Recent heresies
Not recent thoughts, but recently re-thought:
The universe is not infinite.
No thing is infinite.
Infinity is an idea abstracted from finite things.
Infinity is an idea that acts like an equation on whatever number you’re thinking of: infinity > whatever you are thinking of.
It does not mean "bigger than anything you can think of". Because: how would you know that?
Mathematics is an epistemological tool, not an independent statement about the nature of reality.
"Five" does not exist apart from the concept of "five". Only things numbering five, as defined (by humans) by the rules of counting, exist.
Fractions also don’t exist "out there." Only stuff exists out there, and fractions are just relationships between stuff previously designated as units (i.e. single objects, "1") or multiples thereof (i.e. whole numbers). The relations exist, and exist in certain ways, but the perception of those relations, and the conceptualization of them by means of numbers which results in quantification, is just that - conceptual, not physical.
Fractions are one step more abstract than whole numbers.
Irrational numbers, such as square-root of negative one, also do not exist apart from the idea of such. They represent relations between concepts, and do useful cognitive work (i.e. in equations and calculations), but do not refer to anything in reality.
In order to work, and be of value, irrational numbers rely on concepts accurately derived from reality.
—
Entropy is an observation about combinatorics and probability. It is not, by itself, any kind of driver of change. It’s a summary of observed change. It’s not a "thing" itself, but a pattern among things that exist, as perceived by a pattern-identifying consciousness such as ours.
Theories about the origins of the universe which state that at some point all matter was identical, cannot possibly be right.
To the extent that the Big Bang Theory(s) say such things, they are wrong.
Because: heterogeneity cannot arise from complete homogeneity. There would be no mechanism for diversification in the identities of stuff (particles, atoms, elements, stars, organic compounds, life, organisms, etc.)
The observation of increasing diversity of "stuff" in the universe over time shows that the law of entropy is far from all-powerful.
In fact, it shows the drive towards order (by means of matter acting in accordance with its identity) is a stronger long-term force.
"Order" is simply the result of repeated application of the laws of identity and causality.
Probabilistically, a combination of things that look "ordered" or "patterned" are no more exceptional than all other unique combinations of things. Drawing four aces out of the deck is as existentially significant as drawing a four of clubs, seven of diamonds, jack of spades, and two of hearts.
Metaphysically, two different combinations of things must necessarily have different properties, at some level, no matter how insignificant or unexciting to the human mind or human priorities.
Properties are simply the manifestation of identity.
Because things act in accordance with their identity, it is not surprising that things with different identities act differently.
Thus, a combination of "ordered" or "patterned" stuff, with an identity that results in actions and interactions significantly different from stuff that is "unordered" or "unpatterned" is metaphysically expected.
This includes stuff whose properties result in increased retention or production of similar stuff - that is, stuff which is stable and promotes propagation of stuff like it.
Apply this scenario iteratively, and do the math, and the increasing heterogeneity, order and complexity of both the universe and living systems are no surprise.
—
The above is subject to editing and revision, though not without good reason. I think the bulk, or at minimum the gist, is correct. Targeted, constrained, considered comments appreciated, but I’m not about to re-justify the basics at length.
li>
“Targeted, constrained, considered comments appreciated…..”
I guess I am shit out of luck! ;-)
Comment by FIDO — January 5, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Mm, probably not. What I was thinking of - and trying to prevent - are the sorts of objections that, to be answered, require a re-presentation and re-arguing for a single, objective reality, the requirements of human knowledge-building, and a defense of reason holistically applied. Given those premises, it can be relatively easy to show some of these things, and that’s about the maximum extent I’m willing to discuss things in print (otherwise it just spirals out of control in blogspace, and quickly crosses the purpose-of-this-blog line, then I get frustrated, exasperated, and stop conversation all together). Doesn’t mean *I* can elegantly or concisely do it yet, though. Work in progress, etc.
Comment by praxical — January 8, 2007 @ 2:01 am
First of all, I want you to think of me as your retarded intellectual cousin!
Go easy on me!!!!
“The universe is not infinite.”
I agree.
“No thing is infinite.”
I agree, but I oh so wanna say “what about concepts?” or how do you answer the concept of “whatever” plus one?
