Are Gravity and Time Emergent Properties that Don't Really Exist Yet Emerge through Entanglement from Thermal Properties on a flat 2D Quantum Space into 3D?
Welcome to Sphereland, home of the 'Flat' Earth Society!
The motion of "Time" but without any corners...
From the Jowett Summary of Plato's "Laws"
But first I must pray the Gods to assist at the demonstration of their own existence—if ever we are to call upon them, now is the time. Let me hold fast to the rope, and enter into the depths: Shall I put the question to myself in this form?—Are all things at rest, and is nothing in motion? or are some things in motion, and some things at rest? 'The latter.' And do they move and rest, some in one place, some in more? 'Yes.' There may be (1) motion in the same place, as in revolution on an axis, which is imparted swiftly to the larger and slowly to the lesser circle; and there may be motion in different places, having sometimes (2) one centre of motion and sometimes (3) more. (4) When bodies in motion come against other bodies which are at rest, they are divided by them, and (5) when they are caught between other bodies coming from opposite directions they unite with them; and (6) they grow by union and (7) waste by dissolution while their constitution remains the same, but are (8) destroyed when their constitution fails. There is a growth from one dimension to two, and from a second to a third, which then becomes perceptible to sense; this process is called generation, and the opposite, destruction. We have now enumerated all possible motions with the exception of two. 'What are they?' Just the two with which our enquiry is concerned; for our enquiry relates to the soul. There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction. 'Granted.' (9) That which moves and is moved by another is the ninth kind of motion; (10) that which is self-moved and moves others is the tenth. And this tenth kind of motion is the mightiest, and is really the first, and is followed by that which was improperly called the ninth. 'How do you mean?' Must not that which is moved by others finally depend upon that which is moved by itself? Nothing can be affected by any transition prior to self-motion. Then the first and eldest principle of motion, whether in things at rest or not at rest, will be the principle of self-motion; and that which is moved by others and can move others will be the second. 'True.' Let me ask another question:
What is the name which is given to self-motion when manifested in any material substance? 'Life.' And soul too is life? 'Very good.' And are there not three kinds of knowledge—a knowledge (1) of the essence, (2) of the definition, (3) of the name? And sometimes the name leads us to ask the definition, sometimes the definition to ask the name. For example, number can be divided into equal parts, and when thus divided is termed even, and the definition of even and the word 'even' refer to the same thing. 'Very true.' And what is the definition of the thing which is named 'soul'? Must we not reply, 'The self-moved'? And have we not proved that the self-moved is the source of motion in other things? 'Yes.' And the motion which is not self-moved will be inferior to this? 'True.' And if so, we shall be right in saying that the soul is prior and superior to the body, and the body by nature subject and inferior to the soul? 'Quite right.' And we agreed that if the soul was prior to the body, the things of the soul were prior to the things of the body? 'Certainly.' And therefore desires, and manners, and thoughts, and true opinions, and recollections, are prior to the length and breadth and force of bodies. 'To be sure.' In the next place, we acknowledge that the soul is the cause of good and evil, just and unjust, if we suppose her to be the cause of all things? 'Certainly.' And the soul which orders all things must also order the heavens? 'Of course.' One soul or more? More; for less than two are inconceivable, one good, the other evil. 'Most true.' The soul directs all things by her movements, which we call will, consideration, attention, deliberation, opinion true and false, joy, sorrow, courage, fear, hatred, love, and similar affections. These are the primary movements, and they receive the secondary movements of bodies, and guide all things to increase and diminution, separation and union, and to all the qualities which accompany them—cold, hot, heavy, light, hard, soft, white, black, sweet, bitter; these and other such qualities the soul, herself a goddess, uses, when truly receiving the divine mind she leads all things rightly to their happiness; but under the impulse of folly she works out an opposite result. For the controller of heaven and earth and the circle of the world is either the wise and good soul, or the foolish and vicious soul, working in them. 