Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

Greeting Philosophers!

I was inspired by some discourse from other threads on; randomness, contingency, causation, becoming over being (actualization), an independent existence, and infinity. As such, I've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations. Thus far, the only philosophical theory that corresponds to that metaphorical fire, is the metaphysical Will. Schopenhauer of course advances this view into a cosmological theory that transcends the subject-object divide making one's own Will to be, a bigger object of causation, contingency and existence. For example, we know that our Will causes us to act a certain way. And the world of 'contingency' is more or less an analogical phenomena of choice. Existentially, this gives real import and possible meaning to having a volitional existence through conscious awareness (sentient Beings), who have emerged from matter. The relationship between mind and matter being the focal point there.

Similarly, if one wanted to explore other notions or things that might bring some-thing into Being, as an obvious Kierkegaardian advocate, one may still be left with the angst of acquiescing to a whole other set of laws and equations. As Paul Davies writes (from the Mind of God), that just may be the case:

Might in not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.


Here Paul uses that famous Hawking metaphor again and offers other phenomena including Multiverse theory (a sense of infinity/eternity) that also provides for some notion of logical possibility (the Kantian synthetic a priori at work!):

Enjoy!!

[Sunday66]

Greeting Philosophers!

I was inspired by some discourse from other threads on; randomness, contingency, causation, becoming over being (actualization), an independent existence, and infinity. As such, I've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations. Thus far, the only philosophical theory that corresponds to that metaphorical fire, is the metaphysical Will. Schopenhauer of course advances this view into a cosmological theory that transcends the subject-object divide making one's own Will to be, a bigger object of causation, contingency and existence. For example, we know that our Will causes us to act a certain way. And the world of 'contingency' is more or less an analogical phenomena of choice. Existentially, this gives real import and possible meaning to having a volitional existence through conscious awareness (sentient Beings), who have emerged from matter. The relationship between mind and matter being the focal point there.

Similarly, if one wanted to explore other notions or things that might bring some-thing into Being, as an obvious Kierkegaardian advocate, one may still be left with the angst of acquiescing to a whole other set of laws and equations. As Paul Davies writes (from the Mind of God), that just may be the case:

Might in not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.


Here Paul uses that famous Hawking metaphor again and offers other phenomena including Multiverse theory (a sense of infinity/eternity) that also provides for some notion of logical possibility (the Kantian synthetic a priori at work!):

Enjoy!!

I suppose there are many multiverse theories. But the ones I have studied have nothing to do with infinity or eternity.

[3017Metaphysician]

Greeting Philosophers!

I was inspired by some discourse from other threads on; randomness, contingency, causation, becoming over being (actualization), an independent existence, and infinity. As such, I've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations. Thus far, the only philosophical theory that corresponds to that metaphorical fire, is the metaphysical Will. Schopenhauer of course advances this view into a cosmological theory that transcends the subject-object divide making one's own Will to be, a bigger object of causation, contingency and existence. For example, we know that our Will causes us to act a certain way. And the world of 'contingency' is more or less an analogical phenomena of choice. Existentially, this gives real import and possible meaning to having a volitional existence through conscious awareness (sentient Beings), who have emerged from matter. The relationship between mind and matter being the focal point there.

Similarly, if one wanted to explore other notions or things that might bring some-thing into Being, as an obvious Kierkegaardian advocate, one may still be left with the angst of acquiescing to a whole other set of laws and equations. As Paul Davies writes (from the Mind of God), that just may be the case:

Might in not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.


Here Paul uses that famous Hawking metaphor again and offers other phenomena including Multiverse theory (a sense of infinity/eternity) that also provides for some notion of logical possibility (the Kantian synthetic a priori at work!):

Enjoy!!

I suppose there are many multiverse theories. But the ones I have studied have nothing to do with infinity or eternity.

Please share, or should I say, provide a brief synopsis of the one's you've studied, if you are able.

Any and all thoughts welcome.

[Sunday66]

Greeting Philosophers!

I was inspired by some discourse from other threads on; randomness, contingency, causation, becoming over being (actualization), an independent existence, and infinity. As such, I've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations. Thus far, the only philosophical theory that corresponds to that metaphorical fire, is the metaphysical Will. Schopenhauer of course advances this view into a cosmological theory that transcends the subject-object divide making one's own Will to be, a bigger object of causation, contingency and existence. For example, we know that our Will causes us to act a certain way. And the world of 'contingency' is more or less an analogical phenomena of choice. Existentially, this gives real import and possible meaning to having a volitional existence through conscious awareness (sentient Beings), who have emerged from matter. The relationship between mind and matter being the focal point there.

Similarly, if one wanted to explore other notions or things that might bring some-thing into Being, as an obvious Kierkegaardian advocate, one may still be left with the angst of acquiescing to a whole other set of laws and equations. As Paul Davies writes (from the Mind of God), that just may be the case:

Might in not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.


Here Paul uses that famous Hawking metaphor again and offers other phenomena including Multiverse theory (a sense of infinity/eternity) that also provides for some notion of logical possibility (the Kantian synthetic a priori at work!):

Enjoy!!

I suppose there are many multiverse theories. But the ones I have studied have nothing to do with infinity or eternity.

Please share, or should I say, provide a brief synopsis of the one's you've studied, if you are able.

Any and all thoughts welcome.

"In particular, Carroll objects to the mainstream approach to quantum mechanics that’s known formally as the Copenhagen interpretation, and informally as “shut up and calculate.” Instead, he favors a five-decade-old idea known as Many Worlds, first proposed by physicist Hugh Everett. It describes the universe as a changing set of numbers, known as the wave function, that evolves according to a single equation. According to Many Worlds, the universe continually splits into new branches, to produce multiple versions of ourselves. Carroll thinks that, so far, Many Worlds is the simplest possible explanation of quantum mechanics."

https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carrol ... le-worlds/

[Sculptor1]

Logic is not capable of verifying the possibility of eternity or finitude.
To suggest that is a mistake in understanding the role and meaning of logic.
Logical conclusions have to rely on the value and presence of the premises upon which logical statements and assessments are made.

Premises have to derive from imagination or empirical evidence.
Since the confirmation of eternity never comes, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that eternity could ever be verified - in a temporal sense since reality would have to continue to persist by definition. When is eternity true??

Whilst this makes it logically impossible to assert eternity; that is not the same as saying that eternity is logically impossible. It means that it is empirically unverifiable.

[3017Metaphysician]

Greeting Philosophers!

I was inspired by some discourse from other threads on; randomness, contingency, causation, becoming over being (actualization), an independent existence, and infinity. As such, I've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations. Thus far, the only philosophical theory that corresponds to that metaphorical fire, is the metaphysical Will. Schopenhauer of course advances this view into a cosmological theory that transcends the subject-object divide making one's own Will to be, a bigger object of causation, contingency and existence. For example, we know that our Will causes us to act a certain way. And the world of 'contingency' is more or less an analogical phenomena of choice. Existentially, this gives real import and possible meaning to having a volitional existence through conscious awareness (sentient Beings), who have emerged from matter. The relationship between mind and matter being the focal point there.

Similarly, if one wanted to explore other notions or things that might bring some-thing into Being, as an obvious Kierkegaardian advocate, one may still be left with the angst of acquiescing to a whole other set of laws and equations. As Paul Davies writes (from the Mind of God), that just may be the case:

Might in not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.


Here Paul uses that famous Hawking metaphor again and offers other phenomena including Multiverse theory (a sense of infinity/eternity) that also provides for some notion of logical possibility (the Kantian synthetic a priori at work!):

Enjoy!!

I suppose there are many multiverse theories. But the ones I have studied have nothing to do with infinity or eternity.

Please share, or should I say, provide a brief synopsis of the one's you've studied, if you are able.

Any and all thoughts welcome.

"In particular, Carroll objects to the mainstream approach to quantum mechanics that’s known formally as the Copenhagen interpretation, and informally as “shut up and calculate.” Instead, he favors a five-decade-old idea known as Many Worlds, first proposed by physicist Hugh Everett. It describes the universe as a changing set of numbers, known as the wave function, that evolves according to a single equation. According to Many Worlds, the universe continually splits into new branches, to produce multiple versions of ourselves. Carroll thinks that, so far, Many Worlds is the simplest possible explanation of quantum mechanics."

https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carrol ... le-worlds/

Sunday66!

Thank you for your post. I'm familiar with Carrol. I'm confused though. You just said multiverse has nothing to do with infinity. Of course, by definition, Multiverse theories include the ideas of infinite universes. It seems as though in the link you provided, that Carrol is endorsing a similar type of steady-state theory (opposite of BB) but am not exactly sure:

"...our observable universe looks the same, on average, many billions of light-years away from here. There’s a cutoff to how far we can see, so it could be infinitely big."

Please clarify if you are able.

[3017Metaphysician]

Logic is not capable of verifying the possibility of eternity or finitude.
To suggest that is a mistake in understanding the role and meaning of logic.
Logical conclusions have to rely on the value and presence of the premises upon which logical statements and assessments are made.

Premises have to derive from imagination or empirical evidence.
Since the confirmation of eternity never comes, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that eternity could ever be verified - in a temporal sense since reality would have to continue to persist by definition. When is eternity true??

Whilst this makes it logically impossible to assert eternity; that is not the same as saying that eternity is logically impossible. It means that it is empirically unverifiable.

Sculpture1

There's a whole lot to unpack there! First, please share some examples of how "imagination" forms a basis of an argument? I'm not suggesting it doesn't (there are other similar concepts), but exploring your thought process there may help to uncover things that are logically possible/impossible.

[Sunday66]

I suppose there are many multiverse theories. But the ones I have studied have nothing to do with infinity or eternity.

Please share, or should I say, provide a brief synopsis of the one's you've studied, if you are able.

Any and all thoughts welcome.

"In particular, Carroll objects to the mainstream approach to quantum mechanics that’s known formally as the Copenhagen interpretation, and informally as “shut up and calculate.” Instead, he favors a five-decade-old idea known as Many Worlds, first proposed by physicist Hugh Everett. It describes the universe as a changing set of numbers, known as the wave function, that evolves according to a single equation. According to Many Worlds, the universe continually splits into new branches, to produce multiple versions of ourselves. Carroll thinks that, so far, Many Worlds is the simplest possible explanation of quantum mechanics."

https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carrol ... le-worlds/

Sunday66!

Thank you for your post. I'm familiar with Carrol. I'm confused though. You just said multiverse has nothing to do with infinity. Of course, by definition, Multiverse theories include the ideas of infinite universes. It seems as though in the link you provided, that Carrol is endorsing a similar type of steady-state theory (opposite of BB) but am not exactly sure:

"...our observable universe looks the same, on average, many billions of light-years away from here. There’s a cutoff to how far we can see, so it could be infinitely big."

Please clarify if you are able.

I am able.

[Sculptor1]

Logic is not capable of verifying the possibility of eternity or finitude.
To suggest that is a mistake in understanding the role and meaning of logic.
Logical conclusions have to rely on the value and presence of the premises upon which logical statements and assessments are made.

Premises have to derive from imagination or empirical evidence.
Since the confirmation of eternity never comes, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that eternity could ever be verified - in a temporal sense since reality would have to continue to persist by definition. When is eternity true??

Whilst this makes it logically impossible to assert eternity; that is not the same as saying that eternity is logically impossible. It means that it is empirically unverifiable.

Sculpture1

There's a whole lot to unpack there! First, please share some examples of how "imagination" forms a basis of an argument? I'm not suggesting it doesn't (there are other similar concepts), but exploring your thought process there may help to uncover things that are logically possible/impossible.

Really? Can you not find such an example yourself?
"eternity" is an imagined quality.
"god" is also an imagined quality
There are millions of such notions which are not empirical

[3017Metaphysician]

Logic is not capable of verifying the possibility of eternity or finitude.
To suggest that is a mistake in understanding the role and meaning of logic.
Logical conclusions have to rely on the value and presence of the premises upon which logical statements and assessments are made.

Premises have to derive from imagination or empirical evidence.
Since the confirmation of eternity never comes, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that eternity could ever be verified - in a temporal sense since reality would have to continue to persist by definition. When is eternity true??

Whilst this makes it logically impossible to assert eternity; that is not the same as saying that eternity is logically impossible. It means that it is empirically unverifiable.

Sculpture1

There's a whole lot to unpack there! First, please share some examples of how "imagination" forms a basis of an argument? I'm not suggesting it doesn't (there are other similar concepts), but exploring your thought process there may help to uncover things that are logically possible/impossible.

Really? Can you not find such an example yourself?
"eternity" is an imagined quality.
"god" is also an imagined quality
There are millions of such notions which are not empirical

Sculptor1 !

I'm still not following that Sculptor1. Are you trying to say that concepts including both "eternity" and "God" are imagined, you know, like the speed of light/eternity might be imagined? Or maybe you mean in Christianity, the Jesus/God that existed in antiquity? If so, maybe you're thinking that Metaphysical Idealism is all that is real, I'm just imagining (pun intended).

Seriously, maybe start with the basic concepts first. For example, you used the concept/word "quality". Is that like Qualia or quality of consciousness?

I guess if one were to take your reply seriously, and if qualities of imagination are not empirical, as you say, that begs other questions as to whether they are innate qualities of human consciousness for some biological reason? If so, does that have any Darwinian survival value? You know, like imagination itself. Is imagination required to evade falling objects in the jungle?


Like I say, lots to unpack. We can start with the basic epistemic understandings of things-in-themselves if you prefer...remember, you are in an Epistemology/Metaphysics thread

Please share your thoughts if you can.

[Sculptor1]

Logic is not capable of verifying the possibility of eternity or finitude.
To suggest that is a mistake in understanding the role and meaning of logic.
Logical conclusions have to rely on the value and presence of the premises upon which logical statements and assessments are made.

Premises have to derive from imagination or empirical evidence.
Since the confirmation of eternity never comes, it is beyond the bounds of possibility that eternity could ever be verified - in a temporal sense since reality would have to continue to persist by definition. When is eternity true??

Whilst this makes it logically impossible to assert eternity; that is not the same as saying that eternity is logically impossible. It means that it is empirically unverifiable.

Sculpture1

There's a whole lot to unpack there! First, please share some examples of how "imagination" forms a basis of an argument? I'm not suggesting it doesn't (there are other similar concepts), but exploring your thought process there may help to uncover things that are logically possible/impossible.

Really? Can you not find such an example yourself?
"eternity" is an imagined quality.
"god" is also an imagined quality
There are millions of such notions which are not empirical

Sculptor1 !

I'm still not following that Sculptor1. Are you trying to say that concepts including both "eternity" and "God" are imagined, you know, like the speed of light/eternity might be imagined? Or maybe you mean in Christianity, the Jesus/God that existed in antiquity? If so, maybe you're thinking that Metaphysical Idealism is all that is real, I'm just imagining (pun intended).

The speed of light can be measured. It is a quantity.
"eternity" is not a quantity.
It is an imaginary quality. I'm puzzled why you have a problem with this.
This is not a problem of "idealism" in any sense.

Seriously, maybe start with the basic concepts first. For example, you used the concept/word "quality". Is that like Qualia or quality of consciousness?

I guess if one were to take your reply seriously, and if qualities of imagination are not empirical, as you say, that begs other questions as to whether they are innate qualities of human consciousness for some biological reason? If so, does that have any Darwinian survival value? You know, like imagination itself. Is imagination required to evade falling objects in the jungle?

I said there were things that are derived empirically and those that are not - they are imagined.
Is there something in between?

Like I say, lots to unpack. We can start with the basic epistemic understandings of things-in-themselves if you prefer...remember, you are in an Epistemology/Metaphysics thread

Please share your thoughts if you can.

I think I have said all there is to say. I'm still not sure why you are having difficulty here.

[Gee]

Metaphysician;

I don't always agree with Sculptor, but I have to here.

Is the concept of eternity logically possible? No. Is the concept of eternity logically impossible? No. Why? Because the concept of eternity is not logically discernable. Logic is the wrong tool to answer that question.

Consider that logic is an internal examination and a linear process. There is no end point if we are talking about eternity, so there is nothing internal to examine. As Sculptor said, "'eternity' is not a quantity".

I think it was Heidegger who said that logic is a school room tool used to examine student's theories, which it can do because the theories are complete. My understanding is that logic has no ability to discern the unknown. I believe that was one of the major points that was argued between the church and science centuries ago.

Gee

[3017Metaphysician]

Metaphysician;

I don't always agree with Sculptor, but I have to here.

Is the concept of eternity logically possible? No. Is the concept of eternity logically impossible? No. Why? Because the concept of eternity is not logically discernable. Logic is the wrong tool to answer that question.

Consider that logic is an internal examination and a linear process. There is no end point if we are talking about eternity, so there is nothing internal to examine. As Sculptor said, "'eternity' is not a quantity".

I think it was Heidegger who said that logic is a school room tool used to examine student's theories, which it can do because the theories are complete. My understanding is that logic has no ability to discern the unknown. I believe that was one of the major points that was argued between the church and science centuries ago.

Gee

Gee!

Thank you for your input!

With respect to a definition of eternity, it is worth noting the multitude of definition standards associated with the concept of 'eternity'. From memory, it can mean at least 4 or 5 different things. One being a stoppage in time, another being an unending arrow of time, and yet another with no beginning or end, and so forth.

