|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:29 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Lol Descartes is no skeptic, he's only a skeptic to himself in constructing his theory. If you read Meditations, he eliminates all possibilities for deception to construct his theory. He even distrusts his senses, and as you go through the book, he tries to find ways to justify trusting them. Although it is a good thing you brought him up, I intended to use one of his
rationalizations in this very arguement.
Whether this is virtual reality or not, one constant that will always remain is mathematics and geometry. If you look at our dreams, obviously everything we dream is much like reality. All of a right triangle's sides still add up to the same amount of degrees, and we never invent any new colors. So by saying this, we already establish that even if we are in VR, it must be much like our own reality. For the initial arguement, you can also see that geometrically, VR does not really exist. The only physical manifestation it has are glowing pictures on our computer screens. It would be the same as if we created a move of just moving pictures, and were able to move from picture to picture at will.
Second is the fact that we are conscious beings. no matter how far we've gone with technology, we've never been able to create a thinking, reasoning mind. We have created AI, but even this does not truly think, and is only a set of protocols and directions. Not only does this detract from our being a VR a bit, but it also shows that the VR we create is not true VR. There are no people within it that are native there, only those from IRL. In this, we are unique.
As we cannot create minds, there is also no way the "people who created us" are the same beings, simply because we do not have the power to create minds. This contradicts my earlier point, saying that the ones in the other reality have to be a lot like us, and live in a world similar to us. Here the entire situation contradicts itself in a sense.
We cannot say we were created by normal beigns because we are intelligent. If you intend to raise the arguement that we are not thinking beings but simply programs, then remember, that question itself is thought. The counter arguement to that sentence? Thought as well. This one? Thought too. To make that arguement is to simply state "I think that I don't think."
Also, as humans we cannot create geometrical objects. Everything we create is simply a bunch of other things thrown together. Therefore we cannot create an alternate reality, we can however throw together a bunch of sticks and call it VR. However, this means it is still part of our reality. The same is true with electricity, metal, plastic, and flashing lights.
So, my end arguement to the original topic, to sum up the previous paragraphs, is simply this: Virtual reality does exist, yes, but it is only a part of our current reality. There is nothing in it that makes it sovereign from our own. For us to influence it and for it to influence us, they must simply be parts of the same reality, as much as telephones, the postal system or a board game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Niniva Arson I'll admit I just skimmed what you wrote there because I'm short on attention span at the moment. (Forgive me it's been a long hot day at work) But you are absolutely right about Decarte. He was no skeptic. As I said, his thoughts were mostly centered around how to combat the skeptic, and then how to trust senses and then how that proves God exists. He failed at the last two parts pretty misserably but I think he did a fair job at the first one. His ball of wax theory and brain in a vat example are very pertinent to this discussion. @Femme Fetale: Quote: What if our "real life" is a virtual reality? Thats mostly what I was reffering too. And it's a great question really. Matrix theory, brain in a vat, all the same really. My area of study actually stems from this. Since reality and the senses can be decieved then what is it that we are? If the physical world around us could be nothing but a mass deception then it does not follow that the thinking thing, or the thing driving my thoughts is also a part of it (duelism). Thats the ball of wax theory essentially.
I'm curious what you believe Descartes to have done wrong, but I'll hold off on that for now.
Nonetheless, feel free to state your arguements when you are feeling more attentive and read my post. I know your intention with talking abou Descartes, I just thought the idea of him being a skeptic was kindof funny. Anyway, I would like it quite well if someone read my post and tried to confront its claims. That is why I'm here, and I'm interested in hearing counter arguements. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:34 am
|
|
|
|
Arson Hiroha Lol Descartes is no skeptic, he's only a skeptic to himself in constructing his theory. If you read Meditations, he eliminates all possibilities for deception to construct his theory. He even distrusts his senses, and as you go through the book, he tries to find ways to justify trusting them. Although it is a good thing you brought him up, I intended to use one of his rationalizations in this very arguement. Whether this is virtual reality or not, one constant that will always remain is mathematics and geometry. If you look at our dreams, obviously everything we dream is much like reality. All of a right triangle's sides still add up to the same amount of degrees, and we never invent any new colors. So by saying this, we already establish that even if we are in VR, it must be much like our own reality. For the initial arguement, you can also see that geometrically, VR does not really exist. The only physical manifestation it has are glowing pictures on our computer screens. It would be the same as if we created a move of just moving pictures, and were able to move from picture to picture at will.
This is all true under the assumption that you are attempting to create this VR for yourself. But what if it's the matrix and someone else has stuck you in the Vat and plugged your brain in? Understanding that our brains and senses to date can only experience four dimensions what if you were plugged into a machine and retaught reality so that all the laws of physics didn't apply? This is easy to imagine in some cases, think of the ethereal realm in some Fantasy novels, or of heaven itself (if you believe in that sort of thing) What if this VR was created by something that doesn't obey what we commonly know as the laws of our reality? then the VR only has to be constrained by THEIR reality not ours and so your point is invalid.
Quote: Second is the fact that we are conscious beings. no matter how far we've gone with technology, we've never been able to create a thinking, reasoning mind. We have created AI, but even this does not truly think, and is only a set of protocols and directions. Not only does this detract from our being a VR a bit, but it also shows that the VR we create is not true VR. There are no people within it that are native there, only those from IRL. In this, we are unique. As we cannot create minds, there is also no way the "people who created us" are the same beings, simply because we do not have the power to create minds. This contradicts my earlier point, saying that the ones in the other reality have to be a lot like us, and live in a world similar to us. Here the entire situation contradicts itself in a sense.
This I agree with. It is conceptually impossible to concieve of a machine that can achieve consciousness. But you are assuming a lot here. You are assuming that the ability to create is bound to machinery and AI, but are forgetting that people are created and accidentally wind up with two states of conciousness (very rare but it does happen) In which case it seems that conciousness (or thinking) can be created, we just have to figure out how. And that does not necessarily mean making a machine to do it.
The second point you make is not really a contridiction as the people within the VR could just be like us to make us more confortable and make it more believable.
Quote: We cannot say we were created by normal beigns because we are intelligent. If you intend to raise the arguement that we are not thinking beings but simply programs, then remember, that question itself is thought. The counter arguement to that sentence? Thought as well. This one? Thought too. To make that arguement is to simply state "I think that I don't think."
Quote: Also, as humans we cannot create geometrical objects. Everything we create is simply a bunch of other things thrown together. Therefore we cannot create an alternate reality, we can however throw together a bunch of sticks and call it VR. However, this means it is still part of our reality. The same is true with electricity, metal, plastic, and flashing lights. So, my end arguement to the original topic, to sum up the previous paragraphs, is simply this: Virtual reality does exist, yes, but it is only a part of our current reality. There is nothing in it that makes it sovereign from our own. For us to influence it and for it to influence us, they must simply be parts of the same reality, as much as telephones, the postal system or a board game.
