Jamesh wrote:Infinity relates to causality, not things.
Nick wrote:All things are an expression of infinity, so they are necessarily related.
I don’t want to rehash points already made in this thread, but immediately one conceives of a thing, one creates a finite entity.
Infinity does not apply to things, other than in a causal sense. However, once one takes the causal perspective of a thing, then the thing in question is no longer what is being considered – it becomes divided into different A=A’s, which can be traced infinitely.
Jamesh wrote:As reality is always expanding via the expansionary flow of time, there is not even a point where “what is” is “all that is”. There is no real totality, other than as a logical concept in which one falsely assumes effects are real-in-themselves and static.
Nick wrote:You can’t sit there and tell everyone that any logical conception of the totality is based on false assumptions while simultaneously presenting a conception of the totality.
I’m just suggesting it is not right to think of infinity as any form of summing together of finiteness.
Jamesh wrote:Fundamental Time (or whatever the base cause is) does not flow on a stop/start quantum basis, but is continuously causal without variation or change. Thus there is no point of time in which “newness” is not being created. It does cause variation, or quantumness, as effects, but it has no variation or duality within its own singular causal nature.
Nick wrote:What’s the difference between “fundamental time” and regular time? What constitutes a base cause? This is all a load of horse shit. Are you even trying to make sense? Time is no more real than any other concept one can come up with. It’s just a measurement of change. It’s not that big of a deal.
I use the time concept merely as a pointer, as it fits best into what most people can imagine about infinity.
I separate fundamental time and regular time to try and avoid people thinking of my concept of time as a measurement of change, as regular time. Fundamental time is an infinite 4 dimensional action, regular time is a finite linear observational measurement of the effects of causality. The latter merely points to the underlying existence of the former. Causality can only occur over time - but it is not causality that creates time, as you assume because you view time as “regular time”, but it is that time is actually causality. If causality just created time as an effect, then over what time would causality first be able to manifest.
Jamesh wrote:When I say “reality is always expanding”, I mean that relativity is continuously increasing in complexity, via the addition of new time. As time flows, as time occurs, the relationship between the past and the new present, becomes greater – it is only this relativity that causes effects.
Nick wrote:Of course this is all relative to you, the observer, so you’re not adding anything philosophically meaningful to this discussion by pushing your views on to other people.
I harp on about this as it is my subject of most interest. Once you know the foundations, then you can properly build the most accurate logical assessments of reality.
Nick wrote:Effects are causes and vice versa.
No, effects are not really causes. They are the observable outcomes of relative causes, but not causes in themselves. They are the patterns of causes, but not the underlying causality.
Nick wrote:Also, it doesn’t make any sense to say “in reality there may be this or that”. Things are exactly the way we see them. We can of course change the way we see and interpret things, but ultimately, no manner of sucking up empirical data is going to get you any closer to the truth.
Things are not exactly the way we see them, though concepts of things are, as in A=A.
Jamesh wrote:All that exists is simply time of various ages - the older the time the lesser it's action is relative to the present - the creationary power of time is the same no matter the age, but the older that time is the more it's effect on the present is consumed by being relative to all the time that has occurred in the meantime.
Nick wrote:Again this is all relative to the way you view things. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
It is relevant to my argument that it is wrong to consider infinity as a totalisation of things. It is simply your dislike of me that makes you determine that what I am saying is not relevant.
Jamesh wrote:Our ability to observe relates entirely to the brain calculating time relativities. Ultimately calculating Time differences is the only fundamental way we can measure anything.
Nick wrote:I don’t think you have the slightest idea what you just said here, and it has no connection to any scientific study I've ever herad of.
Probably not, but then I take all scientific works with a grain of salt.
Nick wrote:But you basically said that anytime we measure something we are “fundamentally” measuring it. First off, if this were true, everyone would be doing this already so you would have no reason to be explaining this, second, this is completely false because there is no such thing as a fundamental measurement in the context of this discussion. Any measurement you make is relative to you, and you alone.
Well ok then, just how does the brain determine differentiation at the most basic level?
What core form within nature contains the parameters for which calculations of differentiation can be measured against a consistent unchanging standard?
Lets imagine there are two colours only. Black and white. How does our brain determine which is which.
You will agree that light is providing the differentiation to our eyes which the brain then interprets and matches against its “naming memories” (as a baby, these names are not language based, but subconscious categorisation only). It knows via the process of naming and remembering that a certain pattern of data entering the brain is “Black” and another pattern is “White”. This data is received as differing electrical currents, lets just assume the mental code for black has 1,000 photons, while white has 10,000 photons, and the total current flow of any sight experience is determined by our eyes (our light to data converters). What is in focus will flow at a much faster rate than anything in one’s peripheral vision.
The question then becomes “over what period of time must these photons be counted in order to be white and not black”? The data stream is meaningless unless measured against a context. So therefore the brain uses time meters to count the photons per X period of time.
In order to count each photon, each photon passing through the counter, must give off part of itself, otherwise there would be no interaction between the counter and the photon, and it would not be recognised.
Photons are not a fundamental entity, they are rather complex effects actually compared to things in wave form, but they do give off wave radiation and this is what the counter uses to count the photons passing by. But even the radiation represents an effect of something even more fundamental. I’m just suggesting what is most fundamental of all, is Time.