AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:40 am
So now your main argument has actually become a
misreading of my sentence above... which would have been irrelevant even if it had been correct.
Not my main argument. The use of italics in that context was interesting, telling of something.
PTC speaks of the "Light" from the Sun by which, and only by which, we can all see clearly the path ahead of us.
Why the quotes around light? And why absolutes "only" and "all"?
Light from the sun come from the past, so technically going towards light means going towards past, toward what
wasreflected. And visible light is only a small fraction of wavelengths. Bats inform their paths by echo-location, which reflects back the sound they emit. Endlessly wonderful differences in the sentient world. Sun is far from the only source of light, there's also
bioluminescence.
Technically we are going towards gravity, dropping in centers of gravity - and the dropping is stopped by
touch, our feet kissing the surface of Earth. Where does light come from in dreams and visions in the spirit world, such as geometric ideas? BTW Greek 'idea' comes from verb 'idein', which is same PIE root as Latin video - to see.
Have you had dreams where you can fly, free of gravity pull?
To tie with to topic of the thread, Rovelli etc. quantum physicists have no coherent theory of quantum gravity, and despite all the effort, the search for unified theory has not been going anywhere. Why is that, what is their problem and cause of stagnation?
To answer that question, it is important to think clearly and comprehend the concept of point correctly. The theory of mathematics in which mathematical physics works is
point-reductionism. According to their math, lines, planes, surfaces, fields,
everything is made of points. It's "points all the way down", but if you ask BK or anybody else who still thinks math according to the physicalist-formalist conditioning, they can't answer what is the definition of "point" in their idea if infinite regress of points all the way down. Hilbert's axioms of geometry don't offer any definition, any sensible meaning for the physicalist "point", of which everything is made. Hilbert's axioms of geometry, the foundation of the formalist-physicalist paradigm of scientism, postulate "point" as undefined "primitive notion". Ie. a semantic void, a meaningless pseudoconcept.
In physicalist ontology of set theory, even the smallest distance consists of infinity of points. To travel from point A to point B, you have to travel the infinity of points in between, so you never get anywhere even in infinite time. That is nothing new, the absurdity of point reductionism has been clear since Zeno presented his paradoxes.
Hard to believe, but the physicalist-formalist ontology of point-reductionism is really that crazy. How can they be that crazy??? The explanation that makes most sense is Hans Christian Andersen's story of
Emperor's New Clothes.
You argue that Hans Christians story is just vile post-structuralist deconstructionism, and that the Authorites do know better, cause, you know, they are the
Authorities!!! Sure, whatever, but what's then the "point" of thinking when we can just blindly believe and obey and consent?
I don't care if he calls it a "point" or any other geometrical shape, because I approach his essential meaning with good will and generosity.
Why don't you care about the meaning of point? Are you OK with ontology and society that reduces you to an absurdly meaningless point? Why should you or anybody else consent to the "law" of point reductionism?
And I don't arrogantly presume that there is Light allowing me to see from anything other than the Sun simply because I don't like the Sun and want light from somewhere else. He is not speaking anything other than what Goethe spoke of when he said...
Counterfactual denial of bioluminescence etc. other sources of light sounds... kind of of arrogant. Should I like sun less, if it's not the only source of light, as there are also other stars and self-illuminating sources of light? Is the only value of sun... a monopoly?