Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)

Arcane Sandwich

This is version 1.0 of the Thread that used to be known as "On the Nature of Factual Properties". I've not deleted the first version of this Thread, you can find that in this OP at the end.

Title: On Meillassoux's concept of factiality in After Finitude.

Question: Is factiality real?
Quentin Meillassoux introduced the term "factiality" in his book After Finitude. He says that it's the speculative essence of facticity.

Why you should care about the question
The question is controversial because if factiality is real, then the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false. This being so, Meillassoux effectively claims that in the absence of the PSR, the most bizarre things could indeed happen. For example, a squid might pop up into existence in your living room, for no reason. Why doesn't that actually happen? For no reason. That things can change for no reason does not mean that they will necessarily do so. At least that's what Meillassoux argues. As he says:

If we look through the aperture which we have opened up onto the absolute, what we see there is a rather menacing power -something insensible, and capable of destroying both things and worlds, of bringing forth monstrous absurdities, yet also of never doing anything, of realizing every dream, but also every nightmare, of engendering random and frenetic transformations, or conversely, of producing a universe that remains motionless down to its ultimate recesses, like a cloud bearing the fiercest storms, then the eeriest bright spells, if only for an interval of disquieting calm. We see an omnipotence equal to that of the Cartesian God, and capable of anything, even the inconceivable; but an omnipotence that has become autonomous, without norms, blind, devoid of the other divine perfections, a power with neither goodness nor wisdom, ill-disposed to reassure thought about the veracity of its distinct ideas. We see something akin to Time, but a Time that is inconceivable for physics, since it is capable of destroying, without cause or reason, every physical law, just as it is inconceivable for metaphysics, since it is capable of destroying every determinate entity, even a god, even God. This is not a Heraclitean time, since it is not the eternal law of becoming, but rather the eternal and lawless possible becoming of every law. It is a Time capable of destroying even becoming itself by bringing forth, perhaps forever, fixity, stasis, and death. — Quentin Meillassoux

Thesis
My own position is that there is no such thing as factiality, as Meillassoux understands it. As far as I can see, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true. This does not mean that the PSR, by itself, terminates in an entity (i.e., God) in such a way that the entity in question is self-sufficient in terms of Sufficient Reason. For it is possible to maintain that the infinite regress that the PSR leads to, is not necessarily a consequence that one should avoid. Not every infinite series is absurd: just think of the infinite series of the set of natural numbers, for example.

Lead in
One should attempt to refute the claim that there is such a thing as factiality. However, Meillassoux does seem to get something important out of that concept, since it allows him to answer the Question of Being (Why is there something rather than nothing?) in a particularly straightforward way:

Thus the solution to the problem is as follows: it is necessary that there be something rather than nothing because it is necessarily contingent that there is something rather than something else. The necessity of the contingency of the entity imposes the necessary existence of the contingent entity. — Quentin Meillassoux

So, a dilemma looms. If we believe in factiality, that leads to nonsensical results (i.e., entities can pop in and out of existence, for no reason, and yet somehow they don't). If we don't believe in factiality, we miss out on a particularly interesting answer to the Question of Being.

What, in your opinion, is the best strategy here? What is factiality, anyways? Is it really the same thing as hyper-Chaos (also known as the Principle of Unreason), as Meillassoux understands it? Could there be factiality without hyper-Chaos? Could factiality be the concrete, essential property of every fact, in such a that way the fact itself is contingent but its essential property (factiality) is necessary? For example, it is a fact that I was born in Argentina in 1985. What is the nature of such a fact? What is a fact, anyways?

Thanks to @MrLiminal, @Corvus and @Bob Ross for their comments and suggestions, which have helped to improve this OP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(This was the original Thread)

On the Nature of Factual Properties

by Arcane Sandwich

Question
Why is my existence as a person (and as an "Aristotelian substance") characterized by the factual properties that I have, instead of other factual properties? The perplexing thing here is that factual properties are contingent (in a modal sense), even though I experience them as necessary (in a modal sense).

