@ jbark - Ah yes, the alien video game. I guess we can call that a simulation.  I’ll have to read that Scott Adams book. Another very good book that explores similar topics is “SUM: Forty Tales from the Afterlives” by David Eagleman. One question we might ask is “What if I were not?”, but another is even more basic – “What am I?” gibran2 is a fictional character. Any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.
|
|
|
jbark wrote:So I feel very silly now, not knowing what an irrational number is. Damn, school was so long ago, and my interest in mathematics is now officially laymen/ignorant...  However, I still stand my ground on certain points, being the stubborn, difficult to teach, curmudgeonly hard headed idee-fixe that i am (at the risk of digging myself even deeper into that very ground  ): Quote:While mathematics can be used to calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Brown and Moorcroft[4][5] claim that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument, and that solving the mathematical issues does not solve every issue the paradoxes raise.
Zeno's arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must itself be infinite–that both the distance and the time to be travelled are infinite. However, Zeno's problem was not with finding the sum of an infinite sequence, but rather with finishing an infinite number of tasks: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?[4][5][6][26]
Today there is still a debate on the question of whether or not Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved. In The History of Mathematics, Burton writes, "Although Zeno's argument confounded his contemporaries, a satisfactory explanation incorporates a now-familiar idea, the notion of a 'convergent infinite series.'"[27] Bertrand Russell offered a "solution" to the paradoxes based on modern physics[citation needed], but Brown concludes "Given the history of 'final resolutions', from Aristotle onwards, it's probably foolhardy to think we've reached the end. It may be that Zeno's arguments on motion, because of their simplicity and universality, will always serve as a kind of 'Rorschach image' onto which people can project their most fundamental phenomenological concerns (if they have any)."[4]
I feel partially vindicated, although I am sure that will only last until the fine mathematical minds here shoot me down like an ailing sequence In the meantime, I will hide behind this Rorshach image and choose blindly to see what I see within my very personal "phenomenological concerns"!! JBArk the blushing pride I think this guy doesn't understand what a model is, he should read Korzybski (the map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal...). To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.
- William Blake
|
|
|
justine wrote:
I think this guy doesn't understand what a model is, he should read Korzybski (the map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal...).
By "this guy", you mean me? No need to be condescending or to address me in the third person, particularly after the humble nature of my post. And I am familiar with Korzybski, and the quotes you posted. And i thought that my post was simply pointing out that I was coming at it from another angle - surely not deserving of your patronizing tone and sarcastic use of the third person... BTW, I quoted that passage to illustrate that these are legitimate arguments and a reasonable pursuit of the question at hand. I was quite clear about my relative mathematical ignorance. So why so mean, Justine? JBArk JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
|
|
|
jbark wrote:justine wrote:
I think this guy doesn't understand what a model is, he should read Korzybski (the map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal...).
By "this guy", you mean me? No need to be condescending or to address me in the third person, particularly after the humble nature of my post. And I am familiar with Korzybski, and the quotes you posted. And i thought that my post was simply pointing out that I was coming at it from another angle - surely not deserving of your patronizing tone and sarcastic use of the third person... BTW, I quoted that passage to illustrate that these are legitimate arguments and a reasonable pursuit of the question at hand. I was quite clear about my relative mathematical ignorance. So why so mean, Justine? JBArk Wow, no, of course I wasn't speaking about you! I was referring to the part I bolded : "Zeno's problem was not with finding the sum of an infinite sequence, but rather with finishing an infinite number of tasks: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?[4][5][6][26]" To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.
- William Blake
|
|
|
justine wrote:jbark wrote:justine wrote:
I think this guy doesn't understand what a model is, he should read Korzybski (the map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal...).