For fun, here's just several quick sound bites to monder. Consider one's unending stream of consciousness. This consciousness continues metaphysically at random, throughout the species. Then consider the natural process of 'unending' propagation. This sense of something that has emerged and is in a constant state of becoming implies a logically possible eternity, at least as far as biological life forms. Same can be said about physics and change. Steady state theory suggest an eternal expansion of the universe, as well as something that always existed. Then, consider at the speed of light (relativity) strange things happen like the stoppage of time. The abstract metaphysical models of same bear this out. The block universe model has similar features; a theoretical stoppage in time where past present future are all folded together, more or less. Then you have mathematics itself; a truth that doesn't change with time. And so you have all sorts of time and eternity definition standards/criteria, pragmatic concepts, and corresponding analogies, to say the least.

I would say with respect to metaphysics; time, eternity, consciousness, etc. all have both quality and quantity associated with their existence. I would also assert that the logic of mathematics is the logically necessary tool, that in-turn, uncovers things that are logically impossible, yet still exist. Like consciousness itself.

Something can be logically possible yet not exist. while other things can be logically impossible and exist. In that sense, you're right, logic is not the right tool for understanding the nature of reality or a theory of everything.

[JackDaydream]

Greeting Philosophers!

I was inspired by some discourse from other threads on; randomness, contingency, causation, becoming over being (actualization), an independent existence, and infinity. As such, I've also been on a search for that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations. Thus far, the only philosophical theory that corresponds to that metaphorical fire, is the metaphysical Will. Schopenhauer of course advances this view into a cosmological theory that transcends the subject-object divide making one's own Will to be, a bigger object of causation, contingency and existence. For example, we know that our Will causes us to act a certain way. And the world of 'contingency' is more or less an analogical phenomena of choice. Existentially, this gives real import and possible meaning to having a volitional existence through conscious awareness (sentient Beings), who have emerged from matter. The relationship between mind and matter being the focal point there.

Similarly, if one wanted to explore other notions or things that might bring some-thing into Being, as an obvious Kierkegaardian advocate, one may still be left with the angst of acquiescing to a whole other set of laws and equations. As Paul Davies writes (from the Mind of God), that just may be the case:

Might in not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.


Here Paul uses that famous Hawking metaphor again and offers other phenomena including Multiverse theory (a sense of infinity/eternity) that also provides for some notion of logical possibility (the Kantian synthetic a priori at work!):

Enjoy!!

I have thought about your question, but haven't been able to watch the video as my video app seems to need upgrading. The way I see it is that eternity is an important concept, but asking what it means may be more important than trying to frame it in the context of logic. Of course, reason, and logic, is important but, bearing in mind the idea of mythos and logos, it may be that you are trying to hard to fit the concept into science, as opposed to the more fluid understanding of the arts. I am not arguing that science is not important, but it is not the only basis for understanding.

I first thought about the idea of eternity, and infinity, in connection with the poetry of William Blake, who saw such aspects in a 'grain of sand.' One important area of thinking about the concept of eternity is Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence. I have thought about this possibility and it's most literal form it would seem to imply living lives and moments over and over again. In another cycle of existence, I might be having this discussion on a website once again, and, maybe it would be a learning experience with greater potential for reflection. However, Nietzsche did fluctuate in the extent in which he saw eternal recurrence as a literal or symbolic truth.

Aside from the idea of eternal recurrence, the concept of eternity refers to that which is a basic structure for understanding the nature of time. Is it linear or cyclical? Many Eastern philosophers, including Hinduism spoke of cyclical time, and even of time as having no beginning. The problematic idea which I see is that because human life may be a microscopic aspect in relation to the larger framework, it is hard to know the largest framework, even with empirical science.

Logic and rationality is important for metaphysics, especially the philosophy of realism, but it still may have limitations, in understanding both logic and causation in an objective sense. This may mean that there is an underlying issue of logical and symbolic truth, and it may be difficult to overcome this because aspects of life, and ideas, may not be fitted into different ways of knowing, especially the division between reason and intuition.

[value]

Then you have mathematics itself; a truth that doesn't change with time.

As it appears to me, with the human mind being the origin of any mathematical equation (with mathematics being an activity in time) any meaningful logic that is produced with mathematics can be disproved, altered and viewed from diverse new perspectives in time.

All that is relevant of mathematical results is meaning. It requires study to understand the meaning of the product of mathematics. It is the human - which origin is true ∞ Infinite/Eternal of nature - that is beholder of the meaning of any product of mathematics in time which implies that it cannot be said that mathematics stands on its own and produces results that doesn't change in time.