relativity of mind (and one application)

[chaz wyman]

Or to put it more simply....
If you have 10 point of capitalism and want to cancel it out you will need 11 points of communism, leaving 11-10=1 point of communism.
... is ridicuous

yes, because you haven't defined by which parameters this name "capitalism" and this other name "communism" should be defined. A parameter which you are free to pick, given that it strictly adheres to the concept "capitalism" and the concept "communism".

Nor can you with any meaning.
Name one such parameter! As soon as you isolate a parameter then it is no longer communism or capitalism.

Names in a computer program neither gives much sense before you suddenly see it printed on screen as something relating to daily life.

But in the question "is the Soviet Union a communist country or capitalist country?" you could strictly answer it multiple ways, and neither may be wrong, but one would be more accepted than the other as the way of counting. You could count: "how many people identify themselves as communist?", or "how many communist policies are there versus capitalist policies?" or "how many of the parliament call themselves communists?", or you could count multiple of these to measure the general influence of communism in the country versus the influence of capitalism.

But, and here things become interesting: is CHINA a communist country? Definitely it is authoritarian, but those things usually associated with communism seems to have drifted off from chinese policy-making, and now it seems more a capitalist regime.

The Chinese government calls themselves communist, BUT, how can we tell them they are not? We can neither say they are fully capitalist, because there are parts of the policy-making which still adheres to communism, and the government doesn't have the same opinion about free market policy as in the US for instance although you could call it yet a pretty open market in many ways. How do you agree upon a quality for which is neither true or false but something in between? Scientists would of course normally say that there needs to be some kind of "measurement" of political influence here, and if everybody agreed on this measurement, could you object to it just because it is "a quality"?

[The Voice of Time]

Or to put it more simply....
If you have 10 point of capitalism and want to cancel it out you will need 11 points of communism, leaving 11-10=1 point of communism.
... is ridicuous

yes, because you haven't defined by which parameters this name "capitalism" and this other name "communism" should be defined. A parameter which you are free to pick, given that it strictly adheres to the concept "capitalism" and the concept "communism".

Nor can you with any meaning.
Name one such parameter! As soon as you isolate a parameter then it is no longer communism or capitalism.

that true, but doesn't it make sense in a budget to say that the component sales and expenses can logically produce the budget as a whole?

or that the multitude of paint-colours can produce a predetermined colour when combined? Red or blue or yellow may not be black itself, but certainly there is no black without red, blue or yellow, and there is no pure black without the right amounts of it, which is COUNTED. Without the counted precision you are very likely to have some sort of very dark blue, red or yellow instead of actual black.

About "strictly adhering" of course that does not mean it doesn't adhere to something else as well. I cannot name one parameter which universally defines the progress from communism to capitalism (though there mayhap be one), but for an isolated situation I could do with just a single parameter. If everyone agrees that counting the number of self-proclaimed communists in the parliament defines the political orientation of the state, then you might argue it isn't the same as the state being strictly communist, but it works in the instance, and that may be sufficient. By all likelihood a communist would lead a communist policy anyway. Were you to make a full analysis of the state however you would need more parameters than the Bool "Yes, I'm a communist" and "No, I'm not a communist", so multiple parameters.

[ForgedinHell]

You need to ignore that Chaz guy because he is ignorant as hell. There is such a thing as a completed infinite, and it is used in mathematics all the time. Because of such concepts, we end up with seemingly irrational claims as there are as many even natural numbers as there are odd and even natural numbers combined. But the statements are nonetheless true. In any event, mathematicians deal with completed infinites all the time, so his attack on your idea is unfounded, with his claim that an infinite cannot be bounded.

Your idea sounds similar to Aristotle's ethics.

[chaz wyman]

An infinite number of monkey with word processors will immediately write the entire works of Shakespeare. As there are an infinite number, then you won't even have to wait, at least one will start straight away.
But there will also be a monkey who will write the complete works of Shakespeare with a single spelling mistake on page 44.
Hang on if they are truly infinite then there will be more than one monkey doing that - there will be an infinite number of monkeys doing it, and also an infinite number of monkeys writing out the Bible.
Trouble is - how can the same infinite number of monkeys also be writing out the Ethics by Spinoza, and the works of Aristotle. So these monkeys - because they are in an infinite series will all have to be engaged in simultaneous action - all simultaneously randomly writing out an infinite number of books that has been written and will ever be written.
ANy monkey, then, that is deemed part of an infinite set becomes a super-monkey, with magical properties.
This is why the concept of infinity is nothing more than that - a concept - not a thing that can be real.

