Don't forget Astral Projection! I can't ask questions about the nature of 'things' and 'thing-hood' (yes, that's a technical term, damnit) unless I'm vibrating on another plane of existence or something.
Once more, we all from seed celestial spring, To all is that same father, from whom earth, The fostering mother, as she takes the drops Of liquid moisture, pregnant bears her broods-- The shining grains, and gladsome shrubs and trees, And bears the human race and of the wild The generations all, the while she yields The foods wherewith all feed their frames and lead The genial life and propagate their kind; Wherefore she owneth that maternal name, By old desert. What was before from earth, The same in earth sinks back, and what was sent From shores of ether, that, returning home, The vaults of sky receive. Nor thus doth death So far annihilate things that she destroys The bodies of matter; but she dissipates Their combinations, and conjoins anew One element with others; and contrives That all things vary forms and change their colours
I have been focusing on shorter-term problems and haven't thought about this for a while. My conclusions have been somewhat scattered and abstract. ...like "defining an individual (or object) completely is rather impossible because we are infinitely many people every second - every moment and all the fractions of moments deliver influences that change us". Therefore, defining one frame of existence is something like ... taking the limit of a function, I guess.
I have some troubles sorting out for myself whether that conclusion is compatible with what I want to be possible for our species; that we someday might learn how to extend the duration of our arrangements in space (or the continuity of the cooperation of all the parts) for an indefinite period of time.
"defining an individual (or object) completely is rather impossible because we are infinitely many people every second - every moment and all the fractions of moments deliver influences that change us"
How do you conclude that this makes us infinitely many people every second? If the identity of the person that I am is something like a physical identity at the atomic level of my body, then while I may be an extraordinarily large number of people in a second, I'm certainly not an infinite number. Identifying a certain person or set of people over a given of time would, on this theory, be a technically difficult problem, but not an impossible one
( ... )
How do you conclude that this makes us infinitely many people every second? If the identity of the person that I am is something like a physical identity at the atomic level of my body, then while I may be an extraordinarily large number of people in a second, I'm certainly not an infinite number.
Well, unless you think that time, and and therefore motion, is quantized (and it could be that it is, maybe you are more familiar with this and if so then perhaps you can explain if that's the case), there is no limit to the number of fractions a second can be subdivided into.
Comments 75
if this set of ideas has a formal name
You've already heard its formal name. Its colloquial name is 'the rabbit hole.'
any thoughts you have on the subject
Not a chance. Good luck to you.
Reply
Not a chance."
But... you just...
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Although, to be fair, that doesn't seem to be stopping you.
Reply
Everyone else already beat me to all the useful references and fun jokes. I am a sad panda.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"Don't forget Astral Projection!"
I never would. People Can Fly is a classic. A+ David Duchovny sample.
Reply
To all is that same father, from whom earth,
The fostering mother, as she takes the drops
Of liquid moisture, pregnant bears her broods--
The shining grains, and gladsome shrubs and trees,
And bears the human race and of the wild
The generations all, the while she yields
The foods wherewith all feed their frames and lead
The genial life and propagate their kind;
Wherefore she owneth that maternal name,
By old desert. What was before from earth,
The same in earth sinks back, and what was sent
From shores of ether, that, returning home,
The vaults of sky receive. Nor thus doth death
So far annihilate things that she destroys
The bodies of matter; but she dissipates
Their combinations, and conjoins anew
One element with others; and contrives
That all things vary forms and change their colours
Reply
I have been focusing on shorter-term problems and haven't thought about this for a while. My conclusions have been somewhat scattered and abstract. ...like "defining an individual (or object) completely is rather impossible because we are infinitely many people every second - every moment and all the fractions of moments deliver influences that change us". Therefore, defining one frame of existence is something like ... taking the limit of a function, I guess.
I have some troubles sorting out for myself whether that conclusion is compatible with what I want to be possible for our species; that we someday might learn how to extend the duration of our arrangements in space (or the continuity of the cooperation of all the parts) for an indefinite period of time.
ack sorry for typos. I should proofread better.
Reply
How do you conclude that this makes us infinitely many people every second? If the identity of the person that I am is something like a physical identity at the atomic level of my body, then while I may be an extraordinarily large number of people in a second, I'm certainly not an infinite number. Identifying a certain person or set of people over a given of time would, on this theory, be a technically difficult problem, but not an impossible one ( ... )
Reply
Well, unless you think that time, and and therefore motion, is quantized (and it could be that it is, maybe you are more familiar with this and if so then perhaps you can explain if that's the case), there is no limit to the number of fractions a second can be subdivided into.
Reply
Leave a comment