I didn’t.
I would certainly be the first to agree with that.
So does the Feigenbaum’s constant have “affect” (causing a change). And if so, upon what?
The entire West. Or are you still asleep?
Under eternal, I include whatever would be meant by “time” prior to the singularity and cosmic inflation when, as far as I am aware , there is presently no way to measure it. To define eternal as non-temporal is to take a position on that. I don’t have enough information to do that. My method involves working from experience, and extrapolating from that by means of imaginative generalization.
Please enlighten me Your Eminence. 
Speculation is fine… dissapointed for the second time on this site I’ve practically wrote out why the mathematics behind this stuff is invalid, and why it’s been retarding us from better solutions that can only be reached once we drop this bull. Luckily, this isn’t the ultimate crowd I gotta give the proofs too.
Felix… look here. I know it’s really, really hard to catch your attention. You’ll like this book:
It has a limited math section. I’ve been working on radically increasing that aspect of the theory myself, as it has a decent build to it.
I’m serious… these are not infinite nor eternal objects. No more eternal than the turns on our road system. Yes, in a sense you can drive on routes though our road system forever… but their finite. They come to a end, as well as the things that journey on them. These things… they don’t function. The only things in nature that seem to use fractals intelligently are cells… and every process eventually comes to a end. They are not eternal. It’s just a illusion of depth that agrees with how we process visual information. It’s not a actual infinite scheme. Every image requires us to assume there is depth, and that we’re traveling THROUGH the blasted image… only then does it become apparaently valid there is another pattern in it. Our mathematics- as far as expressing it is concerned- are quite crude in not being able to express it’s finite character. Animators can make the images seem to go on forever… or like some patterns that look bush like, fluxtuate with the wind.
Mystical mathematics figured out a lot of cool stuff. The double helix for example… comes from the older Babylonian version of the cult of Hermes. The stuff looks like DNA. [img]http://www.tribwatch.com/mushussu.jpg[/img
It’s also a good way to express overlapping feedback loops. Why the evolution of the cult eventually- especially under Plato’s influence, forced a biological emphasis that primitively resembles our understanding of the pulmolnary and nervous system. DNA also does this too… compresses alot of information in a easily accessible design. The kind of mathematics your speculating on is all great… your locking onto something in our current system we can’t very well express. It’s a size paradox, and we’re not all that well aware of it. Just like the Hermetic symbols… in India that evolved into the CHakra system. A very complex system, but inherently invalid one… because there are no Chakras in us where everyone thought they were. It was a impressive, complex build up of some of our smartest minds over dozens of generations putting good information into a fundamantally bad system. It was bad because they didn’t understand we had a nervous and pulmonary system. The egypatians used the hermetic system before they een had a inkling the pulmonary system existed.
It’s best just to get over it now. These are very, very finite elements. It has only the information inherent in it as provided by the GIF… a few KBs, and then it ends. It doesn’t go on forever. It’s based off a misconception. You can’t step into the picture and walk along it forever. Even if you simulated it in VR, even if you built a infinite illusion of it… it will eventually come to a end by external means… for the simple fact it’s made of matter, and requires us to accept this on the basis of it’s illusionary effect in egging us on to accepting it as existing. It is not as it appears to be. Do you think a alien, or one of Immanual Kant’s Angels, would be prone to accepting it as such if they have a different biology and process visual and mathematical processes differently than we do? Likely not.
If I sit here, and close one eye… and look out, the world appears one way. If I close that eye and open the other… the world shifts. We are smart enough to know that the world didn’t shift. We don’t make Advaita or Zen cults of perception built around disproving the validity of the universe by giving such evidence that the external world of dualistic ideas isn’t. We now just accept it’s because we got two eyes, and two loafs of brain that work together to create images. These objects… they are just as simple. It’s a visual illusion, and we suck at setting up and formulating math so badly that we’ve never been able to shake the first impressions. It’s just a visual glitch and shitty math conspiring against the obvious… that these things don’t go on forever… because our every exposure to them has ended up in their ending at some point. That to accept them going on forever requires manupulating the information presented more than it has a capacity to express. As I pointed out before, animators can make it seem to go on forever- or just a complex, move in the wind. Plants move in the wind all the time… but we don’t think they are eternal. Mimesis… simple flaws in Mimesis.
I looked it up first, it was terrible as a constant. I could be both arrogant and ignorant but it’s a terrible argument none the less.
Might as well just say something poetic like circles are like circles, in the windmills of my blind. Horribly inept use of maths, may God strike me blind if it is not so.
I’ll check it out on Amazon.
According to Whitehead it is not ‘substance’ which is permanent, but ‘form.’ Forms suffer changing relations. Actual entities ‘perpetually perish’ subjectively, but are immortal objectively. Actuality in perishing acquires objectivity, while it loses subjective immediacy. It loses the final causation which is its internal principle of unrest, and it acquires efficient causation whereby it is a ground of obligation characterizing the creativity. [For Whitehead, the creativity is ultimate.] Actual occasions in their ‘formal’ constitutions are devoid of all indetermination. Potentiality has passed into realization. They are complete and determinate matter of fact, devoid of all indecision. They form the ground of obligation. But eternal objects, and propositions, and some more complex sorts of contrasts, involve in their own natures indecision. They are, like all entities, potentials for the process of becoming. Their ingression expresses the definiteness of the actuality in question. But their own natures do not in themselves disclose in what actual entities this potentiality of ingression is realized. Thus, they involve indetermination in a sense more complete than do the former set. In the case of FC, it seems you are confusing the constant with instances of its concrete results. They will all perish. It isn’t seen that the constant itself will. Admittedly, I am extrapolating from instances of FC detectable locally on a human scale or via human instruments and cannot say anything about eternity with certainty. But, I haven’t seen the limitations to FC you are claiming instantiated, so, all you have to do is actually show me.
Just going to repeat it in case no one got my point.
Maths is not your friend Felix, although philosophy might be…
I do the best I can with what I’ve got. I’m open to looking at any corrections you would like to submit for consideration.
No, no you are not. If you were I’d point out the vast flaws in using “algorithms” to determine any sort of truth that a halfwit computer gets.
I am going to suggest that you are not a halfwit computer, you don’t have an answer based on maths about a philosophy that is complex, and neither does anyone else.
Whilst I agree that the person who made these posits might be correct, I think it is very wrong to use an absolute system like maths to explain a complex system like anything in life.
1+1=2
The same patterns appear in nature sans computer.
That seems silly. Mathematical truth is not confined to computers. We are using math reliably every day.
While the explanation is not complete, and may never be, the use of math to understand evolution, DNA etc is well documented. So…no.
Irrelevant. That sum doesn’t support your claims at all as far as I can see. Math is less a friend of yours than it is mine.
Then you haven’t brought much new to the table, the discussions about God. In the tradition of idealism, specially german, this kind of speculation has been attempted, but, I contend, with the undesirable effect of detaching us from a vital encounter. Speculation is not what I am against, but self-assured speculation. The title to your discussion says it all. “X is an eternal object” is more of a declaration of fact, not according to how you have come to define the terms, but according to what is real…that is how it comes across.
But anyway, please carry on. What does this eternal object tell us about God? The language of God, some have said, is math and geometry. Certain ratios have been considered divine. The Logos had this conotation originally…like I said the tradition is there. But what does all this now tell you? I would like to read about that.
Emm… not exactly true.
Rational Metaphysics is based entirely on Logic and Math. And as much as I wish it wasn’t, I have yet to find anyone to think is less than complex. And as far as I can tell, it truly applies to every field of Science, religion, governance, sociology, philosophy, and daily living. Science having become first a philosophy then a religion (as they all did) is also based very largely on math.
Since you would not assert that unless you had evidence to support the same, you must be withholding the evidence from me.
Then you ain’t feeling my fear and trembling.
It’s a proposition. I got tired of all the question-entitling on threads. It’s stated as a quasi-fact or factoid in order to evoke responses like yours.
Indeed, does it tell us there is a God? What is needed is a means for pure potentials to become actualized. If that implies a god, what kind? It definitely implies a process. So, if there is God, it seems God is a process.
Since FC is a recent discovery, it suggests that there are other eternal objects to be discovered that we are not aware of. It may imply that God’s “envisagement” [Whitehead’s term] of the eternal objects or potential forms is an event in God’s primordial nature. God’s consequent nature would then be God’s “prehension” [Whitehead’s term again --think grasping ] of the actual entities constituting the world.
With all due respect, everything you said there is ass gravy, maths is my friend because I do not take it as absolute, but as an approximation, I consider real hard facts more important.
Say what you will but claiming some constant that is ethereal applies to something that is experiential is a waste of time.
It’s a bit light on evidence though? Is that fair to say…
Isn’t everything that you have yet to see?
How evident is it that you have yet to see all there is to see?
…especially that for which you have no desire to see.
As evident as a paper in a scientific journal, or something I have seen first hand. Strange question?
So you see only what they choose to show you.
You never look for yourself?
I don’t get it James you seem to post intelligently at times, and then you make a post like that? Did you think about what you are saying there, if so I’d say try again if not I’d say there’s probably no point. I said seeing is believing, that is paramount. You took that to mean I never look for myself. Well turn that high powered magnetotropic indifference engine on yourself, and actually experience something you claim. If not then go on claiming the moon, and reaching the floor.
“I KNOW it is true. It is right HERE in this Science magazine!!”
…they call that “religion”.