phenomenological musings

[ExpectantlyIronic]

We can take the amount of appearances that compose the totality of appearances to be infinite, but only if we talk of potential appearances. Even then, though, given that there's a finite amount of matter, and thus ways it can arrange itself, and also, seemingly, a finite amount of perspectives, and states of mind with which to view that matter; can we fairly say that there's an infinite number of appearances? If we take time into account, at least as it's commonly perceived, then perhaps; but does it really constitute a difference if two phenomenal instances appear exactly the same, but a clock or calender that isn't the subject of phenomenal experience, but could presumably be imagined to potentially exist, is not in the same state as it was during the occurrence of the previous phenomena? It seems that such a thing doesn't matter if we limit our thinking to merely the appearance of a particular appearance.

Furthermore, if the universe contracts and expands again, in the pulsing manner that some have proposed (has that idea been demonstrated false yet?), then one can say that it's possible that the earth itself could be destroyed, and then come back into existence at what we might think of as a latter date, but if the universe was otherwise in the same state as it is now, just at some different point in infinity, would we want to say that such a reoccurrence of experience is different somehow? I'd say that the seeming difference amounts to nothing but a concept, and represents no difference in anything real.

It's apparent that if we take time to be infinite, but states of being to be finite, then all states of being will repeat themselves into infinity. Thus, it seems, that under such a view the totality of appearances would be finite. It also seems that if we take time to be finite, then possible states of being would have to be finite. Thus, it seems, that under such a view the totality of appearances would be finite. Is there any justification for the claim that some have made, including well-regarded existentialists if I understood them correctly, that possible appearances are infinite in number?

[Kevin Solway]

given that there's a finite amount of matter

I'm not sure where you get this idea.

It's possible we live in a little bubble that is expanding and contracting. But we would not be the only one. There would be an infinite number of these bubbles making up the Universe.

Thus, it seems, that under such a view the totality of appearances would be finite.

All things (eg, a cake) can be divided up an infinite number of ways - mentally at least - making an infinite number of appearances.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There would be an infinite number of these bubbles making up the Universe.

How so? Although there is obviously far too little data to put any faith in the bubble theory, even if there were an "all" encompassing bubble, anything that was outside of the bubble would still be part of the Infinite.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kevin Solway,

It's possible we live in a little bubble that is expanding and contracting. But we would not be the only one. There would be an infinite number of these bubbles making up the Universe.

Yeah. I wasn't too clear there. I meant that there's a finite amount of matter states. I'm not worried about whether or not there's an infinite multiverse of some sort.

All things (eg, a cake) can be divided up an infinite number of ways - mentally at least - making an infinite number of appearances.

I really don't see this. There are only so many ways that matter can arrange itself to form a human brain. That alone seems to limit the number of potential appearances.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

To branch off into a slightly different speculative tangent: I'm not so sure that we can safely say that the universe is infinite. At first it seems simply intuitive that it should be, given the fact that it's pretty hard to imagine walls being around the universe. Although if the universe operates according to a non-euclidean geometry, it could simply just wrap back in on itself. A difficult concept to get one's head around, but a distinct possibility nonetheless. I think the notion that space/time simply has to be infinite is something of a dogma.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm not really sure why Kevin is arguing mathematicaly for the infinitude of reality, because it's not a valid argument, really. Our ability to unendingly divide something doesn't demonstrate the infinitide of the universe any more than does the set of rational numbers. There's no such thing as an "infinite" number of things - i.e. there's no such thing as an infinite number. This dialogue from Genius News is how I would elect to argue the point about the infinitude of the universe (it's possible though that this is actually Kevin's point about the division of things - that no matter how much we carve things up there is no core or base thing we can get to) :

Looking into the Infinite

[Kevin Solway]

All things (eg, a cake) can be divided up an infinite number of ways - mentally at least - making an infinite number of appearances.

I really don't see this. There are only so many ways that matter can arrange itself to form a human brain. That alone seems to limit the number of potential appearances.

Yes, I think I see what you mean. This is seen with regard to numbers. Once numbers start to get high, the brain just lumps them into a category like "a lot", or "a huge lot", etc, as it doesn't have enough processing power to deal with all that data.

So an individual brain is unable to have an infinite number of appearances, but the infinite number of appearances is possible over an infinite number of brains.

