quantum of change:
Zeno's paradoxes make use of mathematical theory of continuous numbers and the infinitesimal to put the case that motion is but an illusion. as discussed before, the key to understanding here is that continuous numbers are purely theoretical, they are not real!
now motion may be an illusion, if motion is thought to be the actual movement of an object or body maintaining its integrity or identity as it moves in the "external world", if the "external world" itself does not actually exist and we are all "brains in a vat". then such movement is merely the function of our eyesight, that is, the image of an object or body is copied to adjacent pixels and we see what only seems to be motion. however that was not zeno's point, i believe.
there are two questions here, one is about infinitesimal space, and the other is about infinitesimal time. the paradoxes arise when we consider the concept of the infinitesimal to hold. posit that there is indeed a minimum distance that has real significance in reality and that nothing smaller should be considered, that is, the size of the littlest least bit of matter, uniform throughout, that experiences individual change. there should then be no smaller "real" distance. can we use the general conclusion that the infinitesimal is not real enough when we think about change? for when we talk about time we are really talking about change. but what do we mean by change? yes, it is a difference in the same thing! therefore there are two things to be considered here, what it was, that is, the state it was in, and the difference. a difference means a sudden change! change is sudden! if we consider the infinitesimal to hold then logically a discrete change is in itself impossible and one second would never become the next second!
what could be true is the concept of quantum of change, that is, there are discrete "steps" of change. you can think of life like a movie's film negative, with 24 frames a second. but how is it that if, like continuous numbers, continuous change with an infinite number of "instants" is not real, it is so easy to think of? like somehow, something is always changing, so it is continuously changing, something like that. however, continuous change is not that easily definable or explainable, in a strict sense, as is discrete change, and there is the example of a movie's film negative. posit that the truth is always more explainable, with more real life examples, than something that is not true, a falsity. such we hope!
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
The True Population Puzzle
the true population puzzle:
we can say, yes, the human mind is flexible when thinking about the true population. it can seriously consider it to be anything from one, the self only, during a solipsistic phase, to billions, if not trillions. what do i mean by the true population? now obviously, my mind, or anyone's mind for that matter, bases many considerations or comparisons on the self, we cannot deny we are self-centred to a certain degree, and what we are may be most of what we can know. so, when this question is asked, everyone considers the same category, those that can be defined in the same way, that is, with a mind, a capacity to think, and a human body.
is this a worrying bias? to consider only those the same as yourself to be truly alive, perhaps? we worry very much about physical damage to the human body. it may be we are less concerned about damage to things we do not even consider to be alive, for they are so different, not human. perhaps it matters, perhaps it does not.
to suppose there are billions or trillions of souls out there is pretty much what earth presents. but where do they come from when they are born and where do they go when they die? do they go back to wherever they came from? onward to heaven? and is it possible to create a soul that did not exist? and if it existed, could the death of the soul happen?
now anyone who has ever experienced hallucinations, visual and auditory, can easily consider the possibility seriously that there are far fewer people who are real. once you start hallucinating, to put it simply, you are no longer sure what is real and what is not anymore. to give examples, you see text and moving images on the wall or floor, people suddenly appear and disappear, you hear people in the background and you can talk to these disembodied voices as well, are they truly hallucinations? i personally have seen a train schedule suddenly change completely before me, a train map of the country with the cities in the wrong places, and seen used underground train tickets that seemed dated in the future. i have teleported twice and i suspect several times not obviously as there was no sudden difference to be seen all around me, the explanation being that a distant street was visually smoothly connected to the one i was on. of course eventually, i was diagnosed schizophrenic and i admit i was crazy and delusional, but who wouldn't be confused with all that happening? in acute schizophrenia, the mind is so unstable, that anything can happen, which is why it is truly dangerous.
that i had truly teleported confirmed that the "external world", whatever it is, is not what it seems. most definitely, i cannot really "move" as such in the conventional sense, what i see happening when i walk is the world moving relative to me, not me moving relative to the world. my teleporting was a sudden change in my visual feed for my supposed location on earth. the frightening solipsism hallucinations induce, that you could be the only real person in existence and everyone else is an illusion, and the realization that conventional motion is a falsity, and merely theoretical, is what fuels theories that earth could be a kind of electronic computer simulation and the "external world" does not exist as such.
does it make any difference what the true population is? what if it were only 30? or 4500? everyone has considered billions. i have considered 1 quite seriously! whatever it is, if we ever get the true answer, we would have to adjust our thinking, "change gears" as to what we believe about reality. everyone has assumptions about existence and life, we assume we would function better with the truth, after all.