I would contend this point here. I think it is more likely that something that is not us created this VR around us.
For example, the matrix: Machines which are capable of creating a reality similar to ours but not quite the same, created a reality for all of us to be stuck in while they suck out our power. Electricity, laws of motion, forces, energy, and whatever other physical law you may want to claim our reality has all by itself....could ALSO be a part of a different reality.
Similar physical laws may apply in any reality, and the VR that is created may just simply be BASED or SIMILAR to the real reality.
I'll agree that a machine that is built within some reality has to stay within the bounds of that reality and is in essence a part of that reality and is only programed to fool whoever is within it, yes. But there is no reason to believe that the laws within a created VR must be the same as our own, and so if something else (something that is different from us and yet still has consciousness) created it then there is no reason to believe that the laws that govern the machine or "sticks" thrown together are the same as those that we experience within it, and so it would be a fairly effective VR.
I do agree though, if we were to create this VR then our frames of refference are contained within four dimensions and so we could not create a new reality with five or six. The builder of the VR must work within the constraints of their own reality.
One thing that has always been agreed upon between philosophers is this:
Something cannot create something equal with itself. God cannot create another God, Humans cannot create other humans from scratch (pro-creatino I know but that is not technically you doing the building.) Dogs cannot create Dogs, ect. It is non-conceptual to think this is false since you are the creator it only follows that to your creation, you are its creator and so you will always be greater then it. You will always have one more trait then it will ever have, even if it somehow attains every other trait in existance there will always be one trait that you have that makes you greater then it......you created it, and it has the trait of being created by you and those are traits that are permanent and cannot be changed.
thus a VR system created by man cannot be greater then the reality man experiences, nor can it be greater then man itself (IE: artificial intelligence). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:48 pm
|
|
|
|
Hmm, it seems you and I are going to be going back and forth with this one quite a bit. Well let our text pile up and construct a Tower of Babel, to see with our own eyes what is true.
Quote: This is all true under the assumption that you are attempting to create this VR for yourself. But what if it's the matrix and someone else has stuck you in the Vat and plugged your brain in? Understanding that our brains and senses to date can only experience four dimensions what if you were plugged into a machine and retaught reality so that all the laws of physics didn't apply? This is easy to imagine in some cases, think of the ethereal realm in some Fantasy novels, or of heaven itself (if you believe in that sort of thing) What if this VR was created by something that doesn't obey what we commonly know as the laws of our reality? then the VR only has to be constrained by THEIR reality not ours and so your point is invalid.
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure if Descartes took this one on. Although bear in mind, even in our phantasies, as humans we can never truly imagine a realm with more than four dimensions. Possibly less, but this will simply be something flat within the usual four dimensions. My arguement is not so much that they have to obey the laws of our reality, but we, by principle, would have to obey the laws of their reality. You admit that we are contained within their reality, as if within a box in a larger room, yet that box is still obeying the rules that the room has to obey. Being contained within their reality, we, by this idea, have to obey their laws of physics. Even our imagination, the most secluded thing possible from reality, our dreams must always have four dimensions within them. A triangle must always have the same sum of the angles, and the same colors are used. Even our imagination is still within the room of our reality, even if we do box it off from the rest. Although, even I do not think this makes everything clear, so let's move on to the next paragraph.
Quote: This I agree with. It is conceptually impossible to concieve of a machine that can achieve consciousness. But you are assuming a lot here. You are assuming that the ability to create is bound to machinery and AI, but are forgetting that people are created and accidentally wind up with two states of conciousness (very rare but it does happen) In which case it seems that conciousness (or thinking) can be created, we just have to figure out how. And that does not necessarily mean making a machine to do it. The second point you make is not really a contridiction as the people within the VR could just be like us to make us more confortable and make it more believable.
Nay, by my medical knowledge (although limited) alternate personalities aren't ones we create ourselves. Think of it as how a cell divides; the consciousness splits like a cell, simply a part separated from the original. They are simply like one crowd dividing into factions, and thus putting up a mental divider between them. That's why the goal of many Psychologists in dealing with these disorders is reintegration. Nonetheless, most Psychologists will likely agree that the separate personalities are simply parts of a same one that divided. If I cut an apple up into pieces, it is still of the same apple.
Hmm, and it seems that I am ample able to refute that we are created by something exactly like ourselves, but not able to refute that we were created by something. Do you suppose that these beings are Gods, or very powerful, yet finite, beings? From there this line of discussion will likely take us closer to the answer.
Quote: Quote: We cannot say we were created by normal beigns because we are intelligent. If you intend to raise the arguement that we are not thinking beings but simply programs, then remember, that question itself is thought. The counter arguement to that sentence? Thought as well. This one? Thought too. To make that arguement is to simply state "I think that I don't think." I would not use the term "normal" here as "normal" beings may reffer to something that we are not. "Normal" may be what God is and we are the strange one's. "Normal" is too relative. I think what you mean to say is that we cannot be created by something "exactly like" us.
Pardon my way of speaking, normal is a very relative term. By using it I basically meant finite beings, or if you so wish to argue, finite beings with lesser power.
Quote: I would contend this point here. I think it is more likely that something that is not us created this VR around us. For example, the matrix: Machines which are capable of creating a reality similar to ours but not quite the same, created a reality for all of us to be stuck in while they suck out our power. Electricity, laws of motion, forces, energy, and whatever other physical law you may want to claim our reality has all by itself....could ALSO be a part of a different reality. Similar physical laws may apply in any reality, and the VR that is created may just simply be BASED or SIMILAR to the real reality. I'll agree that a machine that is built within some reality has to stay within the bounds of that reality and is in essence a part of that reality and is only programed to fool whoever is within it, yes. But there is no reason to believe that the laws within a created VR must be the same as our own, and so if something else (something that is different from us and yet still has consciousness) created it then there is no reason to believe that the laws that govern the machine or "sticks" thrown together are the same as those that we experience within it, and so it would be a fairly effective VR. I do agree though, if we were to create this VR then our frames of refference are contained within four dimensions and so we could not create a new reality with five or six. The builder of the VR must work within the constraints of their own reality. One thing that has always been agreed upon between philosophers is this: Something cannot create something equal with itself. God cannot create another God, Humans cannot create other humans from scratch (pro-creatino I know but that is not technically you doing the building.) Dogs cannot create Dogs, ect. It is non-conceptual to think this is false since you are the creator it only follows that to your creation, you are its creator and so you will always be greater then it. You will always have one more trait then it will ever have, even if it somehow attains every other trait in existance there will always be one trait that you have that makes you greater then it......you created it, and it has the trait of being created by you and those are traits that are permanent and cannot be changed. thus a VR system created by man cannot be greater then the reality man experiences, nor can it be greater then man itself (IE: artificial intelligence).
