Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism

[AshvinP]

I give no quarter to professional philosophers or scientists who do philosophy... they think about these things for a living! And it's been a solid 400-500 years since Descartes and Kant... how much time do they need?? I just do this as a hobby and you give me a much harder time than I give them Although it has been increasingly time-consuming lately... does anyone have the number for Philosophers Anonymous?

For nihilism I go with the maxim, "I am not sure what it is exactly, but I know it when I see it". Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man does not read at all like nihilistic philosophy, while Rovelli's quote above reads like nothing but. When someone writes an article with an inventory of substantial things which don't exist, that's sort of a dead giveaway for me.

You don't think you deserve quarter?

The Omega Point does not exist within the timeline of the universe, it occurs at the exact edge of the end of time. From that point, all sequences of existence is sucked into its being.
The Omega Point can be understood as a volume shaped as a cone in which each section taken from the base to its summit decreases until it diminishes into a final point.
The volume described in the Third Property must be understood as an entity with finite boundaries

I don't see how more clearly the nihilism of point reductionism could be stated?

Or, can you tell what the concept of "point" means, such that can have inherent and independent existence and such "substance", such gravity like pull that sucks in everything and ends all? Was Euclid really that wrong when he stated as first definition of Elementa: "A point has no part."? Can you offer a better definition of 'point' than Euclid? Or do you go with Hilbert or what the heck? And you see nothing wrong with such absolute determinism of Omega point nihilism? No spiritual freedom to refuse to be sucked into oblivion, no freedom for Spirit to continue to live and explore love in all it's relations and forms?

Please try to think care-fully.


In the video Rovelli showed that he has decent comprehension of Nagarjuna. If you read Nagarjuna as nihilism, you are reading wrong, (but still deserve quarter), IMO. Relationism is process philosophy, very similar to Whiteheads process theology of dynamic Indra's Net.

Even if you would rather take the philosophical position of substance metaphysics of point-reductionism, could you at least try to see the issue from relational perspective (if only for a steelman argument), before you pass your final judgement of point reductionism and end of all relations, giving no quarter to any relation? Please?

I'm not a professional philosopher or scientist who does philosophy, but no even I don't deserve quarter in this regard. As you know, I welcome all criticism and challenges to my arguments as long they are made in good will, genuinely seeking penetration into the essence of these issues. As I have said many times, I think you take it in the opposite direction of where we should go - everything becomes more abstract in your framework. Teilhard de Chardin's metamorphic perspective on spiritual relations is translated into mathematical concepts so as to avoid confronting their actual meaning. It is the meaning which comes from knowing what the underlying Spirit is, in its essence. That knowledge is what leads to true spiritual freedom - not the freedom to get whatever we desire to be true, but the freedom to desire what is actually true.

[SanteriSatama]

I'm not a professional philosopher or scientist who does philosophy, but no even I don't deserve quarter in this regard. As you know, I welcome all criticism and challenges to my arguments as long they are made in good will, genuinely seeking penetration into the essence of these issues. As I have said many times, I think you take it in the opposite direction of where we should go - everything becomes more abstract in your framework.

"Penetration into the essence" is as such already a kind of framing. With a different wording we can make the frame sound less abstract: The will of Mother fucking, which is the noble cause for spiritual dick heads like us.

I sincerely don't understand why call me 1) framework and 2) abstract. To communicate better, could you try to explain why you think so?

Teilhard de Chardin's metamorphic perspective on spiritual relations is translated into mathematical concepts so as to avoid confronting their actual meaning. It is the meaning which comes from knowing what the underlying Spirit is, in its essence. .

"To avoid confronting actual meaning" sounds like dishonesty. But I don't think Teilhard is dishonest, but very sincere in his geometry of physicalism, as he says his contribution is scientific. I'm saddened that you refuse to address the concrete geometry, and the foundational reasoning behind it, and take refuge in the non-communicative and non-reasoning kind of "knowing" which just declares as if it was self-evident. To me that looks like intellectual dishonesty.

I don't question that Teilhard's geometric vision cannont be intuited in the spiritual world. It's whole another thing to interprete and declare such vision as the only knowing, the only truth. While refusting to discuss the geometric validity of the geometric vision, the physicalist-idealist context of point-reductionism, and offer rational geometric reasoning for point-reductionism of the ontology that you postulate or accept in uncritical non-thinking way, you commit the sin of intellectual cowardise, which according to your self-judgement deserves no quarter. To inseminate Mother with the geometry of your choice, you need to first pass the test of geometric reasoning. Or do you claim such test and condition unfair and unreasonable, and that you deserve to get what you desire to be true without thinking and reasoning coherent geometry?

