Infinite Regression

[James_S_Saint]

@Zoot Allures

It’s like an inconceivably low frequency wave or pulse that keeps pulsing over and over again. It’s the material matrix of existence. Each pulse pushes into existence an amount of energy that moves around and creates time, then it slows down and disintegrates and a wave is collapsed. Where do some particles go that collide with another particle… sometimes the fragments equal less mass than the particle the fragments came from. You never thought of that. Run a check on that James, and no distorting the facts to push your AO agenda.

What happens to that mass that tries to run and tries to hide? I think it has to break on through to the other side yeah.

You seriously should study a bit more of what you try to critique. RM:AO covers every detail of existence, but if you think that it doesn’t, you would do well to at least learn what it does cover. RM:AO isn’t for ye ole average person (yet), but rather for the only people who are actually listening.

You seem to be proposing a creation out of nothing theory, "Each pulse pushes into existence an amount of energy…". So you do not believe in the conservation of energy? Even pop-science proclaims that the BB’s singularity already had all of the universes energy inside it. Of course real science soon realized that such is ridiculous and thus chose a larger “singularity”. But still no word from any science as to where their BB came from.

[Zoot_Allures]

A big bang event is a big drain event, dude. The stuff doesn’t come from nowhere… it comes from the other side. Now how these pulses and space-time doors got put into motion or how many exist is beyond me. But it’s all just a bunch of blips from a giant, cosmic Bose surround sound speaker system.

[Orbie]

This is just a hunch, but, it really is a trick. Well, not exactly, more of an illusion.

And this is not based on any hyper math, or credible study. The concept of infinity, depends on markers,

boundaries. The whole notion of the universal re-examined.

Universal infinity can only be expressed via counting,
yes you heard it right, counting. How many
universes, etc. If there are no boundaries between the universes, doors if you would, then the idea is, that the singularity manifests it’s self in another sort
of way-it expands. The extension which is not spatio-temporal, but seems to
differentiate time and space, but perhaps interweaving or knotting and at critical points, just
like a collapsing wave, transmutes ,just a process,
boundless, hence non measurable. Infinity as a concept is beyond measurement, and this lack is what we experience. It is always a singular entity,
and it can not even be spoken as singular, since
there is no other. We just think that a singularity has to be of a certain spatial /temporal manifestation. We can not wrap our brain around this other way of experiencing IT, well our left hemisphere gets an inkling. Now and then.

In the lack of even a single universe, The left hemisphere sets up multiplicity,

and we start looking for doors.

Actually a more likely scenario is, that there are no
doors, and we can slip through the keyholes invisibly,
if there are. We think therefore, that we ARE the keys to the universe, whereas we are only copies.

[James_S_Saint]

@Zoot Allures

A big bang event is a big drain event, dude. The stuff doesn’t come from nowhere… it comes from the other side.

And what do you call that “other side” if not a part of the universe (“all things”)?

Of course the issue here isn’t really where things specifically came from, but rather if there was a point when changing or motion didn’t exist at all … anywhere, here or on that “other side”.

[James_S_Saint]

@Orbie

This is just a hunch, but, it really is a trick. Well, not exactly, more of an illusion.

And this is not based on any hyper math, or credible study. The concept of infinity, depends on markers, boundaries. The whole notion of the universal re-examined.

Universal infinity can only be expressed via counting, yes you heard it right, counting. Who many universes, etc. If there are no boundaries between the universes, doors if you would, then the idea is, that the singularity manifests it’s self in another sort of way-it expands. This extension seems to differentiate time and space, but perhaps time and space are interwoven, and meet, at critical points, just like Hoffstadter’s collapsing wave. This process is just process, boundless, hence non measurable. infinity as a concept is beyond measurement, and this lack is what we experience. It is always a singular entity, and it can not even be spoken as singular, since there is no other. we just think that a singularity has to be of a certain stations/temporal manifestation. We can not wrap our brain around
Even a lack of a single universe, because as soon as we do that, multiplicity sets up, and we start looking for doors.

Actually a more likely scenario is, that there are no doors, and we can slip through the keyholes invisibly, if there are.

Seems just a bunch of words, meaninglessly bound into a muse.

And once again, the word and concept, “universe”, means literally ALL things. By definition, there can be no “other universe”, “parallel universe”, or “multiverse” except in poetry. And more relevant is the simple question of whether there was a moment when nothing was changing or moving at all - no time.

[Orbie]

But Zeno had it right. Change and motion do not ‘exist’

[James_S_Saint]

@Orbie

But Zeno had it right. Change and motion do not ‘exist’

Zeno was merely a muse. There are no paradoxes in reality, only in the mind. Simple calculus resolves most of Zeno’s “paradoxes”. And calculus is exactly what resolves the whole anti-infinite regress argument that claims that one could not get from an infinite past up to this present.