Bear in mind that my entire arguement had been taking up two dual problems at the same time: Whether we can create a virtual reality (the original poster for the thread) and whether we are within one ourselves. The part this section is responding to the first problem, but I see the point you are trying to make.
I have two ways to contest this, first, the principle that something with in a reality having, say, 4 dimensions, can create a 2 dimensional one. For example, take this website. Although it appears two dimensional, in all senses of the word it is still four dimensional to us. Thus, if people in 4 dimensions cannot create a world with 2 dimensions, does it not follow that something with say, 8 dimensions cannot create something with 4?
In this, Descartes would look at it as the "creators" being gods. I'm sure you have heard of it, but for the sake of arguement, I'll illustrate it. Descartes follows the principle that "Something cannot come from nothing." and thus, something greater cannot come from something lesser, or something equal to itself, as you said.
Keeping this in mind, He forms this ladder of creation:
Infinite beings
|
|
(Create)
|
|
V
Finite beings
|
|
|
V
Modes (or actions)
By this principle, that no finite beings can create finite beings, does it not then follow that if something were to "create" us, it would have to be infinite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:21 pm
|
|
|
|
ohhh this is getting interesting. I feel like I should bust out my pipe and armchair.
Quote: Hmm, I'm not entirely sure if Descartes took this one on. Although bear in mind, even in our phantasies, as humans we can never truly imagine a realm with more than four dimensions. Possibly less, but this will simply be something flat within the usual four dimensions. My arguement is not so much that they have to obey the laws of our reality, but we, by principle, would have to obey the laws of their reality. You admit that we are contained within their reality, as if within a box in a larger room, yet that box is still obeying the rules that the room has to obey. Being contained within their reality, we, by this idea, have to obey their laws of physics. Even our imagination, the most secluded thing possible from reality, our dreams must always have four dimensions within them. A triangle must always have the same sum of the angles, and the same colors are used. Even our imagination is still within the room of our reality, even if we do box it off from the rest. Although, even I do not think this makes everything clear, so let's move on to the next paragraph.
Right, I agree entirely with your statements here, but there is one thing left out in all of this. What if their reality involves portions of reality we are not equipped to experience? Such as a fifth dimension? We are only able to experience four but that does not mean the fifth does not exist. I do agree thought that whatever reality contains the VR, the VR must obey the laws of the true reality it is contained in.
Quote: Nay, by my medical knowledge (although limited) alternate personalities aren't ones we create ourselves. Think of it as how a cell divides; the consciousness splits like a cell, simply a part separated from the original. They are simply like one crowd dividing into factions, and thus putting up a mental divider between them. That's why the goal of many Psychologists in dealing with these disorders is reintegration. Nonetheless, most Psychologists will likely agree that the separate personalities are simply parts of a same one that divided. If I cut an apple up into pieces, it is still of the same apple. Hmm, and it seems that I am ample able to refute that we are created by something exactly like ourselves, but not able to refute that we were created by something. Do you suppose that these beings are Gods, or very powerful, yet finite, beings? From there this line of discussion will likely take us closer to the answer.
I did not say that we HAVE created it. I said they are created by accident and multiple personality dissorder is not the only cases when this occur, nor is it considered a medical condition. I am speaking of an accident victim who winds up with severe head trauma. The nerve endings between the two hemisphere's in his brain are severed irrepairably. He lives fine and continues on, but what is odd is that it is also documented that this same person will often times find one hand pulling his trousers off while the other puts them on. That he sees red things with his right eye and his left sees the same thing as a different.
In other words he experiences the world via two different personalities, they are both the same man, or were at some point but since the accident he suddenly has become two different thinking things, or so it would appear.
Again, my arguement stands that it may very well be possible to take one person, and split him into two people in the same body (though I doubt this is true and hope that it is not or my theories on personality are lost *laughs*)
Quote: Bear in mind that my entire arguement had been taking up two dual problems at the same time: Whether we can create a virtual reality (the original poster for the thread) and whether we are within one ourselves. The part this section is responding to the first problem, but I see the point you are trying to make. I have two ways to contest this, first, the principle that something with in a reality having, say, 4 dimensions, can create a 2 dimensional one. For example, take this website. Although it appears two dimensional, in all senses of the word it is still four dimensional to us. Thus, if people in 4 dimensions cannot create a world with 2 dimensions, does it not follow that something with say, 8 dimensions cannot create something with 4? In this, Descartes would look at it as the "creators" being gods. I'm sure you have heard of it, but for the sake of arguement, I'll illustrate it. Descartes follows the principle that "Something cannot come from nothing." and thus, something greater cannot come from something lesser, or something equal to itself, as you said. Keeping this in mind, He forms this ladder of creation: Infinite beings | | (Create) | | V Finite beings | | | V Modes (or actions) By this principle, that no finite beings can create finite beings, does it not then follow that if something were to "create" us, it would have to be infinite?
First: I don't agree that a being within a three dimenstional environment can only create things that also have three dimensional traits. I will sight architectural plans for one.
I would also contend that this website is four dimensional. Three at best if you include the time it takes for use to experience it within the dimensions, but I hardly think I am experiencing the depth of this website. So it does indeed follow that a being that exists within eight, or the eleven proposed dimensions of reality, can create something in only two or three or four.
Also Decarte is most probably wrong about the creators. Think of it like this. If you create an AI machine and give it a name, Tommy, and Tommy gathers information from you then Tommy reffers to you as his creator. Now tommy is fairly finite, in point of fact he won't last even as long as four years. You however are not AS finite as Tommy in that you have the ability to end Tommy and any point, and also have the ability to uncreate Tommy or kill him in a sense.
So the idea that God is at the top of the latter is probably correct being that he is the "least" finite thing, but who is to say that something less finite then God cannot create something slightly less finite them himself?
It doesn't locigally follow that if something were to create "us" as finite that that thing would in turn be "infinite" it may simply just more "less" finite then us.
For example, something that experiences six dimensions could create something the exists in those six dimensions but can only experience four of them thereby making the creation less then the creator and the creation would most probably consider the creator a god of some sort, just as Tommy would probably take the dictionary definition of God and apply it to the reality he is aware of and assume that you (his creator) are that God.
In both cases the creation is unable to rationalize things it cannot understand. Tommy has no consiousness and so he cannot understand anything beyond programmable or learned functions. The four dimensional being that was created by the six dimensional being probably could not understand anything within the two dimensions that he cannot possibly experience and so no matter how well he rationalizes, he will never be able to understand the six dimensional being fully, and so he will most likely believe him to be a god of some sort if not THE God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:09 pm
|
|
|
|
Pardon the absence, I've been having some personal issues. Anyway, we can get back to our discussion.
Quote: Right, I agree entirely with your statements here, but there is one thing left out in all of this. What if their reality involves portions of reality we are not equipped to experience? Such as a fifth dimension? We are only able to experience four but that does not mean the fifth does not exist. I do agree thought that whatever reality contains the VR, the VR must obey the laws of the true reality it is contained in.
