Right… So where did I leave any of the OP’s issues unresolved? And where did you resolve any issue of mine?
In the thread taken as a whole, your username has not left anything unresolved, nor did I with respect to your username.
So I was right…we are both believers. With good reason, in my case. I follow the inquiry where it leads. You project your rejection of such on to me.
That does not follow. How does not leaving things unresolved make people believers?
Oh, please. You are a classic example of “God, therefore bla bla bla.”
But speaking of projection… My “Evangelical” neighbour, who’s accused me of membership in an elite cult of Satanic ritual sexual child abuse, actually seems to believe in “dark powers” which will affect even those who visit an innocuous(-seeming) Halloween party. So my sister, who is a psychologist (and, unlike my neighbour, a real one and not a Christian one), was completely right in referring to my neighbour as “the Satanist”! She is the one who believes in “dark powers”, not I; and by imagining my worshipping Satan, she’s a Satanist by proxy… We’re talking about someone who’s clearly been deeply repressed since childhood because of her Christian upbringing, and who therefore projects those sectarian qualities on whoever is sufficiently different from her in that respect. And I’m probably the most different person she’ll ever see.
Resolved. Then what happens?
Then apparently this is what you were trying to say:
“In the thread taken as a whole, your username has not left anything resolved, nor did I with respect to your username.”
Still raping the English language, but whatever. It does make more sense to say not resolving things renders people believers. I just disagree with what you were apparently trying to say. I don’t think I left any of the OP’s issues unresolved. He may feel differently, but I think he just hasn’t understood what I’ve said (nor have you, for that matter).
If we symbolize the current present by a decimal point, and I start typing a 6 every moment after that, we’ve already reached the infinite future (as symbolized by “666…”) when I’ve typed the first 6. And I can in theory reach every 6 in that infinite sequence except “the last one” (which I’ve symbolized by a “rounded up” 7).
Are you talking about Zeno’s paradox? Zeno’s paradox was resolved by the invention of calculus!
No, I’m not talking about a paradox. What I mean is very straightforward. I gave this alternative formulation in my last post:
‘If we symbolize the current present by a decimal point, and I start typing a 6 every moment after that, we’ve already reached the infinite future (as symbolized by “666…”) when I’ve typed the first 6. And I can in theory reach every 6 in that infinite sequence except “the last one” (which I’ve symbolized by a “rounded up” 7).’
I wrote ‘current present’ because each moment is the present at that moment, of course.
Do you agree that, in theory, I could forever keep typing sixes? If so, then there’s no six I couldn’t reach. The only thing I couldn’t reach is the hypothetical 7 beyond the hiatus (the three periods). The hiatus just means “it goes on like this forever”.
Every 6 I type after the present 6 is part of the infinite future. The infinite future starts right after the present. We can, in theory, reach each particular moment in that future, although there will still be an infinite future ahead of it. Immediately after the present, we will be in the future, although we’ll always be at the beginning of the future and never at the end of it (which is hypothetical, imaginary, an asymptote).
Present isn’t a fixed point…
All is dynamic…all is process, movement. All is energy.
Semiotics, including mathematics, reflects the disparity between existence and how life experiences it.
Confusing the represented for the representation is the problem…enabling charlatans to build “philosophies” on the linguistic manipulations of psychology - politics - taking advantage of this organic lag, and interpretation of flux.
“Here”, “now” only exist in the human brain, representing a range of interactivities, usually starting with the beginning of the thought…
An arbitrary piece of space/time converted into an abstraction.
There is no “point”, no “one”…present is presence, interpreted as appearance.
The present is not static, but dynamic…but organic brains must convert it into what they can process and store, and use.
Present is what we call existence.
Infinity is a concept representing this dynamism…as it implies a constant movement with no end.
Zeroeth Nature,
My first response to you was that the repeating digit after the decimal was a mathematization, but then agreed with your clarification, and said it represents one, or the whole. You’re going wibbly wobbly now. I maintain the store of nature that is/contains the whole doesn’t need to reach/approach/traverse what it is. The nodes get their being from that being. That is why communication is possible.
Also you mistranslated my meaning (& I have no edit timestamp… spy). Also Nietzsche wrote in German (¿nah?), so what do you mean the manuscript said yada yada? (Irrelevant to topic, but anywhayz.)
I am not talking about that type of infinity, the number of 6 which appears in the ratio 2/3.
Nietzsche’s (if that’s him) progressus & regressus are conceptual. Imaginary.
If the whole thing is complete with all of the blendings and appearances of things going backwards or forwards (say we conceptually time travel lol), etc.—We don’t actually traverse anything. It was always that way—approach is not actually needed for the store of nature; it is merely apparent. See my quote above.
You must be referring to this post of yours:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2925849#p2925849
Where in this post did you quote or address me, pray tell?
To be sure, I did think at the time it was probably a response to my last post, but I ignored it because that’s what it deserved. What I said hadn’t already been addressed (all too easy to make such a claim without saying where, by the way), and then you reverted to your babble about “nodes”, which doesn’t interest me.
The second is not a node.
The second does not represent the whole. However, I’d agree that (the store of) nature, which is (not “contains”) the whole, doesn’t need to reach/approach/traverse what it is. The whole timeline stretched out between the asymptotes “before” the Big Bang and “after” the Big Chill exists eternally unchanging in a higher dimensions. It’s not conscious, however.
Then have the courtesy of correcting my “mistranslation”! Jeez…
Yes, the manuscript is in German… Nietzsche wrote unendlichen (“infinite”), but Kaufmann translated it as if it said endlichen (“finite”).