That knowledge is what leads to true spiritual freedom - not the freedom to get whatever we desire to be true, but the freedom to desire what is actually true

How wonderfully Orwellian!

[AshvinP]

I'm not a professional philosopher or scientist who does philosophy, but no even I don't deserve quarter in this regard. As you know, I welcome all criticism and challenges to my arguments as long they are made in good will, genuinely seeking penetration into the essence of these issues. As I have said many times, I think you take it in the opposite direction of where we should go - everything becomes more abstract in your framework.

"Penetration into the essence" is as such already a kind of framing. With a different wording we can make the frame sound less abstract: The will of Mother fucking, which is the noble cause for spiritual dick heads like us.

I sincerely don't understand why call me 1) framework and 2) abstract. To communicate better, could you try to explain why you think so?

Teilhard de Chardin's metamorphic perspective on spiritual relations is translated into mathematical concepts so as to avoid confronting their actual meaning. It is the meaning which comes from knowing what the underlying Spirit is, in its essence. .

"To avoid confronting actual meaning" sounds like dishonesty. But I don't think Teilhard is dishonest, but very sincere in his geometry of physicalism, as he says his contribution is scientific. I'm saddened that you refuse to address the concrete geometry, and the foundational reasoning behind it, and take refuge in the non-communicative and non-reasoning kind of "knowing" which just declares as if it was self-evident. To me that looks like intellectual dishonesty.

I don't question that Teilhard's geometric vision cannont be intuited in the spiritual world. It's whole another thing to interprete and declare such vision as the only knowing, the only truth. While refusting to discuss the geometric validity of the geometric vision, the physicalist-idealist context of point-reductionism, and offer rational geometric reasoning for point-reductionism of the ontology that you postulate or accept in uncritical non-thinking way, you commit the sin of intellectual cowardise, which according to your self-judgement deserves no quarter. To inseminate Mother with the geometry of your choice, you need to first pass the test of geometric reasoning. Or do you claim such test and condition unfair and unreasonable, and that you deserve to get what you desire to be true without thinking and reasoning coherent geometry?

That's what knowledge is all about - Biblical "knowing"! Seriously, I think physical sex is a symbol of union of opposites which potentially gives birth to new consciousness, and that is always what we are doing through true Thinking.

I say something has become more abstract if the imagery is less applicable to familiar sense impressions and basic concepts, keeping in mind it's all relational-relative for such things. So if we go from "evolutionary progression of Spirit" to a treatise on informal/formal math and "geometric vision", most people will find that more abstract in terms of figuring out what exactly is being discussed, proposed, challenged, etc.

I wasn't saying Teilhard was avoiding the meaning but you. Not dishonestly, because you seem to think the math concepts are actually the most fundamental meaning. The meaning of Teilhard is of course the metamorphic progression of Spirit that I wrote 3 essays on. He was mentioned in the 2nd one on Incarnating the Christ.

[SanteriSatama]

I say something has become more abstract if the imagery is less applicable to familiar sense impressions and basic concepts, keeping in mind it's all relational-relative for such things. So if we go from "evolutionary progression of Spirit" to a treatise on informal/formal math and "geometric vision", most people will find that more abstract in terms of figuring out what exactly is being discussed, proposed, challenged, etc.

OK, so your definition orf 'abstract' is subjective "Sounds weird to me/Goes over my head". Very good to get the perspectival relativity honestly cleared out. 'Abstract' has also other meanings and connotations, like "abstract math" vs. "sensual and emotional", etc. Etymologically:

late 14c., originally in grammar (in reference to certain nouns that do not name concrete things), from Latin abstractus "drawn away," past participle of abstrahere "to drag away, detach, pull away, divert;" also figuratively, from assimilated form of ab "off, away from" (see ab-) + trahere "to draw," from PIE root *tragh- "to draw, drag, move" (see tract (n.1)).

The meaning in philosophy, "withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters" (opposed to concrete) is from mid-15c. That of "difficult to understand, abstruse" is from c. 1400.

