Speculation About the Discovery of Ideal Forms

[AshvinP]

How can the One mind fail to encompass all possible forms?

Because, as I said, the set of all possible forms is an uncountable infinity, it is impossible to encompass all of them. It is the same as to have all ideas about every single point on the line. It is impossible, the amount of points on a line is an uncountable infinity.

Or, can One mind encompass all possible pieces of music, including all possible ways of performing each of these piece of music. As a hobbyist musician, I can tell that one rendition of the same piece of music can be quite different from another rendition of the same piece, and each rendition is actually a very different piece of music. so there is uncountable infinity of all possible renditions of even one piece of music and it is impossible to imagine them all.

Going back to the beginning....this line of reasoning appears flawed to me.

This appears to me as what I believe is known as a category mistake in philosophy. Where a property (counting/number/quantity) is ascribed to a concept (infinity) that could not possibly have that property. Surely infinity has no spatial or temporal or numerical dimensions? So the concept of infinity could not possibly have those properties ascribed to it and reveals a flaw in logical construction.

The idea of counting the points on a line is a version of Nagasena's Chariot and is a reductio ad absurdum argument isn't it? But it still requires a line, a finite measurement, and then tries to divide it infinitely. It might reveal more to turn that around and suggest trying to create an infinite line. Where would you start? It makes no sense. You could start a line and keep going eternally but that is not related to infinity. Eternal is a concept related to time, not infinity. Like Plato once said "Time is the moving image of eternity." Not infinity, as infinity has no, and cannot have, temporal or spatial dimension. But theoretically, and logically, you could start a line (which would have finite quantities, height, width, a starting point etc) and keep going eternally or indefinitely, ever increasing. Rather than an infinite number, which is contradictory in terms and cannot have that property, encompassed 'at once'. An 'uncountable infinity' is a pleonasm, the word 'uncountable is entirely redundant, and misleading, as it is an explicit part of the definition of infinity. It's either uncountable or infinite, not both.

In which case you cannot have 'the set of all possible forms' because it implies a quanta of distinct elements and no quanta can be assigned to 'all possible forms' (infinite). The moment you introduce a calculation or any number, you move from the infinite to the finite.

So it is a case of mixing finite concepts like 'set' and 'single point' and 'line', which are measurements/quantities and reductive, then conflating them with the irreducible (infinite) which has no property of measurement/quantity/dimension.

It is not a valid premise to suggest that the 'set' (a quanta of distinct elements) can be 'all possible forms' (infinite), it is a category mistake.

Help me out here as I am simply a layman with an interest in philosophy.

Although I am still trying to work out the meaning of the above, the points you made are very interesting!

[Eugene I]

What are the reasons these limits exist? Are they due to anything empirically verified or only abstract philosophical doctrines, or something else?

Of course they are verified: try to go through a wall and you will experience a limit which will not feel anything like a philosophical doctrine at all
Or try to have an experience of the actual uncountable infinity of all possible ideas for that matter

If we are to believe NDE/regression accounts, we happily lived in a discarnate form as alters in a universe of consciousness without limits (or perhaps some limits but not too narrow), but at some point we agreed to incarnate into this virtual reality to experience life from a certain much more limited perspective. There were certain reasons we did that (that's a different topic). These limits we have now are more strict, but somewhat flexible, we can push them a bit, but not too much. We still have a lot at our disposal - we are still the same consciousness with ability to be aware, to think, to will , to feel, to create etc. Here we can do things and look at reality from a perspectives that are not possible in the discarnate state. But there is a price to pay: we get confused here, we forget where we came from, we suffer and hurt each other. But nothing is going to happen to us, we cannot die or kill each other, we are deathless consciousness, and will be back safe soon.

[AshvinP]

What are the reasons these limits exist? Are they due to anything empirically verified or only abstract philosophical doctrines, or something else?

