|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 53 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Theories: A bit of philosophy... |
Posted by
Alugarde on Sunday, January 20, 2002 - 04:25 AM PST
There are two driving forces in the universe. There exists a certain energy, whatever you choose to call it, that forms all that can be seen, observed, interacted with, or even comprehended. And then there is a second force, not opposite the first like in most belief systems but complimentary, an unseen something that binds this energy into whatever form it happens to take.
The energy lends itself towards change and chaos, while the binding lends itself more towards a rigid set way of working, and any form taken has to have at least a certain amount of both, for without one the other will diffuse and spread itself infinitely thin. When the energy and binding are equal, life is created. If enough energy is lost leaving the form binding-dominant the form dies and reverts to mere matter, whereas a form that gains too much energy and becomes energy-dominant becomes a force of some kind. (In this context "force" is a technical term, meaning something such as fire, lightning, or even something like gravity, whereas in the first sentence "force" is merely used for lack of a better word)
There is, however, something unique about life forms. A fire can only burn and a lifeless corpse can merely sit there until something comes along and moves it, but life has choices. Fire is (in a sense) in command of its own energy, while a corpse is likewise in command of its binding, but life commands both energy and binding and can play around with different mixtures of each. Thus are formed to semi-energy dominant forms, the mind and the spirit.
Imagine also that there is no reality. Nothing exists, all there is is an infinite void. But then, what does infinite mean? "Infinite" is a concept of reality. What follows this gets a bit abstract because being confined to this reality we can only describe it in terms of itself, so bear with me. There is no reality, only void. Space, distance, location, none of that means anything, but the only way I've been able to picture it in my mind is as if the void had a spatial property. Using such a spatial property as a point of reference,imagine that some"where" within that void there is a sudden spark of the energy mentioned earlier, the energy of reality. This energy is self-reproducing and thus infinite, and creates an infinitely expanding shockwave of reality, but this reality expands not only throughout the spatial property, but through the dimensional and temporal properties as well. This spark may or may not show up in several different "places" within the void and as realities expand and the "distance" between them decreases, eventually realities could collide, but what if they're not compatible? What happens to the overlapping areas and to the non-overlapping areas? Do the realities compete or do the absorb into each other and create a hybrid reality? Obviously my theory isnt complete yet since I'm asking such questions, but I'm working on it. I'm also working on a way of explaining space and time as being semi-binding-dominant forms. Something tells me theres more to it than just saying they've got more binding than energy. Anyway, thats what I've got for now. More later...
|
|
| |
|
|
This article has not been rated
|
|
|
|
|
|
A bit of philosophy... | Login/Create an account | 20 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Ow...my freaking head...
by Dolorosa on Jan 20, 2002 - 04:57 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Ok...took me awhile tobreak that down intolayman's terms so I could understand it. Real deep thinking I guess...problem is, what does that have to do with anything? I'm going to go back to nihilistic little poetries, unusual musics and dark tastes and leave that junk to Mr. Wizard and Bill Nye the metaphysical guy...
|
Re: Ow...my freaking head... by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Jan 27, 2002 - 11:33 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | hey! he's working on a unified sex theory here! that is really important. Put the bottle down! now step away from the girlie mag.
If time and space are the forces that actually rule our shared realiy, then what rules thier interactions?
If he can swing this one, we can either be late or at the wrong place but not both at the same time.
or something like that |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: A bit of philosophy...
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com)
on Jan 20, 2002 - 05:41 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://devin.vibechild.com/
|
What good is metaphysics if you use such big words to describe it that nobody can (or wants to) understand what you're talking about.
Translation:
There's all kinds of vibes - they can be straight up or skattered. It takes all kinds. And it rocks to be alive cuz you get to play with them.
|
Re: A bit of philosophy... by Arthegarn on Jan 21, 2002 - 01:32 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Oh, C'mon, Devin, don't be cruel. If I can read it I'll bet so do you. XD |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Oddly Enough...
by Rae (darkness_embraced1@yahoo.com)
on Jan 20, 2002 - 07:06 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://darknessembraced.vibechild.com
|
Oddly enough, this has been one of my very own thoughts. You know, the type of thoughts that enter your mind in the middle of the night when all is quiet. No wonder I am such an insomniac.
|
Re: A bit of philosophy...
by Anonymous-Coward on Jan 20, 2002 - 07:13 PM
|
But, fire burns until it runs out of fuel and the corpse will decay. The fire will create as the blows into the wind, thus spreading itself infinitely thin across everything, and the corpse will rot into the ground, spreading the nutrients it absorbed from the ground in life to a greater area, thus spreading itself infinitely thin.