If we move from the materialist frame and defintion of 'abstract' on to idealist/spiritual frame, and accept that's where the true ontology of geometry is, then in that sense "abstract" geometry is very concrete, as concrete form as we can think and give to spirit as we participate in the spiritual aspect of mathematical cognition.

I wasn't saying Teilhard was avoiding the meaning but you. Not dishonestly, because you seem to think the math concepts are actually the most fundamental meaning. The meaning of Teilhard is of course the metamorphic progression of Spirit that I wrote 3 essays on. He was mentioned in the 2nd one on Incarnating the Christ.

No, I don't think that the math concepts and geometry are the most fundamental meaning. I'm a feels sorta guy. But as the geometric forms we give and follow in the spirit affect very much how we feel and behave, they are also very important. The concrete meaning of the geometric form Teilherd gives and follows becomes - I don't want to mince my words - absolutely nihilistic Pure Evil from our perspectives and relations in the core meaning of ethics and feels. In the meaning and truth of our Hearts. In the meaning and truth of our very actual Love.

In this meaning, it is of outmost importance to very carefully investigate and think through the origin of this geometry of evil. I invite you to the task to think this togetether very carefully, learning as we go. You are free to play the role of Devil's advocate, if you so choose, but please don't feel in any way obligated to do so.

So, before we give the concept of point such power of 'ought from is', let's ask again, what is a point? I suggest two-prongued investigation: 1) definition and intuitive meaning of point in Euclid's Elementa and 2) meaning of point in Hilbert's geometry, which is the foundation of the formalist-physicalist point reductionism. The latter is also very important to comprehend, so that we don't stay unconscious and unaware captives to what Badiou call's "set theoretical ontology" - in the full idealist meaning of a mathematical ontology.

Before I share the results of my own investigation so far, perhaps you would like to give your best shot at defining the geometric and mathematical meaning of point? Such effort could be very beneficial for our discussion and investigation.

[DandelionSoul]

No not at all, the discussion with you has been the most easily flowing one for me in a long time The typical misunderstandings and gamesmanship of these things has been kept at very minimal level, if not absent completely, and that saves a lot of time-effort!

Thank you! I'm flattered. I've missed having a space where I can bounce my thoughts and understandings off other people and get feedback, so this has been really nice.

I was mostly referencing my essays here, which I enjoy writing so much that I start to neglect my work... but I am managing to find a better flow and balance of such things as I go. My name is Ashvin, and I am a philosopher

I get that, for sure. Some of my responses in our other thread take me several hours to compose. It's weird to spend all day on a post and then read it and it's like... five paragraphs of actual text. That's part of the reason I pare down the discussion so frequently to narrow the focus to a particular point of small cluster of points -- too much more than that and the ADHD Monster eats me alive.

(Our own fundamental disagreement cuts across so many areas -- ontology, linguistics, religion, etc. -- that it's very easy for us to go from talking about something to suddenly talking about everything.)

I think I see what you are saying, and I know Rovelli does not actually look at himself in the mirror every morning and say, "I don't exist". Just like I don't think Daniel Dennett stops to think, "my consciousness is an illusion right now". Yet that does not stop people from philosophizing in that direction and convincing themselves by way of their abstract intellect that they are making great arguments.

Oh I agree, though the image of Dennett trying to convince himself out of his own consciousness is endlessly amusing to me, like Descartes on a hamster wheel: "I think; therefore, I trick myself into thinking that I'm thinking that I'm tricking myself into..."

Mind you, I see a tremendous amount of value in skepticism of this kind, not because I think someone like Dennett is right but because I think he philosophizes with a hammer, so to speak, which forces everyone else to build better structures. "Quining Qualia" is a good example of this, but in general, I think his sort of work makes arguments that draw out unjustified assumptions and force those responding to do better. No point in playing chess if everyone's on the same side of the table.

I think we all agree on the fundamentally relational aspect of our existence, and I will give him credit for emphasizing that, but when he says:

There is no ultimate or mysterious essence to understand—that is the true essence of our being. “I” is nothing other than the vast and interconnected set of phenomena that constitute it, each one dependent on something else. Centuries of Western speculation on the subject, and on the nature of consciousness, vanish like morning mist.

I know exactly where that formulation of the philosophical conclusion is coming from and it is not really from Nagarjuna. It is very similar to argument used by Schopenhauer that we are looking at on the formal philosophy thread. Schopenhauer made it a little past Kant's epistemic nihilism but not far. I guess we are basically debating this on the other thread as well, because it does all center around completely ignoring the participatory role of Thinking in bringing meaning into all of these otherwise "morning mist" like perceptions. Without that essential Thinking, yes we are living in a house of mirrors devoid of any substantial content, but fortunately we do not exist in that world.