Of course they are verified: try to go through a wall and you will experience a limit which will not feel anything like a philosophical doctrine at all
Or try to have an experience of the actual uncountable infinity of all possible ideas for that matter

If we are to believe NDE/regression accounts, we happily lived in a discarnate form as alters in a universe of consciousness without limits (or perhaps some limits but not too narrow), but at some point we agreed to incarnate into this virtual reality to experience life from a certain much more limited perspective. There were certain reasons we did that (that's a different topic). These limits we have now are more strict, but somewhat flexible, we can push them a bit, but not too much. We still have a lot at our disposal - we are still the same consciousness with ability to be aware, to think, to will , to feel, to create etc. Here we can do things and look at reality from a perspectives that are not possible in the discarnate state. But there is a price to pay: we get confused here, we forget where we came from, we suffer and hurt each other. But nothing is going to happen to us, we cannot die or kill each other, we are deathless consciousness, and will be back safe soon.

Come on, Eugene... the "limits" were brought up by you in relation to "exploring the depths of both our own psyche and the structures in the collective psyche". So what are the reasons for those limits in the year 2021? If the answer is that you have not yet experienced beyond the "limits" you are specifying, then I am sure you see why that is a severely flawed answer. Especially when there are plenty of others who claim they have experienced beyond those limits.

[ScottRoberts]

Going back to the beginning....this line of reasoning appears flawed to me.

This appears to me as what I believe is known as a category mistake in philosophy. Where a property (counting/number/quantity) is ascribed to a concept (infinity) that could not possibly have that property. Surely infinity has no spatial or temporal or numerical dimensions? So the concept of infinity could not possibly have those properties ascribed to it and reveals a flaw in logical construction.

'Infinity' can mean various things. First, one needs to distinguish between what I call 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' infinities. Mathematics deals with quantitative infinities. Spirituality (or at least talking about it) deals with qualitative infinity. What this means is somewhat up for grabs, but I just take it to mean that there is no bound or limit to what God (or whatever one is referring to) can do/know/think/whatever.

As for quantitative infinity, there is dissension in the ranks as to whether or not it is proper to speak of actual infinities, or whether one should be restricted to potential infinities. Everyone agrees that there are potentially infinite natural numbers, which just means that one can always add 1 to a number to get a bigger one. What is at issue is whether it makes sense to refer to, for example "the set of all natural numbers" (a countable infinity). Actually, only a few mathematicians object to this. But if one does allow it, it will follow that there are uncountable infinities. There is also a non-mathematical question as to whether there is a physical actual quantitative infinity -- eg., is there space that goes on forever. I would say no.

So I guess the question here is whether it makes sense to speak of an actual qualitative infinity. This would be the case if God has created all possible forms. I would say no to this as well. One might avoid the question by saying that there is only one Form. This would follow from noting that every form we come across is what it is only because of its relation to other forms. Which in turn are related to others, and so on. But 'related to' just means more form. What needs to be noted, though, is that the one Form is continually expanding with every experience in all our "nows".

[Apanthropinist]

'Infinity' can mean various things. First, one needs to distinguish between what I call 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' infinities. Mathematics deals with quantitative infinities. Spirituality (or at least talking about it) deals with qualitative infinity. What this means is somewhat up for grabs, but I just take it to mean that there is no bound or limit to what God (or whatever one is referring to) can do/know/think/whatever.

As for quantitative infinity, there is dissension in the ranks as to whether or not it is proper to speak of actual infinities, or whether one should be restricted to potential infinities. Everyone agrees that there are potentially infinite natural numbers, which just means that one can always add 1 to a number to get a bigger one. What is at issue is whether it makes sense to refer to, for example "the set of all natural numbers" (a countable infinity). Actually, only a few mathematicians object to this. But if one does allow it, it will follow that there are uncountable infinities. There is also a non-mathematical question as to whether there is a physical actual quantitative infinity -- eg., is there space that goes on forever. I would say no.

So I guess the question here is whether it makes sense to speak of an actual qualitative infinity. This would be the case if God has created all possible forms. I would say no to this as well. One might avoid the question by saying that there is only one Form. This would follow from noting that every form we come across is what it is only because of its relation to other forms. Which in turn are related to others, and so on. But 'related to' just means more form. What needs to be noted, though, is that the one Form is continually expanding with every experience in all our "nows".

