Animation and Logic

[RingingSword]

The following is a short position paper that attempts to characterize logic in terms of motion. It begins with a definition that establishes my axiomatic foundation. This is followed by a theorem that expresses a conceptualization justifying the characterization. This theorem is followed by a series of supporting propositions. These propositions argue toward a conclusion delineating an ontological-epistemological skeleton of the universe.

Definition – logic – the rules of inference.

Theorem – With regard to the rules of inference, they tell us what we can further know as derived from what is already known.

If the progression from what is known to what logically follows can be conceived of as a phenomenon of movement, i.e. as a journey, then logic, in general, can be conceived of as a set of guidelines for movement from one specifiable point to another.

Underlying assumption – The symbolic movement of logical notation corresponds with the phenomenal movement of physical objects.

Prop 1 – logic articulates guidelines for movement from possible positions manifest to possible positions implied.

Prop 2 – the logical picture of reality articulates the range of possible movements between points that can be made manifest.

Prop 3 – When we say that something is logically impossible, we articulate a limit upon the known set of possible movements.

Prop 4 – When we conceive of something logically impossible, we situate the set (range) of known possible movements within a larger, transcendent context, which context contains types of movement whose specificity and practical implementation (as viewed from the pre-transcendent context) are unknown.

Prop 5 – logical impossibility is only absolute within a specified context. Even so, such specification is self-contradictory because the assertion of logical impossibility implies the existence of a transcendent context wherein the specific and practical implementation of the (conditionally, i.e. contextually specific) logically impossible movement (from one manifest position to another) is both possible and knowable. Were this not the case, logical impossibility would be inconceivable.

Prop 5 Ramifications – by implication, this proposition posits a universe that is phenomenally (and therefore epistemically) open. The contrary to this proposition posits a universe that is phenomenally (and therefore epistemically) closed: if the assertion is made that the specificity and practical implementation of movement within the transcendent context, so conceived by implication via the assertion of a logical impossibility, cannot occur and therefore cannot be known, then the concomitant assertion of the assertion of logical impossibility is that the range of phenomenal possibility and its knowledge have absolute and final limits. This concomitant assertion entails an infinite range of ontological and epistemological limits that, in their totality, cannot be proven. Moreover, answers to questions pertaining to the implications of the human capacity to conceptualize logical impossibility will remain obscure.

Conclusion –logical systems, being structured as overlapping, ascending contexts of possible movements, tell us that the universe is a temporal, animate hierarchy of graded fields of action.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Nope, all this says is that time can function as any other axis in equation form. Which is why misguided people think time is a dimension...

[RingingSword]

How do you distinguish "dimension" from "axis"?

Is your negation in response to the theorem, the 5 propositions and the conclusion?

[panta rhei]

RingingSword : "If the progression from what is known to what logically follows can be conceived of as a phenomenon of movement, i.e. as a journey, then logic, in general, can be conceived of as a set of guidelines for movement from one specifiable point to another."

pan : I like it, but what distinguishes the map, or as you put it, the "set of guidelines for movement from one specifiable point to another", from the "journey"?

RingingSword : "The symbolic movement of logical notation corresponds with the phenomenal movement of physical objects."

pan : Interesting. From this it follows that no phenomenal movement of physical objects can fly in the face of logic. Hey, isn't this already the case?

RingingSword : "Prop 4 – When we conceive of something logically impossible, we situate the set (range) of known possible movements within a larger, transcendent context, which context contains types of movement whose specificity and practical implementation (as viewed from the pre-transcendent context) are unknown.

pan : Here I take issue with your reasoning. Positing the undiscovered as "logical impossibilities" would be to employ a category error.
The lack of awareness of an available avenue doesn't negate its availability. We are free (as it were) to discover it, or to stumble onto it quite by accident.
Certainly, such an undiscovered avenue should never be categorized as a "logical impossibility".
Further, the common notion of transcendence doesn't quite taste right in the context of the dish you've served.
From your view, what is transcended in the discovery of the previously unknown? Knowledge itself?!

RingingSword : "Prop 5 – logical impossibility is only absolute within a specified context. Even so, such specification is self-contradictory because the assertion of logical impossibility implies the existence of a transcendent context wherein the specific and practical implementation of the (conditionally, i.e. contextually specific) logically impossible movement (from one manifest position to another) is both possible and knowable. Were this not the case, logical impossibility would be inconceivable."

pan : I'd argue that an "impossibility" is absolutely impossible by definition. When what was once felt to be impossible is shown to be possible, the previous feeling is exposed as a falsehood. In such a case the fact falsifies the feeling, and in so doing, sheds light on the faulty categorization.