CLEARCHARGE
we can say, yes, the human mind is flexible when thinking about the true population. it can seriously consider it to be anything from one, the self only, during a solipsistic phase, to billions, if not trillions. what do i mean by the true population? now obviously, my mind, or anyone's mind for that matter, bases many considerations or comparisons on the self, we cannot deny we are self-centred to a certain degree, and what we are may be most of what we can know. so, when this question is asked, everyone considers the same category, those that can be defined in the same way, that is, with a mind, a capacity to think, and a human body.
is this a worrying bias? to consider only those the same as yourself to be truly alive, perhaps? we worry very much about physical damage to the human body. it may be we are less concerned about damage to things we do not even consider to be alive, for they are so different, not human. perhaps it matters, perhaps it does not.
to suppose there are billions or trillions of souls out there is pretty much what earth presents. but where do they come from when they are born and where do they go when they die? do they go back to wherever they came from? onward to heaven? and is it possible to create a soul that did not exist? and if it existed, could the death of the soul happen?
now anyone who has ever experienced hallucinations, visual and auditory, can easily consider the possibility seriously that there are far fewer people who are real. once you start hallucinating, to put it simply, you are no longer sure what is real and what is not anymore. to give examples, you see text and moving images on the wall or floor, people suddenly appear and disappear, you hear people in the background and you can talk to these disembodied voices as well, are they truly hallucinations? i personally have seen a train schedule suddenly change completely before me, a train map of the country with the cities in the wrong places, and seen used underground train tickets that seemed dated in the future. i have teleported twice and i suspect several times not obviously as there was no sudden difference to be seen all around me, the explanation being that a distant street was visually smoothly connected to the one i was on. of course eventually, i was diagnosed schizophrenic and i admit i was crazy and delusional, but who wouldn't be confused with all that happening? in acute schizophrenia, the mind is so unstable, that anything can happen, which is why it is truly dangerous.
that i had truly teleported confirmed that the "external world", whatever it is, is not what it seems. most definitely, i cannot really "move" as such in the conventional sense, what i see happening when i walk is the world moving relative to me, not me moving relative to the world. my teleporting was a sudden change in my visual feed for my supposed location on earth. the frightening solipsism hallucinations induce, that you could be the only real person in existence and everyone else is an illusion, and the realization that conventional motion is a falsity, and merely theoretical, is what fuels theories that earth could be a kind of electronic computer simulation and the "external world" does not exist as such.
does it make any difference what the true population is? what if it were only 30? or 4500? everyone has considered billions. i have considered 1 quite seriously! whatever it is, if we ever get the true answer, we would have to adjust our thinking, "change gears" as to what we believe about reality. everyone has assumptions about existence and life, we assume we would function better with the truth, after all.
CLEARCHARGE
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The Discrete Nature of Change
the discrete nature of change:
if change involves a difference in state, in that something becomes something else, any absolute difference, no matter how seemingly little, is still a change, and therefore change could be considered as discrete, for there is no "in between" as such. mathematical theory has its concepts of the infinitesimal or infinitely small or little, and of continuous numbers, however these things may not have a basis in reality, they are too abstract!
if, as explained before, all things that exist in this reality, fixed in absolute and relative position to each other in space, could be divided into least bits of matter, each uniform across its volume in space, then each experiences discrete changes uniformly.
the mind and therefore the thinker is quite capable of thinking about things that may not be true. this is the peril of thought. the thinker may not notice change when there are very little differences in state. big changes catch our attention, this is what discrete change seems, after all.
CLEARCHARGE
if change involves a difference in state, in that something becomes something else, any absolute difference, no matter how seemingly little, is still a change, and therefore change could be considered as discrete, for there is no "in between" as such. mathematical theory has its concepts of the infinitesimal or infinitely small or little, and of continuous numbers, however these things may not have a basis in reality, they are too abstract!
if, as explained before, all things that exist in this reality, fixed in absolute and relative position to each other in space, could be divided into least bits of matter, each uniform across its volume in space, then each experiences discrete changes uniformly.
the mind and therefore the thinker is quite capable of thinking about things that may not be true. this is the peril of thought. the thinker may not notice change when there are very little differences in state. big changes catch our attention, this is what discrete change seems, after all.
