This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is our math wrong? Is it our assumption of zero, or absolute nothingness?
There are know phenomena out there such as the gamma ray burst that total destroys(use loosely your ego wants to argue this syntax error not the mind) our current math and physics(e=mc2). But instead of saying well maybe we got a key part of our math wrong we make it so the phenomena matches our math. This is my personal take on what I think might be wrong. I think it has to do with our assumption of zero. Seeing how you can never have absolute nothingness as a base or starting point. Conceptually the idea of zero is great. I want an apple. But i am in a complete void of apples. I don't have a single one. Not even applesauce! I have ZERO apples. But I do not need to know that you have zero apples to know when you have 1 apple. On the other had I do need to know that you have 1 apple to understand that now you have 2 apple. I could be wrong. It just something that bothers me.
Also I am not a math person it has always been something I struggled with in school those pesky numbers. However in College I excelled at Logic, but that has been some time ago.
I am not say this is the answer I just say that I think there is something fundamentally wrong with our math
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Kris Christenson
If we only perceive that there are things and matter and that perception is wrong, then do you perceive the universe in a different way? Do you look around and see anything other than matter? I would assume that your perception is identical to mine and if so, you can't possible perceive the universe in the way you suggest. How is it in any way logical to assume that everyone's perception is wrong? I would love to see an argument or any kind of evidence against our perception of existence. If you already have within this conversation (I admit I haven't had the time to read all the hundreds of comments) feel free to simply direct me toward it. I just fail to see any reason to believe that our perception is as wildly inaccurate as you claim. Also, the statement "reality is a concept that has no basis in reality" is a pretty hardcore fallacy, but that part's not important.
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am sure Mark will be here to add further discussion. But you can start with the video "about what we really know" about the world we call reality:
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_lloyd_an_animated_tour_of_the_invisible.html
Yes we I assume that Mark does as well, when we see the "reality" that is around us it looks pretty much the same. But when you try to see with what science sees our perceptual reality no longer has any footing, we simple don't know why we see what we see with our eyes.
Kris Christenson
The only thing in it that pertains to this conversation in any real sense is a brief mention that the closer you look at matter the more you find that it is energy. And yes, our perception of matter is really a reflection of the behavior of energy. However, space still exists and this energy is taking up space. Furthermore, it takes up a finite amount of space, since taking on matter is a characteristic of energy when it behaves in certain ways, and certain bits of matter only take up so much space. So again, energy cannot be created or destroyed so there is a finite amount of it and the universe is expanding so the amount of space is increasing. Blank spaces still exist.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
I believe matter exist because we are pattern seekers. Trying to perceive something that might be there or not. I imagine this is how the eye was developed. First the cells were attracted to the light(sun) then they had to imagine or invoke the lights energy wave. I would suggest that the evolving eye(this can be seen as the pituitary gland) they saw all wave lengths of light but was seen(use loosely) as static or white noise. Then from there we (us bacteria and other single celled orgasms) attempted and tried to make patterns out of this static. As these patterns emerged they became our conceptual understanding of reality. As a consciousness we agreed to use these patterns real or otherwise as our collective understanding of the physical world. Just trying to make sense of it all on a fundamental level.
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/rds-ex.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception if we were all cyclopes we would not live in this 3d world for wewould not have as great of depth.
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/benoit_mandelbrot_fractals_the_art_of_roughness.
Mr Mandelbrot talks about his amazing infinite fractal code which with 3 or for turns of his code created a 3d image. He is not sure why he added color but it so he could see all the amazing patterns and there detail. The colors part is not till the end but you should watch the whole video
Mark Meijer 100+
In a way, everyone perceives the universe in a different way. But sure, in some sense we all perceive it somewhat similarly. Even if only because a big part of the selection process is determined by our sensory apparatus. And also because much of our attention (which is another component of selection) is driven by the interpretation component, and at least in a very basic sense we all interpret our sensory impressions similarly. Although note that much of this is learned in early developmental stages, and much of it can be unlearned.