RingingSword : "Prop 5 Ramifications – by implication, this proposition posits a universe that is phenomenally (and therefore epistemically) open."

pan : I'd say that your proposition posits an "open universe" by means of faulty categorization, and thereby calls into question its own validity.

[Technosoul]

Would you assume in fact that all motion that has a logical purpose would be circular, as the only real ending would be the beginning, otherwise the motion would continue endlessly with no ending and thusly no completed purpose for it's movement.

And what about the theory that all circular motion has a center of relative stillness, or perhaps even absolute stillness in respect to the total wholeness of all motion?

Technosoul.

[RingingSword]

panta rhei,

“… what distinguishes the map… from the “journey”?

This question, which addresses the relationship between the medium and the terms it transmits, calls for an intricate and challenging answer. I can begin to respond by saying this: each discernible entity is an intersection of here and everywhere; each discernible entity is a roadmap to all other entities. [These responses point toward non-local, topological boundary negotiations.]

“Positing the undiscovered as “logical impossibilities” would be to employ a category error.”

I prefer to characterize the aforementioned as a “category paradox.” When our traversal across the terrain of a defined field of action brings us to a rational awareness of the impossible, we have come smack against the outer boundary of said field. Our options include redefining the field on a more inclusive basis, discovering the specifications of an encompassing field within which the bounded field is enclosed, or accepting our imaginative confinement to the bounded field, and thus accepting the permanence of the impossibility it defines.

“… what is transcended in the discovery of the previously unknown? Knowledge itself!?”

Well said. The general statement of this issue takes this form: The specifiable locality of each discernible entity is unstable and incomplete.

“I’d argue that an “impossibility” is absolutely impossible by definition. When what was once felt to be impossible is shown to be possible, the previous feeling is exposed as a falsehood. In such case the fact falsifies the feeling, and in so doing, sheds light on the faulty categorization.”

This is a cogent (and correct) argument. With some trepidation, I will respond in the spirit of post-modern deconstructionism by saying this: even in the instance of a complete (this is not actually achievable as per above) and rational determination of impossibility, said determination deconstructs itself in simultaneity with its declaration. Each determination of impossibility marks a new extension of an infinitely extendable boundary. From this it can be surmised that ours is a universe of perpetual motion.

“I’d say that your proposition posits an “open universe” by means of faulty categorization…”

If my characterization of the universe as “open” is false, then a refutation of the following axiom should be demonstrable: The specifiable locality of every discernible entity is unstable and incomplete. I hasten to present the following scenario to every conscious being: your vitality lies within the embrace of the divinity of freedom. Would you risk the loss of your divinity of freedom through its denial?

Technosoul,

“Would you assume in fact that all motion that has a logical purpose would be circular…”

This question seeks an assessment of a common perception of the fundamental ordering of history, namely, that it is ordered in cycles. With the words “logical purpose” you invoke the natural ordering of history, which is understood to contain beginnings, middles and endings, and then the repetition . If traversal across a beginning, middle and ending is the general form of purpose, then the motion that makes history go stands as one of its perpetual forces. Does perpetual motion drive history in cycles? Within a closed universe of finite possibilities, the circularity of history seems inevitable. I choose to believe in an open universe of infinite possibilities; an open universe can accommodate a closed and circular sub-universe without being confined to purposeful motion that is necessarily circular.

“And what about the theory that all circular motion has a center of relative stillness, or perhaps even absolute stillness in respect to the total wholeness of all motion?”

Does absolute motion imply absolute rest? Yes.

[Technosoul]

History is what is mainly what was written down or pass down by word of mouth (words).

Pre-history would be what was happening before history was recorded by and for human purposes. Post-history would suggest a time or world where written words are repaced by something else and when that type of external memory is obsolete and voided.

Motion it would seem, at least in my observations of it, starts from a point of stillness and then moves along and then ends as stillness (being no longer motion). If stillness is the beginning and stillness is the ending of motion then it has a circular pattern, unless the motion continues around and around as somekind of non-ending momentum.

If it repeats without ending it has a still center which it orbits around and which circular motion it is dependant upon as a kind of gravity or "law", (principle).

However if one were to figure in the possiblity of a novelty wave, something unexpected that does not fit the norms that repetition would find predictable, then you could from that factoring of the novelty or oddity that one could project a rather unlimited or open ended potential for the patterns effected or influenced.

So what do you think about the concept of the novelty wave and/or the influence and the impact of what something non-logical might have on our logical perspectives of the universe or life?

Technosoul.

[Samildanach]

I've always though of time not as an axis but as a field surrounding all axis.

[orgaelin]

You write as though you prefer not to be understood. Without wishing to have myself look ignorant or stupid, I have to say it was an effort to read your post. I am quite certain it was as difficult for you to compose it in such a literary style, and difficult for the rest of us to make sense of it...

with the end result that you feel clever, and leave everyone in fear of contradicting your incomprehensible natter for fear of looking like the only idiot that didn't get it.

Call me an idiot if you will.

For me, I post on here to have the maximum exposure for, and understanding of my ideas, that I may recieve considered feedback and share new ideas. The way to do that is to be clear, so that both idiots and super-brains can make sense and give a reply.

[orgaelin]

Sorry about that rant... you pushed a button! :)

[panta rhei]

RingingSword : "This question, which addresses the relationship between the medium and the terms it transmits, calls for an intricate and challenging answer. I can begin to respond by saying this: each discernible entity is an intersection of here and everywhere; each discernible entity is a roadmap to all other entities. [These responses point toward non-local, topological boundary negotiations.]"

pan : Well then, let's negotiate. First, since I'm not sure what you mean by "non-local", I humbly request your definition. My understanding of the term is limited to the blurb I read in Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe.
*counting down to the first assertion that all distinctions (such as "map" and "journey") are merely illusions*

RingingSword : "...When our traversal across the terrain of a defined field of action brings us to a rational awareness of the impossible, we have come smack against the outer boundary of said field. Our options include redefining the field on a more inclusive basis, discovering the specifications of an encompassing field within which the bounded field is enclosed, or accepting our imaginative confinement to the bounded field, and thus accepting the permanence of the impossibility it defines."

pan : I don't see an impossibility as a matter of "acceptance" or non. When we arrive at the rational awareness of the impossible, our only option is to work with'n'round the limitations it imposes.
To discover that it was possible after all, would only illuminate the fact that it was never impossible in the first place.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(pan) “… what is transcended in the discovery of the previously unknown? Knowledge itself!?”

RingingSword : "Well said. The general statement of this issue takes this form: The specifiable locality of each discernible entity is unstable and incomplete."

pan : Granting the general statement, I fail to see its correlation to the issue in question. How does the instability or incompleteness of an individual's position in time'n'place (or pov) correspond to the transcendence of knowledge via the acquisition of more knowledge?
For that matter, how is term "transcendence" even indicative of that process?
Oh, and let's not forget, it was the transcendence of impossibilities you spoke of in the earlier post. How does this tie into discovering the unknown?

RingingSword : "...even in the instance of a complete (this is not actually achievable as per above) and rational determination of impossibility, said determination deconstructs itself in simultaneity with its declaration. Each determination of impossibility marks a new extension of an infinitely extendable boundary."

pan : Well, let's have a look at the self-deconstruction of my definition. If you'd be so kind as to demonstrate it, I define an "impossibility" (quite simply) as that which is not possible. --Have at it.

RingingSword : "Each determination of impossibility marks a new extension of an infinitely extendable boundary."

pan : Again, I'll ask you to show me this. Using my definition, wherein do we see the demarcation between the old and new boundaries?
Also, please demonstrate, if you will, the inherent infinite progression of my definition.

RingingSword : "If my characterization of the universe as “open” is false, then a refutation of the following axiom should be demonstrable: The specifiable locality of every discernible entity is unstable and incomplete.

pan : Here again, granting the validity of your axiom, and seeing no reason to refute it, I fail to see its correlation to the issue in question (in this case, the "opened" nature of the universe).

RingingSword : "I hasten to present the following scenario to every conscious being: your vitality lies within the embrace of the divinity of freedom. Would you risk the loss of your divinity of freedom through its denial?"

pan : I'm not quite sure how to take this. Honestly, it smacks of tradional religious fear mongering. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but what did you have in mind?
Are we to grant (without question) this notion of "the divinity of freedom" because in its denial our "vitality" may hang in the balance? HA!
I sincerely hope that's not what you meant.