Hmmm, that raises an interesting question. Well, let's try to look at what we already know. Perhaps if we find a pattern in the portion of the painting we already see, we can map out the rest of the work. So if we were to contain a box with people who could only perceive a few of our dimensions, what would they be lacking that we have? Keep in mind, this does not mean that I accept we have the power to create these people.
Quote: I did not say that we HAVE created it. I said they are created by accident and multiple personality dissorder is not the only cases when this occur, nor is it considered a medical condition. I am speaking of an accident victim who winds up with severe head trauma. The nerve endings between the two hemisphere's in his brain are severed irrepairably. He lives fine and continues on, but what is odd is that it is also documented that this same person will often times find one hand pulling his trousers off while the other puts them on. That he sees red things with his right eye and his left sees the same thing as a different. In other words he experiences the world via two different personalities, they are both the same man, or were at some point but since the accident he suddenly has become two different thinking things, or so it would appear. Again, my arguement stands that it may very well be possible to take one person, and split him into two people in the same body (though I doubt this is true and hope that it is not or my theories on personality are lost *laughs*)
Actually, I would go even farther to say that this isn't creation. You would say creation is to make something new, correct? This seems to simply be a case of division. Naturally if a crumb falls off of a piece of bread, I (or the bread itself) did not create that crum. This crum would be something already existing, and not something created by me or the bread, correct?
Quote: First: I don't agree that a being within a three dimenstional environment can only create things that also have three dimensional traits. I will sight architectural plans for one. I would also contend that this website is four dimensional. Three at best if you include the time it takes for use to experience it within the dimensions, but I hardly think I am experiencing the depth of this website. So it does indeed follow that a being that exists within eight, or the eleven proposed dimensions of reality, can create something in only two or three or four. Also Decarte is most probably wrong about the creators. Think of it like this. If you create an AI machine and give it a name, Tommy, and Tommy gathers information from you then Tommy reffers to you as his creator. Now tommy is fairly finite, in point of fact he won't last even as long as four years. You however are not AS finite as Tommy in that you have the ability to end Tommy and any point, and also have the ability to uncreate Tommy or kill him in a sense. So the idea that God is at the top of the latter is probably correct being that he is the "least" finite thing, but who is to say that something less finite then God cannot create something slightly less finite them himself? It doesn't locigally follow that if something were to create "us" as finite that that thing would in turn be "infinite" it may simply just more "less" finite then us. For example, something that experiences six dimensions could create something the exists in those six dimensions but can only experience four of them thereby making the creation less then the creator and the creation would most probably consider the creator a god of some sort, just as Tommy would probably take the dictionary definition of God and apply it to the reality he is aware of and assume that you (his creator) are that God. In both cases the creation is unable to rationalize things it cannot understand. Tommy has no consiousness and so he cannot understand anything beyond programmable or learned functions. The four dimensional being that was created by the six dimensional being probably could not understand anything within the two dimensions that he cannot possibly experience and so no matter how well he rationalizes, he will never be able to understand the six dimensional being fully, and so he will most likely believe him to be a god of some sort if not THE God.
On your first point, I would contest it even further: The three dimensional being can't create anything, they can only put three dimensional things together. Architectural plans aren't anything created, they are simply pencil graphite arranged on paper in a pattern that represents something.
On the second paragraph, mind my terminology, for I'm using mostly my ability to reason and not necessarily knowledge from all other sources. My definitions of the dimensions are likely flawed, although I do understand their concept. Nonetheless, of course it has depth. It's just energy running through wires, something that exists in our dimensions, but displays pictures- which are four dimensional, being pixels of differing colors on our computer screen.
On the point of Tommy, once again, you've never truly created Tommy, you've only put a bunch of things together. Regardless of whether or not he can think, you never created him. Whatever made his materials, or whatever you used to "make" Tommy, truly created him. Thus if I build a house, indeed I did build it, but something else created it. The house did exist before, although in the form of brick, cement, plaster and wood. Also, you say Tommy is much more limited to you, "less finite". No, he is just as finite as yourself. Even though he cannot think as well and has no consciousness, this is not a "dimension", it is only a quality. Thus follows an error made in describing Descartes' theory on my part:
He does not use the terms "finite being" or "infinite being", he says finite or infinite "substance". You've heard the law of conservation, I'm sure? As finite substances, we cannot create finite substances, or needless to say, infinite substances. If we were to create a finite substance, it would be equal to ourselves, and an infinite substance is obviously greater. In addition, there is no instance where a person has created a finite substance. As finite substances ourselves, we have only ever -created- actions, or modes. Our modes are what put different substances together, but nonetheless, we never create the substance- the object changing shape is also a mode.
Now, if we were to create something with fewer dimensions it would still be a finite substance. We've also established that we would be creating it within our own "reality", so it would have just as many dimensions as us, so it's once again just as finite as we are and we cannot create it. The same would be true for substances with "more dimensions", they would have just as many as us. They couldn't create us either, because we would still be just as much a finite substance as them. Perhaps this brings us closer to the truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:50 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Hmmm, that raises an interesting question. Well, let's try to look at what we already know. Perhaps if we find a pattern in the portion of the painting we already see, we can map out the rest of the work. So if we were to contain a box with people who could only perceive a few of our dimensions, what would they be lacking that we have? Keep in mind, this does not mean that I accept we have the power to create these people.
They would be lacking a lot. If they did not experience time then they would not age and would always remain the same. If they didn't not experience the upward dimension they would never be able to percieve how tall we are nor have and height themselves. If they were unable to percieve the left right dimension.....they would be literally flat and therefore would not be able to distinguish our width nor have a measure for it at all.
Quote: Actually, I would go even farther to say that this isn't creation. You would say creation is to make something new, correct? This seems to simply be a case of division. Naturally if a crumb falls off of a piece of bread, I (or the bread itself) did not create that crum. This crum would be something already existing, and not something created by me or the bread, correct?
For this I would say that your definition of "creation" is too constrained. Sure, we have not created a new substance. But taking some substance and using it as a tool to create something out of it is still creation to a degree. So being a literalist doesn't help you in this arguement. I may not be creating new photons or sub atomic particles to make this object I am creating but building somefrom the subatomic level outwards is not the only form of creation. Maybe if we're speaking of devine creation perhaps but we were not. We already agreed that whatever world this VR was created in, this VR would have to obey the physical laws of. What you are doing is calling upon the extremes arguement and I'm calling Shinnanigans here. I would say that when I form something out of clay what I am doing is creating. What I am creating is a shape....a molding of whatever it turns out to be that we did not have before. When I create a VR, sure I use electricity and molecules and electrons and photons and currents and other things, certainly, but if you left those things alone what are the chances they would randomly come together to form a VR system? Absolutely zero. Why? Because it is not in their natural chaotic acts to come together to form plastic, why? Because a chemical process that doesn't naturally occur has to be introduced, and so even at the very core the "natural" way all these substances behave is altered in order to create.
