a biology of ...

[archytas]

Pat often presents his dire, alcohol-free Kaliber-Yawn space of modern
physics. He knows me well enough to know this is not nasty ridicule.
I find myself wondering how different my life really is from feeling
hungry, finding rabbit in trap and cooking and eating it. I currently
find myself teaching foreign students for much the same purpose, or
applying for jobs to do so etc. It is as vapid a process as anything
Orn describes in the current heartless materialism, and way from any
new consciousness Molly might touch to from time to time, or Vam in
his sagacity of the 'one'.
I'm a long way from science these days, and find my knowledge off beam
when I look at odd bits of stuff that interest me. I'm left just
wondering how irrelevant it all seems as a tiny speck in enornmity,
possibly in a universe amongst many, trapped in the speed of light in
a vacuum within voids with a science fiction that takes me to the
despair of soap operas being played out in a future like the past
attempt to deny, with no purpose other than to repeat a history I
think I'm really ashamed to be part of. At the moment, I can't really
even dream anything else. Depression maybe - though I know enough of
this to doubt it is.
The biology of this appears somewhat played out. I am just a vessel
now obselete in sperm wars and the genetics of a cruel evolution that
makes me doubt soul and personal identity. The moral questions of the
day seem only part of this 'waiting for catastrophe' and renewal
beyond any personal influence. Life seems so far from any reason for
me to know (speculate) on time and being before big bang, even if this
might be evidenced in maps of background radiation.
I do find myself wondering whether biology might be about to change.
HOX genes are 'managing genes' that could give snakes legs and so on
by reorganising the other genes. Perhaps there are other organising
genetic forces-structures coming along that would change how and what
we perceive? After all, ants 'do slavery' and we tend to slap
ourselves into thinking this is 'immoral' and very conscious activity
(I'm sure it is rotten). If we are 99% chimp and 42% bananas, we are
hoxed very differently. I wonder if we could speculate on biology in
the 'Kaliber-Yawn' manner, instead of from within the trap of our
infestation of this planet? What might this wider biology be?

[ornamentalmind]

Point of interest: All teleological processes are alive.

[ornamentalmind]

Sorry Neil...perhaps I just need to step out of Flatland for a while.

> > infestation of this planet?  What might this wider biology be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[archytas]

On the contrary friend - this is my point. The physics is currently
somewhat demoralising, however Pat may enliven some possibilities. Do
any of us have a biological spec-articulation?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 07:57, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Pat often presents his dire, alcohol-free Kaliber-Yawn space of modern
> physics.  He knows me well enough to know this is not nasty ridicule.

True!

How about: Biology is the means by which God makes his thoughts
present in space-time.


Also, there's the Histone Code of epigenetics that could open
some new doors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histone_code


Also, one can ponder what DNA-like codes would be likely in
silicon-based lifeforms rather than our carbon-based garden
varieties. I bet there's not been a lot of work done in that.

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 08:35, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On the contrary friend - this is my point.  The physics is currently
> somewhat demoralising, however Pat may enliven some possibilities.  Do
> any of us have a biological spec-articulation?
>

Done, in my message above.

[archytas]

I don't exactly like the god notion Pat - yet Biology seems to need
some explanation, especially given that we can't exactly travel to
the stars, other than in our ramshackle-tinfoil way. Currently we
would struggle to get to Mars, though would find soil suitable for
vegetables. I would not dismiss the god-thought expression in any way
- but what can we elaborate on this or rival skeletons?

[archytas]

DNA is definitely not all, nor macro survival of the fittest, or
catastophe driven change. What would modern speco-thinking be on
this?

On 30 Jun, 10:35, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

Our bodies are only one very small part of the entire 'tree'. They are
at the base, and next comes our brains then our sexual and spiritual
drives. Yet, we then have to move through a hand full of subconscious
'minds' until we even reach cognition. Introspection will not be found
in biology. And, hormones are one aspect of 'mind'.

[archytas]

Agreed Orn - yet 'introspection' is found in biology - as we do it - I
know you meant something different. I can understand biologists being
pissed off by creationists in terms of evidence (though symbolic
interpretation gets an unjust cold-shoulder) - I'm after a problematic
of biology that is wider and intelligible in terms of wider thinking
about what we are. Pinker isn't bad at this up to a point - but I
don't mean socio-biology or evolutionary psychology.
I don't think this is the first universe. Now I know this is hardly
what I need in mind when I look down a microscope to spot disease of
whatever (not that I do these days). I can read and more or less
understand papers that 'demonstrate' that the slate may be wiped clean
if there is a big crunch (Turok etc.) - but I can also see 'we' may
have already left this universe by then - perhaps some have already.
Travelling into new universes is disappointing - I can't imagine why
this is more than some eternal return for life - though I can imagine
worlds of peace or even universes with a 'different Higgs' Field'. If
it makes any sense I want to know more about aspiration beyond the
winning hundred at Lords against the Aussies or a decent paper on
relativism as a realist research method - even the thought of being
able to change 'consciousness' in Molly's sense for some decent
community building.
I used to make up science fiction stories for classes based on
anthropology to challenge conceptions of leadership and so on.
Students had trouble grasping I was describing real people. I'm
wondering about biology in actual worlds, about the possibility of
thinking with a scientific world view that let's in what you talk of -
I don't find much concept of 'world' in our thinking. Jared Diamond's
book on catastrophe makes some of this point and certainly what Molly
was saying about McLuhan has it. I want us to be able to discuss
notions that a past race is now in another universe and beginning to
communicate with us without being away with the fairies - to do more
with metaphor and the fact we don't need to be stuck chopping down
trees to put up stone carvings in this connected world - to try and
see to what extent were are still metaphoric Easter Islanders and how
much different things are now.
In some ways I'm thinking about a novel we might all write (Molly is
right we are doing this in a sense) and yet shift the problematic
ground in a real way.
I'm jumping around because this is all I have. Craig puts up gun
control issues and everyone jumps in - yet we don't shift the
problematic - which I suspect should be about how people behave when
they have the power that comes from the barrel of a gun - or political
power - in some recognition that we live in a world of power and yet
doesn't collapse into cynical deep politics. Everyone chips in with
old argument (myself included) and examples. I'm currently disgusted
with local policing, but in no way want to see no police force. Much
the same applies to the world situation - I'm not prepared to be a
pacifist trying to argue with armed Taliban or CIA linked drug
dealers. I sense "biology" could help shift us to world-view thinking
that isn't just an almost morbid desire that everything be hunky-dory
or the shame of what one can construe just by looking at a piece of
meat knowing about poverty and hunger. Hard to write this.

[Molly Brogan]

There is some speculation that DNA is tied to resonance - which would
put it at the other end of Orn's scale and closer to the origin of the
hologram in a holographic universe. A shift in thinking or change in
consciousness is a change in belief, which would then create the
series of changes from the DNA to the experience. I have seen people
respond to an idea, or another person in ways that "brighten" them,
inspire them - and they are willing to follow a path that brings with
it unifying change. Just a small group of people with the "right"
connections that hold the common belief that change is possible can
put it all in motion.

