GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin; Please, what is your definition of surface?

Laird: The "present moment" must have travelled all the way from the infinite past to where we are now. This requires travelling over an infinite amount of time, which you agree is impossible. QED.

David: Again, you can't apply that argument here. The beginningless past lacks the structure of a starting point

Laird: I'm not invoking a starting point, I'm invoking the infinite past.

David: You are implicitly invoking a starting point by trying to equate the infinite past with that of moving forwards from a starting point to an infinite future. The two might seem similar on the surface, but in reality they are worlds apart.

You're saying that on the one hand we have "the infinite past" and that on the other we have "moving forwards from a starting point to an infinite future". You're ignoring the third alternative which I'm using and which is "moving forwards from the infinite past to the present": it's a logical impossibility that the present would ever be reached and it is this logical impossibility that you refuse to recognise.

David: ... and a reaching for something infinitely into the future, which is what your argument is trying to present.

Laird: The nature of the passage of time means that it is inherently "reaching for something". As for "infinitely into the future" - yeah, we both agree that it's impossible to achieve, which is what hammers the nail into the coffin of the notion of a beginningless past.

David: The present doesn't have to be "reached for". It is already here, and always has been.

You cannot deny that the present moment moves through time. It is this motion that I'm likening to a "reaching forwards" to the future.

DQ: Kevin used the term ["block"] metaphorically, you silly sausage. To indicate the interconnectedness and deterministic nature of all things. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to focus on.

Laird: However he used it, it's apt. You believe that the Totality is fixed and deterministic: block-like i.e. thing-like.

DQ: The things within the Totality are certainly deterministic, but the same can't be said of the Totality itself. This is because there is nothing beyond the Totality that could act as a determining influence.

Who said that there need be a "determining influence" to consider something as "deterministic"? It merely has to be determined somehow (in other words: I think that you're splitting hairs). But yes, it is strange to contemplate that there be nothing beyond it which might exert a determining influence - somewhat akin to the paradox of uncaused causality: the paradox of undetermined determinism.

Laird;

Is it your sense, as it is mine, that reality is not neatly packaged and expressed in words and therefore the exercise of attempting to express the why, what and/or how of reality in purely logical (and non-contradictory) language is an ultimately futile endeavor?

Leyla Shen wrote:Since the two-sided definition conforms even to your own experience of boundaries (comprising, therefore, empirical evidence for the definition “boundary”) it’s meaningless to leave open the possibility of an “ultimate” boundary that isn’t comprised of two sides, by your own standards. So, in fact, a two-sided boundary speaks more meaningfully than you by those same standards as such an “assumption” is based directly on empirical evidence.

I've never seen a one-sided boundary - except as clyde has thoughtfully pointed out, in the Moebius strip - but I can conceive of one existing: why need I restrict my definition of "boundary" such that this conception is excluded? There is no reason to. If I wish to imply two-sidedness then I can simply say "boundary between <x> and <y>".

Leyla Shen wrote:If you were to somehow get to this one-sided edge of the universe, how would you know that it was an edge without being able to conceive of the something you might call nothing beyond it?

[...]

If we were to suddenly get to the “edge of the universe” how could we possibly realise it as such--by peering into “nothing”, physically disintegrating, conceiving of nothing there from this one side of the universal “brick wall”?

I mean, it’s one thing to imagine absolute nothing. Quite another to experience it, I think. Have you ever done that?

I don't think that it would be possible - unless we invent some form of teleportation device - to ever reach the edge of the universe, assuming that such a thing even exists. The edge of the universe might be simply the furtherest distance that light has travelled since the birth of the universe - so we could not "see" the nothing because there would be no light reflecting out of it; it's possible that there would be no three-dimensional space there because that space only comes into being when the universe creates it as it expands. Pure speculation, but likewise so is the idea that the universe is infinite. All that I'm asking is for sanity: that we recognise that in matters like this there is no such thing as "proving" reality "by definition" to be one way or another - because reality trumps definitions any day - we can only speculate and model based on the empirical evidence of science.