[RingingSword]

Technosoul,

“If stillness is the beginning and stillness is the ending of motion then it has a circular pattern…”

In our human world of heat and light, I don’t believe we ever encounter true stillness, as the molecules and atoms of material objects sizzle with motion undetectable to the naked eye.

“.if one were to figure in the possibility of a novelty wave, something unexpected that does not fit the norms that repetition would find predictable…”

History moves in cycles, but we can’t recover the past. Now is the same as before, only different.

“So what do you think about the concept of the novelty wave and/or the influence and the impact of what something non-logical might have on our logical perspectives of the universe or life?”

The non-logical stands as the marker for the boundary containing the scope of the logical. I expect there is a tension between the two realms, and that a gray region of overlap, the “quasi-logical,” exists.

Samildanach,

“I’ve always though of time not as an axis but as a field surrounding all axis.”

Since a field is poly-dimensional, do you think that time itself is poly-dimensional?

oragaelin,

I’m glad to have your opinion; perhaps other readers have similar feelings; I don’t think you’re an idiot, and I appreciate the fact that you’ve given my writing some of your time and attention.

I don’t say my theory is not incomprehensible natter; I do say it was not my intention to have it be such. I don’t spew intentional gibberish intended to intimidate because that’s no fun. What’s fun is to write what I really think and have people examine it for merit.

While it’s true that my prose style lacks the simplicity of the best writing, the central idea within my theory, which compares the process of reasoning with the taking of a journey – not exactly a mysterious metaphor – shows signs, I think, of moving in the right direction. Furthermore, I think it should be noted that prose laden with colloquialisms and slang isn’t always at the apex of clarity.

Give me the title of one of your threads.

panta rhei,

“… I’m not sure what you mean by non-local…”

“Are we to grant (without question) this notion of “the divinity of freedom” because in its denial our “vitality” may hang in the balance?”

non-locality – the specifiable locality of each discernible entity is unstable and incomplete.

In application to human individuals, I articulate the concept of non-locality as follows: suppose you and I sit facing each other in easy chairs within your living room. For nearly all real and practical purposes, your totality is in fact located where my senses tell me it is located, namely, in the chair opposite me. The absolutely true picture of the situation is actually more complicated. Under the more rigorous scenario of the absolute picture of things, I must say that the overwhelming majority of your totality sits in the chair before me, but not your absolute totality, however. No. A tiny portion of your totality is dispersed as a cosmic distribution whose exact location in time and space remains unspecifiable. This unspecifiable dimension of your totality is your literal, physical relationship to (and therefore your stake in) the universe as a whole. This being the case, your attitude towards and utilization of this cosmic dimension of your being impacts your relationship to all. It stands as a self-evident truth that you don’t want to get this part of yourself wrong.

“I don’t see an impossibility as a matter of “acceptance” or non. When we arrive at the rational awareness of the impossible, our only option is to work with’n’round the limitations it imposes. To discover that it was possible after all, would only illuminate the fact that is was never impossible in the first place.”

I think our bone of contention herein finds expression in the first line of Prop 5 – “Logical impossibility is only absolute within a specified context.” The trick is to understand that rational impossibility at the same time marks a boundary and its transcendence. Armed with this vision, it becomes clear that ours is an open universe that features an ever-expanding boundary for the possible. Looking back through history, we see how our world of possibilities has been expanding: circumnavigation of the globe was once thought impossible; human endurance above thirty mph was once thought impossible; human flight was once thought impossible; sight and hearing across thousands of miles was once thought impossible, etc. Are you prepared to declare to the scientific community that impossibilities, once identified, shall stand forever?

Let me make an important distinction: a) there are discoveries within a specified context that render prior statements of impossibility invalid within said context; b) there are discoveries within a higher context that have no impact upon prior statements of impossibility within the lesser context. Example 1 – With regard to human physical capacity, running a five-minute mile is thought to be impossible, and then someone does it. Example 2 – With regard to human physical capacity, detecting audible sound with the human ear beyond several miles is thought to be impossible, and then the radio is invented (herein the higher context can be labeled as: human physical capacity within the age of mass media).

It is the latter example that primarily concerns me. The rational awareness of the impossible, instead of being seen as a permanent limit upon phenomenal possibility, can instead be seen as a challenge to transcend the bounds of the context giving rational authority to the determination of impossibility.

“How does the instability or incompleteness of an individual’s position in time’n’place (or pov) correspond to the transcendence of knowledge via the acquisition of more knowledge?”

