On Lying:

The best way to avoid being caught in a lie is to have nothing to lie about. The best way to keep a secret is to have no secrets to keep – alternatively, never, ever tell anyone.

Lies are a dangerous sin to commit because they threaten and distort perceived reality. To tell a lie and be believed is to convince the believer that what is real is unreal, or that the unreal is real. While a lie may never be found out, any unreal event housed within the real necessarily calls attention to itself by having no referent.

Because of the natural chain of events that is cause and effect (that same chain which necessitates that all events be the same infinite event), any false or unreal event introduced into that chain is easily traced backward to its source – the liar. A thorough, deductive investigation of the chain of events which led to the unreal event, will inevitably uncover the liar because the unreal event seems to have an inappropriate cause or no cause at all. In order to conceal a lie well, one must then concoct further lies which support it, masking the flaws in the chain of events.
Naturally, the more lies one tells, the more unlikely that the chain of real events will cohere with the lie, and then it will be discovered. However, some will not delve as deeply into the chain as others, leaving the lie to persist.

As such, there are cases where a lie cannot be easily discovered by deductive reasoning, and the person who believes it will continue to live as though the lie were true. This is dangerous, because it introduces a false or unreal event into the chain of future real events, such that the unreal event becomes a factor in determining what will be real in the future.

This is all not to mention the emotional effects of a lie. For the liar - if the liar is not a sociopath - there will nearly always be pangs of guilt for having told the lie, which may or may not be bearable. There is guilt for having lied, and further guilt for having done or been involved with whatever thing caused the lie. Even in cases where no guilt is felt, it is highly likely that the liar will experience paranoia with regard to being found out. 

For the person lied to, there is more often than not suspicion, and in such cases suspicion is sufficient cause for feelings of betrayal, regardless of whether those suspicions have been validated. If the lie is discovered, the feelings of betrayal and suspicion are validated, turning to anger, disappointment, and depression. This is before whatever truth that the lie replaced is discovered, and in some cases, the discover of the truth will cause further anguish.

As it is rarely advantageous to be the receptor of negative emotions (least of all, one’s own), it is rarely advantageous to lie. As stated, the lie is almost inevitably discovered, making the negative response and effects of altering the chain of events just as inevitable. In this sense, lies are in almost every case as much a self-destructive behaviour as they are an outwardly destructive behaviour.

Furthermore, the act of lying in conjunction with the true event which seemed to require the lie has an additive effect, which results in more negative response than would originally have been encountered were the event alone discovered. To an extent, this relationship mirrors western karmic theory, because in lying, negativity is visited back on the liar two-fold.

On what is readily apparent:

Having explained the infinite thing at length - a thing not readily apparent (and indeed, not likely perceivable) - it strikes me that it is necessary to illustrate what is not apparent by explaining its application to what is readily apparent; what is perceivable.

All that is ‘given’ to the perceptual doors (the senses), and is readily apparent without the aid of tools or theoretical equations, lies within the world or realm of perception. These are empirical perceptions. What is perceivable is shared to varying degrees by all sensitive humans. Anything that is perceived by one person can, under the similar circumstances be perceived by another person (for there can be no same circumstances). While we can’t quantify the perceptions of others, the acknowledgement of shared sensations allows for inferred empirical perception.

Generally, what is readily apparent is that which has the capacity to be discovered by human means, through the senses, or with tools (like a microscope). It is impractical to deny what is readily apparent, as that would deny the senses, which in turn would deny the realness of the real.

There are two ways of being readily apparent. Something can be apparently so, and apparently not. Both are readily apparent, but the latter can be used as evidence of existence, while the latter can be used as evidence of non-existence.

Next time: On the readily apparent as evidence of existence or non-existence, in which I explain
the concept of 'healthy scepticism.'

On Asymptotes and Matter:

Required reading: Asymptotes, On Events, On the paradox of infinite divisibility

"Approaching zero" refers to a mathematical concept involving parabolas and curves. An asymptote is a theoretical line which the curve always approaches, but never intersects with, such that if the line were to have a value of zero*, the curve would always approach, but never reach it. Similarly, nearly every quality or attribute has the capacity to “approach zero,” but never reach it.

Asymptotes in parabolic mathematics are examples of how infinite divisibility is a universal trait in a real-world context. The curve never reaches zero because it is dividing the space between the two infinitely. Metaphorically speaking, human experience is the curve, while exact time or exact location is the asymptote. Our curve of experience naturally approaches an exact time or an exact space, but never meets it.

The asymptotic nature of matter (and time) in conjunction with infinite divisibility necessitates that no one particle of matter (or time) can be truly pinpointed. The problem is that it appears as though experience approaches empirical (or objective) reality, but never reaches it. The evidence of reality is made so transitory by its divisibility. The result is that existence and infinite divisibility seem to imply non-existence by the impossibility of making true “this object exists at location x at time t.” This is to say that events/objects cannot be said to exist, because they lack modifiers.

All matter in the universe appears to be on the threshold of being real. Could this be the scientific application of idealism or immaterialism? We're angling dangerously toward hippie talk, here.