Look, perhaps I can best explain what I see Kevin doing using an example. Let's imagine that I coin a new word "copo", which is defined as "the cool point at the centre of a thing". Let's imagine that the word comes into frequent usage. Now in the course of a conversation with Kevin, it comes to his attention that I believe that the centre of the sun is in fact very cool.

"Prove it!" he charges me.

"It's by definition, mate," I respond. "By definition the copo is the cool point at the centre of a thing. The sun is a thing."

"Hang on," he might respond, "How do you know that the definition of 'copo' can be applied to this particular thing?"

And that's exactly what I'm asking Kevin: how does he know that his definition of "boundary" can be applied to every part of the universe?

You see, it's very easy to define words. Unless you're some spooky supernatural being with ultimate control over the universe, though, you don't get to decide where the definitions apply.

clyde wrote:That was an extraordinarily lame response. A surface is a boundary and here (the moebius strip) there is a surface (boundary) with only one side.

Wot? A surface is a surface when it‘s a surface, not a flippen boundary! The Mobius Strip has a one-sided surface as an idealised (Euclidean) flat space. Interestingly, looking at it, one sees that it isn’t actually a flat space at all but, as Kevin has pointed out, a twisted loop. If one were to walk in a straight line commencing from any point on the Mobius Strip, after one revolution he would be on the opposite side of the point of origin and after two he would end up exactly at the point of origin. Though, he obviously would not know this without the vantage point that we have looking at the Mobius Strip from the outside.

Do you believe in flat space?

If you were to pick up a Mobius Strip between two fingers, are both fingers on the same side of the strip? Where is this "one-sided boundary"?

Clyde,

clyde wrote:Laird;

Is it your sense, as it is mine, that reality is not neatly packaged and expressed in words and therefore the exercise of attempting to express the why, what and/or how of reality in purely logical (and non-contradictory) language is an ultimately futile endeavor?

I don't know whether I'd necessarily go that far but it's certainly a strong possibility in my mind that there are aspects of reality that we will never be able to comprehend, let alone express in words. For example, the fact that anything exists at all is to me an incredible mystery that I can't imagine a "logical" solution to. QRS and others would have us believe that existence is the natural state and that there is therefore nothing mysterious about this, but I beg to differ. The way that I look at it is kind of the way that I expressed the paradox of uncausedness earlier when picking three faults with QRS-think. If every thing has a cause, then how is it that the universe itself doesn't have one? This is the most mindblowing paradox that exists IMO. How can we hope to find a solution to this paradox in human terms? I cannot imagine it, but perhaps my imagination is simply limited.

Leyla; As I did Kevin, perhaps you will share your definition of surface. As far as I understand, three-dimensional objects have a surface(s) which are a boundary (e.g. - your skin, which has two sides). And, yes, if I pick-up a moebius strip with my fingers, my fingers can ONLY be on one side because that is all the sides a moebius strip has - one.

Laird; By futile, I meant that perfect modeling and linguistic expression are not attainable, but I did not mean to imply that the exercise is without any value. Two values come to mind: 1) the intellectual pleasure of the exercise; and 2) the models created may have predictive value which support a lessening of suffering.

Laird: So how then can you prove that logic applies everywhere?

Kevin: If a place is somewhere then it has an identity, and if it has an identity then logic is already in operation and applies.

OK, so that part of logic that we recognise as identification applies. How about other aspects of logic though, such as things behaving in the way that you expect them to? How can you be sure that this applies everywhere?

Laird: Empirical things trump logic.

Kevin: Where is your proof?

Laird: You forget that I don't believe in ultimate proofs.

Kevin: But you don't even provide empirical evidence!

Well here's an example: by your logic all things are completely deterministic. The empirical science of quantum mechanics trumps that by saying otherwise.

Kevin Solway wrote:In other words all you do is speculate. Therefore you should make sure that everything you say is couched in a speculative tone, so that it doesn't sound like you actually know something when in fact you are only speculating.

What twaddle. Some of what I write is indeed pure speculation, but some of it I am confident in through experience, observation and reflection. I think that I make it clear enough which is which. For example, I have already explained that my suggestion that the universe might have an ultimate one-sided boundary is pure speculation.

Kevin: I begin with A=A.

Laird: That's not a premise, it's a symbolic representation of the notion of identity.

Kevin: Once again, you mistake the finger for the moon.

So then explain by which process of logic you get from your "beginning premise" of A=A to what I've suggested is your actual starting premise: "that every region of the universe can be considered to be bounded, where a boundary is that with two sides".

Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding the definition of logic. Look up "Informal logic" or "Non-formal" logic in Wikipedia. At least it will let you know that there are other forms of logic than formal logic. Or read the chapters on logic in Weininger's "Sex and Character".

I read through that Wikipedia article but I haven't made it that far into Weininger yet.

Kevin Solway wrote:That which is called "formal logic" is actually a system of logic, rather than logic itself.

Like any word, "logic" has different connotations. One thing is clear to me though: it is far more than merely identification (A=A). You use it to "prove" various things such as that the universe is infinite: you do this through a process of logic.

Kevin Solway wrote:Dictionaries are a record of definitions currently popular with fools.

Arrogance is failure to recognise what one owes the rest of humanity.

Kevin: Regarding boundaries, you should consider this: If it were possible for there to be a boundary with only one side then what you would have is a self-existent thing - that is, an independently existent thing. Do you not see how this is impossible?

Laird: Your Totality is exactly that: an independently existent "block".

Kevin: Since the Totality is defined specifically not to have a boundary, then it cannot possibly have a boundary with only one side.

Define away all that you like: the ultimate proof is reality itself, not your definitions.

clyde wrote:Laird; By futile, I meant that perfect modeling and linguistic expression are not attainable, but I did not mean to imply that the exercise is without any value. Two values come to mind: 1) the intellectual pleasure of the exercise; and 2) the models created may have predictive value which support a lessening of suffering.

Yep, I'm in agreement with you.

Laird wrote:

Laird: The "present moment" must have travelled all the way from the infinite past to where we are now. This requires travelling over an infinite amount of time, which you agree is impossible. QED.

David: Again, you can't apply that argument here. The beginningless past lacks the structure of a starting point

Laird: I'm not invoking a starting point, I'm invoking the infinite past.

David: You are implicitly invoking a starting point by trying to equate the infinite past with that of moving forwards from a starting point to an infinite future. The two might seem similar on the surface, but in reality they are worlds apart.

You're saying that on the one hand we have "the infinite past" and that on the other we have "moving forwards from a starting point to an infinite future". You're ignoring the third alternative which I'm using and which is "moving forwards from the infinite past to the present": it's a logical impossibility that the present would ever be reached and it is this logical impossibility that you refuse to recognise.

Again, the problem lies in your likening the present moment to the very last moment of an infinite future (or the very earliest point in an infinite past). The core reason why the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached is not because it would take an infinite amount of time to get there, but because no such point exists. The present, however, does exist. Because of this, the attempt to use the argument that the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached to prove that the present cannot be reached from an infinite past has no basis to it.

You can keep repeating the same argument over and over, if that is what rocks your boat, but it isn't going to get any more valid through the repetition of it. It would be better if you thought more carefully about what it is exactly you are trying to argue. Operating out a vague hunch doesn't cut it.

Laird wrote:

David: ... and a reaching for something infinitely into the future, which is what your argument is trying to present.

Laird: The nature of the passage of time means that it is inherently "reaching for something". As for "infinitely into the future" - yeah, we both agree that it's impossible to achieve, which is what hammers the nail into the coffin of the notion of a beginningless past.

David: The present doesn't have to be "reached for". It is already here, and always has been.

You cannot deny that the present moment moves through time. It is this motion that I'm likening to a "reaching forwards" to the future.

The present doesn't move through time. It is timeless.

Laird wrote:

DQ: Kevin used the term ["block"] metaphorically, you silly sausage. To indicate the interconnectedness and deterministic nature of all things. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to focus on.

Laird: However he used it, it's apt. You believe that the Totality is fixed and deterministic: block-like i.e. thing-like.

