For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Again: boundless but finite dimension.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:11 am So the entire universe is unbounded e.g infinite? e.g energy is infinite? Cool story
Observe how you are trying to invent a bounded (e.g finite) context...
I haveAtla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:17 amAgain: boundless but finite dimension.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:11 am So the entire universe is unbounded e.g infinite? e.g energy is infinite? Cool story
Observe how you are trying to invent a bounded (e.g finite) context...
Not infinite volume.
If you haven't heard of this yet then look it up. As I said: for a Timeseeker you haven't even considered circular time yet.
Fine, imagine that you are a 1-dimensional being on a circle, or a 2-dimensional being on a sphere's surface. Where can you find the bound?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:22 am I have
The phrase “boundless but finite” is an oxymoron
I can’t. But if I am to build any claimed “understanding” e.g scientific models of it.... then some simplifying ASSUMPTIONS will be made.Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:27 amFine, imagine that you are a 1-dimensional being on a circle, or a 2-dimensional being on a sphere's surface. Where can you find the bound?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:22 am I have
The phrase “boundless but finite” is an oxymoron
Actually extra dimensions aren't required. These examples are merely tools to start to visualize/conceptualize the idea, but the circle can be 1-dimensional and the spherical surface 2-dimensional.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:30 amI can’t. But if I am to build any claimed “understanding” e.g scientific models of it.... then some simplifying ASSUMPTIONS will be made.Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:27 amFine, imagine that you are a 1-dimensional being on a circle, or a 2-dimensional being on a sphere's surface. Where can you find the bound?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:22 am I have
The phrase “boundless but finite” is an oxymoron
I have read Flatland
Either way - some inferential evidence will exist for the extra dimensions. So such claims are untestable/unfalsifiable. Not even wrong.
Unless you are claiming a belief without supporting evidence. e.g acknowledging your religion.
It would be more appropriate to say that any idea about non-circular dimensions of our universe is probably religion.Timeseeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:50 am Unless you are claiming a belief without supporting evidence. e.g acknowledging your religion.
You can’t test, falsify OR infer any circular claims.
Probably, but since the idea of separateness was debatedly refuted, so everything is probably interconnected with everything else in the universe, non-circularity can come across as a much more magical hypothesis.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:58 amYou can’t test, falsify OR infer any circular claims.
Science is recursive, not circular.
And so by your criterion science is a religion.
Of course everything is connected. And in the big picture we are insignificant and our existence doesn’t matter.Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:04 amProbably, but since the idea of separateness was debatedly refuted, so everything is probably interconnected with everything else in the universe, non-circularity can come across as a much more magical hypothesis.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:58 amYou can’t test, falsify OR infer any circular claims.
Science is recursive, not circular.
And so by your criterion science is a religion.
That remains to be seen.
Some people can keep their philosophical ponderings, and their everyday approach to life, largely separate, so they can kinda have both.Unless you have free will
I choose recursion. I choose to invent my own meaning.
Naturally. That is what I call dualism.
Then they aren't keeping them separate.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:58 am Naturally. That is what I call dualism.
Discrepancy/inconsistency/idiosyncrasy between what you SAY and what you DO.
Keeping them separate (unnecessarily conpartmentalising your mind) IS what I call dualism...Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:05 pmThen they aren't keeping them separate.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:58 am Naturally. That is what I call dualism.
Discrepancy/inconsistency/idiosyncrasy between what you SAY and what you DO.
Right, and what about people who have an innate curiosity about existence?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:08 pm Keeping them separate (unnecessarily conpartmentalising your mind) IS what I call dualism...
There be knowledge (epistemology) and things I don’t know.
Adding yet another distinction makes that 4 categories. Occam’s razor applies to minds also
Keep it simple, stupid!
That isn’t the problem I am pointing out.Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:14 pmRight, and what about people who have an innate curiosity about existence?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:08 pm Keeping them separate (unnecessarily conpartmentalising your mind) IS what I call dualism...
There be knowledge (epistemology) and things I don’t know.
Adding yet another distinction makes that 4 categories. Occam’s razor applies to minds also
Keep it simple, stupid!