[archytas]

Willard Quine addressed some of this in cold language in terms of
'facts' received in a world-view network (in the individual). Holding
a common belief that change is possible and following paths to
unifying change remain problematic. Some take the view that
creativity, even recognising 'reality' requires moves beyond socially
approved epistemic authority - yet dispatching this to the individual,
especially as solus ipse already seems part of such an epistemology.
I want, in many ways, to believe in a 'brightening'.
Teaching gender stuff, I often encounter problems of misconceived
'biology' - that biology construes women as inferior and that kind of
thing. Biology does no such thing - these are very much social
constructions - and the social construction of science by non-
scientists is generally ill-informed.
I want biology to be able to address what we are doing here as tiny
things able to ponder vastness and collectivity, selfishness,
altruism, adaptation. I shy away from 'Sooty's magic wand' analysis,
but have very strong feelings that our heads are buried in the sand
and missing the magical speculation that the world does not have to be
such a grim place. I'd regard Real-politik as 'biological' and
replaceable by a very different habitual frame. I favour some kind of
technology that allows us not to have to re-invent the wheel all over
the place - one that gives us a better sense of history almost in
Hegel's sense.
Speculation in physics and science generally amount to stories - my
sense is we are not telling ours well enough to be able to reasonabley
demonstrate that tests can be done.

On 1 Jul, 04:24, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

[archytas]

Biological study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking
for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could
be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence
sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about
homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a
mixture of genetic and environmental factors. Studies of identical
twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to
untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a
trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire
environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their
entire environment (well mostly). Therefore, greater similarity in a
trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that
genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait. Overall,
genetics accounts for around 35 per cent of the differences between
men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific
environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or
parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent.
In other words, men become gay or straight because of different
developmental pathways, not just one pathway. For women, genetics
explains roughly 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behaviour,
non-shared environment roughly 64 per cent and shared factors, or the
family environment, explains 16 per cent. Genetic influences are
important but modest, and that non-shared environmental factors, which
may include factors operating during foetal development, dominate.
Importantly, heredity had roughly the same influence as shared
environmental factors in women, whereas the latter had no impact on
sexual behaviour in men.
I don't find much understanding of genetics at this level. People
generally still imagine the presence of a gene/s is decisive -
behaviour is clearly much more complex than this as is 'biology'. The
gay issue doesn't interest me per se - I'd see issues of 'habit' as
important - the lack of conscious choice in any simple, individual
manner - the possibilities of a wider will.

> > > > > > > > > > HOX genes are 'managing genes' that- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

We can now manipulate stuff in molecules using 'light tweazers',
breaking off this protein and that protein. I think this is mostly a
technique to measure the strength of bonding so far. Even this kind
of advance is suggesting a 'new biology' in terms of our potential
manipulation of ourselves.

> > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 12:10 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:- Hide quoted text -

[Molly Brogan]

It does remain the realm of the mystic - the idea that belief changes
vibration and vibratory patterns alter DNA structure and activity -
but I think it is being studied and will certainly continue to be.
After that, the jacobs ladder of change brings into our experience all
that the vibratory pattern allows, including, eventually, the science
to back it up. Change the vibration, change the experience. We seem,
as a species, to be pointed first in the direction by inspiration.
Your ideas are a bright example. Folks seem to cling to their fear
based beliefs probably for the same reasons that they continue to
argue as pastime - it is easy and comfortable. I can say from
experience that changing belief and forging a new path is not easy or
comfortable. It begins with the step that Francis bravely expressed,
moving past what others think of you or say about you - criticism and
negativity must become part of the noise and the flood of facts that
fall out of focus. Maintaining a high vibration requires a focus on
possibility that integrates, yet no longer focus' on what has been.
My experience is that once this can be achieved, you pull into your
experience everything you need to move forward, as long as you
maintain that vibration. It is a heart centered process that uses the
entire being and is all inclusive, yet focused on possibility.

> ...
>
> read more »

[gabbydott]

The vibrational rate theory I would expect to hear in my yoga class,
really. A sound theory and as such a wide field for translations and
interpretations of all sorts. In fact, I dropped biology after two
semesters because I found it far too time consuming.

On 1 Jul., 14:59, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Justintruth]

I think you have to be careful not to identify literally natural
objective reality (e.g. vibration in DNA molecules) with metaphysical
notions like "high vibration". Both are legitimate but the urge to
identify them is fundamentalism and being an untruth is ultimately
destructive of the aim.

Good luck "moving forward".



On Jul 1, 5:59 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

Yes Neil. To 'Know Thyself' in a truely ultimate way is necessary
here...to be able to feel and know the organs, the glands, the
hormones directly! Until this is done, the rest will remain
dialectical phenomenology.
While only a start, the basics must be known. And, here, I'm only
telling a story...quite different from the true praxis.

[ornamentalmind]

When it comes to 'brightness', an, albeit rather shallow, example of
it being demonstrated includes:
http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/wp-content/photos/prophet_mohammed_2.jpg
http://trionfi.com/0/c/p/prudentia-halo.jpg
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/SinaiIcons/6thKievVirginChild.jpg
http://osaka-art.info-museum.net/selection_e/img/c_sculpture/sel_cscu18.jpg
http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/miscimages/halo-horus.jpg
http://www.test-cornerstone.org/images/Christ-Icon.jpg

Conclusion: different 'levels' of brightness and, overall, a true
metaphysical change is needed...an enlightenment, to coin a phrase.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

While it is possible to notice hormonal changes within one's own
psyche and in a scientific sense hormones exist, so does that aspect
of consciousness associated with them. Said aspect is not found in a
microscope. Such aspect is not found in a slice of brain tissue. Such
aspect is not found in a book, a 'tree' perhaps.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Any such "advance...suggesting a 'new biology'" when founded upon
ignorance will produce a concomitant result.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

*** ties gabby's legs in a knot ***

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Justin, see:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/analogy

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Structuring the confidence to do things together is important. Is
that a Gornian knot Orn?

> > > > > > > > thinking with a scientific world view that let's in what- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

First, I'm not clear about what is meant by 'structuring the
confidence to do things together'. So, I find no knot, Gornian NOR
Gordian.
R.D. Lang found many Knots though.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

RD was my kind of 'madman'. I think we are looking for an
Enlightenment. Postmodernism contans a lot about not getting fixated
in thought, though I don't find the idea of knotted ladies' legs very
appealing, even though population is a matter we need to resolve. One
of the keys seems to lie in science - but this can't be a science that
bashes all other forms of expression - which may also really be part
of scientific thinking other than puzzle solving within theoretical
construction. When metaphysics is stupid, or so clever there is
nothing to test out, when it is clearly a socially approved
epistemology residing on authority, ancient text and so on, then I can
understand why we might want to clear it all away - though there
always seems to be a metaphysics lying under such actions of
rebellion. Even incredulity towards metanarratives requires the state
of incredulity and presumably the work necessary to relaise much we
are told to believe is fable - thus it will have its own metaphysics.
We mostly do science because we pick up its theories in habit. Most
scientists know little of Ludwig, Snell or even Bachelard and Kuhn.
We look down microscopes and use technical equipment most could never
use well - and using such stuff involves years of practice and habit-
forming. I believe we need a new metaphysics - one that helps guide
is in terms of best scientific practice - but I know I do not mean the
term 'science' as many receive it - and whatever we strive for it
should not be the idiocy of a value-free science (as opposed to a
science not prepared to be constrained to idiot values?)or something
so hard that most cannot work out whether it is reasonable or not
(otherwise the cultists and conmen can have a field day).
I saw a documentary on Crippen last night. I might have a few
quibbles with the forensics, but it looks as though the human remains
found in his rented house were male and thus that he was convicted
quite wrongly. Despite CSI, much of the use of forensics in our
courts is deeply flawed and known to be so. Both the US and UK have
had lonf-term fraudsters giving false evidence as though it was
science. Even at this level we are getting science wrong, let alone
in the theorising. These practical failures and the daft nonsense of
bidding for research money make me think trying to produce any
metaphysics that explains all is dangerous and somehow repeats the
idiocy of not being open to evidence, and aware we need to caution our
process against liars.

> > > > > > > > > > Travelling into new universes is disappointing - I can't imagine why- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

This is from Veblen (about 100 years ago). Project Gutenberg has a
lot of good stuff and you can get it as a google gadget. He's talking
about trying to think through a world of peace and why we can't get
there. The broad message is we are indoctrinated idiots - one might
even notice an 'Ornian' tone.

'What length of time will be required for this decay of the dynastic
spirit among the people of the Empire is, of course, impossible to
say. The factors of the case are not of a character to admit anything
like calculation of the rate of movement; but in the nature of the
factors involved it is also contained that something of a movement in
this direction is unavoidable, under Providence. As a preliminary
consideration, these peoples of the Empire and its allies, as well as
their enemies in the great war, will necessarily come out of their
warlike experience in a more patriotic and more vindictive frame of
mind than that in which they entered on this adventure. Fighting makes
for malevolence. The war is itself to be counted as a set-back. A very
large proportion of those who have lived through it will necessarily
carry a warlike bent through life. By that much, whatever it may count
for, the decay of the dynastic spirit—or the growth of tolerance and
equity in national sentiment, if one chooses to put it that way—will
be retarded from beforehand. So also the Imperial establishment, or
whatever is left of it, may be counted on to do everything in its
power to preserve the popular spirit of loyalty and national
animosity, by all means at its disposal; since the Imperial
establishment finally rests on the effectual body of national
animosity. What hindrance will come in from this agency of retardation
can at least vaguely be guessed at, in the light of[Pg 196] what has
been accomplished in that way under the strenuously reactionary rule
of the present reign.

Again, there is the chance, as there always is a chance of human
folly, that the neighboring peoples will undertake, whether jointly or
severally, to restrict or prohibit trade relations between the people
of the Empire and their enemies in the present war; thereby fomenting
international animosity, as well as contributing directly to the
economic readiness for war both on their own part and on that of the
Empire. This is also, and in an eminent degree, an unknown factor in
the case, on which not even a reasonable guess can be made beforehand.
These are, all and several, reactionary agencies, factors of
retardation, making for continuation of the current international
situation of animosity, distrust, chicane, trade rivalry, competitive
armament, and eventual warlike enterprise'.

I've long known nationalism is crap and used to keep people down.
Veblen is well-aware we cannot just submit to peace. The sad thing,
for me, is that even pretty bright people in here can't argue without
realising what has 'pre-affected' their thinking and left them without
the ability to be reasonable in the sense of being in a state prepared
to change on the facts as they are established in a challengable world-
view. I see biology as a fundamental component in this - as something
blocking 'freedom from self' and also blocking the actual evidence. A
few jumps and I'm believing a new technology of argument (not
requiring 'super literacy') could change this 'biology'.

I'm not thinking of vibrating DNA here - but do think we may now be
able to produce ways of living that change our biology. In biology we
already know this does happen - we just don't have much control or
understanding of the processes. I think that the fact that one finds
populations all over the world who think they are fighting or
preparing for 'defensive wars' is part of biology - though I don't
mean this in a colonnising way. I think the fact someone like Veblen
could make so much sense 100 years ago and we have paid so little heed
- is biology. My emphasis on biology is not about providing
biological solutions in a crude scientific manner - Max Weber actually
thought this might well replace social theory - but a shift in
collective metaphysic to stop us being exploited through it. At least
I think so.

My neighbour has just been nicked for a series of crimes and is now
being cuckolded by his partner taking in a 'lodger' not declared to
housing benefit so she can defraud the benefit and take £60 a week of
the lodger. Must take defensive precautions in this wonderful world.

> > read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Molly Brogan]

"a shift in collective metaphysic to stop us being exploited through
it."

Historically, how often does a shift in collective metaphysic occur,
and what is the process? Various cultures have prophesied a shift in
collective metaphysic occurring 2012 and there are those that think
this will be a shift into a collective non dual perspective. If so,
your new technology of argument will follow. Argument will fall away
without two sides or more to argue. What will take its place will be
more of discourse and dialogue.

> ...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

That last post helped a lot Molly. It is, of course, the idiot-
indoctrinated arguments that need to wither away. I need to deal with
some personal stuff - so I'm off for a bit. 'Collective metaphysic'
is not quite my choice of term - my approach is through 'relativism as
a realist research method' - I'll have to explain sometime.
My neighbours have just been arrested and an ugly story is emerging -
about them and police and local authority corruption. Even I am only
just realising how vile some of what has gone on has been. I had to
do my own investigation because cops were so bad. A month back, a
young cop arrived to deal with a harassment issue becaue our local
boys were off duty. He turned out to be honest and things have more
or less changed overnight. Going to consume my time for a while.

On 2 Jul, 14:27, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

> > > > > > > > based beliefs probably for the same reasons that they- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

Science Friction is gonna get you. Currently what is pissing me off is
the arrogance of genetics.
For a hundred years it has been claiming that genes are the key
determining factor in human physiology, behaviour, disease ad
infinitem. Then we are presented with the holy Grail of genetics: THE
HUMAN GENOME project. In which we learn that there are only 300,000
genes (the largest estimate) when it seems we were hoping for more
then we learn that 40% of these genes are the same ones that a blade
of grass has, that we are 90% identical to chimps, and 99% identical
with each other. This fragile 1% is supposed to express the difference
between Ghengis Khan and Nelson Mandela. 300 words in an alphabet with
only 4 letters ACTG. I think what gets me is the continued arrogance
of the search for the "gay" gene or the "mountaineers" gene. Hopefully
future science will look upon the unapologetic modern genetics's
search for the answer to life the universe and everything else with a
patronizing smile given to a child who hasn't got it figured out yet,
and that we realize that life and living is what determines how we
live and who we are.

I look out of my window at night
I see the stars and I'm filled with fright
I got a feeling someone's looking
It ain't the aliens at the foot of my bed
It's more the ale inside my head
I got a feeling something's cooking
Science friction burns my fingers
Electricity still lingers
Hey put away that ray, how do you martians say
I love you
I read my comics from front to back
I'll be ready for any attack
I got a feeling someone's looking

[chazwin]

> Point of interest: All teleological processes are alive.

Thus is the Universe inanimate and lifeless.

Life is a finite quantity in an infinite quantity the universe. As an
infinite quantity divided by finite quantity renders a thing so small
as to be virtually non existent then there is no life in the universe.

[Pottsie]

(Pottsie)

 

I always thought that if you added, divided, substracted any number from the Infinite, you still had an infinite amount left over.  Is this not correct?

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

[archytas]

It's not really science that has been pursuing a 'gay gene' - recent
studies reckon the genetic influences about 35% in men and 18% in
women - about 35% family and much to do with other factors. What you
describe is real though Chaz - it's like some kind of monstrous excuse
is being pursued - the science is more complicated - people shy away
from complexity in general. It's the kind of 'biology' in your
statement that needs to be got out of the way - but this is mostly
born in ignorance. I get as much pleasure from science as I do from
literature and some aspects of art. I hate this soap science as much
as I do soap opera. The arses are even concerned that someone is gay
- ffsake!

[Ian Pollard]

2008/7/2 Pottsie <potts...@yahoo.com>:

(Pottsie)

 

I always thought that if you added, divided, substracted any number from the Infinite, you still had an infinite amount left over.  Is this not correct?

 

Hi Pottsie,

Infinity is not a rational number, so using arithmetic on it pointless.

Ian

[Keith MacNevins]

If you had an infinite number of glasses of water and you drank one of the glasses of water you would still have an infinite number of glasses of water, and not "infinite, less one."

 

Infinite can be thought of as something regarding which there is simply nothing greater than. Therefore, while the universe may be finite, it can still be thought of as infinite if there is nothing outside of the universe or which exists in addition to it.