'What do you mean?' If we say that the whole course and motion of heaven and earth is in accordance with the workings and reasonings of mind, clearly the best soul must have the care of the heaven, and guide it along that better way. 'True.' But if the heavens move wildly and disorderly, then they must be under the guidance of the evil soul. 'True again.' What is the nature of the movement of the soul? We must not suppose that we can see and know the soul with our bodily eyes, any more than we can fix them on the midday sun; it will be safer to look at an image only. 'How do you mean?' Let us find among the ten kinds of motion an image of the motion of the mind. You remember, as we said, that all things are divided into two classes; and some of them were moved and some at rest. 'Yes.' And of those which were moved, some were moved in the same place, others in more places than one. 'Just so.' The motion which was in one place was circular, like the motion of a spherical body; and such a motion in the same place, and in the same relations, is an excellent image of the motion of mind. 'Very true.' The motion of the other sort, which has no fixed place or manner or relation or order or proportion, is akin to folly and nonsense. 'Very true.' After what has been said, it is clear that, since the soul carries round all things, some soul which is either very good or the opposite carries round the circumference of heaven. But that soul can be no other than the best. Again, the soul carries round the sun, moon, and stars, and if the sun has a soul, then either the soul of the sun is within and moves the sun as the human soul moves the body; or, secondly, the sun is contained in some external air or fire, which the soul provides and through which she operates; or, thirdly, the course of the sun is guided by the soul acting in a wonderful manner without a body. 'Yes, in one of those ways the soul must guide all things.' And this soul of the sun, which is better than the sun, whether driving him in a chariot or employing any other agency, is by every man called a God? 'Yes, by every man who has any sense.' And of the seasons, stars, moon, and year, in like manner, it may be affirmed that the soul or souls from which they derive their excellence are divine; and without insisting on the manner of their working, no one can deny that all things are full of Gods. 'No one.' And now let us offer an alternative to him who denies that there are Gods. Either he must show that the soul is not the origin of all things, or he must live for the future in the belief that there are Gods.
39 comments:
What about 13D. Scientists have discovered a 13th dimension. Humanity has just scratched the surface of knowledge. As knowledge expands it leads to wisdom and ignorance and fear subside. But first one must willingly step up and accept knowledge, truth, and wisdom. I don't see that happening anytime soon with the MAGAverse of tRumpists.
Many theories. You live inside one ideology, and I, another. And ne'er the twain shall meet.
My concern is ethical behavior, not political ideology.
Parties are but tribes with a label, presumably pursuing mutual interests.
In the process those outside the party fold are the other. And defeating the other becomes the only goal.
America has become The Lord if the Flies on a macro level and it is destroying the country. With tRump the narcissistic Felon leading the way.
See today's post as my reply.
Ethics are imposed my others. Morals are the ethics you adopt for yourself. Che Voui?
erratum - "by" for "my" above.
2nd order observation gets you closer to "no self" in that it places your unit into an observation of the universe, but if that observation is placed in a position to be observed by "others", it makes you into their puppet, as you seek to attract their attention... which doubles down on "self", the very concept you seek to eliminate through Buddhism. In other words, none of us should post in social media with the hope of becoming an "influencer".
You cannot eliminate that which does not exist.
Like gravity or time, if this theory is correct? Apparently in 2D space, you can.
And we keep discovering new dimensions. It frightens those frozen in reified beliefs who cling to their attachments.
We are all not as intelligent as you who can survive in a perpetual state of flux.
Plato, "Cratylus"
SOCRATES: Nor yet can they be known by any one; for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other and of another nature, so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state, for you cannot know that which has no state.
CRATYLUS: True.
SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
CRATYLUS: I will do as you say, though I can assure you, Socrates, that I have been considering the matter already, and the result of a great deal of trouble and consideration is that I incline to Heracleitus.
SOCRATES: Then, another day, my friend, when you come back, you shall give me a lesson; but at present, go into the country, as you are intending, and Hermogenes shall set you on your way.