Let’s say we (meaning all humans) are living during the time preceding the invention of radio. If the absolute totality of our being is perfectly specifiable within the context of this time, with no unspecifiable and ultimately uncontainable cosmic dimension within (and, yes, paradoxically without) ourselves, then we could not upgrade the local, context-specific impossibility of hearing with the human ear beyond a few miles to hearing a conversation in Paris while sitting on our veranda in Oaxaca by means of our non-locality (and also by means of our radios, of course!). There are stable impossibilities within the here and now of a given context, and so our ultimate uncontainability becomes the agency of transcendence. We can, as a matter of fact, grasp the inaccessible by quantum leaping upwards to a higher category wherein the final barriers of the preceding category become open doors. Within the higher realm, where the final barrier is transformed into the open door, we have knowledge beyond the scope of all knowledge at the lower category; this is second-tier knowledge, or knowledge squared. Since the totality of knowledge at the lower category cannot produce this knowledge, second-tier knowledge is knowledge that transcends (first-tier) knowledge.

In a series of related questions, you ask (paraphrasing): a) How does the transcendence of impossibilities tie into discovering the unknown? b) How does impossibility deconstruct itself? c) How does the infinitely expandable boundary of knowledge operate? d) How does non-locality relate to an open universe?

With a broadstroke approach by example, I will address the general character of these questions. Consider a current, theoretical investigation known as quantum computing. There is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that posits the capacity of a sub-atomic particle to occupy two positions in time and space simultaneously (how’s that for an example of non-locality!). Given this feature of the quantum universe, a quantum computer utilizing binary code based upon quantum multiplicity becomes conceivable. Since this type of binary code operates on the basis of simultaneous rather than sequential signifiers, the speed of such computing undergoes a quantum leap of increase. In the wake of this, numerical encryption, currently unbreakable because of the unobtainable computing speed required for astronomical number strings, becomes possible. Let’s look at what we have here: a) transcendence involving the ability of a sub-atomic particle to be in two places at once, thus leading to the cracking of the unknown of numerical encryption; b) the obsolescence of the maxim about the impossibility of one entity being in two places at once, which, during its heyday, painted a signpost pointing to quantum mechanics; c) the infinitely expandable boundary of knowledge moving forward upon the shoulders of those who see impossibilities as signposts to the future; d) non-locality, as encoded within impossibility, pointing upwards to ascending tiers of knowledge.

[orgaelin]

Give me the title of one of your threads

Was that directed at me?

Hmmm... I'll have some fun finding any! It's been quite some time since I've posted on here, and I've not started any threads in the past two days (since I've come back)

Tee hee... I've found one: "Evolution of hairlessness and large genitals"!

Actually, if you click my username to view my profile, there is a link which will let you see all of my posts since the beginning of time.

[orgaelin]

"Fall of the church" is a good one, I think. Here is the link to it...

Fall of the Church

[orgaelin]

About time being poly-dimensional...

I think it is. Different directions within time would manifest as different rates of time within space.


---------------------- would be time standing still

|
|
|
|
|
|
| would be time going forward at a maximum rate

and

{I HAD TO EDIT THIS POST HERE AS IT TOOK AWAY MY SPACES AND RUINED MY DIAGONAL LINE, SO I'VE JUST PUT ONE SLASH CHAR IN NOW... IMAGINE IT LONGER!}

/ would be time moving forward at a more steady rate.

So then changing direction in time is a change of 'rate of passage of time' for you within spacetime.

So when we experience time dilation because of moving very quickly through space, the time dilation could just be a change of direction in 'time' caused by our speed... spatial speed affects temporal direction (or speed). The same applies in reverse, in that a change in direction in time would affect your rate of travel through space.

Am I confusing anyone yet? Or just trying real hard?!

[Technosoul]

Can time really slow down or speed up by changing direction?

If I walked it would take me more time to reach the end of my journey then if I ran. But am I really changing time or changing the activities (speed) of the object (person) that is moving from one real point to another real point, where as the use of time as a measurement would remain the same it is only the "physical activity" that was changed.

If it is always now not matter how much history repeats then is now not a word indicating stillness or "center" for that that motion, the unchanging part that is not effected by the motion of time?

In our local solar system is the sun not the relative center that we use to measure the surrounding motions of the planets journey in orbit, and the history or age of the earth? The sun being the "nowness" of time which time is measured by changes made due to motion in space?

(Note: my questioning might jump around and not follow just one point or objective).