 

[Pat]

On 2 Jul, 14:27, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:

> "a shift in collective metaphysic to stop us being exploited through
> it."
>
> Historically, how often does a shift in collective metaphysic occur,
> and what is the process?  Various cultures have prophesied a shift in
> collective metaphysic occurring 2012 and there are those that think
> this will be a shift into a collective non dual perspective.  If so,
> your new technology of argument will follow.  Argument will fall away
> without two sides or more to argue.  What will take its place will be
> more of discourse and dialogue.
>

I guess I should aim for getting my book out in 2012.

> > > > > > > > based beliefs probably for the same reasons that they- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 2 Jul, 15:11, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> That last post helped a lot Molly.  It is, of course, the idiot-
> indoctrinated arguments that need to wither away.  I need to deal with
> some personal stuff - so I'm off for a bit.  'Collective metaphysic'
> is not quite my choice of term - my approach is through 'relativism as
> a realist research method' - I'll have to explain sometime.
> My neighbours have just been arrested and an ugly story is emerging -
> about them and police and local authority corruption.  Even I am only
> just realising how vile some of what has gone on has been.  I had to
> do my own investigation because cops were so bad.  A month back, a
> young cop arrived to deal with a harassment issue becaue our local
> boys were off duty.  He turned out to be honest and things have more
> or less changed overnight.  Going to consume my time for a while.
>

Heh! Return of the Scrotes: Busted!

> > > > > > > > I think you have to be careful not to- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Jul 2, 4:54 pm, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (Pottsie)
>
> I always thought that if you added, divided, substracted any number from the Infinite, you still had an infinite amount left over. Is this not correct?

Yes an infinite amount of space and nothing else.

Apologies.
I think I should have said a finite quantity (life) divided by an
infinite quantity(space) - tends to as near to nothing as makes no
difference.
Therefore there's no life in the universe.


>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie

>
> chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Point of interest: All teleological processes are alive.
>
> Thus is the Universe inanimate and lifeless.
>
> Life is a finite quantity in an infinite quantity the universe. As an
> infinite quantity divided by finite quantity renders a thing so small
> as to be virtually non existent then there is no life in the universe.
>

> "Properly speaking, of course, there is no such thing as a return to nature, because there is no such thing as a departure from it. The phrase reminds one of the slightly intoxicated gentleman who gets up in his own dining room and declares firmly that he must be getting home." - G.K. Chesterton

[chazwin]

On Jul 2, 6:19 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you had an infinite number of glasses of water and you drank one of the
> glasses of water you would still have an infinite number of glasses of
> water, and not "infinite, less one."
>
> Infinite can be thought of as something regarding which there is simply
> nothing greater than.

Not really. Infinite means boundless. The universe has boundaries and
is therefore not infinite.

Therefore, while the universe may be finite, it can
> still be thought of as infinite if there is nothing outside of the universe
> or which exists in addition to it.
>

> On 7/2/08, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2008/7/2 Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >> (Pottsie)
>
> >> I always thought that if you added, divided, substracted any number from
> >> the Infinite, you still had an infinite amount left over. Is this not
> >> correct?
>
> > Hi Pottsie,
>
> > Infinity is not a rational number, so using arithmetic on it pointless.
>
> > Ian
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell
> All rights reserved

[chazwin]

On Jul 2, 5:03 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> It's not really science that has been pursuing a 'gay gene' - recent
> studies reckon the genetic influences about 35% in men and 18% in
> women - about 35% family and much to do with other factors.

I have the feeling that the evidence is not available to make that
determination.

What you
> describe is real though Chaz - it's like some kind of monstrous excuse
> is being pursued - the science is more complicated - people shy away
> from complexity in general. It's the kind of 'biology' in your
> statement that needs to be got out of the way - but this is mostly
> born in ignorance. I get as much pleasure from science as I do from
> literature and some aspects of art. I hate this soap science as much
> as I do soap opera. The arses are even concerned that someone is gay
> - ffsake!

Of course underneath all this so-called "objective" science is the
assumption that homosexuality and many other aspects of human
diversity are "abnormal" or diseases.

[Keith MacNevins]

That is a measure of semantics methinks. Personally, I concede that I can not conceive of an infinite universe, nor can I conceive of space as a thing that curves and literally has boundaries. Such as there being nothing, not 

even space. I believe there are probably several definitions of infinite. I am confident in my assertion that, for instance, as Benedict Spinoza spoke of God being infinite substance -- that nothing apart from, or greater than can be conceived. In that sense the one substance is infinite even if you could somehow imagine it was the universe and it consisted of two halves.

[Pat]

On 2 Jul, 18:49, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  That is a measure of semantics methinks. Personally, I concede that I can
> not conceive of an infinite universe, nor can I conceive of space as a thing
> that curves and literally has boundaries. Such as there being nothing, not
> even space. I believe there are probably several definitions of infinite. I
> am confident in my assertion that, for instance, as Benedict Spinoza spoke
> of God being infinite substance -- that nothing apart from, or greater than
> can be conceived. In that sense the one substance is infinite even if you
> could somehow imagine it was the universe and it consisted of two halves.
>

Remember that one can go around the surface of a sphere an
infinite number of times because there is no boundary (wall) to
prevent you from doing so. Yet the ball itself is finite. God is
infinite because of the geometry of space-time, yet could also be
quantifiably finite in itself, like the ball. I suspect that, if one
had a particularly long enough time to do so, one could count all the
strings (or quanta) that make up the universe. That is, I believe
that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, although, due
to the geometry of space-time--the SHAPE of the universe--that energy
is boundless and can, repeatedly, go through Big Bang sequences that
result in serial universes. Even time needn't be infinite, as you
only need enough time to explore all the possibilities. While there
is a HUGE number of possible things energy can do, its very nature
conforms it to certain limitations and, once those possibilities have
all been explored, there is nothing left for God to do, as He will
have done everthing possible and fulfilled the requirement of
omnipotence by actually performing them all.

> All rights reserved- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Jul 2, 6:49 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a measure of semantics methinks. Personally, I concede that I can
> not conceive of an infinite universe, nor can I conceive of space as a thing
> that curves and literally has boundaries. Such as there being nothing, not
> even space. I believe there are probably several definitions of infinite. I
> am confident in my assertion that, for instance, as Benedict Spinoza spoke
> of God being infinite substance -- that nothing apart from, or greater than
> can be conceived. In that sense the one substance is infinite even if you
> could somehow imagine it was the universe and it consisted of two halves.

Well it might be a game of two halves. But like most games it seems to
have a beginning and the evidence suggests it has a limit.
Science, in determining the time of the big bang and the limits of the
know universe has come up with the rough number 13 billion years, the
limits of the universe being the time taken by the expansion to reach
93 billion light years across being the time taken for light to have
reached out from the big bang. Thus the universe whilst not exactly
infinite is continuing to expand at the speed of light. This is of
course IMPOSSIBLE as the universe is much bigger than the limit set by
nature on the speed of light. If light travelled in two direction in
13 billion years you might ask why the universe is more than 26
billion light years across - a lot more!. Well apparently space can
expand quicker than light - don't ask me more - I can't get any
further with this myself. Its all relative!

