Good morning (it's always 'morning' somewhere anyway) everyone!
I present to RN a small journey inside IgnorantGod's current belief, or rather the one he'd like to 'be'. That is, the current 'color' of self-delusion!
As an introduction, I offer two quotes attributed to Heraclitea, "the weeping philosopher" :
And :
Here's a question : What makes the river, the same?
It is, in fact, the ship of Theseus paradox. However, it is a paradox only by context. In reality, even if all parts of the ship is replaced, as long as those using it and those recognizing the form, indentify it as "the ship of Theseus", then it is. If someone changes its name, and that name spreads, so that at some point, most recognizes it as such, then it is no longer "the ship of Theseus". At least that's how I view it.
Hence a river is the same as long as there are people naming and mapping it, even if its water is always changing. Its location, and the people interacting with it define its indentity. Although, this makes sense only if there's something to assume a 'one out of the rest'. A bit like self-awareness is the act of assuming itself as a 'one'. The act of naming is precisely that. A 'name', or rather a word, is essentially separating a 'one out of the rest'.
Consequently, the above is the foundation of conceptualization, and compartmentalization. This allows abstraction, and formulation, or recognition of patterns; that which lies beneath interactions between the different 'ones' and the 'stage' (environment). Note that I don't particularly see much difference between a 'stage' and an 'actor' (assumed 'one'), since the 'stage' can be interprated as made of multiple smaller 'ones'.
Now, this was supposed to be an introduction, and it seems to have taken a bigger proportion than initially expected. This thread has three sections, as implied by the title. The first one, which I'll start after this paragraph, is about uncertainty. It is somewhat of an argument against the belief that human can discover and establish such a thing as 'Absolute Truth' through logic, mathematics and/or observation by using Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and the limits of physical matter. The second part is about liminality, the transitory phase between two more or less 'stable' state of rites of passage. And finally the last section is referring to the similarity between measurement problem of quantum mechanics and the experience of the present.
And so, off I go!
Uncertainty : One cannot know 'everything' about 'anything'
First of all, here's a link on Godel's Incompleteness Theorems
The first theorem :
And the second :
It is important, when extrapolating an idea/statement from one concept to a more general attribute, to specify the context of that starting point. As such, the link above do describe well the limits of both theorems, within mathematics itself, and to any efforts at generalizing his theorems in philosophy.
The quote above from the introduction is enough for this thread in regards to its application within mathematics. For anyone interested, it is a fascinating read, however it's honestly way over my paygrade. This section is my attempt at supporting uncertainty by generalizing the statement that one cannot derive or prove all axioms of a system with solely itself. The "system" here can be replaced by philosophy, mathematics or observations.
I tried to shorten this, but the following paragraph do alerts well of taking context into account, and so I kept it full :
The last part that I've put in italic is the one that I have particular interest for here. This is what I extrapolate to philosophy, mathematics and observation. Rationalism often critics materialism for its effort at trying to find 'Truths' with limited perception and subsenquently assume Logos to be the 'key' to discover such. However, from where I stand, it seems logic and mathematics are themselves limited, and thus cannot prove themselves with only themselves, let alone the universe.
Human perception being limited means that human thoughts are also limited, or so I believe. Therefore, in order to prove or disprove human statements, one "...would thus require a formal system that incorporates methods going beyond..." human. But then again, that refers to human as one is today. Provided there was a techno-singularity whereas human modifies its body and brain with technology and digital 'features', who knows what it may find, discover or elaborate. If anything, it'll probably be able to perform such methods that go 'beyond' human. And to close the loop, it would probably still be unable to 'escape' some limits.
So yeah, I believe in Uncertainty, while being uncertain of such prevalence of uncertitude. Basically, I don't know if I don't know, or if I'm self-deluding at not knowing. But who knows what I'll be tomorrow? Since everything, including the 'self' seems to be in constant change, as the second part elaborate.
Transitory : 'Everything' is ever in the act of 'becoming'
Liminality, the transitory phase of rites of passage. It is described as the state whereas initiates aren't entirely separated from their former state nor are they entirely in their next, and thus are somewhat in a vague and ambiguous 'position' in between. One of the most emphasized aspect was the dangerosity of such state, both for initiates and for societies, hence why they were mostly secluded outside the village during that phase, and had 'guides' or 'masters of ceremonies' alongside.
