Thanks destiny. You folks post a lot.
1 Like
I have a bunch of other questions but this is already a lot so far.
1 Like
Well under the universe as a totality all things we effectively get nothingness as there is nothing beyond it by which it is distinct. So eternal reoccurance does not hold.
Under this universe the eternal recurance is an every day phenomena as the processes by which thing repeat results in the eternal reoccurence as a multi-polar event. A bird flying is a phenomena that cycles repeatedly in various scales. Same with a human walking. Or a car moving. Whether or not it is eternal effectively results from the scale of time one views such events. If a single set of events is fewer as the fixed point of a time cycle then effectively the set of events ends with an eternal reoccurence as the scale of time expands or contracts.
Ever heard of a VPN?
Itās ok if everything regresses into self-subjective narcissism. I just.. want to know why.
Why we might sacrifice the truth for some dream, a dream of ourselves on the precipice of an idealized perfection? Oh, I get it. This is life, this is real, we are what we are, here and now. Why wait? Age and decrepitude take all things in the end, I know this.
Therefore ought we sacrifice this moment here and now, our ability to pursue truth itself, for its own sake, the highest possible echelons, forā¦ a comfy reminder, or a dream-ideal, a hope?
Does Nietzschean hopeism provide sufficient stability at the edge of a Kantian rift? And would all of this, a world to be made, envisioned even, suffice to shut the eyes of truth-love forever?
Oh yes, oh. Yes. yes. it does. I see it now.
What have we been doing, but this?
We humans. How dare we try
to envision something
beyond what we
already know
we are?
1 Like
The universe is merely a causal framework. Its true that it contains everything that is within its boundary. But we do not know if other existences, other things exist outside of this causal framework.
Of course since those have zero interaction with this universe, by definition they would be effectively nonexistent from within this universe.
But the possibility for their existence is not entirely deniable.
Yes, praise be to God.
A framework requires something beyond it to be distinct as a framework, it requires contrast from what it is not "an absence of framework;
the totality/all/etc. version of the universe cannot have anything beyond it otherwise it is not total/all/etc;
that degree that meaning of āuniverseā is nothingness, a meaningless if not paradoxical concept.
Correct. This breaks down the question perfectly.
āEverythingā is a framework too. Not only that, itās definition and meaning depends entirely on the observer. As such you have the flatlander problem:
To a 2 dimensional creature the concept of height, up or down, does not exist.
They will state that their universe is a total of 2 dimensions and that these 2 dimensions are āeverythingā.
They are technically correct since they are limited to 2 dimensions. They will never see the third dimension and their entire range of interaction is stuck there in 2.
So their statement is true from a spatial perspective.
Well. To you as a creature of 3 dimensions.
Is their statement true? Are there only 2 dimensions? No up or down?
It has always been a paradoxical concept since you can never verify whether or not your concept is true or has any validity because you are bound to your own spatial perspective.
āThe universeā is nothing more than the elephant in the story of the blind men and the elephant.
Each blind man draws a conclusion about the nature of the elephant based on the bodypart they interacted with.
All you know is the limit of your spatial perspective.
The limit of what you can interact with.
And that is the universe.
The final wall and limit of your scope of interaction.
To you, what you refer to as the universe is all there is, because its all there is you can interact with.
Now again: Does that mean that nothing can or could exist outside of that causal bubble you can interact with?
To envision it is - what we do. If we can.
But to verbalize it is not quite the same.
Can you formulate the totality in terms of mathematics?
For that, several things are required. First, mathematics would have to ground itself.
Can it?
The grounding logic I work with grounds itself, and describes itself, as does the Will to Power as a sheer logic of encroaching units of interpretation. I do not see a way in which math can do it, and of course famous mathematicians have posited just thisā¦ āobstacleā.
So if we are going to be hard about this whole project here, at this precipice, letās set out to find out if mathematics suffices for this task.
What is mathematics? I ask you to define it sufficiently.
If I had to define it, I would start with its inception, in the world that we know if; the extraction of regularities from situations involving numbers of objects/points. So, geometry as an emergent knowledge.
Three points on a plane, the angles will always add up to the same. These basic discoveries.
To the mathematical-cosmologist, this may seem like an indication of regularities that govern reality itself. To a Heideggerian, it appears like an indication that, from a messy environment, we can extract certain regularities that apply to each other. And from this we build machines that impact the messy environment. Machines like the formal mind.
It is not a given to a Heideggerian that the fact that exact regularities can be consistently extracted, the system that they amount to encompasses the mess from which they were extracted.
I donāt care about the assumption that they can. I care about the question why they would/should be able to.
How, analytically, formally, would we posit mathematical truth as being sufficient to its own discovery? The same question applies to analytical truth.
Itās easy enough to understand the Will to Power as sufficient to its own discovery. Itās also clear how the will to power as an ontology grounds itself.
I do not know of any other ontology besides Nietzscheās, and Heideggers and my own development of it in terms of indirectly self-establishing valuing-standards (valuing was actually Nietzscheās main operative term and criterion, grounding and/or surrounding his arguments about power), the subject of it is directly, logically seen to ground and build itself. This to me, is the ācharmā of philosophy; what makes me put faith and time in it. I only found it in Nietzsche and Heidegger. All the other philosophy Ive read asks of me a trust I can not give; a trust in principles that do not ground themselves, for the project of building a reliable system of truth.