By "this guy", you mean me? No need to be condescending or to address me in the third person, particularly after the humble nature of my post. And I am familiar with Korzybski, and the quotes you posted. And i thought that my post was simply pointing out that I was coming at it from another angle - surely not deserving of your patronizing tone and sarcastic use of the third person... BTW, I quoted that passage to illustrate that these are legitimate arguments and a reasonable pursuit of the question at hand. I was quite clear about my relative mathematical ignorance. So why so mean, Justine? JBArk Wow, no, of course I wasn't speaking about you! I was referring to the part I bolded : "Zeno's problem was not with finding the sum of an infinite sequence, but rather with finishing an infinite number of tasks: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?[4][5][6][26]" No worries then. That guy, BTW, is wikipedia!! I forgot to credit my source, oops! Anyway, not the greatest source in the world, but I think you must agree that it is a legitimate stance, no? Zeno's problem, I reiterate, was not about "finding the sum of an infinite sequence", which clearly CAN be done, but rather with the phenomenological problem of "finishing an infinite # of tasks". I guess ultimately, there remains an important divide between deductive logic and pure mathematics, despite their reliance on one another. That was, in a nutshell, my point. And if you reread the quote, I think you'll have to agree that it is not unique, but rather a widely accepted one in philosophical circles (underhanded pun intended!  ) And your quoting of Korzybski can equally be applied to math, which was I think this "guy's" point, that mathematics describes, but IS not. Sorry on my end for the misunderstanding, but it really DID seem like you were addressing me, given that (unbeknownst to you), the quote was not from "a guy" but a collection of guys, and gals surely! JBArk JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
|
|
|
Yeah, actually I quoted Korzybski because the mathematical model (an infinite sum) should not be mixed up with the modeled object (the travel of an arrow). In the mathematical model there are an infinite number of steps because the time elapsed between each step tends to 0, but in "reality" (actually the most widely accepted model of reality) space and time are tied in a continuum so this really doesn't matter. To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.
- William Blake
|
|
|
jbark wrote:...Anyway, not the greatest source in the world, but I think you must agree that it is a legitimate stance, no? Zeno's problem, I reiterate, was not about "finding the sum of an infinite sequence", which clearly CAN be done, but rather with the phenomenological problem of "finishing an infinite # of tasks". I guess ultimately, there remains an important divide between deductive logic and pure mathematics, despite their reliance on one another. That was, in a nutshell, my point. And if you reread the quote, I think you'll have to agree that it is not unique, but rather a widely accepted one in philosophical circles (underhanded pun intended! ) ... Physical reality doesn’t correspond exactly to such mathematics. It is generally accepted that matter, space and time are quantized – there are units below which there is no further subdivision. This means that there is a maximum finite numer of spatial “steps” separating one object from another, and therefore, an infinite number of tasks never occurs. Even if we look at it from a purely mathematical angle, there is still no paradox. Let’s say we move half of a distance in half a second, an additional quarter of the distance in a quarter second, etc. Both the distance and the time approach one (one unit of distance in one unit of time) as the number of terms approaches infinity. It’s necessary to think of the infinite summation as occuring “outside of time”. gibran2 is a fictional character. Any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.
|
|
|
justine wrote:Yeah, actually I quoted Korzybski because the mathematical model (an infinite sum) should not be mixed up with the modeled object (the travel of an arrow).
In the mathematical model there are an infinite number of steps because the time elapsed between each step tends to 0, but in "reality" (actually the most widely
accepted model of reality) space and time are tied in a continuum so this really doesn't matter. That is one explanation, and as accepted in some circles as it is refuted in others (always from a philosophical stance, of course...). Some refutations of Zeno's paradoxes: WIKEPEDIA (again  ) Quote:Modern calculus provides a mathematically rigorous basis on Archimedes' solution of Zeno's paradoxes through geometric summation,[3] and similar solutions are considered valid by most natural scientists, but Zeno's paradoxes and their variations (see Thomson's lamp) are still seen as relevant metaphysical problems by many philosophers.[4][5][6] Quote:Peter Lynds has taken this idea further, arguing that all of Zeno's motion paradoxes are resolved by the conclusion that instants in time and instantaneous magnitudes do not actually exist.[19][20][21] Lynds argues that an object in relative motion cannot have a determined relative position (for if it did, it could not be in motion), and so cannot have its motion fractionally dissected as though it does as in the paradoxes. Quote:Another proposed solution is to question one of the assumptions of Zeno used in his paradoxes (particularly the Dichotomy), which is that between any two different points in space (or time), there is always another point. Without this assumption there are only a finite number of distances between two points, hence there is no infinite sequence of movements, and the paradox is resolved. The sum of this sequence of refutations , just says to me that it is still fundamentally a relevant and inriguing problem. You may not think so though. That's your prerogative! JBArk JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
|
|
|
