Michael
3rd September 2006, 12:22 AM
Hello all, i'm new in, don't bite :)
I'd just like to share some of my thoughts and hear yours.
For a while now i've been thinking about how a universe might automatically start up (I think Spinoza used the phrase 'of itself'). I have a view that studying the logic of contradictory logic might yield some answers.
I started by imagining some kind of void, 'before' spacetime or anything else.. bear with me..
So it seemed to me that one might be able to say that all there is at this stage is potential, or possibility. Or you might say that there isn't any potential, or that one cannot assume it at the least. Or you might say there is something in between. Or something else beyond my thinking abilities.
But you can see that 'object' notions are already hanging around in what i've just said; hold on there they say, this seems to imply time or 'state'! I'm just imagining the possibilities that may or may not exist 'before' time has arrived to start sequencing things, and by talking about possibilities I am not inferring any kind of structure or anything at all necessarily.
Already 'nothing' sounds like a potential idea, i.e. an object of some ethereal type, which may or may not exist within the imagined 'possibilities'. So now we could argue that we are saying that nothing is something, in a sense. Or we might not, we might say this is pants; or we might at least acknowledge there is uncertainty. Uncertainty in what? The reader of this at the moment, or in the possibilities?
It seems that very quickly one is surrounded by contradictory logic, logic that wants to fight with itself. Or maybe it doesn't, maybe it's not bothered. But in one direction, i.e. what for us humans we might say is the semantic direction, a struggle to define the notions of position and form might start amongst the conceptual possibilities, which themselves may or may not exist, and a rather strange form of dynamical state might develop. Another way that I have approached it is through the tussle involved in defining existence as existence is vs existence is describing existence - a curious hybrid seems to develop, which has a lopsided leaning which suggests an overall direction in a sense, possibly time. It always seems to be on the move.
(Also, consider a universe which has separate space and time: would this be meaningful? How could objects form and decay at some level which an observer could take as being durability? It seems that the possibility or idea of it exists though, but we are in the semantic version which necessarily is always on the move. But perhaps it also isn't. One needs to just expand one's model of what existence is, and it seems to me that this can be done through using logic to alter logic, specifically by studying the logic of contradictions.)
After thinking about it for a while it didn't really seem to me that you could run a working universe in any other way, this is the semantic option. The problems surrounding the interactions between the location, located and locator seem to clear up rather well. Things seem to often slide through each other in pure mathematics for example, much to its credit. Could the universe be a dynamical manifestation of mathematics itself, painting by numbers on the move, where spatial emptiness appears at points where there simply is no meaning, where self-consistent relationships can establish themselves, but which never the less must always have their breakdown or theoretical points within them, because of the lack of dynamical meaning of an absolute reality with fully discrete objects and time and fully separate observers of those objects ? Could the big bang be at least semi-theoretical? A change in my model of existence has made a lot of paradoxes fade away for me, but at the same time i'm aware that they are vital elements in the very existence of our world.
But can this 'contradiction logic of the idea of state' or 'contradiction logic of ideas' or 'contradiction logic of logic' be developed into a water-tight logical argument, a system which necessarily starts and cools into our semantic view, by craftily using the inherent uncertainty to produce the required 100% determinism that makes it all happen? Tricky. But I think one might be able to also argue that it doesn't happen, and this would be a beautiful and contributing element of the argument in its own right.
Does any of this make sense, or have I gone bonkers?
The game has to be pretty odd in a sense though doesn't it? I'm not surprised there are some very strange causal cases in relativity - to some degree i figure this is a comedy universe, the idea of a universe unfolding, perhaps we are busy creating ourselves from a standpoint way off in the future (I see the logical argument as having some kind of 'backpatching' component to it). I see this possibility issue as ever unfolding too, maybe from some angle of perspective we are still at the start. But in another sense time is sequentially unfolding. It's just a shift into a looser linear/parallel kind of subjective existence as I am sure you are all used to doing. Subjective with views that are more self-consistent than others though I might add.
Mike :lol:
p.s. I have thought of this as just an extension of evolution back into logic, though this might be misleading.
It seems to me that there needs to be some friction between 0 and 1, friction which involves them being intertwined and separate in a relative and stable dynamical relationship.
