As soon as you have “thing” you have “not thing”, so doesn’t that logically encompass all things, id est, everything?
There might be near infinite degrees between said things, but never 0, as long as there is a single reference, or relation, that binds it to reality as it were— correct?
Like a giraffe and a toothbrush are not generally neighbors, but I’m sure an enterprising lass could find many many ways they relate to each other, not least being teeth. (/me verifies giraffes do indeed have teeth. Oh, hey, oxpeckers are like toothbrushes[1], for giraffes in the wild! But I digress…)
How these concepts relate to organization and prioritization is anybody’s guess (tho I could come up with a few [things] if pressed :winky-emoji:)
Let’s change the first statement into something from graph theory:
“If a vertex is blue, it must be connected to some other blue vertex.”
(Vertices are all possible things, blue ones are those that actually exist.)
This still allows the blue subgraph to consist of several disconnected parts. Maybe points 1, 2, and 3 are connected to each other, and then somewhere else there are points 4 and 5 connected to each other, but not connected to the former group. The statement that each blue vertex is connected to some other blue vertex is true (1 is connected to 2 and 3, 2 is to 1 and 3, 3 is to 1 and 2, 4 is to 5, and 5 is to 4), and yet not everything is connected to everything else, not even indirectly (1 is not connected to 4).
Translated back: There could be several parallel realities; each of them existing from its own perspective, but not existing from the perspective of the remaining ones. (Problem is that we, being a part of one of those realities, would have no way to prove that it is so, as by definition we would not be connected, even indirectly, to the remaining realities.)
From the perspective of modern physics, even the transitivity of “things being connected” could be challenged. Suppose that you live in an expanding universe. One day you get a message from God saying that if you travel to north at almost the speed of light, after 100 subjective years you will see the light coming from a star X. But if you instead travel to south at almost the speed of light, after 100 subjective years you will see the light coming from a star Y. The universe is expanding, and whichever option you choose, it will be too late to turn back and try to see also the other star; it has already disappeared from your light cone. In this scenario, your home planet is connected to both the star X and the star Y, but the stars X and Y are not connected to each other.
From the perspective of time: the present is connected to several possible futures. But those futures are not connected to each other; if one of them happens, then (assuming single reality) the others do not.
Like, you’d need to be “outside” the box to verify these things, correct?
So we can imagine potential connections (I can imagine a tree falling, and making sound, as it were) but unless there is some type of real reference— say the the realities intersect, or there’s a higher dimension, or we see light/feel gravity or what have you— they don’t exist from “inside”, no?
Even imagining things connects or references them to some extent… that’s what I meant about unknown unknowns (if I didn’t edit that bit out)… even if that does go to extremes.
Does this reasoning make sense? I know defining existence is pretty abstract, to say the least. :)
You seem enthusiastic about many things, but as you have probably noticed, this is not the right website for this type of debate. Please notice the negative numbers at some of your posts and comments, those are votes against having this type of content.
What I wanted to do in the previous comment was mostly to nitpick on the logic “everything relates to something, therefore everything relates to everything” from the mathematical perspective. Technical correctness of ideas is considered important here.
To get a better idea of what this website is about, you might want to read Rationality: From AI to Zombies (online, download EPUB, MOBI, PDF), A Map that Reflects the Territory (Amazon), or The Engines of Cognition (Amazon).
Sorry for throwing a lot of text to you, but I cannot think of a simple way how to succintly explain the kind of debate that is appreciated at this website versus… uhm… writing many different ideas with question marks. So I am just pointing a finger and saying “something like that”.
LOL! Gesturing in a vague direction is fine. And I get it. My kind of rationality is for sure in the minority here, I knew it wouldn’t be getting updoots. Wasn’t sure that was required or whatnot, but I see that it is. Which is fine. Content moderation separates the wheat from the chaff and the public interwebs from personal blogs or whatnot.
I’m a nitpicker too, sometimes, so it would be neat to suss out further why the not new idea that “everything in some way connects to everything else” is “false” or technically incorrect, as it were, but I probably didn’t express what I meant well (really, it’s not a new idea, maybe as old as questions about trees falling in forests— and about as provable I guess).
Heh, I didn’t even really know I was debating, I reckon. Just kind of thinking, I was thinking. Thus the questioning ideas or whatnot… but it’s in the title, kinda, right? Or at least less wrong? Ha! Regardless, thanks for the gesture(s), and no worries!
The latter doesn’t logically follow from the former.
As soon as you have “thing” you have “not thing”, so doesn’t that logically encompass all things, id est, everything?
There might be near infinite degrees between said things, but never 0, as long as there is a single reference, or relation, that binds it to reality as it were— correct?
Like a giraffe and a toothbrush are not generally neighbors, but I’m sure an enterprising lass could find many many ways they relate to each other, not least being teeth. (/me verifies giraffes do indeed have teeth. Oh, hey, oxpeckers are like toothbrushes[1], for giraffes in the wild! But I digress…)
How these concepts relate to organization and prioritization is anybody’s guess (tho I could come up with a few [things] if pressed :winky-emoji:)
kinda
Let’s change the first statement into something from graph theory:
“If a vertex is blue, it must be connected to some other blue vertex.”
(Vertices are all possible things, blue ones are those that actually exist.)
This still allows the blue subgraph to consist of several disconnected parts. Maybe points 1, 2, and 3 are connected to each other, and then somewhere else there are points 4 and 5 connected to each other, but not connected to the former group. The statement that each blue vertex is connected to some other blue vertex is true (1 is connected to 2 and 3, 2 is to 1 and 3, 3 is to 1 and 2, 4 is to 5, and 5 is to 4), and yet not everything is connected to everything else, not even indirectly (1 is not connected to 4).
Translated back: There could be several parallel realities; each of them existing from its own perspective, but not existing from the perspective of the remaining ones. (Problem is that we, being a part of one of those realities, would have no way to prove that it is so, as by definition we would not be connected, even indirectly, to the remaining realities.)
From the perspective of modern physics, even the transitivity of “things being connected” could be challenged. Suppose that you live in an expanding universe. One day you get a message from God saying that if you travel to north at almost the speed of light, after 100 subjective years you will see the light coming from a star X. But if you instead travel to south at almost the speed of light, after 100 subjective years you will see the light coming from a star Y. The universe is expanding, and whichever option you choose, it will be too late to turn back and try to see also the other star; it has already disappeared from your light cone. In this scenario, your home planet is connected to both the star X and the star Y, but the stars X and Y are not connected to each other.
From the perspective of time: the present is connected to several possible futures. But those futures are not connected to each other; if one of them happens, then (assuming single reality) the others do not.
Etc.
I love it! Kind of like Gödel numbers!
I think we’re sorta saying the same thing, right?
Like, you’d need to be “outside” the box to verify these things, correct?
So we can imagine potential connections (I can imagine a tree falling, and making sound, as it were) but unless there is some type of real reference— say the the realities intersect, or there’s a higher dimension, or we see light/feel gravity or what have you— they don’t exist from “inside”, no?
Even imagining things connects or references them to some extent… that’s what I meant about unknown unknowns (if I didn’t edit that bit out)… even if that does go to extremes.
Does this reasoning make sense? I know defining existence is pretty abstract, to say the least. :)
You seem enthusiastic about many things, but as you have probably noticed, this is not the right website for this type of debate. Please notice the negative numbers at some of your posts and comments, those are votes against having this type of content.
What I wanted to do in the previous comment was mostly to nitpick on the logic “everything relates to something, therefore everything relates to everything” from the mathematical perspective. Technical correctness of ideas is considered important here.
To get a better idea of what this website is about, you might want to read Rationality: From AI to Zombies (online, download EPUB, MOBI, PDF), A Map that Reflects the Territory (Amazon), or The Engines of Cognition (Amazon).
Sorry for throwing a lot of text to you, but I cannot think of a simple way how to succintly explain the kind of debate that is appreciated at this website versus… uhm… writing many different ideas with question marks. So I am just pointing a finger and saying “something like that”.
LOL! Gesturing in a vague direction is fine. And I get it. My kind of rationality is for sure in the minority here, I knew it wouldn’t be getting updoots. Wasn’t sure that was required or whatnot, but I see that it is. Which is fine. Content moderation separates the wheat from the chaff and the public interwebs from personal blogs or whatnot.
I’m a nitpicker too, sometimes, so it would be neat to suss out further why the not new idea that “everything in some way connects to everything else” is “false” or technically incorrect, as it were, but I probably didn’t express what I meant well (really, it’s not a new idea, maybe as old as questions about trees falling in forests— and about as provable I guess).
Heh, I didn’t even really know I was debating, I reckon. Just kind of thinking, I was thinking. Thus the questioning ideas or whatnot… but it’s in the title, kinda, right? Or at least less wrong? Ha! Regardless, thanks for the gesture(s), and no worries!