[Pat]

On 2 Jul, 18:41, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:03 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not really science that has been pursuing a 'gay gene' - recent
> > studies reckon the genetic influences about 35% in men and 18% in
> > women - about 35% family and much to do with other factors.
>
> I have the feeling that the evidence is not available to make that
> determination.
>
>  What you
>
> > describe is real though Chaz - it's like some kind of monstrous excuse
> > is being pursued - the science is more complicated - people shy away
> > from complexity in general.  It's the kind of 'biology' in your
> > statement that needs to be got out of the way - but this is mostly
> > born in ignorance.  I get as much pleasure from science as I do from
> > literature and some aspects of art.  I hate this soap science as much
> > as I do soap opera.  The arses are even concerned that someone is gay
> > - ffsake!
>
> Of course underneath all this so-called "objective" science is the
> assumption that homosexuality and many other aspects of human
> diversity are "abnormal" or diseases.
>

Which, in light of the phenomenon being present in hundreds of
other species, is ridiculous, to say the least. Its rarity might make
it technically abnormal, that is, solely by virtue of the fact that it
is not the sexuality of the majority; but it could never be seen as
unnatural because its present in the natural world.

>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Jul, 16:05, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Point of interest: All teleological processes are alive.
>
> > > Thus is the Universe inanimate and lifeless.
>
> > > Life is a finite quantity in an infinite quantity the universe. As an
> > > infinite quantity divided by  finite quantity renders a thing so small

> > > as to be virtually non existent then there is no life in the universe.- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

This stuff makes my head swim. But I like it. Benedict Spinoza said something interesting about all of the stuff in the universe.

 

Paraphrased slightly:

 

"God created everything that could be conceived of by his infinite intellect. Because material was not lacking for the creation of everything that could be conceived of by the infinite intellect."

 

[chazwin]

Of course, and thus whilst such an opinion which suggests that it is
"unnatural" or even "perverse" cannot be "objective".

[Pat]

Indeed. And even bloody irritating for those of us who plainly know
better.

[ornamentalmind]

I'm all for science and metaphysics. Yet, to grab for any sort of
enlightenment that has as its method, subject and/or goal anything
other than itself tends to deviate that psyche...case in point, the
superman. So, while it does address the all and the everything, only
dealing with itself, it is the only 'safe', in your context, praxis
possible.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

While Veblen may be a tad bit 'Ornian' in tone, not quite Orwelian, I
take little solace in mirrors of a barely self-actualized level of
disillusionment. While the eyes may be just beginning to admit light
here, a blindness of almost opaque reactions still exists... nothing I
would trust to power. Power, the function of which does not require
ego, almost always is grossly distorted by same.
Of course, when we come to a world view, of course that which looks
externally will never know the preestablished points of manifestation.
When biology is thrown into the mix, we can use the ancient notion
(social theory?) of purifying the blood as a method. Still, all too
often the goal is one of materialism.
When it comes to neighbors all too often I say "There but for the
grace...". Yet, on a different level, we all have a preestablished
interest in preservation. All too often hatred and resentment are but
additional veils over our omnipresent cateracts.

[ornamentalmind]

"...Hopefully future science will look upon the unapologetic modern

genetics's
search for the answer to life the universe and everything else with a
patronizing smile given to a child who hasn't got it figured out yet,
and that we realize that life and living is what determines how we
live and who we are."

Wonderful insight. Of course, 'they' like the rest of us would like to
know. I take the above tact when it comes to phrenology.

> > infestation of this planet?  What might this wider biology be?- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

"Thus is the Universe inanimate and lifeless.
Life is a finite quantity in an infinite quantity the universe. As an
infinite quantity divided by finite quantity renders a thing so small
as to be virtually non existent then there is no life in the
universe."

Is this the logic of nihilism?

[ornamentalmind]

Ahh, I see, more of the logic of Zeno.

> > "Properly speaking, of course, there is no such thing as a return to nature, because there is no such thing as a departure from it. The phrase reminds one of the slightly intoxicated gentleman who gets up in his own dining room and declares firmly that he must be getting home."  - G.K. Chesterton- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

...the theology and metaphysics of materiality...

On Jul 2, 10:49 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  That is a measure of semantics methinks. Personally, I concede that I can
> not conceive of an infinite universe, nor can I conceive of space as a thing
> that curves and literally has boundaries. Such as there being nothing, not
> even space. I believe there are probably several definitions of infinite. I
> am confident in my assertion that, for instance, as Benedict Spinoza spoke
> of God being infinite substance -- that nothing apart from, or greater than
> can be conceived. In that sense the one substance is infinite even if you
> could somehow imagine it was the universe and it consisted of two halves.
>

> All rights reserved- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

When dealing with the relative, our concepts, yes this is bounded or
at least has preestablished peramaters...as is the case for the
absolute.
When it comes to 'mind', it only requires knowing itself.

[chazwin]

On Jul 2, 10:39 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Thus is the Universe inanimate and lifeless.
> Life is a finite quantity in an infinite quantity the universe. As an
> infinite quantity divided by finite quantity renders a thing so small
> as to be virtually non existent then there is no life in the
> universe."
>
> Is this the logic of nihilism?

Actually its Douglas Adams.

[chazwin]

On Jul 2, 10:37 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "...Hopefully future science will look upon the unapologetic modern
> genetics's
> search for the answer to life the universe and everything else with a
> patronizing smile given to a child who hasn't got it figured out yet,
> and that we realize that life and living is what determines how we
> live and who we are."
>
> Wonderful insight. Of course, 'they' like the rest of us would like to
> know. I take the above tact when it comes to phrenology.

Excellent example to which we can add that outdated Babylonian science
of astrology. As a student of history I learned that astrology came
westward at a crucial time. The death of Caesar at the time of the
appearance of a comet smashed all rational objections and that
particular cultural virus was then unstoppable.

[ornamentalmind]

> > Is this the logic of nihilism?
>
> Actually its Douglas Adams.
>

Ahhh, thanks. That makes sense, since he is a self-described 'radical
atheist'. I have and do watch Dr Who and used to watch Hitchhiker
though.

> > > as to be virtually non existent then there is no life in the universe.- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Yesterday's science is today's fool's gold. - Orn.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pottsie]

I'm trying to figure out who you are quoting here with "All
teleological processes are alive"

Namaste

Pottsie

On Jul 2, 11:05 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Point of interest:Allteleologicalprocessesarealive.
>

[Pottsie]

I would have thought that you could.  Interesting.

 

Can you conceive of "nothing" at the "edge" of "that which exists"?  If you can, you can conceive of an Infinite Universe.

 

One of the problems that people have in conceiving of an Infinite Universe is that they conceive of "nothing" as existing.  "Nothing" does not exist.  There is only Existence.  1 + 0 =1 .   Nothing is not something that is not there......it simply doesn't exist.

 

The "edge" of the Universe is not a "place" where that which exists stops and "that which does not exist begins.  That which does not exist.......does not exist.  Therefore there is only existence.  And since all there is is Existence.....It is Infinite.

 

Now I'm sure that someone is going to come up with some crackpot idea that that which does not exist exists, but is simply word or mind games.

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

Keith MacNevins <kmacn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Pottsie]

No, I guess it's not a rational number, in that it is inconceivable.  However,  just using the subtraction function.  Once any amount is subtracted from the Infinite, when you are talking about the "remainder", you are talking about a part.....which is "a part" of/from the whole.  But the "Whole" is still there.  Therefore that "part" is not Infinite.  We are talking about something else.

 

The Infinite is "that from  which nothing can be added or subtracted"   It CAN'T be divided or multiplied.  The Infinite is the ALL.  The Whole, seen as the entire thing.

 

I'm not a mathematician, but if you have the largest number you can think of there is always more.  You cannot run out of all there is because you can't take away from all there is.  You may divide all there is and separate it into "two piles", but you still are left with "All there is"

 

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ian Pollard <ian.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

2008/7/2 Pottsie <potts...@yahoo.com>:

(Pottsie)

 

I always thought that if you added, divided, substracted any number from the Infinite, you still had an infinite amount left over.  Is this not correct?