Does the beinding of all things wear off the longer they exist? Thus, all is an amorphous solid that spreads and is re-bound by heat?
The cookie cutter and the sheet of dough are such odd concepts. Thus, is all things that the cookie cutter cuts eventually rejoin the sheet, the cookie cutter must eventually become part of the sheet as well, since it has to have come from some energy vat somewhere.
Sure, another cookie cutter will come into existence, but it's patterns will be different, such like dinosaurs, or disco clothing, or something else horrendous and not comprehendable to the remaining cut cookies.
Now that's a sweet cookie!
Comedian-- still trapped in Reno (GAH!{tm})
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Here comes the Inquisitor
by Arthegarn on Jan 21, 2002 - 01:22 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Interesting pot, Alugarde. A little aprioristic, if you ask me but interesting.
For the sake of discussion, I don't believe there is such a thing as a second energy to shape the first. I thnk that, considering what we know so far through science, there was in the initial seconds of the universe a force, external to this universe, that created a variation in the density of the energy within the energy field that the universe was at that time, thus preventing what should have happened: a momogeneous universe (this is a complicated idea, if anyone wants it developed say so and I'll post it, but right now it'd make the post WAY too long). But that's all, I don't believe in a second, dynamic bindng force. It's not neccesary more that as a passive premise. If you consider that the energy spreads as much as it can until it finds another exiting energy that blocks it spreading (mutually). The individual energetic pattern's shape (if anything as a shape exists) is determined by the surrounding energy paterns and the shape of the Universe. The second energy is uneccesary in terms of Ockham's razor.
This influences your second paragraph, of course. But even if it didn't, your theory of the relation between the energy and the binder and how it results in solids or life or forces is aproiristic again, and doesn't stand a moderate attack. What of plasma? What of photons and tachyons? What's the relationship of Death and the energy-binder ratio? Death is the force that disturbs the equilibrium? Because there are bindersome deaths, such as a coronary that leaves a corpse and no more, and energeticsome deaths, such as falling into a High Oven. By the way, this doesn't fit too well with the Enthropy Principle. ¿Too little binder in the universe?
Third paragraph: fire can only burn, yep. And life can only live. You insert the defined in the definition: If life didn't have "spontaneous" (that could also be discussed, what of crystals?) choices (that could also be discussed, what of viruses?) how would you tell it apart from unlife? You say life commands energy and binding, I thought life was a result of energy and binding. By your own definition if life changes that mixture it will die. There can be nothing like semi dormant energy forms for that would take out energy from its struggle with the binder, let the binder win and life to cease to exist.
The fourth paragraph gets too exotic fot me. Energy is NOT self replicant, according to all we know of it. OK, let's get over it all and assume that in this exotic void our science is extremely limited and we don't have a clue (That's what I call a leap of faith... and they ask me how can I be a Catholic!). Even then, infinite things are not self replicating by their own nature. You can't have two infinite things in the same plane of existence unless they don't interact with each other at all. "this reality expands not only throughout the spatial property, but through the dimensional and temporal properties as well" You and Einstein have different concepts of what a dimension is: there are two kinds of dimensions: Spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions. Time is a dimension, not a property. If the spark is infinite, it MUST be everywhere, it can't be here and not there. Otherwise it's a very limited infinite, wouldn't you say? Thus there can be no thing such as overlapping areas: The "realities" are always overlapping...
(* * *)
The difference between a theory and a poem is that theories exist to be proved or disproved. As a free (and unasked for, and therefore never well recieved) advice, prove your premises before working too hard on developing them, or else take it as a poem whose objective is to be beautiful and not to be true. Philosophy is the love of knowledge, this might be more like yhe love of beauty, phylo(insert here the greek lexem for beauty, which I can't remember right now).
Arthegarn
|
Re: Here comes the Inquisitor by Alugarde on Jan 21, 2002 - 08:21 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Ok Arthegarn, you raise some interesting questions, but allow me give a little more background on how I came up with all that.