[Orbie]

I told You it was only a hunch, and I would place the poetry of philosophy above analytic philosophy any time, This is why I appreciate people like William James, Bergson, Nietzche, Socrates, as innovators, and it takes analysts ,such as Leibnitz and Kant,Heidegger, to re phrase and unknot what was intended.

[James_S_Saint]

@Orbie

I told You it was only a hunch, and I would place the poetry of philosophy above analytic philosophy any time, This is why I appreciate people like William James, Bergson, Nietzche, Socrates, as innovators, and it takes analysts ,such as Leibnitz and Kant to re phrase and unknot what was intended.

And why would you take poetry over analysis? For what purpose?

[Orbie]

‘Reality’ can be paradoxical even today. Even the concept ‘reality’ is paradoxical, even as we speak of these things.

The purpose? I think it is very much wrapped up, knotted with the intention.

[Zoot_Allures]

And what do you call that “other side” if not a part of the universe (“all things”)?

Of course the issue here isn’t really where things specifically came from, but rather if there was a point when changing or motion didn’t exist at all … anywhere, here or on that “other side”.

Go to 1:15. That’s how I just said “exxxxactly” when I read that, James.

Those, my friend, are the questions of questions.

You would think that the decay of particles and increase of entropy in a system would be a micrcosmic example of the same process at a macrocosmic scale… and yet the concept of a pure nothingness is senseless.

From whence if did it come, and where shall if it go?

So, logically, if it weighs as much as a universe, and can be burned, it is without beginning or end.

[Orbie]

Zoot, may be nothingness and sense are tied in the same way, however only ontologically? The concept of the ‘Void’ is different.

At best it can be compared de-ontologically to intention.

[James_S_Saint]

@Zoot Allures

So, logically, if it weighs as much as a universe, and can be burned, it is without beginning or end.

… and floats like a duck.

[Zoot_Allures]

… exxxxactly!

[phoneutria]

yo pass the joint

[Orbie]

This is the world I meant
Couldn’t you listen!
Couldn’t you stay content
Safe behind walls
As I
Could not?

Now you know what is there in the world
No one can prepare you for the world
Even I
How could I who loved you as you were
How could I have shield you from her?

Or
Them

No matter what you say
Children won’t listen
No matter what you know
Children refuse to learn

Guide them along
Still they will listen
Children can only grow
From something you love
To something you loose

Witch’s Lament

[Zoot_Allures]

yo pass the joint

I got a fat dub sack of the chronic in my back pocket, loc. Need myself a lighter so I can take a smoke…

[James_S_Saint]

@Zoot Allures

yo pass the joint

I got a fat dub sack of the chronic in my back pocket, loc. Need myself a lighter so I can take a smoke…

…“take a smoke”??
Did he say “take a smoke”??

I guess they don’t drag a huff anymore …

[Amorphos]

James S Saint

Time is our measure of the relative changing that is going on. God is the Cause of the changing that is going on, also known as the Underlying Principle, or “First Principle”, “First Cause”. It’s just a label.

That could as easily be a universal force and one which doesn’t require first cause [though you said there was no creation?]. It would be existent as well as having an extra-existential side [outside of an individual universe]. I don’t see why that isn’t the thingness of time + intelligence + has force, + is eternal i.e. is the Tao and it’s opposite in confucian philosophy, or more specifically an under {undulating} and over {projecting} current. Is that God?!?! Two things at once sounds more like reality to me?

We have to wonder what creation is doing in our causal universe; I think it is the >reason< why evolution is what it is and does what it does. Like a force permeating all things with the ‘desire’ to live [or ‘survive’ in evolutionary terms].

Hyperreal math

It deals with numbers as other kinds of maths does, it’s just using a real as a hypothetical within the confines of algebra, hence making R have the same cardinality as any given real/integer.

_

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

@iambiguous

Everything always begins with everyone else understanding that what everything means is that which you assert it to mean.

Any discussion with you is over.

James,

You have a lot of fascinating things to say about subjects that most of us lack either the background or the education to fully understand. Let alone refute. But somehow you manage to tie all of the components of these threads together into a theory of everything [RM] that interest me only to the extent to which they are made applicable [“down here”] to identity and conflicting values.

And then, at the other end, re this thread, the extent to which the “human condition” can be fully integrated into the very nature of Existence itself.

In my view, folks like you base their argument [tautologically] on the definition [the meaning] that they give to the words in the argument itself. Then [as with Satyr] you suck folks up into the stratosphere of dueling definitions and dueling deductions. And for folks who wish to go there, fine.

All I do [as did folks like Wittgenstein] is suggest that we explore the possible limitations of language pertaining to that which interest me either “down here” or “up there”. Now, if you don’t wish to go there, that’s fine too.