So I would say this is absolutely creation. What are we getting that we never had before? Shape. Design. A depiction of obvious intelligence. A pattern. Something that does not naturally occur, and could not, even if given the oppotunity.
Quote: Actually, I would go even farther to say that this isn't creation. You would say creation is to make something new, correct? This seems to simply be a case of division. Naturally if a crumb falls off of a piece of bread, I (or the bread itself) did not create that crum. This crum would be something already existing, and not something created by me or the bread, correct?
I dealt with this already so I won't bear to repeat myself further then saying that I don't agree. They are graphite on paper yes, but they are also more then that the moment you introduce a pattern that is quite obviously something more then what graphite would naturally give us when it connects with paper. What I am speaking of is the human aspect...graphite would not give us a picture of a house without it being willed to do so, without an imagination to will it to CREATE a picture.
Quote: On the second paragraph, mind my terminology, for I'm using mostly my ability to reason and not necessarily knowledge from all other sources. My definitions of the dimensions are likely flawed, although I do understand their concept. Nonetheless, of course it has depth. It's just energy running through wires, something that exists in our dimensions, but displays pictures- which are four dimensional, being pixels of differing colors on our computer screen.
That is not the website. That is what makes up the website. Those are the tools used to give me a two dimensional website. What is created USING 3d objects is still two dimensional. I would contend very seriously that these pixels experience all four dimensions. Left/right, up/down, and time maybe but I hardly think it has much depth to it. If I run my fingers over the screen here I do not feel bumps where the letters are that I am typing. So I am truely creating right now. I am using a keyboard to emit electrical currents into a machine that reads them and interprets them the way "I WANT IT TOO" to produce an end product that the machine could not produce on it's own. An essay arguement on creation.
Quote: On the point of Tommy, once again, you've never truly created Tommy, you've only put a bunch of things together. Regardless of whether or not he can think, you never created him. Whatever made his materials, or whatever you used to "make" Tommy, truly created him. Thus if I build a house, indeed I did build it, but something else created it. The house did exist before, although in the form of brick, cement, plaster and wood. Also, you say Tommy is much more limited to you, "less finite". No, he is just as finite as yourself. Even though he cannot think as well and has no consciousness, this is not a "dimension", it is only a quality. Thus follows an error made in describing Descartes' theory on my part:
I have already delt with this twice and I believe it is sufficient to say that Tommy was in fact created simply because there IS something new. There is Tommy where there was just some random items before, and the difference was that I had to CREATE Tommy from the items I had. Now sure I didn't truely make any new substances, but what I have made from the substances is something that can claim more traits then the substance itself and was clearly and undeniably put together by a person. That is creation in as fine a term as it can be. Which is that even those things we create are within and must obey the laws of physics of our own reality. That does not mean we are creating more reality, but rather taking what is within our reality and ending with a new product.
Quote: He does not use the terms "finite being" or "infinite being", he says finite or infinite "substance". You've heard the law of conservation, I'm sure? As finite substances, we cannot create finite substances, or needless to say, infinite substances. If we were to create a finite substance, it would be equal to ourselves, and an infinite substance is obviously greater. In addition, there is no instance where a person has created a finite substance. As finite substances ourselves, we have only ever -created- actions, or modes. Our modes are what put different substances together, but nonetheless, we never create the substance- the object changing shape is also a mode.
Yes Decrate was adressing Spinoza with his writings on this I am almost certain (though some 200 years after Spinoza) And I agree with your terms here, but we as humans are not truely substance either. Nor are the molecules that make us up, nor are the electrons that make them up. And so are you honestly saying that there is no such thing as creation? That it quite simply does not exist and COULDN'T possibly exist unless there was a God who could defy the laws of physics and make something from nothing? I think that your definition of creation is flawed. By your definition God didn't even create.
This seems absurd to me I'm sorry.
Also important to note is that there are not only two options here. Finite and Infinite are comparative terms not literal terms. Again.....take Tommy. To Tommy, who was created by me, and taught by me, I am infinite. Why? Because I cannot be measured by his standards and thus it would seem to him that I am eternal. Lets begin on a thought experiment.
Can you concieve that we could create a hearing device that could listen to the noises that ants made to communicate and then learned their language? It's a stretch but just imagine it anyway.
Now we listen to them talk and we hear one talking about humans. Do you think that something the size of an ant, and with the intelligence of an ant, could actually measure a human in size and signifigance? To an ant we are like Gods. Ever lasting and all powerful. "Infinite" if you will.
Infinite is a human term used to describe things that are not measurable in human terms. We measure things by nature, we always have. We know how large things are by comparison. Things are infinite when suddenly we have nothing meaningful to compare it to both in substance and in size. Therefore things we do not understand will always be considered infinite, just like to Tommy, who is a robot and cannot experience emotion or reason, I am infinite because I can.
When I say "less finite" what I really mean is, more measurable, or more comparable.
Quote: Now, if we were to create something with fewer dimensions it would still be a finite substance. We've also established that we would be creating it within our own "reality", so it would have just as many dimensions as us, so it's once again just as finite as we are and we cannot create it. The same would be true for substances with "more dimensions", they would have just as many as us. They couldn't create us either, because we would still be just as much a finite substance as them. Perhaps this brings us closer to the truth?
I would hope we are closer to the truth, but I still worry about your grasp of the concept of finite and infinite.
Again let me explain it so there is no confusion. An object as a whole is all that we can consider. We cannot consider it's parts or it's substance, but merely the object of space between objects. So...to a human being, we measure things and compare them and thus we have two words which are like the words "yes and no" They are polar opposites. Finite and Infinite, so in a way you are right. Things are either finite or they are not, but think of it in terms of the object. If the object had a mind and were to view you...would it be able to measure you against itself and compare? I hardly think so.
So when matched against another thing, even though the same substances make it up, that thing may be very finite to us, and we may consider outselves finite, but to that object we may be as infinite as God is and they are the finite ones. Same goes for something smaller or "less finite" then they are, and so bringing it back into human terms humans are the "least finite" because we are the only beings which can only percieve on thing as infinite compared to us, that thing being God. To animals we are infinite because we are outside of their capability to understand, and to insects animals are infinite, and to bacteria bugs are, and to a single molecule bacteria are. Of course we who are at the top of the finite chain percieve all these things as finite, but none of these things would know the difference (provided they had some form of a mind and even realized the existance of the other things). Even humans realize this calling themselves the "greatest" beings on earth. Of course thats opinionated and a being "great" and "infinite" are quite obviously very different but it could easily be said that among the things on earth humans are the "least finite" of all of them. At least to humans. But then again as the ant who is the least finite to him and he will say "well ants of course" because to him...humans are infinite.
