Random Philosophical Thoughts

[Artifis]

I just realized that even infinity is not infinity. You can have infinite points on the smallest segment. Since there is infinite theoretical space in infinite dimensions, Infinity^Infinity things exist.

Congrats That one is always an epiphany.

I don't get it. Why are there infinite points on the smallest segment? Doesn't space stop somewhere? Or are you saying that there's something beyond the quark (infinite regression of sorts perhaps)?

 

[Traitorfish]

But can't you derive some degree of objectivity in the world by comparing the subjective impressions of several people?

Intersubjectivity doesn't necessarily imply objectivity, so there's no self-evident answer to this.

 

[Agent327]

But can't you derive some degree of objectivity in the world by comparing the subjective impressions of several people?

It sounds a lot like you're trying to pursue a solipsist perspective.

I wouldn´t know about the last (as said, I´m voicing a personal opinion here), but if you (a subject) compare impressions by other people (also subjects), how can you know the result will be anything aproaching objectivity?

Now one shouldn´t take this to extremes, but ultimately it´s a warning that all ´knowledge´ is by necessity mere approximation of ´the truth´. (Just sayin´.)

As below: intersubjectivity doesn´t necessarily imply objectivity.

 

[Traitorfish]

Jeelen, would you be able to elaborate on your epistemology a bit? At present, you're really just presenting your conclusions without the underlying logic, so it's hard to know what to make of it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But can't you derive some degree of objectivity in the world by comparing the subjective impressions of several people?

It sounds a lot like you're trying to pursue a solipsist perspective.

I think you have a point. Also science derieves great degree of objectivity by defining some universal laws first and then in the case that subjective experience falls within these laws it can be wiewed as objective truth.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed , but neither am I stupid . But whoa man , this thread is out there

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I love good books but, in my experience, the solace and/or inspiration they provide is temporary. Like a song they don't change, evolve or interact. They might spurn you forward but you can't overuse them or they grow stale. Unlike the flesh & blood kind of friends.

Well there are special kind of books written from higher consciousness.
And in these instances you can say that to read such a book takes several hours/days. To propely understand and assimilate the written truth there can take weeks, monts. And to live by those truths - so that it becomes part of ones live/consciousness - it can take many years.
So here it is not a evolution on the part of the book you want (even though your own understanding of it is likely to change as well in course of time) but an evolution in ones own life which is desirable.

I think I understand what you're saying & I agree. It's a good feeling knowing you are using willpower to choose wisely. It's much more satisfying than just doing "the right thing" out of inertia.

Here the willpower serves as a garant that after few days you dont burry your decision/choice by going to your "confort level"(as you have written before) as it usually happens in case of ordinary determination.

A good policy. Easier said than done of course.

Good things take time.

I have some ideas on how. Why is because I feel much better when I get to sleep before midnight but it's an extremely rare thing (maybe a few times a year I am able to).

Usually it helps if you give something priority. By feeling much better you not only help yourself but also everyone around you. And in turn it allowes you to move on faster(in your life) as well.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed , but neither am I stupid . But whoa man , this thread is out there

Is that your way of saying: All I know is that I know nothing?

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed , but neither am I stupid . But whoa man , this thread is out there

I hope that this is sarcasm, because this thread is mostly gibberish as far as I can tell.

 

[Dachs]

But can't you derive some degree of objectivity in the world by comparing the subjective impressions of several people?

Take a look at, say, the current state of ancient history and see how far that gets you.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't get it. Why are there infinite points on the smallest segment? Doesn't space stop somewhere? Or are you saying that there's something beyond the quark (infinite regression of sorts perhaps)?

At least theoretically, you can divide everything by two. Everything. So theoretically, space is - if not infinitely big - at least infinitely small.

 

[warpus]

What do you mean by that?

All of the integers (1,2,3,4...) are countable, for example. It's the most basic example of a countable yet infinite set.

I'm not sure if that'll make sense though, maybe meromorph explained it better, I didn't read his full post.

At least theoretically, you can divide everything by two. Everything. So theoretically, space is - if not infinitely big - at least infinitely small.

You couldn't keep diving something in two actually, at least not in our Universe. You would have to stop at something close to the planck length. In mathematics this isn't an issue and you can dividing forever.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You couldn't keep diving something in two actually, at least not in our Universe. You would have to stop at something close to the planck length. In mathematics this isn't an issue and you can dividing forever.

Yeah sure, at some point we lack the means to. The point is, we theoretically could. As apposed to traveling faster than the speed of light, which we theoretically we can't even do.

 

[lovett]

'Theoretically' takes on odd dimensions here, doesn't it?

Usually we use theoretically to mean 'in principle' possibility. So, humanity can theoretically visit Alpha Centauri because it is 'in principle' possible to do so. However, suppose we live in a deterministic universe in which humanity never visits Alpha Centauri. Is it still theoretically possible to do so?

It still seems to be possible to do so, in principle. But how are we to parse this claim? Surely counterfactually; if things were different we could visit Alpha Centauri. That is to say, there is a possible world in which human being did visit Alpha Centauri. A possible world is merely a world which could exist. A world that contains no logical contradictions. I see no other interpretation for theoretically; in the actual world visiting Alpha Centauri is quite impossible. An event X is theoretically possible if and only if there is some possible world in which X obtains.

So, is it theoretically possible divide something by two indefinitely? I'm not entirely sure. But I suspect so; physically, there are possible worlds which are not constructed discretely - in Planck lengths. There are possible worlds with the resources (and beings with the will) to divide a physical space by two indefinitely. These are odd possible worlds, but possible nonetheless. Hence, if X being 'theoretically' possible means 'there is some possible world in which X obtains' it is theoretically possible to divide something by two indefinitely. Not possible in our actual world, but that is immaterial.

