13
   

Is 'Everything' One Thing?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Sep, 2010 11:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Sorry, I don't do "naive realism". I'm a different sort of frog. Wink

I may be a similar frog to Richard Rorty ("truth" is what works)... or to Heisenberg( we never observe "the world", only the results of our interactions with it).... or to Maturana ( "Cognition" is another name for "the general life process").... or to Heidegger ("Language speaks the Man") ......


Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 12:02 am
@fresco,
I think you mean to refer to knowledge on Truth which is substantially different from the problem of Truth itself as you well know, so please don´t mixed them...actually I am far more close to the traditional rationalist perspective in this matter...

All I am saying can resume to this one simple idea:

The World has a qualitative length in spite of an infinite time/space potential...(and that directly refers to rules, functions, and patterns.)
The infinite inside the finit...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 12:28 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
That all sounds reasonable at the macro level of "everyday living". But any excursion into particle physics, cosmology, functional biology or ethnology results in the questioning of everyday assumptions about "the world". (In the sense of Godel's incompleteness theorem we come up on the problem of choice of axioms). For example no scientist can tell you what "an electron" is. It's merely a useful marker in a specialized semantic network involving the interaction of scientists. It is therefore the nature of such communicative networks and the status of language as an a priori "segmenter of reality" which I think is the significant issue for philosophers. And all that requires a metalanguage, perhaps mathematics, or neologisms, in order to get a handle on it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 12:56 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
(...I should have added that your word "qualitative" is relative to a particular perceptual apparatus...)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 07:21 am
@fresco,
Agreed...when it comes to knowledge is often easier to get to the function then to the thing...specially when you are a part of the set that you are trying to analyse...and when I say to the "thing" I am not even pointing to a materialistic nature, once this days we cannot make that distinction with clarity any more...now... does really the list of all lists that do not belong to themselves belongs to itself ? Can there be such a list ?
...an emerging property cannot come out of the blue as nothing comes, but necessarily from the combined potential of its constituents, and remember, as a potential that must exist in the first place in each alone to be bounded further on...so maybe just maybe, all lists belong to themselves...as an orange in a set is not just an orange alone as it was n´t on the tree who made it and give it form, as nothing really is...there are no alone oranges but through idea, an idea who leads to objectivity...an artificiality to make it all clear ! Identity of things imply´s relation, therefore implying sets...and that is the question open to discussion with this Thread...hope its not a bridge to far !...

To get "Reality" you don´t go to objects but to sets...and you must be greater then not smaller then, to make sense of it...yet relation again...so, you only can go so far when it comes to knowing with certainty.
Even if greater and smaller don´t make such a big difference in the end, given the part is in the set, but the set is also somehow in the part. (as ontological potential before phenomena, before manifestation)

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 08:24 am
Everything is observed as a set only when we remove ourself/selves from the set. In reality we cannot do this. We belong in the set. The set ergo does not exist, it is infinite in properties, yet, it must still be viewed as a set for it to be comprehensible.

The properties of 'everything' are 'ALL things'.

When you look at a pail of water, you classify the water as one thing, yet you know that is millions of droplets, billions of molecules and a lot of atoms, protons, quark, etc...

Oh never mind.

Mark...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 09:03 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Mark is half correct. "Sets" are about expected/predicted interactions of observer with world. They are not about properties of "things" in their own right. "Things" are perhaps to "interactions" as "atoms " are to "fundamental forces"
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 09:37 am
@fresco,
But again, one must separate what one can know from the thing which is even if not describable...that there must be something rather then nothing is a point in which we can all agree. So we cannot abandon the question half way...
The problem of knowing is separate from the problem of Truth !
To be means form, rule, definition, containment and confinement, even if "meta-describable" and through process...

"Quality" ultimately engages the sense of "unity of nature" in a set...one can even speculate further and get ONE ultimate nature for everything...like all numbers refer to the one number. Unity is the "motto" to aim at...even for instance real numbers are still bound to the idea of a referent unity although they are fractions... and that referent must be the "quality" of the set is what I am aiming at...my lesson on this matter goes backwards and can resume in this sentence...There is no Relativity without Absolute, no Infinity without Finity, no change without constants, and no Continuum without Discrete...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 09:52 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Mark is half correct. "Sets" are about expected/predicted interactions of observer with world. They are not about properties of "things" in their own right. "Things" are perhaps to "interactions" as "atoms " are to "fundamental forces"


1 - How do you grasp interactions between Observer and the World without a common stance ? A common Nature ?
2 - Are n´t they suppose to be transcendent in that way ?
3 - What are the four fundamental forces referring to as interactions if not to the idea that everything is "observing" everything, and through that, being one with everything, perhaps thus in this sense bringing credibility on the idea of Continuum ?

This is the reason I often find the duality Observer/Mind vs Object/Matter/Substance somehow surpassed in a contemporary non linear perspective...

...it may well be that Mind is everywhere...as Substance is !