I'd just like to share some of my thoughts and hear yours.
For a while now i've been thinking about how a universe might automatically start up (I think Spinoza used the phrase 'of itself'). I have a view that studying the logic of contradictory logic might yield some answers.
I started by imagining some kind of void, 'before' spacetime or anything else.. bear with me..
So it seemed to me that one might be able to say that all there is at this stage is potential, or possibility. Or you might say that there isn't any potential, or that one cannot assume it at the least. Or you might say there is something in between. Or something else beyond my thinking abilities.
But you can see that 'object' notions are already hanging around in what i've just said; hold on there they say, this seems to imply time or 'state'! I'm just imagining the possibilities that may or may not exist 'before' time has arrived to start sequencing things, and by talking about possibilities I am not inferring any kind of structure or anything at all necessarily.
Already 'nothing' sounds like a potential idea, i.e. an object of some ethereal type, which may or may not exist within the imagined 'possibilities'. So now we could argue that we are saying that nothing is something, in a sense. Or we might not, we might say this is pants; or we might at least acknowledge there is uncertainty. Uncertainty in what? The reader of this at the moment, or in the possibilities?
It seems that very quickly one is surrounded by contradictory logic, logic that wants to fight with itself. Or maybe it doesn't, maybe it's not bothered. But in one direction, i.e. what for us humans we might say is the semantic direction, a struggle to define the notions of position and form might start amongst the conceptual possibilities, which themselves may or may not exist, and a rather strange form of dynamical state might develop. Another way that I have approached it is through the tussle involved in defining existence as existence is vs existence is describing existence - a curious hybrid seems to develop, which has a lopsided leaning which suggests an overall direction in a sense, possibly time. It always seems to be on the move.
(Also, consider a universe which has separate space and time: would this be meaningful? How could objects form and decay at some level which an observer could take as being durability? It seems that the possibility or idea of it exists though, but we are in the semantic version which necessarily is always on the move. But perhaps it also isn't. One needs to just expand one's model of what existence is, and it seems to me that this can be done through using logic to alter logic, specifically by studying the logic of contradictions.)
After thinking about it for a while it didn't really seem to me that you could run a working universe in any other way, this is the semantic option. The problems surrounding the interactions between the location, located and locator seem to clear up rather well. Things seem to often slide through each other in pure mathematics for example, much to its credit. Could the universe be a dynamical manifestation of mathematics itself, painting by numbers on the move, where spatial emptiness appears at points where there simply is no meaning, where self-consistent relationships can establish themselves, but which never the less must always have their breakdown or theoretical points within them, because of the lack of dynamical meaning of an absolute reality with fully discrete objects and time and fully separate observers of those objects ? Could the big bang be at least semi-theoretical? A change in my model of existence has made a lot of paradoxes fade away for me, but at the same time i'm aware that they are vital elements in the very existence of our world.
But can this 'contradiction logic of the idea of state' or 'contradiction logic of ideas' or 'contradiction logic of logic' be developed into a water-tight logical argument, a system which necessarily starts and cools into our semantic view, by craftily using the inherent uncertainty to produce the required 100% determinism that makes it all happen? Tricky. But I think one might be able to also argue that it doesn't happen, and this would be a beautiful and contributing element of the argument in its own right.
Does any of this make sense, or have I gone bonkers?
The game has to be pretty odd in a sense though doesn't it? I'm not surprised there are some very strange causal cases in relativity - to some degree i figure this is a comedy universe, the idea of a universe unfolding, perhaps we are busy creating ourselves from a standpoint way off in the future (I see the logical argument as having some kind of 'backpatching' component to it). I see this possibility issue as ever unfolding too, maybe from some angle of perspective we are still at the start. But in another sense time is sequentially unfolding. It's just a shift into a looser linear/parallel kind of subjective existence as I am sure you are all used to doing. Subjective with views that are more self-consistent than others though I might add.
Mike :lol:
p.s. I have thought of this as just an extension of evolution back into logic, though this might be misleading.
It seems to me that there needs to be some friction between 0 and 1, friction which involves them being intertwined and separate in a relative and stable dynamical relationship.