Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“At the initial point everything was very literally interconnected, since it was one object, since then that object has unfurled itself in different permutations. If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”Well, if we accept the Big Bang Theory (and I see no reason not to — that is, until scientists again change their minds, which they always do), and as I pointed out earlier, all this shows is that everything had a common origin. It doesn’t show that everything is now interconnected. You are still conflating “common origin” with “interconnected”.”If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”But, the light cone argument shows that this is an unsafe inference to make.
The light cone argument actually shows that over time everything will be connected, and given enough time, all points in space will come into contact with effects caused by me. It all depends, then if space/time is absolute, and if there are further dimensions.I think we’re getting back to greek style static versus dynamic universe here, and the Xeno’s paradoxes.Anyway, I reckon that’s the point where we’re argued out for now…
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:In which case, it can’t have a relation to anything that is actual (since it’s not a ‘it’), and nor can it ‘struggle’ with anything actual. At which point your dialectic stalls.And yet we can only define Things by relation to No-Thing and the flow of information through things relies on the gaps, aporia, absences between them. The forces acting on (and against) Things comes about only because there is a limit to Thingness. Whether we call that non-thingness Nothing, or fishcakes, or spleen, is irrelevant. The binary distinction remains. This binary opposition is inherent in thing, and merely implies fishcakes; but we have seen things, and cannot see fishcakes.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Sure, the universe is running down (so scientists tell us), but how does that show there is a ‘struggle’ going on here? Are atoms really struggling to stay atomic? And what form does this ‘struggle’ take? Are electrons slugging is out with protons (or is with positrons)?Systems move from high entropic states to low entropic states, energy seems to have an impulse to spread itself about a bit. All language is ultimately human language, and ultimately metaphorical.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:What do you mean by ‘Things in themselves’? I know this term has been bandied about since Kant dreamt it up, but it seems to me to be an empty word, like ‘Slithy Tove’ — and so, with all due respect, what you posted makes about as much sense as this.In the context, I meant there is no way of defining thing without reference to nothing, or a third term, action.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Indeed, it is metyaphysical, since it purports to tell us about fundamental aspects of the universe that are way beyond any possibility of confirmation or disconfirmation — ad is based on no little speculation dressed up as popular science (of the sort that Cox is happy to pass of as solid sicience).Or, based on the best science available to us now. BTW, I note you snipped my comment about gravity, since that would, even with old Newtonian science, seem to present an adequate and provable example of all things being connected.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Your thought experiment about Julius Caesar, even if correct, hardly shows he has touched me — unless, of course, you are using the word ‘touched’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?An atom that was once part of him is now part of you.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:But, even if you are right, how does this show that regions of space and time that are outside our light cone are interconnected with us now?The key word is now, over time they will be connected, but if space/time is fundamental then each point is atomic, unless there are further dimensions to be unpacked.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once”‘Could’ is not the same as ‘is’; you need to prove with evidence, not speculation, that light is everywhere at once.But, even if it is, how does that show that everything is interconnected? That yawning chasm in your argument has yet to be filled.If light is everywhere (and when) at once, then we are all simultaneously bathed in the same universal sea of light, which touches us all.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Indeed, but how are the things you told us were nothing actually nothing? And you have yet to tell us how something can struggle with nothing.Nothing cannot be actual, by definition. All I can know is that Thing is distinct from No-Thing. Now, it might be that No-Thing is a thing, of some different variety, but the fact of difference exists, and that is sufficient. All things are struggling with un-being, as the entropic principle moves through the universe towards heat death. We cannot know Things in themselves, but only through their acts, their actuality, and it is the aspect of action that separates Thing from No-thing. We can only know Thing and No-Thing through their mutual distinctions.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Not at all, I was merely drawing out a consequence of what you had said. I neither assert nor deny that everything is interconnected since that would be a metaphysical proposition, and thus non-sensical:Hardly metaphysical to say that everything is connected through common cause and (possibly) common substance. that’s mechanical. BTW, did you know that, I think, every twentieth breath you take contains an oxygen molecule breathed in by Julius Caesar. he has touched you, and you have touched him. Across time, no less.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“And from that it follows that everything is simply a permutation of this initial energy (including the energy that manifests as matter). And if we follow the laws of thermodynamics, that evergy cannot be created or destroyed, then it follows that nothing can happen that does not affect other entities within the system”But, not even this shows that everthing is connected, let alone interconnected. I think you are confusing the phrase ‘common origin’ with the term ‘interconnected’.At the initial point everything was very literally interconnected, since it was one object, since then that object has unfurled itself in different permutations. If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:I’m sorry, but my enigma translation module seems to be out of action today, so I’ll need you to put this in plain English if I am to respond to it.It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once.Why does E=MC^2 (click on link)