Thresholds were seen as transitory space that often marked the begining or ending of a transition between two phases. They still embody the separation between two spaces, most common being the separation of one's territory (home) and the wild (its becoming increasingly wild outside since covid me thinks). But thresholds are spaces themselves, not really inside yet not really outside neither. The act of defining the liminal phase/state/space is purely dependent on the notion of stability. Rather than being defined as a stable state itself, it is defined by those, as an in between, a byproduct from 'lack of' stability.
Such concept can, and has been extrapolated. In his book "The Trickster and the Paranormal", George P. Hansen use the term liminal to define anything in between two boundaries, such as, words. Things that cannot be described with words, that which is in between words. One can also refer an individual, a 'liminal person', whom boundaries of the 'self' are blurried. In short, liminality somewhat refers to the limits of comcepts, the more one tries to define the boundaries between two things, the more they become blurried. Just like dawn and twilight are neither 'day' or 'night'. They are their own 'thing', and yet can only be defined as a transition between the those two, because of their 'more stable' appearance.
Without the concept of stability, everything is in motion, and hence, changing constantly. Just as the second quote of Heraclitea above, except extrapolated to 'everything'. This, in my opinion, also includes the 'self'. It also marks the transition to the third and last part of this thread.
Actuality : One cannot 'know' itself, only 'experience' itself
That one came to me as an "Ah-Ha" moment quite recently. I was juggling with the idea that I can't 'know' myself since I can only analyze 'me' after the fact. That is, after the first reaction of a stimuli. Even with introspection and retrospection, it doesn't garantee that, provided a sufficiently similar event occurred, I'd react and/or think/experience such the same way. Only once it happened, if it does, can I state; "I reacted like 'this'" and "thought like 'that'", which are words I've learned of which I also assume means what I experienced.
That's about when I realized it was somewhat similar to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Somewhat because I don't know if the 'self' potential (something akin to wavefunctions) is in superpositions and only collapse take a value at 'now'. It is not the Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation, of which, from the few bits I could glean here and there on the net, is a theory about quantum consciousness collapsing the wavefunction. It is more specifically the 'self' in relation with 'itself', that is, can only ever 'experience' it, not 'know' it. There are no way to garantee the accuracy of any predictions, unless it happens, just like the result of the measurement is still somewhat 'random' and unpredictable (for now at least) until measured and observed.
The 'present' is the actualization of potential 'outcomes'. When looking at the 'self' from this perspective, the 'self' is a pool of potential reactions, thoughts and 'experiences' that collapse at the 'now'. I'm still wondering if the 'now' is somewhat 'flowing' or 'bipping'. The latter did bring an interesting idea in that 'reality' could actually collapse and 'reconstruct' at each bips, and thus was an entirely different 'thing' than the previous bip!
Alright, I think I've elaborate enough for now on the three main points that make up my current state of 'view' of 'reality' and 'existence'. Seems like it was 'the day' that conherency's on my side! I don't recall a time I formulated my point of view that much.
Thank you for reading, and looking forward for your opinions! It is my hope that this thread may bring an interesting discussion on any subjects related to the general topic of 'existence', 'experience', etc.
Cheers!
I present to RN a small journey inside IgnorantGod's current belief, or rather the one he'd like to 'be'. That is, the current 'color' of self-delusion!
As an introduction, I offer two quotes attributed to Heraclitea, "the weeping philosopher" :
Quote:"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
And :
Quote:"The meaning of the river flowing is not that all things are changing so that we cannot encounter them twice but that some things stay the same only by changing."
Here's a question : What makes the river, the same?
It is, in fact, the ship of Theseus paradox. However, it is a paradox only by context. In reality, even if all parts of the ship is replaced, as long as those using it and those recognizing the form, indentify it as "the ship of Theseus", then it is. If someone changes its name, and that name spreads, so that at some point, most recognizes it as such, then it is no longer "the ship of Theseus". At least that's how I view it.
