http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
When taking something in isolation, there is only what IS versus what is NOT the thing. However, such things exist only in the abstract. Even when considering nothingness the question goes begging of "nothingness of what?" For such a nothingness to exist, the idea of something other than the nothingness must be present, otherwise the nothingness is itself complete and "everything" rather than nothingness. Do you see my point? A set is determined by the specification of RELEVANT conditions which determine whether or not something is within the set. Those conditions are taken in CONTEXT within a domain of POSSIBLE conditions. The domain of possible conditions is bounded by the ability to EXPRESS a condition. In other words, the unknown cannot be defined except as the unknown. If the language fails to express a concept, then within THAT language the concept is unknown. The "impossible" is relative within the set of KNOWN, otherwise it would lack a proof of its impossibility and be inexpressibly unknown. As mankind's knowledge base has expanded, the boundaries of the unknown have receded into the distance of our mental landscapes. A cutting insult is to say that someone is small minded. The unknown is still out there, being unknown in its extent, and due to our ability to think only using language rather than in pure abstractions, will be unknown to a different extent depending upon an individual's grasp of the language of thought. A nice compliment is to say that someone has a flexible mind. Their mind expands in response to awareness of ideas not previously expressed. Such persons mark off portions of the unknown and map them out with their ability to scout out ideas and express them in ways which less flexible persons can comprehend. To get back to the topic. At the outermost of the outermost of ... there is the unknown. Within that boundary there is nothingness. Nested inside nothingness is the all. Within the all there is the unthinkable, unbelievable, impossible, inconceivable, and various other territories beyond the boundaries of small minded people until you get down to the nutshell of existence. To those whose minds comprehend only what they perceive of the all, there is nothing outside the nutshell of existence. They say that anyone who thinks outside the nutshell is nuts. LOLOL LOLOL LOLOL. Lonnie Courtney Clay On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:10:06 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > > Hello Roger > > I some time play with the idea of two dimensional objects. These > should be a sort of objects which can only admit two parameters, like > for instance two reference points. > They are of course questioned as separate objects and their existence > as such I agree is problematic, although they are indeed vastly used > in physics and other scientific disciplines > > There are a lot of examples like Temperature, Time, Distance, Speed, > and many others. > Regardless if Time exists or not as a separate object (Steven Hawking > affirms that saying Time is the most inner part of existence, the > void. That something which could not be broken into sub elements, and > if we could somehow enlarge their tiny... what?, space? it fills, we > could travel backwards in Time) This is like fiction of course. > > And my opinion because of my job is that two dimensional objects > indeed exist, but they can only be accessed by language, which is the > most important of the said two dimensional objects > Someone could say that in the end language is certain neuronal > structure, and so the three dimensional rule applies, but that is not. > Language to work does not admit a third parameter and has no volume. > Expressions regarding volumes of information, language or the like do > not refer to language but to its different vehicles. If I say for > instance that my pendrive loads 8 GB of....?, that does not mean > anything regarding language itself, nor the code used to print that > surface, the code is not there. > The same applies for instance to DNA, the physic elements which build > my cells are not the Code, but its printed effects if I can say that. > > This apply to all codes as well like in information theories, and > there are of course 3 or more dimensions in many forms of > developments, but those are just models which cannot escape the boring > 001100000011111 sequence. > > Do you have any position regarding this type of existence. Your > thoughts base pretty much if I'm not wrong in the fact that any > existent object, even the complete absence of existence, must have 3 > dimensions. > Mine is that there are objects which can be accessed through language, > which have just 2, and they are efficient all around us. > > In othe words, back to the model of the boundary, the boundary itself > is also a two dimensional object, has only two parameters, two hands > and nothing in between under this approach. Its mission is just to > separate two instances, in and out, if I get it correctly > > I mean you could even take that boundary as the inner object and to > completely define it, but that requires a second boundary surrounding. > > Thank you for a good conversation > > Carlos > > > > On Aug 23, 2:05 am, Roger <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Carlos, > > > > Hi. I think I agree with you that we're talking about the same > > idea. Also, you're exactly in saying that the complete definition is > > the boundary itself. I think where we separate a little, not in our > > thinking but in what we're thinking about, is that for what I'm > > considering, absolute absence of all that traditionally has been > > thought of as existing, there is no stuff inside the boundary. You > > can't have subcomponents of what's been traditionally thought of as > > non-existence. I think this would be the most fundamental of all > > existent states and would have no separable sub-parts. But, if we're > > not talking about a single instance of this existent state but are > > instead talking about states that exist within a bigger context (or > > bigger set of existent states), then I absolutely agree that the > > boundary would separate two different environments, what's contained > > within and what's outside. > > > > As someone else mentioned, once we can kind of agree on the > > terminology, what's real powerful is figuring out what properties > > these existent states have and what can be done with them. I've tried > > to do that at my website with the existent state that has > > traditionally been called non-existence by using it to build a model > > of physical things. It sounds like you may be working on it from a > > more computer angle? Hopefully, we can do something with these models > > someday! > > > > Also, thanks for telling me how to say Roger in binary! See you. > > > > 0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (aka Roger) > > > > P.S. I checked it out and Carlos is > > 0100001101100001011100100110110001101111011100110000110100001010 > > > > On Aug 22, 2:40 pm, einseele <eins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Roger > > > > > I think we are tuning somehow the same channel, and may be using > > > different words trying to point the same. > > > > > > o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is > > > > equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I > > > > > think could also be called information in that the complete > definition > > > > tells what is contained within and thus provides information. > > > > > I agree with this, so I will switch to "complete definition" instead > > > using the word "information", > > > Just want to remark that the complete definition should be in this > > > model the boundary itself, and regardless what is contained within, > > > that boundary is different of the contained package. > > > Goes beyond since it needs to separate at least two different > > > environments. Defining completely its contents is equivalent to define > > > what that content is not. The negative part of that content is as well > > > a complete definition, even not being or not existent. > > > Is here where I like to use the word "absence", which in no sense > > > means not existing but "not here" > > > > > In binary systems that absence is represented by a zero (0), or better > > > said the lack of a signal on any given surface, the lack of that > > > signal is filled with language. In reality that 0 mark assumes the > > > representation of something which did not show up. That something is > > > absent, not here, not within the contained part, although certainly is > > > part of the complete definition if I may say. > > > > > For instance, if I encode "Roger" into a common binary sequence you > > > will have your name expressed as: > > > 0101001001101111011001110110010101110010 (you can play with this at: > http://www.nickciske.com/tools/binary.php) > > > > > A computer system would print just a few signals (the 1s), and would > > > leave empty spaces represented by the 0s, that empty space is > > > meaningful because of its relative position to the only signal (1) > > > > > I believe this is just another way of saying: > > > > > > The complete absence is independent of our mind's conception of it, > and, in and of itself, > > > > completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really > > > > > an existent state." > > > > > rgds > > > > > Carlos > > > > > On Aug 22, 2:26 am, Roger <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Carlos, > > > > > > Hi. I'm not sure if I completely understand, but what I'd say in > > > > > response is that: > > > > > > o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is > > > > equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I > > > > > think could also be called information in that the complete > definition > > > > tells what is contained within and thus provides information. > > > > > > o I prefer to not just say "information" without defining what is > > > > meant by that. Physicists do this all the time, but what exactly is > > > > > information? To me, it doesn't matter what you call the fundamental > > > > unit of existence (information, mathematical constructs, matter, > > > > fundamental particles, etc.), it still exists, and the key is finding > > > > > out why it exists instead of not existing. I think by saying that a > > > > thing exists if what is contained within or meant by that thing is > > > > completely defined is at least a mechanism or reason for why things > > > > exist. Then, once knowing why the fundamental