But our similarities in perception is the only reason we can communicate at all. Where people's perceptions of the world may differ in significant ways, would be largely in terms of their interpretation, which is a translation into terms of past perception (i.e. memory). But there's something else too. It should be obvious that truth is not a matter of interpretation, and yet we often consider our interpretation of the world as being the truth. The extent to which we do this, might be called the extent to which our own interpretations are opaque to ourselves, because we fail to recognize our perception as partial and warped.
Mark Meijer 100+
Now am I saying this is wrong? No. It's just life, quite literally. Am I saying it is untrue? Ultimately, yes. And the extent to which this really sinks in, is the extent to which your own projections become more transparent to yourself. And what it comes down to, is that it's projection all the way down, even down to matter. For example, a baby who has not yet learned much in the way of interpreting its sensory impressions, sees more or less the same as you do, but it does not see matter. What you see is also not matter, that's just a learned, projected interpretation, opaque or not (i.e. whether you recognize that or not).
Kris Christenson
For starters, you posited that there are no things. You didn't really explain what they are instead but I'm deducing that you would posit either that what we perceive as matter is either groupings of energy or something that we don't have the ability to understand. The former seems more likely so I'll go with that. If the things we perceive as being matter are in fact not matter but actually energy that doesn't change the fact that there is a thing, it only changes the formal definition of what a thing is. In that case a thing is a grouping of energy that behaves in a manner that causes it to take up space. So long as there is something, whether it's energy or matter or whatever, that takes up space and the amount of space is increasing then there will at some point in time be blank spaces and thus zero. A place devoid of energy is a place where there is zero.
Also, yes much of our perception of reality will be false. We can't see everything and we do interpret everything but having a different interpretation of something doesn't change what it actually is. To go off of one of your examples, if I made a chocolate statue of Jesus and ate it at a party, yes there would be many people who would take a perceive it in a different manner as I would. However, that doesn't change what it is that makes up the statue. I can say it's made of deliciousness and they can say it's made of sin but ultimately it's made of chocolate. So if truth is as I said an accurate representation of reality, and reality (even though what we perceive may not be exactly reality) exists, then there is truth. We may not know the full truth of anything, and we may not be able to know the full truth of anything, but truth still must exist if there is a reality.
Now, you could I'm sure somehow contend that there is no reality. But I'm going to take a preemptive strike against that presently.
Kris Christenson
Mark Meijer 100+
I would agree, truth exists and is absolute. I'm not saying there is no truth, that was Casey. Although I assume he means there is no absolute truth in perception, and with that I would agree. Which brings us to that logical fallacy about reality. Because after all, perception is everything, right? So then where is truth? Let's just say that if you really dive deeper into this rabbit hole, you'll find more and more dichotomies begin to lose their meaning, including real/unreal, existence/nonexistence, something/nothing. Also you'll find more and more seeming paradoxes dissolve.
I can't really explain this, except to say that those dichotomies are formally called dualities, paradoxes only apparently exist in dualities, and dualities are false (mind-made projections/abstractions). Truth is what is called nondual. If this makes no sense right now, then don't worry about it. I only mention it in case you've ever heard of it (although I'm not sure I'd be doing you a favor, because nonduality has become a whole convoluted topic in itself, and I couldn't blame you if the mention of it turned you off flat due to any of the misconceptions out there).
Mark Meijer 100+
I admit it's a tricky notion to convey that there are no things as such, and it undermines pretty much everything we tend to take for granted. The notion of a thing is itself dualistic, since it falsely implies a fundamental disconnect between the thing and the rest of existence. That's why I said before, that existence does not come in isolated parts (it doesn't come "thinged"), there is no such disconnect except in the way we think about things.
This is going to be several long posts, and I won't be able to do it justice. And to be fair, no amount of explaining is going to do it justice, unless you really take it into further consideration, and use it to honestly investigate your usual notions and the facts of your direct experience. That is, if you're actually interested in this. There's no obligation of course.