DQ: The things within the Totality are certainly deterministic, but the same can't be said of the Totality itself. This is because there is nothing beyond the Totality that could act as a determining influence.

Who said that there need be a "determining influence" to consider something as "deterministic"?

That is what determinism means. Things determining other things. If there is nothing beyond the Totality (which there isn't, by definition), then the Totality cannot be determined.

It merely has to be determined somehow (in other words: I think that you're splitting hairs).

It is called thinking clearly, as opposed to operating out of vague hunches.

But yes, it is strange to contemplate that there be nothing beyond it which might exert a determining influence - somewhat akin to the paradox of uncaused causality: the paradox of undetermined determinism.

The only paradox here is the one created in your own mind, via a lack of clarity in your thinking and a desire not to understand anything.

-

Laird: I'm sorry if I have offended you Dave

Dave: You haven't.

Good.

Laird: but I simply wanted to point out that you seem to have allied yourself with folks whose reasoning I hold to be suspect to say the least and that that allegiance (error of judgment IMO) is going to necessarily taint you in my eyes (because IMO your judgment is lacking).

Dave: Hows about just reading my words and responding to them on their merits?

I did that too.

Jim: Dave Toast is his own man (as is Dave Hodges). He is no follower, no poor learner of QRS teachings.

Laird: I may have misjudged him then.

Dave: Hows about not judging me, just judging my words on the subject at hand?

How about I do both, as is natural? As we converse I form more of an opinion of your character.

Dave Toast wrote:Nobody's got it. It has nothing to do with my being tarred with any brush or my feelings about that. The statement was revealing in that it betrayed the true motivation for Laird's part in our discourse and the way he approached it. As such, I had no desire to take any further part in said discourse, not having the patience nor the inclination to bang my head against the brick wall of anything other than the untainted and earnest exchange and testing of one another's statements.

I don't think that my comment revealed anything that I hadn't already revealed in my response to |read|'s post.

I am firmly convinced that a lot of what QRS preach is faith-based whereas they present it as proven truth. This to me is a significant delusion and one that should be exposed as such. I am very much drawing "us vs them" lines: there are those who support the delusional thinking of QRS and those who see through it. So yeah, I'm curious to know which camp you fit into but I'll keep an open mind on it.

Laird wrote:And that's exactly what I'm asking Kevin: how does he know that his definition of "boundary" can be applied to every part of the universe?

You answered your question in the very asking of the question.

" . . . every PART of the universe . . ."

If there are parts then boundaries have already been drawn and are already in effect.

David Quinn wrote:You can keep repeating the same argument over and over, if that is what rocks your boat, but it isn't going to get any more valid through the repetition of it. It would be better if you thought more carefully about what it is exactly you are trying to argue. Operating out a vague hunch doesn't cut it.

And David, you can keep on denying logic over and over if you really want to cling so desperately to your model of a beginningless past, but what I'm presenting to you is not a vague hunch: an infinity cannot be traversed however that is exactly what your model requires. I don't think that we can take this any further because you've admitted that you can understand my thinking but you refuse to acknowledge its effect. More and typical QRS denialism.

David Quinn wrote:The present doesn't move through time. It is timeless.

Whatever rocks your boat mate, I'm over quibbling fine points like this - they don't affect the argument anyway.

DQ: Kevin used the term ["block"] metaphorically, you silly sausage. To indicate the interconnectedness and deterministic nature of all things. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to focus on.

Laird: However he used it, it's apt. You believe that the Totality is fixed and deterministic: block-like i.e. thing-like.

DQ: The things within the Totality are certainly deterministic, but the same can't be said of the Totality itself. This is because there is nothing beyond the Totality that could act as a determining influence.

Laird: Who said that there need be a "determining influence" to consider something as "deterministic"?

DQ: That is what determinism means. Things determining other things. If there is nothing beyond the Totality (which there isn't, by definition), then the Totality cannot be determined.

It could be viewed as being determined by that of which it is comprised. In fact, this is exactly the argument that you take to justify causality: that a thing is caused by its parts. I'm not necessarily saying that it's a sane one, just that you'd be exercising double standards not to recognise it.