thing exists, I'd > agree > > > > with you in saying that this complete definition is equivalent to > > > > information. > > > > > > o I agree completely that the universe is composed of one fundamental > > > > > kind of existent state (or particle). If physicists and philosophers > > > > really want a unified theory of the universe, this is about as > unified > > > > as you can get. What I'm suggesting is that this fundamental > existent > > > > state is equivalent to what we've traditionally, and incorrectly, > > > > thought of as the complete lack-of-all, or non-existence, because > this > > > > complete lack-of-all, in and of itself, completely describes the > > > > entirety of what is there and is thus a complete definition or an > > > > existent state. Whether or not its called the complete lack-of-all > > > > or absence-of-information, I think the reason we've always > incorrectly > > > > thought of it as an absence of something is because we're forced to > > > > think of it within our minds, which exist and which have information. > > > > > Next to our minds, it just looks like a complete absence. But, this > > > > complete lack-of-all/absence-of information, and not our mind's > > > > conception of it, doesn't face this constraint. The complete absence > > > > > is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, in and of itself, > > > > > completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really > > > > > an existent state. Whether you call this existent state information > > > > or something else doesn't matter; it's the fundamental unit of > > > > existence. Overall, this sounds very similar to what you're saying > > > > that "the absence of information is some kind of information". > > > > > > So, sorry for such a long-winded reply, and I think I pretty much > > > > > agree with you. What you call information, I prefer to call a > > > > complete definition because it kind of describes more of a mechanism/ > > > > > reason for what it means. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > On Aug 20, 3:15 pm, einseele <eins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Roger > > > > > > > In case that boundary gives substance and existence, would you > agree > > > > > that information matches as a concept that boundary definition. > > > > > And if so, would you agree that that boundary contacts both the > inner > > > > > and outer components of this model. > > > > > And if so, would you also agree that the outer hand of that > boundary > > > > > somehow is related to the non existent part (non existent to the > inner > > > > > object). > > > > > If we could imagine an universe made of just one particle, the > outer > > > > > space of that universe being non existent should have at least an > > > > > attribute, not having the only particle, would you agree that that > > > > > only attribute is enough to completely define the only particle > within > > > > > its counterpart universe. > > > > > In other words, could be that the absence of information is some > kind > > > > > of information. And if so would you agree that that kind is the > only > > > > > information possible. > > > > > > > I would of course. To me information is the absent part of the > > > > > equation > > > > > > > Thank you too > > > > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 3:32 am, Roger <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Carlos, > > > > > > > > Hi. Thanks for the comment and for reading my posting! The > idea > > > > > > that the complete definition of something is a boundary or edge > that > > > > > > gives substance and existence to a thing seems to make sense to > me. > > > > > > Also, it sounds similar to stuff physicists are talking about now > such > > > > > > as string theory (strings seem like boundaries) and that we may > be > > > > > > holographic projections from a membrane (ie, boundary). Thanks > again! > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 9:09 am, einseele <eins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I found your post very interesting! > > > > > > > > > A philosophical engineering is possible yes I'm sure. > > > > > > > In other words, to develop certain objects, right through pure > > > > > > > speculation, which are able to interact in a third position > which is > > > > > > > not purely scientific or philosophic. (if I got correctly the > > > > > > > expression) > > > > > > > > > Called my attention what you called here the "boundary" which > "gives" > > > > > > > substance. > > > > > > > > > best > > > > > > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 2:26 am, Roger <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If anyone is interested, I put some of my ideas on why > things > > > > > > > > exist, why is there something rather than nothing, and > infinite sets > > > > > > > > at the following website: > > > > > > > > > >https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/ > > > > > > > > > > The abstract of the "Why do things exist and why is there > > > > > > > > > something rather than nothing?" paper is also below. Thank > you! > > > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > > > Why Do > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/LkEQwy_Fq3cJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
