JLN,
This "uncovering" that you speak of is perhaps mental "sleight of hand". According to Hempel, what often happens in research is that enquiry is guided by analagy( e.g. the nuclear atom modelled on the solar system.) Observations proceed accordingly "as expected" and various degrees of complexity are found to be transferable between systems (e.g. elliptical versus circular orbits) until the analogy breaks down with an "unexpectected observation". This then leads to modification of the old model or the seeking of an alternative model to resolve the "lack of coherence" (Einsteins mass-energy considerations explained "problem orbits" of electons accelerating towards the nucleus). Essentially we are not uncovering pattern but recovering pattern/prediction/coherence by changing our observation angle to a more "comfortable" position.
truth
Fresco, that will require some work. Fortunately I've read some of Carl Hempel and Thomas Kuhn; unfortunately nothing of F. Capra.
Reality .... is a two hundred foot high obelisk with a hand lettered sign that says 'reality, inquire within'.
Just kidding, kinda. The boundaries of reality are the limits of our known and unknown senses, including logic. I know of no other life forms that concern themselves with the question or that would be affected by the answer. That pretty much limits the parameters to our personal beings. If we knew the answer it would have absolutely no affect on our physical being but, in as much as our 'spirit, soul, or God (the three are interchangeable) are pure thought without a cumbersome physicality which of course confines them to 'intellectual' senses such as 'perception'. In our physical form posses only baser instincts but posses the possibility of 'evolution' to more than they began. Here we have two capacities .... one to be filled ... and one with the capacity to fill, the perfect symbiotic adventure.
In an earlier post I made the statement 'infinity' stretches out in both directions. The easiest way to think of it is that combined spiritually and physically, results in the formation of a portal to eternity that is denied separately .... but granted to the product of a unified spirit and body, or, soul. One of the hardest concepts to wrap your mind around is that the answer is not exogenic it's endogenic.
It seems that everything i post requires a curt and impatient reply from you, fresco, even when I am not talking to you, you must step in and announce that I am only posting for the sake of posting or that this topic is clearly over my head and then contribute nothing to the discussion. If you have somethig to explain to me I will hear it, but it appears as though I'm not worthy of your oh-so-valued teachings.
In that case, I'd prefer to continue to avoid sullying your hands with the likes of me and go post somewhere else.
Gelisgesti
I like your "infinity at both ends" as this reflects what tends to become cloudy at the micoscopic and macroscopic levels. "Man is the measure of all things" is another saying which comes to mind in an anthropocentric concept of "reality". The big question seems to be whether we can change vantage points and still maintain rationality......but then who is that "we"
fresco wrote:Gelisgesti
I like your "infinity at both ends" as this reflects what tends to become cloudy at the micoscopic and macroscopic levels. "Man is the measure of all things" is another saying which comes to mind in an anthropocentric concept of "reality". The big question seems to be whether we can change vantage points and still maintain rationality......but then who is that "we"
If you think of the micro/macro thing as an endless loop with no definable points along the way, only branchings or 'mini loops' or 'choices'.... depending on your progression. You have one of those 'whoa' moments where you realize that infinity=time=infinity=time=infinity (how much time ya got?
) Man is not the center of time ..... he stands at the center of his sensoral time .... point in infinity/time and can move in any direction but alas, can not take his physical form along .... it's a 'spirtual' thing.
To change vantage points you first must be aware of where you are ...... hence this discussion 'we' are having.
Your turn
truth
Gel, I interpreted your infinity at both ends to refer to past and future the non-beginning of time and non-ending of time. The notion of the upper and lower ranges of size is mind boggling. I can't imagine the bottom or the top of the size scale. Discussions of infinity, either in terms of time or space reveal to us the limitations of our mental apparatus. They are constructions which inevitably lead us to absurdity when carried to their logical extremes.
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:Gel, I interpreted your infinity at both ends to refer to past and future the non-beginning of time and non-ending of time. The notion of the upper and lower ranges of size is mind boggling. I can't imagine the bottom or the top of the size scale. Discussions of infinity, either in terms of time or space reveal to us the limitations of our mental apparatus. They are constructions which inevitably lead us to absurdity when carried to their logical extremes.
I think "infinity in both directions" -- an expression I have been using for over 30 years -- is a lot more than that.
IF infinity stretches out from where we are "out to infinity" -- then in order for it to be infinite, it has to move back into the perceiver infinitely also.
Infinity cannot have a bound. If it has an end (here in the perceiver) -- then it is not truly infinite.
(Hope I didn't get non-dualistic there!) :wink:
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:Gel, I interpreted your infinity at both ends to refer to past and future the non-beginning of time and non-ending of time. The notion of the upper and lower ranges of size is mind boggling. I can't imagine the bottom or the top of the size scale. Discussions of infinity, either in terms of time or space reveal to us the limitations of our mental apparatus. They are constructions which inevitably lead us to absurdity when carried to their logical extremes.
Time/infinity have one quality .... patience. Patience is a capacity that has the potential to contain a capacity .... double speak right? Consider the human brain and its ability to store memories ..... infinite 'capacity' in a finite space.
Neither big or small but imbued in patience in body and soul. Answer this .....do we pass through infinity/time ... or is infinity/time passing through us ... oorrrr?