So you see infinite and finite are terms of perception and are not really accurate in deciding how something can be created. I can certainly create a machine that talks but I could never call it alive and thus it is less finite than something that is alive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: They would be lacking a lot. If they did not experience time then they would not age and would always remain the same. If they didn't not experience the upward dimension they would never be able to percieve how tall we are nor have and height themselves. If they were unable to percieve the left right dimension.....they would be literally flat and therefore would not be able to distinguish our width nor have a measure for it at all.
No, I would contest that to say even if I were to "create" something, even in the way that you use it as simply putting things together, it would always be in the same dimensions as me. I am combining two 4 dimensional objects, therefore the object cannot develop different properties suddenly and only exist in three dimensions. If this is physically possible, then I will need some scientific evidence of that one. Regardless of whether or not they can perceive it, they will always be four dimensional. 4 dimensional object + 4 dimensional object =/= 3 dimensional object.
Furthermore, this would have to be a severely limited being. Not only would it be quite near blind and unable to use many of the other senses, it would quickly die because it cannot completely perceive our world. Imagine how often it would bump into things and such, unable to perceive their depth, heighth, width, or whatever you wish to take away. Such a thing would only be a severely handicapped 4 dimensional object, unable to see its true surroundings. Thus, this leads you to believe that if it does indeed exist, it must exist in a separate reality created simply for it. If one of these things were to exist, would it not have in a world that is akin to its senses if it is to survive?
Therefore, perhaps these other dimensions do exist, though separate from ours, sovereign to their own dimension, not contained within our own and a 4 dimensional object like ourselves?
Quote: For this I would say that your definition of "creation" is too constrained. Sure, we have not created a new substance. But taking some substance and using it as a tool to create something out of it is still creation to a degree. So being a literalist doesn't help you in this arguement. I may not be creating new photons or sub atomic particles to make this object I am creating but building somefrom the subatomic level outwards is not the only form of creation. Maybe if we're speaking of devine creation perhaps but we were not. We already agreed that whatever world this VR was created in, this VR would have to obey the physical laws of. What you are doing is calling upon the extremes arguement and I'm calling Shinnanigans here. I would say that when I form something out of clay what I am doing is creating. What I am creating is a shape....a molding of whatever it turns out to be that we did not have before. When I create a VR, sure I use electricity and molecules and electrons and photons and currents and other things, certainly, but if you left those things alone what are the chances they would randomly come together to form a VR system? Absolutely zero. Why? Because it is not in their natural chaotic acts to come together to form plastic, why? Because a chemical process that doesn't naturally occur has to be introduced, and so even at the very core the "natural" way all these substances behave is altered in order to create. So I would say this is absolutely creation. What are we getting that we never had before? Shape. Design. A depiction of obvious intelligence. A pattern. Something that does not naturally occur, and could not, even if given the oppotunity. Quote: Create shape all you like, but it is the shape of a 4 dimensional object. My point is simply that you cannot magically create something with 3 or fewer dimensions, especially not by your definition of creation, and certainly not by mine. My point is that they are arrangements, and an arrangement, though something new, must always contain the qualities of what it was made from in some way or another. For example, if you combine two chemicals they may gain new properties, but at the atomic level they are still the same chemicals, simply arranged differently. Thus, you cannot arrange 4 dimensional objects to be three dimensional, only to appear so. Which is what I'm going to get to in the next part. Quote: I dealt with this already so I won't bear to repeat myself further then saying that I don't agree. They are graphite on paper yes, but they are also more then that the moment you introduce a pattern that is quite obviously something more then what graphite would naturally give us when it connects with paper. What I am speaking of is the human aspect...graphite would not give us a picture of a house without it being willed to do so, without an imagination to will it to CREATE a picture. My friend, look back up the page to where you made this post. This is the exact same paragraph you responded to above, word for word. One of us simply copied the phrase by mistake. I won't state my opinions again here, so feel free to delete this response and the quote from our posts. Quote: That is not the website. That is what makes up the website. Those are the tools used to give me a two dimensional website. What is created USING 3d objects is still two dimensional. I would contend very seriously that these pixels experience all four dimensions. Left/right, up/down, and time maybe but I hardly think it has much depth to it. If I run my fingers over the screen here I do not feel bumps where the letters are that I am typing. So I am truely creating right now. I am using a keyboard to emit electrical currents into a machine that reads them and interprets them the way "I WANT IT TOO" to produce an end product that the machine could not produce on it's own. An essay arguement on creation. So you are making up the point that if we create something, it is not always what made it up? I mold clay, so it is no longer molecularly clay? Quote: I have already delt with this twice and I believe it is sufficient to say that Tommy was in fact created simply because there IS something new. There is Tommy where there was just some random items before, and the difference was that I had to CREATE Tommy from the items I had. Now sure I didn't truely make any new substances, but what I have made from the substances is something that can claim more traits then the substance itself and was clearly and undeniably put together by a person. That is creation in as fine a term as it can be. Which is that even those things we create are within and must obey the laws of physics of our own reality. That does not mean we are creating more reality, but rather taking what is within our reality and ending with a new product. I would contest this to say that there is nothing new. Although we may attribute a different meaning to things, and they are associated with different ideas, they are still what they were before, only differently arranged. Everything about Tommy came from somewhere in the matter that made him, and he has no new traits. Every one of the materials used had to give it to him. Even us; our bodies are very logically built, and we are made with materials that specifically give us our traits, down to the last bit. Like our eyes, which are perfectly (or imperfectly) arranged so that light will enter and then send an electrical signal along a network to our brains so we can interpret the color through electrical signals passing through it. Suppose we are wrong though, and there is something else we have, a "divine spark"? Does Tommy have that? And even then, is that "divine spark" as we call it still not an ingredient in our chemsitry? However, let us not get sidetracked and remember that this ties in directly into the earlier points I made. Quote: Yes Decrate was adressing Spinoza with his writings on this I am almost certain (though some 200 years after Spinoza) And I agree with your terms here, but we as humans are not truely substance either. Nor are the molecules that make us up, nor are the electrons that make them up. And so are you honestly saying that there is no such thing as creation? That it quite simply does not exist and COULDN'T possibly exist unless there was a God who could defy the laws of physics and make something from nothing? I think that your definition of creation is flawed. By your definition God didn't even create. This seems absurd to me I'm sorry. Also important to note is that there are not only two options here. Finite and Infinite are comparative terms not literal terms. Again.....take Tommy. To Tommy, who was created by me, and taught by me, I am infinite. Why? Because I cannot be measured by his standards and thus it would seem to him that I am eternal. Lets begin on a thought experiment. Can you concieve that we could create a hearing device that could listen to the noises that ants made to communicate and then learned their language? It's a stretch but just imagine it anyway. Now we listen to them talk and we hear one talking about humans. Do you think that something the size of an ant, and with the intelligence of an ant, could actually measure a human in size and signifigance? To an ant we are like Gods. Ever lasting and all powerful. "Infinite" if you will. Infinite is a human term used to describe things that are not measurable in human terms. We measure things by nature, we always have. We know how large things are by comparison. Things are infinite when suddenly we have nothing meaningful to compare it to both in substance and in size. Therefore things we do not understand will always be considered infinite, just like to Tommy, who is a robot and cannot experience emotion or reason, I am infinite because I can. When I say "less finite" what I really mean is, more measurable, or more comparable. Of course creation is not possible, but only in cases when we are creating something from nothing. This is particularly the case with finite substances unable to create finite substances; they would create something from nothing if that were to be so. And are finite and infinite both adjetives? Therefore, they must describe something specific, correct? Well, finite by definition means that something ends, or it has limitations. Therefore, what is the opposite of this for infinite? Something without an end, and without limitations. Do these not seem very strictly defined? Thus, if something is finite, it has an end. Having more is not considered having a higher standard than the others, they are seen on the same ladder. Basically, if 1 and 4 are both finite numbers, they are finite numbers and in the same category. Which one is higher is irrelevant, they are both by all definitions finite. 