I mean I kinda get where you're coming from, but I think it's like, "Hey I'm using something physics has already explained everything about, but I'm adding some labels to things" (which I think complicates the issue more than simplifies) Know what I mean? I'm still not super sure what actualization is supposed to mean? Is that what you observe? Then why not say it's what you observe and not use some esoteric adjectives and verbs. I'm not trying to hound you but I feel a lot of people talk like you to avoid discussion because no one has a freaking clue how to approach what you're saying.
I try to use my terms very carefully especially in regards to this level of discussion. It can get very confusing if one is not careful with the terms. Potential - all possibilities, undifferentiated/nothing. This is the fundamental dichotomy of contradictions (imo) where things both exist and dont exist infinitely. Differentiated - some THING that can be distinguished from/apart from nothing Undifferentiated - no distinguishable features/ featureless/nothing Exist - apart from nothing, can be defined and described based on its features etc. Actualize - to bring forth from nonexistence or to differentiate I think that covers all the terms ive used. I dont use them to be confusing or ambiguous, but to carefully make a point without contradicting myself lol. Like if i said 'all things exist in potential' is not exactly true, for something to exist it ceases to be potential and becomes actual.
So an analogy would be, you have an idea in your head to make some cookies. The potential is there, upon your intent you can turn this idea into reality. You actualized the cookies, they now exist and are no longer potential. You can differentiate that they are cookies because it has features. Before you made the cookies you couldnt differentiate them because they both existed and didnt exist in the sea of potential.
in life there is always 4 4 legs 4 base pairs 4 seasons 4 canine teeth... In life there is always 7 7 dwarves 7 11 7 drinks before bedtime 7 days a week 7 joints a dau -yuri
So on one side you have Potential, nothing, undifferentiated, infinity On the other Existence, actual, differentiated, something, finite This is why i argue the universe is finite, because it exists/is differentiated from the infinite potential of nothingness. I may be wrong but that is my logic, i cant personally argue the logic of an infinite universe.
I believe the universe is infinitely expanding, but never contains infinite matter or space at any one point. -yuri
I would distinguish between how you use infinite and how i do. Maybe i am misunderstanding, could you explain what you mean?
So swap thinking/thought with potential, actualizing with making, telling apart instead of differentiating (which to me will always have a calculus meaning but yeah the differentiating I didn't have difficulty understanding) and then you come to a 'normal' person's sentence. I'm being a bit facetious, I hope you don't mind. But I do get taken aback by some people's language in here, and to me it just kinda comes off pretentious.
The connections you make are analogies, as such they have limits. Thoughts can be differentiated from nothing so they arent exactly potential. And making something you are really rearranging things which are already actual. Make sense?
Possibly. It all depends on if the uinverse is headed for the big crunch, the big rip, or big freeze. If the universe expands infinitely, never stopping, then matter will continue to be pulled so far apart that everything will freeze, and then be ripped apart at the atomic level as the universe continues to expand. We know for sure that the universe doesn't contain infinite matter, other than the big bang. That can be observed with cosmic background radiation where the cool spots show there is no heat/matter. I'm not sure what you mean by infinite space, since space only exists inside the universe and the universe is expanding it stands to reason that space is always as big as the universe.
In your cookie analogy the potential was already there to begin with, which is where the idea to make cookies came from. Selecting the idea made that potential a potential reality, being that you could chose to stop or be distracted and not make the cookies. Once the cookies are baking the potential has turned into an actuality, they exist. The cookies can be differentiated from the potential because they do indeed exist, and can be differentiated from the ingredients because they are combined taking on a different shape, texture, taste, etc... I'm picking up what your laying down.
To be honest, I think argument from analogy is a pretty valid one. That aside, I have no idea what you mean by the connection I make are analogies (or do you mean referring to destructive interference? for example), cause I don't think I used any argument from analogy in our talks here. To me, not really. Like I said, it sounds too pretentious and prosaic. You'll have to elaborate on the potential thing. I really suspect we'll never see eye-to-eye but I am genuinely interested in seeing where your ideas come from.
I would say you are too! Now consider time, space and matter/energy came from a potential. That was my point with this in agreeing with and expounding on dryice's speculation of dichotomy. All things that can be differentiated from nothing, were once merely a potential of infinite contradictions in a sense. For something to exist it cant be cancelled out by its opposite. Thats my basic belief, take it or leave it, it seems to make sense to me lol.
I think the universe is expanding infinitely.. but it won't get ripped apart. My theory is that black holes recycle matter and empty space.. cause in reality, there is a lot of empty space in atoms and I don't believe a black hole consumes all that empty space. Instead, it consumes specific parts and compresses it while releasing the empty space at it's poles. It then jets it out of it's poles and as it gets away from the galaxy it starts to umbrella or spread out around the galaxy.. causing expansion. If you had 2 galaxies with nothing between them, they would expand apart.. but as the get further apart, new galaxies will be born in between them and continue expanding. Since black holes probably consume and release at a faster rate than what matter forms, there will always be expansion. And there is an observational limit to the universe, due to it's expansion. It expands at a rate of about 67 km/sec per megaparsec.. so if you're viewing something that is 10 megaparsecs away, it would be expanding away from us at a rate of 670 km/sec. Because of that, there is a certain point where the rate of expansion relative to us surpasses the speed of light, which is at about 14.5 billion light years away. So any light emitted outside that limit will never reach us provided the expansion continues. Being that there is an observational limit, we can't say for sure that there is or isn't an infinite amount of matter outside that limit.
Its fine if we dont see eye-to-eye and i appreciate your openness to hear me out. When i try to think of an ultimate potential i think of (here is another limited analogy) a boundless infinite sea of possibilities. Featureless, dimensionless, timeless, nothingness. Consider the sine wave example and apply that across the board. All waves 'coexist' as a potential, yet only actually exist when its opposite isnt coexisting (per the law of non contradiction). The limit i have reached is how this potential differentiated to create the universe. I dont think thats answerable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Duality.htm
Dualism is pretty interesting, but I freaking hate it when it's applied to the mind/body. I firmly believe that the body and mind are one. When I read this stuff, I can't help but think you're trying to use a Schrodinger's cat analogy. A sort of, "Everything's happening until you take the time to observe a specific phenomenon." Is that where you're coming from?
No thats not where im coming from. I really only apply this as a possible explanation for the origin of time/space/matter. Anything after that i use as a 'down to earth' analogy to try to understand it. Extrapolating from the idea that within the universe all things that exist first had the potential to exist. Before there was life on earth, it was only a possibility, only because it was a possibility could it become actual/reality. I just apply that to the very beginning as well. In the absolute potential that gave rise to the universe, i suppose the Schrodinger's cat analogy is similar. Maybe it is a kind of dualism but i dont apply it to mind/body, good/bad etc.
Okay, I can kinda see where you're coming from. But, I think it's a dangerous game. I think the 'potential' business is still essentially saying "god" which begs the question. Do you disagree? It's also a bit tautological to say, the things that exist are only the things that were possible to exist. To me a statement like that doesn't really lead you anywhere. Which I can't terribly fault you on because I'm a big fan of the anthropic principle which is very tautological, but on the other hand I think the anthropic principle has more implications.