-
can i also point out, that im also no scientist, or philosopher, and although i do think on occasion, i am dreading the return of tynan to this thread cos he'll cut down everything i said soooo quick and point out all my errors. and i wont even understand the words he uses.
-
anyway, three blind men and an elephant went in to a pub...
polease someone come up with a punchline to this.
The three blind men and an elephant story is a limited argument in favour of shared intersubjectivity, rather than mind-independent reality, and you can't get from intersubjectivity to objective reality without faith, although I grant you, you do have plenty of that.
sooo, i dont understand what this means.
and as for having faith, any layperson who doesnt have a working knowledge of sciences has faith. faith in what scientists tell us is right. im not a physicist to know and understand these things so i have faith that gravity works and will continue to work, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow cos of the movements of the planets. i dont know it to be true form my own workings out, but i have faith in the workings of others (to a point) and its backed up by me not floating away and the sun rising everyday i have been alive. but again it illustrates my point that regardless of my knowledge or view point, gravity and the sun rising are what they are, however it is to me.
i dont really know what we are debating anymore. i guess you know what ii think about it now though, sorry for repeating myself. it seems so clear to me, and i wonder if you (anyone)think something different or just trying to make me squirm (cos thats working too).
-
@plurabelle up there ^^^^
wrong and right.
right.
my view on it doesnt change what is "true".wrong.
but true is still true whatever tint glasses we look at it through - quantum physics, biology, religion, illogic/logic, faith, not giving a shit - it doesnt matter. everything will still be what it is regardless of our consciousness. even if everything is actually a big whirling mess of nonsense and snakes. if thats what it is, then so be it. though i dont see it that way and i guess you dont either.whatever "is" is; be that the objective reality which i see or believe in or whatever, or a subjective reality which you propose; my view on it, nor yours, nor the whole population of the worlds views, do not change what "is" is in actuality. a pot of salt, which is green, for example. like i touched on earlier, the language which we use to describe things may be different from the reality, but the reality is still the reality.
3 blind men and an elephant....
'True is still true' assumes that there is 'a' truth, though, let alone whether or not it's knowable. You just keep asserting that reality 'is' – a common-sense position which isn't much fun in these sorts of arguments.
I have been careful not to propose anything like a 'subjective reality' – my point is just that it is not self-evident that there is an objective one.
Yes, I am a 'lady'. Which doesn't exempt me from alpha-male posturing, I don't think. I am just waving a Freudian lack-of-willy instead of a real one :(
-
and as for having faith, any layperson who doesnt have a working knowledge of sciences has faith. faith in what scientists tell us is right. im not a physicist to know and understand these things so i have faith that gravity works and will continue to work, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow cos of the movements of the planets. i dont know it to be true form my own workings out, but i have faith in the workings of others (to a point) and its backed up by me not floating away and the sun rising everyday i have been alive. but again it illustrates my point that regardless of my knowledge or view point, gravity and the sun rising are what they are, however it is to me.
i dont really know what we are debating anymore. i guess you know what ii think about it now though, sorry for repeating myself. it seems so clear to me, and i wonder if you (anyone)think something different or just trying to make me squirm (cos thats working too).
I'm not arguing to make you squirm, honestly. I'm not even concerned about what you believe, more about your reasons for believing it, and if your belief boils down to faith, pure and simple, then that is fine by me, but it isn't a reason. The Austrian philosopher Wittgenstein said that all arguments about philosophy run out of reasons at some point, it's just a question of when, or how soon.
-
'True is still true' assumes that there is 'a' truth, though, let alone whether or not it's knowable.
yes. knowing it or not doesnt change it. that is what i believe. which so far has been about the only statement of opinion here. poke holes in my argument all day, i dont have the language or education to say it any different or prove it. i still believe it. noone else has said what they actually believe, only said that i am (possibly) wrong.
You just keep asserting that reality 'is' – a common-sense position which isn't much fun in these sorts of arguments.
yes i suppose i am, and i know its becomming a bore. whatever "is" is. it may be a common sense position but it is the one which i understand and grasp.
I have been careful not to propose anything like a 'subjective reality' – my point is just that it is not self-evident that there is an objective one.[/quote]
sorry, i kind of assumed that thats what you were saying, my mistake.
Yes, I am a 'lady'. Which doesn't exempt me from alpha-male posturing, I don't think. I am just waving a Freudian lack-of-willy instead of a real one :(
um, not wanting to open up a whole can of gender argument worms here, but yes it does exempt you from actual alpha male posturing. you can mimick it, but if you arent an alpha male, it will never be alpha male posturing. just the way we use language i guess, so yea, you can do it, you arnt exempt from doing it ,but it will never be it because of the boy/girl differences. its the concessions we make in our use of language...e.g. s/he's a retard.. well no, maybe acting like a retard, but actually being retarded is something else. i think im being picky here. sorry.
i am happy to admit i may be getting out of my depth here, my language and education can only go so far with these things as i mentioned above.
as a side note, i dont like this alpha male stuff. im not really sure what it is and it feels a bit dirty, almost like peopple would think that i see myself as alpha male or something just cos im contributing.
