The origin of mankind

[Karl]

No Im not describing causality. Im describing for perhaps the third time in this thread, what space is ,just as you asked.

Technically what folks discern as empty space , by ordinary vernacular, is just minimally disturbed space. Theres some light propagating, some gravity , maybe some ripples that get called cosmic particles yadda yadda. The stuff folks say is solid, is just more disturbed, its mostly empy space too then theres th ripples called ionic or molecular bonds, and the ripples called atoms and the even lower level ripples called gluons and gravitons etc. Outer space is an ocean of the stuff.

Thats why light excites atoms , particles pull on one another , the atomic possibilities are delineated or predetermined , and so on. Not all stuff must have the property of mass, nor does it all form solids... theres no reason not to consider space itself as a material or substance,, quite the reverse, considering it as a material allows it to be examined and removes the needless blabbering which you expected because youve heard it elsewhere. You were primed for confused nonsense. But you dont have to suffer it , because Im telling you correctly what it is.

Not to describe, define.

 

3 things definitions are not:

Descriptions.

Entomological reports on the origin of words

Examples- by pointing to concretes.

 

I've given the example previously. Man is the rational animal.

 

The genus: class wider than the concept to be defined which represents the basic identity of the concretes in question.

The Differentia: the characteristic that differentiates the concretes in question from all other members of the genus.

 

Rule of equivalence: true of all members of the class defined and only members of the class defined. In other words logically equivalent such that ALL S is P can be converted to ALL P is S without losing information

 

So: man is the rational animal becomes man is the animal which uses reason.

 

Rule of fundamentalist: the characteristic responsible for the greatest number of the entities distinctive characteristics.

Rule of circularity: not directly or indirectly defining the subject by itself.

Avoid synonyms and correlatives

Rule of negatives: where possible the definition must be stated in the positive not negatively.

Rule of obscurity: stated literally, clearly, simply and economically as possible (not metaphors/poetic allusions or semantics).

 

Try defining a square first. Not here, but in the privacy of your own 'space' :-)

 

This is hard stuff, it stretches the mind and creates consciousness expansion on levels you haven't known.

 

Anyway we really shoukd take this onto our own thread before Junko does something to us involving various planets and moons :-)

Edited May 27, 2016 by Karl

[Stosh]

Theres a fundamental falsity which you are considering accurate in this explanation. It is that the distinctions which we divide the world into, are the way it is. Everything is connected so theres no true separation. There is no separation, so there is no true grouping, no true distinction, and since I have no explanation for WHY the rules are the way they are.. ultimately all descriptions proofs ,definitions fall apart using scrutiny exceeding the realm they are used in. For instance, at quantum scale, the physics is different than on macro scale , both true ,both reasonable ,coexisting, but dont expect spooky action will work to call the folks back home in Sladavisk.

[Stosh]

man being the animal that uses reason, would be description as well, and if we we have any reason used by a monkey, then that would have to be a man too, besides my cat is more reasonable than me,, but .. we already covered that.

[Marblehead]

We can ask ourselves how it came about. What or who created it, but then, as we know it is the induced sum of all things we can know that it could never have been created otherwise it wouldn't be the sum of all things.

Excellent point.

[Junko]

How excellent is it? Could you explain it in your way?

[Marblehead]

How excellent is it? Could you explain it in your way?

You put me on the spot.  Hehehe.

 

Let's consider a time before the beginning of the universe when it did not exist.

 

The word "universe" implies everything.  Yes, everything, no exceptions.

 

Therefore there is nothing to create a universe.  Nothing can come into being.

 

Well, man's mind decided that he existed.  Then he decided that there are many things in the universe that were also created.

 

Therefore there must be a creator.  Man created gods to account for the creation of things including himself.

 

But these gods, because they created the universe, cannot be a part of the universe.

 

That presents a contradiction because the universe includes everything.  The gods must be a part of the universe.  Therefore they too were created.  But what power created the gods who created the universe?  The same question will repeat forever.

 

At this point we must ask "How else then could the universe be created?"