 

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 01:55, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, I guess it's not a rational number, in that it is inconceivable.  However,  just using the subtraction function.  Once any amount is subtracted from the Infinite, when you are talking about the "remainder", you are talking about a part.....which is "a part" of/from the whole.  But the "Whole" is still there.  Therefore that "part" is not Infinite.  We are talking about something else.
>
>   The Infinite is "that from  which nothing can be added or subtracted"   It CAN'T be divided or multiplied.  The Infinite is the ALL.  The Whole, seen as the entire thing.
>
>   I'm not a mathematician, but if you have the largest number you can think of there is always more.  You cannot run out of all there is because you can't take away from all there is.  You may divide all there is and separate it into "two piles", but you still are left with "All there is"
>

Yes, but there IS the concept of relative infinities, which brings
in the concepts of infinity +1 and infinity squared. In the world of
relative infinities, the largest 'relative infinity' becomes an
infinite series of infinity to the infinite power. Which is, of
course, still infinity. But you can see a more obvious difference in
the infinite series of odd numbers versus the infinite series of whole
numbers. In the former, it's missing all the even numbers and is, in
that way, less than the infinite series of whole numbers.

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie

>
>   Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   2008/7/2 Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com>:

>     (Pottsie)
>
>   I always thought that if you added, divided, substracted any number from the Infinite, you still had an infinite amount left over.  Is this not correct?
>
> Hi Pottsie,
>
> Infinity is not a rational number, so using arithmetic on it pointless.
>
> Ian
>

[Pottsie]

"Relative Infinities"??????......that would imply a relationship, and therefore "Two" infinites.  If you have two infinities, something is rotten in Denmark.

 

And you call yourself a monist!   Tsk! Tsk!  ;)

 

The idea of relative infinities (and I have never heard of this term before) would fall into the same category as Parallel Universes.  Now THERE is an oxymoron for you!  Two (and more) Onenesses!  :)

 

Of course I'm not saying these ideas are wrong or stupid or whatever.  What I AM saying is that you IF you have Two ONES of anything, whether they be marbles or "Infinities", the TWO together are the REAL  reality.  It winds up being a paradox (as most things do) that Two is One.

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 3 Jul, 01:55, Pottsie wrote:
> No, I guess it's not a rational number, in that it is inconceivable.  However,  just using the subtraction function.  Once any amount is subtracted from the Infinite, when you are talking about the "remainder", you are talking about a part.....which is "a part" of/from the whole.  But the "Whole" is still there.  Therefore that "part" is not Infinite.  We are talking about something else.
>
>   The Infinite is "that from  which nothing can be added or subtracted"   It CAN'T be divided or multiplied.  The Infinite is the ALL.  The Whole, seen as the entire thing.
>
>   I'm not a mathematician, but if you have the largest number you can think of there is always more.  You cannot run out of all there is because you can't take away from all there is.  You may divide all there is and separate it into "two piles", but you still are left with "All there is"
>

Yes, but there IS the concept of relative infinities, which brings
in the concepts of infinity +1 and infinity squared. In the world of
relative infinities, the largest 'relative infinity' becomes an
infinite series of infinity to the infinite power. Which is, of
course, still infinity. But you can see a more obvious difference in
the infinite series of odd numbers versus the infinite series of whole
numbers. In the former, it's missing all the even numbers and is, in
that way, less than the infinite series of whole numbers.

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie
>

>   Ian Pollard wrote:
>
>   2008/7/2 Pottsie :

[Molly Brogan]

There are more than one universe in space. Space is infinite. We
speculate there are an infinite number of universes, just as we
speculate there are an infinite number of dimensions. I am wondering
if this isn't a universe away from Neil's original post.

On Jul 3, 9:46 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Relative Infinities"??????......that would imply a relationship, and therefore "Two" infinites. If you have two infinities, something is rotten in Denmark.
>
> And you call yourself a monist! Tsk! Tsk! ;)
>
> The idea of relative infinities (and I have never heard of this term before) would fall into the same category as Parallel Universes. Now THERE is an oxymoron for you! Two (and more) Onenesses! :)
>
> Of course I'm not saying these ideas are wrong or stupid or whatever. What I AM saying is that you IF you have Two ONES of anything, whether they be marbles or "Infinities", the TWO together are the REAL reality. It winds up being a paradox (as most things do) that Two is One.
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 14:46, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Relative Infinities"??????......that would imply a relationship, and therefore "Two" infinites.  If you have two infinities, something is rotten in Denmark.
>
>   And you call yourself a monist!   Tsk! Tsk!  ;)
>

Please understand that the mathematical concept of relative
infinities had nothing to do with me. I'm only the reporter. ;-)

>   The idea of relative infinities (and I have never heard of this term before) would fall into the same category as Parallel Universes.  Now THERE is an oxymoron for you!  Two (and more) Onenesses!  :)
>

But mathematicians may not see it that way. They can see the
difference between (the infinite series of odd numbers) and (the
infinite series of whole numbers).

>   Of course I'm not saying these ideas are wrong or stupid or whatever.  What I AM saying is that you IF you have Two ONES of anything, whether they be marbles or "Infinities", the TWO together are the REAL  reality.  It winds up being a paradox (as most things do) that Two is One.
>

I agree. In fact the mathematicians agree that the two
abovementioned series are both infinite, but that one series must, by
definition, be twice as big due to the lack of even numbers. Go
figure! That's the whole point of relative infinities. It's just one
of those areas where mathematics proves itself to be arbitrary in some
ways.

Google "Relative infinity" and you get back about 1190 hits.
Googling "relative infinities" will bring back 125ish hits, including
the ones I'm making now, due to the fact that Minds Eye is being
copied on other blogs.

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie

>
> Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3 Jul, 01:55, Pottsie
> wrote:
>
> > No, I guess it's not a rational number, in that it is inconceivable.  However,  just using the subtraction function.  Once any amount is subtracted from the Infinite, when you are talking about the "remainder", you are talking about a part.....which is "a part" of/from the whole.  But the "Whole" is still there.  Therefore that "part" is not Infinite.  We are talking about something else.
>
> >   The Infinite is "that from  which nothing can be added or subtracted"   It CAN'T be divided or multiplied.  The Infinite is the ALL.  The Whole, seen as the entire thing.
>
> >   I'm not a mathematician, but if you have the largest number you can think of there is always more.  You cannot run out of all there is because you can't take away from all there is.  You may divide all there is and separate it into "two piles", but you still are left with "All there is"
>
> Yes, but there IS the concept of relative infinities, which brings
> in the concepts of infinity +1 and infinity squared. In the world of
> relative infinities, the largest 'relative infinity' becomes an
> infinite series of infinity to the infinite power. Which is, of
> course, still infinity. But you can see a more obvious difference in
> the infinite series of odd numbers versus the infinite series of whole
> numbers. In the former, it's missing all the even numbers and is, in
> that way, less than the infinite series of whole numbers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >   Namaste
>
> >   Pottsie
>
> >   Ian Pollard wrote:
>
> >   2008/7/2 Pottsie
> :
> >     (Pottsie)
>
> >   I always thought that if you added, divided, substracted any number from the Infinite, you still had an infinite amount left over.  Is this not correct?
>
> > Hi Pottsie,
>
> > Infinity is not a rational number, so using arithmetic on it pointless.
>
> > Ian
>
> > "Properly speaking, of course, there is no such thing as a return to nature, because there is no such thing as a departure from it. The phrase reminds one of the slightly intoxicated gentleman who gets up in his own dining room and declares firmly that he must be getting home."  - G.K. Chesterton
>

> "Properly speaking, of course, there is no such thing as a return to nature, because there is no such thing as a departure from it. The phrase reminds one of the slightly intoxicated gentleman who gets up in his own dining room and declares firmly that he must be getting home."  - G.K. Chesterton- Hide quoted text -

[Ian Pollard]

There is really one credible school of thought on infinity and mathematics, summed up by Carl Friedrich Gauss: "We must think of infinity as a way of speak, not as a mathematical value."