4 cannot create 1 because it is still just as finite as 1. On an even more obvious note, infinity obviously cannot create infinity because they are both the same in this sense. Would it not be absurd to call one thing, when comparing already infinite objects, more infinite than the other? The same goes for comparing two finite objects. They both end somewhere, thus they are still finite. Also, even though objects aren't just matter but also energy, the question still remains. Have we ever created energy, instead of just changing it from one type of energy to another? Quote: I would hope we are closer to the truth, but I still worry about your grasp of the concept of finite and infinite. Again let me explain it so there is no confusion. An object as a whole is all that we can consider. We cannot consider it's parts or it's substance, but merely the object of space between objects. So...to a human being, we measure things and compare them and thus we have two words which are like the words "yes and no" They are polar opposites. Finite and Infinite, so in a way you are right. Things are either finite or they are not, but think of it in terms of the object. If the object had a mind and were to view you...would it be able to measure you against itself and compare? I hardly think so. So when matched against another thing, even though the same substances make it up, that thing may be very finite to us, and we may consider outselves finite, but to that object we may be as infinite as God is and they are the finite ones. Same goes for something smaller or "less finite" then they are, and so bringing it back into human terms humans are the "least finite" because we are the only beings which can only percieve on thing as infinite compared to us, that thing being God. To animals we are infinite because we are outside of their capability to understand, and to insects animals are infinite, and to bacteria bugs are, and to a single molecule bacteria are. Of course we who are at the top of the finite chain percieve all these things as finite, but none of these things would know the difference (provided they had some form of a mind and even realized the existance of the other things). Even humans realize this calling themselves the "greatest" beings on earth. Of course thats opinionated and a being "great" and "infinite" are quite obviously very different but it could easily be said that among the things on earth humans are the "least finite" of all of them. At least to humans. But then again as the ant who is the least finite to him and he will say "well ants of course" because to him...humans are infinite. So you see infinite and finite are terms of perception and are not really accurate in deciding how something can be created. I can certainly create a machine that talks but I could never call it alive and thus it is less finite than something that is alive So you're saying that we see something as infinite simply because it is larger than us? If I were an ant, I would never say that a human is infinite, or a god. They may be larger, but they still have limitations. Now, if that human being was everywhere at once and possesed every trait in its least corrupted form, or if possible in both forms, I would say it is infinite. The entire point of something being infinite is that it immeasurable, not in that we don't possess the means, but it is simply the fact of this: We cannot measure the length of a wall if it does not end. For example, try to measure the length of a cirlce's lines until the line ends. It never ends, therefore in a sense, that line is infinite. However, keep in mind that this example has flaws, considering we can measure circumference. However, that part is irrelevant, and the main concept is in the length of the line itself. Basically, my arguement is that perception is irrelevant. If I see one as two, it is still by all means one. Unless of course you're a Berkely fan, in which case I have my case for you in another arguement. Basically, if I measure something and say the wrong measurement, it will still be the same length, correct? Assuming you say yes, then consider this: If we were to say that an object has neverending length, and were to say that it is indeed neverending or in some way does end, the object will still be the same way it always was? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:40 pm
|
|
|
|
It would seem that this has become an arguement of symantics.
Something that has gotten lost here are three definitions which I understand but which I don't think that you do.
The first is creation.
I just spent an entire post explaining that your version of creation is absurd. We still CALL it creation when we mold clay into something that has a defined shape. We create and idea....art....a statue....see how we give it a new name? It is not longer "just" clay it is something new, has different traits then it had before.
You are stuck in this finite way of thinking...step outside your box for a moment and see the bigger picture here. "creation" is not simply limited to, (as you seem to think it absolutely is) the creation of some new sub molecular substance. Creation is something that is willed. Just as Tommy is "really" made UP of a bunch of things like sparks electricity metal and wires......without those things being formed INTO TOMMY (I'm repeating myself again I know) then they are not Tommy....leave them as they are and they don't make Tommy.....but design them exactly right and they DO create Tommy.
Your definition of creation is so absurd that what you are saying is that not even human beings were created as we are made up of a bunch of molecules, atoms, and electrons formed exactly right.....so what you are saying is that creation is impossible? Is that what you are saying? That is absurd....why would we say we are creating things when we make a sculpture or Tommy then? What you are doing is applying too much to this, you are making creation far more specific then it needs to be. Creation has specifics....I have not created a substance no....I did not create the pieces that make Tommy....but I DID create Tommy.
See what I mean? I am Tommy's creator because I took what I had and formed into something else MADE UP OF those parts. And that is still creation. Creation is not limited to making something out of nothing, that defies all sorts of physics.
Let me make this simple for you by using a dictionary.
Creation:
1. The Human act of creating.
2. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
Where in those two definitions do you see that creation is limited to something that is impossible for human beings? Namely...making something out of nothing, or creating substance?
Quote: So you are making up the point that if we create something, it is not always what made it up? I mold clay, so it is no longer molecularly clay?
That is not what I am suggesting at all, what I am suggesting is that it is not JUST clay any longer. It is a clay "STATUE" <---something totally different then it was before.
Quote: I would contest this to say that there is nothing new. Although we may attribute a different meaning to things, and they are associated with different ideas, they are still what they were before, only differently arranged. Everything about Tommy came from somewhere in the matter that made him, and he has no new traits. Every one of the materials used had to give it to him.
And I would contest right back and say that there are traits about Tommy that are totally impossible for those seperate parts to have all on their own and thus we have created something.....those objects may remain as they were just rearanged but when the are rearanged exactly right then suddenly we have something that is new....we have something that has the trait of being designed, engineered, formed purposefully, programmed, able to compute in a manor we want, existing in a certain space at a certain time and now that we have everything together with the EXACT TRAITS arranged in the EXACT maner we want then, and only then, have we created Tommy. Before that we have a pile of parts.
And thus we move on to the other two definitions you are missing entirely.