*In this case, "zero" refers to the distance of the parabola from the asymptote (or of the curve of existence from reality), and not an absence of value or substance.



Next time: On time and eternal recurrence, in which I try to espouse one of the most important Nietzschean concepts that I don't actually believe.

On Events:

Required reading: Events, Space-time

Okay, last time, i had a look at my giant file of topics, and decided that my "space-time" entry was very short and not very informative. However, today, I found a way to work it into today's subject: events. However, it's still a bit off topic.
So, bear with me. This one's a double-post.

On space-time:

Space has three dimensions: width, length (or height), and depth. The resulting measure for how much space is occupied by something is volume. That measure is simply a way of quantifying what Spinoza called extension. It is the extension of substance into three dimensions. However, an object in space unmodified by time is incomplete. Not only do we need to quantify the spatial dimensions of a substance, but also the temporal dimensions. Not merely depth, width, and height, but also the when of that substance.

This want of a fourth dimension for the description of substance is likely one reason why many physicists believe in an amalgamation of the dimensions known as space-time. All that I have said about infinite space refers specifically to Euclidean and Newtonian absolute space. However, one key feature of space-time (which makes it differ from absolute Euclidean/Newtonian space) is that it appears to be warped by gravitational pulls. It is not clear what implications this has for the occupation of space by matter, but I think it indicates a mapping of objects in space as they are affected by gravity, as opposed to a boundary or a limited shape which space takes. It is the map of the path objects take through space and time (space-time), and not the shape of space-time itself. The normal method of determining spatial boundaries by their relation to other objects makes it all too easy to assume that a lack of objects indicates a lack of space.

On events:

Like the frames of a film, each object exists in space as its own event. Events are less happenings or objects themselves than they are bundles of detailed descriptive data. Events are composed of a what (a thing occupying space), a when (the duration, or point at which it will or did occur), and a how (an adverb and/or adjective) which provides an analytical description. For these purposes, an object is described as ‘the event of object (a)'s existence at location (l) at time (t), with attributes (a1, a2, a3, etc).’ For example, the rocket (what) travelled from the earth to the moon with a duration of Δt (distance over duration = speed), and the rocket was red.

That said, every event has an infinite number of potential (but necessary) descriptors to identify it as a unique event. These descriptors range from the ones I’ve just mentioned to the past, future, and relatively simultaneous events that occur everywhere else. That is to say, every event requires a description that accounts for every other event that is happening, has happened, and will happen in order to be unique. The upshot of a description that must account for every other possible or real event necessitates that every event is the same event, and not unique at all (because any one description describes all events, which all have the same description). There is only one event, in a broad sense, and that event spans the entirety of space-time which is infinite. Therefore, “The Event” is infinite, and inseparable from space-time (the universe), if not synonymous.

Obviously, such vast descriptions are more than what is required and sufficient for the identification of one event, and perceiving it as being different from another. It is as simple as making the arbitrary divisions that are normally made within an infinite medium. We divide finite events from within the infinite event, just as we make finite spaces of infinite space, and finite times of infinite time.

Being able to conceive of a group of finites as parts of one infinite whole requires that we reject, at least on a hypothetical level, the convenient assumption that difference of qualities/attributes is an indicator of individuality. We do not consider a pile of sugar to be something other than sugar. We do not consider one grain of sugar to be something other than sugar. Difference in size, shape, quantity, and– I would argue– even atomic structure, do not necessitate finiteness. Just as a human is made up of bones, blood, flesh, water, etc, the infinite universe is made up of an infinite number of objects and substances with different make-ups and attributes.



Next week: On asymptotes and matter, in which I try to stretch out a short post and hope you understand.

On infinite time and infinite space:

Required Reading: Absolute time and space, psychological arrow of time

I was thinking about merging these two bits in the first place, but then I changed my mind. Then I got sick last week and didn't bother to update, so I'm merging them again. Besides, this first one is terrible. These two arguments are basically the springboard for next week's ridiculous statement.

Time

Time is infinite, infinitely divisible, and absolute. Even if time is given beginning and end points, its infinite divisibility allows for it to progress eternally, on some small level. Those boundaries would face the same asymptotic relationship that faces measurements, as I’ve described previously.

Besides that, it is impossible to ascribe an endpoint for time. Following the endpoint, were there a mind to perceive it, that mind could easily extend time. The statement “It’s been one hour since time stopped” proves the point through the contradiction. (Indeed, the phrase “following the endpoint” ought to prove the point by inference). In this way, time is endless (infinite). So long as there is a conscious mind to experience time, time will be seen to continue its passing. As such, without a conscious mind to experience time, there is certainly no reason to assume that time would not continue to pass in its absence. Provided that we don’t traipse off into idealism, the object permanence we learn as infants ought to apply.

Space

Space is infinite and absolute. There is no such thing as nothing. All physical things occupy space. Space is an infinite medium in which arbitrary divisions are made, separating it into finite parts. The space between two points is occupied by invisible gases and particles, not nothing.

