Thread: Metaphysical Paradoxes

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

If something exists within the rational materialist frame work and isn't a material object, then what is it?

A measure of material objects. What is the difference between * and **?

Originally Posted by Xei

Add your own or talk about those under discussion.

To start off with, I have a couple of strange thoughts about infinity. I'm not sure how original they are.

Firstly, a metaphysical problem: infinite lifespans. We don't have much trouble with the concept of immortals; they are born like us, and imagining what it would be like to be one is just a matter of extrapolating from our current life experience. But what about the other direction? What about an immortal being which, additionally, has always existed? Meeting and conversing with such a being seems plausible. But what about being that being? Intuitively it seems like it's 'impossible for its consciousness to ever reach this point in time'. Why is this so different from the classic conception of an immortal? What about objects in general? Could you encounter a rock which had existed forever? Or a clock??

I think the asymmetry comes from giving the concept of time too much reality in an eternal place where an immortal could live. In such an eternal place, time is only artificially ascribed by and relative to observers. An immortal observer could ascribe time to events of the past to infinity, but I don't think saying it has lived infinitely long would be correct because that's like trying to use infinity as an objective amount of time in an eternal universe. The symmetry appears again when you see time only as a measurement of observers, the immortal could measure his memory in eternity to infinity.

Originally Posted by Xei

Secondly, a moral problem: infinite beings. We think killing is immoral in what we presume to be a finite universe. But what if we discovered that the universe was infinite? Would it be moral to destroy a planet with life on it? If you did so, you would not have reduced the amount of life in the universe at all. This is not controversial; refer to the Hilbert's Hotel analogy if you're confused. You could just find another planet with life on it (in fact you could find an identical planet) and put it where the old one was, and then replace the new empty space with another planet, and so on with different planets forever, leaving you with exactly the same arrangement as before you destroyed the planet.?

It depends on their relation to the whole; if they're about to attack a friendly, productive species out of greed, it would be morally sound to destroy them. If they are that friendly, productive species in cooperation with the well-being of the rest of the universe's civilizations, I couldn't believe nothing would be changed by dragging the replica to the same place, so I would call it immoral.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A measure of material objects. What is the difference between * and **?

But what is this "measure of material objects" made out of?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

But what is this "measure of material objects" made out of?

electrical impulses?

So "two" is a set of electrical impulses. Does that mean that "two" only lasts as long as those electrical impulses or does it last longer?

I guess it lasts as long as any other conceptual entity in our mind.

So it lasts only as long as the electrical impulses that it's made out of.

Is the "two" in my head the same as the "two" in yours?

Yes, we have similair enough faculties/experience and training.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

But what is this "measure of material objects" made out of?

It is not physical, so it is not made out of anything physical. It is made out of mathematical and other metaphysical principles. It is just intertwined with the physical. It is revealed in the physical, and the physical is rooted in it.

Now please answer my question. What is the difference between * and **?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is not physical, so it is not made out of anything physical. It is made out of mathematical and other metaphysical principles. It is just intertwined with the physical. It is revealed in the physical, and the physical is rooted in it.

So you have to step beyond the rational materialist model to claim that two is real. Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

Now please answer my question. What is the difference between * and **?

'*' occurs before the 'and' while '**' occurs after it.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

So you have to step beyond the rational materialist model to claim that two is real. Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

Step beyond it? Not exactly. The rational materialist model is very much involved in the reality of two.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

'*' occurs before the 'and' while '**' occurs after it.

That's cute. Now try answering the question in the context in which you know I asked it.

...*?

Did you know Euclid wrote a ~200 page proof proving 1 + 1 = 2?

I've never heard that and I'm pretty certain it isn't true, the Greeks didn't look at maths like that.

It was proven after a large number of pages of underlying work by Russell and Whitehead however, when they grounded arithmetic on logic and sets.

Oh. Hey, I have that book.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Originally Posted by Phion

I believe the word you're looking for is atemporal. However, to coin the concept of eternity and infinity is to reference time itself, or an interval, bedding our relationship between something countable (like a set of ideas) and something intangible (like immortality). Where either facet can exist independently of time, but also relies on time to form the concept in the first place.

It would perhaps involve another dimension or dimensions, but something existing without a beginning or end is eternal/infinite. Something existing the entirety of an infinite time line would be eternal, but I do not think that is a requirement.

Dimensions themselves are countable, are they not?

Originally Posted by Phion

Dimensions themselves are countable, are they not?

Yes, but that doesn't mean there is an infinite number of them. I think the timelessness or "eternity" of 2 + 2 = 4 could involve infinity in a dimension that is not time but is somehow like time.

Mathematically speaking, adding dimensions to equations is a fairly "trivial" exercise (n-dimensional manifolds or euclidean space) just not very easy to visualize.

If you want to you guys can argue about it in the thread I made just for that discussion http://www.dreamviews.com/f77/mathematics-123090/, could be interesting.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Yes, we have similair enough faculties/experience and training.

I missed this before.

So the two in your head is the same as the two in mine. If "two" is a set of electrico-chemical phenomena in my head then this would, upon expanding the definition of "two", say "A set of electrical/chemical phenomena" in my head is the same as "a set of elecrical/chemical phenomena" in your head.

Are you satisfied with this statement?

How many heads do the two of you have collectively?

Two. What's your point and will you make it?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Until you show me a 2

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How many heads do the two of you have collectively?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Two.

So what is this "two" that you claim to have shown me made out of? How would an electron behave in a collision with a two?