Georg Cantor came up with something called Set Theory, which is covered nicely in this little article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/5numbers5.shtml

Which might be what people are fishing for.

Ian

[archytas]

I might well have to agree with Ian here. Generally we act as though
infinity/s can be different sizes, and there are modal-structural
explanations of infinity/s. I was interested once because the
presence of infinite regresses in knowledge justification is usual
held as proof one has bolloxed up - hence if I could show they had
structure and could be manipulated in modal equaltions I might have a
knowledge algorythm. This thesis was lost under the jackboot of a
college maintenance man on a 5 and a quarter floppy (ME passim).
Wiles' proof of Fermat's last thingy is a close example. Without the
maths I would suggest this - this universe is infinite in what we can
imagine, yet might not be the first, and there may be many more and so
on - making 'infinity' relational to a frame of imagination. Back to
the Gauss-Pollardian!

[Pottsie]

You are thinking of the Universe differently than I am using it.  Uni.....One.  All that is.  I'm not saying that it isn't ok to think of Individual Universes for a particular reason.  However.  In the way that I'm using the term, there cannot be TWO universes  simply because you can't have Two "All that Is".....es!!     :)

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

Molly Brogan <mbr...@mollybroganenterprises.com> wrote:

There are more than one universe in space. Space is infinite. We
speculate there are an infinite number of universes, just as we
speculate there are an infinite number of dimensions. I am wondering
if this isn't a universe away from Neil's original post.

On Jul 3, 9:46 am, Pottsie wrote:
> "Relative Infinities"??????......that would imply a relationship, and therefore "Two" infinites. If you have two infinities, something is rotten in Denmark.
>
> And you call yourself a monist! Tsk! Tsk! ;)
>
> The idea of relative infinities (and I have never heard of this term before) would fall into the same category as Parallel Universes. Now THERE is an oxymoron for you! Two (and more) Onenesses! :)
>
> Of course I'm not saying these ideas are wrong or stupid or whatever. What I AM saying is that you IF you have Two ONES of anything, whether they be marbles or "Infinities", the TWO together are the REAL reality. It winds up being a paradox (as most things do) that Two is One.
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>

[Pottsie]

Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 3 Jul, 14:46, Pottsie wrote:
> "Relative Infinities"??????......that would imply a relationship, and therefore "Two" infinites.  If you have two infinities, something is rotten in Denmark.
>
>   And you call yourself a monist!   Tsk! Tsk!  ;)
>

Please understand that the mathematical concept of relative
infinities had nothing to do with me. I'm only the reporter. ;-)

 

(Pottsie)

 

Please understand that I'm not discounting any "theory" here.  I am saying that we can talk about and speculate about "relative Infinities" all we want......and some good may come out of it.

 

However,  the word "relative" implies a relationship.  A relationship requires Two of something.  In REALITY, there cannot be Two Infinites, or Two Absolutes.  By definition The Infinite is All there is.  The existence of more would negate the reality of the first Infinite.

 

Same with Absolute.  The Absolute is defined as "that which has nothing opposed to it".  Therefore there cannot be Two Absolutes, because the existence of the 2nd absolute, negates the absolute quality of the first.

 

It is monotheism at its finest!  ;)

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

>   The idea of relative infinities (and I have never heard of this term before) would fall into the same category as Parallel Universes.  Now THERE is an oxymoron for you!  Two (and more) Onenesses!  :)
>

But mathematicians may not see it that way. They can see the
difference between (the infinite series of odd numbers) and (the
infinite series of whole numbers).

>   Of course I'm not saying these ideas are wrong or stupid or whatever.  What I AM saying is that you IF you have Two ONES of anything, whether they be marbles or "Infinities", the TWO together are the REAL  reality.  It winds up being a paradox (as most things do) that Two is One.
>

I agree. In fact the mathematicians agree that the two
abovementioned series are both infinite, but that one series must, by
definition, be twice as big due to the lack of even numbers. Go
figure! That's the whole point of relative infinities. It's just one
of those areas where mathematics proves itself to be arbitrary in some
ways.

Google "Relative infinity" and you get back about 1190 hits.
Googling "relative infinities" will bring back 125ish hits, including
the ones I'm making now, due to the fact that Minds Eye is being
copied on other blogs.

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie
>

home."  - G.K. Chesterton

[Pottsie]

From the article:

 

"I could confine myself to a nutshell and declare myself king of infinity".

This quote (from Hamlet) could almost be an epithet for the mathematician Georg Cantor, one of the fathers of modern mathematics.

 

As well could the 1st two lines of Blake's "Auguries of Innocence".....

 

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour."

 

This idea from a truly great mystic, says essentially that there are "billions and billions" of Infinities.......they number with the grains of sand on the beaches.  I understand that......I can't explain it in mathematical terms.......but I understand it.

 

What I am saying, though is the One Infinite.......The Whole....The All..... is omnipresent.  what I hear you all saying, and I may be wrong,  is that because The One exists in the Many, the One doesn't exist.  And that is simply not Reality.

 

The existence of Multiple Infinities does NOT negate the Infinite.

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

 

 

 

Ian Pollard <ian.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Molly Brogan]

Once you know with absolute certainty that nothing can trouble you but
your own imagination, you come to disregard your desires and fears,
concepts and ideas, and live by truth alone

On Jul 3, 11:37 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From the article:
>
> "I could confine myself to a nutshell and declare myself king of infinity".
>
> This quote (from Hamlet) could almost be an epithet for the mathematician Georg Cantor, one of the fathers of modern mathematics.
>
> As well could the 1st two lines of Blake's "Auguries of Innocence".....
>
> "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour."
>
> This idea from a truly great mystic, says essentially that there are "billions and billions" of Infinities.......they number with the grains of sand on the beaches. I understand that......I can't explain it in mathematical terms.......but I understand it.
>
> What I am saying, though is the One Infinite.......The Whole....The All..... is omnipresent. what I hear you all saying, and I may be wrong, is that because The One exists in the Many, the One doesn't exist. And that is simply not Reality.
>
> The existence of Multiple Infinities does NOT negate the Infinite.
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>

> Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is really one credible school of thought on infinity and mathematics, summed up by Carl Friedrich Gauss: "We must think of infinity as a way of speak, not as a mathematical value."
>
> Georg Cantor came up with something called Set Theory, which is covered nicely in this little article:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/5numbers5.shtml
>
> Which might be what people are fishing for.
>
> Ian
>

> "Properly speaking, of course, there is no such thing as a return to nature, because there is no such thing as a departure from it. The phrase reminds one of the slightly intoxicated gentleman who gets up in his own dining room and declares firmly that he must be getting home." - G.K. Chesterton

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 16:02, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:    
>
> On 3 Jul, 14:46, Pottsie
> wrote:
>
> > "Relative Infinities"??????......that would imply a relationship, and therefore "Two" infinites.  If you have two infinities, something is rotten in Denmark.
>
> >   And you call yourself a monist!   Tsk! Tsk!  ;)
>
> Please understand that the mathematical concept of relative
> infinities had nothing to do with me. I'm only the reporter. ;-)
>
>   (Pottsie)
>
>   Please understand that I'm not discounting any "theory" here.  I am saying that we can talk about and speculate about "relative Infinities" all we want......and some good may come out of it.
>
>   However,  the word "relative" implies a relationship.  A relationship requires Two of something.  In REALITY, there cannot be Two Infinites, or Two Absolutes.  By definition The Infinite is All there is.  The existence of more would negate the reality of the first Infinite.
>
>   Same with Absolute.  The Absolute is defined as "that which has nothing opposed to it".  Therefore there cannot be Two Absolutes, because the existence of the 2nd absolute, negates the absolute quality of the first.
>
>   It is monotheism at its finest!  ;)
>

I see both sides to this argument. I DO, like you, believe in
one absolute. The mathematics of relational infinities doesn't
involve a concept of absolute infinite being; it's just not a
mathematical entity. All these mathematical relative infinities are
just part of the more existential absolute infinite being, as you
quite rightly point out. Rather, the mathematics of relative
infinities concerns how the concept of infinity relates to numbers
themselves and only numbers.
If we are looking at an infinite series of X, that infinite
series of X, may NOT be an absolute infinity with respect to type. It
comes down to set theory. In my example of whole numbers (integers),
the set of all integers is an infinite series that represents 'AN
absolute infinity' of integers. Yet, the set of all odd numbers,
whilst still being an infinite series, only contains half the numbers
of the set of ALL integers. So, the set of all odd numbers is 'AN
infinity' that is LESS THAN the set of all integers.