Mark Meijer 100+
Enough with the introductory nonsense already. There are two basic and complementary ways to approach this (based on the most fundamental false dichotomy ever invented). One is from the objective side, and the other is from the subjective side. Actually that's not really what that is, but whatever...
Let's start with the objective side... Ok so I started writing this whole thing, and found that I simply couldn't adequately cover it within a reasonable size limit for TED. This is already way too long as it is... So it's probably best if I refer you to another source that explains it all a lot better. Please feel free to disregard any of the tangents and flowery passages if you prefer. That's what I do.
http://www.emptiness.co/intro
Mark Meijer 100+
Now consider that everything you see and feel and taste etc. all your sensory experience, takes place inside your mind. You may think that's a blue sky up there, but whatever is up there, the blue-ness is an experiential quality created by your visual apparatus. And that's not just the eyes themselves, you don't see the retinal image directly. What you see is the interpretation by your brain, of the signals sent to it by your eyes, through a whole multi-staged pipeline of complex processing. What you see and feel and taste etc. is your mind from the inside.
Whatever you think is "out there", whatever you might imagine or say about it, you can only think of it in terms of past experiences, which are all just the inside of your mind (this is why the reality underlying perception is sometimes refered to as the void, not because there's nothing, but because whatever is there can never be defined in any terms available to us, because those are all based in perception... which means it's moot anyway, it just means "don't know, can't know, who cares" :P).
Mark Meijer 100+
Now, our notion of things is based on the perceived boundaries created by outlines, be they visual or tactile or whatever. In reality, those boundaries are not there. All apparent boundaries are just the outlines evoked by our selective senses, and then we conceive of them as existing that way independently of our senses. But as boundaries, they exist only inside our mind again. They entered into the pipe, so to speak, as an artifact of our sensory and cognitive apparatus.
Bleh, this is far from complete, but I'm done writing for now... Let's see how you get on with this so far, if you're even interested in delving into these things :P. The point is simply to find out what you base all your ideas on (in this case, ideas about what makes existence just a collection of objectively and independently existing things). I'm curious what you think.
Oh, as for "I think therefore I am"... Maybe you can already see the flaw in that. Maybe thinking can not be disputed (although if you've done your emptiness homework... :P), but what about the thinker? Thinking is just another mode of experience, just like seeing and touching etc. None of which can be disputed. But remember how there is no difference between the observer and the observed, how there is actually only the process of observing itself?
So then, is there a thinker as distinct from the thoughts, or is there just the process of thinking? Where is this "I" who Descartes claims to exist just because thought exists? Sounds to me like that's just another thought... He didn't prove "I am", he proved "being", and not even his own ;).
Cheers
Casey Christofaris 10+
You read me, and write like a finely tuned violin. And I thank you ....Thank you
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am sorry that I am hard to understand in written words, this is something I now know I need to work on.
Truth does exist and there can be although I dont like the wording (absoluteness) to the truth example apple. However it is much better to view it how Mark pointed out that "Although I assume he means there is no absolute truth in perception". And that is basically what I am getting at that the only truth is perspective/perception. So one mans truth could be another mans falsity. Then of course the next question is Who is right? they both are
Mark Meijer 100+
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm
Enjoy...
Mark Meijer 100+
A more useful way of thinking about existence is as a shifting pattern of no substance. If you're having trouble with the appearance of solidity, just think about lightsabers from star wars or force fields from star trek. They have no substance, and yet they resist interpenetration. Not sure if I'm making any sense to you at all, but so be it.
Mark Meijer 100+
http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/
Casey Christofaris 10+
What David is talking about in the WOI about cause and effect could be better refined as balance.
Mark Meijer 100+
Casey Christofaris 10+
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ff4alm3y4z3uepn/ZB_awAS_5U
Did you get my email I sent through ted?