Why you should care about the question
The origin of the preceding question is the following one: It just feels odd (to my mind) to have no good reason, other than brute facts, to explain why I have the factual properties that I have had since birth, especially since I didn’t choose to be born. But what intrigues me the most are the details of this problem: Not only did I not choose to be born, I didn’t even choose to be born in this place instead of that place. My place of birth is just a brute fact that’s been imposed on my existence, the same goes for my chromosomes. I didn’t choose these chromosomes, especially not these chromosomes (as in, the ones that I actually have), just as I didn’t choose my skin color. These are just brute facts that have been imposed on my existence, “without my consent”, so to speak. The same goes for my biological sex, as well as the language that I eventually had to learn how to speak (and eventually write). Still more intriguing (to me, at least) is that it’s just a fact that I was born sometime before the beginning of the 21st Century. Why not the Middle Ages? Why not the Renaissance? Why not "The Future", for example the year 2125?
From a modal point of view, all of the aforementioned brute facts are contingent (they have the “modality” of contingency). But the “odd experience”, if you want to call it that, is that I (in particular, as an individual) experience their “logical modality”, so to speak, with such a violent, steamrolling force in my ordinary, everyday, day-to-day life, that from an ordinary perspective, those very same brute facts about my existence don’t seem contingent, they seem necessary (and to me, particularly, this is an enormous source of philosophical perplexity. I experience it “as such”, in some yet-to-be-defined way).
Perhaps I am deluded. That’s surely among the possibilities. But it’s the oddness of this whole “situation”, if you will, why I’m asking the Question in the first place. Perhaps more importantly: what do you make of it, dear reader? For I am at a loss here, and I say that as the author of these very words.
Is my perspective, my First-Person Point of View of the World, somehow wrong, from a theoretical standpoint? And if so, does that entail that my morals and ethics (to say nothing of my political philosophy) are also wrong, in some yet-to-be-specified sense? To be truthful (if only for the sake of rationality), I’m not even sure that these last questions make much sense, they barely make sense to me, and I’m the person that has written them.

I would sum up the preceding in the following aphorism:

The Joy of Philosophizing, or at least one of the joys that philosophy brings us, is that it allows us to consider the possibility that “oddness” can be experienced, not merely thought about.

All the best,
-Arcane Sandwich

P.S.: By the way, how would you even define the term “factual properties”? And what is the “Nature” (if you will) of such properties? Are they “real”? Are they “empirical”? Are they “ideal”? Are they "material"?) And so forth, down the Rabbit Hole we go...

Explanation for this whole thing: This is my "Love Letter" to Speculative Materialism, especially as developed by Quentin Meillassoux (particularly in his first book, After Finitude). Which is not to say that I agree with him on every topic, but sometimes his statements just leave you wondering...

MrLiminal

>But the “odd experience”, if you want to call it that, is that I (in particular, as an individual) experience their “logical modality”, so to speak, with such a violent, steamrolling force in my ordinary, everyday, day-to-day life, that from an ordinary perspective, those very same brute facts about my existence don’t seem contingent, they seem necessary (and to me, particularly, this is an enormous source of philosophical perplexity. Iexperience it “as such”, in some yet-to-be-defined way).

Can you elaborate on this further? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Arcane Sandwich

Hi MrLiminal,

Great question, thanks for jumping in. In response to your question: what I meant to say in the passage that you quoted, is that I have a subjective "experience" (I'm not even sure if "experience" is the technical term here) for the phenomenon that I describe in that same quote. As in, that is how my "mind works", so to speak. To use a metaphor, I'm just "hardwired" like that, or at least that's how I would describe it in a non-literal way.

Does that make sense? I feel like I'm not being very collaborative. My apologies. I genuinely don't know how to tackle this problem, let alone solve it.

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

I'm just having a hard time grasping the experience you seem to be having. Can you describe it another way?