Let the type of number involved be 'integers' and
Let SOI = 'the set of all odd integers'
Let SEI = 'the set of all even integers'
Let SAI = 'the set of all integers'

Given the above:

SOI < SAI
and
SEI < SAI
because
SOI + SEI = SAI

Yet, if we expand the TYPE of number to 'real numbers' (real
numbers being those numbers that can be represented in a decimal form)
and
let SAR = 'the set of all real numbers'
we find that

SAI < SAR

because, for example, 1.0345 is NOT in SAI but IS a member of SAR, as
well as an infinite number of other real numbers.

[Pottsie]

I would say that's a pretty wise statement.

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

Molly Brogan <mbr...@mollybroganenterprises.com> wrote:

Once you know with absolute certainty that nothing can trouble you but
your own imagination, you come to disregard your desires and fears,
concepts and ideas, and live by truth alone

On Jul 3, 11:37 am, Pottsie wrote:
> From the article:
>
> "I could confine myself to a nutshell and declare myself king of infinity".
>
> This quote (from Hamlet) could almost be an epithet for the mathematician Georg Cantor, one of the fathers of modern mathematics.
>
> As well could the 1st two lines of Blake's "Auguries of Innocence".....
>
> "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour."
>
> This idea from a truly great mystic, says essentially that there are "billions and billions" of Infinities.......they number with the grains of sand on the beaches. I understand that......I can't explain it in mathematical terms.......but I understand it.
>
> What I am saying, though is the One Infinite.......The Whole....The All..... is omnipresent. what I hear you all saying, and I may be wrong, is that because The One exists in the Many, the One doesn't exist. And that is simply not Reality.
>
> The existence of Multiple Infinities does NOT negate the Infinite.
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 15:11, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yup, before I read this message of yours, I resorted to set theory
to help explain relative infinities better. Nice spot!

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 16:37, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From the article:
>
>   "I could confine myself to a nutshell and declare myself king of infinity".
>
> This quote (from Hamlet) could almost be an epithet for the mathematician Georg Cantor, one of the fathers of modern mathematics.
>
>   As well could the 1st two lines of Blake's "Auguries of Innocence".....
>
>   "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour."
>
>   This idea from a truly great mystic, says essentially that there are "billions and billions" of Infinities.......they number with the grains of sand on the beaches.  I understand that......I can't explain it in mathematical terms.......but I understand it.
>
>   What I am saying, though is the One Infinite.......The Whole....The All..... is omnipresent.  what I hear you all saying, and I may be wrong,  is that because The One exists in the Many, the One doesn't exist.  And that is simply not Reality.
>
>   The existence of Multiple Infinities does NOT negate the Infinite.
>

True, because the mathematics of relative infinities deals only
with numbers and how they relate and not any 'existential aspect of
being' whatsoever. As numbers are only one small part of that which
IS (given the caveat that numbers themselves are abstract).

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie

>
> Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is really one credible school of thought on infinity and mathematics, summed up by Carl Friedrich Gauss: "We must think of infinity as a way of speak, not as a mathematical value."
>
> Georg Cantor came up with something called Set Theory, which is covered nicely in this little article:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/5numbers5.shtml
>
> Which might be what people are fishing for.
>
> Ian
>

> "Properly speaking, of course, there is no such thing as a return to nature, because there is no such thing as a departure from it. The phrase reminds one of the slightly intoxicated gentleman who gets up in his own dining room and declares firmly that he must be getting home."  - G.K. Chesterton

[Pottsie]

I didn't know you spoke Greek!  Amazing what one learns on Mind's Eye!

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 17:40, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I didn't know you spoke Greek!  Amazing what one learns on Mind's Eye!
>

Is that Greek or Geek? I can read Greek and get the gist of it,
but my coversational Greek is shit, due to the fact that the Greek
I've learned is the Koine Greek of the New Testament. And, although I
can, sometimes speak Geek, I wouldn't classify myself as one. ;-)

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 17:35, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would say that's a pretty wise statement.
>

Reading between the lines, then, you're not absolutely certain? I
would say it is a wise statement. But then I'm just being my old
persnickety, pedantic self. ;-)

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie

[Pottsie]

I am absolutely certain that I am not absolutely certain.

 

Namaste

 

Pottsie

 

Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 3 Jul, 17:35, Pottsie wrote:
> I would say that's a pretty wise statement.
>

Reading between the lines, then, you're not absolutely certain? I
would say it is a wise statement. But then I'm just being my old
persnickety, pedantic self. ;-)

>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie
>

[ornamentalmind]

In the 1950s I read a book the title of which was something like "The
Infinite Number of Infinities". In a way, it was mind expanding. I
continued on being quite drawn to math...set theory and calculus back
then in high school was rare, and I ate them up. I taught myself
differentials...loved exploring non-euclidian geometry and abstract
math ...where I found that all of these concepts were subjective.
Thus, I started a new search.
This search became directed over time into things like "In Search of
the Miraculous" etc.
Anyway, my autobiography aside, the current thread is a great example
of the cycle from the ONE to the MANY and then back to the ONE...which
is an omnipresent and eternal process for us all.

On Jul 3, 10:52 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am absolutely certain that I am not absolutely certain.
>
>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie
>

[Pat]

On 3 Jul, 18:52, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am absolutely certain that I am not absolutely certain.
>
>   Namaste
>
>   Pottsie
>

As my father used to say: Only a fool is positive, I'm sure.

[archytas]

One one postulates the entire one is stuck with what might contain the
entire, and the set of the entire might just be part of another set of
the entire. Of course, there is actually the last Russian Doll. I
always find, having travelled though residual string to other
universes, that I can never find anyone who can explain why any of it
all is worth a damn. This is because I am only day-dreaming and
cannot even turn my dreams or dream recall to the subject. I usually
end up trying to knock up the Vulcan bimbo from Enterprise in chronic
mind-melding that has an all-too-familiar grunt and groan about it.
But enough of my autobiography - I will not kiss and tell on the Palm
Sisters!
Good reasoning Pottsie.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

The philosophy of biology is generally split as follows:
Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology
Philosophy of Systematic Biology
Philosophy of Molecular Biology
Philosophy of Developmental Biology
Philosophy of Ecology and Conservation Biology
Methodology in Philosophy of Biology

A book like Dawkin's Selfish Gene would generally be seen as part of a
debate on the philosophy of biology, rather than biology per se. The
concept of 'gene ' is currently held to be undecidable, even in
molecular biology, at least as something to theorise from. I would
guess we know much less about this stuff than our Kaliber-Yawn space?
There is much I feel could influence a sensitive social theory -
thoery that needs freeing from foolslore.