From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 16:01:12 MST
On 28 Jan 2002 at 14:17, ben wrote:
> [Joe] It,s worse than that; we can never know any single object from all
> possible perspectives (since we are finite and there are an infinity of
> possible perspectives from which to view any object) in all possible
> perceptual modalities. Any concrete object is phenomenologically
> inexhaustible. All that we can say is, whatever the whole might be, it
> must noncontradictorally contain the parts which we have apprehended
> as parts or aspects of that whole, for part of the whole story of any
> object is that when presented to one of our perceptual apparati from a
> particular perspective, our specific perception of it results.
>
> [ben] An even more eloquent description of why it is fruitless to discuss
> the "borders" of our Universe and what, if anything, is outside it, or
> whether or not there even is an outside.
>
[Joe 1]In spatiotemporal locations where an object we are attempting to peruse
returns no information concerning it whatsoever, no matter what
perspective we adopt on the location or what native or augmented
perceptual modalities we use to investigate it, we may resonably
conclude that the object in question does not extend to that location.
It's boundary is comprised of the border between the locations where
we can receive information from our perusals, and the locations where
we cannot.
[ben 1] Exactly - my point being that since we are inside the Universe when trying to peruse the Universe, we cannot define its boundaries as we cannot make our measurements from any location from which the Universe does not present itself to us for perusal. Any time and place that we have been, there's the Universe, reliable as always, mocking us with it's refusal to 'not be there' so that we can mark down a boundary. Very well put, by the way.
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT