You are not logged in. [Login] Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online FAQ · Calendar

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Mike Casey

Reged: 11/11/04

Loc: El Pueblo de Nuestra SeĆ±ora l...
Null World
#5522109 - 11/15/12 11:22 PM

(x)~(x=x)

Is this one of the ways reality could have turned out?

 Post Extras:
Qwickdraw
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: Null World [Re: Mike Casey]
#5522811 - 11/16/12 12:14 PM

I think reality or the universe is here because logically "nothingness" cannot exist without "something" to define it. Just as you need dark to define light big/small, whatever you cannot have nothing without its opposite.

 Post Extras:
scopethis
Postmaster

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks
Re: Null World [Re: Qwickdraw]
#5522924 - 11/16/12 01:24 PM

what is the opposite of opposite?

 Post Extras:
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Null World [Re: scopethis]
#5523154 - 11/16/12 04:29 PM

I need some help with the mathematical symbols being used here....what does (x)~(x=x) mean?

Thank you

Otto

 Post Extras:
StarWars
Mr. Postmaster Man

Reged: 11/26/03

Loc: At the Gym >Spudtastic<
Re: Null World [Re: Mike Casey]
#5523793 - 11/17/12 02:03 AM

Quote:

(x)~(x=x)

Is this one of the ways reality could have turned out?

No one knows for sure.....

 Post Extras:
Mike Casey

Reged: 11/11/04

Loc: El Pueblo de Nuestra SeĆ±ora l...
Re: Null World [Re: Otto Piechowski]
#5523797 - 11/17/12 02:15 AM

Quote:

I need some help with the mathematical symbols being used here....what does (x)~(x=x) mean?

Thank you

Otto

The symbol "(x)" is the universal quantifier, to be read as "for every x", and "~" is the negation operator, to be read as "it is not the case that."

As for (c=c), "Identity" is defined in logic as the relation that each and every thing bears to itself and to no other thing. It is a logical truth that: For every x, x=x -- except in Null World.

 Post Extras:
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Null World [Re: Mike Casey]
#5524023 - 11/17/12 09:41 AM

Mike,

Thank you.

I'm trained in philosophy. Perhaps you can hear the sound of others here at CN whispering "Danger Will Robinson. Danger."

I believe I understood your explanation/description of what (x)~(x=x) means. Let me repeat it in my own words just to be sure. It seems to be the case in the world in which we live that whatever x is, x is always itself. However, one can postulate the existence of a world in which the nature of x is such that x is not itself. Is my wordy repetition of what you said...does it seem accurate.

Now, I have a whole bunch of comments to contribute. But first, I want to be absolutely sure I understood what you wrote.

Otto

 Post Extras:
Qwickdraw
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: Null World [Re: scopethis]
#5524025 - 11/17/12 09:45 AM

Quote:

what is the opposite of opposite?

I am thinking "identical" but this is just my way of thinking

 Post Extras:
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Null World [Re: Qwickdraw]
#5524086 - 11/17/12 10:26 AM

It's the subtly similar that cause all our problems.

 Post Extras:
Wordsmith

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Null World [Re: llanitedave]
#5524326 - 11/17/12 12:54 PM

Logic, of course, is simply a formal system that does not have any necessary connection to reality. And, indeed, in reality, there is no such thing as a fixed X=X identity. What is is always in dynamic relation to other things both in space and time. And change is a part of the whole situation. I've called this the "is/are" of things in my work.

 Post Extras:
brentwood
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 11/04/05

#5524421 - 11/17/12 01:59 PM

I just showed this thread to my old grandpaw and he said that of course 'X' is not the same as 'X=X' as the first has one letter and the second has two!

 Post Extras:
scopethis
Postmaster

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks
Re: Null World [Re: brentwood]
#5524456 - 11/17/12 02:20 PM

"x" cannot "be" in a null world without contradiction.

 Post Extras:
deSitter
Still in Old School

Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Null World [Re: scopethis]

Not again

-drl

 Post Extras:
Ira
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 08/22/10

Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
Re: Null World [Re: Qwickdraw]
#5524636 - 11/17/12 04:23 PM

Quote:

I think reality or the universe is here because logically "nothingness" cannot exist without "something" to define it. Just as you need dark to define light big/small, whatever you cannot have nothing without its opposite.

/Ira

 Post Extras:
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Null World [Re: Mike Casey]
#5524714 - 11/17/12 05:12 PM

Mike,

Why does this idea, (x)~(x=x), interest you? What is it about it you find interesting?

Otto

 Post Extras:
Qwickdraw
Carpal Tunnel

Reged: 03/03/12

Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Re: Null World [Re: Ira]
#5524755 - 11/17/12 05:35 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I think reality or the universe is here because logically "nothingness" cannot exist without "something" to define it. Just as you need dark to define light big/small, whatever you cannot have nothing without its opposite.

/Ira

hypothetical

 Post Extras:
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Null World [Re: Qwickdraw]
#5524949 - 11/17/12 07:29 PM

Definition is the act of predicating a subject. The predicate is the category into which the subject is assigned.

In the context of our discussion here I would like to add a few comments.

First, a subject can be predicated (categorized) without reference to any opposite of the subject. In order to define a thing all we need is the appropriate category to which the subject is assigned.

