If it’s for the “real” philosophers, it may have to be analyzed using Modal logic. I don’t know if anyone much uses modal logic anymore, but it would help to specify wheather the original poster means all in “all worlds” or in this “hypothetical world” and that choice is an element of a set of concepts in this world.
Overall I think you’re discussing determinism as many here do. Your suggestion seems to fall with compatibilism . . . that we can have deterministic properties but there may also be choices that we can make as a result.
I have no formal education in philosophy, so I deny myself as qualified to answer.
That’s correct, north. It’s just another word for something that we already have a word for. Philosophy runs amok when it latches on to an ordinary word and tries to make it more than it can be.
That’s the history of metaphysics.
In fact, that’s the entire history of metaphysics.
There’s two elements in your philosophy that might stem from some already established branches. The first is your concept of the ALL, which sounds somewhat Hegelian - but I warn you that Hegel is immensely difficult to read - might want to start with some “intro” books. The second is your concept of “A” = “-A” - the rejection of the fundamentals of logic. I’m not familiar with any famous philosopher in the western tradition to really push this idea (but there’s got to be some), but I think eastern philosophy is more open to this idea.
The concept of infinity is just that: a concept. There is no proof of infinity. It is a mathematical theory; a strange singularity. In ancient times, before the advent of scientific modernism, many civilizations believed that there was no definite beginning to time as we know it. Many still believe that there is an infinite being that supercedes our universe’s history. Either way, there is no observable scientific data that proves infinity. In fact, it seems a little non-sensical to believe that a DEFINITE mass was acted on by DEFINITE force and the result was INFINITE. So, I don’t necessarily buy that the universe is an infinite expanse. It’s really big; it’s so big that we can’t see it all. Then again, we can’t swim to the bottom of the ocean, either. Doesn’t make it infinite. Same story with time.
I would suggest considering that infinity is not stable ground on which to place your theory.
This is a problem I’m seeing with a lot of your argument: “may”. The possibility of an anomaly is not proof of an anomaly. While it is a truly wonderful thing to speculate about what might be, and many good things can come from such speculations, philosophy has a scientific side to it: prove it. I would encourage you to take your vision of what could be, and put together the ideas to show that it IS something. If they won’t go together, then maybe it’s not possible, but at least you’ll have learned a lot.
There are very strict conditions under which physics has defined its moments of singularity. The moments are relatively rare compared the vastness of physical observation, which is a part of the reason why we don’t know much about singularities - they’re hard to observe. However, physics is a study of an independent mechanism (the physical aspects of the universe) over which we have little or no control. Logic is an entirely contrived system over which we have absolute control. Since we get to make the rules, it’s a lot harder to break them; whereas when the rules exist independent of us, there will be a lot of times where we don’t know exactly what’s going wrong.
I’d invite you to come up with some examples, thought-experiements, reasons, and conditions for when A=-A in logic and philosophy, not in physics. You might find a lot of post-modern thought can help you toward a corollary: A != A.
I think there’s something to what you’re saying about relative perception of time and space, but this conclusion is a non-sequitur. It definitely doesn’t mesh with any ideas of relativity I’ve ever heard. If anything, relativity comes to the exact opposite conclusion: we’re all in very unique space-time instances. Though the effects of relativity on me relative to you are statistically insignificant, they actually exist such that time and space as I experience them are not synched with you.
I like this statement. I think this is a good place for you to branch from. An innumerable amount of stuff (ALL) exists and has existed (perhaps even that which has existed has its remnants in the present and future - to some extent neanderthal lives on in the homo sapiens DNA), and we are just a very, very small part. Now what?
You strangely personify ALL here. Where does that come from? Since when does ALL have an essence, a desire, or anything like that? That the universe may work according to certain physical laws is one thing. That it does so for some bigger purpose, with engrained desires is another thing. I’m not discounting the possibility; I think if you’re going to imply it, you need to have some good reasons why. This same idea applies to your tenet #2 and #3 which both personify ALL.
How? Why? Says who? To what extent? You do a good job in linking limited perception to limited understanding and also to physical limitations. What are some of the ways in which perception is voluntary?
You’re also lacking some definition here. What is perception? Is there a difference between observation and perceptions? If so, what? What does it mean to participate in what we perceive? How would this differ from “passive perception”? Can one opt-out: choose not to perceive (besides suicide)?
Perhaps another idea … if everything is here and now, or if everything is cyclical, or if everything is in a constant state of transformation (IE when you die, your body just transforms into another physical state) then isn’t perception ceaseless? Is it possible that the only thing that changes is the perspective of perception? (which gets us back to Einstein)
Hope some of those comments are useful or of interest to you.
Faust, I’m new on the boards and it appears you’re a vet. I’ve seen posts of yours all over the place and they are generally helpful and interesting. I personally found this one a little condescending. Maybe that is my own reading for my own reasons.
Here is how I read it … “these have been my experiences; they will be yours.” Whether that’s what you said or not, that’s what I got. If that’s what was meant or implied, that is very neglectful of Charlie’s experience and potential and very limiting. I also personally find your words discouraging, not toward myself, but that someone as wise as you might so casually and cynically dismiss the philosophical practice while also contributing rather verbosely to the conversation.
For my part, politics and religion brought me to philosophy, not the other way around. I think that resolving political and religious conflict requires a deeper philosophical understanding, as my understanding of modern (and post-modern) political and religious theory is that they derive from more basic philosophical and existential questions (like what is human nature? what is good? etc.).
Finally, I would note that for those who struggle to find agreement, I have often found that the problem is that they do not give enough of what they seek. If intelligent people continually disagree with everything I say, then I am probably not making enough effort to find areas in which we share the common ground of agreement. Just my 2 cents.