[The Voice of Time]

I offer to say that infinity isn't the hard equal to endlessness. Endlessness is closer to a notion of things never ending. Infinity is more like the actual endless "all of everything". Endlessness becomes a kind of perspective, like you can look up into the sky and you can say to yourself: "that is an endless number of stars up there", and it does not have to mean infinity, but can mean simply that you can't find any endings to them, which is not the same as saying there is no ending.

[sideshow]

You need to ignore that Chaz guy because he is ignorant as hell. There is such a thing as a completed infinite, and it is used in mathematics all the time. Because of such concepts, we end up with seemingly irrational claims as there are as many even natural numbers as there are odd and even natural numbers combined. But the statements are nonetheless true. In any event, mathematicians deal with completed infinites all the time, so his attack on your idea is unfounded, with his claim that an infinite cannot be bounded.

Your idea sounds similar to Aristotle's ethics.

I may be even more ignorant than Chaz in saying that infinite, infinitely, and infinity may have special definitions in math that might not agree with either the philosophical or the everyday concepts.

Seems to me that infinitely is a procedure, whereas infinity might be a nonexistent in philosophy, just like nothing. If I look into the mirrors at the barber shop, I should see infinitely many me's. An endless series of me's.

[chaz wyman]

I offer to say that infinity isn't the hard equal to endlessness. Endlessness is closer to a notion of things never ending. Infinity is more like the actual endless "all of everything". Endlessness becomes a kind of perspective, like you can look up into the sky and you can say to yourself: "that is an endless number of stars up there", and it does not have to mean infinity, but can mean simply that you can't find any endings to them, which is not the same as saying there is no ending.

In philosophy there seem to be two clear ideas.
Spinoza uses infinite as an expression for something so big the size is unknown, or even unknowable. Of course this is in effect the only meaning that our reality can hold.
The other is the actual endlessnesslessness...., which is not a possible object of perception.
I think you might be expressing the same thing here.

[artisticsolution]

I think it is easier for our minds to think in terms of infinite than finite. It makes more sense to us to say the universe is infinite. I don't think our minds could accept an finite universe. Imagine us ever discovering the end of the universe, I think we would still be seeking a way out.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi,
I've an idea which I can use for many purposes. Of course first I used it then I understood what I did, but I will try explain the other way round here.

If you have any kind of philosophical continuum. Where you have two poles and a infinite straight line between those to poles in the infinite. Like you have with anarchy and dictatorship, chaos and order, freedom and being bound or others like light and darkness (OK maybe that's more of a ray as you can hold fix the one pole pretty easy).
Many more.

In you head it is very easy to just take that straight line and make it a line segment. Of course in math you cannot do so, but some say logic is a step higher than math and there you can do so.

So our axis from minus infinite to plus infinite became a line segment from zero to one or from minus one to one for instance. Now when you put like a function over it, it is in a way much easier to think about it. Let's think of an Gaussian bell curve over a spirit matter continuum. Maybe a philosophical Gaussian bell curve would look a bit different then a mathematical one, anyway you could think of what that kind of thing would look like on you new shaped no more infinite axis right?

What I want to say with this is, that with many of these 'two extreme poles' situations, you need to balance these poles.
And the balance, that in many cases everyone have to find for himself in many cases lies somewhere in the middle between the poles. Cases could maybe be spread over the axis like the Gaussian bell curve would say. So if the Gaussian bell curve is true in a special two extreme poles situation as an ideal the absolute poles are not good ever. All the rest can be but the further to the extremes you go the less likely it is to be a good choice.

Now i Come to an example finally. I Wonder if anyone could follow this highly theoretical stuff from a not native English speaker anyway.

Let's take Freedom and being bound. In the western, especially US American attitude Freedom is a very high quality.
Freedom to do what you want, say what you want, make with your money what you want without anyone interfering.
Being bound is the evil opposite as it seems. But think of it, you could use different names for it (as maybe Wittgenstein would have suggested) like maybe duty or responsibility. On the one hand side for those who you might have a duty or responsibility for, or for those have those towards you. On the other hand side, isn't it great to be allowed to have a duty for someone. Doesn't there always come huge benefits from tasks with high responsibility. And I'm not only talking job, I'm talking having a girlfriend, or being married too.

There where times where they valued duty much higher than freedom. In Germany especially Preußen long before the second world war for instance. Yes maybe that helped to allow the crimes of the second world war. But to revert to the other extreme doesn't really help it I'm sure of.

Like the old Chines symbol of Yin and Yang implies you always have to find your balance. And I am very sad about the unbalanced situation that we have at that matter of Philosophical view that i just described. Freedom and being bound.

Besides adapting this poles to chaos and order, freedom - chaos and duty - order. Where you could go with anarchy - chaos - absolute freedom or dictatorship - order - duty. I'm trying to show the extremes are not good in any of these cases. And in Fact I believe the absolute extreme become equal again. Anarchy become dictatorship because the strongest can then dictate what's being done. On the other hand dictatorship is anarchy because those on top can do what ever they like because no one can stop them from.