I'm not so sure that we can safely say that the universe is infinite. At first it seems simply intuitive that it should be, given the fact that it's pretty hard to imagine walls being around the universe.

Although we can imagine walls without too much trouble, we can't imagine there being nothing on the other side of those walls.

it could simply just wrap back in on itself. A difficult concept to get one's head around, but a distinct possibility nonetheless. I think the notion that space/time simply has to be infinite is something of a dogma.

Even if it wraps back on itself, this must happen within some higher dimension. I don't see how we can get around that.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kevin,

So an individual brain is unable to have an infinite number of appearances, but the infinite number of appearances is possible over an infinite number of brains.

An infinite number of appearances perhaps. Although not an infinite number of different appearances. You have to remember that everything we experience is composed of a portion of our (approximately) 164 trillion synapses in the neocortex, with every experience having specific synapses dedicated to it. This means that the human brain is capable of having a huge number of experiences, but certainly not a infinite amount.

Even if it wraps back on itself, this must happen within some higher dimension. I don't see how we can get around that.

That's the thing though. Inconceivability doesn't equal impossibility. Nor does seeming inconceivability equal actual inconceivability. Lets say you'd never heard of a Mobius strip and I told you that I could show you piece of paper with a single side to it. You'd probably think I was crazy. I think when it comes down to the universe being infinite or finite, we simply can't know. If I had to bet my life right now I'd probably say it was infinite in some version of the term, but I'm not even sure the term makes sense past a purely conceptual level. What's infinity to a finite mind?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Dan,

The Infinite is only infinite in one regard, which is its own.

I'm imagining that this means something along the lines of the Infinite is infinite because it's defined as being infinite? If so, that's a rather obvious point, don't you think? The phrase "totality of appearances" isn't synonymous with infinity, so your demonstration of how our language works really has no implications on my OP. Of course, maybe your saying something deeper then that, and I'm just not seeing it. If so, go ahead and explain on.

[reedsch]

I think the notion that space/time simply has to be infinite is something of a dogma.

We haven't burned any heretics for awhile Mr. Ironic but I will contribute to the firewood fund in your case.

Seriously though, as a creature of space/time (really the same thing) your ability to see anything other that that is fundamentally unavailable i.e. the chess pieces cannot conceive of anything beyond the board. So as far as we are concerned, infinity in space/time can be safely worshiped as dogma with no fear of repercussion.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Seriously though, as a creature of space/time (really the same thing) your ability to see anything other that that is fundamentally unavailable i.e. the chess pieces cannot conceive of anything beyond the board. So as far as we are concerned, infinity in space/time can be safely worshiped as dogma with no fear of repercussion.

One repercussion is having bothersome folks from outside the flock like myself stomping in and challenging the status-quo. Then again, I'm sure you'd get that regardless of what said status-quo happened to be.

[Tharan]

I think the notion that space/time simply has to be infinite is something of a dogma.

We haven't burned any heretics for awhile Mr. Ironic but I will contribute to the firewood fund in your case.

Seriously though, as a creature of space/time (really the same thing) your ability to see anything other that that is fundamentally unavailable i.e. the chess pieces cannot conceive of anything beyond the board. So as far as we are concerned, infinity in space/time can be safely worshiped as dogma with no fear of repercussion.

The repercussion of speaking falsehoods or at least speaking unknowns as knowns should be damning enough for the truth seeker. As long as there is absolutely no evidence for "infinity" or "perfection," in the REAL world, then believers of these ideas would absolutely have to rely on dogmatic posturing when using them as linguistic tools to express supposedly "true" concepts.

Simply eliminating these two generic terms from the language can go a long way in placing an individual into a more realistic framework of the Universe, or even a single bubble in a VERY LARGE NUMBER of other universe/bubbles. A person may still strive for individual betterment without striving for "infinite perfection" (I have decided I am using those two terms together from now on), in the same way that a person might strive for wealth by taking practical measures rather than looking passionately for the Leprecaun's Pot o' Gold at the end of the rainbow. Hunting animals effectively by tracking and killing them is more effective than doing a dance around the campfire. Planting seeds, irrigating and fertilizing, tends to yield better crops than sacrificing a virgin and holding her heart up toward the Heavens. That is just the way this finite Universe operates.

