Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

ONE

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Link: YouTube - part01 - Rob Bryanton talks to special guest Gevin Giorbran

In this video, in which Rob Bryanton talks to special guest Gevin Giorbran, the author of Everything is Forever great book, we can start to better explore this magnificent idea Of Wholeness instead of Emptiness, and developing the Intuitive paths that have lead so many of us, mostly on our own, to this very same notion... this is the Idea of ONE...
As I has saying in light of this perspective of Wholeness and Unity, one that I also, have so passionately defended in this fruitful forum so many times before, ( in the radio frequency band example for instance) in which, Past, Present, and Future, ARE already, somehow, somewheresymmetry of Unity is and as to be in every way, Hard Deterministic by intrinsic nature, just as in the common classic single Universe approach, but only in a ( little bit) more complex and I think intentionally tricky process in which choice emerges as a persistent illusion of our narrowed band of existence and integration with "true" reality such that other possibilities, of the so called potential world, actually appear to be completely discarded out of Being, this to where we stand, and to what we can directly relate and observe in a form that to us they are perceived as definitive options...equilibrium consistent principle. What I mean is... for instance that if I go in A direction, then B obviously, and if also considered as a true potential, cannot be left alone or unattended in a perfectly balanced caused Reality, in which, once again as I was saying, at least a small part of our possible choices gets somehow, close to a tie situation for practical purposes, same is saying, they are in fact "parental" functions and phenomena, rather then things, things that emerge from the Whole without a linear yet causal process... now, intuitively are able to sense in "our" so called decision making, which is falsely recognize as freedom towards a potential set of possibilities, I still have to assert, the inconvenient expression, Hard Determinism, just as Laplace or Spinoza or Einstein, and many others in the past, did and suggested, without a Omni verse serious consideration in mind...

A Good metaphor for this awkward arrangement would be :

...a trigger may be a function but is not a Cause...Cause is in Everything ! Smile

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@Fil Albuquerque,

Consider the simplest possible universe, two particles moving away from each other with constant velocity. If the universe is continuous, the probability of the relative positions of the particles being computable, at any given time, is zero. This means that, at least, either Laplace or Einstein was wrong.

@ughaibu,

...I hardly understand what Continuum Space is, or might suggest in relation to something that stands in it...I personally believe in discreet Space "effect"...
( Space is not even a thing in itself, but a phenomena, where things seam to move, appear and disappear from one place to another...yet another phenomena, maybe related with the Multiverse possibility...)

...But in fact, Einstein has the one who said : "God does not play with dice"... Smile

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;130934 wrote:

...I hardly understand what Continuum Space is, or might suggest in relation to something that stands in it...I personally believe in discreet Space "effect"...

Discrete space and some form of neo-Pythagoreanism on the lines of Zuse's thesis seems to be the present refuge of determinists. In any case, relativity is a continuous theory, discrete ontologists have to throw it out.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;130937 wrote:

Discrete space and some form of neo-Pythagoreanism on the lines of Zuse's thesis seems to be the present refuge of determinists. In any case, relativity is a continuous theory, discrete ontologists have to throw it out.

re-attend my above edited post...

...its like saying, that I might be everywhere but in this specific point here and now I manifest myself to you as an observer with a specific position...
...I emerge from the Whole as phenomena to observers, lets say, to those directly linked to a given common specific frequency...to others in other frequency's, I might be elsewhere, or doing something else...the so called alternate reality... Smile

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;130938 wrote:

re-attend my above edited post...

My response remains the same. If you maintain a discrete ontology, then you must reject realism about any physical theory which appeals to real numbers. As this puts you at odds with pretty much all of modern physics, what grounds do you have that support determinism?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;130940 wrote:

My response remains the same. If you maintain a discrete ontology, then you must reject realism about any physical theory which appeals to real numbers. As this puts you at odds with pretty much all of modern physics, what grounds do you have that support determinism?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;130943 wrote:

...Causality is a must for any Logical conception off the World...

Causality has nothing to do with determinism, the two ideas are incompatible.

Fil. Albuquerque;130943 wrote:

I wonder exactly the same for indeterminism, can you describe in fact, or anyone, Randomness ?

The randomness, that matters for determinism, is mathematical. A string is random if it can not be generated by any string shorter than itself. This means that there is an uncountable infinity of uncomputable strings and, as the number of computable strings is countably infinite, any non-mathematically generated string is random with a probability of one. If we construct the prefix of a real number, by taking my sentences for today and assigning a zero to those containing an even number of letters and a one to those with an odd number, we have a string for which the continuation has a zero probability of being computable. If determinism were true, then Laplace's demon would, in principle, be able to compute the continuation of this string, but that would mean computing an uncomputable number, therefore determinism is false.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;130946 wrote:

Causality has nothing to do with determinism, the two ideas are incompatible.The randomness, that matters for determinism, is mathematical. A string is random if it can not be generated by any string shorter than itself. This means that there is an uncountable infinity of uncomputable strings and, as the number of computable strings is countably infinite, any non-mathematically generated string is random with a probability of one. If we construct the prefix of a real number, by taking my sentences for today and assigning a zero to those containing an even number of letters and a one to those with an odd number, we have a string for which the continuation has a zero probability of being computable. If determinism were true, then Laplace's demon would, in principle, be able to compute the continuation of this string, but that would mean computing an uncomputable number, therefore determinism is false.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;130950 wrote:

1 - How come causality as nothing to do with Determinism ???