-
I'm a beta-male and proud of it.
-
depends what high street. oxford street? pah, scratch away, no one will notice, and if they do, you'll never see each other again.
if its a small town high street, you could nonchalantly lean against a wall or sit down on a bench and do the static object bum scratch. or go into a shop and do it discreetly in a corner.
-
ming
-
um, not wanting to open up a whole can of gender argument worms here, but yes it does exempt you from actual alpha male posturing. you can mimick it, but if you arent an alpha male, it will never be alpha male posturing. just the way we use language i guess, so yea, you can do it, you arnt exempt from doing it ,but it will never be it because of the boy/girl differences. its the concessions we make in our use of language...e.g. s/he's a retard.. well no, maybe acting like a retard, but actually being retarded is something else. i think im being picky here. sorry.
i am happy to admit i may be getting out of my depth here, my language and education can only go so far with these things as i mentioned above.
as a side note, i dont like this alpha male stuff. im not really sure what it is and it feels a bit dirty, almost like peopple would think that i see myself as alpha male or something just cos im contributing.
I was just kidding.
-
good. i was getting nervous that a whole gender constructs shit storm was gonna kick off. i've been hanging around alternative cafes too much...
-
infinite
-
Most people who deal with this subject fairly heavily lean towards the notion that the future is finite - quite what form the 'boundary' of time takes is less well known, but even rudimentary logic suggests that time itself is 'capped'.
I always found this quite a profound idea, that not only will we be dead one day but that in the very very distant future (I hesitate to use the word) we will not only be dead but will have never have existed.
Thoughts like this provoke me into wearing unusual clothing.
But on the subject of space (spatial dimensions) it is commonly accepted that the universe is finite in size (but, of course, unbounded) in that it does not (cannot) go on forever.
What about the thermodynamic angle of this.
As entropy is always increasing like the second law states, the quality of energy in the universe will continually decrease, however it has been found that the universe is increasing at an ever accelerating rate, which means the temperature of the universe is decreasing at an ever accelerating rate. Now Entropy increases at a decreased rate with a decrease in temperature.
So which will happen first, buggar all useful energy or the universe hits absolute zero and nothing can happen or am I talking bollox?
-
im confused, to me, unbounded means without boundaries, which is the same as infinite. so what i read that as is... infinite and finite or infinite and infinite.
can you clear this up for me please?
Why certainly young man.
Unbounded does, as you say, mean without boundaries, but it is not the same as infinite.
The key to understanding the universe in these terms is to initially abandon commonsense ideas about geometry.
When we muck about with geometry on a piece of paper (standard Euclidean geometry) everything works nicely, 3 corners of a triangle add up to 180° and there is only one definition of a straight line that will pass between two fixed points - basically everything is 'normal', everything is commonsensical, easily understood. For example if I walk ten miles South, then ten miles West, the ten miles North - I end up in a position exactly ten miles West of my starting point.
When we apply the same measurements to - for instance - the surface of a sphere, things fall apart - using the same walking pattern as above - you start at the North pole, walk ten miles South, ten miles west and then ten miles North - but you do not end up ten miles to the West of where you started (like in the above example), you actually end up in the exact same position as where you started.
This is because Elucidian (standard/normal/commonsensical) geometry does not apply to a sphere, you need to use a non-Elucidian geometry (in this case we would need to use spherical geometry).
Similarly when we further abandon the world of 2D (the surface of a 3D sphere is a 2D surface) and move out into the universe our non-Elucidian spherical geometry falls apart - we need to employ hyperbolic geometry, and if you thought non-elucidian geometry was fucking weird, then this stuff is bad ass.
Let's look at the easy one first (easy because it does not breach our commonsensical understanding of geometry) - unbounded and infinite.
This is fairly easy to grasp in simple terms, spatial dimensions continue unbounded in all directions, the further you travel in one direction the further you are removed from your starting point.
Now onto higher dimensional analogs ! :s Unbounded and finite - this is the currently accepted model, the universe is finite in spatial dimensions but unbounded.
So how to explain finite but unbounded. Let's imagine a giant sphere, it's surface is a 2D surface, now imagine a tiny 2D being exploring the 2D surface of this giant sphere, regardless of how far it travels it will never meet a boundary, it can keep exploring in any direction forever and never meet a boundary - it's 2D world is finite in size, yet unbounded.