gibran2 wrote:jbark wrote:...Anyway, not the greatest source in the world, but I think you must agree that it is a legitimate stance, no? Zeno's problem, I reiterate, was not about "finding the sum of an infinite sequence", which clearly CAN be done, but rather with the phenomenological problem of "finishing an infinite # of tasks". I guess ultimately, there remains an important divide between deductive logic and pure mathematics, despite their reliance on one another. That was, in a nutshell, my point. And if you reread the quote, I think you'll have to agree that it is not unique, but rather a widely accepted one in philosophical circles (underhanded pun intended! ) ... Physical reality doesn’t correspond exactly to such mathematics. It is generally accepted that matter, space and time are quantized – there are units below which there is no further subdivision. This means that there is a maximum finite numer of spatial “steps” separating one object from another, and therefore, an infinite number of tasks never occurs. Even if we look at it from a purely mathematical angle, there is still no paradox. Let’s say we move half of a distance in half a second, an additional quarter of the distance in a quarter second, etc. Both the distance and the time approach one (one unit of distance in one unit of time) as the number of terms approaches infinity. It’s necessary to think of the infinite summation as occurring “outside of time”. All great & sound resolutions in the systems they arise from, but, as stated above, I still think it is an interesting and revealing problem, the proposed resolutions of which are no less fascinating. I am not refuting these, but rather reveling in them, and seeking refuge in the notion that camps are so divided as to the real resolution of this perrenial paradox. Occuring : "outside of time" - now there is an explanation I like!  JBArk PS I apologize if my obstinacy on this point is irritating. I just take solace in the idea that there are far more obstinate people out there, much brighter than me surely, who still maintain that these paradoxes have yet to be satisfactorily resolved. Yet, strangely, some of the comments here intimate that my stance is unique in its naivete and has no creditable validity... JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
|
|
|
jbark wrote:...PS I apologize if my obstinacy on this point is irritating. I just take solace in the idea that there are far more obstinate people out there, much brighter than me surely, who still maintain that these paradoxes have yet to be satisfactorily resolved. Yet, strangely, some of the comments here intimate that my stance is unique in its naivete and has no creditable validity...
I think what all of this shows is that we really can't grasp the concept of infinity. We can mathematically describe it, we can talk about it, but we can't really experience it. (Not without help. ) gibran2 is a fictional character. Any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.
|
|
|
Hum, well I have an appointment with one of my math teacher next week, I will ask him about it To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.
- William Blake
|
|
|
gibran2 wrote:jbark wrote:...PS I apologize if my obstinacy on this point is irritating. I just take solace in the idea that there are far more obstinate people out there, much brighter than me surely, who still maintain that these paradoxes have yet to be satisfactorily resolved. Yet, strangely, some of the comments here intimate that my stance is unique in its naivete and has no creditable validity...
I think what all of this shows is that we really can't grasp the concept of infinity. We can mathematically describe it, we can talk about it, but we can't really experience it. (Not without help. ) Yay! That was my initial point (i think i lost it somewhere along the way...:oops JBArk JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
|
|
|
I guess we can think about infinity but not feel it so we cannot completely experience it. To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.
- William Blake
|
|
|
justine wrote:I guess we can think about infinity but not feel it so we cannot completely experience it. That, to me, is the crux of what taking the substances that bring us all here to this forum is about; if divine there is, its voice and countenance is the very ineffable notion of the infinite. It is the infinite, its contemplation, and the experiencing of it (as much as we are able) through DMT et al, that thrills me and terrorizes me and elates me to my very core; The divine IS infinite, as infinity IS the divine: Divine eyes see I's within eyes within eyes within I's within... JBArk EDIT: I guess this brings us full circle, from a derailing tangent back to the OP, the im/probability of hyperspace/the divine!! JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
|
|
|
jbark wrote:...EDIT: I guess this brings us full circle, from a derailing tangent back to the OP, the im/probability of hyperspace/the divine!! Yes. Any ideas we have about the nature of infinity, experientially at least, are almost certainly wrong. gibran2 is a fictional character. Any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.
|
|
|
Thanks for the mention of that Scott Adams book (God's Debris), it's very good!
For a long time I've had this paradoxical intuition that God exists and does not exist at the same time (it's in the process of becoming), and this book provides a model for understanding how this is possible. Thank you.
|
|
|
justine wrote:I guess we can think about infinity but not feel it so we cannot completely experience it. Actually I would counter that. We cannot think about infinity. At least, I can't without sending my brain to hyperspace (with or without spice!). Rather we are already experiencing it. Enlightenment showed me absolutely nothing new. To be honest, you are experiencing infinity wherever you are; just because you cannot see through everyones eyes at once and feel what they're feeling doesn't mean you aren't experiencing infinity. A brick in a wall is satisfied being that one brick, we need the other bricks to contribute to the wall but if you wanted a brick sized wall, you would use one brick. Reality wants a proper wall, thus multiple beings. The observable universe may have a boundary but the eye of the observer that creates this all has none. cellux wrote:Thanks for the mention of that Scott Adams book (God's Debris), it's very good!