When I said that both the energy and the binding would spread themselves infinitely thin, I never said that they would attach themselves to each other. In chemistry two atoms dont automatically bond on contact. If the world was like that everything would be stuck to everything and eventually there would only be 1 object in the entire universe. Not to mention that there would be no life because when people exhaled the carbon dioxide wouldnt go anywhere, assuming they could get a large chunk of solidified air into their lungs. Nor did I say that the binding was a form of energy, I was thinking it was more along the lines of a phenomena.
Moving on to your second and third paragraphs, you seemed to have missed the part of my original post where I said that the energy and the binding don't oppose each other. If the balance of energy and binding is changed, there may be a decline in health, but nothing more than that unless there is such a drastic change that the form is no longer recognizable as life (I say recognizable because some cells in the body die sooner and some die later). The energy and binding never "win" over each other, even when the body dies, because to "win" implies that there is no energy left in the body (or too much energy for the binding to hold in the case of the ovens), and the binding would spread itself infinitely thin. Because different mixtures of energy and binding are possible, its then possible for there to be plasma, photons, tachyons, and what have you.
You're right to say that energy is not self-replicant, but only in the context you use it in. When you used it "energy" referred to a force, a force which contains a certain (however small) degree of binding to keep it from expanding.
Think of it like this: If a vacuum in the middle of an atmosphere is punctured the lack of air causes air to fill in around it. The idea behind that part of my post was that, similar to a vacuum, lack of reality causes reality to fill in around it. So in a sense the energy (pure energy that is, not a force) is self-replicant because although its not infinitely large at this moment, it will continue to expand infinitely and fill in the void with reality. The energy, as I said before, forms all that is tangible and thus is in a sense the energy of reality, which continues to expand just as the reality it creates expands. Also I specifically said that the multiple realities DO interact with each other. Just not until they expand enough to do so. As for the subject of where this reality expands to, "property" was merely a word I used in place of "dimension" so as to avoid saying "dimensional dimension". In other words this reality expands throughout our dimension, other dimensions, and the time of all dimensions affected dimensions, thus creating the "ticks of the clock".
Alugarde |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Inquisitor II: The Revenge by Arthegarn on Jan 21, 2002 - 12:12 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Whoa! You get mighty exotic now! Now I have to agree with Devin, it's extremely hard for me to understand what you say if you use words some times with one meaning and some times with another (even though you punctualize). Most likely it has to do with the "English as a second language" thing.
Well, I'll try.
OK I took the binding as a a second energy and you said it was a second "force" My mistake. OK, then we take it as a passive phenomenon instead of as a dynamic force. Agreed, it works better this way.
You never said that if the balance of energy and binding changed there was a decline in health, that's why I said what I said. You said life died: "when the energy and binding are equal, life is created. If enough energy is lost leaving the form binding-dominant the form dies and reverts to mere matter, whereas a form that gains too much energy and becomes energy-dominant becomes a force of some kind" According to that, if energy and binding are not equal the life form died, but maybe I didn't understand. Actually I liked it better the other way around, it's quite hard to talk about health decline in primitive life forms such as fungi (not to mention viruses). Your concept of death implies serious problems about your concept of life. OK, so each and every cell in our being is alive (I am not discussing it at all) but then... who is the entity? I am not a separate being from the addition of all my living cells? There is not a living "me" independent of my cells? What's in for conscience? (Whoa, yeah, Im getting real hardcore now ;-)
I fully accept your solution to the Photon Problem, though.
I insist that there can NOT be two infinite things, by definition, unless they do not interact. Things can not be infinite at a time and a bigger infinite at the next.. Infinite things, by definition can't become any bigger, they can not expand.