Now if I could say three things all at once then I would be talking faster then if I say those three things one after another with space between each line. But time as a measurment and/or as a force-field would remain the same it is only the words I am saying that became re-constructed via compacting them together that gave the impression (illusion?) that time was speeding up. (a question).

Another anology is we could vision time as a river flowing (a flowing force field). As history repeats each age becomes shorter and shorter in duration (like the motion near the hub is shorter then the distance at the outer-rim). Thus it would appear that things are happening today at a faster rate then they did during the pioneer days. As we compact the shore line of the river it moves thrugh the rapids and becomes turbanlant then when the banks of the river were wider and the river flowed with a calm surface. Compact (aka smaller) computer chips and your computer works faster, compact cars and other things seem to go hand-and-hand with the speed of history because we live in a "smaller world" that appears thusly more compacted. In a historical connection then we can see that something like the dark ages of the fundamentalist era could happen in a few years instead of as it did before - lasting many years. The modern repetition of the dark ages would then last from 2000 til 2012 instead of the longer time as reported in older historical record (past). Lucky for us the days will be shorter this time otherwise we would not survive the witch hunts (a little off-the-wall opinion). And so an open ended journey would be like the wide ocean and a restless and turbalant journey would be limited by those external boundries as related too in one of the above postings. (anology of the banks of a river).

(note: I am not useing word spell checks so read it like it sounds).

Likewise the ground upon which the motion of a journey takes place is also not moving relative to the measurement being conducted and so it becomes something "still" that can be used to as a unchangable point for making such measurements in time.

(now I know the earth moves around on the axes but that motion is an unseen factor that would not effect the measurements of a shorter one mile trip - walking or running). But in theory if you run towards the sunset time would stand still more so then if you were runing towards the east (sun up), because two motions are in effect).

So we got a lot of "relative" stuff going on, all of which must be factored to determine a sense of reality.

(Hmmm, and I said it all without fancy words, however I agree that the cutting edge of historical progress is terminology, new words are what allow us to create new communication potentials upon which (or where-with) additional knowledge can be established).

I agree on one thing which is that this is a fine topic.

Now about the wider journey towards an unlimited and open ended potiential. Indeed we have evidence of this, a one-cell beginning might expand into something more complex as a collective unit of life. A small and simple looking seed might expand and unfold into a complex plant or tree. ETC. A arrow shot from a bow (as an idea) might expand into the nearly impossible idea of a space ship being shot towards Mars and and landing there. The application of better technology being applied to a primitive hunting tool. Hear we can map he historical journey of a simple idea becoming more complex, from bow and arrow, to airplane, to jet, to rocketship, to space ship, with untold potentials of UFOs in science fiction awaiting the technology to enter our reality of science. Poetically speaking; "new worlds gathering outside the windows of our souls".

Imagination being the novelity wave that spearheads the transformations from fantasy into reality - with desire as our rocket fuel. Imagination is in fact the multi-dimensional and multi-future that becomes the engine for quuntum leaping. Imagination is our version of a bird's wings relative to the evolutionary progress of ideas where "the sky is the limit" (and as you now know, the sky is really open-ended and not a "solid dome").
So let us woof our wings for any bird brain idea could become the next super-theory. (another one of my journeys into the poetic expressionism).

More later.
Technosol.

[RingingSword]

"Now about the wider journey towards an unlimited and open ended potiential. Indeed we have evidence of this, a one-cell beginning might expand into something more complex as a collective unit of life. A small and simple looking seed might expand and unfold into a complex plant or tree. ETC. A arrow shot from a bow (as an idea) might expand into the nearly impossible idea of a space ship being shot towards Mars and and landing there. The application of better technology being applied to a primitive hunting tool. Hear we can map he historical journey of a simple idea becoming more complex, from bow and arrow, to airplane, to jet, to rocketship, to space ship, with untold potentials of UFOs in science fiction awaiting the technology to enter our reality of science. Poetically speaking; "new worlds gathering outside the windows of our souls"."

Great stuff. This paragraph captures the spirit of my theory.