David Quinn wrote:It is called thinking clearly, as opposed to operating out of vague hunches. [...] The only paradox here is the one created in your own mind, via a lack of clarity in your thinking and a desire not to understand anything.

Somebody say something about slinging mud and hoping that it sticks?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:And that's exactly what I'm asking Kevin: how does he know that his definition of "boundary" can be applied to every part of the universe?

You answered your question in the very asking of the question.

" . . . every PART of the universe . . ."

If there are parts then boundaries have already been drawn and are already in effect.

A "part" doesn't have to have an external boundary if it's at the edge of the universe.

clyde wrote:Kevin; Please, what is your definition of surface?

In the context of what we were just talking about, you can work it out from the context.

The important thing to understand is that whether something is a "surface" or a "boundary", etc, changes depending on the context.

For example, a solid brick wall might be seen as a boundary, but it might also be seen as a physical connection - the opposite of a boundary.

Likewise with the moebius so-called "strip". If you hold the strip between your thumb and forefinger you can prove that the surface does indeed have two sides. The strip can also be viewed as having one surface or two, all depending on the context. And it can also be viewed as being a thousand separate, unconnected strips, rather than a single connected one.

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:And that's exactly what I'm asking Kevin: how does he know that his definition of "boundary" can be applied to every part of the universe?

You answered your question in the very asking of the question.

" . . . every PART of the universe . . ."

If there are parts then boundaries have already been drawn and are already in effect.

A "part" doesn't have to have an external boundary if it's at the edge of the universe.

If a thing is a part, and not the whole, then it does indeed necessarily have a boundary, with parts either side of the boundary.

Edges don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. They are always caused by something outside of themselves, just as a moebius "strip" is caused by something making it - something apart from itself.

Laird: A "part" doesn't have to have an external boundary if it's at the edge of the universe.

Kevin: If a thing is a part, and not the whole, then it does indeed necessarily have a boundary, with parts either side of the boundary.

You missed the word "external". Internal boundaries might be necessary, but not external ones (assuming a limited universe, which you have yet to disprove).

Laird wrote:You missed the word "external". Internal boundaries might be necessary, but not external ones (assuming a limited universe, which you have yet to disprove).

Yes, I saw your word "external", and also about "edge of the universe". That's why I said the following:

Edges don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. They are always caused by something outside of themselves, just as a moebius "strip" is caused by something making it - something apart from itself.

An "edge" of what you are calling a universe will necessarily be caused by something external to that universe, in the same way that the boundaries of any object, such as a moebius strip, are caused by something external to itself.

Kevin; Are you still confused by the name "moebius strip"? You know, "don't mistake the finger for the moon", so stop focusing on the name, that's not the point. There is a thing that has one and only one side; it has a surface which is a boundary and only one side. And since you so politely ducked my request for you to define "surface" (See my post to Leyla.), I challenge you to point to a surface which is NOT a boundary.

Kevin Solway wrote:An "edge" of what you are calling a universe will necessarily be caused by something external to that universe

I see no necessity, merely an assertion of faith. "A thing is caused by that which is not that thing." Yada yada. All part of your model of the universe. Well how do you know that my competing model where a thing (the universe as a whole) is caused by nothing at all and is finite is not true?

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:An "edge" of what you are calling a universe will necessarily be caused by something external to that universe

I see no necessity, merely an assertion of faith.

It is a necessity of pure logic.

If there is a bounded "universe" then there are conditions that make that universe possible. For example, there must be nothing that can destroy that universe. There must be sustaining conditions. There must be something that makes the existence of such a universe possible.

clyde wrote:I challenge you to point to a surface which is NOT a boundary.

In what way is the surface of a moebius strip a boundary?

Laird wrote: All part of your model of the universe. Well how do you know that my competing model where a thing (the universe as a whole) is caused by nothing at all and is finite is not true?

Caused by nothing makes no sense. Infact it is to assume that for the Universe, the exact opposite of all that is known, understood and rationalised is infact absolutely the specific case. Without proof I might add.

Simplistic does not necessarilly mean easilly understood. The simplest function of [whatever] that produces anything, indeed everything, or rather necessitates the existence of things, may infact be extremelly difficult to comprehend. Not that that helps move the discussion forward.

If the Universe was caused by nothing, we are invoking the concept of origin or causation, and claiming the Universe does not have one as an answer. If you then query why the Universe exists instead of [whatever] especially if that [whatever] is an absence, a lack of, a non-entity, then you have a fundamental problem because nothing requiring no causation is logically consistent, therefore in a situation where there is no causation we should expect to find nothing. Something having no causation yet being present is an "outside context problem" something we have not encountered and cannot fathom. It breaks every rule of everything we know.

Thus I would not accept it as an answer as it is "too easy" and counter intuitive, and inconsistent with all other things.

Rather than looking for a "causation" per say for all things, which is notoriously elusive, I would look to see if the alternatives, whatever they may be, are infact possible.

David Quinn wrote: The core reason why the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached is not because it would take an infinite amount of time to get there, but because no such point exists. The present, however, does exist. Because of this, the attempt to use the argument that the very last moment in the infinite future cannot be reached to prove that the present cannot be reached from an infinite past has no basis to it.

The present doesn't move through time. It is timeless.

DQ: The things within the Totality are certainly deterministic, but the same can't be said of the Totality itself. This is because there is nothing beyond the Totality that could act as a determining influence.

Who said that there need be a "determining influence" to consider something as "deterministic"?

That is what determinism means. Things determining other things. If there is nothing beyond the Totality (which there isn't, by definition), then the Totality cannot be determined.

But yes, it is strange to contemplate that there be nothing beyond it which might exert a determining influence - somewhat akin to the paradox of uncaused causality: the paradox of undetermined determinism.

This is great stuff. The problems inherant with the understanding of time, and the nature of time itself are indeed radically altered when one views past and future as illusions, and imagines time not as a dimension or a linear progression or any such thing; but as, for lack of a better word, a force.

It makes sense that linear dimensional time fits into standard theories because it is possible to anticipate through mathematics especially when one invents the required tools. Theories invoking time as a dimension essentially describe interaction in an organised manner. The theories fit the assumptions, the illusions. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in using mathematical or theoretical methods of prediction to detail future interaction. It does not mean that future exists.

I would not go so far as to claim time is definately non-dimensional, but it appears to me that viewing time in this manner and exploring the implications is not only essential but very possibly accurate. Time does not measure interaction, time is the fundamental engine that allows interaction. We can imagine Universe of varied dimensions, 2-D, 3-D, 11-D whatever and there are not necessarily any trully radical differences beyond depth. A timeless universe, a Universe without time, whatever it is, is a Universe that does not work. It ceases to operate, nothing occurs.

A timeless Universe, as in one lacking time, is a fundamentally different reality, it is a reality that has ceased, that remains motionless. We really need to explore these implications. Time being so abstract essentially proves its fundamental difference. Time is perhaps more fundamental than all other things we know of.

The discussion on determinism is also highly interesting. The specific usage of word terms invokes much to think of, specifically "Totality".

"Totality", or as I call it "existence" is determined by the fact that it is all things, and that without it nothing else can be. This means that if it were not there, its alternatives would not be possible. Totality, or existence, is not determined by what is beyond it, but it is determined by nothing being possible without it. Therefore it must be, because it cannot be otherwise. If it is not, then even its absence is impossible.

There are no alternatives to "Totality" or "Existence" this is why it is present. It needs no mechanism of causation, no determining influence, but it is absolutely determined none the less.

Further, if the absence of existence is not possible, this implies that all things must exist. Everything that in any way can ever be possible must be present. Perhaps.

View these as questions.

Kevin; So far you have avoided defining surface or pointing to a surface that is not a boundary. (Pointing to the surface of the moebius strip is not a valid response since it is the surface/boundary under debate here.) Nevertheless, I'll directly respond to your question. The surface of the moebius strip is a boundary in the same way that your skin is a surface boundary, it separate two points. Your skin separates a point internal to a point external. The surface of a moebius strip separates two points, but both points are on the SAME SIDE - the one and only side. OK?