Infinity in Philosophy is not defined the same as it is in mathmatics. We know that there is nothing that is truely infinite and so it REALLY is a term that we use to describe something of imeasurable size in the sense that we don't now and believe we won't ever, have the ability to measure.
We reffer to the universe as infinite, but we are quite aware that it ends out there somewhere, it does not continue on forever. Infinite does not mean "goes on and doesn't stop" It means "goes on beyond what our human ability to understand is currently capable of."
We used to say that light traveled infinite distances instantly...we now can measure how fast it travels, we once thought that the atmosphere was infinite, we now know that it only goes out so far as the earths gravity can hold the gases in.
Quote: Of course creation is not possible, but only in cases when we are creating something from nothing. This is particularly the case with finite substances unable to create finite substances; they would create something from nothing if that were to be so. And are finite and infinite both adjetives? Therefore, they must describe something specific, correct? Well, finite by definition means that something ends, or it has limitations. Therefore, what is the opposite of this for infinite? Something without an end, and without limitations. Do these not seem very strictly defined? Thus, if something is finite, it has an end. Having more is not considered having a higher standard than the others, they are seen on the same ladder. Basically, if 1 and 4 are both finite numbers, they are finite numbers and in the same category. Which one is higher is irrelevant, they are both by all definitions finite. 4 cannot create 1 because it is still just as finite as 1. On an even more obvious note, infinity obviously cannot create infinity because they are both the same in this sense. Would it not be absurd to call one thing, when comparing already infinite objects, more infinite than the other? The same goes for comparing two finite objects. They both end somewhere, thus they are still finite. Also, even though objects aren't just matter but also energy, the question still remains. Have we ever created energy, instead of just changing it from one type of energy to another?
What you must remember is that Infinity was not the original word. The word finite was. And finite does indeed mean subject to limitations. But since it is not practicle to have things that are limited, without there being some word to describe those things which are seemingly unlimited, or appeare to be, or that we are unable to measure currently.
Infinite is a term that you act as though you understand when you do not, you throw it around as though you really know what it means to be absolutely limitless but in truth applying that meaning to a word is a contridiction as you are using a word to describe something and are therefore limiting it. So Infinite cannot be limitless...but it can mean that we are simply unaware of it's limitations.
Quote: If I were an ant, I would never say that a human is infinite, or a god. They may be larger, but they still have limitations. Now, if that human being was everywhere at once and possesed every trait in its least corrupted form, or if possible in both forms, I would say it is infinite.
This is absurd. I would HIGHLY contest this point. If you were an ant you would not understand what a human was, nor could you see how large it truely is as you could not percieve it's height or width. All you know is that a human is infinite compared to you....SEEMINGLY without limits....TO YOU. And you would consider it that way until you found a way to measure a human in terms of an ant.....it's almost anoying that you take your subjective standpoint and cannot even throw it off to put yourself in the shoes of an ant.....think it over.....you're an ant.........an......ant......Who's lifespan is less then a week so by comparison, human beings live infinitely long because to an ant, you have never seen one die, never seen one be born, never seen or heard or know anything about it at all. All you know is that it quite literally is far more advanced then you and thus you percieve it as limitless when of course it is not.....just as we percieve space as vast and limitless when in fact it is not.
Quote: Also, even though objects aren't just matter but also energy, the question still remains. Have we ever created energy, instead of just changing it from one type of energy to another?
No we have not. First law of thermodynamics. In a reactions no energy is ever lost or gained, it simply changes forms.
Quote: Basically, if 1 and 4 are both finite numbers, they are finite numbers and in the same category. Which one is higher is irrelevant, they are both by all definitions finite. 4 cannot create 1 because it is still just as finite as 1.
This example is pointless as you are taking concepts and applying them to things that are by definition not concepts. You are taking sense data and comparing it to relations of ideas. And technically speaking four could create one.....up to four different times. You create one by changing the form of four into three and one...you loose nothing, the ingredients are the same but you now have 1 and 3. What needed to be present in order for me to create 1 from four? The human understanding of it...You can argue that I didn't create one all you want, that in four there are technically nothing more then four 1's put together to form four, but if they are then you don't only have 1.....you have 4. To seperate 1 from four I have to create 3 as well....and I have to create something else too don't I? Something that is not substance at all, but is conceptual.......I have to create seperation don't I?
You see your definitions are too strict and are not the one's generally accepted in philosophy. Your definitions are too limiting and are thus invalid. Creation is not simply making something out of nothing....creating is simply making something. Infinity is not aboslutely without measure, it is a concept...a perception....it is essentially some word that we apply to things we don't currently have a method of measure for, for there can be no word to describe something that has no limits, a word describing it is labeling it with a limitation......congradulations thing that is unlimited....you are now limited to always being unlimited or else you are no longer unlimited are thus limited......wait.....
We are turning this into an arguement of symantics so I would preffer it to end on that note....I personally can't stand those types of arguements as they are almost always an arguement of missunderstanding rather then an arguement to discover anything.
Before we move on we must agree on a definition for these words or else we will wind up arguing in circles each one holding to his own definition, which makes for poor arguements.
One last thing:
Quote: Furthermore, this would have to be a severely limited being. Not only would it be quite near blind and unable to use many of the other senses, it would quickly die because it cannot completely perceive our world. Imagine how often it would bump into things and such, unable to perceive their depth, heighth, width, or whatever you wish to take away. Such a thing would only be a severely handicapped 4 dimensional object, unable to see its true surroundings. Thus, this leads you to believe that if it does indeed exist, it must exist in a separate reality created simply for it. If one of these things were to exist, would it not have in a world that is akin to its senses if it is to survive?
Your arguement here is flawed as the theories for our reality that exist in quantum physics (my hidden love) almost all involve the reality around us existing in 11 dimensions at the very least.....eleven that they have CALCULATED, and some theories suggest as many as 36...so that means there are at least 7 that we cannot percieve and do not experience.
Again....you are so subjective in your viewpoints.
Think of yourself then...in a place that has 11 dimensions....and yet you can only experience four.....congradulations thats the reality you live in. Are you blind? Are you severely limited? Do you die at a rate thats any faster or slower than anyone else? You think in such human terms....step outside yourself and THINK....it is not impossible to percieve that whatever thing is created as lesser then us and only able to percieve 3 dimensions rather then four, considers ITSELF perfectly normal and healthy?
Sure to a being that exists in all 11 of the dimensions of our own reality we as humans must seem incredibly limited, but to us as humans we think we're all pretty normal. So would this creation that only experiences 3 dimensions. To IT...in IT's existance from IT's perspective it is perfectly normal....not limited at all....all it has ever known is three dimensions so that is what it accepts as normal and it cares nothing for that fourth one.
Just as we know nothing and could not know anything about those other 11 dimensions outside of mathmatics. And so we go one perfectly fine and considering ourselves normal without those other 7 dimensions being percievable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