Hi Scott,

There are two problems for me as I see it, one with the mathematical side, the other spatially. To suggest a 'countable infinity' is a contradiction in terms whichever way it is sliced. You could say recurring by 1 eternally but not infinitely. Infinite, in its simplest term, means without boundary and so you cannot have a set of anything containing that which has no boundary. It's illogical and we can't ascribe to something that which it cannot possibly possess. Infinity cannot contain numbers, it's meaningless. Once you have any number, integer or fraction, you move from the infinite to the finite. Numbers are relational and collapse the infinite to the finite.

Spatially you also can't have infinite space, as you noted 'space that goes on forever'. You have to ask 'goes on forever from where'? There are no directions with infinity and no centre, so no actual place to start from in which you could 'go on forever'. There would also be no 'forever' because time is a measurement and there can be no measurements in infinity. There would be no 'clock' to start because no time to start from. The only things we can really successfully say about infinity is that it is unbounded and of itself, irreducible, that's about it.

Infinity is a much misused word, although we all do it, but the terms matter in a philosophical argument.

[Eugene I]

There are two problems for me as I see it, one with the mathematical side, the other spatially. To suggest a 'countable infinity' is a contradiction in terms whichever way it is sliced. You could say recurring by 1 eternally but not infinitely. Infinite, in its simplest term, means without boundary and so you cannot have a set of anything containing that which has no boundary. It's illogical and we can't ascribe to something that which it cannot possibly possess. Infinity cannot contain numbers, it's meaningless. Once you have any number, integer or fraction, you move from the infinite to the finite. Numbers are relational and collapse the infinite to the finite.

Spatially you also can't have infinite space, as you noted 'space that goes on forever'. You have to ask 'goes on forever from where'? There are no directions with infinity and no centre, so no actual place to start from in which you could 'go on forever'. There would also be no 'forever' because time is a measurement and there can be no measurements in infinity. There would be no 'clock' to start because no time to start from. The only things we can really successfully say about infinity is that it is unbounded and of itself, irreducible, that's about it.

Infinity is a much misused word, although we all do it, but the terms matter in a philosophical argument.

Right. Infinity problem is just one example of a more general problem: we use our power of abstract thinking to invent all kinds of concepts and ideas, and then we start to believe that they reflect, or directly represent, some actual realities of the world (while not realizing that we have no evidence whatsoever that those "things" actually exist anywhere else except as ideas in our thoughts). That is how we live in our fantasy worlds instead of living in reality. But as an abstract mathematical idea infinity proved to be useful in mathematics. That does not mean it has any correspondence with any actual reality.

[AshvinP]

So I guess the question here is whether it makes sense to speak of an actual qualitative infinity. This would be the case if God has created all possible forms. I would say no to this as well. One might avoid the question by saying that there is only one Form. This would follow from noting that every form we come across is what it is only because of its relation to other forms. Which in turn are related to others, and so on. But 'related to' just means more form. What needs to be noted, though, is that the one Form is continually expanding with every experience in all our "nows".

One expanding Form! The most obvious resolutions are the hardest to see these days...

[Apanthropinist]

Right. Infinity problem is just one example of a more general problem: we use our power of abstract thinking to invent all kinds of concepts and ideas, and then we start to believe that they reflect, or directly represent, some actual realities of the world (while not realizing that we have no evidence whatsoever that those "things" actually exist anywhere else except as ideas in our thoughts). That is how we live in our fantasy worlds instead of living in reality. But as an abstract mathematical idea infinity proved to be useful in mathematics. That does not mean it has any correspondence with any actual reality.

Well fair enough Eugene but the natural question that would arise for me from this 'That is how we live in our fantasy worlds instead of living in reality.' would be 'Which reality?' Doesn't it depend on context and perspective?

So yes, we do all live in a fantasy world, a construct if you will, without exception, because that is the illusion from across the boundary of a 'dissociated alter' isn't it?

