Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
The Cross is Plato's twice divided line, among other things in geometry. We are in big trouble when we begin to critique our metaphors.
Welcome to life.
Row, row, row your boat . . .
Sorry.. I didnt mean the snippet I posted but the whole snippet in #817.. what I posted I can grasp I think..
From previous discussions on this thread (as I recall) your worldview is that time is an illusion rather than a dimension, energy is an illusion, mass is an illusion. If that is the case, then the first question ought to be what do you consider to be physically real?
Also, when you speak of a zero dimension universe I will take it to mean a physical universe not a mathematical construct because you use the term universe. If you wish to discuss a zero dimensional construct then physics would not apply then again, it would not have anything to do with the original subject, the void. Moreover, if that is to be the direction of the conversation, I would not be as interested since there are various instances where mathematical constructs do not translate well to physics. Constructs with less than 2 spatial and 1 temporal dimension are among these - as is the mathematical construct of infinity.
Black hole entropy is based on thermodynamics not information: black hole entropy.
We also need to make sure we are speaking of singularity theory and not the larger subject of mathematical singularity.
As a final issue, we need to agree to the difference between zero spatial and temporal dimensions and null spatial or temporal dimensions.
For Lurkers: the number 201 means there are no tens, the zero is a placemarker. The number would be written differently if tens do not exist at all, e.g. 2_1.
A little faith is better than none at all.. even if your God is your stomach.. Honesty reparte' is a blessing..
And if I try, I would begin with the phrase "A is A," because that is somewhat familiar and what many like to return to, here.
The A-is-A phrase is an epistemological shorthand describing our human method of individuating. It describes human analysis. It is a circumscription so that we don't talk about everything at once. (Funny thing, it's used as a chant and an excuse to talk about everything at once.)
Why is this phrase so important? Because in our attempt to understand human life, we are in the habit of saying we've said it all when we merely have defined one aspect of human life. We mistake A for non-A, because we took A to be bigger than it was. Consider all the -isms. Each one of them are a diseased infatuation with a particular aspect of reality, turning a particular into a totality. The lawyer thinks all the world's a court. The psychologist thinks all the world's a couch.
The point is, human life always involves something else to which it belongs to. It's A is somehow connected to non-A. We are not symmetrical totalities by ourselves. And once we realize this, we reach a crossroads: we are what we are not and that is something darkling . . . and complex. Dogma and simplicity then become the temptation and substitutes (the second realities) to protect from complexity.
That's a start, hosepipe, and I hope it helps. It can be said in other ways and will be.
From the theology point-of-view, physical light is a metaphor for good (v. evil) [Sermon on the Mount] and God is Light [Hebrews 1:3, I John 1:5] speaks to His person. Again looking at the physical realm as a metaphor, the cosmic microwave background recorded the harmonics in the sound waves of the early universe at the moment when the universe cooled and photons decoupled from electrons, protons and neutrons atoms formed, and light went its way. And God said, let there be light (two meanings, heaven and earth, spiritual and physical).
Masterful diagnosis and cure.. I'm healed Doc.. I'm not easy either.. Done with so few words.. simply brilliant!..
Simplicity then is both a curse and a blessing.. Big difference, then, between simplicity and simplistic..
"A man has gotta know his limitations"- Dirty Harry
Is any argument/proof purely empirical?
Either we retain an identity or blink off into oblivion.
In retaining an identity we are necessarily a part of something that transcends the periodicity of material change. And whatever transcends this, is either personal or impersonal. Infinite possibilities may exist for a plurality of identities, but there are some basic dichotomies in play for us.
I think I'm talking simplistic. : ) But there may be some overlap (hope so). It's just that simplic-ity gives symmetry with complex-ity.
Darn.. I think I understood all that.. at least some of it.. Your good, real good.. That made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.. maybe I ain't nutz.. The fact that there could be indeed an ligit argument for what, I think, I see is encouraging.. Thanks a million..
Gives me a some ideas to be developed and prayed about too.. What a blessing you three(list above) are to me.. Comments on this particular subject would appreciated by Boop and Cornelis too.. Trust me, its important to me.. And you too AG if you can expand on the two, lets say, photonic paradigms.. I'm gobstruck with this.. thanks again..
Any partial knowledge is simplistic to the whole.. 2 + 2 = 4 is simplistic in one context but complete in another context.. Various formulas for evolution seem to be true in one context but in another context seems to be untrue.. same kind of dicotomy...
Simple context and simplistic context.. as opposed to the whole text.. is a problem with arrogance.. Who then is totally aware on any subject.?.. If there were no God well there ought to be one.. Honest study then should drive one to the feet of God in abject humility.. even if there were no God.. He should create one as has been done time and time again..
Mankind sometimes to appears to be a two year trying to trick his Mommy.. The Mommy is so far ahead of the two year old.. his actions are cute.. Unless he is playing with fire.. or sticking something onto a light socket.. etc.
Fascinating idea, but why 1915 in particular?
Cheers!
Flesh this out, please?
Why do you call relativity an "illusion" ?
E.g. prediction of precession of perihelion of Mercury was predicted by relativity, not otherwise explainable classically...
Cheers!
Interesting take, and the hell of it is, you're right.
Never thought of it in that way before; but then why bother with experiments or mathematical proofs?
Oh well, at least it beats watching CSI or the OJ trial on TV :-)
From my post #785 (I don't think it was to you, though...): "Hence you have an atheist countering "Pascal's wager" with a counter-dilemna of higher multiplicity: so I go to Hell if I don't believe in God, you say. But I can posit an infinite number of gods, so which one should I believe in..."
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: a mountain of cheesesteaks? No chips? No tuna salad on pumpernickel? No beer?
NO THANKS! :-)
Cheeres!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.