Hence a river is the same as long as there are people naming and mapping it, even if its water is always changing. Its location, and the people interacting with it define its indentity. Although, this makes sense only if there's something to assume a 'one out of the rest'. A bit like self-awareness is the act of assuming itself as a 'one'. The act of naming is precisely that. A 'name', or rather a word, is essentially separating a 'one out of the rest'.
Consequently, the above is the foundation of conceptualization, and compartmentalization. This allows abstraction, and formulation, or recognition of patterns; that which lies beneath interactions between the different 'ones' and the 'stage' (environment). Note that I don't particularly see much difference between a 'stage' and an 'actor' (assumed 'one'), since the 'stage' can be interprated as made of multiple smaller 'ones'.
Now, this was supposed to be an introduction, and it seems to have taken a bigger proportion than initially expected. This thread has three sections, as implied by the title. The first one, which I'll start after this paragraph, is about uncertainty. It is somewhat of an argument against the belief that human can discover and establish such a thing as 'Absolute Truth' through logic, mathematics and/or observation by using Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and the limits of physical matter. The second part is about liminality, the transitory phase between two more or less 'stable' state of rites of passage. And finally the last section is referring to the similarity between measurement problem of quantum mechanics and the experience of the present.
And so, off I go!
Uncertainty : One cannot know 'everything' about 'anything'
First of all, here's a link on Godel's Incompleteness Theorems
The first theorem :
Quote:"The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F."
And the second :
Quote:"According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent)."
It is important, when extrapolating an idea/statement from one concept to a more general attribute, to specify the context of that starting point. As such, the link above do describe well the limits of both theorems, within mathematics itself, and to any efforts at generalizing his theorems in philosophy.
Quote:"In order to understand Gödel’s theorems, one must first explain the key concepts essential to it, such as “formal system”, “consistency”, and “completeness”. Roughly, a formal system is a system of axioms equipped with rules of inference, which allow one to generate new theorems."
The quote above from the introduction is enough for this thread in regards to its application within mathematics. For anyone interested, it is a fascinating read, however it's honestly way over my paygrade. This section is my attempt at supporting uncertainty by generalizing the statement that one cannot derive or prove all axioms of a system with solely itself. The "system" here can be replaced by philosophy, mathematics or observations.
I tried to shorten this, but the following paragraph do alerts well of taking context into account, and so I kept it full :
Quote:"A common misunderstanding is to interpret Gödel’s first theorem as showing that there are truths that cannot be proved. This is, however, incorrect, for the incompleteness theorem does not deal with provability in any absolute sense, but only concerns derivability in some particular formal system or another. For any statement A unprovable in a particular formal system F, there are, trivially, other formal systems in which A is provable (take A as an axiom). On the other hand, there is the extremely powerful standard axiom system of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (denoted as ZF, or, with the axiom of choice, ZFC; see the section on the axioms of ZFC in the entry on set theory), which is more than sufficient for the derivation of all ordinary mathematics. Now there are, by Gödel’s first theorem, arithmetical truths that are not provable even in ZFC. Proving them would thus require a formal system that incorporates methods going beyond ZFC. There is thus a sense in which such truths are not provable using today’s “ordinary” mathematical methods and axioms, nor can they be proved in a way that mathematicians would today regard as unproblematic and conclusive."*Italics mine
The last part that I've put in italic is the one that I have particular interest for here. This is what I extrapolate to philosophy, mathematics and observation. Rationalism often critics materialism for its effort at trying to find 'Truths' with limited perception and subsenquently assume Logos to be the 'key' to discover such. However, from where I stand, it seems logic and mathematics are themselves limited, and thus cannot prove themselves with only themselves, let alone the universe.
Human perception being limited means that human thoughts are also limited, or so I believe. Therefore, in order to prove or disprove human statements, one "...would thus require a formal system that incorporates methods going beyond..." human. But then again, that refers to human as one is today. Provided there was a techno-singularity whereas human modifies its body and brain with technology and digital 'features', who knows what it may find, discover or elaborate. If anything, it'll probably be able to perform such methods that go 'beyond' human. And to close the loop, it would probably still be unable to 'escape' some limits.
