Infinite Regression

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
81

To say there is no purpose in existence is a presupposition, which has been layered since the scholastics, where Spinoza got some of his stuff. And the scholastics got some from early Arsbian thinkers. That there is overlapping and sharing going on, somewhat masks the difference between the orientalist so with those of the occidental.

Some presumption derives its sources from hidden sources. This sharing implies an invention for later clarification, purpose sneaks in. The future is planted in a derivation of the past, in the future.

This essential derivation gives masochism a purposeful role, of setting limits to to earlier anomalies between existential, essential relations of Being. There is optimism in hoping that this derivation, is somehow related to the Western transcendental traditions. And as it turned out they did! It would be interesting to find out if there is sharing or overlap between them, and make the
Term ‘Oriental’ more inclusive and less specific than it is thought of now. In which case, purpose fullness may be said to be more reducible, and foundations to
purpose more solidly re-in(en)forced, by a will, making the contradiction lead to a shift away from negative nihilism, toward the positive aspect of the necessity of suffering.

82

I don’t believe in the necessity of suffering…

83

Some do believe of influences of Buddhism into Sufism, at the time of the Arabic growth into those areas. Therefore, the prevailing source, at least to some degree, of development of Mahayana>Zen Buddhism, regarding the principles of non contradiction and excluded middle. Therefore the wider connection to presuming existential goals related to paradoxical treatments in both Zen and and Scholastic faith related ideas.

Some, is better than none, and and even the least among you, can count every strand of hair…related to the ‘Lebenswealth’ of later transcendentalists, (possibly<probably)

84

Look around you all you see is death and destruction…

But I believe in something more…

Maybe Eden could be real…

And not a locked and broken door…

85

The broken door

Eden through a key hole take it,

In a hurry ,

see it face it,

The beast sleeps within

You see it, trace it

86

Necessity is the mother of our deductions. Since Existence has no opposite, then there can’t even be any bits or spacers of NonExistence anywhere within Existence, much less outside of or before; therefore there is Unity, as everything within able to influence anything else, this Unity being ever, as ‘is’ rather than ‘is not’, in the present tense of presentism’s ‘now’, with no extant ‘was’, for that state is gone, and no extant ‘will be’, for those states have not yet been formed.

Within this Unity, there is multiplicity generated by the Unity, as another necessity, for Stillness is apparently prohibited, for everything goes onward, as we see.

The base monads need (necessity) have only themselves making up themselves, that is, no further parts, in order to be Fundamental, which is why they have no beginning, as “ungenerated and deathless”, unbreakable and thus unmakable, existing with no alternative.

They generate, informationally, more and more complexity, the only direction in which they can go (necessity), even perhaps effectively getting into all the constructs that possible, some of which are stable and so can go forward at that level, such as with protons, these higher arrangements becoming the basis for even greater complexity systems, as like a series of nested dolls.

This needs be done as time goes along through each transformation/change/cycle (each ‘now’), given that time is quantized and discrete, which is what Zeno was trying to show with his paradoxes based on infinite regression/divisibility. Then we discovered the quantum of the Planck time.

That this information processing is a brute force kind of exploration is evidenced by the incredible amount of time that it took for our solar system and us mammals to arrive on the scene, yet such a ‘method’ of no prediction and no design will find workable solutions, whereas foreseeing everything appears to be mathematically impossible.

All is what it is, of necessity, and it is now and we are here.

87

I have no reason to believe that.

I find that to be false.

That is true, although predicting enough is all that is required or desired.

True too.

88

Depends if something composite can be fundamental.

No Zeno paradoxes; no Planck time or size?

89

If what poetic says is a necessary truth, then the relativity of time is measured in regional, albeit relatively commensurate with near cosmic relational objects. The more distant away from such relational measurement, the shorter the span of time from farther. So, in absolute terms, there is a point that time, is immeasurable. From that point, supposing it exists too distant to have its own sense of time, the imminent, timeless should approach.

How does that square with the ability to measure time from the farthest approximated reaches of the universe? Recently the found a quasar whose distance approximates the very beginning of time, the Big Bang? (Of course this fact alone would not necessarily invalidate the Big Bang, but sees to support the idea, that there are even farther reaches of the universe from which we could not even
get a blink even from the largest quasar. Are there any implications from this view?

90

Regarding the OP,

It is in threads like this that I am always amazed that no ever seems to invoke the most astonishingly perceptive definition of time that the world has ever known:

And it is from this definition that he proceeded to construct a system of thought that prepares the necessary groundwork so that we may avoid all pitfalls inherent in the kinds of antinomious dialectic that are precisely mirrored by the present thread.

Well, that was the plan, anyway… I mean, what better way is there to while away the proverbial rainy day than to engage in impossible arguments about the ways in which our internal senses are formally arranged?

And all of this just means: the deeper you peer into the dark recesses of the objective past, the closer you approach the singularity that is the absolute self, ie, the transcendental subject.

It is for this reason that practically every working theoretical physicist alive today is woefully unprepared to even begin to tackle the deep and meaningful questions that their theories seem to encompass.

91

James - I don’t have any problems with infinite regression as a logical possibility.

92

It’s good to know that some things don’t change. :wink:

But can you accept it as a logical necessity?

93

not sure what you mean by this, but I’ll take that as a friendly wink

Nah, not until I can understand everything that entails.

94

… all probable phenomenological contingency

95

Basically what it entails is that change (aka “time”) is not something that can begin, because to begin change is to already be changing. If it cannot begin, the only alternative is to have always been.

If anything could have always been, why couldn’t it be change itself, the changing of the changing?
Or in RM:AO terms, the “Affect upon Affect”.

96

But in the beginning, change IS the beginning, why not? (As the beginning from the changeless) whatever that is - perhaps it is the bound-less, and change is - to bound…

97

James, it is not ‘me’ asking the question, the affect upon affect is problematic in this regard, the question remains, it requires to the question, an inherent answer.

98

Change can be the beginning principle of thought, but it cannot be the beginning of time (the changing itself), else you are claiming that change caused itself, Sui Causa.

If you think that there was once a nothingness, you must accept that change from that took place. So from the nothingness, how did change come into the picture? Spontaneously from nothingness? If nothingness could cause change, it wouldn’t be nothingness.

99

I follow that.

How do you think space and time are related, iow what do you think of space-time?

100

The thought, would by logical necessity require a cause, but only if that which entailed thought could, but that, whatever nothingness is, is bound, then, that binding, may not be a causal agent. There need not be causation with nothingness, unless it is caused by thought.
May not one conceive a pre thought nothingness? And that’s a different then a thought of…