“Infinity is an idea abstracted from finite things.”
everything plus one…..yep!
“Infinity is an idea that acts like an equation on whatever number you’re thinking of: infinity > whatever you are thinking of.”
Okay! The universe is finite. But what about concepts….think of anything and then add one…Infinity? Is thinking infinite? (scratching head)
(after scratching head) I can only do what can be known. Including thinking. Just because so much can be known does not make infinity possible. All that can be known is only inside the knowable universe. The unknowable is…well, not knowable.
It does not mean “bigger than anything you can think of”. Because: how would you know that?
Know? Okay, I think that is just what I just thunked? Huh?
“Mathematics is an epistemological tool, not an independent statement about the nature of reality.”
Mathematics is easy for me…. Oh yeah, I agree.
“Five” does not exist apart from the concept of “five”. Only things numbering five, as defined (by humans) by the rules of counting, exist. ”
five and infinity are equal as concepts.
“Fractions also don’t exist “out there.” Only stuff exists out there, and fractions are just relationships between stuff previously designated as units (i.e. single objects, “1″) or multiples thereof (i.e. whole numbers). The relations exist, and exist in certain ways, but the perception of those relations, and the conceptualization of them by means of numbers which results in quantification, is just that - conceptual, not physical.”
fractions, infinity and five are equal as concepts.
“Fractions are one step more abstract than whole numbers.”
I kinda disagree…I think they are equal as concepts. Why do you think they are “more” abstract? Just askin?
“Irrational numbers, such as square-root of negative one, also do not exist apart from the idea of such. They represent relations between concepts, and do useful cognitive work (i.e. in equations and calculations), but do not refer to anything in reality.”
Yes.
“In order to work, and be of value, irrational numbers rely on concepts accurately derived from reality.”
Duh!
—
Entropy is an observation about combinatorics and probability. It is not, by itself, any kind of driver of change. It’s a summary of observed change. It’s not a “thing” itself, but a pattern among things that exist, as perceived by a pattern-identifying consciousness such as ours.
Okay, here I think we disagree on definition. I think combinatorics and probability are tools for observing entropy (in reality), not the reverse. (or am I a dummy)
If you say “dummy” I am going to just shit!
I simply think that entropy exists in nature and combinatoronics and probability exist only as concepts.
Or are all are observed? (remember I am a dilettante)
Right now I am observing Shania Twain…Prrrrrrrrr!!!
Is that entropy?…
Entropy is entropy and
Theories about the origins of the universe which state that at some point all matter was identical, cannot possibly be right.
I agree in thinking but do not have the Philosophical gonads to say why….I just think it.
To the extent that the Big Bang Theory(s) say such things, they are wrong.
Expand on this, cuz I want you to!
Pleeeease!!!
Because: heterogeneity cannot arise from complete homogeneity. There would be no mechanism for diversification in the identities of stuff (particles, atoms, elements, stars, organic compounds, life, organisms, etc.)
The observation of increasing diversity of “stuff” in the universe over time shows that the law of entropy is far from all-powerful.
In fact, it shows the drive towards order (by means of matter acting in accordance with its identity) is a stronger long-term force.
“Order” is simply the result of repeated application of the laws of identity and causality.
Probabilistically, a combination of things that look “ordered” or “patterned” are no more exceptional than all other unique combinations of things. Drawing four aces out of the deck is as existentially significant as drawing a four of clubs, seven of diamonds, jack of spades, and two of hearts.
Metaphysically, two different combinations of things must necessarily have different properties, at some level, no matter how insignificant or unexciting to the human mind or human priorities.
Properties are simply the manifestation of identity.
Because things act in accordance with their identity, it is not surprising that things with different identities act differently.
Thus, a combination of “ordered” or “patterned” stuff, with an identity that results in actions and interactions significantly different from stuff that is “unordered” or “unpatterned” is metaphysically expected.
This includes stuff whose properties result in increased retention or production of similar stuff - that is, stuff which is stable and promotes propagation of stuff like it.
Apply this scenario iteratively, and do the math, and the increasing heterogeneity, order and complexity of both the universe and living systems are no surprise.
Comment by FIDO — January 8, 2007 @ 8:49 pm