My beliefs

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I have little time right now, may not be around again later either.... Perhaps infinite expressing itself in finite is dialectical ( if I am using the word correctly, I'm still grokking it...) Infinite becoming finite in order to think itself in way that is other than inifinte...individualization of perception leads to a finite being that can percieve itself as part of a greater infinite... Infinite- thesis finite- anthesis finite as part of a greater infinite- sythesis ?Have I totally butchered the idea or have I correctly applied it? Neither? Laters

Feedback here please, peeps. [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry but my LD is rearing its ugly head around this new concept.

chewba - not only does that sound like a good example of dialectic, it also sounds like a good rebuttal, to me [img]smile.gif[/img]

what's an LD anyway??

[Chewbacca]

Thanks Sultan, LD is learning disability....I have slight dyslexia and occassionally I will come across a word or concept that my intellect can't wrap itself around until I use it in context a few times. I really don't see it as a disability, just an individual quirk, but the label stuck. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Chewy, please forgive me not posting it sooner, but I am still CHEWING [img]tongue.gif[/img] it over. Seriously.

The problem I have with it is it still revolves around some sort of consciousness in the universe, for to "assume the finite" and have some sort of dialectic with itself, the universe must have a consciousness. While I recognize you may believe this, I am as yet unconvinced (but still considering -- the notion of the undeniability of an unmoved mover or an uncaused cause is still weighing on me after a discussion with a philosophy wonk colleague).

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Chewy, please forgive me not posting it sooner, but I am still CHEWING [img]tongue.gif[/img] it over. Seriously. The problem I have with it is it still revolves around some sort of consciousness in the universe, for to "assume the finite" and have some sort of dialectic with itself, the universe must have a consciousness. While I recognize you may believe this, I am as yet unconvinced (but still considering -- the notion of the undeniability of an unmoved mover or an uncaused cause is still weighing on me after a discussion with a philosophy wonk colleague).

No worries TL, I'm not out to persuade you, (really) I just wondered if I was using this groovy new term 'dialectical' accurately.

A thought though, why neccessarily does the universe have to have a "consciousness"?

I must reflect on the words of the Tao- The universe that can be spoken (or written) is not the eternal universe. Perhaps what I attempt to describe as consciousness and thinking, is not, but the words consciousness and thinking is the best my puny little finite brain [img]tongue.gif[/img] can come up with to describe the ideas.

Anyway...just some more philosophical ramblings from yours truly. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Chewy, first dialectic is not new -- it's been around since before Marx. Second, quote the Tao all you like, for I bend and am yet straight, I succumb yet overcome. For, in my mind, there is no God as great as water, a Tao totem. In fact, somewhere I may dig up a comparrison of the poetry of E. Dickenson and W. Whitman to the Tao de Ching. And, I keep it handy by my bedside (the Toa de Ching and Art of War, that is).

[ 11-07-2003, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

T.L.,
I meant the term is new to me. [img]smile.gif[/img]


edit- I probably can't quote the Tao De Ching as well as you can then, just recently have a delved into to reading/contemplating it again after, I just realized, a long time. Several aspects of Taoist philosophy have always struck a chord with me and recent contemplations have brought some of them front and center. Saddly I can not find my copy of the book in print, but happily I have found some online versions. I would love to read the comparison of poetry you mentioned, sounds interesting.

[ 11-07-2003, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: that about the fact that the vast vast vast vast majority of the universe is empty vacuum, devoid of anything except the occasional wave-particle passing through (radio wave radiation left over from the big bang)? Or, is the absence of something different than a negative?

Two thoughts.

Firstly, the "space" between planets is only a vacuum as far as we can tell. There was a time when atoms and bacteria were unknown too.

Secondly, if it is indeed a vacuum, and empty, then it is not part of the universe is it? It stands to reason. For we describe the universe as expanding. What is the universe expanding into? Space. A vacuum. For how can the universe be expanding into what it already is? If the vacuum that space is, was part of the universe: the universe would be infinite.

Yet, matter is finite.

So the universe is finite.

Yet earlier we had Chewbacca describe the universe as infinite.

If it were infinite it would not be expanding, it would already be where it is expanding into. Expanse implies limit. If something has a limit it is finite.

My concept of God is of an INFINITE awareness. Eternal. Omnipresent. Not limited to space and time.

[ 11-07-2003, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Faceman]

The mathematical concept of infinity is rather fuzzy sometimes (SixOfSpades attacks this on his site ),
infinity is NOT equal to infinity as there are higher and lower orders of infinity.
To give a simple example:
There's an infinite amount of even numbers. (i.e. there's no biggest even number, as "biggest even number"+2 is bigger)
If you add up the even and uneven numbers (both infinite sets) you get a set that's twice as big, yet only infinite.
So you CAN expand something infinite into more infinity

[ 11-07-2003, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[LordKathen]

Consider this for your questions... [img]smile.gif[/img] http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html