 

The answer is "It wasn't created."  It has always existed.  It goes through cycles.  We live in today's expression of the universe.  There was a time before this universe manifested.  I continue to call it Singularity.

 

Well, what was before Singularity?  My guess is that there was another universe similar to this one, that was manifested and then became one big Black Hole that we will call Singularity.  I still hold to this thought because of the Daoist concepts of cycles and reversion.

 

The universe never began and it will never end.  It has always been present and will always be so.  Sure, in different form, but still.

[Junko]

Wonderful!Hm, make me think more and more.....but before I can write I should meditate about it and get some sleep.....it's 2:17am here in Switzerland,so everybody good night...see ya later.....!

[Karl]

You put me on the spot.  Hehehe.

 

Let's consider a time before the beginning of the universe when it did not exist.

 

The word "universe" implies everything.  Yes, everything, no exceptions.

 

Therefore there is nothing to create a universe.  Nothing can come into being.

 

Well, man's mind decided that he existed.  Then he decided that there are many things in the universe that were also created.

 

Therefore there must be a creator.  Man created gods to account for the creation of things including himself.

 

But these gods, because they created the universe, cannot be a part of the universe.

 

That presents a contradiction because the universe includes everything.  The gods must be a part of the universe.  Therefore they too were created.  But what power created the gods who created the universe?  The same question will repeat forever.

 

At this point we must ask "How else then could the universe be created?"

 

The answer is "It wasn't created."  It has always existed.  It goes through cycles.  We live in today's expression of the universe.  There was a time before this universe manifested.  I continue to call it Singularity.

 

Well, what was before Singularity?  My guess is that there was another universe similar to this one, that was manifested and then became one big Black Hole that we will call Singularity.  I still hold to this thought because of the Daoist concepts of cycles and reversion.

 

The universe never began and it will never end.  It has always been present and will always be so.  Sure, in different form, but still.

 

You do give me a laugh. You introduced a contradiction to your argument....there was a time before...

 

Its the universe, there was never a time before because all time is part of the universe, it is time going forward in the mode of causality. Everything man calls time is a measurement based on our lives and the cycles we see related to our lives.

 

It won't damage your Daoist belief to see the universe as cyclic-it may well be, it might reach a point, start shrinking until it is very small-but remember that 'small' is mans measurement like time, a singularity is just the same as a universe, it's only the relative size of the thing. For all we know, this is a singularity compared to the size it will eventually reach. Everything is comparative.

 

I just picked apart that bit of your argument, the rest is fine to me.

[Karl]

Theres a fundamental falsity which you are considering accurate in this explanation. It is that the distinctions which we divide the world into, are the way it is. Everything is connected so theres no true separation. There is no separation, so there is no true grouping, no true distinction, and since I have no explanation for WHY the rules are the way they are.. ultimately all descriptions proofs ,definitions fall apart using scrutiny exceeding the realm they are used in. For instance, at quantum scale, the physics is different than on macro scale , both true ,both reasonable ,coexisting, but dont expect spooky action will work to call the folks back home in Sladavisk.

 

No, the grouping 'arent' the way it is. The groupings are purely conceptual abstractions. Our perceptions are the way it is. This is why you need to define the concepts or you end up with floating abstractions that are NOT connected to reality.

 

It doesn't matter whether you think the world is a soup of cosmic puffing all connected in one giant circuit. You would still need to make sense of it conceptually. As you don't see the world as a kind of matrix screen full of random motion, then what you perceive is what you percieve.

 

If you refuse to define then all you get is a load of badly integrated and disintegrated abstractions. When you try and apply them to reality they don't fit.

 

The rules for definitions are based on our conceptual categorisation. They are the swiftest means to get the connection to reality correctly set. They are based on Aristotlian logic as is, all proper science.

 

Is physics different on the micro scale ? I doubt it. I think we have failed to define properly on the macro scale and are now making errors on top of errors. We are seeing the rope as a snake. Natures laws are consistent, if we have discovered inconsistency then it isn't nature that is wrong it's us.