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:I am still unclear why you would want to call a gap “nothing”, or why an electron state ‘off’ is ‘nothing’. And do they really ‘struggle’ with each other? If not, why call this a ‘dialectic’?A wall is something. I cannot walk through a wall. Things that are there can be materially interacted with. Things that are not there cannot be. there is no way to touch, see, smell or apprehend nothing. Likewise, nothing cannot impede my action, nor cause effects.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:What they seem to be connected with is this energy, not each other; unless you think there is some sort of instantaneous communication via this energy — which, once again, would be impossible to confirm.And the point of the light cone is that while everything might once have been connected, it isn’t so now, and nor can it be.So you accept everything is connected, ultimately? And from that it follows that everything is simply a permutation of this initial energy (including the energy that manifests as matter). And if we follow the laws of thermodynamics, that evergy cannot be created or destroyed, then it follows that nothing can happen that does not affect other entities within the system.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“All light is everywhere and all light is in contact with everything at once, then everything is interconnected via light. It could be, from a certain point of view, that the universwe is one still spot of light that we misinterpret as having dimensions.”Well, this reads like science fiction; I’d like to see the evidence that substantiates it.I think there is a passing reference to the notion in (that name again) Brian Cox’ “Why does E=MC^2”.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:How are ‘absences’ nothing? And, if there is a dialectic going on here, then this ‘something’ must be ‘struggling’ with this ‘nothing’. Do we see this in computing, or in genetics?Two perfect circles would make very bad clockwork, the gaps between the teeth are not there, and yet they make the whole thing go. They are defined by the something of the cogs. Likewise in the electron states of semi conductors which are either on or off: there is a definite somehing that is nothing.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Of course, the Big Bang Theory is about origins; it says nothing about universal interconnection right now; in fact, as I pointed out, if relativity is correct, then not everything can be interconnected (that was the point of the link I posted about light cones).Except everything is interconnected by its share of the initial energy impetus, if everything was once all part of one sub-microscopic spot. If we expand the light cone back, then everything in the universe leads up to point E in the diagram in that article.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC)”There is no way that this can be confirmed, but even if it could, what has it got to do with the idea that everything is interconnected?All light is everywhere and all light is in contact with everything at once, then everything is interconnected via light. It could be, from a certain point of view, that the universe is one still spot of light that we misinterpret as having dimensions. Certainly, Great Cthulhu thinks so.
Of course there is an ongoing dialectic between something and nothing. The dialectic that lies at the heart of computing and of genetics: without the absences – such as the white bits around the letters in this comment – there would be no positive meaning. The human mind also structures its apprehensions throught relational methods between object/non object. Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC), if the Big Bang theory holds, then everything in space/time is related and is just the ongoing expression of the initial explosion of energy constantly transforming itself into higher and lower concentrations of entropy.
Morning,these are good questions, and I’m afraid the short answer to them is, we’d just have to debate and decide.Longer answer: see, even Von Mises et al. didn’t dispute that we could as a community simply decide what it was we wanted to consume, the basis of the argument of economic calculation rests not on end goods, but intermediates. To take your bread v. beer example, both are using wheat, and one formula, say, for beer uses 5 parts wheat whilst another uses 3 parts wheat (but uses, say, a synthetic chemical).Our opponents say we wouldn’t be able to choose between the different formulas of beer, and so we couldn’t rationally choose how to allocate our wheat (after all, opting for the synthetic chemical may commit a lot of energy and resources, far outweighing the putative savings of wheat).So, what we need to add is the idea that because information flows freely through the system, we would know the true state of supply and demand (i.e. how much wheat there is, how much demand there is for wheat, and the amount of synthetic substitute available). After all, that is all the market is meant to do already. Except where the market measures effective demand marked in money (which is subject to manipulation) we’d have real demand expressed in real units upon which to make our decisions.I hope that answers your question.
I think we are in a different position.1) Our members were able to avoid conscription by arguing a conscientious objection to war. This is a strong legal precedent.2) Our commitment to democracy obviates a lot of the tribunals objections. Even their misuse of the word revolution can be met with the example of William Hague’s “Conservative Revolution” slogan to sow that our views are compatable with a democratic society.3) As Adam says, we’re not out to take anyone’s home, or prperty, our position is we will dismantle /render useless the system of property in the first isntance. We have no intentuion of having private property of the state ‘allocated’ to people by the state. In fact, in many ways, this ruling vindicates us. Bill M.