Now comes the hard part, Dolorosa, I warn you. Anyone who is not Alugarde and manages to read and understand all the following crap gets a piece of candy (Bettie_x always liked my candy XD)
There is no such thing as a cosmic vacuum. Sorry, there is not. Things that are outside reality are, by definition, unreal. There is reality and then there is nothing. Full stop. There is no such thing as a real "lack of reality", there's nowhere outside space. As for energy, it's not self replicating, it just spreads thinner. And that is because the Cosmos is finite, as has been proved over and over since the 70's. I think I intuitively understand your concept, but it's not that the Cosmos "grows" into a cosmic void. Since the universe is limitless, it can't grow by expanding its limits into the void, as there are no such limits (those "limit" and "void" notions reminds me of Ende's "Never Ending Story"). It is a fact the ammount of space in the universe grows even as we talk, but the universe grows into no void, it grows into time. Actually, we call the action of the universe's growth time (this one is HARD)
OK, think of it this way (it's very old, sure you've heard it before). Take one spatial dimension out, now we live in a 2-D space (be it a plane, semiplane or polygon) which is endless and limitless. Now comb the space until you get a sphere. Now you have a limitless but endless universe. How does the universe expand? It's like blowing into a balloon. It does not expand into any of the known two dimensions, but into a third one which is time. Now if you picture a coordinate axis with x, y and t, x and y being the two spatial dimensions of the universe and perpendicular to each other but "combed" in the surface of the sphere, and t coming from the center of the sphere outwards in a straight line, you can see where does the universe "grow" to: into itself, just farther in time. What's in t? the universe as it is now. What is in t+1? The universe as it will be. What is in t-1? The universe as it was. What's the universe, then? It's like an onion, with finite layers space-time of real
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
And a challenge by Arthegarn on Jan 21, 2002 - 12:29 PM (User info | Send a Message) | O.K. You won your piece of candy? Let's see. There is a way out of this that allows other real universes to coexist with ours. The first one correctly guessing it wins... let's see... I have already given pieces of candy... I know! A bottle of Absentha, which I believe is not legal in most countries outside Spain.
I hope the first toast is to me...
Arthegarn |
[ No anonymous comments ]
do I win? by Alugarde on Jan 22, 2002 - 03:58 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Perhaps reality does not expand through space, time, and dimensions as I first thought. Perhaps It expands through space and time, but the multiple "infinite" realities, upon reaching each other, pass through one another as a ghost passes through a solid, and these different realities form the different dimensions.
But the question then becomes, do these different dimensions influence each other AT ALL? If I remember correctly there are some situations in which different dimensions are said to resemble each other with (usually) subtle differences, but then aren't there also said to be dimensions that are wildly different from our own? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: And a challenge by Meranda_Jade (scurtis510@home.com) on Jan 22, 2002 - 09:26 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Send me a bottle of Absintha, and the first toast *will* be to you..:-) I'm staying out of the discussion, though... a little too much for my brain at 12:30 in the morning... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Jan 21, 2002 - 12:38 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | I'd like to expand on the idea of the universe being infinite (or not). I don't think there is any question that the universe is infinite, just based on the definitions of the two words. That's like saying 2 is two. If you want to say that the universe is bigger than we think, you can't say that it's not infinite, or that it's bigger than infinate, or that the infinite quality of the universe does not take into account alternate dimensions or realities. To do that, you would either have to change the concepts of infinate and universe - or you'd have to change the definitions of the words.
If we don't have universally understood words to describe these things, then we can not talk about them at all. You can make your own words if you want to exclude people that don't understand them from the conversation (shmeng being a good example of this) - but you can't make up words if you want to have a debate. That is, unless you change the definition of the word debate.
The alternative is to change the concept to fit the language. It sounds like a bigger thing to do, but it's the only thing that works.
If I'm wrong, please let me know. I'd like to change the definition of the word King, so I can say "Devin is the King of the World"
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge by Arthegarn on Jan 21, 2002 - 01:12 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Well, I don't agree. The universe is finite, yet it is unlimited. By definition it can't be more that 20.000.000.000 lightyears across or so, depending on the age of the universe. If you walked that in one direction you'd end up where you started.
Anyway, that´s a looong stroll |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge by Alugarde on Jan 21, 2002 - 02:41 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Ok, for the sake of clarity "energy" is the energy of reality, while a "force" is a combination of energy and binding which is often (incorrectly) referred to as energy.
The thing you're missing with my concept of death is that I said when ENOUGH energy was lost. As energy is lost, health declines, until so much energy (and thus health) is lost that death results. As for my concept of life, your cells are alive, but so are you. Your cells are a part of you, and it wouldnt exactly make sense to say that you're alive but that which is a part of you is not. If someone chops off your arm, the arm dies but you keep living (assuming you can somehow stop the bleeding).
You're also missing the concept when I say the universe is infinitely expanding. I never said that the universe itself was infinite, just that it will continue to expand forever(infinitely). I do, however, accept that the energy is not self-replicating. But to say that there is no cosmic vacuum (the void) is to say that there is yin but no yang. How do you know what is real if you do not know what is unreal? As the energy is spread thinner and thinner it has to go somewhere. As you mentioned earlier the universe should have been a homogenous, the universe seeks balance. When you touch something cold with something hot the thermal force in one and lack thereof in the other are balanced out and the two become lukewarm. Hot seeks to balance cold and vice versa. So why shouldnt it be the same on a larger scale? Wouldn't reality then try to balance out "nonreality"? (represented by the energy spreading itself thinner).
The onion idea is interesting, but think of it this way: As t increases, the onion's surface area (x and y) get bigger. Thus there are spatial limits to the universe, they just continue to expand as time progresses. In other words, x and y are directly related to t. If x and y represent the spatial limits of the universe, then saying that those limits don't change is saying that time is standing still. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge by Abbadon on Jan 26, 2002 - 07:44 AM (User info | Send a Message) | I don't wish to become involved in this conversation since it is a little silly. I was just hoping to give you some pointers in the hope that with further discussion amongst yourselves you can broaden your minds.
You need to re'read Einstein's Relativity papers along with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle and Fehnman's Theses before continuing. You are making some fundamental mistakes as to the essential nature of concepts such as the expanding universe, virtual particles and space time as a form of energy. I would be delighted to discuss these aspects of modern physics with you when you have become a little more clear as to the role of the expansion of the universe as an example of how relativity can be applied and other aspects of this subject.
Don't get to worried about this argument however, there are lots more aspects of philosophy for you to worry about. Science is, as all creations of the human mind, not in any way certain, however hard we prove it. So don't take it as a gauge on reality.
Happy thinking, you budding little philosophers. Have fun developing your abstract thought.
And don't forget Wittgenstein:
'If a conclusion is found to a philosophical argument very little had been gained.' |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Inquisitor II: The Revenge by Schizo on Feb 01, 2002 - 06:21 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I think I get a piece of candy! Hooray!
I do love the elusive concept of time. It's something I've been pondering since I was 13 or so.
I've thought of time as the 4th dimention of space. That may be so. But I believe that time has dimentions of its own.
I think that one-dimentional time is a moment. I think we live in two-dimentional time. Not only do we live in it, but we all seem to travel in it, making it impossible to explore the entire plane of time squared. Perhaps other universes inhabit another plane in time.
I think that three-dimentional time is eternity. Many people seem to picture the concept of eternity as a line that extends infinitely in each direction, but I think that belief is founded in error. I believe that eternity is to what we call "time" as a sphere is to a circle.
If we look at the commonly expressed notion of "time" from the outside, so to speak, we see it as a plane. Take, for example, a history book, covering the time known to humans. This is like a map of an area - flat, and extending in all directions. One can open the history book at any point in any human's experience, thus pinpointing a point on the map - a moment. Or you can follow the line of someone's life - time as we experience it. Or you can study the whole book, examining the entire plane of time. Or rather, the square, or circle, or trapezoid, if you will, of time. Of course, a plane is infinite, and we do not have an infinite knowledge of time.
But if we can look at time like that, like a map, from above, that means we are in a different dimention, a further dimention, as well. Obviously, we are to a certain extent locked in the concept of the "time line" travelling along the "time plane". Yet, somehow, we are able to see that line and that plane from a vantage point outside. I believe that this indicates that every entity that can do this is somehow a part of the third dimention of time - eternity. What part of ourselves contains this capability? Is it consciousness? The supernatural spirit that is not made of matter or energy as we understand it? Do animals, plants, or inanimate objects access eternity in the same way? Is there any way to tell this?
Perhaps time truly is an extension of space. In that case, this would be the 4th, 5th, and perhaps 6th dimentions. (I'm not sure of the numbers, since I'm not sure whether to classify a moment as the 4th dimention, or planar (and our linear experience) as the 4th.
I do hope my theories haven't been expressed too enigmatically. They're alot clearer in my head!
I'm afraid I don't have much to say on the discussions of the nature of matter and energy, or the forces that have been talked about here. But since time was brought up, I had to add my two cents worth! |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Hakuna Matata anyone?
by Dolorosa on Jan 21, 2002 - 03:55 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Yin and Yang chi, the circle of life...the essence of Gaia, heck...from the dust we were created. Lots of ways to say it I guess...Vibes man, just vibes...to complexify a simple concept renders it a pale comparison to what it truly is...just something that is.
|
|
|