Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

Forums: Philosophy, Existence, Deepthinking
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 10,827 • Replies: 160

[+4] - Frank Apisa - 04/03/2015[quote="fresco"] Frank attempting to discuss Heidegger, reminds me of Woody Allen's description of the Mob's attempted involvement with the ballet....They tried to fix it for the Swan...

@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"

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

2 Replies

@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

Of course, somebody else's two cents worth is one of layman's specialities.

0 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I pity the fool who thinks "linguistic analysis" is philosophy.

0 Replies

@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?

2 Replies

@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

@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.

2 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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?

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@layman,

Would half a sounds ingredients recipe be handy for the argument ? Very Happy

0 Replies

@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.

2 Replies

@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.

2 Replies

@layman,

Nah Fresco is way better then that..he is a solipsist that talks about social consensus... Cool

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Heh, Fil. Something oxymoronic like that, no doubt.

0 Replies

Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know