You can as well adapt them to the economic system. Where capitalism would be freedom (+ anarchy) while communism would be duty (+ dictatorship).

I could go on describing what I think which kind of middle there should be found between those two. And I gladly will if anyone read so far, and is so roughly agreeing.

Hope anyone understood.

I think I understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that concerning any particular dichotomy, that by leaning to either extreme you don't actually escape it's counterpart, such that these so called dichotomy's are actually an illusion?

[chaz wyman]

I think it is easier for our minds to think in terms of infinite than finite. It makes more sense to us to say the universe is infinite. I don't think our minds could accept an finite universe. Imagine us ever discovering the end of the universe, I think we would still be seeking a way out.

And yet most accept a start to the Universe.
The idea that we are now in the present give us a finite conception of the Universe.
Thus the Universe is bounded by our real perception and the 'facts of science' in space, and it is also limited by our conception of time in the same way.

[artisticsolution]

C:And yet most accept a start to the Universe.

AS: Do they? I am not so sure about that. Let's suppose that scientist discovered the big bang actually 100% happened they way they think it did. would their curiosity be satisfied? Would they not be seeking a way to find out what happened prior to the big bang? Also, let's take Christianity, let's suppose Christians find out that 100% for sure God created the universe. Would they not ask God what created him? I still say it's easier for us to think in terms of infinity rather than the finite.

C:The idea that we are now in the present give us a finite conception of the Universe.

AS: I don't think so...we have a finite conception of our being...but not of the universe's being. I think we struggle with the conception that we are finite. I think we would struggle too perhaps more, if we learned that the universe was finite.

C:Thus the Universe is bounded by our real perception and the 'facts of science' in space, and it is also limited by our conception of time in the same way.

AS: I disagree. The universe is not bound or limited by any "thing" esp not by us. We are the ones who are bound and limited.

[chaz wyman]

C:And yet most accept a start to the Universe.

AS: Do they? I am not so sure about that. Let's suppose that scientist discovered the big bang actually 100% happened they way they think it did. would their curiosity be satisfied? Would they not be seeking a way to find out what happened prior to the big bang? Also, let's take Christianity, let's suppose Christians find out that 100% for sure God created the universe. Would they not ask God what created him? I still say it's easier for us to think in terms of infinity rather than the finite.

C:The idea that we are now in the present give us a finite conception of the Universe.

AS: I don't think so...we have a finite conception of our being...but not of the universe's being. I think we struggle with the conception that we are finite. I think we would struggle too perhaps more, if we learned that the universe was finite.

C:Thus the Universe is bounded by our real perception and the 'facts of science' in space, and it is also limited by our conception of time in the same way.

AS: I disagree. The universe is not bound or limited by any "thing" esp not by us. We are the ones who are bound and limited.

"MOST" = All participants in the 3 major religions on earth, and the scientific community.

The present is a terminus; the present is a continual telos. The future is unknowable and the future for us all is death - that is pretty much what is called "finite".
As we only can know the universe through ourselves and all the indicators are finite - that reduces the infinite to idle speculation.

[chaz wyman]

C:And yet most accept a start to the Universe.

AS: Do they? I am not so sure about that. Let's suppose that scientist discovered the big bang actually 100% happened they way they think it did. would their curiosity be satisfied? Would they not be seeking a way to find out what happened prior to the big bang? Also, let's take Christianity, let's suppose Christians find out that 100% for sure God created the universe. Would they not ask God what created him? I still say it's easier for us to think in terms of infinity rather than the finite.

C:The idea that we are now in the present give us a finite conception of the Universe.

AS: I don't think so...we have a finite conception of our being...but not of the universe's being. I think we struggle with the conception that we are finite. I think we would struggle too perhaps more, if we learned that the universe was finite.

C:Thus the Universe is bounded by our real perception and the 'facts of science' in space, and it is also limited by our conception of time in the same way.

AS: I disagree. The universe is not bound or limited by any "thing" esp not by us. We are the ones who are bound and limited.

"MOST" = All participants in the 3 major religions on earth, and the scientific community.

The present is a terminus; the present is a continual telos. The future is unknowable and the future for us all is death - that is pretty much what is called "finite".
As we only can know the universe through ourselves and all the indicators are finite - that reduces the infinite to idle speculation.

[The Voice of Time]

Seems to me that infinitely is a procedure, whereas infinity might be a nonexistent in philosophy, just like nothing. If I look into the mirrors at the barber shop, I should see infinitely many me's. An endless series of me's.

infinity cannot be proven. It's existence is irrelevant to speak of as anything but belief. But you can speak of it as a "possibility".