Cause is irreducibly local, determinism is irreducibly global.

Fil. Albuquerque;130950 wrote:

3 - Can you better clarify what generates the string ?

I've explained exactly how to generate the string, that's all I need do.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;130952 wrote:

Cause is irreducibly local, determinism is irreducibly global.I've explained exactly how to generate the string, that's all I need do.

@Fil Albuquerque,

I was reading over this thread and thought this might be interesting. I wish I were a math whiz. I'm not. But this still seems important. (I read this guy's book, searched for an article after reading this thread. Maybe it applies and maybe it doesn't.

Quote:

Chaitin's mathematical curse is not an abstract theorem or an impenetrable equation: it is simply a number. This number, which Chaitin calls Omega, is real, just as pi is real. But Omega is infinitely long and utterly incalculable. Chaitin has found that Omega infects the whole of mathematics, placing fundamental limits on what we can know. And Omega is just the beginning. There are even more disturbing numbers--Chaitin calls them Super-Omegas--that would defy calculation even if we ever managed to work Omega out. The Omega strain of incalculable numbers reveals that mathematics is not simply moth-eaten, it is mostly made of gaping holes. Anarchy, not order, is at the heart of the Universe.

New Scientist: The Omega Man

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130955 wrote:

I was reading over this thread and thought this might be interesting. I wish I were a math whiz. I'm not. But this still seems important. (I read this guy's book, searched for an article after reading this thread. Maybe it applies and maybe it doesn't.

New Scientist: The Omega Man

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;130956 wrote:

Apparently the guy is big news. His name appears as if important in several books I've recently looked through. And then I read the book that he wrote. He replaced Godel's theorem apparently. Or provided a more elegant substitution. But I'm no expert.

What I find interesting is that in the book he talks of the impossibility of random numbers. Or something like that. I have programmed computers in an amateur way and used the "random" number generators which have to be" randomized" and I find the concept of randomness fascinating. It's a bit like Free Will. And I am suspicious as to the ability of my merely human faculties to side with either Free Will or Determinism. Way back I was interested in a Freud quote about "Free" Association. Freud didn't believe that association was ever free. Right or wrong, it's an interesting issue.

@Fil Albuquerque,

So.....it now seems to yours truly that there is only one number, that number being 1. It's contingent but poetic that this number is represented by a single stroke in two dimensions (ideally in two dimensions...). To truly and utterly represent one is to frame empty space. The number (the name "one" is contingent) is word washed of temporarily. The negation of all qualia or lower-order concepts. The synthesis or pure synthesis. No wonder Parmenides wuz excited. He was on to something. Or onto to nothing. Or on to a creative void. Yes! The one is a creative void. The ultimate abstraction. But this ultimate abstraction is possible conceived not as one but as negative one, or perhaps one and its side as a minus sign.....or the square root of negative one.......

"I am the Truth.......I and my Father are one......Before Abraham was, I am...."

"Being is one. Nonbeing is not. "

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133954 wrote:

there is only one number, that number being 1

I think you'll also need zero, in order to define one.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;133956 wrote:

I think you'll also need zero, in order to define one.

What do you think about the minus sign, instead of zero? Isn't zero just a place-holder, or what do you think? Of course this minus sign might be mixing symbolic (in the Jungian sense) with useful math....

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133959 wrote:

What do you think about the minus sign, instead of zero? Isn't zero just a place-holder, or what do you think?

I dont know, how would you define number like this?

@Fil Albuquerque,

It seems to me that all numbers could be written in binary code, zeros functioning as placeholders....
Actually the minus sign is only necessary in dialectic (synthetic logos or word)...or rather the minus sign is no more necessary than the other traditional operators, as far as math is concerned....
In negative theology "God" is better represented as a minus sign than a one. Keep in mind that negative theology, or at least positronic theology, conceives of God as the presence of an absence.....

The confusion comes from the "fact" that word has a mathematical foundation, in that all concepts are unifications, or "ones." But words, in a way quite different from number(s), can absorb/negate other words. Hence the possibility of abstraction ---and this is why Hegel is a genius....for understanding this, and explaining how philosophy is possible...

Do you see why I would say that there is only one number?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

ONE

Quick Links

My Account

able2know