Hint, we live on the brink of two eternities.
Re: truth
Frank Apisa wrote:JLNobody wrote:Gel, I interpreted your infinity at both ends to refer to past and future the non-beginning of time and non-ending of time. The notion of the upper and lower ranges of size is mind boggling. I can't imagine the bottom or the top of the size scale. Discussions of infinity, either in terms of time or space reveal to us the limitations of our mental apparatus. They are constructions which inevitably lead us to absurdity when carried to their logical extremes.
I think "infinity in both directions" -- an expression I have been using for over 30 years -- is a lot more than that.
IF infinity stretches out from where we are "out to infinity" -- then in order for it to be infinite, it has to move back into the perceiver infinitely also.
Infinity cannot have a bound. If it has an end (here in the perceiver) -- then it is not truly infinite.
(Hope I didn't get non-dualistic there!) :wink:
Frank, So ...... I thought of it 35 years ago .......
Hmm...I'm mulling over a couple of mathematical concepts which could get us out of coherence problems in thinking about "infinity". One is similar to Gels "loop" ...there is a system of "projective geometry" in which I seem to remember that lines going off to infinity reappear at another point in the system (synonymous with Einsteins "space is curved") The other involves "fractals" in which "same structure" repeats macro or microscopically ad infinitum...such a concept being now utilised in a "systems theory" approach to cognition by Capra (et al) in their investigation of embedded structures. (I could add to this angle the esoteric doctrine of "as above - so below").
Re: truth
Gelisgesti wrote:Frank, So ...... I thought of it 35 years ago .......
You win, Ge! :wink: :wink:
truth
I've thought of infinity (in terms of time) going in both directions "from us" for over 45 years. But I'm older than the rest of you.
Frank, I have always thought, as you do, that "If infinity stretches from where we are 'out to infinity'--then in order for it to be infinite, it has to move back into the perceiver infinitely also." I have stated someting like this somewhere in A2K with reference to the idea that infinity (in time) starts from the infinite past and goes to the infinite future (this is, of course, a very provincial notion of time, probably threatened now by modern physics). And I asked: Does the infinite past end with us, and the infinite future begin with us? My answer was that if infinity is interrupted by US, here in the present, then, by definition, it is not infinite. This was to show that WE ARE located at this "eternal" moment) in INFINITY. This is how I interpret your "then in order for it to be infinite, it has to move back into the perceiver INFINITELY also." I hope this is so. It would be your first expression of non-dualism.
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:I've thought of infinity (in terms of time) going in both directions "from us" for over 45 years. But I'm older than the rest of you.
Frank, I have always thought, as you do, that "If infinity stretches from where we are 'out to infinity'--then in order for it to be infinite, it has to move back into the perceiver infinitely also." I have stated someting like this somewhere in A2K with reference to the idea that infinity (in time) starts from the infinite past and goes to the infinite future (this is, of course, a very provincial notion of time, probably threatened now by modern physics). And I asked: Does the infinite past end with us, and the infinite future begin with us? My answer was that if infinity is interrupted by US, here in the present, then, by definition, it is not infinite. This was to show that WE ARE located at this "eternal" moment) in INFINITY. This is how I interpret your "then in order for it to be infinite, it has to move back into the perceiver INFINITELY also." I hope this is so. It would be your first expression of non-dualism.
You are older than me??? Didn't think anyone was older than me.
JL, if you just try to answer my question .... " Answer this .....do we pass through infinity/time ... or is infinity/time passing through us ... oorrrr?
Hint, we live on the brink of two eternities."
Gelisgesti
Allow me to recommend the book "Infinity and the Mind" by Rucker, and forgive me if I have already mentioned it.
Heres one lead
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/5656.html
I think you will find there are many varieties of "infinity" and we must take care to play the same language game. However my gut reaction to your question is that from a nondualist perspective your "two" propositions are equivalent. Taking the crude comparison of "Does the sun orbit the earth or vice versa ?" contrary to popular belief there is in essence no "ultimate truth", one version makes the mathematics simpler. I suspect that the relationship between "existence" and "infinity" has similar relativistic linkages.
Infinity for a human is simply nonexistant. Man is subject to the laws of matter. I posed the question not looking for an answer but in an attempto to take your thoughts out of the realm of three dimensional thinking.Time swirls around man, he is immersed in infinity, but is not subject to it.
Man exist in the finite that gives the infinite its existance. True duality depends on contrasts to sustain a dichotomy. It's not black black ...white white .... it's black white. Time contrast infinity.
truth
Gel, I may be dull, but I don't understand your first question at all. The second--living on the brink of eternities--suggests what I said above about the infinite past ending with us and the infinite future beginning with us. But I can't feel certain of that.
I'm infinitely older than all of yuse. Maybe, it just feels that way. LOL
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:Gel, I may be dull, but I don't understand your first question at all. The second--living on the brink of eternities--suggests what I said above about the infinite past ending with us and the infinite future beginning with us. But I can't feel certain of that.
'Us' are time/infinity .... 'We' exist as 'clay shells' with a capacity to be filled with a capacity or .... souls.
I agree, it is a hard concept but to come close you have to think soul and not phyicality.
The two eternities ..... the past and the future, we are stuck there as humans, only spirits can move about as they wish,
