and turned into energy (along with the matter that was left floating around), space-time both expands infinitely and contracts to zero - hence a new Singularity is formed. This cycle repeats itself without beginning and end.

This is in accord with my understanding of the concepts of reversion and cycles.

 

Incorrect in terms of the traditional Big Bang: There wasn't even energy prior to it.

 

Correct in terms of CCC: The former Universe had all turned into undifferentiated energy. Which led to the birth of a new Universe.

So I modified the Big Bang theory a little.  Big deal.

[Marblehead]

It's the force between objects, so it's the nature of the objects, in that case between hydrogen atoms.

Now I will call that an agreeable way of disagreeing with me.

[Michael Sternbach]

Your last sentence. :-)

I did say you were both, but that's the problem, you have an intractable dissonance between two opposing philosophies that don't meet in the middle. It's why you are fairly comfortable with myself, Brian and Michael. Brian and Michael have logically consistent and therefore valid philophical premises, but you have stitched two together, but the stitching is a virtual fog.

You are closest to an objectivist in many ways, but then you are a equally a mystic of both spirit and muscle. Drop the mysticism and they unite just fine. However....and I'm saying this whilst laughing at my own pessimistic outlook....if that happens, it won't be by me making that observation, that's for an absolute certainty.

It's not harming you in anyway, you seem to thrive on it, so why change anything ? Well, only to stop me pulling my hair out (not really, it's like a boxing partner that occasionally uses a foot and shugs when I complain .....

"what ?"

"You used your foot"

"So?"

"It's boxing, your thinking of kick boxing"

"They are both boxing so I don't see a difference"

"But ones kick, the others err just boxing"

"It doesn't say minus the kicking"

"No, but it's implied"

"Well if it doesn't say specifically I'm going to do it anyway"

"Well it's not right, but as your the only partner available I'm going to have to put up with it"

"Exactly, I'm an anarchist, that's just what we do"

 

I got a good chuckle out of this. And I imagine, so will MH.

 

MH is a typical Pisces in some ways. Their way of looking at things is often a little diffuse. But that's consistent with Lao Tzu who must have been a Pisces too. And yes, it enables them to get on with folks from quite varied mind sets. After all, isn't there some truth in almost every perspective?

[Marblehead]

... but you have stitched two together, but the stitching is a virtual fog.

Foggy for you but not for me. I have both a left and a right side of my brain.  I am bibrainial.

[Marblehead]

You are closest to an objectivist in many ways, but then you are a equally a mystic of both spirit and muscle. Drop the mysticism and they unite just fine. However....and I'm saying this whilst laughing at my own pessimistic outlook....if that happens, it won't be by me making that observation, that's for an absolute certainty.

 

 

Hey!  How could I love Chuang Tzu if I were not a bit of a mystic myself.  I even read Nietzsche as a bit of a mystic.

[Marblehead]

It's not harming you in anyway, you seem to thrive on it, so why change anything ? Well, only to stop me pulling my hair out (not really, it's like a boxing partner that occasionally uses a foot and shugs when I complain .....

 

You are boxing, I am practicing my MMA arts.

[Michael Sternbach]

Ill be dead either way , but I was considering whether it is the very process of approaching incomplete total homogeneity which provides the fertile ground for the birth of a new universe somewhere when a non-homogenous event happens to it.. perhaps from another remnant of this universe,, then I picture this sea of a new universe sloshing back into the emptied sea bed.  

 

But for sure that's just imagination. I dont contend that I'd defend this as some actual known eventuality. 

 

That sounds somehow interesting. I think there should be some kind of interplay between the infinite expansion and infinite contraction of space-time in CCC for another Universe to emerge, but I haven't figured out yet how.

[Marblehead]

 

"what ?"

"You used your foot"

"So?"

"It's boxing, your thinking of kick boxing"

"They are both boxing so I don't see a difference"

"But ones kick, the others err just boxing"

"It doesn't say minus the kicking"

"No, but it's implied"

"Well if it doesn't say specifically I'm going to do it anyway"

"Well it's not right, but as your the only partner available I'm going to have to put up with it"

"Exactly, I'm an anarchist, that's just what we do"

Yeah, that pretty much puts the tail on the donkey's ass.

[Marblehead]

Yes, finite but boundless. :-)

That wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

[Marblehead]

Ill be dead either way , but I was considering whether it is the very process of approaching incomplete total homogeneity which provides the fertile ground for the birth of a new universe somewhere when a non-homogenous event happens to it.. perhaps from another remnant of this universe,, then I picture this sea of a new universe sloshing back into the emptied sea bed.

 

But for sure that's just imagination. I dont contend that I'd defend this as some actual known eventuality. 

True, we all will be dead.  But talking about this stuff is more fun than pretending we are already dead.

[Karl]

Foggy for you but not for me. I have both a left and a right side of my brain.  I am bibrainial.

 

 

You are definitely a direct relative of William James :-)

Pragmaticallyinyrincist

 

I bet you would drive a Christian preacher insane.

[Karl]

That wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

 

I'm not sure the universe ever comes into a court of law.

[Marblehead]

Mh reminds me that its ok to be inconsistent with other folks expectations. He is a self acclaimed anarchist .

No biggy.  Sometimes I don't even agree with myself.

[Marblehead]

we may make it to 100 pages after all !

No doubt about it.  Junko still has to tell me where that waterfall is.

[Karl]

No biggy.  Sometimes I don't even agree with myself.

 

You know that's very probably true. I have a horrible feeling that you might have a tendency to use a big hammer on troublesome things.

[Marblehead]

You are definitely a direct relative of William James :-) Pragmaticallyinyrincist I bet you would drive a Christian preacher insane.

I HAVE driven Christian preachers insane.

[Karl]

No doubt about it.  Junko still has to tell me where that waterfall is.

 

Yes, what happened to that ? It sounds very Hitch hikers guide. There is a restaurant at the end of the universe. Although, technically 'end' is a very slippery word when related to the universe.