posted on May, 8 2010 @ 08:30 AM
I have an interest in metaphysics. I believe this to be my first topic on this board. I read a lot about Time and Space and have recently become
interested in non-Euclidian geometry. Let me explain...
Space, in Euclidian geometry, is infinitely divisible. This means that between any two points, no matter the distance between them, there can always
be a third point. Lets say you have 2 points a meter apart. You can half this distance, now you have a half meter. you can half this to make a quarter
meter, you can half that to make an eighth, half that to make a sixteenth, half that to make a 32nd, half that to make a 64th etc and you can go on
doing this indefinitely.
Now, Philosophers, lets say, Aristotle, believed that matter was NOT infinitely divisible. He believed in "atoms" (not what WE know as atoms to be
now) which were absolutely indivisible. Aristotle did not believe in actual infinities, but he did recognize that logically infinities can exist (as
mentioned with the two points).
Time, in our conventional understanding of it, is also infinitely divisible. This means that between any two events, there can (indeed, some will say
must) be a third event. There is an interesting paradox pointed out by the philosopher Zeno, known as Zeno's Arrow. The interesting thing about this
paradox is that while it makes logical sense, it states that while an object is in motion, it is, at any single 'instant' (undefinable, really) it
is really at rest. You can imagine the arrow moving, and you can imagine the arrow moving one 'instant' at a time, but if 'instants' exist (and we
have been taught, or at least, I have been taught that they most certainly do) then it must truly be at rest at any instant while it is in motion...
the paradox, obviously, is that it is in motion and at rest and the same time.
Now, the obvious solution to this particular paradox is that there aren't really any such things as 'instants' and that time flows constantly
without any event happening for a finite period of time. Which puts us back at square one, because that would make time infinitely divisible, which
would mean that between any two events there would HAVE to be a third event, and between the first and the third event a fourth, between the first and
the fourth a fifth etc etc, on and on infinitely, which would mean that the arrow is, and always was, and always will be at rest. This obviously
doesn't make sense at all either. Natural Philosophers have been plagued by these such paradoxes for ages and they are nothing new.
What I am about to propose, however, is not radical at all. In fact, the answer to these questions might be glaringly obvious to some, and that is, as
Descartes put it... "I think, therefore I am." And that is the only real, lets say, compass, that any of us have with reality. I cannot speak for
your reality and you cannot speak for mine, and they might both be radically different. Where one event seems to take 2 seconds for me, might to a
being with faster reflexes and more 'frames per second' it might be 20 seconds. Time may not be a constant, and time may not be a dimension all on
its own. or, it might be a dimension. or, it might be more than one dimension. It could be two. Or three. Or four. The truth is that we really don't
know and it's pretty much the only truth that I am absolutely sure of.
The answer, if you didn't figure it out, is that nothing actually exists. Neither you nor I, and so any answer we come up with is not really an
answer but the illusion of an answer, much like life is an illusion that has realities which are only local, not even to just the observer, but down
to the very last, infinitely divisible 'atom'. I'm not talking quarks or anything here. A quark, compared to this infinitely small space is like
the Sun to a speck of dust on Earth. Actually that's a bad comparison because an infinitely small space is actually a very logically redundant thing
to even attempt to explain because it is quite frankly, unfathomable. But such realities, I figure, must be local to these infinitely small spaces,
that are only real for an infinitely short period of time. Actually, again, it's very logically redundant to say 'infinitely short' because it is
unfathomable. However I digress. Things MUST exist because I am here, posting this and you are there, reading this. This ought not to be argued
because then what is it that is arguing this supposition? Logic dictates (and I do not condone that logic is always correct) that you and I must exist
because here we are contemplating things as we often do.
Okay enough talking. In my next post I want to tackle a little bit more of an 'arguable' issue, mainly, that of free will. I just want you to keep
the above in mind, because my main argument is that, as complex as the Universe must inevitably seem to us, it MUST be simple in reality (whatever
reality is, is up to you to define) because complexity exists only in our perceptions. Whatever my argument for anything is, it must, by definition
of the simplicity of the universe, be absolutely wrong. Why? Well, in the next 1378 characters I'll try to explain.
That reality is real makes it so that it exists, and that it exists it must certainly be simple, because we suppose (sorry for generalizing you into
my argument) that the chemistry and physics of the universe does not itself have a conscience with which it can contemplate and think itself into
arrangements of existance. Gravity, for example, doesn't 'think' that a large boulder such as the moon will gravitate around a much larger boulder
such as the earth. of course it can be argued that gravity does indeed think so, but then one would have to ask, well, where is it thinking from then?
Physical forced and individual chemicals do not, to our knowledge, think, and that must, I believe, make the Universe as simple as it can get. And so,
any argument anyone comes up with to try and explain the arrangement of reality must, i believe, be quite wrong, simply because there was no
comprehension when reality came into being, so any amount of comprehension that will try and comprehend it will do nothing but fail miserably at
explaining it. This is a very hard point to explain, so I'm really quite sorry for my inadequate explanation and if you have absolutely any questions
about this I will be more than happy to TRY and go more in-depth on this, but as the theory dictates, it would be foolish of me to try for I would be