Arcane Sandwich

I know what you mean. Allow me to tell you an anecdote, it's relevant to your point. I was once taught that we should try to imagine what it would be like to explain the color of an orange to a blind person. Perhaps we could do so by saying that the very word, "orange", has multiple meanings, even though it's the same word. An orange (noun) is a fruit, and you can taste that fruit. It tastes like an orange. Well, -so the thought experiment goes-, explain to a blind person what it "feels like" to see an orange, which has a color (adjective) that is also called like the noun (orange). It would be an extremely abstract discussion, but ultimately, we have no way of knowing (well, not when I was taught this, anyway) if such abstract explanations actually enable this person, in a neuro-psychological way, to visually experience the color "orange" (think of it like in dreams, when you have visual sensations but you're not actually using your eyes).

Sorry, I derailed my own Thread. Ok, so, back on track, no, I cannot describe it any other way. I'm sorry. Perhaps if you ask me some other questions, I might.

MrLiminal

I may be getting the shape of it now. So is the experience that you are having something like a disconnect between the reality you are experiencing and your sensory perceptions of it? As if you are experiencing your life from "outside" somehow?

Arcane Sandwich

Hmmm... maybe. I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. My God, we're in the Deep End of the Ontology Room over here... Nice. Please don't take offense at that, I meant it like: "We've just jumped off the Deep End now, haven't we?".

Enough, back on track. Right, regarding "the experience that I am having". The question was, "is that experience something like a disconnect"? Let's start with that, before getting into the discussion about the reality of the external world. Let's just focus on the formal part here. Is it, formally, like a disconnect? Hmmm... Yes, I think you're right. It is indeed like a disconnect, because it's a mismatch of modalities: your are somehow "experiencing" (we'll get to that in a moment) two different modalities at the same time: contingency and necessity. It's as if you're aware that the "Facts of Life" are contingent, like, you got what you got, those are the cards you've been dealt, so now deal with it. But you see? As soon as you start to explain it (at least, that's what happens in my case, subjectively) they suddenly have this "wavey" oddness, eerie-like quality. I don't know, I'm just playing the harp at this point. So, let's sum this up: yes, it's a disconnect, as you said.
Next point: is it a disconnect between the reality that I'm experiencing and my sensory perceptions of it? I'm not entirely sure that those are the semantic choices that I would make. We would have to agree on some sort of basic, ontological definition of some of these terms. "Reality", for example. To me (and I may be wrong here) the word "Reality" has an external referent. What is the referent of the term "Reality"? A good candidate is "The Universe". Another good candidate is "The Laws of Physics, or whatever physicists actually study". So, unless we can define some of the terms that you're using (and I agree to use them), I'm afraid I can't answer this specific question that you have.
Last point: Am I experiencing my life from "outside" somehow? I guess you could say that, but it's not exactly that. I mean, it's not an "out-of-body experience" (I don't know what that even feels like, I've never left my own body, and I don't think that I even could, merely because I can't leave my own brain).

MrLiminal

Thank you for elaborating. I asked because something in there sounded like experiences I have had with depersonalization/derealization, though perhaps I misunderstood. To be honest, I'm not as up on my terms as I should be, so I'm getting a little lost in your vocabulary. Can you explain it as if I were a child?

Mapping the Medium

your are somehow "experiencing" (we'll get to that in a moment) two different modalities at the same time: contingency and necessity. It's as if you're aware that the "Facts of Life" are contingent, like, you got what you got, those are the cards you've been dealt, so now deal with it. But you see? As soon as you start to explain it (at least, that's what happens in my case, subjectively) they suddenly have this "wavey" oddness, eerie-like quality. — Arcane Sandwich

Have you read Mikhail Bahktin's 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act'? ... I think that it surveys much of what you are pondering. ... Here is an excerpt from it that you might interesting. ...

"All of modern philosophy sprang from rationalism and is thoroughly permeated by the prejudice of rationalism (even where it consciously tries to free itself from this prejudice) that only the logical is clear and rational, while, on the contrary, it is elemental and blind outside the bounds of an answerable consciousness, just as any being-in-itself is. The clarity and necessary consistency of the logical, when they are severed from the unitary and unique center constituted by answerable consciousness, are blind and elemental forces precisely because of the law inherent in the logical-the law of immanent necessity. The same error of rationalism is reflected in the contraposition of the objective qua rational to the subjective, individual, singular qua irrational and fortuitous. The entire rationality of the answerable act or deed is attributed here (though in an inevitably impoverished form) to what is objective, which has been abstractly detached from the answerable act, while everything fundamental that remains after that is subtracted, is declared to be a subjective process. Meanwhile, the entire transcendental unity of objective culture is in reality blind and elemental, being totally divorced from the unitary and unique center constituted by an answerable consciousness. Of course, a total divorce is in reality impossible and, insofar as we actually think that unity, it shines with the borrowed light of our answerability. Only an act or deed that is taken from outside as a physiological, biological, or psychological fact may present itself as elemental and blind, like any abstract being. But from within the answerable act, the one who answerably performs the act knows a clear and distinct light, in which he actually orients himself."
― Mikhail Bakhtin

Arcane Sandwich

No problem Mr. Liminal, thanks for the comments! They keep the discussion on track. I think you're right, there's definitely an element of de-personalization here. As in, you feel as if you're not a person. Like, literally. That's what a de-personalization "feels like", to me. And, in this other experience that we were discussing, there's an element of de-personalization, but it falls in the "Something Else" category, sadly.

If I had to explain it in simpler terms, in simple English, I would say the following: think of the problem that I'm talking about in my first post in this Thread, as if it was a professional philosophical problem that people discuss at different Universities.

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

I think I may be understanding you now. It reminds me of something I brought up in another thread, the question of "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Where as your question seems to be "Why am I this and not something else?" if I understand correctly?

Arcane Sandwich

Hi Mapping the Medium,

Great reference, thanks for jumping in. I have not read that book that you mention, though I know a few things about the author's Literary Theory. As in, very few. I'll definitely check it out. Thanks! Judging by that quote that you shared, and just going on intuition, Bahktin's "prose" lacks a bit of the scientific language that you can find in papers from the natural sciences, which is something that I personally gravitate towards. And it sounds more like a "process philosophy" in Whitehead's sense, whereas I'm a realist, mine is a "thing philosophy".

@MrLiminal: I couldn't have said it better myself. It's exactly like that. It seems to be at that level of generality, or of universality, or of importance, or however you want to call it. But it's comparable to the Question of Being: "why is there something rather than nothing?" It's Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, but applied to What There Is in the Question of Being. And this other question that I'm asking (yes, I'm delusional in that sense, I know) is comparable: "Why am I this and not something else?" But here's the fun part: that question can be asked by anyone. So, it's universal in that sense. Is it as universal as the Question of Being?... Maybe, maybe not. It depends. Hence, this discussion: it's just an odd thing to talk about. It just feels odd to begin with. And I have no idea why that is. I understand that the experience itself is not universally shared, as in, I'm aware that other people are not necessarily having this experience, or even could have this experience. I want to know why I have it myself, in my case, and what is causing it. Perhaps I should talk to a shrink, and I actually do, but I've found out that they're not very good at philosophy, they just kinda take a few courses here and there, maybe read a couple of philosophy books, but not much more than that. And I get it, philosophy is not their job, they're shrinks, they have a different profession. I've had much better dealings with phenomenologists, neuropsychologists, metascientists and metaphysicians in the Analytic tradition.

MrLiminal

Got'cha. Then in that case, I've wrestled with the "Why is there" question quite a bit, and I think the answer to your question may be the same, at least for me.

Sum ergo sum. I am, therefore I am. There is something instead of nothing because something is there. You are what you are because that's what you are. On some level I think it's hard to mentally tackle because it's such a foundational truth, though maybe that's just me.

Although another direction to come at that question is, "What defines what you are? Where do you stop and other things begin? Are experiences you have but don't remember still a part of you?"

Arcane Sandwich

Thanks, MrLiminal.

My impression is that it's not just you, it is indeed a foundational truth. Because, as I said in my initial post, this discussion is something of a "Love Letter" to Quentin Meillassoux's book "After Finitude". He was the first professional philosopher to raise this problem, and it's quite recent. His book is from 2006 I think, it was published in French before it was translated to English almost immediately.

You ask: what defines what I am? What one is? And I would say, these are Deep Ontology questions. Like, metaphorically speaking, we're in the "Ontology Room" when we talk at this "level" of Reality, I don't know how else to describe it in terms of ordinary language. It's "Deep Ontology", if that's even a thing.

You then ask: "Where do you stop and other things begin?" My reply: Yeah, that one is brutal, I've wrestled with that one myself a few months ago. Again, it's Basement-Level Ontology. Like, imagine Descartes' metaphor of philosophy, he said that philosophy is like a building, first you lay down the foundations. Well, I think these discussions are below the foundations. It's like we're in a Cave, or something. It just feels that way to me. I'm somewhat of an instinctual creature, I will admit that freely. But I blame my chromosomes for that. So, maybe we could draw the line there, at least hypothetically.
You then ask: "Are experiences you have but don't remember still a part of you?" Hmmm... I honestly don't know. I mean, I can see solid reasons for, as well as, against. I've no idea.

MrLiminal

Yeah, getting down to that level can be a bit of a mindscrew sometimes. It's kind of like what we're discovering about the connection between the brain and the gut now, with how much your gut microbiome can affect mood and mental health and whatnot. All that bacteria and what not isn't technically part of you per se as it all has its own various unique dna and whatnot, and yet it's unique to you and is integral to how you live. So is it part of you? In some ways, do loved ones become a part of you once you're experiences with them allow for an internal approximation of their external self? Is all life part of some greater gestalt whole that we are not capable of fully understanding, in the way that the cell has no concept of being part of the body? I'm heading to bed soon so I'll be afk for a while, but now that I'm on the same page I think we can kick up some fun topics around this subject.

Arcane Sandwich

I think that to theorize about this "level" or "layer" of Reality is like exploring an uncharted territory on a map. It's like, people don't spend much time at this level. They argue at "upper" ontological / metaphysical levels: politics, policies, economics, agendas, etc. Like, from an ontological POV, those discussions are "way up the ladder", there's tons of more "baseline" discussions, as in, what are professional physicists talking about today, in the most prestigious scientific journals, like Nature and Science? Like, literally, what are they talking about when they talk about electrons? What is an electron, exactly? I, Arcane Sandwich, do not fully understand that concept, not even IRL. True, I'm not a physicist myself, I didn't study Physics. But it's like, I can understand Newtonian physics if you explain it to me, like, I get it. But when I try to understand post-Newtonian physics, I just can't wrap my head around their most basic concepts. So, I guess what I'm asking is, whose "fault" is that? Mine? It has to be mine, right? But then, I face an ethical dilemma: is it ethical for me to do "Deep Ontology", if I can't even understand the science that talks about the base of Reality itself? And I truly, honestly, don't have an answer to that question, sadly.

Corvus

Why is my existence as a person (and as an "Aristotelian substance") characterized by the factual properties that I have, instead of other factual properties? The perplexing thing here is that factual properties are contingent (in a modal sense), even though I experience them as necessary (in a modal sense). — Arcane Sandwich

Could it be space and time which makes every objects and events in the universe unique and contingent? There can be no object which can share the same points of space and the moment of time physically.

Being in different space and different time as different objects necessitates every events ever taking place in the universe contingent and unique. It is the principle of the physical nature of space and time which limits the facts, experiences, events and properties of the objects. If we were the particles in QM space and time, then the situation might be different.

If you can swap your particles of the body with someone else's, then you could experience multiple factual properties.

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

>Like, literally, what are they talking about when they talk about electrons

My understanding is that electrons are electricity. A/C and D/C just describes the way the electrons "flow."

>But then, I face an ethical dilemma: is it ethical for me to do "Deep Ontology", if I can't even understand the science that talks about the base of Reality itself

I dont think the human mind is equipped to fully understand those things generally, and tbh I'm not entirely sure even quantum physicists really totally understand it. Just keep your humility and it should be fine, I'd think.

Arcane Sandwich

Corvus, thanks for jumping in. Great observation. You ask: "Could it be space and time which makes every objects and events in the universe unique and contingent?"
My reply: In a sense, yes, because I have control over my current spatio-temporal location. I can choose to be in the kitchen, or the living room, or I can go outside, etc. That's under my control, it's something that I'm free to choose. What's not under my control is the fact that I was born in Argentina in 1985. That's just a fact about my existence, it's one of my "factual properties", to use one of the main technical terms of this discussion. I can't change the fact that I was born in Argentina (space) in 1985 (time). Could have I been born in some other spatial area, in some other time? Yes, I could have. Therefore, those facts (place of birth: Argentina, date of birth: 1985) are contingent. But since I cannot change them, I "experience" them as necessary facts. Actually, "experience" is not the right technical term to use here. It's more like an "awareness". It's like I have a "double awareness": I'm aware that I could have been born somewhere else, and in some other time, but at the same time I'm aware that I can't change "where I was born, in a spatial sense", just as much as I can't change "when I was born, in a temporal sense."

Does that sound like nonsense to you? It kinda does to me. It just strikes me as odd. Not necessarily "wrong" from a theoretical standpoint, but just plain odd from the POV of plain and simple English.

Hi again Mr. Liminal, thanks for continuing to discuss this topic of conversation. Electrons are electricity. OK, I can kinda see how that would work. But what's a quark? If an electron is electricity, is a quark... quarkiness? Quirkyness? What is it? Is it like a tiny marble? How do I even picture it? I can imagine an atom like a bunch of red marbles (protons) and gray marbles (neutrons) all clumped up together, forming the atom's nucleus. Somewhere around it, there's an electron. How do I picture it? Is it a tiny green marble, orbiting around the nucleus? Is it like a green cloud instead? Is it more like a green storm around the nucleus? Is it more like a hurricane than a calm, peaceful cloud? How do I even picture it? I've talked to a few physicists about it, they basically just told me "forget about the picture, just try to understand the math part". And the same goes for quarks, and for other fundamental particles, apparently. And I find that somehow disappointing. Like, I've looked at the math. It doesn't make sense to me. Granted, I'm not a mathematician. But I kinda do "get it", at least some of the more basic equations. But then you have people talking in a sort of kookish way about "the collapse of the wave function" (as in, the wave function collapse) and whatnot. Like, just explain it to me in plain and simple English, please. And they couldn't. They tried (my physicist friends) but they just end up saying (to my uneducated ear, at least) a bunch of nonsense.

But anyways, you said in a previous comment: "now that I'm on the same page I think we can kick up some fun topics around this subject."
My reply: Please, kick up one fun topic around this subject, perhaps that will help us steer this discussion in the right direction (whichever direction that might be, I'm at a total loss here).

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

My, admittedly limited, understanding is that electrons are a negative energy particle that functions like a wave. Obviously this is hard to picture mentally, but the closest thing I can think of is imagine that the earth is the protons and neutrons of the molecule and the moon is the electron. From our perspective, the moon is in one place moving very slowly. But imagine if the moon moved really really fast, so fast that it caused a gestalt optical illusion that made it seem like instead of a single rock, it was more like a solid dome around the earth. If you stopped the moon at any point, the dome would disappear and you could see where it was, but without stopping it, you can't tell where the moon is in the illusory dome it creates around the earth. Hence Heisenberg's uncertainty principal. Because of the way electrons and subatomic particles work, it's almost like a cloud of potential that collapse upon observation, at least as I understand it. Perhaps the experience you're describing is an awareness that although you are what you are, there was potential for things to have been different before that cloud of potential facts collapsed into permanent reality.