CRATYLUS: Very good, Socrates; I hope, however, that you will continue to think about these things yourself.
Pointing out why armchair philosophers are a dime a dozen.
Knowledge becomes obsolete when advances in a discipline or new discoveries make said knowledge obsolete.
So Buddhism has been rendered obsolete. Good to know. We must have unknowing "evolved" as human beings and stopped being selfish b*stards.
Not exactly. But believe as you will. Buddhist philosophy and psychology will be flourishing long after you and I are long gone. It's one of a few spiritual paths that is actually aligning with science and it has for 2.6 thousand of years.
But whatever.
Row row row your boat gently down the stream.
Merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream.
So much for the "new discoveries" theory of knowledge obsolescence.
I'm sure you can find a video on the subject. If not you can always create one. What fun that would be, eh?
So which new scientific "theory of everything" is true? LOL!
That's for you to decide for yourself.
I prefer the Lindy approach. :)
Nice dance.
As you already know, I'm a Deist by choice, not conviction.
I think we all are, less we imitate Lessing's son.
As you know I'm a seeker. And, I reject monotheistic religions in all their contorted forms. For obvious reasons.
So, you're open to Paganism. Good to know.
So which white whale you chasing this week, Ahab?
What an a**.
My daughter however is into Paganism. And I'm proud of her for not being a follower and having a mind of her own.
And Buddhism, it is not Paganism. Nor is it a religion in my view and a very many others. A philosophy and psychology is a more accurate description.
But you do you.
It's important that your religions be "secular" then. You wouldn't want to hold any "imaginary" beliefs. lol!
...people might think you ignorant. @@
I really have no beef with Buddhism. It's a perfectly fine and acceptable (to me) ideology/ philosophy. I'm glad you've found your philosopher stone. That you exhort others to follow it is to your credit. That you think that I could benefit shows that your heart is in the right place.
What I don't share is your disdain for other practices and religions. All, in my opinion, have merits and defects and operate best in certain limited environments as tools of Empire, where uniformity and conformity are at odds. As for me, I like small antifragile tribalism without a superimposed religious or secular monoculture, but since that's impossible, the Constitution is probably the best we could hope for. Ours has simply become far too intrusive.
Okay, thank you for that.
I have no problem whatsoever with any spiritual path in and of itself. What I disdain is the Hypocrisy I've always perceived existed, and continues to exist in all monotheistic religions today.
The monotheistic religions, IMO, are historically a set if "divine" rules meant to control the minds and beliefs of folks. IOW, a system meant to control the beliefs of their culture/society.
Truthfully, I simply do not like institutional authority of any kind anymore. I filled that role for many years in the business I worked in and as a result recognize the danger that control can create. IOW's knowing what I know today, if I had it to do over again, my carrier path would be vastly different.
Live and learn. FINDING YOUR GROUND OF BEING and resting in that is the doorway to peace and happiness. Both MAGA and the Opposition could stand to start searching for that in general. They just might find they have more in common than not.
And looking at the amount of human suffering, the direct result of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam beliefs, I've chosen to not follow any of their paths.
Ditto. I'm a Deist. Whatever created the Universe, I choose to believe that it had some "good" in it and has stayed out of our affairs since. And for me, THAT is the good.
...and where our federal Constitutional secular religion has gone wrong.
...and perhaps the source of your distrust for Institutional Authority.
My distrust began at the Academy, when the Authorities ignored the Book of Regulations and imposed extra-judicial (regulatory) measures to make it "easier" to control us and impose punishments and discipline. We were supposed to be judged as individuals. Instead we were judges as groups. Instead of justice, we got "social justice".
...and summary disciplines and punishments.
...not the "due process" promised in the Book of Regulations.
If one lives an ethical life, respecting all and harming no one, then they have lived a sacred life. Regardless their spiritual leanings (religion) or government restrictions or lack thereof.
Amen!
Post a Comment