So the question here applies not only to mathematics, but to logic as such. Can logic as such, if there is such a thing, ground itself? Maybe we should start there. A) What is logic as such? B) How does it ground itself?
As I see it mathematics is a very selective self-valuing logic / will to power. It selects its interactions in terms of its valuing standard very strictly. Of itself, it rejects interactions with that which does not a priori conform. It needs something else to āhelp it developā, this something else is physics.
Physics is a more tolerant form, it selects its interactions both in terms of what sustains it and builds it, but it also allows for interactions that challenge itās presumed systemic core. It has no hard systemic core, it is flexible, which is why it allows newly emerging facts that disagree with its previous model to challenge the mathematics on which that model was consolidated.
Three examples:
-Observations challenged Newton the develop a mathematics that describes the elliptical paths of the planets, the reality of which was an empirical infringement on the previously held more mathematically āelegantā (in the sense of easy, intuitive) model of circular orbits.
-Observations about the speed of light challenged Einstein to ābendā the entire field of physics to this new empirically emergent truth, preparing the context for the mathematics of Relativity.
-Observation that energized chemical particles emit energy only at discrete frequencies rather than the presumed smooth ārainbowā of them, prompted Bohr to posit the quantum model, forcing into being a new field of mathematics.
Whatās more, these last two forms of mathematics do not compute with each other. Relativity relies on a smooth fabric of spacetime, QM on a rigid and static background state.
I have seen how the phenomena described by Relativity and QM can both be derived from the same grounding logic (WtP, VO), but that does not necessarily imply their mathematics can be integrated. I could not stay that with certainty as I do not master those mathematics. In any case, the integration does not follow from these paradigms of mathematics themselves. This points to the fact that a system of mathematics is always a specific path, a specific approach.
I am not interested in the presumption that mathematics would be able to fully synthesize into a comprehensive model of reality, or that it already exists out there as the true nature of reality. I have zero resonance with these views - I only resonate with what it actually, verifiably does (is), and with the philosophical challenge to it I have given here.
//
//
//
Expanding on the context.
Can the law of identity ground itself?
How could the Will to Power logic ground itself if any philosophic effort must rely on logic, before logic grounds itself? (Note that I interpret self-valuing logic here as existing within the continuum set out by Nietzsche, so when I say Will to Power logic I refer also to self-valuing logic. I refer to WtP primarily because of peoples greater familiarity with it.)
My answer is that logic grounds itself only through attaining to the understanding of it as will to power, by becoming fully synthetic with empiricism. Logic here becomes completely of the world, taken from its mud, made alive with the breath of fire. Only here does it find its fully fledged form and can something of true internal and external consistency be built of it from the ground up.
The Law of Identity:
A=A is fine a lot of types of logic, but it is not adequate to philosophy; it is an artifice that is useful but not fully grounded. Or is it?
First of all, the idea that A equals A is grounded in the observation that equality is different from difference. So that A does or might not equal B.
A=A is basically the statement: there shall be order.
But how does order truly emerge out of chaos?
How does truth emerge from the primordial void?
I think itās a more subtle equation than A=A;
rather something like A must differ from B in the exact inverse way as B differs from A, for a and B to be treated as different units in the same system.
It is not given that there is cosmos (order) like this, that symmetry governs every mode of existence. Its just given that, for a mode of existence to sustain itself so as to become comprehensible, such symmetry must exist. And within such symmetry something like mathematics can apply.
For self-valuing to apply, no such symmetry is required. It is not required that A values B in the inverse terms of those wherein B values A. It is just that when this is the case or when such a case is approached, we get laws governed by symmetry, and what we understand as order/cosmos.
It doesnāt say anything (accurately) about the meaning of existence, life, Being, soul, spirit, after-life, or identity.
Why?
Because the concept of āEternal Recurrenceā is nonsense.
Is (everything=framework=universe) as X distinct if there is nothing for it to contrast to that would allow it to have identity?
This is given it is not everything if there is something for everything to contrast too as that would mean something beyond everything thus not everything.
No. If there is nothing for it to contrast to (as in: there is nothing else) then it would be all there is.
The āifā remains the issue here.
āIfā remains the context.
A single unified everything, without contrast, is the same as nothing. Pure everythingness is the same a pure nothingness.
Sure, but for this to work you also need to be literal about it. Meaning there cant be anything else anywhere. No higher frames, no higher planes, nothing outside the frame of reference.
This is to say that you can have a āpocket dimensionā which contains i.e. strawberries only and nothing else.
But for the strawberries to lose their meaning you have to elliminate everything else.
As long as the strawberries consist of atoms, as long there is a system within that is built on distinct parts, it will retain its meaning.
It will also retain its meaning as long as you on the outside exist, because you know what a strawberry is and you know what the difference is between that pocket dimension and whats outside of it.
In short: All forms of distinction need to vanish before the system can collapse back into being āeverythingā.
Infinite scales of eternal reoccurence, within and without eachother results in a void.
It is the equivalent of having infinite spheres within and without and between eachother and what remains is nothing.
Is the sphere whereever you look? Yes.
But is there a sphere? No, just void.
So yes there is eternal recurrence but this is an application of scale.