Every object we perceive occupies a space of the same volume. Our arbitrary measurements of volume allow that space to be reinterpreted in any shape. A sphere which has a volume of 72 cubed metres can be rearranged to take the form of a 72 cubed meter replica of the Taj Mahal.

Physical objects do not “push space aside.” They occupy as much space as is required for such objects to exist and retain their volume and mass. I have encountered the criticism that if space is infinite, and all space is occupied, nothing ought to be able to move (because the combined force of an infinite number of objects would absorb any force made by one object in its attempt to move).

Such a criticism implies nothingness, because it requires that there be “room” for space to displace into in order to make more room for objects to move around. In infinite space, there can be no limitation on the movement of anything, because there is infinite space for things to move within. As objects are merely finite divisions within one infinite space, it is hardly unexpected that space would remain space regardless of whether every part of it moves or is immovable.

Perhaps science has not fully been able to explain the way that objects occupy space. Perhaps objects exchange particles at such a rate that form and structure are retained, but particles no longer occupy the same part of space (again, divisions in space are arbitrary).
“Space” in this instance is not to be confused with Outer Space; a construct which is itself an arbitrary division of absolute space.


Next Week: On God as infinite, in which I bring this whole infinity talk thing to its logical conclusion, and tackle some common ideas about the big guy in the sky.

On the infinite:

Required Reading: Infinite divisibility, the paradox of infinite divisibility, infinity,

Any thing that is infinite can be divided into an infinite number of finite parts an infinite number of times. That is infinite divisibility. For example, measurements take an indeterminate volume and use an arbitrary value or increment to divide that indeterminate volume into smaller and smaller finite values.

Every thing can be divided in that way. There is nothing that is not divisible into smaller and smaller parts; nothing that is not infinitely divisible. This applies to the infinite - which by definition is of indeterminate value - like it does to any other thing.

There can only be one infinite thing. That which is infinite is all that there is by definition. Infinity as a quality is absolute, which means that it refers to limitlessness, endlessness, boundlessness, as opposed to a vaguer incapacity for human measurement, which is inherent in the infinite in the first place. An infinite thing extends forever, in all directions, and in all ways (an infinite thing which is not infinite in every respect is not infinite - more on this later). There can be no infinite object which occupies the same space (or non-spatial plane, if such a thing exists) as another, because the infinite is endless such that any other object/entity would be a part of it necessarily.

Whatever is infinite is the only thing there is. That is a confusing statement because as humans we live in terms of the finite; we see differences between ourselves and other objects and we don't normally think of those objects and ourselves as being one thing. You are not the same as a hammer; you are not the same as a giant robotic badger; you are not the same as your identical twin, even. So the idea of being a small part (a finite division) of something much larger would, to quote the vernacular, “blow your mind.” So, in terms of human experience, there is either no infinite thing (because of our perception of objects/entities as being separate and different), or our ideas about the relations between objects must be changed, and all things must be part of the one infinite thing.



Next Week: On infinite time and space, in which I make a really lame argument for why time is infinite, just for the sake of saying so. Then I make a slightly more convincing argument about space, maybe.

On Simultaneity:

Required Reading: Simultaneity, Relativity of simultaneity, the present, the paradox of infinite divisibility

I'd like to note, before I get down to business that the wikipedia page for simultaneity has an interesting point, which is that the root of the word "simultaneous" - simult - is indicative of a supernatural or divine coincidence. Understand, as you read the rest of this entry, just how supernatural a coincidence it would have to be for two events to occur simultaneously. Thought for food.

Simultaneity is improbable for the same reasons that pinpointing “the present” is impossible. I say improbable, because it is possible that two events could occur at the exact same time - no matter how infinitely small the increments of time-measurement are.

However, the smaller the measurements are (and remember, the increments of measurement could become infinitely smaller) the more likely it is that you'll discover that two events that appear to be simultaneous are in fact set apart by such and such an infinitely small duration. So, simultaneous events are extremely rare, to the point that it is likely that they have either never occurred or will never occur.

That said it is possible for events in progress to be happening simultaneously, provided that the "happening" of the event is described in a nonspecific way. For example, “burning” refers to the process of being burnt, but does not refer to any specific part of that process. So, two candles can be burning simultaneously, but it can't be determined by any accurate means whether they were lit simultaneously, or burnt out simultaneously, or put out simultaneously, or reached the middle of the candle simultaneously, or began to melt simultaneously, etc.

Because the occurrence of events is asymptotic (approaching zero or infinity), we have to assume (again) that it is either impossible to determine simultaneity, or it must be the case that simultaneity itself is not possible.

Just like we need relative durations in order to talk about the present, we need to think of occurrences relatively in order to assume that some of them happen simultaneously. Without turning a blind eye to the indeterminacy that's packaged in with these concepts, we would lack the ability to experience or comprehend time in a stable and cohesive sort of way.

Meanwhile simultaneity as an objective concept cannot be considered a true possibility - rather, a theoretical concept.

Next week: On the infinite, in which I tackle infinite divisibility a little more directly and try to explain what it really means for something to be infinite.