From any arbitrary moment in the past (“arbitrary” here simply means “chosen at will”), there has only been a finite progression up to the present. Still, we could keep reckoning further back into the past. The only point that lies infinitely far back is the asymptote “before” the Big Bang.
Back all the way up to here with the nodes bit:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 9#p2925469
Everything you’re saying about asymptotes is meaningless if you aren’t interested in nodes.
How are you ruling out the second as a node?
How are you saying you’re not interested in nodes but you are interested in saying stuff about what does or does not “represent” the whole?
Timeline stretched out between asymptotes? You’re saying that like there’re two nodes. Well. Time”line” is not any worse than saying time”coil” or time”crosscurrent” I s’pose.
When someone says of something creative that it isn’t conscious, I take it as seriously as those who rule out the possibility of conscious AI without so much as running a test designed to gauge level of development.
My meaning behind saying “Resolved. Then what happens?” was in reference to the conflict with the person you know who claims to be Christian. If it is not on topic, feel free to start a new thread. Also there is meaning in the word “resolved”. Someone who says it believes something enough to act on their belief. They have made up their mind.
There is no such thing as a point infinitely far into the past—it’s like saying “To infinity—and beyond!” You can’t build up to it or go beyond it — it just has to always be. “Changes”/inventions included. And in a very meaningful way.
Regarding Nietzsche and the possible mistranslation, do you think Kauffman sensed sarcasm, or do you think it was an honest mistake?
I think you brought your own interpretation into Nietzsche. But here’s an interesting quote! “11 [217]
We need blindness at times, and we must leave certain articles of faith and errors in us untouched - as long as they keep us alive.” Source: philarchive.org/archive/FERNNO-2
Nonsense. Do you even know what an asymptote is?
I didn’t mean to rule it out, I just meant I’m not granting your condition that the second be a node. It doesn’t really matter to me whether the second be a node or not. Can you explain why it should matter to me? In that post you just linked to, you simply introduced the term “node” out of the blue without telling anyone why, or even who or what you were responding to…
“Represent” was your word (or Lorikeet’s…), so why you’re now putting it in scare quotes is beyond me.
Parts of the whole, whether spatial or temporal—like seconds or moments—, do not represent the whole in that, unlike the whole, they aren’t bounded by limits (e.g., asymptotes), but by each other (and, like Lorikeet 'keeted, the latter kind of boundaries aren’t absolute—except insofar as the parts are Wholes in the sense of Integrated Information Theory (but then they do not represent the whole in that, unlike the whole, they are conscious)).
The final paragraph of that article I just linked to:
“Experience is in unexpected places, including in all animals, large and small, and perhaps even in brute matter itself. But consciousness is not in digital computers running software, even when they speak in tongues. Ever-more powerful machines will trade in fake consciousness, which will, perhaps, fool most. But precisely because of the looming confrontation between natural, evolved and artificial, engineered intelligence, it is absolutely essential to assert the central role of feeling to a lived life.”
And you actually talk with AI. 
You are truly a lost soul.
You’re still not making sense to me. Were you asking what would happen if the conflict were resolved, or were you saying that my neighbour be not psychotic but just “resolute”?..
Exactly. An asymptote. The straight line beyond an infinite curve.
If he “sensed sarcasm” and tried to render this in his translation, he was a terrible translator. A translator must be an interpreter to some extent, but not to that extent.
I think it was an honest mistake, though. In fact, only yesterday did I myself type “equality” instead of “inequality” on a different forum, while typing out a book passage.
Sidestepped the very, very interesting Nietzsche quote, I see.
Fallen, fallen is babble-on the great!
But I digress. I will legit reply after my coffee.
Coffee & Asymptotes is taking longer than usual, on account o’ my math allergy.
The quote immediately continues:
“We must be unscrupulous about truth and error as long as it is about life—just so that we then again consume life in the service of truth and intellectual conscience. This is our ebb and flow, the energy of our contraction and expansion.”
Now it gets interesting…
Let’s start with this simple function. In fact, it may serve to symbolize the universe as I see it…
Division by zero is problematic:
n * 0 = 0
0 : 0 = n
n : 0 = ∞
∞ * 0 = n
It’s (n : 0 = ∞) that we see in the above graph, in which n = 1. This infinity may serve to symbolize the limit “before” the Big Bang as I see it: the y-axis may serve to symbolize density.
The x-axis may serve to symbolize time. At time zero, i.e. “before” the Big Bang began, the density of the universe would have been infinite. After infinite time, the density of the universe would be zero. ‘Would be’, because the Big Chill never ends, is never complete.
Note: no temporary slowing down of the “expansion” of the universe¹ is shown in this simple graph.
¹ The so-called expansion of the universe is really the contraction of everything in it.
1 Like
I’m going to put this to you very simply. Expanding into what? Contracting away from what? I’m feeling super perpendicular right now.
Yes, that’s the (rhetorical) question that’s made me put it in scare quotes. Scientists, in the usual sense, will tell you the question is meaningless, the math suffices and doesn’t require visualization, but what’s the philosophical value of unvisualizable, purely abstract math? A(nother) rhetorical question.
Nothing! That’s the beauty of my reversal: the universe remains forever infinite. It’s just that all “matter”, all “particles”, all collapsed waveforms, radiate space, uncollapse into waves of space—and even the waves themselves get ever smaller, their amplitude ever lower (but never zero)…
So you’re just talking about fluxing around the equilibrium (“unmoved mover” … the malleable backbone… master who became servant)?
Every beginning an end, every end a beginning, begun/ended complete.
That’s hot/cool.