[panta rhei]

RingingSword : "A tiny portion of your totality is dispersed as a cosmic distribution whose exact location in time and space remains unspecifiable. This unspecifiable dimension of your totality is your literal, physical relationship to (and therefore your stake in) the universe as a whole."

pan : I see before me yet another (albeit more subtle) form of dualism. Though you specify its literality and physicality, the non-local tiny portion you speak of is held apart from the rest of the body. Why?
I prefer to consider myself (in apparent totality) a tiny portion of the universe as a whole (a wrinkle, if you like, within the fabric sewn of the single thread called all things).
From this view, all things = One Thing. Any apparent seperateness within this Indivisible Unity should be seen as just that --a phenomenal apparition. I take this monistic viewpoint to its logical conclusion, and in so doing, tear down all the non-physical barriers which've generously contributed to mass confusion.

RingingSword : "I think our bone of contention herein finds expression in the first line of Prop 5 – 'Logical impossibility is only absolute within a specified context.'"

pan : Yep. I see a problem in this proposition. Namely, the underlying presupposition that (within certain contextual framing) it's possible to do the impossible. Again, in my view, an impossibility is just that --impossible. When events occur to make possible that which may've been felt impossible, the feeling and misidentification are exposed as falsehoods.-----PERIOD!

RingingSword : "The trick is to understand that rational impossibility at the same time marks a boundary and its transcendence. Armed with this vision, it becomes clear that ours is an open universe that features an ever-expanding boundary for the possible."

pan : Think about what you're saying here. You're equating a perimeter's expansion to "transcendence" of itself, when in fact the boundary is never broken. To illustrate this point, picture a circle of enclosed possibilities. Outside its perimeter lies the realm of the impossible. In order to reach the outer realm the perimeter must be breached and not merely expanded.

RingingSword :"Looking back through history, we see how our world of possibilities has been expanding: circumnavigation of the globe was once thought impossible; human endurance above thirty mph was once thought impossible; human flight was once thought impossible; sight and hearing across thousands of miles was once thought impossible, etc. Are you prepared to declare to the scientific community that impossibilities, once identified, shall stand forever?"

pan : No. What I am prepared to declare to the scientific community is that possibilites, once misidentified as impossibilities, should stand as shining examples to those who'd too hastily declare an impossibility. ~*cheesy grin*

RingingSword : "The rational awareness of the impossible, instead of being seen as a permanent limit upon phenomenal possibility, can instead be seen as a challenge to transcend the bounds of the context giving rational authority to the determination of impossibility."

pan : I agree with the spirit in which this was written. However, the sad Truth of the matter is that impossibilities are permanent limitations. The challenge lies not in thier transcendence, but in their circumvention (working with and around the limitations).

(pan)--“How does the instability or incompleteness of an individual’s position in time’n’place (or pov) correspond to the transcendence of knowledge via the acquisition of more knowledge?”

RingingSword : "...We can, as a matter of fact, grasp the inaccessible by quantum leaping upwards to a higher category wherein the final barriers of the preceding category become open doors.

pan : 'Scuse please, but did you just say that we can access the inaccessible? If this "quantum leap" (door opener) you speak of is available to us, why should we characterize its usage as "transcendence"?

RingingSword : "Within the higher realm, where the final barrier is transformed into the open door, we have knowledge beyond the scope of all knowledge at the lower category; this is second-tier knowledge, or knowledge squared. Since the totality of knowledge at the lower category cannot produce this knowledge, second-tier knowledge is knowledge that transcends (first-tier) knowledge."

pan : But if one accesses the second-tier by virtue of opening the door from within the first tier, and the door is readily available to all who would use it, then why should any knowledge gained by doing so be categorized as transcendent knowledge. Obviously, (for humans) first-tier knowledge must be viewed as integral to any knowledge gained on the upper-tiers.

RingingSword : "Let’s look at what we have here: a) transcendence involving the ability of a sub-atomic particle to be in two places at once, thus leading to the cracking of the unknown of numerical encryption; b) the obsolescence of the maxim about the impossibility of one entity being in two places at once, which, during its heyday, painted a signpost pointing to quantum mechanics; c) the infinitely expandable boundary of knowledge moving forward upon the shoulders of those who see impossibilities as signposts to the future; d) non-locality, as encoded within impossibility, pointing upwards to ascending tiers of knowledge."

pan : "Ascending tiers of knoweledge". I like that characterization much better than "transcendent knowledge" (it carries far less non-physical baggage). ~*smile*

[RingingSword]

orgaelin,

Is it right to think that your statements about the poly-dimensionality of time relate to vector engineering?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

In electronics lag and lead caused by inductive and capacitive components can be expressed as axis equations, if you rotate them on the proper co-ordinates. This does not mean that phase-shift is a new dimension. Only that mathematics can be manipulated to make it look that way.