However, if one wants to also say 'it is theoretically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light' one is in trouble. Because if there are possible worlds which do not obey our Quantum Mechanics there are surely possible worlds which do not obey General Relativity. There would be no inherent contradictions in certain Newtonian worlds. It follows, there exist possible worlds in which one can travel faster than the speed of light. Hence, travelling faster than the speed of light is theoretically possible.

But this wasn't what you wanted to say! Nor, indeed, does it seem entirely right. In our actual world, traveling faster than the speed of light is both impossible and theoretically impossible. An action that violates 'laws of nature' is theoretically impossible.

So this is a different gloss on the theoretically possible. An event X is theoretically possible if and only if X is possible given the same laws of nature. But we need to modify this; if we live in a deterministic world and never visited Alpha Centauri, visiting Alpha Centauri would necessarily involve some violation of said laws and thereby be rendered theoretically impossible. Not a result we wanted.

We need to unite this nomic account with the counterfactual account. I suggest the best interpretation of 'theoretically' will be 'An event X is theoretically possible if and only if X obtain in some possible world with the same laws of nature as the actual world'. So, what makes visiting Alpha Centauri theoretically possible is that we do indeed visit Alpha Centauri in some possible world which has the same laws of nature as the actual world - our world. For instance, just that world in which humanity massively invests in space flight technology.

Moreover, this account of 'theoretically possible' means that (of course!) we cannot even theoretically travel faster than the speed of light. If it is a law of nature that we cannot travel faster than C, no possible world which shares our laws will have us travelling any faster than said speed.

Unfortunately, it is not so clear where this account gets us in the infinitely dividing a physical length by two case. Precisely, given the laws of nature being as they are it is not clear that we actually can do that in our world. A physicist had best weigh in here, but it seems that if the Planck length is the smallest possible length, we cannot divide by said length. This means, at least as concerns physical space, it is not theoretically possible to divide by two infinitely. One may divide a number by two infinitely, but after one hits this lower bound that number will no longer refer to any physical length. This is because there is no length smaller than that lower bound. A number cannot refer to something which does not exist.

So I offer three theses regarding what 'theoretically possible' is to mean. The first two seem to get into unsolvable difficulty. They both imply things which are theoretically possible are not theoretically possible. This is a contradiction. The third thesis is the one I favour. Unfortunately, it does indeed imply that dividing a physical length infinitely by two is, even in theory, impossible.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think your definition of theoretical is the only sensible one, so no disagreement there.
However, you now assumed that "theoretical possible" means that we have theoretically the means to do so. What I meant with"theoretical possible" was that the occurrence of the consequence in itself is theoretically possible - i.e. doesn't violate any known natural law, while it may still be theoretically impossible for us to cause it - or even observe it. So the main issue seems to be that I didn't make my perspective clear.
In this sense, it is theoretically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, because this act in itself is impossible according to natural law, never mind our ability to cause it. On the other hand I am under the impression that there is no law of nature establishing a limit to divide things, while natural law does limit our theoretic ability to cause it or even observe it.
Of course, this also means we can't actually be sure that things can be divided by 2 indefinitely. For the lack of direct observation, we can only extrapolate from what we know - what we can observe - and there everything can in deed be divided by 2 (though as said not necessarily by us). Hence it appears to me that the natural assumption is that this continues to be the case. Just like we can't actually - ever - know if space is infinite. But we assume so by extrapolating what we can observe - which is no end to space.

 

[Narz]

I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed , but neither am I stupid . But whoa man , this thread is out there

I can't get too into this theoretical stuff about whether objective reality exists, free will & all that airy stuff. Ultimately the answers to those questions are unknowable & do not affect day to day reality anyway.

 

[Narz]

Well there are special kind of books written from higher consciousness.

How do you mean higher consciousness?

And in these instances you can say that to read such a book takes several hours/days. To propely understand and assimilate the written truth there can take weeks, monts. And to live by those truths - so that it becomes part of ones live/consciousness - it can take many years.
So here it is not a evolution on the part of the book you want (even though your own understanding of it is likely to change as well in course of time) but an evolution in ones own life which is desirable.

Well a good book will say new things to you as you evolve yourself. But I'd still rather be surrounded by wise friends than wise books. That said, fortunately I don't have to choose & books are more easily acquired than the company of people.

What books have you found especially transformative?

Usually it helps if you give something priority. By feeling much better you not only help yourself but also everyone around you. And in turn it allowes you to move on faster(in your life) as well.

It's tough when you have responsibility. Sometimes I feel by giving to my daughter I enrich myself, other times I feel like I'm sacrificing my sleep & health & patience & burning myself out.

 

[warpus]

Yeah sure, at some point we lack the means to. The point is, we theoretically could. As apposed to traveling faster than the speed of light, which we theoretically we can't even do.

We couldn't though. There is a "smallest" unit of space that we wouldn't be able to divide in two.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I don't get it. Why are there infinite points on the smallest segment? Doesn't space stop somewhere? Or are you saying that there's something beyond the quark (infinite regression of sorts perhaps)?

Space may stop somewhere but that's not important. It's the system of measurement itself which is infinite, in the sense that any unit of counting can be broken down into an infinite number of smaller sub-units.

It's like saying that space cannot be infinitely large - it must come to an end somewhere. But even if it does end somewhere, we can keep measuring to infinity, it's a property of the measurement system. Likewise, we can measure to the infinitely small even if space can't be divided beyond a certain minimal unit.

All measurements are essentially ratios which describe comparisons between two or more things. Once you abstract such a system of measurement or ratios, then infinitely large and infinitely small are analytically necessary.

 

[Save_Ferris]

We couldn't though. There is a "smallest" unit of space that we wouldn't be able to divide in two.

What about other, microscopic dimensions?