So yeah, I believe in Uncertainty, while being uncertain of such prevalence of uncertitude. Basically, I don't know if I don't know, or if I'm self-deluding at not knowing. But who knows what I'll be tomorrow? Since everything, including the 'self' seems to be in constant change, as the second part elaborate.
Transitory : 'Everything' is ever in the act of 'becoming'
Liminality, the transitory phase of rites of passage. It is described as the state whereas initiates aren't entirely separated from their former state nor are they entirely in their next, and thus are somewhat in a vague and ambiguous 'position' in between. One of the most emphasized aspect was the dangerosity of such state, both for initiates and for societies, hence why they were mostly secluded outside the village during that phase, and had 'guides' or 'masters of ceremonies' alongside.
Thresholds were seen as transitory space that often marked the begining or ending of a transition between two phases. They still embody the separation between two spaces, most common being the separation of one's territory (home) and the wild (its becoming increasingly wild outside since covid me thinks). But thresholds are spaces themselves, not really inside yet not really outside neither. The act of defining the liminal phase/state/space is purely dependent on the notion of stability. Rather than being defined as a stable state itself, it is defined by those, as an in between, a byproduct from 'lack of' stability.
Such concept can, and has been extrapolated. In his book "The Trickster and the Paranormal", George P. Hansen use the term liminal to define anything in between two boundaries, such as, words. Things that cannot be described with words, that which is in between words. One can also refer an individual, a 'liminal person', whom boundaries of the 'self' are blurried. In short, liminality somewhat refers to the limits of comcepts, the more one tries to define the boundaries between two things, the more they become blurried. Just like dawn and twilight are neither 'day' or 'night'. They are their own 'thing', and yet can only be defined as a transition between the those two, because of their 'more stable' appearance.
Without the concept of stability, everything is in motion, and hence, changing constantly. Just as the second quote of Heraclitea above, except extrapolated to 'everything'. This, in my opinion, also includes the 'self'. It also marks the transition to the third and last part of this thread.
Actuality : One cannot 'know' itself, only 'experience' itself
That one came to me as an "Ah-Ha" moment quite recently. I was juggling with the idea that I can't 'know' myself since I can only analyze 'me' after the fact. That is, after the first reaction of a stimuli. Even with introspection and retrospection, it doesn't garantee that, provided a sufficiently similar event occurred, I'd react and/or think/experience such the same way. Only once it happened, if it does, can I state; "I reacted like 'this'" and "thought like 'that'", which are words I've learned of which I also assume means what I experienced.
That's about when I realized it was somewhat similar to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Somewhat because I don't know if the 'self' potential (something akin to wavefunctions) is in superpositions and only collapse take a value at 'now'. It is not the Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation, of which, from the few bits I could glean here and there on the net, is a theory about quantum consciousness collapsing the wavefunction. It is more specifically the 'self' in relation with 'itself', that is, can only ever 'experience' it, not 'know' it. There are no way to garantee the accuracy of any predictions, unless it happens, just like the result of the measurement is still somewhat 'random' and unpredictable (for now at least) until measured and observed.
The 'present' is the actualization of potential 'outcomes'. When looking at the 'self' from this perspective, the 'self' is a pool of potential reactions, thoughts and 'experiences' that collapse at the 'now'. I'm still wondering if the 'now' is somewhat 'flowing' or 'bipping'. The latter did bring an interesting idea in that 'reality' could actually collapse and 'reconstruct' at each bips, and thus was an entirely different 'thing' than the previous bip!
Alright, I think I've elaborate enough for now on the three main points that make up my current state of 'view' of 'reality' and 'existence'. Seems like it was 'the day' that conherency's on my side! I don't recall a time I formulated my point of view that much.
Thank you for reading, and looking forward for your opinions! It is my hope that this thread may bring an interesting discussion on any subjects related to the general topic of 'existence', 'experience', etc.
Cheers!
As far as the apple tree is concerned, there's probably not much difference between a worm and a human...
Et le ver en dit : - Il y a toujours un pépin dans la pomme...
