Re: Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:09 pm
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 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:32 amYou don't think you deserve quarter?AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:36 am 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.
I don't see how more clearly the nihilism of point reductionism could be stated?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
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?