The Substance of Mind as Mind of Substance, is what "Set being", and Nature as meaning, are all about !
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 10:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
1 - How do you grasp interactions between Observer and the World without a common stance ? A common Nature ?


My grasp is analogous to the relationship between "figure" and "ground" as in the ambiguous "candle stick/faces" picture. But the faces are "living".

Quote:
2 - Are n´t they suppose to be transcendent in that way ?


Not sure what you mean.

Quote:
3 - What are the four fundamental forces referring to as interactions if not to the idea that everything is "observing" everything, and through that, being one with everything, perhaps thus in this sense bringing credibility on the idea of Continuum ?


I refer to Maturana who suggests that all "observation" involves verbalization. Observation may be a report of an interaction from the language users point of view, but is not the two-way interaction per se.

In general I argue (verbally of course) from the point of view of a transcendent "super observer"...an "observer of observation". The function of my argument is to make sense/predict/anticipate the paradigm shifts in epistemology by way of a non-anthropocentric reference frame. Such an approach is in accordance with a view of "life" as an autopoietic process, and allows the possibility of an infinite progression of such processes (in both micro and macro directions).
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 10:59 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Of course (Hi Fil.), causality demands opposition, but we are left with 'everything' requires 'nothing'. This is where the common view of causality breaks down. Even though action promotes opposing reaction - No action (nothing) does not promote 'action' (something, anything, everything), nor vice versa.

Nice to see you, by the way (essence of you, that is).
Have a great everything!
Mark...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 11:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
You are so close with this one fil...

What if everything' were ONE THING?

In an alternate state?

Mark...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 11:16 am
@mark noble,
The problem of Nothing is that it still refers even if by opposition to what is...process in which self excludes a true nothing.
Nothing as abstraction refers to Mind through memory of what was and which still is processed substance...Time breaks down at this point once it cannot truly oppose BEING any more...Nothing which is nothing, is therefore memory and meaning, which is something...in the not being refers to the actuality of its opposite and "kills" itself as pure concept.
Such that WHAT IS LEFT, IS TRUTH !!!
(this is the reason I intuit that unity of Nature as Quality cannot be opposed or contradicted, and why I think although initial conditions can change from Universe to Universe, in the Multiverse, Nature itself can´t change as LAW.)
0 Replies
 
Ica
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 11:59 am
@mark noble,
Obedience by submission....that is it. The mission part
is the key. A mission is application of classified intelligence.

Part of the intimacy of a relationship is what is not shared with others.
There is only one time in our lives when sharing is not expected that is childhood. Childhood is our relationship with someone with greater knowledge that we are expected to absorb, and not argue about.

Generally we are told to function through systems in our relationships.

Here is what I know has been bypassed in this simple statement.

...order & organization= classification or secrecy
Evidence, models, & explanation= exact number & calculation
Constancy, change, and measurement= naming the exact problem
Evolution & Equilibrium= ability to go from one opposite situation to the next circuitously in a progression of roots who's links are determined by
neutrality....indicated by induction and the canons of deduction
Form and function=a view point that enables the integration of most factors...by originating from one place.

In other word(s) the importance of a first time is that there is only
one, not many, because the view point becomes too scattered. Or
the ability to be with one person at all times not in the situation, or circumstance.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 01:05 pm
"Truth", as I see it, consists of useful answers to the questions we ask. Such questions reflect needs which are satisfied by "truthful" answers. By contrast, a purely metaphysical assertion that addresses no question has no truth value for me. Reality is another matter: That I seek to "know" directly without intellectual mediation.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 01:15 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

"Truth", as I see it, consists of useful answers to the questions we ask. Such questions reflect needs which are satisfied by "truthful" answers. By contrast, a purely metaphysical assertion that addresses no question has no truth value for me. Reality is another matter: That I seek to "know" directly without intellectual mediation.


agreed

I myself was trying figure out does this OP really matters at all , it doesn't
imans
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 08:28 pm
what is truly one is free existence, if ur conscious mean two different things or more then two it wont ever matter in form of things, only when ur conscious is free so only when u really are conscious that u become one thing freely without effort then but as a matter of fact true reality existing

that is how existence is not only about everything nor things existence freedom, which matters as true values realities
existence is also about the present free existence ones conscious communications in terms of knowing that communication is by definition free thing so that matter really
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2012 11:30 pm
@north,
I also suspect that the total physical Reality is both unitary and plural. It depends on one's perspective at any moment.
imans
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 03:08 pm
@JLNobody,
reality by definition cant b unitary, it always involves more then one
one cant b real alone, it is the only present of else that force one out by being real with

it is incredible the ego u r, u really take ur one perspective of all objective as if it might b true as u see it or mean it being, u r crazy u dont have the least true abstraction of ur own relative reality in all
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2012 10:01 am
The 'OP' doesn't matter?
What 'OP' does?
The ones you can relate to, deem tangible, debate upon?

North, if such is so, you should read 'OP's' and discard such threads.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2021 at 11:20:57