Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:30 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:21 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:33 am
You guys are tripping over language. Don't call it a 'reason to exist' - call it a 'cause of existence'. The thing that came before the thing.

But for those who begin with the premise of Plato's "good" or Plotinus' "ONE" the question arises why the universe is necessary. Why does the Source need the involutionary expression of the unity of one into infinite diversity? Then the question arises if one universe is sufficient for absolute involutionary expression.

If the cause of existence is necessity, a seeker of truth contemplates the reason for existence. This requires deductive reason.

The theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: "The quantum theory of parallel universes is not the problem, it is the solution. It is not some troublesome, optional interpretation emerging from arcane theoretical considerations. It is the explanation—the only one that is tenable—of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality."

You seem to need to explain the concept of multiverse through science and I've read it explained through dimensions and "the solid of time" which makes it far more reasonable for me.

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

The shell of a periwinkle as a visual representation of six-dimensionality
This section presents an analogy of six or seven dimensions—seven dimensions if the point or 0th dimension is counted as a dimension.

An analogy of dimensionality which originates in a point of existence and extends through space-time to include all possibilities for that existence:

The point at the apex of the shell represents the coming into existence. This is a point, a representative of no dimensions. The extension of this point is the first growth of the shell; it describes a series of points, i.e., a line, one dimension, extension in space. The line is next seen to curve, indicating the attribute of a next dimension which describes a plane—two dimensions, width and breadth. The curve is seen to spiral into the next dimension, indicating the three dimensions of width, breadth, and height. That this occurs over time indicates the fourth dimension, time itself. The motion over time now repeats to create the multiple spirals of the circle—repetition, the fifth dimension. The continual growth of the expanding spiral describes the ultimate shape of all possibilities for the periwinkle, analogous to the sixth dimension.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:01 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:30 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:21 pm

But for those who begin with the premise of Plato's "good" or Plotinus' "ONE" the question arises why the universe is necessary. Why does the Source need the involutionary expression of the unity of one into infinite diversity? Then the question arises if one universe is sufficient for absolute involutionary expression.

If the cause of existence is necessity, a seeker of truth contemplates the reason for existence. This requires deductive reason.

The theoretical physicist David Deutsch wrote: "The quantum theory of parallel universes is not the problem, it is the solution. It is not some troublesome, optional interpretation emerging from arcane theoretical considerations. It is the explanation—the only one that is tenable—of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality."

You seem to need to explain the concept of multiverse through science and I've read it explained through dimensions and "the solid of time" which makes it far more reasonable for me.

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

Here is a little on the theory of six dimensions. Eternity is the fifth dimension and the domain of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Everything repeats. The sixth dimension is infinite eternities.

I remember a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise was trapped in a time loop. Everything repeated. Once the crew realized their predicament they had to come up with a way to awaken the eternity they were trapped in so as to break free from it.

We can change our cycle of eternal recurrence so as to enter a new cycle, The question is how.

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

The shell of a periwinkle as a visual representation of six-dimensionality
This section presents an analogy of six or seven dimensions—seven dimensions if the point or 0th dimension is counted as a dimension.

An analogy of dimensionality which originates in a point of existence and extends through space-time to include all possibilities for that existence:

The point at the apex of the shell represents the coming into existence. This is a point, a representative of no dimensions. The extension of this point is the first growth of the shell; it describes a series of points, i.e., a line, one dimension, extension in space. The line is next seen to curve, indicating the attribute of a next dimension which describes a plane—two dimensions, width and breadth. The curve is seen to spiral into the next dimension, indicating the three dimensions of width, breadth, and height. That this occurs over time indicates the fourth dimension, time itself. The motion over time now repeats to create the multiple spirals of the circle—repetition, the fifth dimension. The continual growth of the expanding spiral describes the ultimate shape of all possibilities for the periwinkle, analogous to the sixth dimension.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

The shell of the periwinkle used in the analogy illustrates what she meant

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:38 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:01 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:30 pm

The concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

Here is a little on the theory of six dimensions. Eternity is the fifth dimension and the domain of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. Everything repeats. The sixth dimension is infinite eternities.

I remember a Star Trek episode where the Enterprise was trapped in a time loop. Everything repeated. Once the crew realized their predicament they had to come up with a way to awaken the eternity they were trapped in so as to break free from it.

We can change our cycle of eternal recurrence so as to enter a new cycle, The question is how.