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

To elaborate with an example I cooked up myself, I refer to this kind of thing as the Rock and Peak Theory. My thought is to picture a rock on top of the very peak of a mountain. Time started when the rock tipped over and started tumbling down the mountain, and time will end when it eventually reaches the bottom of the mountain. The flow of time we experience is limited by the path the rock has already taken down the mountain, but is still allowed some randomness by the bumps and diverging paths we have yet to take. Then, one day after the rock has reached the bottom, the earth will eventually erode away beneath it, becoming a new mountain, and the rock will tip again, starting the whole process over.

Arcane Sandwich

Hi MrLiminal,

In response to your first post:
Wow, I've never head of that analogy. Thanks for sharing it. It kinda does make sense. Like, I can certainly picture the scenario that you describe: we look at the Moon, we then imagine it moves really fast, so it creates an optical illusion, it looks like a Moon-colored dome (what color would that be? White? Gray? Beige? I'm just going with "Green", if it's a green Moon, then it would be a green dome). Yeah, I can kinda picture all of that, like what happens if we stop it, then the optical illusion of the dome ceases to be, etc.
About the experience that I'm describing, I'm not sure if it's an experience, now that I think about it. It's more like an awareness. Does that make sense? Experience and awareness, it seems to me, are not exactly the same thing. This "experience" that I was telling you about is more like a state of mind. It's an awareness.
I would phrase it like this, in simple terms: you're aware that your existence is under your control (in one sense) but at the same time you're aware that there are some features of your existence (your factual properties) that are not under your control. They are necessary components of your identity, because you can't change them, and you didn't even choose them, but they're contingent in the sense that you could have been dealt other cards, so to speak. It's just strikes me as being strange, weird, and odd, that's all.

In response to your second post:
I'm thinking about it. It's a good picture, a really good one. I'm not sure that I understand it entirely. Let me ask you some questions, if you don't mind. The rock is at the peak, because that's the highest it can go and still be in physical contact with the peak? If so, the analogy would be that there's a point in time in which you can't go further into the past, because then time itself would not be in physical contact with space itself? Does that question make sense to you? Let's start with that.

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

Ah ha, you've hit on the foundation point of it all. Time and space are the same thing. Time can only be measured by movement in space: the ticking of a second hand on a clock, the decay of an isotope, the expansion of the universe, etc., So the rock at the top of the peak represents a moment of ultimate potential, before time began. The tipping point, when it started to move was when time started, because time *is* movement. When it reaches the bottom is when all potential has been exhausted, and it reaches a state of stillness. However, it's important to remember that the earth will eventually give way to a new peak for the process to start again, which implies that the mountain our rock is rolling down was once the earth at the bottom of a previous mountain that has long since worn away.

Arcane Sandwich

Yeah, I like it. It's a good analogy. Again, I'm not sure that I'm following you 100%, there's some things that you're saying that I'm struggling to grasp. On a side note, the movie that I really liked about this part (relativity, general and special) is "Interstellar". It's a scary movie at some parts, like, it's sci fi but there's parts that are quite scary.

But here's the thing: physicists haven't figured out yet how to combine Einstein's theories of general and special relativity, with quantum physics. They came up with something trendy called "Quantum Field Theory", and I think that's the most legit thing they have going on (way more legit than, say, String Theory). Man, I'm being really reckless with my language here, excuse me, please.

Arcane Sandwich

Speaking of metaphors that evoke pictures, you know which is my personal favorite? The North Pole / South Pole one. Like, go to Antarctica, go to the literal south pole of the planet. When you get there, you can't go further south. If you move outside of the literal south pole, you're going north.

Of course, you can also exit the planet without leaving the south pole, so that means that your spaceship will not be in physical contact with planet Earth anymore.

It sounds wacky, I know, but I can picture it, and that's no small feat. A good metaphor is like a good wine: they're hard to craft. Agree or disagree?

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

You're good, it is still one of life's great mysteries. Speaking of reckless, I had a thought a while back that started off as a joke, but I can't help but feel like might have some truth to it. It's essentially that the grand unified theory boils down to 0 = 1 = infinity.

