I have a few disconnected models about cause and effect, and I know how they connect in a superficial sense, but they are still separate understandings, not one understanding.
Thing properties: 'A' needs 'not A' to exist. 'A' is actually composed of an infinite number of other things. Logic is the factor of how things are.
Time scales: When I look around my room everything seems very still. Yet I know with time lapse photography there was a time where this house didn't exist, then was built and lived in, and then was (will be) destroyed. Time is the factor of how "things" change.
Beginningless time: Since a "thing" is actually an infinite number of things, "thingness" is always relative to perspective and not permanent, fixed, or "real". So if a thing is never real, it never had a real beginning or end, so nothing has actually happened. This would also apply to the very concept of time, and points to the constancy of nature.
I'm guessing that they aren't supposed to connect in the sense that they are different ways to help move along toward the one understanding, and that they only really connect once that understanding is reached. Or is there a more obvious connection I don't see?
Connecting various models
Re: Connecting various models
Causality is just another concept like anything else, meaning it is only useful to us when applied in a particular and limited way. It is not Nature, it is not The All. Coincidentally David Quinn was just talking about this on the thread titled "Naturalistic Philosophy Denies Life?" right here.
-
Pincho Paxton
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am
Re: Connecting various models
1/ There is no such thing as time, it is a man made concept. Things change because they move. All particles will move eventually, and therefore will create different shapes when combined in different ways.skipair wrote:I have a few disconnected models about cause and effect, and I know how they connect in a superficial sense, but they are still separate understandings, not one understanding.
Thing properties: 'A' needs 'not A' to exist. 'A' is actually composed of an infinite number of other things. Logic is the factor of how things are.
1/ Time scales: When I look around my room everything seems very still. Yet I know with time lapse photography there was a time where this house didn't exist, then was built and lived in, and then was (will be) destroyed. Time is the factor of how "things" change.
2/ Beginningless time: Since a "thing" is actually an infinite number of things, "thingness" is always relative to perspective and not permanent, fixed, or "real". So if a thing is never real, it never had a real beginning or end, so nothing has actually happened. This would also apply to the very concept of time, and points to the constancy of nature.
3/ I'm guessing that they aren't supposed to connect in the sense that they are different ways to help move along toward the one understanding, and that they only really connect once that understanding is reached. Or is there a more obvious connection I don't see?
2/ A thing is not a description of object. Object = Particle. Particles are as real as we can interact with.
3/ There is only one nature, but different ways to describe it, mainly based on what scale you choose.
3a/ Man saw the light.
3b/ Atoms grouped to hold the electrons in place whilst the photons were snatched from their paths, and a signal was sent to the receivers.
3c/ The aether powered high, reduced power by a factor of colour, read the resulting power output.
Re: Connecting various models
The majority of logics would crumble if this statement were true. "Philosophical" ramblings must generally comply with "if p then p". Please brush up on your Lord Russell.skipair wrote:Thing properties: 'A' needs 'not A' to exist. 'A' is actually composed of an infinite number of other things. Logic is the factor of how things are.