For a long time I've had this paradoxical intuition that God exists and does not exist at the same time (it's in the process of becoming), and this book provides a model for understanding how this is possible. Thank you.
God is just a name. I agree that it's in the process of becoming though, it's going from a state of complete unity/nothingnes (beginning of time) to a state of absolute seperation and perfect fluidity (end of time). Someone very intelligent wrote something about this here - http://everythingforever.com/. What exists is what exists, capiche? My idea is that the "proof for god" will transpire in the future, i.e. the beginning of time is a perfect superposition of two ridiculously powerful things pretending to be zero.
|
|
|
Hyperspace is definitely "real" in the sense that all of us who've gone there, have in fact, had the experience. Are these experiences external or internal, or somehow, both, is a question I've pondered about all of my mystical psychedelic experiences, ones which had properties which truly felt like there was something "more" to it than just I. After asking myself this for the past two years, I've became comfortable with the fact that I truly don't care what the answer to that question is. The more I thought about how conventional reality is a complex model my brain records with my senses and through endogenous drug interactions produces the external world, I started to wonder if plant entheogens were doing just that, allowing my brain to produce new models of alternate realities and mystical realities. I admit I sometimes embrace the belief that hyperspace is some multidimensional place where I can travel to the end of time and experience eternity while I meet entities made of jewels and balls and ocotopoids tickle my belly and instill huge amounts of love into me, the thought starts sounding a little "out there" to myself. These things are definitely going on in our minds, and what we call our soul may even be involved in these things, but in the end they are most likely internal experiences, but that doesn't make them any less meaningful. I think it may in fact be possible that psychedelics coming from plants offer us an intoxication that is mimicking the possibilities of experience after one loses his/her body, offering us a model of existence after death. “The most compelling insight of that day was that this awesome recall had been brought about by a fraction of a gram of a white solid, but that in no way whatsoever could it be argued that these memories had been contained within the white solid. Everything I had recognized came from the depths of my memory and my psyche. I understood that our entire universe is contained in the mind and the spirit. We may choose not to find access to it, we may even deny its existence, but it is indeed there inside us, and there are chemicals that can catalyze its availability.”
|
|
|
What a great thread. A worthy and fun read... highly entertaining. Kudos Gibran2 for being the clear headed voice of reason (as usual). Like anyone who has done any serious reading here, the following debate template is all too familiar to me. gibran2 wrote:
The Debate
x: Yes, it exists. I’ve had experiences that have convinced me.
y: No, it doesn’t exist. We have no scientific evidence for its existence.
x: But we don’t know everything about reality yet.
y: As we learn more about reality, it will become apparent that there is nothing beyond the physical.
x: You can’t say that with absolute certainty.
y: No, not with absolute certainty, but with a high likelihood.
x: Well, what about the primacy of consciousness?
y: There’s no evidence that the primacy of consciousness is correct.
x: But neither is there evidence that the primacy of matter is correct.
y: Well, it seems to be, and there’s no evidence that it isn’t correct.