I'm not the biggest fan of the "house of mirrors" image, either, and maybe even for the same reason? It's that mirrors aren't active. You can build (in your imagination) an infinite house of mirrors, but if there's no light in that house, then nothing is being reflected: it's reflections reflecting reflections of nothing at all. But while you and I and Rovelli might have our disagreements on just what it is that's in our world, we all agree that it's not a world where there's nothing at all. And what I think it misses -- the light in the analogy -- is that relation is always already active, or participatory as you put it.

[AshvinP]

I say something has become more abstract if the imagery is less applicable to familiar sense impressions and basic concepts, keeping in mind it's all relational-relative for such things. So if we go from "evolutionary progression of Spirit" to a treatise on informal/formal math and "geometric vision", most people will find that more abstract in terms of figuring out what exactly is being discussed, proposed, challenged, etc.

OK, so your definition orf 'abstract' is subjective "Sounds weird to me/Goes over my head". Very good to get the perspectival relativity honestly cleared out. 'Abstract' has also other meanings and connotations, like "abstract math" vs. "sensual and emotional", etc. Etymologically:

late 14c., originally in grammar (in reference to certain nouns that do not name concrete things), from Latin abstractus "drawn away," past participle of abstrahere "to drag away, detach, pull away, divert;" also figuratively, from assimilated form of ab "off, away from" (see ab-) + trahere "to draw," from PIE root *tragh- "to draw, drag, move" (see tract (n.1)).

The meaning in philosophy, "withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters" (opposed to concrete) is from mid-15c. That of "difficult to understand, abstruse" is from c. 1400.

That bolded part is exactly what I said, except with less materialist-laden language. It's a very simple concept and it has nothing to do with "sounds weird to me", only with the proximity to familiar sense-impressions (including basic thought-forms). Another simple way to think of "abstraction" is how many layer of concepts are involved - if you are pointing me to think of a "triangle" as support or example for an argument and that's all, then we are not very far removed from sense-impression at all. Actually, in that case, the mathematical object (thought-form) perceived is not even pointing to anything outside of its own ideal content of "triangle".

But you rarely keep things at that level of imagery - rather you reference all sorts of mathematicians, complex mathematical terminology, the history of mathematics, etc. and thereby create many layers of concepts that I need to penetrate in order to figure out how you are employing those things and what your underlying point is. Each different concept I am not familiar with requires a Google search, and even then I may not figure out how exactly you are using the concept. That entire tendency is rife within "post-structural" linguistic philosophy, so I am not surprised or saying you are a strange case. In those circles, the hyper-abstract approach is perfectly normal and common.

If we move from the materialist frame and defintion of 'abstract' on to idealist/spiritual frame, and accept that's where the true ontology of geometry is, then in that sense "abstract" geometry is very concrete, as concrete form as we can think and give to spirit as we participate in the spiritual aspect of mathematical cognition.

I wasn't saying Teilhard was avoiding the meaning but you. Not dishonestly, because you seem to think the math concepts are actually the most fundamental meaning. The meaning of Teilhard is of course the metamorphic progression of Spirit that I wrote 3 essays on. He was mentioned in the 2nd one on Incarnating the Christ.

No, I don't think that the math concepts and geometry are the most fundamental meaning. I'm a feels sorta guy. But as the geometric forms we give and follow in the spirit affect very much how we feel and behave, they are also very important. The concrete meaning of the geometric form Teilherd gives and follows becomes - I don't want to mince my words - absolutely nihilistic Pure Evil from our perspectives and relations in the core meaning of ethics and feels. In the meaning and truth of our Hearts. In the meaning and truth of our very actual Love.

In this meaning, it is of outmost importance to very carefully investigate and think through the origin of this geometry of evil. I invite you to the task to think this togetether very carefully, learning as we go. You are free to play the role of Devil's advocate, if you so choose, but please don't feel in any way obligated to do so.

So, before we give the concept of point such power of 'ought from is', let's ask again, what is a point? I suggest two-prongued investigation: 1) definition and intuitive meaning of point in Euclid's Elementa and 2) meaning of point in Hilbert's geometry, which is the foundation of the formalist-physicalist point reductionism. The latter is also very important to comprehend, so that we don't stay unconscious and unaware captives to what Badiou call's "set theoretical ontology" - in the full idealist meaning of a mathematical ontology.

