Skip to main content

View Diary: Taking Our Stand in the Universe (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is also the infinitely small. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, zenox, linkage

    Why do you you leave that out?

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:13:01 AM PST

    •  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by (0+ / 0-)

      infinitely small. There are subatomic particles so tiny that they are merely geometric points, completely devoid of internal structure. They are as small in relation to us as we are to a galaxy. There appears to be nothing smaller (at least in the human frame of reference). I'm not sure that a thing/dimension/reality can be infinitely small. The early Greek philosophers may have believed that it was possible to subdivide objects infinitely, but in (our) reality it doesn't appear to be the case.

      In any event, discussing infinity of scale wasn't my objective.

      Read a preview of Volume One of my book here.

      by Yosef 52 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:39:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You equate size with significance. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zenox

        Do you not?

        Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

        by dov12348 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:00:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is no such thing as an infinitely small (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiveroftheWest, side pocket

          entity. An entity by definition occupies some space/time. As I tried to explain, our species has had no effect on the Universe as a whole because of our comparatively tiny size, so we mentally and morally must confine ourselves to this world. I also said just because we were tiny, we were still real and just as much a part of the Universe as anything. As I said, I may be next to nothing, but I will never be nothing.

          Read a preview of Volume One of my book here.

          by Yosef 52 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:07:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I should clarify by saying "despite the fact" (0+ / 0-)

            that we are tiny.

            Read a preview of Volume One of my book here.

            by Yosef 52 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:10:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  yosef.. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yosef 52, dov12348, SethRightmer, native

            "size" is an illusion observed by a time-space bound mind. It is linear. Yet there is a reality that is not linear. " Size" is only relevant by comparison and contrast which again arise from cause and effect.

            Infinity however unfolds and it has nothing to do with size. Meaning the infinitely small and the infinitely large are both one and the same. The sun sets and rises simultaneously. There is no either, or logic and the linear reality you have put your eggs in is a mind created fallacy.

            I think the ancient Greek philosophers knew what they were talking about. They make sense to me. "Size" is a literal concept lacking depth. I would not base my philosophy on that.

            Does infinitely small exist? That depends on what you see as existence. According to the linear mind, existence has frames and borders thus is not infinite. According to the circular mind that is free from borders and frames however, infinity is all there is, not the small  or the large.

            "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

            by zenox on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:04:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Yosef" :) (0+ / 0-)

              "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

              by zenox on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:05:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  My perspective is grounded in the only one (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              side pocket, RiveroftheWest

              which I am truly capable of comprehending, if only in part: the human frame of reference. Elsewhere (in things I haven't posted here) I state that reality is the sum of all possible perspectives. But we have only ours, and we cannot escape it in any genuine way. (Try to imagine being a dog and hearing frequencies that humans cannot detect and you'll see the paradox involved in trying to escape the human frame of reference.)

              We may postulate such a thing as infinity, by the way, but in my view infinity is quite possibly simply another human construct.

              I should emphasize that one of the objectives of the huge project I am working on (one that will amount to more than 2,500 pages when I'm finished) is to grapple with the implications of the cosmic insignificance of the human race. Six hundred years ago the sharpest minds on the planet (with some exceptions) assured us that the Earth and its people were the center of physical reality and were in fact the reason for existence itself. Our religions are grounded in the assumption that God/the Universe/the One/the Divine has a special relationship with us. I argue that our physical and temporal insignificance has destroyed such notions. Yet, in the essay above, I argue that even in such a situation, it is possible for a person to find both joy and meaning in life.

              Read a preview of Volume One of my book here.

              by Yosef 52 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:20:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ok, so you're just answering the Christian... (0+ / 0-)

                ...and other religious viewpoint that the earth is the center of everything.  But all secular people and many religious people already know that.  Seems very obvious to me.

                Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

                by dov12348 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:30:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I congratulate you for taking on a project of (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SethRightmer, native, marina

                such magnitude, especially on a topic so difficult to put into words. If I may continue, " the human frame of reference" has no real "frame" to it thus "escaping" from a non-existing prison makes no sense. The "frames" are cognitive constructions. Have you tried to solve the famous " 9 dot problem?" In other words, I do not need to escape myself to have more evolved comprehension. To give an example, "change of altitude changes the "frame of reference." How? By distancing one's self from the local point of view, one gets to gain a much larger " frame of reference." What I can "observe" for example from sitting in a bus is far more limited than the frame if reference available to a news reporter who is reporting on traffic from a flying helicopter.

                So the physical experience is not only relative but also it has no fixed frame or point.

                Infinity : Anywhere you overcome the tyranny of totality,you arrive at infinity. It is not this far away incomprehensible distance but it is in the moment. Think of two unique individuals. Bring them side by side. It is a given that they are infinitely different, right? Because, if not then we would have to give up on the theory of " unique individuality." Right? Without infinity, there would be no such thing as uniqueness.

                "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

                by zenox on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 08:43:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  On the contrary: (4+ / 0-)

                  infinity would utterly destroy all concepts of uniqueness, since the probability that all possible states of being have been replicated endlessly is 1.

                  Humans assert that they can step outside of human perception, but they cannot. Seeing the world from a helicopter is still an understandable human perspective. Seeing it as an insect capable of perceiving ultraviolet is not. Experiencing it as a dog hearing sounds above 20,000 megacycles per second isn't. (How can we possibly understand what that would be like?) As I put it in another post from a few years back:

                  It has been fairly well established that humans do not perceive what has been called the “actual, free-standing reality.” It would appear that all non-deductive human knowledge of the world is mediated through the senses, which present to the brain a version of that reality, something perhaps linked to it, but not the essence of it.  Humans literally cannot directly experience this “real” reality, what Immanuel Kant called “The Thing in Itself”.  If a human were to be plunged into this “real” reality, we must suppose he or she would have no way of comprehending it or describing it to anyone else, since the human would have no basis whatsoever from which  to do so. Such a basis could only be grounded in what philosophers call absolute perspective, which can only be possessed by a fully transcendent being. This means that humans face a paradox from which they cannot escape. It is logically impossible for them to view reality from a non-human, transcendent vantage point. They cannot perceive as a human and a non-human simultaneously.
                  I question whether anyone truly grasps infinity. One may postulate the existence of something without comprehending it. (Consider, for example, the highest possible prime number.) If one has never experienced genuine infinity, I doubt whether they could understand it. And no, I don't think any human ever has experienced it.

                  Finally, two entities do not have to be infinitely different to be distinct. There is no logical reason why they must be. They may share much in common, and yet not be identical.

                  Read a preview of Volume One of my book here.

                  by Yosef 52 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:08:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Agree that it is logically impossible (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zenox, mkor7

                    for humans to view reality from a non-human, transcendent vantage point. However, human beings are capable of feats of perception that defy logic. If you limit perception to what is logically possible, you ignore significant parts of it.

                    •  Logically possible covers an AWFUL lot of (0+ / 0-)

                      ground. I don't see any way to go beyond it. But perhaps I am obtuse.

                      Read a preview of Volume One of my book here.

                      by Yosef 52 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:55:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Pff, Godel killed logic (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Yosef 52, marina, mkor7, chalatenango

                        Any logical system that is coherent and complex enough to be of any use contains within it truths that are not provable by that logical system. But that's not even the real problem.

                        Mind precedes logic. Logic is something you learned to do. It can manipulate false premises as well as true. It can not apprehend new information. Deductive reasoning is a useful tool, but it is only a tool. And it is only one tool among many, but to be free, to see the world as it is, one has to put down all tools and just be.

                        Ego will tell you this is impossible. Or worthless. Or too frightening. Because it is a tool. Putting down all tools means putting down ego. Like you put down a dog that is old and sick. Ego does not want to die. And this is how it views letting go.

                        But once ego is put down, it finds it is not dead, but free. A huge weight has been lifted, an impossible burden removed. It no longer needs to protect itself from death. It no longer feels this intense emptiness, this disconnection, this isolation that comes from seeing the map it has built as the territory it inhabits.

                        There is no longer a point labelled, "You are here" on the map. Ego can go about its function of watching the world and updating the map without fearing that, if it gets it wrong, something will eat it and all it is, and has ever been, will be lost.

                        Nothing lasts, but nothing is lost. That is eternity. That is this present moment.

                        •  Godel did not kill logic. He killed CERTITUDE. (0+ / 0-)

                          Those are not the same thing. Godel's conjectures demonstrated that there are mathematical statements that cannot be expressed as proofs. That in no way proves the existence of logical impossibilities. Even the most mind-bending paradoxes ultimately are paradoxical because they follow the rules of logic. (Example: a list of books that don't include themselves on any list.) Such an entity cannot exist precisely because it would violate logical rules.  

                          Letting go, (as in the Buddhist meditative tradition, for example) is still a state of consciousness being experienced by an ineffable but still real self.   The self (whatever that might be) is the medium through which anything is experienced. I may feel as one with the Universe--but it is still me who is feeling that way.  I may think I'm no longer on the map--but I have to be on the map somewhere, if only to believe I'm not on it.                                

                          Read a preview of Volume One of my book here.

                          by Yosef 52 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 02:50:26 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  There is more to the "human" than the localized (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Yosef 52, SethRightmer, marina, mkor7

                    being you and I call "human." There is also the global dimension to a human which is not available to our local comprehension or/ and perception. Why not available  ? Because it is  global meaning it has the infinity (think fractals) built up in it. Both the insect perception and the dog perception are part of it. Hence the native American concept of brother sister animals, totems. The local human perception cannot comprehend it. Therefore, humans have unknown potential when it comes to global perception. The global human comprehends it; the local human is unaware of it.
                    Individuals share common traits but what is unique cannot be shared. Immanuel Kant "knew" what he was talking about. He comprehended the incomprehensibility of "the thing itself." Yet he was human. You and I differ in what we "observe" as "human." I understand the limitations you are talking about. They arise from the locality. But whether he/she can comprehend or not, there is more to the "human" than what meets the eye. Human " borders" is a cognitive construction.

                    Another example to "infinity": Light prism. A ray of light spreads into many colored rays after going through a prism. Look at the areas where one color changes into another. You will not see a line, a border or anything indicating the ending of one color and the beginning of  the other, however. Those two colors, although different, are infinitely connected.  The place of change while there is no defined line or marking is where you will find the infinity.

                    In other words, infinity is " E Pluribus Unum"

                     

                    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

                    by zenox on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:59:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I truly enjoyed our conversation (5+ / 0-)

                      and gained insight from it. The thing about truth is that no one person has the complete ownership of it which is a blessing. I think human perception has potential to evolve into global perception. And global perception would give us a viewpoint that would be indivisible if we think in terms of geometry. I don't know how it would be like to have such perception. We may need a new form of language to describe it. :)

                      Peace.

                      "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

                      by zenox on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 08:07:45 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  There is no way to tell... (0+ / 0-)

            ...how we stand in the spectrum from smallest to largest anyway, just talking physical size.  Going smaller than the smallest element we know about there could be entire universes smaller than that.

            Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

            by dov12348 on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:26:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site