'But as an abstract mathematical idea infinity proved to be useful in mathematics. That does not mean it has any correspondence with any actual reality.' Not a lot of use in a philosophical argument then really, which is ironic seeing as though 'proofs' only apply to mathematics and philosophy.

[Eugene I]

Well fair enough Eugene but the natural question that would arise for me from this 'That is how we live in our fantasy worlds instead of living in reality.' would be 'Which reality?' Doesn't it depend on context and perspective?

So yes, we do all live in a fantasy world, a construct if you will, without exception, because that is the illusion from across the boundary of a 'dissociated alter' isn't it?

The DID with dissociation boundaries is just another abstract model. It seems to be a nice and useful one, yet we don't know how accurately it actually describes the reality.

The only reality we actually know is the reality of the flow of qualia of our conscious experience. But that reality is lacking completeness in terms of explanatory ability: the qualia we experience by themselves do not present any rational explanations about why and how this flow of qualia happens. Science (ideally) only describes consistent patterns of qualia and does not provide any insights into what the reality actually is. Philosophy takes the ambition to close this explanatory gap, yet, with the abundance of metaphysical schemes/models and lacking any means to verify or falsify them, it is powerless to provide definite answers and close the explanatory gap with any certainty. Many, out of desperation from such uncertainly, use their thinking power to create interesting and fascinating metaphysical models and structures abut what the reality "out there" is, and then start to believe in them religiously (based on certain psychological motivations). It takes a fair amount of courage to admit to ourselves that we do not actually know with certainty what the reality "out there" is on the fundamental level, yet that should not stop us from guessing, thinking, exploring, pushing the boundaries and creating these possible explanatory models. Idealism is one of these models, it is (IMO) practically useful/beneficial, parsimonious and elegant, yet still having explanatory gaps and having plenty of variants that are not entirely consistent with each other. My approach is "possibilianism": I do not believe that our mental fantasies by default represent any actual realities (apart form them being pure but real ideas), but always open to accept them provisionally as useful hypotheses.

[Apanthropinist]

The DID with dissociation boundaries is just another abstract model. It seems to be a nice and useful one, yet we don't know how accurately it actually describes the reality.

The only reality we actually know is the reality of the flow of qualia of our conscious experience. But that reality is lacking completeness in terms of explanatory ability: the qualia we experience by themselves do not present any rational explanations about why and how this flow of qualia happens. Science (ideally) only describes consistent patterns of qualia and does not provide any insights into what the reality actually is. Philosophy takes the ambition to close this explanatory gap, yet, with the abundance of metaphysical schemes/models and lacking any means to verify or falsify them, it is powerless to provide definite answers and close the explanatory gap with any certainty. Many, out of desperation from such uncertainly, use their thinking power to create interesting and fascinating metaphysical models and structures abut what the reality "out there" is, and then start to believe in them religiously (based on certain psychological motivations). It takes a fair amount of courage to admit to ourselves that we do not actually know with certainty what the reality "out there" is on the fundamental level, yet that should not stop us from guessing, thinking, exploring, pushing the boundaries and creating these possible explanatory models. Idealism is one of these models, it is (IMO) practically useful/beneficial, parsimonious and elegant, yet still having explanatory gaps and having plenty of variants that are not entirely consistent with each other. My approach is "possibilianism": I do not believe that our mental fantasies by default represent any actual realities (apart form them being pure but real ideas), but always open to accept them provisionally as useful hypotheses.

Well the DID and dissociative boundaries do have some correlation with neuroscientific research, specifically with psychedelics. But accurately describing the reality? Yeah, good luck to anyone with that.

Possibilianism, I like the sound of that....possibilianist idealism. I may hang my hat on that but not nail it to it. But I'll certainly nail my hat to this "It takes a fair amount of courage to admit to ourselves that we do not actually know with certainty what the reality "out there" is on the fundamental level" I'd go further and say that we 'know' very little 'in summa' if you want to get all Latin about it. As we would say in Yorkshire, "Tha knows next to nowt lad."