Before I share the results of my own investigation so far, perhaps you would like to give your best shot at defining the geometric and mathematical meaning of point? Such effort could be very beneficial for our discussion and investigation.

I don't need to play "devil's advocate", because I outright disagree with you about Teilhard. His view is not nihilistic in the slightest. It may only become that way if you misinterpret the "Omega Point" to be some sort of Borg-like mechanization and homogenization of all living activity, which is then only existing in your biased interpretation of him. You made the same sort of argument against Cleric in the other thread, and I know with 100% certainty that his view (also Steiner's view) proposes nothing of the sort. Rather, they all propose that your bolded phrase above, which wants to remain in "mathematical cognition", is entirely insufficient. We need to move towards the living essence of Spirit and mathematical concepts are not that living essence. If we want to get a sense of the Spirit's living essence, we can just reflect on our own living activities and their meaning. And if we want to move further from that sense, we must work on developing higher cognition and spiritual sight. That is what Teilhard is suggesting and we see that in this quote:

Seeing. We might say that the whole Omega Point of life lies in that verb - if not ultimately, at least essentially. Fuller being is closer union: such is the kernel and conclusion of this book. But let us emphasize the point: union increases only through an increase in consciousness, that is to say in vision. And that, doubtless, is why the history of the living world can be summarized as the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes within a cosmos in which there is always something more to be seen. After all, do we not judge the perfection of an animal, or the supremacy of a thinking being, by the penetration and synthetic power of their gaze? To try to see more and better is not a matter of whim or curiosity or self-indulgence. To see or to perish is the very condition laid upon everything that makes up the universe, by reason of the mysterious gift of existence. And this, in superior measure, is man's condition.

- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (1930)

[AshvinP]

No not at all, the discussion with you has been the most easily flowing one for me in a long time The typical misunderstandings and gamesmanship of these things has been kept at very minimal level, if not absent completely, and that saves a lot of time-effort!

Thank you! I'm flattered. I've missed having a space where I can bounce my thoughts and understandings off other people and get feedback, so this has been really nice.

I was mostly referencing my essays here, which I enjoy writing so much that I start to neglect my work... but I am managing to find a better flow and balance of such things as I go. My name is Ashvin, and I am a philosopher

I get that, for sure. Some of my responses in our other thread take me several hours to compose. It's weird to spend all day on a post and then read it and it's like... five paragraphs of actual text. That's part of the reason I pare down the discussion so frequently to narrow the focus to a particular point of small cluster of points -- too much more than that and the ADHD Monster eats me alive.

(Our own fundamental disagreement cuts across so many areas -- ontology, linguistics, religion, etc. -- that it's very easy for us to go from talking about something to suddenly talking about everything.)

Right, and I contribute to that time by responding to your posts so quickly, another consequence of my addiction. If I am at the computer, then I feel compelled to refresh pretty often, and if a notification comes up when I refresh, then I feel compelled to stop whatever I am doing and respond. It really is an addiction, but I suppose there are many more unproductive things to be addicted to.

I think I see what you are saying, and I know Rovelli does not actually look at himself in the mirror every morning and say, "I don't exist". Just like I don't think Daniel Dennett stops to think, "my consciousness is an illusion right now". Yet that does not stop people from philosophizing in that direction and convincing themselves by way of their abstract intellect that they are making great arguments.

Oh I agree, though the image of Dennett trying to convince himself out of his own consciousness is endlessly amusing to me, like Descartes on a hamster wheel: "I think; therefore, I trick myself into thinking that I'm thinking that I'm tricking myself into..."

Mind you, I see a tremendous amount of value in skepticism of this kind, not because I think someone like Dennett is right but because I think he philosophizes with a hammer, so to speak, which forces everyone else to build better structures. "Quining Qualia" is a good example of this, but in general, I think his sort of work makes arguments that draw out unjustified assumptions and force those responding to do better. No point in playing chess if everyone's on the same side of the table.

I think we all agree on the fundamentally relational aspect of our existence, and I will give him credit for emphasizing that, but when he says:

There is no ultimate or mysterious essence to understand—that is the true essence of our being. “I” is nothing other than the vast and interconnected set of phenomena that constitute it, each one dependent on something else. Centuries of Western speculation on the subject, and on the nature of consciousness, vanish like morning mist.

I know exactly where that formulation of the philosophical conclusion is coming from and it is not really from Nagarjuna. It is very similar to argument used by Schopenhauer that we are looking at on the formal philosophy thread. Schopenhauer made it a little past Kant's epistemic nihilism but not far. I guess we are basically debating this on the other thread as well, because it does all center around completely ignoring the participatory role of Thinking in bringing meaning into all of these otherwise "morning mist" like perceptions. Without that essential Thinking, yes we are living in a house of mirrors devoid of any substantial content, but fortunately we do not exist in that world.

I'm not the biggest fan of the "house of mirrors" image, either, and maybe even for the same reason? It's that mirrors aren't active. You can build (in your imagination) an infinite house of mirrors, but if there's no light in that house, then nothing is being reflected: it's reflections reflecting reflections of nothing at all. But while you and I and Rovelli might have our disagreements on just what it is that's in our world, we all agree that it's not a world where there's nothing at all. And what I think it misses -- the light in the analogy -- is that relation is always already active, or participatory as you put it.

Well we can disagree about Dennett, because I just think there is no excuse or value which comes from stooping to that level of unwarranted buffoonery. I agree with BK's latest complaints about Sam Harris too... no one who is active in these fields should be misrepresenting things so badly. As for Rovelli, I don't necessarily put him down in the Dennett/Harris category, mostly because I am just not that familiar with anything else he has written. But based on the quote you shared, I think he is clearly failing to see some basic flawed assumptions which are then coloring the rest of his line of reasoning. I also don't get how the "light" could be the relation between a mirror and another mirror in the analogy. Like you said, then we are left with only infinite reflections within reflections and nothing that is truly being reflected through either mirror's reflective activity. We may be tempted to say the two "physical mirrors" facing each other still exist, but then I think we have stretched the analogy too far and forgotten the purpose, which is to figure out if anything can be said to exist solely within the activity of reflecting and, if we can imagine it (which we really can't), without any ideal content i.e. meaning beyond that reflecting activity.

[DandelionSoul]

Right, and I contribute to that time by responding to your posts so quickly, another consequence of my addiction. If I am at the computer, then I feel compelled to refresh pretty often, and if a notification comes up when I refresh, then I feel compelled to stop whatever I am doing and respond. It really is an addiction, but I suppose there are many more unproductive things to be addicted to.

I do, too.

Well we can disagree about Dennett, because I just think there is no excuse or value which comes from stooping to that level of unwarranted buffoonery. I agree with BK's latest complaints about Sam Harris too... no one who is active in these fields should be misrepresenting things so badly.

Oh, I agree! The value of being so obstinately skeptical comes from those moments when he has, in fact, understood his opponents' perspective and his disagreements are with what they're actually saying instead of some caricature he's made up of what they're saying.

(I can't speak to Sam Harris here; I haven't read any of his work and don't have all that much desire to.)

As for Rovelli, I don't necessarily put him down in the Dennett/Harris category, mostly because I am just not that familiar with anything else he has written. But based on the quote you shared, I think he is clearly failing to see some basic flawed assumptions which are then coloring the rest of his line of reasoning. I also don't get how the "light" could be the relation between a mirror and another mirror in the analogy. Like you said, then we are left with only infinite reflections within reflections and nothing that is truly being reflected through either mirror's reflective activity. We may be tempted to say the two "physical mirrors" facing each other still exist, but then I think we have stretched the analogy too far and forgotten the purpose, which is to figure out if anything can be said to exist solely within the activity of reflecting and, if we can imagine it (which we really can't), without any ideal content i.e. meaning beyond that reflecting activity.

I think you're agreeing with me here? If so, yay! We've been charting our differences for a while and it's nice to step on common ground here. ^_^

[SanteriSatama]

But you rarely keep things at that level of imagery - rather you reference all sorts of mathematicians, complex mathematical terminology, the history of mathematics, etc. and thereby create many layers of concepts that I need to penetrate in order to figure out how you are employing those things and what your underlying point is. Each different concept I am not familiar with requires a Google search, and even then I may not figure out how exactly you are using the concept. That entire tendency is rife within "post-structural" linguistic philosophy, so I am not surprised or saying you are a strange case. In those circles, the hyper-abstract approach is perfectly normal and common.

Oh dear oh dear, what's more "post-modern" than calling mathematics - which has it's complex layering and jargons - "post-modern" linguistic philosophy.

Yet all the time I've been arguing for intuitionist mathematics, meaning idealist ontology which can be experienced intuitively, and against fragmentation of mathematics into post-modern language games of point-reductionism. Sure, to know your enemy you need know the language of the enemy. That does not mean that you agree with the language of the enemy. And by enemy I mean the whole paradigm of formalist school of mathematics, their post-modern and post-truth language games, their atomistic point-reductionism and absurd physicalism based on point-reductionism.

Yet, what could be more simple and elementary mathematical form than 'point'? The concept that Euclid defines in the 1st and 3rd definitions of Elementa? You just offer your usual rhetorical excuses to refuse to discuss, comprehend and know the meaning of 'point'. You have said that to be free, you need to know. If you don't know the meaning of 'point', but are being dragged in and dropping in the Omega point and insisting to drag whole of being with you, how can you be free, not-knowing???

Or if you think you know the meaning of point, let's hear it. Should not be too difficult, to define the meaning of such a simple thing?

I don't need to play "devil's advocate", because I outright disagree with you about Teilhard. His view is not nihilistic in the slightest. It may only become that way if you misinterpret the "Omega Point" to be some sort of Borg-like mechanization and homogenization of all living activity, which is then only existing in your biased interpretation of him. You made the same sort of argument against Cleric in the other thread, and I know with 100% certainty that his view (also Steiner's view) proposes nothing of the sort. Rather, they all propose that your bolded phrase above, which wants to remain in "mathematical cognition", is entirely insufficient. We need to move towards the living essence of Spirit and mathematical concepts are not that living essence. If we want to get a sense of the Spirit's living essence, we can just reflect on our own living activities and their meaning. And if we want to move further from that sense, we must work on developing higher cognition and spiritual sight. That is what Teilhard is suggesting and we see that in this quote:

You say: Christ is point at distance.. I did not start the geometric discussion, you and Cleric did with your visions and ideas of Teilhard's Omega point, so don't run away with purely abstract distancing of "living essence" into point at distance (by which you seem to mean that you are feeling currently dead inside?). Be a man worthy of your argumentative profession, stop evading when challenged, and defend your geometric argument in honest debate - or honestly admit your defeat to the Jury and renounce the form of Omega point, which stands accused in this court of spiritual and rational investigation.

Seeing. We might say that the whole Omega Point of life lies in that verb - if not ultimately, at least essentially. Fuller being is closer union: such is the kernel and conclusion of this book. But let us emphasize the point: union increases only through an increase in consciousness, that is to say in vision. And that, doubtless, is why the history of the living world can be summarized as the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes within a cosmos in which there is always something more to be seen. After all, do we not judge the perfection of an animal, or the supremacy of a thinking being, by the penetration and synthetic power of their gaze? To try to see more and better is not a matter of whim or curiosity or self-indulgence. To see or to perish is the very condition laid upon everything that makes up the universe, by reason of the mysterious gift of existence. And this, in superior measure, is man's condition.

- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (1930)

[/quote]

Thank's... for making the prosecutors case even stronger. Not only more of the reductionist tripe of reducing whole of sentience to the single sense of vision, but also most perfect description of the archetypal Eye of Sauron going: superiority, superiority, superiority...

[AshvinP]

As for Rovelli, I don't necessarily put him down in the Dennett/Harris category, mostly because I am just not that familiar with anything else he has written. But based on the quote you shared, I think he is clearly failing to see some basic flawed assumptions which are then coloring the rest of his line of reasoning. I also don't get how the "light" could be the relation between a mirror and another mirror in the analogy. Like you said, then we are left with only infinite reflections within reflections and nothing that is truly being reflected through either mirror's reflective activity. We may be tempted to say the two "physical mirrors" facing each other still exist, but then I think we have stretched the analogy too far and forgotten the purpose, which is to figure out if anything can be said to exist solely within the activity of reflecting and, if we can imagine it (which we really can't), without any ideal content i.e. meaning beyond that reflecting activity.

I think you're agreeing with me here? If so, yay! We've been charting our differences for a while and it's nice to step on common ground here. ^_^

Actually I thought I was disagreeing You said the "light" in the analogy would be the reflective interaction of the mirrors, correct? I don't see how that could be correct without assuming meaning beyond the mere reflective activity.