Mark Meijer 100+
Yes I received your email two days ago and wrote two replies within the next day or so. I'm not sure but it's possible that TED somehow causes a delay in the delivery, I've suspected that before.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Mark Meijer 100+
http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=535#comment-643
Kris Christenson
Sorry I've been away, grad school has kept me busy.
So your whole stand point here leans on this whole dissolving of the dichotomy between observer and observed. I must admit it is an interesting thought, I'm tempted to compare it to solipsism but where solipsism is highly isolated your take is really the opposite. And I do agree with everything up until the observer is found to be the observed. It's just not a logical move to me. The reason I take issue is that everything up until that point is pushing for an incredibly Humean stand point. Where your argument seems to be going from there is the conclusion that we can't know what exists. After all, since knowledge is justified true belief (if you ignore the Gettier problem but that only applies to special circumstances so for now we can stick to the old school definition), and we can't be sure that our perception is an accurate representation of our surroundings and thus not adequate justification, our perception cannot create knowledge. So then we can't come to have knowledge based on what we perceive. You, however seem to be claiming some level of knowledge of what exists. You, however seem to be claiming to have some level of knowledge as to what exists. I'm looking into this whole "dualism" bit because I have not encountered it before, I'll see what I can make of it. I feel I should note that I am not a Humean, though I keep making references to it, I tend more toward materialism, though since I can't prove either is wrong then I can't prove either is right so I can't know that but that's a different matter.
Mark Meijer 100+
I guess it depends on what you mean by knowledge, but yeah there is in principle no such thing as true knowledge in the way that we usually think of it. That whole notion is based on the belief that things have an objective, essential existence independent of ourselves, which is waiting to be discovered by ourselves. And that is patently false.
So it's not even because we can't know whether our perception is or is not accurate, that whole question is moot, it still assumes that there is something waiting to be discovered. What we consider to be reality is in fact defined by the scope of our perception. At some point, if you really get into this stuff, it stops making sense to postulate anything particular going on outside of perception, because all particulars are created by perception, and can only be considered in terms of perception. For example you can only talk about what anything looks like with reference to whatever is used to look at it (your visual apparatus, which includes your eyes and the visual processing done by the brain).
Solipsism seems to make sense on the face of it, but at some point that too goes out the window. It can't really be proven correct, and strictly speaking it can't be proven false either. But the problem with it is that it rests on the assumption of separation, which is also patently false. One very basic duality is self/other (that's the one which makes some things seem personal and which makes you feel in control of your life), and the thing with all dualities is that neither polarity can ever exist without the other one, just like you'll always have two sides to a coin.
Mark Meijer 100+
I'm not saying the observer is the observed, I'm not sure what that means. I'm saying that is another duality. There is really only the process of observation (experiencing), which gives rise to the false impression of there being two independently existing sides to a transaction (observer and observed).
I don't know anything about Humean stand points or Gettier problems, you'll have to be more specific. I don't stick to any particular philosopher's thoughts as a package deal, and besides I'm not an academic :P. Moreover, the only reason to name any argument after any philosopher, is to bring in other associated arguments, and then projecting all that back onto what was being said. Never a good idea, best to just stick to what was actually being said.
Mark Meijer 100+
And in principle, everyone can find this out for themselves, by taking whatever we think we know all the way to its conclusion, and gradually and persistenly digging into the enormous structure of unexamined assumptions that it's all based on.
So it's not a matter of formulating "the correct" philosophical position, but of eliminating whatever foundation we base ourselves on, as and when they turn out to not be able to carry any weight. And then to see, actually see (not hypothesize) what is left when you're no longer taking those ghosts seriously, as it were.
We're only ever aware of the tip of the iceberg (of all those foundational assumptions). That's what makes it all seem so convincing, often even ridiculous to question. And indeed people do get ridiculed for it all the time.
Mark Meijer 100+
"The Paradox of Causality in Mādhyamika"
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc33378.htm
"Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness: Why did Nagarjuana start with causation?"
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/Dependent_Arising.htm