Essentially: Infinity is endless and has no boundaries. 0 is endless and has no boundaries. Therefore, 0 is infinite. Things that have boundaries are not endless. Things that are not 0 are defined by their boundaries and therefore cannot be 0 or infinite. If 0 is infinite, then everything is both part of 0 and infinity, including my individual sense of self, the 1.

Not sure if any of that made sense.

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

>It sounds wacky, I know, but I can picture it, and that's no small feat. A good metaphor is like a good wine: they're hard to craft.

Agreed :up:

Arcane Sandwich

Speaking of reckless, I had a thought a while back that started off as a joke, but I can't help but feel like might have some truth to it. It's essentially that the grand unified theory boils down to 0 = 1 = infinity. — MrLiminal

Hmmm... Let me play Devil's Advocate here. I would say that, technically speaking, Zero is not equal to One. It's a different number, and we use different symbols for them. And neither of them is equal to infinity. For all we know, infinity might be just a concept, not an actual number. Or would you argue that? I'm aware that there's some good arguments to the contrary, for example the one that starts with the premise (they all start with this premise, oddly enough) that Infinity itself is not just a concept, it's an actual number. And they can prove it, mathematically. And you and me can prove it as well. It takes a bit of studying and thinking abstractly, but it's definitely something that non-mathematicians can comprehend.

Essentially: Infinity is endless and has no boundaries. 0 is endless and has no boundaries. Therefore, 0 is infinite. Things that have boundaries are not endless. Things that are not 0 are defined by their boundaries and therefore cannot be 0 or infinite. If 0 is infinite, then everything is both part of 0 and infinity, including my individual sense of self, the 1. — MrLiminal

Do I agree with this? "Infinity is endless and has no boundaries." I'm not sure. What do you mean by that?

Then you say: Zero is endless and has no boundaries. Again, I'm not sure what that means. Can you explain it to me in simple English?

Then you say: Things that are not Zero are defined by their boundaries (I'm not sure that I agree with that), followed up with ("if so, cannot be 0 or infinite", I don't get that part either).

Lastly, you say: If Zero is infinite, then everything is both part of Zero and infinity (not sure what that means), including my individual sense of self, the 1 (not sure what that means either)

Can you explain all of this to me as if I'm uneducated, and as if I lack a sense of humor? Like, I'm genuinely struggling to grasp what the underlying concept is here.

Mapping the Medium

And it sounds more like a "process philosophy" — Arcane Sandwich

When it comes to Bakhtin, it helps to focus on dialogue as a dynamic, reciprocally recursive, action, and as a sort of embodied medium that brings in all of the cultural and biological influences of those engaged in it. ... On the surface, it may resemble 'some' aspects of Whitehead, but Whitehead was more nominalistic than Bakhtin, and Bakhtin actually covered more 'breadth' of what the momentum of a lived existence entails. ... He is another one than takes time and study to understand, but I think the reward is worth it.

Thank you for your having taken the time to consider and respond to my thoughts.

Arcane Sandwich

Thank you for your having taken the time to consider and respond to my thoughts. — Mapping the Medium

How could I not? It would be un-philosophical of me to not consider and respond to your thoughts. At least that's one of the things that I personally believe.

About Bakhtin, I'll just say it: when people explain Bakhtin to me, I feel like I'm not understanding even half of the things that people are trying to explain to me. Like, there's some parts that I get, there's other parts that I even agree with, but then there are some parts that I just don't understand. Can you please clarify, in simple English, as if I was uneducated, what is the philosophical importance of Bakhtin's work?

MrLiminal

↪Arcane Sandwich

Yeah, like I said, it started off as kind of a joke, so I'm not sure it really makes much sense to anyone but me. To quote the Beatles though, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."

It's basically saying we are all connected to everything (infinity) but also connected by death (0), while also maintaining our own individuality (1). Everything dies (infinity becomes 0), and from death new potential is created (0 becomes infinity).

Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions