Infinite Regress

[nshanin]

Once upon a time, the king asked the old wise man what the earth rests upon. The wise man replied "The back of a lion, my lord". The king, being no fool, asked "And what does the lion rest upon?". "A turtle, my lord" replied the wise man. "And what does the turtle rest upon then?", asked the king, becoming irritated. With a calming gesture, the wise man replied "no need to go further, my lord; it's turtles all the way down".

I feel like this story illustrates the fundamental division between these three named perspectives to the question "What is the unmoved mover?". We are tempted with three options: to posit a god that is unmoved, a Universe that is itself unmoved, or to accept that it's manifestations of reality all the way down--an infinite regress. I feel like the first two options suffer from a narcissism of ego and scale, respectively. It would be one thing to declare that God is all that matters or that nothing really matters because all that exists is self-sustaining in its existence (a solution that ignores the problem of finite time and its necessary universality), but to declare that all is possible seems like throwing oneself into a chaotic pit of eternal metaphysical ambiguity. I'd like to talk about this last idea--a Universe sustained by infinite regress.

One version of this involves a Big Bang of time in some higher dimension that allowed our universe to come into being temporally. One could take it further and claim that time spontaneously comes into and out of existence over a scale of some untold aeons; perhaps time even has a half-life correlated to some other metric. I actually kinda like the infinite hypothesis; it has a fairly clear explanation available for most of the mystical phenomena many of us have witnessed; it also removes many of the problems associated with causality, etc. Do realities stem infinitely from our universe or are all universes already in existences and we are in but one? What do you guys think?

[Nero]

Could you explain what you think about this in more detail?

[nshanin]

I feel that at worst, it is an exquisite cop-out and at best, it could allow us insight into the nature of the effects of consciousness on matter--perhaps we only inhabit a consensus reality in which there is a continuous, stochastically-oscillating tide of conscious projections into our universe and that the direction this takes is determined by the collection of peoples' awareness; that would fit nicely with what many on here have claimed.

On the other hand, the obvious problems with infinity being a reality seem insurmountable--why infinity and not nothing being the main one, I guess. Consider this: the inverse of zero is in fact infinity; could it be that an infinite universe is only a parallel reality--a multiplicative inverse of a Nothing? We hypothesize additive inverses and physicists are hard at work to find these, but if Nothing is truly the one reality, why not have negative Nothing (hi, negative_zero) or the inverse of nothing. What would the inverse of negative nothing look like? An infinite antimatter Universe? Why would we suppose that our universe originated from nothing when it's far less narcissistic to suppose that the universe that encompasses ours did so (and so on ad infinitum)?

The second problem is that an infinite universe will not have quanta and that atomism will have to be abandoned in favor of some sort of holistic approach. If subatomic particles are just probabilities, wouldn't it make sense to extend this fundamental discovery at the base of reality to the other end?

On the other hand, we see infinite numbers everywhere; why should we suppose the principle and archetype they refer to is just a human construction?

Nothing is easy to grasp, but if the Truth is impossible to grasp completely, doesn't it follow that it will manifest itself as an infinite Universe?

[Duelist]

the potential for something to happen is dependent on something and happening. Happening is dependent on something. Or perhaps, happening and something are dependent upon each other. I guess mathematically this could be -0. I think we are missing a certain part of the equation though. The truth weighs two items against each other to produce itself.

the effect of consciousness on matter is undeniable. Look at the Eiffel tower, the pyramids, automobiles.

when the parabola of reality and possibility meet they shall form a 0, the absolute nothing.

"On the other hand, we see infinite numbers everywhere; why should we suppose the principle and archetype they refer to is just a human construction?"

the universe is ultimate. everything else is derivative. we are derivative of the universe but we are not the universe. Thus, everything we know is a mere "human construction."

[Nachismo]

These lines of thought can become very abstract, I think the ideas of the macrocosm and microcosm, and the interplay of consciousness would be good areas to investigate philosophically.

Originally Posted by nshanin

I feel that at worst, it is an exquisite cop-out and at best, it could allow us insight into the nature of the effects of consciousness on matter--perhaps we only inhabit a consensus reality in which there is a continuous, stochastically-oscillating tide of conscious projections into our universe and that the direction this takes is determined by the collection of peoples' awareness; that would fit nicely with what many on here have claimed.?