[Kevin Solway]

This means that the human brain is capable of having a huge number of experiences, but certainly not a infinite amount.

I was thinking of an infinite number of different kinds of brains.

Even if it wraps back on itself, this must happen within some higher dimension. I don't see how we can get around that.

That's the thing though. Inconceivability doesn't equal impossibility.

I consider the higher dimension to be a logical necessity. If a thing "wraps around" then it does so within a dimension . . . in which it wraps around. Were it not for that other dimension, it wouldn't be able to wrap around.

There is no possible alternative to Infinity.

[reedsch]

As long as there is absolutely no evidence for "infinity" or "perfection," in the REAL world, then believers of these ideas would absolutely have to rely on dogmatic posturing when using them as linguistic tools to express supposedly "true" concepts.

The two terms do get bandied about here often.

Pefection is an attempt to define an absolute standard. I can have a perfect circle or make a perfect backetball shot, no? But it is always a comparative exercise i.e. relative.

But I don't see how you can say there is no evidence of infinity.

[Leyla Shen]

ExI wrote:

I think when it comes down to the universe being infinite or finite, we simply can't know. If I had to bet my life right now I'd probably say it was infinite in some version of the term, but I'm not even sure the term makes sense past a purely conceptual level. What's infinity to a finite mind?

Cause and effect, which is what the universe is. I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite. Alternatively, if there can be no cause without effect, then the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is necessarily infinite.

If we have predicted the end of this solar system, have we at the same time accurately predicted the end of the universe?

.

[clyde]

Cause and effect, which is what the universe is.

Cause and effect is a principle that arises with things and time.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Leyla Shen]

I wrote:

Cause and effect, which is what the universe is. I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite. Alternatively, if there can be no cause without effect, then the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is necessarily infinite.

If we have predicted the end of this solar system, have we at the same time accurately predicted the end of the universe?

Clyde responded thus:

Cause and effect, which is what the universe is.

Cause and effect is a principle that arises with things and time.

Do no harm,
clyde

And?

.

[clyde]

Leyla;

If you accept that cause and effect is a principle and that it arises with things and time, then it does not follow that cause and effect is the universe.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Trevor Salyzyn]

clyde: If causality is certain to be a universal principle of the universe, then you can define something's potential existence within the universe by whether or not it is causal. So, in effect, causality could be used to define the universe, and Leyla's usage would be acceptable.

However, I would liken it to asking for a woman's hand in marriage, when you really want the whole body. I can't remember what figure of speech that is.

[clyde]

Trevor;

Cause and effect, even as a principle, cannot exist without things and time.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Leyla Shen]

Alright, clyde, how about this:

ExI wrote:

I think when it comes down to the universe being infinite or finite, we simply can't know. If I had to bet my life right now I'd probably say it was infinite in some version of the term, but I'm not even sure the term makes sense past a purely conceptual level. What's infinity to a finite mind?

Cause and effect, which is a principle that arises with things and time and cannot therefore be separate from/independent of them, is what the universe is. I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite. Alternatively, if there can be no cause without effect, then the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is necessarily infinite.

If we have predicted the end of this solar system, have we at the same time accurately predicted the end of the universe?

.

[Leyla Shen]

Trevor wrote:

However, I would liken it to asking for a woman's hand in marriage, when you really want the whole body. I can't remember what figure of speech that is.

God damn it. Is there no escaping Her?! :)

.

[clyde]

Leyla;

Actually, no. I don’t know what the universe is, but even things and time have conditions (e.g. – space). But let’s move on to the second sentence.

By definition, there can be no cause without an effect.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Tharan]

But I don't see how you can say there is no evidence of infinity.

Show me some. Even one little sliver, outside of human scribblings on paper.

[Tharan]

Cause and effect, which is a principle that arises with things and time and cannot therefore be separate from/independent of them, is what the universe is. I think if you can logically and empirically prove that there can be cause without any effect, then you can prove that the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is finite. Alternatively, if there can be no cause without effect, then the universe (not a particular and limited form of it) is necessarily infinite.

If we have predicted the end of this solar system, have we at the same time accurately predicted the end of the universe?

By definition, cause cannot exist without effect, and effect cannot exist without cause. Based on your proposal, this "necessarily" makes the universe infinite. How so?