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

The shell of a periwinkle as a visual representation of six-dimensionality
This section presents an analogy of six or seven dimensions—seven dimensions if the point or 0th dimension is counted as a dimension.

An analogy of dimensionality which originates in a point of existence and extends through space-time to include all possibilities for that existence:

The point at the apex of the shell represents the coming into existence. This is a point, a representative of no dimensions. The extension of this point is the first growth of the shell; it describes a series of points, i.e., a line, one dimension, extension in space. The line is next seen to curve, indicating the attribute of a next dimension which describes a plane—two dimensions, width and breadth. The curve is seen to spiral into the next dimension, indicating the three dimensions of width, breadth, and height. That this occurs over time indicates the fourth dimension, time itself. The motion over time now repeats to create the multiple spirals of the circle—repetition, the fifth dimension. The continual growth of the expanding spiral describes the ultimate shape of all possibilities for the periwinkle, analogous to the sixth dimension.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

The shell of the periwinkle used in the analogy illustrates what she meant

How would we (humans) test/falsify such an infinite loop?

Just like another universe - how would we come to know of such a dimension’s existence?

It is not even wrong.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm Why must it be right or wrong?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:30 pmThe concept of a multiverse does not make any epistemic sense.

If two universes interact then does that one or two universes make?

If two universes don’t interact then how would we ever come to know about other universes?

Simply: what delineates/demarcates one universe from another?

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:42 pm The epistemic issue is simply a matter of premature labelling.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:42 pm In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible, the separation is achieved over vast stretches of space and time that dwarf our universe (just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves).

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:45 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm Why must it be right or wrong?

Because whatever little knowledge we have ought to be slightly more useful to us than mere self-flagilation?

Otherwise why even bother seeking it?

When the Buddha started to wander around India shortly after his enlightenment, he encountered several men who recognized him to be a very extraordinary being. They asked him: "Are you a god?" "No," he replied. "Are you a reincarnation of god?" "No," he replied."Are you a wizard, then?" "No." "Well, are you a man?" "No." "So what are you?" They asked, being very perplexed. Buddha simply replied: "I am awake." Buddha means “the awakened one.” How to awaken is all he taught.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:14 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:42 pm The epistemic issue is simply a matter of premature labelling.

Or premature definitions/scope...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:14 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:42 pm In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible, the separation is achieved over vast stretches of space and time that dwarf our universe (just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves).

If there is any measurable force between these two universes (gravity? photons?) then they are still interacting. And if they are so far apart that we can't detect any interaction then epistemically they don't exist.

And so it really depends on how you define 'universe'. I define it 'as everything measurable' (detectable? knowable?) e.g the testability/falsifiability criterion of science.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:41 pm I wrote "a person who means" , particular rather clumsy wording, because an entity that makes meaning merits 'who' not 'which'. I hope it's clear that, in the context of all that exists, final cause pertains to a personal creator and maintainer but does not pertain to eternal truths .

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:30 pm Seeds, you keep insisting that things need a reason to exist.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:33 am You guys are tripping over language. Don't call it a 'reason to exist' - call it a 'cause of existence'. The thing that came before the thing.

TimeSeeker wrote:

Greta wrote:
In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible the separation is achieved over vast stretches
of space and time that dwarf our universe ( just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves )

If there is any measurable force between these two universes ( gravity ? photons ? )

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:50 am

TimeSeeker wrote:

Greta wrote:
In the simplest version of the multiverse that I consider most plausible the separation is achieved over vast stretches
of space and time that dwarf our universe ( just as space between galaxies is much larger than galaxies themselves )

If there is any measurable force between these two universes ( gravity ? photons ? )

In brane theory light cannot travel between universes that exist on different branes only gravity can
But they are effectively entirely separate entities and so are completely independent of each other

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:57 am Gravity is stronger within galaxies and weaker outside of them and the same is also true for universes
The reason it is weaker outside is because in empty space there is nothing there for it to interact with

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:32 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:41 pm I wrote "a person who means" , particular rather clumsy wording, because an entity that makes meaning merits 'who' not 'which'. I hope it's clear that, in the context of all that exists, final cause pertains to a personal creator and maintainer but does not pertain to eternal truths .

Sorry B (and it’s no doubt due to me being thick headed), but I am still having a problem figuring out what your question is.

Also, you didn’t seem to give a clear explanation of how (and in what context) rules and eternal truths can exist independent of mind.
_______