x: Yes, but…
y: …
The use of the marble analogy to show the probability of any speculations on either side of this perennial debate being the truth is an inspired move. Though, as usual with Gibran2 & I, I will attempt to turn the analogy inside out and come to the opposite conclusion. ********* In the multitude of posts on this thread, there has been a lot of talk of infinity. I won't rehash it all, but will merely say that whatever we can say about infinity can not encompass it, by definition. Scientists and laymen alike are often frightened of infinity, and things like mathematical series are simply ways to try and factor out the infinite or brush it under the rug. As long as we are dealing with finite phenomena within our very localized area of space-time, this ignoring of infinity works out fine, generally. However, ignoring the infinite when trying to find ultimate truths, debate the nature of reality, achieve "unified field" theories or other TOEs is tantamount to cherry picking the data and failing to accept what the evidence is showing us. And, when we go ahead and face the ramifications of infinity head on, we are forced into accepting the likelihood of such confounding and "ugly" (from scientific perspective) theories as Everett's Many Worlds Theory or other MWIs. ****** Let me break this down as simply as I can. Current understanding of dimensions indicate that each successive dimension breaks off from the last at a right angle, and can contain the entirety of the preceding dimensions as a line in the higher dimension and a single point within the dimension above it. Since the 4th dimension is duration (time & anti-time), our entire line of space & time is but a single dot in the 5th dimension. And going on like this, all possible versions of our space-time amount to a single dot in the 7th dimension. All possible versions of our space and time could be considered infinity. In fact, it goes well beyond what many people think of when they use the word. (like endless repeating digits or whatever) However, our theoreticians have gone even farther than this, and posit that our collection of possible space time events is only one of an infinite number of "universes." An infinity of infinities. :idea: Or what physicists call the 8th dimension. All the possible timelines of all the possible spaces in all the possible universes would be a 9th dimensional matrix, and just a point in the 10th dimension (or 11th dimension depending on which string theorists you talk to). Even here, there is no logical reason to stop. These Multiverses forming an Omniverse could even go on to infinite Omniverses and so on. Perhaps you see where this is going. According to these conceptions of reality, anything that is possible MUST exist somewhere. Furthermore, it is completely conceivable that lines can bend and twist through higher dimensions and connect alternate timelines, other universes and so on. If you think about it, what we call Hyperspace sounds a lot like a higher dimensional nexus. Beyond our time and space... connected to an infinite number of divergent worlds... A lot of theoreticians like to tie all the infinity up in some arbitrary high dimension where all the + & -, matter & antimatter, yin & yang of all possible infinities of possibility converge and balance out into a 0 state. A kind of pure field of creation. A white light, Buddha field if you will. This is no different than the mystical conceptions of any number of advanced spiritual philosophies, and could be called "God" if scientists weren't so petrified of the term. In fact, the only difference between this "cutting-edge" view of reality and any other religious or spicenaut hyperspatial conception is that these whopper ideations are published in peer-reviewed journals by members of the lab coat tribe. Nonetheless, the fact that mystics and geeks... psychonauts, mathematicians, yogis and cosmologists all seem to arrive at the same conclusions of vast infinite possibility... it lends a lot of weight to the idea that such things might be the actual state of our existence. Unless you reject dimensions (the logical outcome of many materialistic, idealistic, rationalistic and even solipsistic philosophical stances), you basically unwittingly believe that everything is true. ********* Therefore, if we apply all of this to my friend Gibran2's marble analogy: 1) There is a box that contains an infinite number of boxes... each with an infinite number of marbles, as well as an infinite number of "no-marbles". 2) Each marble contains an infinite number of sub-marble particles... and so on. 3) We ask an infinite number of people what they think the box contains. 4) We receive an infinite number of answers and sub variations. 5) All of them are true. Some will speak only to things that are true on a single sub-marble particle. Others will talk about things that encompass an entire box of marbles. If I say there are red marbles in the box. I will be correct. If I say that there are iridescent blue-green marbles with psychoactive lichen growing on them... I will be correct. Only by saying that something surely isn't in any of the boxes, or is surely in all of the boxes, will I be able to be incorrect. And even then only at the highest levels, and only partially so, as there are sure to be boxes that conform to whatever I could possibly say. In this model, anything you say in the affirmative, and anything qualified you say in the negative will be true some how. As long as you avoid the use of absolutes like never or always, you can be assured of the veracity of anything you might say. Thus: The probability that Hyperspace exists? 100%"Curiouser and curiouser..." ~ Alice
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." ~ Buddha
|
|
|
If All is possible, then Everything is true. If we have an infinite number of boxes, each containing a variety of marbles, then we can say “a box contains exactly one black marble, two red, thirty-seven yellow, …, and one white marble” and we will be correct. But if this infinite realm is limited to infinite boxes and infinite marbles, there is still much we can guess that isn’t true: For example, we can claim that a box contains a paperclip. Or we can claim that a box contains a quantity of marbles of a particular size such that the volume of marbles exceeds the volume of the box containing them. Or as HF suggested, we can claim that all boxes contain a black marble, or that no boxes contain a black marble. Even in an infinite probability space, there are infinitely many things that are not possible. Whether the “multiverse” is infinite or not, we don’t know in every instance what is possible and what is not possible. I have more to say about this, but I’m running out of time this morning! gibran2 is a fictional character. Any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.
|