Viewing consciousness as the hinge between the micro and macrocosm, or the interior and exterior world, does suggest that sympathy between perception and the unity of it's effects individually manifest collectively in proportion to its strength.Idk, this discription leads a lot to be desired, but this idea is found described in metaphysics frequently.

Originally Posted by nshanin

On the other hand, the obvious problems with infinity being a reality seem insurmountable--why infinity and not nothing being the main one, I guess.

Why not both?Perhaps that resolves the paradox?

Originally Posted by nshanin

Consider this: the inverse of zero is in fact infinity; could it be that an infinite universe is only a parallel reality--a multiplicative inverse of a Nothing?

Reflecting on zero, can offer some interesting possibilities.Is zero itself an actual number?Or is it a place holder?How do you picture infinity numerically?

Originally Posted by nshanin

We hypothesize additive inverses and physicists are hard at work to find these, but if Nothing is truly the one reality, why not have negative Nothing (hi, negative_zero) or the inverse of nothing. What would the inverse of negative nothing look like? An infinite antimatter Universe?

It seems like the only reality we can be sure of (hopefully) is the one that we experience ourselves as individuals.If one considers the interior environment of our lives as the microcosm, and exterior environment (physical) as the macrocosm, wouldn't consciousness itself be the gate between matter and antimatter?Are the depths of our spirits any more shallow then that of infinity before us?

Originally Posted by nshanin

Why would we suppose that our universe originated from nothing when it's far less narcissistic to suppose that the universe that encompasses ours did so (and so on ad infinitum)??

The law of conservation of energy suggests though energy can change form, it can not be created or destroyed.It seems that in order for physical reality to form, there must be a energy source to complement it's manifestation.This could be the role that immaterial reality plays.

Originally Posted by nshanin

The second problem is that an infinite universe will not have quanta and that atomism will have to be abandoned in favor of some sort of holistic approach. If subatomic particles are just probabilities, wouldn't it make sense to extend this fundamental discovery at the base of reality to the other end? ?

I'm not too familiar with that philosophy.Inuitively, I feel that light comes into play here.For the layman, I'm not sure how much empirical data is ever going to be able to be collected about a concept that is essentially the inverse of the material.Metaphysics goes into this area, but even then the ideas tend to stick to developing an understanding of principles that come into play, as opposed to the typical quantative approach of modern science.

Originally Posted by nshanin

On the other hand, we see infinite numbers everywhere; why should we suppose the principle and archetype they refer to is just a human construction??

The ability of consciousness to form patterns and assign meaning to our experiences, seems fundamental to our success as humans, and it is difficult to imagine that this ability,forming order out of chaos is unique in a reality of such vast scale.

Originally Posted by nshanin

Nothing is easy to grasp, but if the Truth is impossible to grasp completely, doesn't it follow that it will manifest itself as an infinite Universe?

I agree.If there isn't a deeper understanding to reach for, the beauty of life itself starts to fade.......

[Hydroponichronic]

ahem: http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=22380

Also, nice thread.

[Hydroponichronic]

Well, NS, this happens to be one of my favourite topics, but I know you got shit to do, so I'm limiting my first reply to your OP.

Originally Posted by nshanin

Once upon a time, the king asked the old wise man what the earth rests upon. The wise man replied "The back of a lion, my lord". The king, being no fool, asked "And what does the lion rest upon?". "A turtle, my lord" replied the wise man. "And what does the turtle rest upon then?", asked the king, becoming irritated. With a calming gesture, the wise man replied "no need to go further, my lord; it's turtles all the way down".

Stephen Hawking told this story in 'A Brief History of Time', but he said it happened to someone he knew. lol.

Originally Posted by nshanin

I feel like this story illustrates the fundamental division between these three named perspectives to the question "What is the unmoved mover?"

Right there. That's the question. As for answers I only have ideas. Nothing conclusive. Lets get the ball rolling.

Originally Posted by nshanin

to posit a god that is unmoved,

Egocentric, highly unlikely. If you really think this is possible, I'll debate it, but I'm inclined to dismiss it right off the bat.

Originally Posted by nshanin

a Universe that is itself unmoved,

Now, this is my current area of investigation. I'll make a separate thread about my ideas, but right now, lets go with yours.

Originally Posted by nshanin

or to accept that it's manifestations of reality all the way down--an infinite regress. I feel like the first two options suffer from a narcissism of ego and scale, respectively.

Well, I get narcissism of ego, but what about narcissism of scale? What does that mean?

Originally Posted by nshanin

It would be one thing to declare that nothing really matters because all that exists is self-sustaining in its existence (a solution that ignores the problem of finite time and its necessary universality),

Also, time isn't universal; it's relative. No?

Originally Posted by nshanin

but to declare that all is possible seems like throwing oneself into a chaotic pit of eternal metaphysical ambiguity.

Not so. I'm finding a way to build a theory with this presupposition, and it's not so bad. But that's a separate thread.

Originally Posted by nshanin

I'd like to talk about this last idea--a Universe sustained by infinite regress. One version of this involves a Big Bang of time in some higher dimension that allowed our universe to come into being temporally.

A recurring big bang? What caused it?

Originally Posted by nshanin

One could take it further and claim that time spontaneously comes into and out of existence over a scale of some untold aeons; perhaps time even has a half-life correlated to some other metric.

Maybe, but what other metric? I've been trying to find one for ages, but have been unable to. Plus, the idea of time "coming in and out of existence" would require another metric. You use the term aeons, but if there is no time, what does that mean? Also, why would time ever go out of existence?

Originally Posted by nshanin

I actually kinda like the infinite hypothesis; it has a fairly clear explanation available for most of the mystical phenomena many of us have witnessed;

What mystical phenomena?

Originally Posted by nshanin

it also removes many of the problems associated with causality, etc.

No, actually it doesn't. Causality isn't just temporal; it can be applied to any dimension. That thread of mine I linked earlier tries to explain this idea. Causality is more about logical continuity than anything else. For instance, let's say we lived in a cyclical universe where there would be a big-bang, big-crunch cycle (we don't, BTW, it's been proven). Well, that model might work out such that at any point in time things are causal, but it doesn't do shit to explain why we have 3 spatial dimensions, or the speed of light is 3x10^8 meters per second, or an electron has a charge of 1.602x10^-19 coulombs. Even if it explains the continual existence of matter, it doesn't explain how these parameters came to be set. We can't take anything for granted except nothing.

Also, a ranting paragraph that's roughly on topic:

Spoiler: Click to toggle

let us look at the nature of infinities. They can be divided into two classes: defined and undefined. This division is reinforced semantically, as defined and undefined are mutually exclusive. This will be simplified by explaining the notion of an undefined infinity first. The undefined infinity is an all-encompassing infinity essentially composed of everything possible under any circumstance in any universe. The existence of such a thing need not be dealt with for now, but must be kept in mind for later. A defined infinity, on the other hand is much more ordinary. Take, for instance, the number system. It is said that there are an infinite number of numbers. This is guaranteed by the fact that there is an algorithm, (ie, a definition) for the creation of new numbers. It can then be seen that every other infinity known to man follows suit: they are all guaranteed by a definition, such that given the power of a fictional supercomputer or some such, one could determine any element of the infinite chain. Given that defined infinities are all dependent on definitions, our existence cannot be explained simply in terms of infinite causal chains. In other words, infinities have a prerequisite definition that necessitates causality of it's own.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Hydroponichronic

Egocentric, highly unlikely. If you really think this is possible, I'll debate it, but I'm inclined to dismiss it right off the bat.

The most reasonable approach I've heard to this is Taoism, which is an amalgamation of the Universe and God view; a pantheism with Nothingness as its godhead. It's beyond proof though so I'll leave it at that.

Well, I get narcissism of ego, but what about narcissism of scale? What does that mean?

I suppose it has to do with the arising of time in our universe; physicists postulate that time actually *began* with the Big Bang; why should we suppose that time has not arisen/begun elsewhere.

Also, time isn't universal; it's relative. No?

Yes, but it's also another dimension; if matter arises spontaneously just as time arises from the Big Bang, then certain conglomerations of time should give rise to higher dimensions. I think I made a boo-boo on that one; I just think it's selfish to postulate that time only began here in our universe (the universe is just another holon under the infinite view, there are universes moving in and out of time outside of it as well).

A recurring big bang? What caused it?

No, just a single Big Bang for our universe, but countless big bangs elsewhere caused by minor fluctuations of Nothingness in higher dimensions--perhaps all sustained by some infinity engine at the highest level. Alternatively, these dimensions are being constructed from the bottom up so that 4-d phenomena creates 5-d fluctuations which reverberate to create other universes.

Maybe, but what other metric? I've been trying to find one for ages, but have been unable to. Plus, the idea of time "coming in and out of existence" would require another metric. You use the term aeons, but if there is no time, what does that mean? Also, why would time ever go out of existence?

Absolute heat death would be the end of time. Probability fluctuations (occurring in some sort of higher-dimensional equivalent of spacetime) could force tiny units of time to come in and out of existence. I'm not even going to pretend like I understand time, but it seems like it allows for all sorts of possibilities if it's viewed the same way we view matter.

What mystical phenomena?

If we can posit a sort of Spirit that guides phenomena to its proper outcome, this could be a reality-selection from the infinity by consciousness or a particular path selected by Spirit, or if we are true to our infinite inclinations, all realities at the same time. Many have experienced this Spirit in the context of mystical experiences even when obvious physical, social, and mental effects have been accounted for.

As an example, if we can say that consciousness is inevitable, then we will find difficulty in the capacity of evolution to explain the transition from holon to holon required to reach that final stage; this point of transcendence of the prior paradigm could be accounted for by such a Spirit. Perhaps (instead?) this is inherent in the Universe and reality will seek out ways to progress to the highest stage regardless.

No, actually it doesn't. Causality isn't just temporal; it can be applied to any dimension. That thread of mine I linked earlier tries to explain this idea. Causality is more about logical continuity than anything else. For instance, let's say we lived in a cyclical universe where there would be a big-bang, big-crunch cycle (we don't, BTW, it's been proven). Well, that model might work out such that at any point in time things are causal, but it doesn't do shit to explain why we have 3 spatial dimensions, or the speed of light is 3x10^8 meters per second, or an electron has a charge of 1.602x10^-19 coulombs. Even if it explains the continual existence of matter, it doesn't explain how these parameters came to be set. We can't take anything for granted except nothing.

I think some form of the anthropic principle combined with my above reasoning would sort this out.

Also, a ranting paragraph that's roughly on topic:

Spoiler: Click to toggle

let us look at the nature of infinities. They can be divided into two classes: defined and undefined. This division is reinforced semantically, as defined and undefined are mutually exclusive. This will be simplified by explaining the notion of an undefined infinity first. The undefined infinity is an all-encompassing infinity essentially composed of everything possible under any circumstance in any universe. The existence of such a thing need not be dealt with for now, but must be kept in mind for later. A defined infinity, on the other hand is much more ordinary. Take, for instance, the number system. It is said that there are an infinite number of numbers. This is guaranteed by the fact that there is an algorithm, (ie, a definition) for the creation of new numbers. It can then be seen that every other infinity known to man follows suit: they are all guaranteed by a definition, such that given the power of a fictional supercomputer or some such, one could determine any element of the infinite chain. Given that defined infinities are all dependent on definitions, our existence cannot be explained simply in terms of infinite causal chains. In other words, infinities have a prerequisite definition that necessitates causality of it's own.

Perhaps our problem is that the Universe cannot be specified and is only an outgrowth of C&E which is in turn an outgrowth of Nothing. I see you've alluded to this in your other thread as I have here in mine. Could there be other forces selecting which effect takes precedence in a reality where there is not actual infinity? To me, these seem to be unavoidable in an infinite Universe.

[Duelist]

I'm going to pull an Obbe here (actually george orwell but w/e)

"But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely"

in this way cause and effect are the same force. Separating them clouds our perception. I have been reading over this thread many times over the last few days (some other threads too) and have thought that within me I could find something to add to the conversation in a succinct and articulate manner, but the fact of the matter is my understanding of the universal method is fleeting. Perhaps what I hope to articulate will reveal itself to me as I go about my day.

[Nero]

God, I've never even thought of this shit.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Why would we suppose that our universe originated from nothing when it's far less narcissistic to suppose that the universe that encompasses ours did so (and so on ad infinitum)?

