Free will .......

JLN,

You may be correct in the origin of the Mayan "zero" which I believe was only used as a "place value" and not for calculations.

You speculate on the relationship between "an empty set" and "the void". The first already implies "nominality" i.e. a thinger who "names" things, but the second is transcendent of that dualism. I think your move is a demonstration that the second is intellectually predicated on the first. Is so, this indeed reflects the issue raised above about the "origins" of dualism and your "evolutionary solution" seems to be as good as any provided that we do not suggest that "the person" is the only "organizational structure" whose evolution we are considering. An open hierarchy of "nested structures" brings concepts of "void" and "infinity" into close relationship.

Focus, while I don't like to think of "evolution" as a non-biological phenomenon, anthropologists have thought much about the "evolution" of social structures/social organizations within which the "organizational structure of the person" finds protection and opportunity.
By the contrast, "void" and "infinity" are you referring to the "particular" space within a shell and the "general" space WITHOUT (in both senses of the word) the shell?

Would space within space be another flavor of infinity .... with proximity being calculated by pi?

Is this even a valid question?

JLN and G-esti

A full discussion of "space" could take us in several directions :wink:
See paragraph 2 in....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
Suffice to say I am not thinking about "potential observable locality in my minds eye" but rather a "mathematical space" in which specific relational "algebras" might apply equally at all levels.

Gel, to me the space within the shell and outside the shell are purely mental distinctions.

Fresco, I found this an interesting statement, not that I understand it (under "physics"):

"Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics, meaning that it cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present."

JLN, this explains nothing. You call it an illusion but the truth is that "self" is an emergent property of the singular universal process. It is therefore just as real and inherant in the universal process as the galaxy we live in. To explain it as you do, in terms of bio-evolutionary principles, is just a convenient mental construct to escape the more holistic meaning of my question.

It is an inescapable truth that "self" has occured and thus was always a manifest possibility within the singular process of the universe. The same is true of any perceived illusion on your part.

Then such a mental distinction is an emergent property of the universal process and again, equally a part of this process as any other phenomenon.

I might add that "void" and "space" do not exist. Quantum and relativity theories show us that there can be no such thing. All things are an inherant part of all things. "Space" does not separate things but unifies them. "Material objects" are merely localised concentrations of energy and knotted distortions in the fabric od space-time which pervades "everywhere."

This is really interesting, I'm still thinking about it all really. I just wanted to make a point regarding the perspective with which we say things like ""self" is an emergent property of the singular universal process". Can we make such a statement outside the illusion of such a "self"? If you were to take it as such. In what way can we observe and conclude about "emergent" properties of such a process? Pondering...

Ashers,

I agree, it is getting more interesting now. Where will it lead us....?

Your question, if I read you correctly, seems to be one of "is there an external reality." Well, I reckon that there can only be an external reality if one perceives a "self." Since I do perceive a "self" then I must also accept an external reality. Basically self-awareness and sentience require an external reality to relate to and could not exist without it. To recycle fresco's wave analogy; the wave cannot exist without the ocean. Nor would that ocean exist without the wave.

We're all aware of the integrated wholeness of the universal process. Despite this, sentience seems to insist on differentiating a "self" from the various phenomena of the whole process. Therefore such a distinction, that is to distinguish the various and fleeting forms of the process, must be an inherant property of that same process.

Also, since perceptions of self and environment must co-exist, one cannot be the cause of the other. They must simultaneously come into existence. This implies, no actually requires that there be an external reality to this circular and mutual dependancy.

Fascinating. Hopefully I'll get back with something better when I have a little more time on my hands. Sentience insisting on differentiating a "self" from phenomena is said from the perspective of "self". An emergent property identifying itself as an emergent property, could this work? How might it work? Not for the 1st time I'm wondering about the kind of statement "we" can actually make.

EDIT: What do you mean by an external reality exactly? "Something" rather than "nothing"? Abstract meanings in other words, as opposed to something fundamentally concrete? Doesn't this mutual dependency merely require that there is, rather than is not, even this is said with tongue in cheek. Talking in terms of a universal process is to lose the boundaries between these dependent "things". If we talk of an "external reality" which is required by the "process", are we merely creating a further relationship? What would this relationship be based on? A further "external reality"? If this makes sense.

The external reality I refer to is not necessarily the one perceived by self. The "real external reality" is beyond my range of perception, that is, I can neither affirm or reject my perception of external reality as being an accurate depiction of the real reality which must exist.

->Edit
The fundamental truth is that sentience always (as far as I know) differentiates a self from an external environment. It doesn't matter whether this perception of external reality represents the ultimate reality or not, it is the distinction itself which allows sentience exist.

I merely note that an "ultimate reality" must exist and which gives rise to the perceptions of "self" and "external reality" (ie sentience), on the basis that neither perception of "self" or "environment" can give rise to the other.

Yeah I think I get you. Two things spring to mind, firstly something which gets back to "that which governs the flux", this ultimate reality or basis for flux that you've mentioned. My question is, in what sense can this "ultimate reality" "exist"? Trees, cars, people exist in respect of other "things" with perceived boundaries etc. This ultimate reality cannot exist with respect to other things, only it's own "contents" at best. So this basis, this ultimate reality, I'm not sure how to describe it, "existence" doesn't seem right to me if you see what I'm getting at. You said it was beyond your range of perception, but even here we're still talking about it as an "it" etc.

Secondly, talking about emergent properties and "that which gives rise to" seems to imply a perspective that allows us to view the whole. Normally in say, a computer system, I'd have a vantage point that affords me knowledge of all the components and I can demonstrate origins, components and relations that create these emergent properties. No such vantage point seems available here, to me anyway. This is why I mentioned abstract meanings vs concrete statements, I sense it is ineffable. Asking what gives rise to this or wondering about an ultimate reality seems very reasonable, certainly remarkable in its line of questioning, I'm just not certain what basis we have for answering at the moment. In my dualistic mindset, "gives rise to" implies going from A to B etc, does sentience perceive an ultimate reality but any such ultimate reality is ineffably beyond existence? Hmmm…

Ashers, I have no idea in what sense the ultimate reality can exist; I know nothing about it. All I have done is deduce the possible existence of something "more" than my range of perceptions. As such, I cannot enter into a discussion concerning "it." That's a notional "it" to represent....?


I can neither agree nor disagree. However, these restrictions seem to resemble how I see the full range of my perceptions. I simply have no frame of reference by which to judge them. Even if I was aware of ultimate reality, I wouldn't be able to know that for sure, although I'm not even sure about that either.


Agreed. I have no rational basis on which to answer. I just sort of "know" there's something more... sometimes...

Well when I say how could it exist, I don't really mean in what sense or aspect as such, rather, how is the very word, "existence" even remotely applicable when you consider the traditional use of the word. I don't think there is an "it", I guess sentience, seeing as this word cropped up, projects a kind of mental net around all perceivable processes and groups them together under the name, ultimate reality, a superficial binding if you will.



Don't worry, I revel in this kind of mystery myself, I see the boundless possiblities rather than the uncertainty. Right and wrong have little place here, it's liberating. That "sort of know" is great to be with IMHO.

Apologies if I was confusing in my recent posts. It's probably because I was confused. I think the source of my confusion stems from the fact that I mistook an integrated holistic view of my external reality and self (the universal process et al) as being a definition of "ultimate reality." That was the problem. It's fixed now, hopefully.

As a side note, I can see how many religions start now. They are attempts to conceptualise the ineffable, which is of course impossible. Doing this is to engage in meaningless idol worship. An idol doesn't have to be a wood carving of some sort, merely a conceptualisation of that which cannot be conceptualised.