9
   

Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

 
 
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 08:01 pm
Many astronomers have stated the same thing, along with many philosophers and scientists alike.
Most believe and state that you can only see so far into the outer space, at a point there is no more light that can reach us or has not reached us yet. In respects I agree and disagree, I'm sure there is other galaxies that have light that hasn't traveled far enough for us to see yet. But, my question stands. After that, could there possibly be an edge to time and space itself as if we're boxed in. A limited infinity. Could there be an edge where there is non existence.
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 02:09 am
@ApollosEnvy,
You keep exhorting us to "think deeply". But have you considered that what we understand at the moment as "light", "galaxies" and even "edge" is bound by current epistemological paradigms*. Just look for example how the understanding of "light" has shifted over the last couple of centuries. Look too how "edge" may have meaning in Euclidean geometry, but not in Projective geoemetry where infinity is "circular". (I take it you are aware that different geometries are used for different scientific models).

You have accused me elsewhere of stonewalling your "questions" but I put it to you that "deep thinking" involves a bit more research into "cognitive structures" than you yourself are demonstrating.

* Thomas Khun "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
ApollosEnvy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 01:20 pm
@fresco,
Fresco I'm asking philosophy based questions which do not require correct answers or scientific responses. I think you're lost here on the wrong website or something. My questions are theoretical so you may dig deep into your thoughts and take a wild guess at the deep questions I ask.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 01:52 pm
@ApollosEnvy,
No. This is nothing to do with philosophy ,"deep thinking" or theory. You are again asking a simplistic pseudo-question which can at best result in a free-for-all word salad. You appear to be hung up on dichotomies (something/nothing...existence/non-existence). Try reading a bit of Derrida, for example. who argues that such dichotomies are an inevitable covert aspect of semantics such that all "things" are necessarily defined both by what they are and what they are not.
Of course you may get the lonely, or the barbers shop kibitzers who have read nothing and want to get their two cents worth (or have a go at me). If that's what you want, fine, but it will be nothing to do with "the deep thinking" that philosophers have already done in dismissing such questions as ill conceived.
layman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 02:13 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
This is nothing to do with philosophy...nothing to do with "the deep thinking" that philosophers have already done in dismissing such questions as ill conceived.


What "paradigm" is it, I wonder, that defines "philosophers" as those who agree (or so I say, anyway) with my personal, idiosyncratic, confused notions?

The "Fresco paradigm," that it?

H. L. Mencken had a better definition, if you ask me:

“Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.”
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 02:32 pm
Of course, somebody else's two cents worth is one of layman's specialities.
0 Replies
 
Relinquish
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 02:40 pm
@fresco,
Simply dismissing these questions as ill conceived seems to me to be the biggest cop-out to have ever happened in philosophy. Such philosophers were simply afraid of going any deeper, because from a level beyond the mind, they always already knew what they were (or rather, weren't) going to find.

I bet this dismissal never really silenced these questions in their minds, either, and they were nagged at by them until end of their days.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 03:03 pm
@Relinquish,
What cop-out ? Read Heidegger's "Being and Time" for a seminal and influential view on "existence". Read Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" if you want to learn about "language games" which result in from taking words like "existence" out of normal usage contexts.
layman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 06:16 pm
@fresco,
I pity the fool who thinks "linguistic analysis" is philosophy.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 11:36 pm
@ApollosEnvy,
Are you wondering if there might be a place outside all the matter and energy in the measurable universe? A place where nothing exists?

Maybe.

But who wants to go there?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 12:05 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Are you wondering if there might be a place outside all the matter and energy in the measurable universe? A place where nothing exists?


Before anyone thinks about "going there", in order to avoid an oxymoron, I suggest you ask layman to explain the difference between those two words without resorting to linguistic analysis. Wink
0 Replies
 
ApollosEnvy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2015 10:13 pm
@neologist,
Yes Neo, you've hit the nail on the head. Could there possibly be an edge of infinity, where nothing exists. But this could also be another Columbus question or it could be a deeper thought train. You know the saying "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it?" Well that could possibly be the same here, well yes it exists because non existence is near impossible.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 01:59 am
@ApollosEnvy,
The "tree in the forest" game is based on the psychological sleight of hand of forgetting about the observer who is actually observing it in his mind's eye as he thinks about it. Things and their thingers are existentially inextricable.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 02:09 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The "tree in the forest" game is based on the psychological sleight of hand of forgetting about the observer who is actually observing it in his mind's eye as he thinks about it. Things and their thingers are The "tree in the forest" game is based on the psychological sleight of hand of forgetting about the observer who is actually observing it in his mind's eye as he thinks about it. Things and their thingers are existentially inextricable. .


What does are "existentially inextricable" mean here? Let me put the question another way, Fresco. Are you a dualist, a monist, or something else?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 02:16 am
@ApollosEnvy,
Quote:
You know the saying "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it?"


It's really a question, not a "saying." The question being "does it make a sound." A dualist, who posits an objective world, would say it creates sound waves, but no "sound," because "sound" is a function of subjective sense perception.

A guy like Fresco would presumably tell you that a tree can't even fall, let alone make a sound, if there's not someone there to see it fall.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 02:46 am
@layman,
Would half a sounds ingredients recipe be handy for the argument ? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:04 am
@layman,
"Existentially inextricable" means that existence is about a dynamic process of what we call a "living structure" interacting with its "world". The dynamic system continuously restructures to fit its world such that "system states" and "perceived world states" are co-extensive. At any one time, a third party might take a metaphorical static snapshot of this process which ostensibly separates "observer" and "world", but this separation is no more revealing about "existence" than a snapshot of a poker table and the players would be about the nature of "poker". Now you can take this snapshot process to any level you like, but unless like Berkeley, you evoke "a God" as "an ultimate observer/thinger", there is no meaning to ultimate reality or ultimate existence.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:17 am
@fresco,
Quote:
...ostensibly separates "observer" and "world"....


Any such dualistic separation would only be "ostensible," eh?

Quote:
.unless like Berkeley, you evoke "a God" as "an ultimate observer/thinger", there is no meaning to ultimate reality or ultimate existence.


So, then, you're a Berkeleyian solipsist with out the god to make it real, eh? A straight up monist, in other words.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:20 am
@layman,
Nah Fresco is way better then that..he is a solipsist that talks about social consensus... Cool
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2015 03:22 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Heh, Fil. Something oxymoronic like that, no doubt.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/23/2017 at 08:00:33