How is the latter latter idea "far less narcissistic" than the former? Why should we base our beliefs on whether or not we think they are narcissistic?

[ArmsMerchant]

Better yet--base what you accept as true on your own experience, and on what resonates with your heart, wherein all wisdom may be found.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

How is the latter latter idea "far less narcissistic" than the former? Why should we base our beliefs on whether or not we think they are narcissistic?

Multiple universes are less narcissistic than one, and while there is no reason to reject narcissistic hypotheses offhand, we should be wary of them because they allow ourselves to be easily fooled by our own limited understanding.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Multiple universes are less narcissistic than one, and while there is no reason to reject narcissistic hypotheses offhand, we should be wary of them because they allow ourselves to be easily fooled by our own limited understanding.

You didn't really answer the first question. Why are they less narcissistic than one? I don't see how narcissism comes into play at all. It's parsimony, not narcissism, that rules the idea.

As for being wary of narcissistic hypotheses, shouldn't we far more wary of baseless hypotheses? Of unparsimonious hypotheses?

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

You didn't really answer the first question. Why are they less narcissistic than one? I don't see how narcissism comes into play at all. It's parsimony, not narcissism, that rules the idea.

Why would we suppose that our universe exists and it alone exists? Because we inhabit it and have no access to evidence of external ones (besides philosophy/introspection/metaphysics).

As for being wary of narcissistic hypotheses, shouldn't we far more wary of baseless hypotheses? Of unparsimonious hypotheses?

Not in fields where belief influences the evidence.Nobody's going to answer this question, that's why I posted this in R&S--to see which belief serves people the most.

[Rust]

[Note: If you want to discuss this in the Off-topic thread instead, that's fine by me. I don't want people complaining that I'm "derailing" a thread by having this conversation.]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Why would we suppose that our universe exists and it alone exists? Because we inhabit it and have no access to evidence of external ones (besides philosophy/introspection/metaphysics).

Exactly. That's the very reasoning used by parsimony: No need to posit the existence of other universes when one alone will do.

Not in fields where belief influences the evidence.Nobody's going to answer this question, that's why I posted this in R&S--to see which belief serves people the most.

Well, not to change the topic further, but according to you that is supposedly all fields, isn't it? I understand nobody is going to have a definite answer, however that does not mean that these two issues (parsimony and evidence) aren't important in determining whether a belief serves people the most or not... Believing things with evidence, after all, has a pretty damn good track record of serving people...

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

[Note: If you want to discuss this in the Off-topic thread instead, that's fine by me. I don't want people complaining that I'm "derailing" a thread by having this conversation.]

If you try to keep it on topic I'll attempt the same.

Exactly. That's the very reasoning used by parsimony: No need to posit the existence of other universes when one alone will do.

In this thread, I would like to talk about the idea of multiple universes and how this relates to infinity--I would like the ideas that the universe is self-sustained or that reality is held up by a god off the table as I indicated in my first post. Multiple universes may not be parsimonious immediately, but it may turn out that an infinite Universe is more reasonable, in which case multiple universes are inevitable.

Well, not to change the topic further, but according to you that is supposedly all fields, isn't it? I understand nobody is going to have a definite answer, however that does not mean that these two issues (parsimony and evidence) aren't important in determining whether a belief serves people the most or not... Believing things with evidence, after all, has a pretty damn good track record of serving people...

I will attempt to incorporate the evidence, but it is my opinion that we should look beyond evidence towards introspection and experience to discover the ultimate ground of being.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

If you try to keep it on topic I'll attempt the same.

See, that's the problem: I feel discussing one of the points you used to dismiss the idea of a single universe (i.e. accusing it of being "narcissistic" when in fact it's just parsimonious) is perfectly on topic.

I'm going to stop now though (unless you would be willing to move it elsewhere), because I can hear a waaaambulance coming from a mile away.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

See, that's the problem: I feel discussing one of the points you used to dismiss the idea of a single universe (i.e. accusing it of being "narcissistic" when in fact it's just parsimonious) is perfectly on topic.

I'm going to stop now though (unless you would be willing to move it elsewhere), because I can hear a waaaambulance coming from a mile away.