 

The problem is worse, because we have been following Kantian/Hegelian philosophy down Alice's rabbit hole we have thrown out reason and are proceeding to find an inconsistency in the, so called, quantum world, in order to justify more irrationality. We are heading out into a new dark ages very rapidly. I see it everywhere and I'm shocked at the speed of regression. I can see a time when we might be utilising CERN as some kind of sophisticated oracle-if we aren't doing that already ! We are already talking about time and future of quantum particles, how long before we see it as a high tech fortune teller ?

 

I fear that asking the question about mans origin might well be something that will have become redundant in the next few hundred years, because man will no longer exist. I did say a few hundred because our technology now permits mass extinction.

[Stosh]

One reason why scale matters is that gravity perpetuates farther than electrochemical forces, or molecular. On the big scale gravity is king, but on the small atomic scale gravity is weak, weenie , an inconsequential anecdote. ,, but yes we may be on the same page that groupings are conceptions.

[Karl]

One reason why scale matters is that gravity perpetuates farther than electrochemical forces, or molecular. On the big scale gravity is king, but on the small atomic scale gravity is weak, weenie , an inconsequential anecdote. ,, but yes we may be on the same page that groupings are conceptions.

 

Ah yes, scale, relationship, comparison. These are fundamentals in the formation of concepts which is a mathematical process.

If we define the volume of a sphere as 4/3pi r 3 we are defining a relationship. On its own, this relationship is a pure conceptual abstraction. When we bung in the numbers it moves from concept to perceptual concrete. We can now make this sphere to contain the volume. We can determine what material is used-another relational conceptual abstraction related to a perceptual concrete.

[Marblehead]

You do give me a laugh. You introduced a contradiction to your argument....there was a time before... Its the universe, there was never a time before because all time is part of the universe, it is time going forward in the mode of causality. Everything man calls time is a measurement based on our lives and the cycles we see related to our lives. It won't damage your Daoist belief to see the universe as cyclic-it may well be, it might reach a point, start shrinking until it is very small-but remember that 'small' is mans measurement like time, a singularity is just the same as a universe, it's only the relative size of the thing. For all we know, this is a singularity compared to the size it will eventually reach. Everything is comparative. I just picked apart that bit of your argument, the rest is fine to me.

Oh, you didn't pick it apart because I was being true to the words of my Daoist friend Chuang Tzu.

 

I won't violate Daoism for the sake of science.  If what was before was not manifest then saying it was a universe is redundant.

 

It was perhaps a Oneverse.

 

Everything is relative.

 

In the state of Singularity there is no time/space.  Only when there are two or more objects in motion is there time/space.

 

Therefore when we say

 

"Dao gave birth to One" we have Singularity - no time/space.

 

"One gave birth to Two" we no longer have Singularity but we have time/space.

 

Man's mind plays no role in the existence of time/space.

[Karl]

Oh, you didn't pick it apart because I was being true to the words of my Daoist friend Chuang Tzu.

 

I won't violate Daoism for the sake of science.  If what was before was not manifest then saying it was a universe is redundant.

 

It was perhaps a Oneverse.

 

Everything is relative.

 

In the state of Singularity there is no time/space.  Only when there are two or more objects in motion is there time/space.

 

Therefore when we say

 

"Dao gave birth to One" we have Singularity - no time/space.

 

"One gave birth to Two" we no longer have Singularity but we have time/space.

 

Man's mind plays no role in the existence of time/space.

 

Time and space are both relational aspects of mans conception. There is no time or space in the universe. There is causality and relative positions. Those things exist in a singularity, the singularity is the universe.

 

Maybe Dao isn't how you try to understand it. Perhaps Dao only relates to the Daoist and you assumed it meant universal Genesis ?

 

[Stosh]

Ah yes, scale, relationship, comparison. These are fundamentals in the formation of concepts which is a mathematical process.

If we define the volume of a sphere as 4/3pi r 3 we are defining a relationship. On its own, this relationship is a pure conceptual abstraction. When we bung in the numbers it moves from concept to perceptual concrete. We can now make this sphere to contain the volume. We can determine what material is used-another relational conceptual abstraction related to a perceptual concrete.

Ok fine, So? We could also define a sphere as a thing similar in shape to a basketball, not needing the math. Its very fast, and clear, to say its ball shaped, and not to have specified dimensions of it.

[Michael Sternbach]

Whooa, Karl... Now you started a thread on space not to bring Junko's thread OT (), just to continue talking about it here anyway! Looks like this topic needs a LOT of space!

 

LOLOL

[Marblehead]

Time and space are both relational aspects of mans conception. There is no time or space in the universe. There is causality and relative positions. Those things exist in a singularity, the singularity is the universe. Maybe Dao isn't how you try to understand it. Perhaps Dao only relates to the Daoist and you assumed it meant universal Genesis ?

I can't fully agree with you here.  Yes, there is causality and relative positions.  And yes, the energy that become those objects existed in Singularity.

 

Actually, you and Chuang Tzu would agree, with reservation, on this concept.

 

There was no Genesis in Daoism.  Remember, everything that is, is, always has been and always will be.

 

However, yes, there is time/space in the universe.  It has existed since One gave birth to Two.  And it will continue to exist until the universe once again becomes Singularity.  The mind of man has nothing to do with this.

[Marblehead]

Whooa, Karl... Now you started a thread on space not to bring Junko's thread OT ( ), just to continue talking about it here anyway! Looks like this topic needs a LOT of space!

 

LOLOL

 

I have known people who's brain was empty space.

[Karl]

Whooa, Karl... Now you started a thread on space not to bring Junko's thread OT (), just to continue talking about it here anyway! Looks like this topic needs a LOT of space!

LOLOL

I'm definitely beginning to regret it. :-/

 

It's like a workman turns up at your house saying that he will mend the roof and then proceeds to pull the water taps off the sink unit. When I ask what he's doing he tells me he's mending the roof. When I point out that they are taps and nothing to do with the roof, he swears at me and tells me that I should shut up because I don't know fuck all about roofs.

 

And hey I did try to get it back OT as I'm scared of her samurai wrath. I definitely had genuine intent but the gypsies came and started pelting me with space cakes.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

I can't fully agree with you here.  Yes, there is causality and relative positions.  And yes, the energy that become those objects existed in Singularity.

 

Actually, you and Chuang Tzu would agree, with reservation, on this concept.

 

There was no Genesis in Daoism.  Remember, everything that is, is, always has been and always will be.

 

However, yes, there is time/space in the universe.  It has existed since One gave birth to Two.  And it will continue to exist until the universe once again becomes Singularity.  The mind of man has nothing to do with this.

 

Can you point it out to me then as you clearly think it's independent of man.

 

Just stop it with that foot I've got a nasty bruise developing on my cheek.

[Karl]

I have known people who's brain was empty space.

 

I think mine fell out somewhere back at page 100.

[Michael Sternbach]

Can you point it out to me then as you clearly think it's independent of man.

 

Just stop it with that foot I've got a nasty bruise developing on my cheek.

http://i67.tinypic.com/148otpe.jpg

[Karl]

http://i67.tinypic.com/148otpe.jpg

 

Horrible website by the way, full of pop ups which give my iPad grief, but funny.

[Marblehead]

Can you point it out to me then as you clearly think it's independent of man. Just stop it with that foot I've got a nasty bruise developing on my cheek.

Hehehe.  Remember, I am known for being the last poster in some threads that gain my attention.

 

Let's start with the fact that this manifest universe is approx. 13.7 billion years old.  Man's presence on the planet started evolving approx. 4 million years ago.  So, we have 13.3 billion years that the manifest universe has been "doing".  There was no man to recognize this.  And the manifest universe didn't really care one way or another.

[Marblehead]

I think mine fell out somewhere back at page 100.

 

Stay with me Karl.  There is no requirement for agreement.

[Everything]

Youtube

Adronis - History of the Creation of Planet Earth and Humans