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Participation Rate of Creation
the participation rate of creation:
assume the beginning was not so long ago, that actually, there are tangible shards of memory crystals in our minds, about the start of time and what progressed from there. various religions put it that there were powerful forces or powerful people, or one very powerful person, in the beginning. atheism holds forth the other extreme, that the human being is rather devoid of any real power, that there are no gods, that we are subject to the whim and random nature of a depersonalized universe. in those who are agnostic or believe neither completely, these theories may not agree with memory which may still be present.
often it is posited that there was practically nothing or very little in the beginning, by both religions and evolutionists. this is where they agree. then there was either rampant creation, that is, the participation rate was at a peak in the first few moments of time, or there was a rapid inflation and increase in complexity of the universe by impersonal forces, nothing to with any gods or God.
now objectively speaking, it seems there is rather a gap in between the two extremes of religion and atheism, if we were to consider the more theoretically holistic range of possibilities, from the all powerful god to demi-god, someone with lesser powers, to magician, someone with a few tricks here or there, to a person with no magical ability or powers, whatsoever, to someone who can barely move or even think, a cripple, mentally and physically. we could intuitively reason that throughout the whole range however, that the participation rate was higher in the beginning, as everything was new, that there was greater opportunity to create things at or near the start.
let us assume that none of us remember the beginning. theoretically, there are two possibilities, one we did not exist as such, in the beginning, and two that we have merely forgotten it. which brings us to perhaps the most important issue on a personal level, did we exist in the beginning or were we ourselves created, in some part or form? was consciousness present in us, whatever we are, at the start of time, or as evolutionary theory would have it, it is the culmination of a very long, tortuous process?
at our most emotionally vulnerable, we are unlikely to present such pride that we claim to have done this or that great deed in the far past. we may not even remember well enough to pass the threshold of doubt. but suppose that anyone who seems very familiar with anything right from the start, seemingly without any explanation, may have had a part in creating it!
though perhaps there is a stability to the universe, not evident always, that belies the theories of religion and evolution, that disproves the case that this much creation or evolution could even happen. perhaps the world was born quite complex and semi-completed already! indeed we could be fooled by the volatility and complexity of what we see, for it leads us to extend to the assumption that much change generally may happen for the universe as a whole.
emotionally, what happens in the process of creation at the human level? first we become excited about something, we think, what a good idea! then we busy ourselves creating it. but then we become cautious. we might even be afraid we've made a mistake! we wait for some progress to happen from others before we take the next step, we become dependent. considering all the inventions and creations of the past, it is not the case that any one being did it all, obviously. as people made connections and dependency grew throughout time, it leads us to the possibility that no one can take full credit for anything anymore. we are all levelled down and perhaps this is a good thing!
CLEARCHARGE
assume the beginning was not so long ago, that actually, there are tangible shards of memory crystals in our minds, about the start of time and what progressed from there. various religions put it that there were powerful forces or powerful people, or one very powerful person, in the beginning. atheism holds forth the other extreme, that the human being is rather devoid of any real power, that there are no gods, that we are subject to the whim and random nature of a depersonalized universe. in those who are agnostic or believe neither completely, these theories may not agree with memory which may still be present.
often it is posited that there was practically nothing or very little in the beginning, by both religions and evolutionists. this is where they agree. then there was either rampant creation, that is, the participation rate was at a peak in the first few moments of time, or there was a rapid inflation and increase in complexity of the universe by impersonal forces, nothing to with any gods or God.
now objectively speaking, it seems there is rather a gap in between the two extremes of religion and atheism, if we were to consider the more theoretically holistic range of possibilities, from the all powerful god to demi-god, someone with lesser powers, to magician, someone with a few tricks here or there, to a person with no magical ability or powers, whatsoever, to someone who can barely move or even think, a cripple, mentally and physically. we could intuitively reason that throughout the whole range however, that the participation rate was higher in the beginning, as everything was new, that there was greater opportunity to create things at or near the start.
let us assume that none of us remember the beginning. theoretically, there are two possibilities, one we did not exist as such, in the beginning, and two that we have merely forgotten it. which brings us to perhaps the most important issue on a personal level, did we exist in the beginning or were we ourselves created, in some part or form? was consciousness present in us, whatever we are, at the start of time, or as evolutionary theory would have it, it is the culmination of a very long, tortuous process?
at our most emotionally vulnerable, we are unlikely to present such pride that we claim to have done this or that great deed in the far past. we may not even remember well enough to pass the threshold of doubt. but suppose that anyone who seems very familiar with anything right from the start, seemingly without any explanation, may have had a part in creating it!
though perhaps there is a stability to the universe, not evident always, that belies the theories of religion and evolution, that disproves the case that this much creation or evolution could even happen. perhaps the world was born quite complex and semi-completed already! indeed we could be fooled by the volatility and complexity of what we see, for it leads us to extend to the assumption that much change generally may happen for the universe as a whole.
emotionally, what happens in the process of creation at the human level? first we become excited about something, we think, what a good idea! then we busy ourselves creating it. but then we become cautious. we might even be afraid we've made a mistake! we wait for some progress to happen from others before we take the next step, we become dependent. considering all the inventions and creations of the past, it is not the case that any one being did it all, obviously. as people made connections and dependency grew throughout time, it leads us to the possibility that no one can take full credit for anything anymore. we are all levelled down and perhaps this is a good thing!
CLEARCHARGE
Instruments of Thought and the Inflation of Expectations
instruments of thought and the inflation of expectations:
our thoughts form a large part of our identity, even though the content of our thoughts may not be unique, they may seem highly personal to us. of course thoughts may be expressed in words and imagination in pictures and drawings. language is an instrument of thought. if only all thought could be expressed in language! language could be criticized as a blunt instrument, that words often express only what is obvious and clear to us, that they describe only that which is manifest, an extreme condition metaphysically.
very obviously so, no one wants to be crazy, to be a victim of insanity! however, whatever its shortcomings, language can still be used to express an infinite variety of thoughts. perhaps not infinite in every direction or area, but still infinite in others. therein lies the problem, infinite thought in a finite reality!
the human being is a social creature. and the mind naturally wanders. true thoughts about people mutate into untrue thoughts about people. that is inevitable in the thinking process. as we effortlessly make up our own fictions and add to that those of others, surely we must sometimes be living with a rampantly inflated concept of human activity in the universe?
imagine a little girl in a single room in a reality somewhere. this is a simple reality. to start with she knows nothing of language but as her imagination grows and her inventive nature dominates, she create words and then a whole language. and she draws pictures, lots of them. eventually she can imagine earth. but there is no earth in her reality and there never will be. it is all in her own mind. at best, she has overestimated things a little, though with the sense that it is her imagination, and is only somewhat crazy. at worst, she is insane, has hopes that could never be realized and she has grossly overestimated herself personally and everything else in her reality.
a word conveys a meaning. now whether a word was discovered or created or merely happened upon, it first changed our thoughts to form a concept, it channelled our minds through a certain pathway. perhaps there is no satisfactory explanation as to why a particular word means what it means, that each word is a peculiarity of this reality. it does not stretch the mind to imagine an alternate reality where the same word means something completely different.
some words we use a lot, some very little, if we use words at all to think. what is the current state of the language in the most real, metaphysical sense? words and phrases come in and out of fashion. can a word ever escape its original meaning? does precedence always determine validity?
like a musical instrument, where we can try different notes, in language, the act of randomly combining words together may not form a coherent concept to the conscious mind, but perhaps this is what is happening at the subconscious level anyway all the time? we are slowly trawling through the infinite space of thought! of course, all this is not to suggest that we began at the start of time with our minds a clean slate, for yes, there is the concept of original craziness!
CLEARCHARGE
our thoughts form a large part of our identity, even though the content of our thoughts may not be unique, they may seem highly personal to us. of course thoughts may be expressed in words and imagination in pictures and drawings. language is an instrument of thought. if only all thought could be expressed in language! language could be criticized as a blunt instrument, that words often express only what is obvious and clear to us, that they describe only that which is manifest, an extreme condition metaphysically.
very obviously so, no one wants to be crazy, to be a victim of insanity! however, whatever its shortcomings, language can still be used to express an infinite variety of thoughts. perhaps not infinite in every direction or area, but still infinite in others. therein lies the problem, infinite thought in a finite reality!
the human being is a social creature. and the mind naturally wanders. true thoughts about people mutate into untrue thoughts about people. that is inevitable in the thinking process. as we effortlessly make up our own fictions and add to that those of others, surely we must sometimes be living with a rampantly inflated concept of human activity in the universe?
imagine a little girl in a single room in a reality somewhere. this is a simple reality. to start with she knows nothing of language but as her imagination grows and her inventive nature dominates, she create words and then a whole language. and she draws pictures, lots of them. eventually she can imagine earth. but there is no earth in her reality and there never will be. it is all in her own mind. at best, she has overestimated things a little, though with the sense that it is her imagination, and is only somewhat crazy. at worst, she is insane, has hopes that could never be realized and she has grossly overestimated herself personally and everything else in her reality.
a word conveys a meaning. now whether a word was discovered or created or merely happened upon, it first changed our thoughts to form a concept, it channelled our minds through a certain pathway. perhaps there is no satisfactory explanation as to why a particular word means what it means, that each word is a peculiarity of this reality. it does not stretch the mind to imagine an alternate reality where the same word means something completely different.
some words we use a lot, some very little, if we use words at all to think. what is the current state of the language in the most real, metaphysical sense? words and phrases come in and out of fashion. can a word ever escape its original meaning? does precedence always determine validity?
like a musical instrument, where we can try different notes, in language, the act of randomly combining words together may not form a coherent concept to the conscious mind, but perhaps this is what is happening at the subconscious level anyway all the time? we are slowly trawling through the infinite space of thought! of course, all this is not to suggest that we began at the start of time with our minds a clean slate, for yes, there is the concept of original craziness!
CLEARCHARGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)