If the universe is infinite and your and everything's existence is purely a result of probability (everything will happen in infinity) then that means that there has to be an infinite number of universes as well.

This is what you logically believe.

[Rust]

What? Not it isn't. You clearly don't understand this at all.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

What? Not it isn't. You clearly don't understand this at all.

You don't understand what it's like to be a cat, but it's still possible to be a cat.

That's the difference between you and I, because you aren't a "cat" you assume it's impossible to be one.

[Rust]

Not only are those silly accusations wrong, they have nothing to do with the fact that you clearly misunderstand my beliefs which is all I said; if anything they further confirm that fact.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Not only are those silly accusations wrong, they have nothing to do with the fact that you clearly misunderstand my beliefs which is all I said; if anything they further confirm that fact.

Your beliefs are just that, beliefs. They have no basis in fact and are simply delusion. Unless you can provide empirical evidence then this discussion is over.

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Nobody's going to answer this question.

False. I'm going to figure this shit out and do so in a way that can be logically explained and proven. Might take a few decades though...

Originally Posted by nshanin

Multiple universes may not be parsimonious immediately, but it may turn out that an infinite Universe is more reasonable, in which case multiple universes are inevitable.

New rule, no more using words I have to google (parsimonious)

Srslytho, I think NS is making the claim that while our universe being the only one is parsimonious, it seems to be lacking in logical support. Though to explain why is something that no one on our side of the debate seems to be able to do.

EDIT: will post moar when I've got time/sobriety.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Hydroponichronic

Srslytho, I think NS is making the claim that while our universe being the only one is parsimonious, it seems to be lacking in logical support. Though to explain why is something that no one on our side of the debate seems to be able to do.

Well then hopefully you understand why nobody on "our" side of the debate should believe you until you do...

P.S. He was making the claim that it was narcissistic as well. That's just plain silly.

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by Rust

Well then hopefully you understand why nobody on "our" side of the debate should believe you until you do...

I do, I think.

Originally Posted by Rust

P.S. He was making the claim that it was narcissistic as well. That's just plain silly.

He made the assumption that the idea of our universe being the only one in existence was a result of humans thinking we are at the center of everything (ie, geocentrisim). In other words, the idea was not narcissistic, but the derivation was (in his opinion). Now, as you pointed out, you could reach the same conclusion (our uni is only one) by persimmons reasoning rather than the simple assumption that humans are at the center of everything. Thus, the idea is not inherently narcissistic.

[Hydroponichronic]

Yo, NS, I know this is ~unorthodox, but for the sake of time an bandwidth, can we dispel the multiquoting? I was thinking we should start point by point, rather than trying to deal with the whole subject of one-uni/poly-uni at once. Some starters that come to mind are:

1. Logical necessity of multiverse
2. ExtraTemporal Dimensions
3. Metaphysical reality selection
4. Cause and effect holistics (see SD's post here)
5. Defined/Undefined infinities

Thoughts?

[Headspin]

I've been slowly piecing this together over a period of time. The similarities between the micro and the macro are too common. I think back to the picture of the universe and brain cell comparison, the sun resembling an atom and the orbiting planets electrons, the repetition of fractals, etc.

When you consider the possiblity of infinite parallel universes these sorts of ideas seem to make more sense than the simple constructions we have been taught from history. We are evolving and so must our ideas and perception, its only natural to come to these sorts of conclusions.

[Duelist]

perhaps the universe is shaped like a tree. A single, definable core on one half with an indescribable spectrum of branches extending skyward. When the tree is foliated entirely the leaves seem to engulf the core, but not quite. Oh, and separating the tree from the branches and then furthermore the leaves is futile. We also have to deal with the issue of connectivity from the tree to the earth, the air and sky to the leaves. And then the roots running underneath, branching undetected.

[nshanin]

++ Good thinking.

1. Logical necessity of multiverse
   Many-worlds interpretation. Otherwise the cat is both dead and alive until we view it; so either there's a clearly-defined binary switch that consciousness activates or we are a part of infinity inasfar as a "near-infinity" of parallel universes are concerned. Now obviously there's no such thing as near-infinity, but if space is really quantized then the greatest quantity imaginable (assuming infinity is not) is the quantity of universes that stem from each of these units.
2. ExtraTemporal Dimensions
   Perhaps a dimension of consciousness or form. Otherwise, physical interpretations. Perhaps a dimension of possibility akin to god-mind.
3. Metaphysical reality selection
   Binary switches on a macro scale; maybe consciousness affects larger things in less predictable ways and smaller things in more predictable ways. Plugging into the ground of the Kosmos allows cause and effect to mold into one event, blurring the line between prediction and causality in the dimension of form and/or consciousness (is this because we project nonduality?). If deductive knowledge is remembered (a la Socrates--perhaps it is remembered in the world of forms even), maybe reality (and its causes) is also "remembered" by a different kind of memory. One of my favorite quotes:
   
   "'Tis a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."
   --Alice in Wonderland
4. Cause and effect holistics (see SD's post here)
   See above? Ideally, to see this manifest, one would believe in the infinite nature of their own power while simultaneously remaining detached.
5. Defined/Undefined infinities
   Even if each infinity was defined, they are all unattainable. Maybe this fact itself points to an "undefinable" infinity at the core of everything.

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by nshanin

++ Good thinking.

1. Logical necessity of multiverse
   Many-worlds interpretation. Otherwise the cat is both dead and alive until we view it; so either there's a clearly-defined binary switch that consciousness activates or we are a part of infinity inasfar as a "near-infinity" of parallel universes are concerned. Now obviously there's no such thing as near-infinity, but if space is really quantized then the greatest quantity imaginable (assuming infinity is not) is the quantity of universes that stem from each of these units.
2. ExtraTemporal Dimensions
   Perhaps a dimension of consciousness or form. Otherwise, physical interpretations. Perhaps a dimension of possibility akin to god-mind.
3. Metaphysical reality selection
   Binary switches on a macro scale; maybe consciousness affects larger things in less predictable ways and smaller things in more predictable ways. Plugging into the ground of the Kosmos allows cause and effect to mold into one event, blurring the line between prediction and causality in the dimension of form and/or consciousness (is this because we project nonduality?). If deductive knowledge is remembered (a la Socrates--perhaps it is remembered in the world of forms even), maybe reality (and its causes) is also "remembered" by a different kind of memory. One of my favorite quotes:
   
   "'Tis a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."
   --Alice in Wonderland
4. Cause and effect holistics (see SD's post here)
   See above? Ideally, to see this manifest, one would believe in the infinite nature of their own power while simultaneously remaining detached.
5. Defined/Undefined infinities
   Even if each infinity was defined, they are all unattainable. Maybe this fact itself points to an "undefinable" infinity at the core of everything.

I think maybe you misunderstood. I meant we should pick one of the above and discuss it at length, then move from topic to topic after concluding them rather than posting about all at the same time. My personal preference is C&E holistics, but I'll leave it to you. The key thing I wanted to get to with C&E is that for C&E to hold, reality must be continuous and differentiable on the real line.

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by Sexual Deviant

"But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely"

in this way cause and effect are the same force. Separating them clouds our perception.

Good observation. Each part is itself made up of parts, which is why I was saying "cause and effect holistics". The best way to bring this all together is to say that causes and effects are all just time-sections of a system. In my view, the whole universe is a compilation of a fuckload of differential equations, and thus a 3d cross-section of the universe at any time can be said to have caused any section at a later time. You don't have to be specific to a particular time. Thus the line:

Originally Posted by Hydroponichronic

The key thing I wanted to get to with C&E is that for C&E to hold, reality must be continuous and differentiable on the real line.

To expand, what I mean to do is show that the key to cause and effect is to redefine it with a more philosophically useful definition. Let us say that we have a spoon. The question "what causes a spoon to continue existing?" would be a valid inquiry. The answer would be that (in part) "the spoon is made of metal which doesn't readily disintegrate or decompose". Though that is incomplete. One could continue with "metal is durable due to (atomic structure, orbitals, etc)". In this case, causality isn't taking cross-sections on the time line, it's taking cross sections on the scale line. Scale isn't even a traditional axis, but that's the beauty of causality: it works regardless of the axis. So it is better to say that the law of cause and effect says only that causal stuff is defined everywhere at all real time. Though, for most applications, one can pay attention to local space and time.

[Duelist]

the spoon is dependent upon its self for continued existence.

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by Sexual Deviant

the spoon is dependent upon its self for continued existence.

There is no spoon, doncha know? lol, srslytho, it's better not to talk about the dependence of the spoon, as it takes away from the fact that the spoon is but one face of a complex, higher-dimensional form.

[Hydroponichronic]

@NS:

Originally Posted by Hydroponichronic

Good observation. Each part is itself made up of parts, which is why I was saying "cause and effect holistics". The best way to bring this all together is to say that causes and effects are all just time-sections of a system. In my view, the whole universe is a compilation of a fuckload of differential equations, and thus a 3d cross-section of the universe at any time can be said to have caused any section at a later time. You don't have to be specific to a particular time. Thus the line:

To expand, what I mean to do is show that the key to cause and effect is to redefine it with a more philosophically useful definition. Let us say that we have a spoon. The question "what causes a spoon to continue existing?" would be a valid inquiry. The answer would be that (in part) "the spoon is made of metal which doesn't readily disintegrate or decompose". Though that is incomplete. One could continue with "metal is durable due to (atomic structure, orbitals, etc)". In this case, causality isn't taking cross-sections on the time line, it's taking cross sections on the scale line. Scale isn't even a traditional axis, but that's the beauty of causality: it works regardless of the axis. So it is better to say that the law of cause and effect says only that causal stuff is defined everywhere at all real time. Though, for most applications, one can pay attention to local space and time.

Yes, no, maybe? Thoughts? If you're short on time to respond then sorry for my impatience. I'm not a douche, I'm just drunk.

[iMagiNation]

Movement moves itself, everything is self-created.

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by iMagiNation

Movement moves itself, everything is self-created.

lrn2logic

[Duelist]

frankly I think the language used here is indecipherable. While there is a lot to read, not much is said. Perhaps the conveyance is the failed element ( ), and I am only synthesizing a very small part of the many words that you have used.

I think that instead of speaking like scientists we should speak more naturally. Let your words flow and do not be afraid to inject your feelings so that the essence of your character is revealed to readers.

Perhaps I am not educated well enough in "ExtraTemporal Dimensions" or the "necessity of a multiverse," if so I apologize for my ignorance.

Drawing parallels, double-entendres, sarcasm, trolling... all part of the language arts. Sharing thought is like sharing a delicious cake.

DON'T FUCKING SPOIL IT BY BEING SO VAGUE.

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by Sexual Deviant

frankly I think the language used here is indecipherable. While there is a lot to read, not much is said. Perhaps the conveyance is the failed element ( ), and I am only synthesizing a very small part of the many words that you have used.

Yea, but there's no better way to do it, as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by Sexual Deviant

I think that instead of speaking like scientists we should speak more naturally.

I have to be scientific sounding otherwise there will be holes in my argument.

Originally Posted by Sexual Deviant

Let your words flow and do not be afraid to inject your feelings so that the essence of your character is revealed to readers.

^^^that embodies everything that's wrong with this forum. Stupid motherfuckers posting pictures of neurons and galaxies and saying all is one without enumerating (much less proving) anything. Believe it or not, the language of science is the language of logic. You have to use it to functionally convey ideas. I can try to use metaphors, but there aren't a lot of everyday ones. For most metaphysics, I find mathematical metaphors most appropriate, but if you aren't familiar with linear algebra, vector calculus, or differential equation solving they probably wouldn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Sexual Deviant

Perhaps I am not educated well enough in "ExtraTemporal Dimensions" or the "necessity of a multiverse," if so I apologize for my ignorance.

Temporal (like time) dimensions that are extra (ie, not time). Also, some would argue a multiverse is not necessary (ie, rust) so the topic of "the necessity of a multiverse" is pretty straightforward. No?

Originally Posted by Sexual Deviant

Drawing parallels, double-entendres, sarcasm, trolling... all part of the language arts. Sharing thought is like sharing a delicious cake.

DON'T FUCKING SPOIL IT BY BEING SO VAGUE.

The vagaries were there because I was proposing starting points for theories. I don't have it all worked out, and I want to bring in other's ideas.

[Nachismo]

There is definately some heavy mental happening around here.Maybe if we used pictures to help illustrate what we are trying to share?