Now extrapolate this 2D model into 3D and (very crudely put) you have a starting point for understanding a finite/unbounded universe. You can travel in one direction in a straight line for a few billion years, never meet a boundary and then arrive exactly where you started, in this respect space is curved.
Well . . . I am not sure a 'straight line' can exist in curved space (?) but what I am trying to say is that the reason you end up where you started is not because your trajectory is slightly off course it is that the universe in shaped to bring you back to where you started.
oh and do you mean infinite as in goes on forever in terms of distance, or infinite in terms of will exist forever - i.e. time?
infinite - is used here spatially.
a perpetual motion device set in motion now is infinite (theoretically - not accounting for wear of mechanical parts etc), depite not having been in motion yesterday.
This supposes time itself is sempiternal, there is nothing to suggest that this is an inerrant fact.
... in the very very distant future .... we will not only be dead but will have never have existed.
um, no. that isnt actually possible, due to the fact that i am sitting here. and i am actually sitting here. existance isnt merely for the benifit of consciousness. if in basquillions of year creature come to this exact spot that i am sitting and find no remains of me or my building site house, it doesnt mean i was never here.
I didn't make my point very clear - the drink, it was the drink.
What I meant to say was that in one model of our universe (of the three possible models) - we see gravity eventually overwhelm matter and bring everything together into a singularity (what scientists might call the 'big crunch') - at this point time itself is brought to a halt, at this point you will not only be long dead (I will make sure of that) but there is no time from which to 'project' a past.
yes trees falling make what we call a sound (the waves outside of our bodies) even if there are no ears and brains to figure it out.
If your definition of sound is a definition of the sound waves that dissipate through the air - then I agree.
i think that (i have never cared to consider this before so i have only just decided) that time is infinite. the universe, our universe is finite. but, the space that the universe exists in, is infinite.
Like I said above, I can see no good reason to believe that time is infinite, time is simply a measure of change, unless we are lucky enough to be living in a steady state universe it will eventually grind to a halt (no change).
I agree that our universe is finite - but your idea that the universe exists in something else (!!) that you call 'space' is a strange hypothesis.
The universe means everything - there are not things outside the universe, there is not another 'stage' called 'space' on which the universe plays out !
[Edit] . . . . . . .
Just reading once more what you wrote, you seem to be employing a kind of substrate for everything, (if I understand you correctly) a kind of unspoken/unnamed scaffold to hold everything up, as in:
*Time: Time exists regardless of matter, even if everything is gone, if no matter existed - time would still exist.
The Universe: The universe sits within a substrate called 'space'.
*I can't really agree with either of these ideas, my own view is that the universe is all there is (it is everything) - and time is simply a measurement of change, it does not exist without change.
-
Berkeley would say that the dissipation of pressure waves through an independent medium is just a hypothesis that you arrive at by abstracting from the only things you truly know, which are the things you know directly through sense perception, which is the sound as you hear it, the noise 'inside your head' so to speak.
So then Berkeley is defining sound as something you sense' -so he would give the answer 'no, if no one was there, there would be no sound'.
Again, a matter of definitions, define how the word sound is being used and the question answers itself.
The dissipation of pressure waves through an independent medium it is a theory not a hypothesis. [/pedant] :p
-
briefly, cos ya know, i do have to leave the house today... thanks for the reply, it does help to clear things up a little and i actually understood i think your explanations. which is nice.
[Edit] . . . . . . .
Just reading once more what you wrote, you seem to be employing a kind of substrate for everything, (if I understand you correctly) a kind of unspoken/unnamed scaffold to hold everything up, as in:
Time: Time exists regardless of matter, even if everything is gone, if no matter existed - time would still exist.
The Universe: The universe sits within a substrate called 'space'.yes and yes. and to be honest, i dont see why not.
I can't really agree with either of these ideas, my own view is that the universe is all there is (it is everything) - and time is simply a measurement of change, it does not exist without change.
i was thinking about the idea of time being soley a measure of change, and i think its an interesting idea. but i suppose, in the end, i dont agree with it.
-
just because a consciousness witnesses something, or not, it does not change what it is, only that we percieve it, and indeed, how.
You need to brush up on your quantum theory !
I would start with the double slit experiment - a good example of how (in one interpretation) our witnessing something changes it.
whatfriends
Sharkstar
plurabelle
deleted
Balki
DR
James_Alexander
cookiesdonniedarko-
Post a reply
About
New edgy thread
Posted by
@tynan
The three blind men and an elephant story is a limited argument in favour of shared intersubjectivity, rather than mind-independent reality, and you can't get from intersubjectivity to objective reality without faith, although I grant you, you do have plenty of that.