Why Thinking Is Over-rated

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:44 pm Perhaps this is a conversation best had on another day, but the Eastern notion, "All is One," can be taken on many levels, including the literal. One's own perspective is one's thinking . "One" is a non-intellectual concept.
Well, you can also interpret it as "converge into One future/reality" Sure.
simplicity wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:44 pm Consider the following...the physical Universe is set up [by convention] such that one's position within it determines distance/time from another object. Light emanating from said object can be seen by an observer at every time/distance interval.

If you had an infinite number of observers stretched out from 1 Angstrom unit [from the object] infinitely, each observer would be seeing the same thing at a different time. Therefore, the same event is taking place at over and over [it is only your relative distance from the object that is variable]. What does time mean in this instance?
Time is the smallest unit of change. In Western Philosophy it's also known as a contradiction.

P ∧ -P.
simplicity wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:44 pm This also takes place in our everyday life as the objects in our field of view exist in different times [dependent on distance]. How is it that we see all these objects at the same time, or is it that we are seeing all of these objects at different times?
We don't see them at the "same time". The "same time" is only a point in time. Points are idealised locations. They don't really exist.

simplicity wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:44 pm It appears as if our brains have taken a reality which we could never comprehend and morphed it into something we try to make sense of but never can.
Yeah, well. You should absolutely distrust your experienes. But you should distrust your understanding even less.
Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Fja1 »

simplicity wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:51 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 5:15 pmSomething can be understood at the conceptual level with no creation involved at all
Perhaps you mean that you can make an idea conform to some convention.

In that even the simplest thing has been brought into being by an infinite number of events preceding [and each of those events have been brought into being by an infinite number of events], it should be clear that understanding anything is quite impossible. When it comes to people, you can never understand why they do anything [and only have an extremely vague idea as to what they are doing].

Perhaps a better term might be that we "recognize" something.
Infinite, or infinite and also uncountably infinite?

I don't know if at any point you might have conceded to an aporia around the debate whether reality/nature is simple or complex - a more accessible argument that reality/nature is indeed simple was something left to be desired. Consider the argument of the universality of dialectic, ie. is dialectic universal and exists in nature (dogmatic dialectics, Hegel and Schelling), or is dialectic something that uniquely exists in the teleological subject and thus contradicton in reality/nature is merely an illusion (critical dialectics, Sartre)?
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Fja1 wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:52 pmI don't know if at any point you might have conceded to an aporia around the debate whether reality/nature is simple or complex - a more accessible argument that reality/nature is indeed simple was something left to be desired. Consider the argument of the universality of dialectic, ie. is dialectic universal and exists in nature (dogmatic dialectics, Hegel and Schelling), or is dialectic something that uniquely exists in the teleological subject and thus contradicton in reality/nature is merely an illusion (critical dialectics, Sartre)?
Reality is Absolute Simplicity and The Intellectual is infinitely complex. All things knowable [intellectual] are brought to life by an infinite number of things preceding. OTOH, Reality just IS. No explanation necessary...only discrete moments existing outside of time.
Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Fja1 »

simplicity wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:22 am
Fja1 wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:52 pmI don't know if at any point you might have conceded to an aporia around the debate whether reality/nature is simple or complex - a more accessible argument that reality/nature is indeed simple was something left to be desired. Consider the argument of the universality of dialectic, ie. is dialectic universal and exists in nature (dogmatic dialectics, Hegel and Schelling), or is dialectic something that uniquely exists in the teleological subject and thus contradicton in reality/nature is merely an illusion (critical dialectics, Sartre)?
Reality is Absolute Simplicity and The Intellectual is infinitely complex. All things knowable [intellectual] are brought to life by an infinite number of things preceding. OTOH, Reality just IS. No explanation necessary...only discrete moments existing outside of time.
Perhaps you picked this up from Plato's Timaeus, and I cite Wikipedia (.fr) "There is no true reality in the incessant change created by the becoming; and there is no rigorous knowledge without a certain permanence. So, the sensible world, subject to perpetual change (contrary to eternal ideas, εἴδη, which are neither changing nor moving) must remain unknown." However, I interpret Plato as considering this "rigorous knowledge" as part of reality.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:22 am ...only discrete moments existing outside of time.
This is equivocation. Time is a social construct for measuring change, duration between events etc.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:52 pm
simplicity wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:22 am ...only discrete moments existing outside of time.
This is equivocation. Time is a social construct for measuring change, duration between events etc.
Words are what they are...nowhere close to the truth of the matter.

Actually, time is complete non-sense as even in its contrived meaning, it refuses to hold water. Time only works for a single point in a single moment. Even for the human intellect, it's kind of a weak sister.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:01 am Time only works for a single point in a single moment.
Prevarication.

What do you mean by "moment"?
What do you mean by "time"?

You should notice that while you are reading this very sentence some time passed from the time you started reading it till the time you got here. You didn't read it simultaneously. Weird huh?

Time is what prevents everything from happening at the same instant.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 am What do you mean by "moment"?
What do you mean by "time"?
A moment lies outside of time. I am not sure there is a way of explaining what it is. Either you kind of get it or you don't.

Time is used in the traditional sense.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 amYou should notice that while you are reading this very sentence some time passed from the time you started reading it till the time you got here. You didn't read it simultaneously. Weird huh?
No. Again, the conception of time is relative to a specific point.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 amTime is what prevents everything from happening at the same instant.
Everything is happening at the same time. It just doesn't appear that way from your perspective.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 am What do you mean by "moment"?
What do you mean by "time"?
A moment lies outside of time. I am not sure there is a way of explaining what it is. Either you kind of get it or you don't.

Time is used in the traditional sense.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 amYou should notice that while you are reading this very sentence some time passed from the time you started reading it till the time you got here. You didn't read it simultaneously. Weird huh?
No. Again, the conception of time is relative to a specific point.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 amTime is what prevents everything from happening at the same instant.
Everything is happening at the same time. It just doesn't appear that way from your perspective.
You didn't write this post in an "instant", did you? It took you some amount of time above zero.

And if you insist that it's "true" that everything happens at the same time, but it just "doesn't appear that way" from mine (and YOUR) perspective then I must ask...

HOW do you know?
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:09 pm
simplicity wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 am What do you mean by "moment"?
What do you mean by "time"?
A moment lies outside of time. I am not sure there is a way of explaining what it is. Either you kind of get it or you don't.

Time is used in the traditional sense.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 amYou should notice that while you are reading this very sentence some time passed from the time you started reading it till the time you got here. You didn't read it simultaneously. Weird huh?
No. Again, the conception of time is relative to a specific point.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:10 amTime is what prevents everything from happening at the same instant.
Everything is happening at the same time. It just doesn't appear that way from your perspective.
You didn't write this post in an "instant", did you? It took you some amount of time above zero.

And if you insist that it's "true" that everything happens at the same time, but it just "doesn't appear that way" from mine (and YOUR) perspective then I must ask...

HOW do you know?
Let's say you have an event [an enormous light flash] go off witnessed by a row of observers each positioned a light year apart for a trillion light years in distance. Each observer will see the light flash [assuming it's bright enough to see] at one light intervals for a trillion years. If you had an infinite number of observers occupying every possible point in the Universe, the same would apply. Most everybody would be seeing the same event at a different time relative to only themselves [and anybody else who happens to be at the same distance as you].

IOW, everybody is seeing the same thing going on at the same time [the same event], the difference in your appreciation of time only being relative to your position vis a vis the event. The deal is that our brain can only handle so much information which is why we perceive all things in our visual field happening simultaneous when they are not. For example, how are we able to see light emanating from a star millions of light years away at the same time you are looking at your buddy standing right next to you?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:25 am Let's say you have an event [an enormous light flash] go off witnessed by a row of observers each positioned a light year apart for a trillion light years in distance. Each observer will see the light flash [assuming it's bright enough to see] at one light intervals for a trillion years. If you had an infinite number of observers occupying every possible point in the Universe, the same would apply. Most everybody would be seeing the same event at a different time relative to only themselves [and anybody else who happens to be at the same distance as you].

IOW, everybody is seeing the same thing going on at the same time [the same event], the difference in your appreciation of time only being relative to your position vis a vis the event. The deal is that our brain can only handle so much information which is why we perceive all things in our visual field happening simultaneous when they are not. For example, how are we able to see light emanating from a star millions of light years away at the same time you are looking at your buddy standing right next to you?
What you are missing from this thought experiment is that there are some observers who will never see the event. Ever.

Google for "Light Cone special relativity". Also Google for "Lamport clocks" or "Vector clocks".

One perfect example of such an event (that cannot be seen by some) is the Big Bang itself. It cannot be seen past the heat death of the universe because the system's is no longer able to DO any work - the system is unable to cause. The system is unable to transfer information.

You are preaching information processing to an information theorist. Methinks you are missing a piece of the puzzle.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:13 am
What you are missing from this thought experiment is that there are some observers who will never see the event. Ever.

Google for "Light Cone special relativity". Also Google for "Lamport clocks" or "Vector clocks".

One perfect example of such an event (that cannot be seen by some) is the Big Bang itself. It cannot be seen past the heat death of the universe because the system's is no longer able to DO any work - the system is unable to cause. The system is unable to transfer information.

You are preaching information processing to an information theorist. Methinks you are missing a piece of the puzzle.
Time cannot exist without distance. It's not a matter of when, but where. There is a place in the Universe where everything that has ever happened is happening right this second. If the BB is true, then you can see it if you position yourself at the "leading edge."

Therefore, each person is indeed the center of their own Universe [intellectually, anyway]. Point by point, time exists, but as a whole, it has no meaning.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:43 pm Time cannot exist without distance.
Time IS a distance-metric!

There is a time-distance between NOW and NOW.
simplicity wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:43 pm There is a place in the Universe where everything that has ever happened is happening right this second.
Nope. It can't be IN the universe.

Because such a place would have to be equidistant from every NOW and the distance between that place and every NOW has to be exactly 0 (instant causality/infinite light speed).
Irrespective of how many temporal dimensions there are.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by simplicity »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:45 pmNope. It can't be IN the universe.

Because such a place would have to be equidistant from every NOW and the distance between that place and every NOW has to be exactly 0 (instant causality/infinite light speed).
Irrespective of how many temporal dimensions there are.
If you use the BB as the beginning, in theory you can still see it at the leading edge of the expanding Universe, no? Everything that took place after the BB will be right behind it. It's maybe the best example of how people attempt to make Reality fit into our simple appreciation of, "what it is."

Imagine the burden of believing that you can actually [really] figure something out!
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Thinking Is Over-rated

Post by Skepdick »

simplicity wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:05 pm If you use the BB as the beginning, in theory you can still see it at the leading edge of the expanding Universe, no? Everything that took place after the BB will be right behind it. It's maybe the best example of how people attempt to make Reality fit into our simple appreciation of, "what it is."

Imagine the burden of believing that you can actually [really] figure something out!
Yes... I understand your conception.

I also pointed out that this is equivalent to O(1) (constant) time-complexity in complexity theory. The Universe can compute all of its own, eternal consequences instentaneously.

This vantage point from which all time is equidistant is what Christians call God's omnipresence.
Post Reply