Second, there is a difference between opposite and privation. For example; darkness is the privation of light. One can make a room brighter by adding light. If darkness were an opposite, one would then make a room darker by adding darkness, which, of course, is not what happens. We make the room darker by decreasing the light in the room.

Third, a definition in which the subject is predicated of itself (e.g. A=A) is a special type of definition called a tautology. The unique feature of a tautology is that it is, at one and the same time, true and meaningless; meaningless in the the actual sense of the word meaninglessness, in that the predication of the subject adds no new information about the subject being predicated (categorized).

Fourth, only real things can be meaningfully discussed. This point was first made by the Greek metaphysician, Parmenides in the only fragment we have of his writings called the Proem. One could object to this Parmenidean idea by citing, for example, "Hobbits". For example, when Dr. Joe Cronin and I were editing the chapter on metaphysics in a book we co-authored one of us (I forget which) objected to the Parmenidean idea by sending an email to the other with one word "Hobbits". The meaning was, Hobbits aren't real but we seem to say a great many meaningful things about them. To this, one or the other of us responded that it was not Hobbits about which we said meaningful things, but the real world analogs used to describe Hobbits about which meaningful things were said; hairiness, caves, huts, eating three breakfastes, etc.

Fifth, there is an important difference between imagination and fantasy. Imagination can be used to display the essence of a thing being investigated. Fantasy, in the strict sense of fantasy (phantasm) cannot provide information which helps us display the essence of a subject being investigated. When one uses imagination one is using analogs from realities already meaninfully uncovered; hair, hairiness, shortness, cave, hut, magicians, reptiles, fire, gems, pride, hubris, ambition, etc. However, with fantasy (phantasms...things which have never existed in reality) nothing can be used to say anything useful about things as they are in the real world. Thus, though it might mean something to say George is like a Hobbit, it probably doesn't mean anything to say he is like a unicorn in Flatland. (x)~(x=x) seems to be a product of fantasy and not imagination; (x)~(x=x) is more like a unicorn in Flatland then it is like a Hobbit, or, using the words of the quantum physicist, Erwin Schrodinger, (x)~(x=x) seems to be much more like a winged lion than a triangular circle.

Sixth, (x)~(x=x) reminds me of the paraphrase of an idea by Frederich Nietzsche; "the only truth is that there is no truth". This statement is self-contradictory; it contradicts itself; i.e. "If it is true that "the only truth is that there is no truth", then the statement "the only truth is that there is no truth" is not true and therefore must be true." Which, of course, points out that the original statement is either wrong, meaningless, or both.

Seventh, having said that the self-contradiction is wrong or meaningless, is not the same as saying self-contradiction cannot be valuable. Hannah Arendt in her The Human Condition (page 104) used the example of the writings of Karl Marx to make this important point. She pointed out that Marx often contradicted himself. She used this as an opportunity to state that first rate thinkers often contradict themselves; whereas second rate thinkers rarely contradict themselves. The reason, it seems to me, is quite clear. First rate thinkers are most interested in displaying truth and are not concerned about making mistakes. Second rate thinkers are more concerned with approval and fitting in with the selected peer group; focusing more on avoiding contradiction then about doggedly searching after truth. Returning to Arendt, she then said that though the self contradictory statement lacked the ability in itself to display truth, it had a value in that it, the self-contradiction, could be used as a golden path to lead the dogged researcher to the heart of the first rate thinkers ideas. Thus, though (x)~(x=x) might not have any truth or meaning, it may lead to an understanding of the central thoughts, which may be very important and valuable, of the constellation of ideas of which (x)~(x=x)is one item only. Thus, I asked of Mike what it was about (x)~(x=x) he found interesting. There might be some real gold there.

Eighth, the difficulty I have thinking about and talking meaningfully about (x)~(x=x) reminds me of the statement that one of the difficulties we have about speaking about things like timelessness, eternity, and time travel is that we are constrained by using a "tensed" language; a language in which there are the tenses of present, past and future. Thinking and talking about timelessness and time travel using a tensed language is like trying to step on one's own shadow; it can't be done.

Otto

 Post Extras:
stephen63
sage

Reged: 05/19/10

Loc: Central Pa
Re: Null World [Re: Otto Piechowski]
#5525015 - 11/17/12 08:12 PM

Otto,
Duck, here comes the fusillade, maybe.

 Post Extras:
Mike Casey

Reged: 11/11/04

Loc: El Pueblo de Nuestra SeĆ±ora l...
Re: Null World [Re: Otto Piechowski]
#5525016 - 11/17/12 08:12 PM

Quote:

Mike,

Why does this idea, (x)~(x=x), interest you? What is it about it you find interesting?

Otto

My interest is in whether the initial event (The Big Bang) could have produced an 'empty' universe. Grünbaum suggested it would be meaningless to talk of time in a clockless and eventless state of nothing -- which led me to wondering what part, if any, time might play in an 'eventless' universe. In any case, (x)~(x=x) is a way of describing what the 'reality' of such a world might be like without stumbling over the problems of semantics or linguistic content.

 Post Extras:
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Null World [Re: Mike Casey]
#5525071 - 11/17/12 08:53 PM

Mike,

That sounds very interesting to me. I need to digest it a bit and get back to you, which I hope to do in short order.

Thank you...very interesting.

Otto

 Post Extras:
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)

Extra information
2 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT

Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics