Well, we are not talking about God creating A at t1 and B at t2, we are talking about God creating B instead of A, which, according to most Thomists, is prefectly possible. — Walter

How is that a problem? God created (or actualized) B, and God did not create (or actualize A). Where's the problem?

Well, I am not saying that God can will conficting things. But God's will to create A cannot be identical to God's will to create B, unless God is not simple or has no control over what He creates.
A Will, no matter what it exactly is, is intrinsic to a person. — Walter

I don't understand your point. Let's say that at t1 God wills to create A, and at t2 God wills to create B. We could say that A and B are each a part of God's bigger plan, but I don't think that expressing these as distinct parts denies God's simplicity. It's just a feature of how we describe the situation, as A being something distinct from B, when the truer description would show the whole. Then A being distinct from B is just an artificial separation created by human analysis.

Possible worlds are simply a way of saying if God what could be/have been the case.
According to most Christians, including Thomists, it could have been that God created a completely different world or even no world at all.
My question is if God's essence is his existence , how can He end up xiiling to create different things? — Walter

This does not produce the problem you mentioned. If God's intention is to create A, then A is created, and if God's intention is to create B, then B is created. If there was confliction between A and B then God would know this, and not will both. Nowhere is it implied that God would will conflicting things.

But that's the problem. God's intention to actualize A does conflict with God's intention to actualize B.
So, ther can be no intention to actualiz A or B in God's mind. How can God have control over whther A occurs in that case? If God's will is is unified and consistent, then it cannot lead to A in one possible world and B in another, at least not if God is supposed to be in control. — Walter

I don't see how you can introduce possible worlds to the scenario. What God wills is necessary by His act of willing it, therefore it is actual. You cannot say that God wills A in one possible world and B in another possible world, because that would contradict the nature of God as 'His essence is His existence'. Therefore God is necessarily actual, and this excludes Him from "possible worlds" which is a tool of the human intellect. Attributing possible worlds to God is to attribute matter to God, but God is immaterial.

Sure, the speed of light is constant, but as is the case with all motion, the speed is always relative to a frame of reference. That's why your statement ("The result comes out of consideration of speed 'relative to our position.' It is not an actual speed") is nonsense. All speed is relative, and to distinguish "actual speed" is nonsense.
I suppose you are going to argue that the speed of light is relative to nothing, and this makes it an actual speed rather than a relative speed?

Points and continuums, space and time . . . . . remain beyond complete understanding, although we manipulate them confidently. When I asked an old friend, an analytic number theorist, what he thinks of real analysis, he says, "It's very, very complicated and it starts with a metaphysical notion, points." — jgill

The issue I see with the "expansion of space", is that in order to conceive of numerous distinct locations from which everything is receding, it is necessary to assume that these locations are "points" in space which have real substantial existence. These points are not particles of mass or any form of elementary substance, but points of space itself. So this requires a type of understanding of space which allows for real points (as opposed to arbitrarily assigned points of location), and a determination of the characteristics of these points which would allow them to be identified.

The speed of light is relative. It is the same relative to any frame of reference. That's the principle which allowed Einstein to include the motion of light into relativity theory, in his special theory of relativity.
Can't you ever say anything intelligent?

According to Wikipedia, "proper speed" is the speed from the observer's frame of reference, which in your example, would be equivalent to "relative to our position". So if "actual speed" is meant to be "proper speed", there is no difference between the speed relative to our position, and the actual speed. That is what leaves your statement as utter nonsense:

The result comes out of consideration of speed 'relative to our position.' It is not an actual speed. — universeness

And perhaps a newer, emerging math replaces that which has served so well up to this point. — jgill

That's what I'm talking about, a mind open to the possibility of solving the problems rather than denying that the problems exist.

Remember that the proposal that the edge of the universe may be expanding at a superluminal speed, is a 'relative' measure. The result comes out of consideration of speed 'relative to our position.' It is not an actual speed. If you were at the edge of the universe, you would not be travelling at a superluminal speed. — universeness

This image you propose, of an expanding "edge" of the universe presents a misunderstanding of "expansion". It makes no sense to say "If you were at the edge of the universe". And your mention of "speed' relative to our position'...not an actual speed" is utter nonsense, because all speed is "relative", and this leaves your "actual speed" as totally meaningless. That's the point of relativity theory.

The more we learn about it, the more complicated the expansion of the universe seems to be. In the region near our galaxy, the expansion seems less rapid than for the universe as a whole. In fact, it appears that the combined gravitational pull of a very large cluster of galaxies in the constellation Virgo is actually retarding the local rate of expansion to half the rate for the universe as a whole. We're finding evidence of how gravity attracts even over distances of hundreds of millions of light years. Although there must be many very distant galaxies and quasars that we are not yet able to detect, astronomers have observed radiation from an even more remote source, literally at the edge of the observable universe. — https://history.nasa.gov/EP-177/ch4-9.html

There is a limit to how far we can "see", or observe, within the universe, determined by the speed of light, and the amount of time that the universe is known to have existed for. This is known as the cosmological horizon, "the edge of the observable universe". It could be called a temporal edge:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/22/what-is-it-like-as-you-approach-the-edge-of-the-universe/?sh=43e638da7152

Or, it might be said to be not an edge at all, just the illusion of an edge:

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge

Does "simply move apart" imply motion in the common sense? Can something move without motion? — jgill

The problem though, as I've read, is that this "moving apart" can be much faster than the speed of light. And since the motion of objects is limited by the speed of light in relativity theory, this "moving apart" cannot be categorized as motion, in order to avoid contradiction. So in the following example, a galaxy can be observed to be "...receding from us well in excess of the speed of light...", bit in reality, that galaxy is "...hardly moving at all!', "...moving through space at ~2% the speed of light or less...".

If we were to ask, from our perspective, what this means for the speed of this distant galaxy that we're only now observing, we'd conclude that this galaxy is receding from us well in excess of the speed of light. But in reality, not only is that galaxy not moving through the Universe at a relativistically impossible speed, but it's hardly moving at all! Instead of speeds exceeding 299,792 km/s (the speed of light in a vacuum), these galaxies are only moving through space at ~2% the speed of light or less.

But space itself is expanding, and that accounts for the overwhelming majority of the redshift we see. And space doesn't expand at a speed; it expands at a speed-per-unit-distance: a very different kind of rate. When you see numbers like 67 km/s/Mpc or 73 km/s/Mpc (the two most common values that cosmologists measure), these are speeds (km/s) per unit distance (Mpc, or about 3.3 million light-years).

The restriction that "nothing can move faster than light" only applies to the motion of objects through space. The rate at which space itself expands — this speed-per-unit-distance — has no physical bounds on its upper limit. — https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/12/ask-ethan-how-does-the-fabric-of-spacetime-expand-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/?sh=1753c4723b5f

The very real problem, is your irrational worldview of the past, current and future efficacy of all scientific endeavours. — universeness

This is not at all true, I have very real respect for sicentific endeavours, and I am truly amazed, even awed by the great achievements derived from scientific knowledge. The fact that I practise philosophical skepticism has little if any bearing, on the great respect that I have for the scientific method.

You, on the other hand, profess a false premise that philosophical skepticism is derived from an "irrational worldview".

Again we see your lies. We all know we can assign point A and B and we can traverse the distance between them. You accept that demonstration but you will not accept that demonstration as proof that your statement of: — universeness

I did not accept your demonstration, I proved it to be equivocation. Your seat and your toilet can not be said to be "points", in any rigorous logic. Since we are concerned with the rigorous logic of mathematics, your use of "point" here is equivocal.

You can define "point A" and "point B" in any way that you please. But if you stray from the mathematical definition of "point", then you argue by equivocation, because problems of mathematics is what we are discussing here. Therefore your argument is bogus, and irrelevant, as being nothing but an equivocation fallacy. — Metaphysician Undercover

A point is a 0-dimensional mathematical object which can be specified in n-dimensional space using an n-tuple (x_1, x_2, ..., x_n) consisting of n coordinates. In dimensions greater than or equal to two, points are sometimes considered synonymous with vectors and so points in n-dimensional space are sometimes called n-vectors. Although the notion of a point is intuitively rather clear, the mathematical machinery used to deal with points and point-like objects can be surprisingly slippery. This difficulty was encountered by none other than Euclid himself who, in his Elements, gave the vague definition of a point as "that which has no part."

The basic geometric structures of higher dimensional geometry--the line, plane, space, and hyperspace--are all built up of infinite numbers of points arranged in particular ways.

These facts lead to the mathematical pun, "without geometry, life is pointless."

The decimal point in a decimal expansion is voiced as "point" in the United States, e.g., 3.1415 is voiced "three point one four one five," whereas a comma is used for this purpose in continental Europe. — https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html

Your "demonstration" was very obviously an argument through equivocation, and therefore invalid. So I am still waiting for a proper rebuttal, something more substantial than a hurling of insults.

You have already agreed that the point you made about 'uncertainty' in science is trivial, and it also may be simply down to the currently available tech, methodology or understanding needed to completely solve most or all levels/manifestations of uncertainty. — universeness

All the points I have been making are trivial, accept the point about JS's denial. The indicated problems are trivial, but denying that a trivial problem is a real problem, turns a trivial problem into something substantial. O, what a tangled web we weave...

Despite this, you continue to way overblow the significance of such points and you also hold up esoteric style shinies to distract from your unimportant points, such as: — universeness

What I have been doing precisely, is to emphasize that the problems I refer to are very real problems, regardless of how trivial these problems are. The degree of triviality of the problem is irrelevant. That the problem is very real is all that matters.

So when truth is replaced with a stand-in, because there is a trivial problem which prevents a statement of the truth, and the stand-in is accepted as the truth, rather than recognized for what it is, a stand-in rather than the truth, then a very trivial problem can develop into a significant problem. That is because we are inclined to forego the search for truth because the stand-in is already accepted as the truth.

I have bolded some of the utter piffle from the quote above, as an example of the type of nonsense shiny you hold up! — universeness

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal, to demonstrate why you think my statement is "nonsense". Clearly, nothing is ever really at point A or point B, according to the principles employed in modern physics. Obviously it's your talk about moving from point A to point B which is nonsense.

My understanding is that two objects move further apart with time; space itself (whatever it is) doesn't change. — jgill

However, I don't think it is proper to call this "motion" because the activity known as spatial expansion is not consistent with our conceptions of "motion", and the physical laws which describe "motion".

My opinion remains that he shot you down in flames, and you have been trying to pick up little trivial pieces since. — universeness

I think we'll just have to wait to see what JS says after reading up on it more thoroughly. JS already said "The 'problem' you describe was solved by calculus". But I suspect that JS will be changing tune again, as the uncertainty of the uncertainty principle clearly demonstrates that the 'problem' is yet to be resolved.

Remember, JS's tune has been changing ever since we first engaged. First JS said, "Whatever the gaps are, they are not what you described - if we could label them, we could have fixed them by now". But then what was said was: "I challenge you to point out one such problem that has been labelled, and is not something that modern mathematicians want solved...". Obviously there is a big difference between 'if they were labeled they'd be fixed', and 'if they are labeled mathematicians want to fix them'.

What is laughable, is that you really do think you are making a really important statement here!
Any uncertainty principle shows a current problem that we have no current solution to Sherlock. It does not mean that science is absolutely incapable of ever finding a work around or a direct solution to such issues. You make mundane points that most on TPF are already very familiar with and you think you are being deep and profound. — universeness

What makes you think that I believe myself to be making a really important statement? That's an unjustified conclusion, and this is the lounge. I am actually making, and believe myself to be making, a statement of trivial fact.

The bizarre thing is that there are people here who incessantly deny the truth of such a trivial, yet basic, fact of reality. What could be the motivation for such a denial? Denial of trivial fact does not advance one's knowledge, nor does it advance one's social status. So how could it be becoming of one who holds a title, to deny the reality of a basic, trivial fact?

The point was that Jaded Scholar insisted that these problems pointed to by Zeno had been solved by mathematics. The uncertainty of "the uncertainty principle" demonstrates very clearly that the problem described in "the arrow paradox" has not been solved.

We have progressed from Zeno to Heisenberg. Do you really think our scientific findings will end there? — universeness

Same problem, different name. Now if the PhD's in Physics of the world deny that the uncertainty principle is a problem, and thereby refuse to develop an understanding of that problem, then yes, scientific findings will end there. No physicist would ever develop a true understanding of the real relation between space and time. Then the issue would no longer be trivial. In this way, the matter of "denial" turns a very trivial fact into a substantial problem.

What significant academic quals do you hold MU and what field of expertise do you have that others may benefit from? — universeness

I don't brag about owning titles. If I was charging you a fee for my work I would show you credentials so that you'd feel confident in paying me. But I'm not, and I offer you my work on a take it or leave it basis, the choice is yours. You'll have to judge my work for yourself however, or else you just demonstrate prejudice, and this judgement requires critical analysis which you are showing a lack of in your rejection. Either that or you haven't read it and your judgement is just common prejudice. Did you even take the short time required to read the references which justify the position I'm arguing?

Here, I'll explain in simple terms for simple minds. Zeno's arrow paradox shows that there is an incompatibility between occupying a space (having a location), and being in motion. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its common representation, says that the more accurately a particle's position (location) is known, the less accurately its momentum (a property inherent to its motion) can be known, and vise versa. Do you see the resemblance between these two? Zeno said that the arrow cannot be both moving, and also have a location, at the same time, because this is contradictory. The uncertainty principle validates this, because it shows that if we know one of these, either the particle's position, or the particle's motion (momentum) with a very high degree of certainty, we cannot know the other at all.

The mathematics of calculus with the Fourier series provides a system of balance between these two, as explained in my reference above.

This is where the uncertainty principle steps in. Instead of pursuing infinite accuracy in either frequency or time, we can harness the uncertainty principle, allowing us to gain insights into both quantities at a reduced resolution, all the while maintaining balance. — https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953

It is clearly not the case that the mathematicians have resolved Zeno's arrow paradox. They have produced a workaround which is adequate for many applications, but the consequence of this workaround is the uncertainty principle. The very problem which Zeno pointed out more than 2000 years ago persists today as the uncertainty principle.

He just points at ever reducing gaps and exclaims 'look! everyone! look, look look! gap there, gap there, gap there! — universeness

Most people appreciate having the gaps in their thought pointed out to them, that's a sign of healthy intellectualism, and the route to self-improvement. Unfortunately, some do not appreciate this; they turn away, attempting to deny the reality of the gaps which are obvious. Some may even insult and ridicule the one who is pointing to the gaps. That is a symptom of conceit, which I mentioned above.

He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc — NOS4A2

Looks like "giving comfort" to me. No?

...it is just the vision of some racist cunt... — Ø implies everything

An expression of strong feelings says much in the silent language. Do I detect a hint of social rejection, detachment?

Again, all you do is point out what science does not know for sure yet, and you imagine that in some way, that means you know what you are talking about. — universeness

All I'm talking about here, is what science does not know. I have no pretense of holding the solutions to these unknowns. Therefore it looks like I really do know what I'm talking about, as you say, I have accurately pointed out what science does not know. But I have no idea of what you're talking about. Your words are not making very much sense.

In no way has Jaded Scholar shown me that all the problems in mathematics which have been labeled, have been fixed. That is what JS claimed. And, I've provided a multitude of references which demonstrate that the uncertainty principle is a problem which is a result of the mathematics employed. This problem is clearly labeled "uncertainty". Therefore the evidence is quite strong that I have gone ahead and proven JS to be wrong in those assertions made.

Yet another example of the absolute BS you offer. There is no infinite rate of acceleration. When I move from A to B I do not need to infinity accelerate to get there, or else I would never get from my seat to the toilet! As I am incapable of infinite acceleration, so stop positing absolute piffle!!!!! — universeness

Your seat is a seat, and your toilet is a toilet. Neither is a "point", so this in no way qualifies as moving from point A to point B.

I create purpose and I create meaning so I can assign point A and point B. — universeness

You can define "point A" and "point B" in any way that you please. But if you stray from the mathematical definition of "point", then you argue by equivocation, because problems of mathematics is what we are discussing here. Therefore your argument is bogus, and irrelevant, as being nothing but an equivocation fallacy.

Hey, you did some research! — Jaded Scholar

I should have addressed this as well. What I did was not "research", but a matter of "Google search" to produce references for what I already knew, due to past research. There is a big difference between researching to expand one's knowledge, as i did in the past when I wanted to better understand the uncertainty principle, and searching to find authorities to support one's prejudice. Now, I will continue to support my prejudice, since conventional knowledge seems to agree with me, and the research I did, which created my current prejudice, seems to have served me well, according to the references from my Google search. And you have provided nothing but hot air, toward making me want to reconsider.

You it appears, like to make all sorts of assertions concerning things you know nothing about, holding up a card with an embossed "PhD in Physics", to create the illusion of authority.

But I will read up on it more thoroughly and get back to you. — Jaded Scholar

Good idea! Time for you to read a bit ,instead of spouting your mouth off in ignorance. Regardless of whether you hold the degree you claim, it's never a good idea to make assertive claims of certainty about that which you know not. Like I've pointed out, this attitude of conceit has already led you to "change your tune" significantly, concerning the problem which mathematicians have and have not resolved.

However, I am going to stick to my other stated principles and am now going to do my best to ignore you until after I have time to fully reply to universeness and jgill, because they seem, like me, to be primarily motivated by the desire to learn, instead of your objective of, like, pwning noobs or whatever it is. — Jaded Scholar

Your "other stated principles" are nothing but insults. Now I have one for you. You are a pompously conceited ass hole. And unlike your use of ad hominem, mine is fully justified and true.

"Pwning noobs", haha I like that. Maybe I should change my moniker to "Noob pwner". I bet if we met in a real lounge, with a couple of real drinks we'd turn out to be best of friends, instead of meeting here where it seems like everyone has to pretend to be what they are not.

Merry Christmas!

The first multiverse theories (namely, Everett's) were founded wholly on the goal of finding some interpretation of quantum uncertainty that did not result in genuine randomness being a feature of nature. I. E. Reinterpreting quantum randomness not as randomness in the outcomes of physical laws, but in seemingly-randomised measurements actually giving every possible result by bifurcating our universe at every such measurement point, and the true randomness being just in which one of those universes we "observers" happen to be in. — Jaded Scholar

Start reading boss. "Indeed, the uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics." There is a fundamental incompatibility between a describable state of "being", and an active event of "becoming", which is well demonstrated by Zeno in his arrow paradox. This produces an appeal to "infinite" in any attempt to reconcile the difference, bridge the gap. This is what creates the need for an infinite rate of acceleration at the moment when an object changes from being at rest to being in motion, which I referred to.

Especially when we all know that you can get from point A to point B, despite Zeno's rather boring thought experiment. All Zeno did, was the very trivial finding that the concept of infinity is problematic. No shit Sherlock! — universeness

I would not be so adamant with such a misleading statement universeness. Of course, it appears to be an obvious truth, "we all know that you can get from point A to point B. However, we cannot truthfully model this procedure, getting from being at one point to being at another point, mathematically. That's exactly what makes Zeno's paradoxes so compelling, the mathematics cannot represent what appears to be so obvious to us.

"Change" has elements which are fundamentally unintelligible, and cannot be represented by human mathematics. This casts the doubt of skepticism on the description of "change". To begin with, we can ask whether it's really true to say that one is at point A, or at point B. And then we see that this is just an over simplification, an approximation. The physical principles of relativity are premised on the proposition that we cannot know anything to be at any specific point. Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B.

Now, I'll leave you noobs to your useless ponderings, based in false premises, and your senseless pandering, and instead indulge myself in some good old fashioned Christmas cheer.

To more specifically address Zeno's paradox/es: The mathematical implications of these questions were not solved by adding some extra features, but in the exact opposite of what you claim. These problem(s) emerged from Zeno's problematic and ideologically-motivated additions to the axioms of conventional mathematics (around his opinion that we should actively avoid every treating "the many" and "the one" in similar ways, mathematically - he was specifically trying to attack the mathematical operations of multiplication and division for ideological reasons, not academic reasons). And these problems were solved by removing his deliberately problematic axioms. And this was highlighted not just in modernity, but by Zeno's contemporaries too! — Jaded Scholar

Zeno's paradoxes involve problems with the human understanding (misunderstanding) of the relationship between time and space, which creates the appearance of infinity in the human attempts to represent motion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

See above. It's one of the earliest integral transforms to be derived, but it's completely ridiculous to claim that the attributes of the general case are derived from the attributes of one narrow specific case, and not vice versa. — Jaded Scholar

See below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Indeed, the uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

Functions that are localized in the time domain have Fourier transforms that are spread out across the frequency domain and vice versa, a phenomenon known as the uncertainty principle. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

https://math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/wavelets/fall16/ChrisJasonUncertaintyPple.pdf

1 Introduction
Fourier Analysis is among the largest areas of applied mathematics and can
be found in all areas of engineering and physics. Atomic physicists use the
Fourier transform to characterize and understand molecular structures, optical
physicist use Fourier series to decompose and resconstruct ultrafast photonic
pulses and particle physicsts use the ideas of orthogonal basis and Fourier coefficients to describe the wave functions of particle states.
One of the most well known concepts in modern physics is the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle which tells us that we cannot know both the position and
momentum of a subatomic particle within a certain accuracy. To understand
this principle in some detail, we look to the subject of Fourier analysis. We
begin by motivating the idea that such a mathematical relationship exists and
then proceed to derive and describe the uncertainty principle in the formal setting of Fourier analysis. After this, we discuss Fourier analysis as it is used and
understoof by physicists in quantum mechanics for several simple examples. Finally, we will attempt to see the relationship between our formal discussion of
the principle and some of the physical laws that govern the natural world. — https://math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/wavelets/fall16/ChrisJasonUncertaintyPple.pdf

https://www.math.uga.edu/sites/default/files/uncertainty.pdf

In Harmonic Analysis, the uncertainty principle can be succinctly stated as follows: a nonzero function and its Fourier transform cannot both be sharply localised. That is, if a function is restricted to a narrow region of the physical space, then its Fourier transform must spread (be essentially constant) over a broad region of the frequency space. It then expresses a limitation on the extent to which a signal can be both time-limited and band-limited. — https://www.math.uga.edu/sites/default/files/uncertainty.pdf

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uncertainty-principle-derivation-from-fourier-emanuele-pesares

When applying this reasoning to filters, it is not possible to achieve high temporal resolution and frequency resolution at the same time; a common exemplification is the resolution issues of the short-time Fourier transform. Namely, if one uses a wide window, it is possible to achieve good frequency resolution at the cost of temporal resolution, while a narrow window has the opposite characteristics. — https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uncertainty-principle-derivation-from-fourier-emanuele-pesaresi

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953

However, the Fourier Transform (FT) comes with a trade-off: it strips away temporal information as the uncertainty principle shows, rendering us unaware of when these frequencies manifest in the series. This is where the uncertainty principle steps in. Instead of pursuing infinite accuracy in either frequency or time, we can harness the uncertainty principle, allowing us to gain insights into both quantities at a reduced resolution, all the while maintaining balance. — https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html]

A Fourier series is an expansion of a periodic function f(x) in terms of an infinite sum of sines and cosines. Fourier series make use of the orthogonality relationships of the sine and cosine functions. The computation and study of Fourier series is known as harmonic analysis and is extremely useful as a way to break up an arbitrary periodic function into a set of simple terms that can be plugged in, solved individually, and then recombined to obtain the solution to the original problem or an approximation to it to whatever accuracy is desired or practical. Examples of successive approximations to common functions using Fourier series are illustrated above.

In particular, since the superposition principle holds for solutions of a linear homogeneous ordinary differential equation, if such an equation can be solved in the case of a single sinusoid, the solution for an arbitrary function is immediately available by expressing the original function as a Fourier series and then plugging in the solution for each sinusoidal component. In some special cases where the Fourier series can be summed in closed form, this technique can even yield analytic solutions.

Any set of functions that form a complete orthogonal system have a corresponding generalized Fourier series analogous to the Fourier series. For example, using orthogonality of the roots of a Bessel function of the first kind gives a so-called Fourier-Bessel series. — https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html

Notice the use of "analogous" in the last paragraph: "Any set of functions that form a complete orthogonal system have a corresponding generalized Fourier series analogous to the Fourier series." It is not as you say, that the particular is derived from the general. It is a simple procedure of inductive reasoning whereby the general is derived from the particular. The Fourier transform provides a mathematical principle for time/frequency relations, and this is extended to many domains such as position/momentum, which can be expressed in the required, related, terms.

Fair enough, mate. It was an interesting exchange and I appreciate your contributions to my thread. I will be honest: I ran out of ideas and arguments to keep posting and replying to you. So, instead of wasting your time, I think I must stop because I am ending up in a meaningless circle, the victim of my own comments. — javi2541997

I think this conversation has pretty much run its course. Thank you very much, I enjoyed it.

My only, I promise the last, conclusion (regarding our exchange on the perception of suicide by the receivers) is that if I kill myself, people in the 'real' (outside the internet) world would not care. Maybe you will care cohabiting with me on the world and reality of The Philosophy Forum. — javi2541997

I think it is a mistake to exclude the internet world from the real world. Let's say you have a dual identity, you inhabit two distinct social worlds. The issue being that one, the one you call the real world is not a social world at all, it is a world of social exclusion, within which you are alone. However, you have also the internet world within which you are socially active.

Is it a contradiction or a paradox? I don't know which one to pick up. This is why I used the example of the falling tree. The main point is as it follows: If I were absent for many months here, I think that some of you would wonder and ask what is going on with Javi. If, in this case, you noticed my death, you would care, even if you haven't even seen my face yet. But, paradoxically, it will not have the same impact on the people who see me every day.

My suicide would be like the tree which fell down unnoticed in the physical (non-virtual) world.

I hope I explained myself a bit better this time... — javi2541997

Are you saying that people who see you every day would not even notice if suddenly you were not there? Is this to say that they see you without noticing you? That's not quite the same as the tree falling in the forest example. It's more like the inverse of "can't see the forest for the trees". The person who can't see the forest is too intend on looking at particular trees, and does not see the whole, the forest because of this. But what you describe is people who see the whole, crowds of people every day, but do not notice any individuals, like yourself. So. in seeing the forest everyday, and you being a tree in the forest, if you were suddenly gone they would still see the forest, and not even notice that an individual tree went missing. This is a matter of inattentive seers, who do not notice what they are seeing.

And, as you highlighted, I also want to know with more detail the thoughts of Fosse regarding suicide after reading some of his novels. — javi2541997

I don't know if I will ever read any of Fosse's novels, but let me know if you do.

The issue here is not the relationship between you and I, rather it is an issue of how Jaded Scholar and I both relate to some current problems of physics, in specific, the zero point in time. Let me paraphrase our discussion like this.
JS: The zero point in time, i.e. the point at the beginning of time, is a problem for physicists.
MU: Not only is the supposed zero point at the beginning of time problematic, but in any measurement of motion there is an assumed zero point which starts the measured duration, and this is also problematic, as described in Zeno's paradoxes.
JS: There is no current problem with this, because mathematicians have solved that problem.
MU: Mathematicians have only produced a sufficient workaround for the problem, and the same problem has reemerged as the time/frequency uncertainty relation of the Fourier transform.
JS: The time/frequency uncertainty relation is no different from any other uncertainty relation of conjugate variables.
MU: The time/frequency uncertainty relation is the basic uncertainty of the Fourier transform, from which the others are derived.
JS: Ad hominem galore.

You complain about getting compared to a muppet and then you insult all mathematicians by calling their science an art. Stealth insults are still insults. — universeness

I complained about JS's use of ad hominem, which is abundant throughout the post, everywhere. The muppet comment I could not even grasp so it has no bearing.

Mathematics is commonly classified by philosophers as a form of art. There is no insult here, just a statement of truth.

You continue to focus on complaining about what science still does not know for sure, and you then assume that this gives you legitimacy, when you offer your own very weak claims and pure speculations about what you claim must be true. You will only ever gain followers who are easily fooled but that will only ever be some of the people, some or all of the time. You have no solutions, and you offer no methodology that is even part of the solutions our species need. You remain part of the problem as you are ossified in your anti-science stance. That is a very unfortunate legacy to burden the more easily mislead members of the next generation with, imo. — universeness

Jaded Scholar is an odd sort, first engaging me with

...I think everything you said is generally on the right track.. — Jaded Scholar

Then,

I've given myself permission to be quite rude — Jaded Scholar

and

What you are saying is a collection of truth-adjacent things — Jaded Scholar

And when I pointed out that Jaded Scholar's tune was changed as we proceeded, this seemed to cause some sort of ill-temper. Now Jaded Scholar has become completely "unhinged", a word directed at me above. There is an extensive post as a reply to me, with nothing of substance, merely one insult after the other. There is nothing there for me to reply to without stooping to the JS's schoolyard level. It would be like "you're an asshole", "no I'm not". What's the point? I mean this is the lounge, but it's just not my type of entertainment.

I don't have a strong relationship of confidence with them, so if I disappear or die, they would not notice it. Hmm, my neighbors? The building porter? Who exactly would miss me if I am extremely isolated? — javi2541997

It's really not a matter of having someone who would "miss you". For most people, if someone they are acquainted with dies, it has an affect on them. Further, suicide seems to have a special type of affect because it is always perceived as an avoidable death. So it's kind of like they feel that they have played a role in the death, just by knowing the person, and not acting to give the person "help". I think that's the silent language. I haven't read any of Fosse's material, but it would be interesting to see how he portrays suicide.

Again, if my suicide would negatively affect someone, the latter had to respect or care about me previously. — javi2541997

I could disagree with this, but it would not be correct to disagree, because what really is the issue here is what it means to "care" about another. There is a bond which human beings have between themselves, supporting what is known as empathy, so most of us have an innate or instinctual tendency to "care" about others, no matter who the other is. Because of this, it's really redundant and meaningless to say "the latter had to respect or care about me previously", as this is already given, that people naturally care about each other no matter who the other is

This discussion reminds me of the debate on the tree that falls down, but nobody heard or noticed it... — javi2541997

There is a sort of irony here, and it is related to how I described Fosse as turning toward loneliness, maximizing loneliness, in his early ambition of writing. The most pure, original, creative artwork comes from the artist's communion with oneself, the "other" must be completely removed so that the writing is not directed toward, or intended to impress any particular or specific type of "other". However, it is impossible to completely remove the "other" because there must be some sort of "other" or else the writing would be completely uninspired as the intention would be that no one would ever read it, so there would be no need to write anything with meaning. Therefore the person's self becomes the other, as the author writes for oneself to read, effectively isolating the individual.

The irony is in the role that the self plays as "the other". You, in your writing refer to "the tree that falls down". So there is implied in this statement that you have some knowledge about this situation, you know that a tree fell down. But then you proceed to say that nobody "noticed" it. So your second statement contradicts what is implied by the first. The first implies that you know a tree fell, while the second implies that no one could know this. So it doesn't explicitly contradict, but there is an implicit contradiction, and that's where the irony come in.

The silent language works with what is implied, not explicit, like the example above, when Bylaw said "selfish" is pejorative. But the thing is that some implications are overt, conventional, practically a definable aspect of the meaning, like "selfish is bad", whereas other implications like what is implied by "the tree that falls down", are very well hidden, and only grasped by particular individuals in specific ways. So in reality there is a huge grey area, a lack of demarcation, between what is implicit and what is explicit.

To get back to the point now, when the writer increases the aloneness to the point of desiring the loneliness of self-isolation, for the sake of inspired writing, the self becomes more and more important, as not only the transmitter of the message, but also the intended receiver. This excludes the possibility of irony and any sort of doubt as to interpretation, to the point that such tools can only be produced by self-deception. And that's the case with your example, "the tree that falls down". You have fooled yourself, tricked yourself into thinking that you can talk about this fallen tree without anyone knowing that this fallen tree exists, when clearly you must know about it to talk about it.

Our philosophical language is full of such expressions, where people trick themselves like that in order to create the appearance of a philosophical problem. What is really the case, is that these writers, philosophers, are actually not considering the full implications of the words they use, being completely immersed in themselves, and the effort to creatively produce a philosophical problem which they might share with others. So they end up not completely considering the implications of the words, thereby fooling themselves, presenting the so-called problems to others and actually making a fool of themselves. In other words they engage in self-deception for the sake of creating something which appears philosophically creative to others, when in reality the creativeness is just self-deception.

Which is precisely what the others are expecting if they believe this. We would allow this kind of thinking for many decisions. They will be disappointed if I don't [go to the wedding, movies, Friday bowling, whatever] but I had a bad fall and it would cause me a lot of pain just to go and watch] The criticism eats itself and as I said after what you quoted, it add a guilt to an already painful situation. We are constantly making decisions out of our own needs and taking care of ourselves in ways we certainly do not for random neighbors and distant cousins, but even, because we are closest to ourselves, responsible for ourselves, making decisions that may not please others, but because of what we want and don't want. Selfish is pejorative. It is certainly a decision to do something that one wants to do that others may not want. And if one has lived with some love, then most will not like it at all. Nor would they if you moved to France, probably either, because of modelling or it was the dreamt of home you always wanted. A woman wants a career and her boyfriend and parents want her to have a kid. Someone leaves a sect they are in and every single person they have know is sad and upset. Are these situations also the definition of selfishness because they put their desires and wants before those of the people they know, even love? It's certain self-oriented to make these decisions. And these outcomes may seem positive or neutral - at least to some - so, they're ok. Move to France and you may be permanently removing yourself from people's lives. And in the main were before the internet. — Bylaw

I don't see your point Bylaw. Acting for one's own interests with disregard for the hurt it will cause to others is what selfishness is, whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing. However, if this to you, means that "selfish" is pejorative, then it is you yourself who is saying that such a thing is a bad thing.

I think this is a very good example of how the silent language works. I describe an act as "selfish", you hear the word as pejorative, and this stirs negative feelings in you. So you proceed to look for examples where selfishness wouldn't necessarily be negative, in an attempt to dispel the negative feeling which your own interpretation of the word, as pejorative, has aroused within you.

Understood, why am I to disagree with those good points? Nevertheless, I still think that the receiver is not a key element of suicide. You are treating the receiver as a person who necessarily represents the cause of suicide, and this is not necessarily the main point. — javi2541997

The point is that there almost always is receivers, so the receiver becomes a sort of necessary accidental. Whoever the receiver (the living person who is affected by the suicide) is, is not necessarily a specific individual, so is in that sense accidental, but there almost certainly will be such an individual, or individuals.

In this way, it is sort of like the act of writing itself. The writing is not directed at any particular individual, but it is still necessary within the writer's mind, that there will be a reader. The writer, in as much as one might intend to write solely for oneself, knows that ultimately the writing must be composed in such a way as to ultimately be read by someone else. Likewise, as much as the suicidal may be wrapped up in loneliness, carrying out the act solely for one's own sake, the individual still knows that ultimately the act will be in some way interpreted by someone else.

Keep in mind that there are people who commit suicide because they feel lonely. In this case specifically, there is no receiver for communicating the silent language of suicide. Then, this act happens unnoticed. — javi2541997

Perhaps, in principle, this is possible. The extremely lonely person goes off somewhere, and no one ever notices the difference. In my analogy above, of the writer, this would be like a person writing, knowing the writing would never be read, and even hiding it to ensure that it wouldn't ever be read. This would be a sort of odd behaviour, actively writing to no one, and even intentionally hiding the material to ensure that it was never read. Would this be indicative of mental illness, or can we say that a person who keeps a personal diary, and ensures that no one will ever read it, is acting in a sane way? How can this be reasonable?

According to this data, lonely individuals tend to be more suicidal than social ones. We can conclude that those suicidal individuals have no receivers for their acts because loneliness is the main cause of this thought. — javi2541997

I think that there is usually receivers, because people do not live in total isolation, and sometimes the suicidal do not adequately plan to dispose of their own bodies. We have to consider that anyone in proximity will be affected by the suicide, in some, usually negative way.

Very interesting what you wrote in this paragraph, and I liked it. But would you consider it a desire rather than just the average transformation we all experience in our lives? I don't know to what extent Fosse desired companionship, but he started to learn more about his life and communicative skills. He began to have a fear of speaking in public, and he ended up reading a lecture in a Nobel ceremony. He just faced his fears. — javi2541997

We all grow up differently despite categorization like introvert/extrovert. The issue here I believe is the question of how we each learn to cope with our own peculiarities. Different introverts develop different coping mechanisms. I think that Fosse did very well. And, I think that he's trying to help and teach others.

Ugh, speaking of which, if you do honestly try to meet my challenge (I expect you won't), then I do ask that you stop embarrassing yourself with that foolishness about irrational numbers (which were never a problem for maths, only for mathematicians) or Newton's law prohibiting infinte acceleration (F=ma, you absolute and utter muppet - I already showed you those, four characters, which is all that anyone needs to see to understand that. Except the genuinely mathematically illiterate, I guess. Case in point.). — Jaded Scholar

I will happily fulfill your expectations. Your separation of maths from the mathematicians who practise the art, is a premise I cannot accept. Furthermore, ad hominem doesn't interest me, and that seems to be all you have to offer me.
See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

Although I agree that the hurtfulness of suicide cannot be removed, I still don't see why this act (plus the suicide note) can increase the hurt. Whose hurt are we referring to? I can only imagine suicide as a revenge act, but in most cases, this rarely happens. — javi2541997

We're talking about the hurt to others which suicide causes. For example, people who know the person who carries out the act often feel a sense of blame and even guilt for not being closer to the individual in what is apprehended as a time of need. The suicide note can add to this feeling, which hurts. I think this is what points to with that article.

A person with suicidal thoughts starts giving up on life, and this makes him or her not feel motivated by anything, not even revenge. — javi2541997

It's all part of the silent language, which appears to be a sort of communication through feelings. The meaning apprehended by the receiver of the language is not necessarily the meaning intended by the transmitter of the language. This is due to the unreliability of the medium of transmission. Take what is known as "body language" for example, and there is also what is known as "inflection" in speech, a term derived from musical practise I believe. These forms of silent language may contribute significantly to the meaning of the spoken word, but the significance will vary considerable from one person to the other. The variance is so significant, that a person who is inclined to read the silent language will see very much meaning which another will not, and even much meaning which is not intended by the person who transmits it. Seeing the silent meaning which is not intended by the author is how we determine when a person is lying, by looking into one's eyes, or whatever.

Therefore, as much as the suicidal person is not motivated for "revenge", people close to that person may apprehend this type of meaning through the silent language. The silent language communicates through people's feelings, which is a sort of instinctual reaction, so that the receiver's conscious mind responds according to one's feelings. And as much as the conscious mind of the receiver may tell the person that the meaning which has manifested by way of feeling, was not really intended by the transmitter, this is often insufficient to suppress the feeling along with the associated meaning.

Suicide is only considered selfish if the suicidal person was loved or esteemed by others. Many people die in the pure state of loneliness, and nobody ever remembers them... — javi2541997

I think the referred to "pure state of loneliness" is fictitious. I also believe that this is the overall lesson taught by Fosse's speech, the meaning of the whole, or "moral of the story". The supposed complete isolation of a "pure state of loneliness" is actually impossible and therefore fictitious. As he described, his approach to writing was the approach of loneliness, a feeling created due to his innate problems of association, and which he later built upon, due to his problem with public speaking: "Through the fear of reading aloud I entered the loneliness that is more or less the life of a writing person – and I’ve stayed there ever since."

This act of separating himself from others to produce loneliness was what fueled his creative talent. However, the loneliness was incomplete, not really pure, because he could not dispel the idea that someone, at some time in the future, would actually read the notes he was writing, and this idea penetrated through the writing. Therefore within his writing there was always that seed of content, subject matter, which was intended as communication with others, making his notes more than just notes to oneself. This feature, that the loneliness he created could not be completed or finished, then probably became a central feature of some of his writing.

Slowly, he came to accept the fact that the loneliness he had desired in the first place, to escape the others, find security within himself in order to produce masterful art, was a false ideal, because it could not be completed in perfection. That was impossible. So he turned himself around, finding security instead in companionship rather than within himself: "And what gripped me the first time I saw something I had written performed on a stage, yes, that was exactly the opposite of loneliness, it was
companionship, yes, to create art through sharing art – that gave me a great
sense of happiness and security."

In the end, the entire speech can be seen as an attempt by Fosse to share his loneliness, which in many ways is the deepest gesture of companionship. From the loneliness which he created for himself, are derived his deepest, most significant and formative feelings, which shaped his creative talent. He shares this with us, with what I believe is the intent of inspiring others to share in his talent.

Here's what I believe are a few key points to consider chronologically. His loneliness was initially not created intentionally, it was the result of his innate personality along with the way that he received the silent language (feelings) of others in his formative youth. He first coped with the loneliness by playing music. In adolescence he turned to writing, and then sought to increase the loneliness because it was highly inspirational, and contributive to his writing. Then he slowly came to realize the incompleteness of the loneliness and how it was the desire for companionship that really inspired the writing. So he found a way to separate the desire for companionship, from the loneliness, which allowed him to write well, without the need for loneliness. That is the difference between being alone, and being lonely. This is how writing saved his life, and he sincerely hopes that he can share this message to help save the lives of others.

People who commit suicide may be in what they consider unendurable pain with no way out. — Bylaw

This is not the way to escape the accusation of selfishness. No matter how intense and unendurable the pain may be, to put one's own interests, (to end the pain), as having priority over the interests of others, is the very definition of "selfish". So this point just does not address that accusation.

Javi offered a much more comprehensive approach, which was "pure loneliness". This would respect the fact that the selfishness cannot be removed from the act, but it renders the selfishness as irrelevant to anyone else. So it becomes a matter of I can do what I want, so long as it hurts no one else. The problem, as I explained above, is that pure loneliness is a defective concept, so I really do not believe that the hurtfulness which inheres within the act can be removed in this way.

But this only happens if there is such a controversial relationship between the suicidal and the rest. Yet, it can be the scenario where a suicidal decides to commit suicide because he is bored of life or he feels depressed for some reasons which are not necessarily caused by others. I attempt to explain with these examples that suicide is an individual act that sometimes can affect others... — javi2541997

I believe this issue is best understood through reference to the silent language which is a communication through feelings. The problem of "blame", or feeling guilt, is not exclusive to those who are close to the suicidal person. The act, suicide, is generally apprehended by us as so final, so extreme, that anyone who is even an acquaintance of the person, and sometimes not even acquainted, is affected with feelings for the person, which can amount to a feeling of blame and guilt within oneself. This is "the problem" with the silent language, it may, and very often does, communicate meaning which is completely unintended by the author. This is because it works through the feelings of the recipient of the information.

Sponge toffee, delicious, tastes like burnt sugar and gets stuck in your teeth.

First of all, you can answer this and comment on the rest of the thread. I fully appreciate your contribution and opinions. Honestly, I haven't thought about the musicality of spoken language, and being more precise, I think I haven't paid attention to it because I was mainly focused on how Fosse went from written language to spoken language. As you explained, there are techniques regarding these methods which are important to write drama. Although I agree that pauses and length are very considered in plays, I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

Well, the method of music was important to Fosse, so I'm sure it entered his dramas.

Thus, it almost goes without saying, that writing is reminiscent of
music. And at a certain time, in my teens, I went more or less directly from
only being engaged with music, to writing. I actually completely stopped both
playing music myself and listening to music, and started to write, and in my
writing, I tried to create something of what I experienced when I played.
That’s what I did then – and what I still do.

A lot of people are drawn to a rich fantasy life because of their social phobia. Many writers seem to be drawn to the written word because it is a way of being social without needing to be directly with people. I was a writer for some years (newspaper and magazine feature articles, reviews, op eds) and it can be very seductive to drop 'bombs' via prose and not be there for when they go off. In writing, you can say what you need to say safely and carefully, with time for preparation, in a way that many could never do in person, in conversation. — Tom Storm

Writing allows one to talk to people without giving them the capacity to reply. However, the reader has the capacity of choice to freely decide whether or not to listen to, (read), the writer. So the writer must take this into account when deciding what to write, unless the writing is purely for self gratification.

But what do you mean when you say that words constrain imaginations? — jkop

When you read a novel, the author creates an imaginary scene. If the author is proficient, the words employed by the author, and read by the reader, constrain the imagination of the reader in a way intended by the author.

I think that a true description of an imagination is constrained by what one imagines. — jkop

I don't think that this is the case. Even the author, who creates the imaginary world, or scene, is doing this through the use of words. words provide freedom for the writers imagination, to go much further than where simple images would take one. So the writer can use words to create images which were not already imagined, but produced from the use of words. I believe that the imaginary scene created by the writer, is principally created with words rather than with images which words are put to, to describe, because words allow the writer's mind much greater freedom to go places where the simple use of images would not otherwise take it. In other words, words open up the imagination to all sorts of new territories, even within the act of writing.

I can understand that it could be devastating for the family and friends who are close to the suicidal. — javi2541997

This is why I said it is hurtful, because it is a "communicative act". It conveys something to others, and that is hurt. And I said that it is inherently hurtful because this is the first level of meaning derived from the act, and the hurt cannot be removed through the secondary levels of meaning conveyed at the time. The suicide note can mitigate or decrease the hurt to others but it cannot negate it. The suicide note can also be used to increase the hurt. Further, certain suicide techniques can be used to increase the hurt to others, and suicide can be carried out for the purpose of hurting others. I do not see how it is possible to remove the hurtfulness from it.

Are you trying to argue that suicide is also hurtful for the suicidal? — javi2541997

No, not at all. The point was that as a "communicative act" of the silent language, that is an act of communicating without words, it is hurtful. That's why it is often argued that suicide is extremely selfish. By carrying through with the act, the suicidal person places one's own well-being as more important than that of others.

We are pattern seeking creatures, and normally strive to make the most charitable interpretations of what there is to interpret, also when there is nothing to interpret but silence. But when less is said, our interpretations become more susceptible to whatever the context suggests. In this sense the meanings are not developed by the readers' minds but a context such as a romantic or modern tradition in which meanings are assumed to be hidden all over and in our minds. — jkop

I do not think that one can correctly separate interpretation of meaning by pattern, and meaning by context. The two are too deeply intertwined, and used together, that such a separation, even for the purpose of analysis is impossible. I believe the more intelligible separation is form/content. But from this perspective, "content" as what is derived directly from the author's intent becomes somewhat unintelligible, the separation being analogous to Aristotle's form/matter separation. Since "form" is what is intelligible to us, the content is left as fundamentally unintelligible, as the "subject matter" may elude us.

Patterns are formal, so if we represent the content as "context" like you propose, then the context is the author's mind itself. The desire to understand the context of a piece of writing, might incline an interpreter to attempt to put oneself in the position of the author. But this would fail, because like Fosse explains, the writer removes oneself from all accessible or outwardly available contextual influences (one's environment), and creates an imaginary context.

This is the manifest difference between speaking and writing. The speaker assumes that the hearer shares the same context (environment), so the speaker relies heavily on the surroundings for meaning (eg."bring me that hammer please"). What the surroundings, or context adds to the intended meaning, instead of the words forming this meaning, is the foundation of the silent language. In the example, the speaker does not have to explain what the hammer looks like, or its location, etc., this is all silent, and simply implied by "that hammer".

In the case of writing, the author creates an imaginary environment, or context, and this imaginary context supports the silent language. There are many factors which the author must respect in creating the boundaries of the context. The form of writing, drama, prose, non-fiction, poetry, etc., provides the foundational limitations which the author starts with. Then the context, as further boundaries in meaning, is created by the author. Fosse's use of silence breaks all the boundaries he creates with words, leaving only the foundational boundaries of the activities of the drama, and in a sense bridges the gap between writing and speaking, because the activities then produce the context rather than the words. But the impression that the gap is closed is just a sort of deception, because these activities are only a created context anyway, and so the entire environment or context is still created. The audience members are allowed freedom to explore their own imaginations not being constrained by the words of language, but the freedom is kind of illusionary as it only occurs within the boundaries already created by the activities which, which are a product of the author's mind in the first place.

Maybe, according to Fosse, suicide is a silent language... — javi2541997

As a meaningful act without words, suicide is clearly a part of the silent language. However, in itself it is extremely hurtful, if not the most intrinsically hurtful act possible. This is very ironic, because it is a physical assault on oneself rather than on another. You would think that any sort of physical assault on another would be inherently more hurtful than any type of physical assault on oneself, but suicide obviously demonstrates this to be false.

Secondary, to the intrinsically hurtful act, there is usually a further communicative act associated, with the suicide act. This may be a suicide note, which may serve to either increase or decrease the hurt, often very intentionally, or the suicide act may be accompanied by a physical assault on others. When the others are designated as enemies, this may elevate the hurtful act to the level of honourable. In this way of looking at suicide, whether it is considered good or bad, depends on how the hurt of the secondary level of meaning, the more explicit meaning, is directed. Notice that when the suicide is honourable, the secondary level of hurt negates the first, by making the act honourable. This is taken even further in the act of self-sacrifice, Jesus, and hunger-strike for example. But all these levels of meaning piled on top, cannot truly negate the fundamental fact that the act is intrinsically hurtful.

But, bringing in suicide again, I think this concept is only ambiguous if we dive into the mental state of the readers. Would you consider suicide as ambiguous? — javi2541997

No, suicide is not at all ambiguous, for the reasons described above. It is intrinsically hurtful. It is meaningful as a part of the silent language, but remember that the silent language is a part of of our communion with others. So, when one retreats, or escapes the others, into oneself, as Fosse describes in the act of writing, a person seeks to remove all influence of environment, surroundings, including others, to write a purely original and creative piece, suicide may appear to lose its essential nature, as hurtful, and this would allow the writer to create an imaginary description of it without that essential nature. But this is only an imaginary image, as the true act would remain an act within the context of the existence of others. So the silent language ensures that suicide maintains that very specific unequivocal meaning of hurt, regardless of the levels of meaning added on top, which appear to produce ambiguity.

what I meant was that presumably some things are physically impossible. — Janus

Then you gave the example, of the sun not rising tomorrow as something which appeared to be physically impossible, but isn't really physically impossible. So you just disproved your own presumption, that some things are physically impossible.

Physical impossibility is admittedly just a possibility for us — Janus

Now you're back to the contradiction I explained early, where "impossibility" is reduced to a type of possibility.

The problem you are demonstrating is due to a failure in your representation of "real possibility", which you incorrectly try to oppose with "physically impossible".

I think I expressed myself incorrectly. I attempted to explain that Fosse—this is speculation because I haven't read anything from him—didn't feel comfortable with having suicidal characters. This is why he admitted that he used this issue so much that it seems he legitimized suicide. He was afraid of how the readers would perceive him or his writings. Just as Fosse had a fear of speaking in public, maybe he also had a fear of addressing suicide. We have to keep in mind that he writes to run away from himself... I guess this is why he addressed suicide in his writings, to confront this problem. — javi2541997

Well, yes, he felt uncomfortable, but notice that this is referred to in the past tense. "I have been afraid that I, in this way, may have contributed to legitimising suicide." Then he goes on to say that he has been very touched by those who have said that he saved their lives. Therefore I think he had possibly felt some guilt, at some time, but has now vindicated himself.

Keep in mind also, that the silent message is not an unambiguous message. It is intended that the meaning come from somewhere other than the explicit meaning of the author's words, and this must be the reader's own mind. So if a reader thinks that suicide is being promoted through the use of the silent language, this is not necessarily the author's intention. And if the author's intent is to leave the subject ambiguous, thus allowing that one reader might see reason to move toward suicide, while another might be moved away from it, the author could feel as Fosse described.

If Fosse considered the reviews as 'poor,' then he cared about whether people were following his writing path or not. — javi2541997

Actually, I think he is saying exactly the opposite of what you conclude. He looked at some reviews by the critics, judged them as poor reviews, perhaps as complete misunderstanding, then he decided to continue writing regardless of the critics. Therefore we can conclude that he did not care "whether people were following his writing path or not". He decided to continue writing in the style that he had been, with complete disregard for what other people may derive from the writing.

Again, I think i's important to notice the past tense of these reflections on his life, making chronological order important. At that early point in his writing career he decided not to care about what other people said about his writing, thus allowing him to continue on, in his unique style. To be concerned about what others think, allowing this to influence one's work, is what I described as the corruption of the artistry. So he strongly resisted this in his early stages, which allowed him to produce a unique and original style, before he allowed corruption in the form being influenced by money to write drama.

Also consider that at some point in reflection he got concerned that he might have sent the wrong message concerning suicide. This is a clear indication that he became concerned about what others thought about his writing. But again, it's post hoc, he developed this concern much later, looking back in reflection, at the works he wrote earlier. This post hoc reflection is a big part of the "companionship" he described. He learned to look at his work, as a part of the audience, see it from that perspective, giving him an escape from the escape (the original escape being the supposed loneliness of writing), providing him a place in the community, and "a great sense of happiness and security". However, he has clearly produced a separation between the post hoc reflections which would "corrupt" his writings, and his act of writing which must remain prior to, and motivated by, what is prior to this.

Fosse knew how to use silence in written language, and he was comfortable using it in his novels despite receiving criticism. — javi2541997

Using silence, and using the silent language are two different things. I don't know Fosse's writing so I really cannot comment on his use of silence in his early work, but I think we need to distinguish between the use of silence in general, and the use of the silent language. One can use the image of silence within a piece of work, to convey a particular idea, and this would be a very intentionally directed, and meaningful image being produced. The silent language is somewhat different because it employs ambiguity to work with possibility, allowing the audience freedom to think and imagine these possibilities. So the silence is essentially ambiguous.

Fosse, describes his earlier writings as completely self-centered, therefore we cannot consider that he would think about how others would interpret himself. Thinking about how others see me is the corruption to the artistry. The artistic escape from that goes all the way back to his fear of reading aloud which was the original motivator of the art, to do something free from the influence of what others might think about me. So we ought not consider any use of silence here as being directed at a potential audience, or else we are making his early writings into speaking, and criticizing him on the basis that his work was corrupt from the outset. And that is exactly what he is saying that we need to avoid in order to truly understand his writing style.

Of course no author is going to admit to one's own original sin, so i would conclude that you are most likely correct here, and his use of silence as a form of what I earlier called "retaliation" toward any potential reader, goes right back to his most original writings.

What you wrote there reads to me like nonsensical philosobabble. — Janus

This would explain why you haven't addressed the point I made. Your example serves to demonstrate that your presumption of "what is physically impossible" is not justifiable. Therefore, as I explained in my last post, you use "physically impossible" in a self contradicting way, to refer to things which are actually possible, not really impossible. That is to say that "physically impossible" is just a possibility, and therefore not really impossible.

You say "Presumably what is physically impossible is physically impossible". What could this mean other than that the physically impossible is physically impossible? Therefore we must conclude that there could be no such thing as what is physically impossible, because that itself would be physically impossible. But you have in no way even defined what you mean by "physically impossible" and why you would presume that it is physically impossible for anything to be physically impossible, so to use your word, it's all just "philosobabble" anyway.

You're not getting the distinction between what is logically impossible and what may be, due to the nature of things, physically impossible, even though not logically self-contradictory. — Janus

When you say, "what may be ... physically impossible", all you are doing is signifying a possibility. So the use of "impossible" carries no weight, has no force, because you are simply saying that it is possible that such is impossible. Therefore "what may be physically impossible" is sort of meaningless except to signify a possibility. In fact it would be better off understood as self-contradictory. To say "it is possible that X is impossible" is just another way of saying "X is possible". And this means "X is not impossible". Your example ought to demonstrate this to you.

Are you sure that he does not feel guilt? He expressed in his lecture that he actually received correspondence from readers or 'fans' who thanked him for preventing suicide. He felt guilty because he accepted suicide in his writings. Thus, he feels comfortable or safe speaking about this taboo through his writings. — javi2541997

If he feels comfortable in it, then he does not feel guilt. Feeling guilt is a matter of knowing oneself to have done wrong and it is an uneasy feeling. When he says that fans thanked him, this is confirmation that he does not feel that he has done wrong. Therefore he is expressing that he does not feel guilt.

Whether he is being truthful in this expression is another question. The silent, hidden message, is most often not explained by the author, even when questioned in retrospect. Perhaps at some point in his life he actual wrote with the intent of conveying a silent meaning which legitimized suicide, and that could be an intended hidden message somewhere in his work, which he afterwards felt guilty about. Then he might be inclined to turn to the "thanks" from his fans, to overcome that feeling of guilt, justifying that portrayal of suicide as not a wrongful act, through some sort of rationalization. But I do not presently think there is a need for such speculation.

To be honest, I think he does, but he doesn't want to go further because Fosse is not confident enough about whether people understand him or not. — javi2541997

I don't think it's a matter of whether people understand him or not, the silent language does not work this way. The silent language provides the conditions for the reader to understand oneself. So the hidden message is intentionally vague, and perhaps I ought not even call it a "message". It is often an intentional ambiguity so that there is nothing specific intended by the author, other than to give the reader a chance to think about possibilities. Notice the use of the "pause", and how the silence brings one to "God's voice", God's voice coming from somewhere other than the spoken words of the play.

So the silent language, rather than confining the reader to the restrictions of conventional meaning of words, allows the reader freedom of interpretation. In a way it transfers the artistic license of the author to the reader. I think this is what is commonly known as reading between the lines. Careful attention to how you read between the lines helps to reveal much about your own mind. So for example, if we gave the same piece of prose, with significant silent language, to a number of different people, and a psychologist asked each one of them what they got from it, the psychologist would be able to say a fair bit about the different people, by comparing the different interpretations.

That's why I say it's not a matter of whether people understand him or not. When it comes to the silent language it's a matter of understanding "silent language" in general. When you understand that it works with possible meaning rather than actual meaning, you can start to see how powerful it is in its capacity to persuade people. The meaning comes from somewhere other than the words of the author. God? Maybe. Consider for example, Donald Trump as an artist of the silent language. He didn't actually tell those people to storm the palace, yet the silent language told them that it had to be done.

But now we approach speech, and spoken language, and that's where the silent language inheres. and is derived from. The unspoken, implied meaning is an essential part of spoken language. The spoken language evolved for efficiency in the moment, so the majority of what is said is not actually said, to make things quick and easy. The written language is formal and true unequivocal relations between symbol and meaning is essential to it. So it is this process, whereby the thinker who is naturally inclined to use true symbolic unequivocal relations, so as not to mislead oneself, turns to the outside world, "the others", where the silent aspect of language rules the use of language, that inspires the writer to incorporate the tricks of the silent language into the writing, slipping away from the true unequivocal meanings.

But I wonder if Fosse wanted to make fun of the system or perhaps find a way of feeling safe with himself. Remember that his lecture started by admitting that since he was a kid, he always had to face different challenges, with fear included in all of them. Fosse felt a bit intimidated by writing drama - despite it being necessary for earning an income - because he had to switch from written language to spoken language. He didn't feel confident, but this was one of his main successes as a writer paradoxically. This is why he said that he found a way to use silent language in drama, the pause. When Fosse learned that this could be included in the plays, he started to see drama in a different way. He was back to written language and silent expressions. — javi2541997

I would suggest, and this is pure speculation, that when he was asked to write plays, he was immediately confronted with what was until that point, a personal problem, the issue of the difference between spoken and written language. He knew of this difference, from childhood, and retreated into himself, and the world of written language rather than confront the problems he had with spoken language. (As an aside, Dick Feynman in his book "Surely You're joking, Mr. Feynman!" describes how at a young age he was uninterested in school, but very interested in electronics, electromagnetism, mathematics, etc.. He came up with his own symbols for things, and when he went to university, he had to learn conventional symbols for things he had already symbolized in his own language.)

I propose that when Fosse was asked to write drama he saw the need to confront the difference head on, in order that he could proceed into the public sphere. This is when he discovered the silent aspect of language, which he was not familiar with, because he was immersed in writing only. Then he found the means for incorporating it into the writing. And this is an essential aspect of all drama, because if it is simply written material, it's very dry and boring. So the author needs to know what it is about spoken language, which separates it from written language, and bring this into the writing of the drama in order to make it entertaining. All sorts of different tools may be employed, actions, body language, even the pause.

In the case of Fosse's speech one might want to say something about the nature of metaphors as he describes (metaphorically) his experience of writing as if sitting in a place inside himself. He refers to the poet Hauge who (metaphorically) compares being a writer to being a child building leaf huts in the forest where the writer sits feeling safe. Talk of places and meanings inside the mind is fairly common in the arts, especially in the romantic and modern traditions. — jkop

The "metaphorical" meaning is one type of implied, hidden, or silent meaning, meaning not spoken by the words. But metaphor is only the tip of the iceberg here. Since the silent language is essentially possibilities, as I explain above, there is no limit to the types of silent meaning which an author might employ. So the silent language opens up a huge realm of possibilities to the author, by allowing the author an entrance into the minds of the readers by finding a way to employ those minds for the development of meaning, rather than relying solely on one's own mind.

It is interesting how you pointed out writing drama as corruption because it is a paid job, and Fosse was not free in this expression of literature. However, he surprisingly entered in a new dimension which he was not very confidence in the beginning. Yes, drama needs dialogues, and it is out from the written language which he always rooted for. Nevertheless, he also found a way to feel comfortable with writing drama- as you also pointed out - and this was with the use of 'pause' in his works. Fosse argues that this is how he approaches to silence in a spoken language art as drama, and it is indeed the most important word in his experiences of theatre plays. — javi2541997

What I called "corruption" is a part of the way that a relation between the artist and the "others" is established, and I think it is a necessary part of all art forms. Generally, there is a system where the art is delivered to the public, and the system varies by art form and society. In the music industry for example, there is the record companies. In Fosse's case there was what he called a publicly funded initiative to support Norwegian drama.

The system takes what is desired by others and impresses it onto the artist. Basically it tells the artists that if they want to be financially successful they need to follow the rules of the system. In Fosse's case the rule was to produce drama. Many artists are fiercely independent and refuse to succumb to the "corruption" of the system. However, many artists, like Fosse, are capable of striking a balance between what is wanted by the others (the rules of the system), and the true freedom and independence of oneself, the individual, to create freely as one desires. Your example of Kurt Cobaine may be a case of imbalance.

This balance is what I see as the context of Fosse's "silent language". Notice that I called it a retaliation, and this is because many artists who feel unduly constrained by the rules of the system will find a loop hole, or a secret way within their own mind of getting around the rules or making fun of them, ridiculing the system, or whatever, within the art itself. That's how I see "the pause" which he used.

The pause allows the others (audience) to use one's own imagination, free from the influence of the rules implied by words, to develop a separate understanding of the meaning or intent of the author. So in this sense it is a communication without words. Notice also, that in drama there is acting as well as speaking, which is already a sort of communication without the requirement of words, so I think Fosse borrowed from this reality of drama to extend this idea of what is said by the author (or more appropriately what is shown, "to express the unsayable"), with out the use of words. It is the meaning conveyed which is not actually said by the words.

In his speech he develops this a bit further, as "the totality of a work". I think of this as what is implied by the work, as separate from what is explicit to the work. In my first reply to the op, this is presented as "the moral" of the story. We commonly use that expression "the moral of the story" to refer to a lesson learned from the writing which is not explicitly written by the author, it is somehow implied by the story. But "implied" here is not used in the sense of any formal logic, so interpretations of "the moral" may vary greatly. There is no explicit words to get at what the author intended as "the moral", but the writing is arranged in such a way as to indicate that the author intends some sort of secret or "silent" message, so we must conclude that the author intends some sort of hidden message.

In different forms of writing, the silent message varies from being extremely obvious, such that the audience cam easily agree on the meaning of "the moral", to being very veiled and obscure. Fosse gives an example of "Septology" in the relation of one Asle to the other Asle, and the hidden message one could conclude concerning the "now" of time. (I'm not familiar with the writing.)

It is in this context that I approach what he says at the end of the speech, concerning suicide. He says that there are many suicides in his books. But we must take these representations as part of what is explicit. However, he seems to have some fear of the possibility that some people could interpret the implicit part, the hidden or silent part, as legitimizing suicide. Notice though, that he does not express guilt, so this was never his intention, never the hidden message he desired to convey, so such interpretations of the silent part would be faulty. Furthermore, he states that numerous people have expressed to him the opposite, that his writings have saved there lives, so I think that what he says through the silent part, the not saying, is meant to guide people away from suicide rather than toward it.

I understand the tenses to be closely related to modal distinctions made in relation to the present, but I don't deny the modal distinctions, nor the practical psychological distinction between past and future, or what McTaggart crudely referred to as the A series (is psychological time really a series?). But like McTaggart, I don't think the information content of the "A series" has any obvious relationship to the B series which is all that the public theory of physics refers to, or to the broader physical conception of time that Wittgenstein occasionally referred to as "information time" which i think of as a "use-meaning" generalisation of McTaggarts B series that also includes the practice of time keeping ( see Hintikka for more discussion on Wittgenstein's evolving views on the subject). — sime

This is what I don't understand. How can you accept the modal distinctions based in the present, and the psychological distinction between past and future, of the A series, yet then say that this has no relation to "the broader physical conception of time". Obviously, "present", and the distinction between past and future are temporal concepts, so they must have some relation to the broader concept of time. Or would you be assuming that either one or the other, A or B, provides a complete represent of time, and the other is simply misguided or wrong, so that there is no relation between the two?

The word "present" is only used to stress the distinction between the A and B series and the fact that observations are always in the present tense, even when they are used to evaluate past-contigent propositions (which are understood to be past-contigent in the sense of the B series, but not necessarily in the sense of the A series)

So yes, observations are not of the present but they are always in relation to the present tense. Furthermore, if the B series isn't reducible to facts that are obtainable in the present-tense then the existence and usefulness of the B series can be doubted or denied, and at the very least cannot be reconciled with the the present-tensed practice of physics. — sime

Nor do I understand what you say here. Observations are most often stated in the past tense, X happened, Y happened, or x was observed. Of course the past tense is "in relation to the present tense", but this does not mean that we can characterize them as being in the present tense.

We often will make an inductive generalization from a number of observations, and state the general principle in the present tense. But a generalization is not itself an observation, it is a conclusion drawn from a number of observations.

This draws into question what you say about the B series. The B series representation is obtained exclusively from the past. It is completely derived from past observations, and any statements about "the present" suffer the problems discussed by Hume. Observations of the past can only be related to the present through some form of inductive generalization. Therefore the potential problems which you indicate for the B series are very real.

It is not logical to say that if the B series did not relate to the present tense this would produce problems for the practice of physics, and conclude therefore that the B series must relate to the present tense. In reality, all we need to do is take a good look at the problems of modern physics, and we can see the possibility that many of the problems which it has encountered are likely created because the B series which it employs does not adequately relate to the present.

A logical possibility is anything which is not self-contradictory, while a real possibility is something that could actually come to be. For example, it may or may not be a real possibility (epistemically speaking of course) that there are unicorns on some distant planet, whereas as there is no possibility that there may be perfectly round perfectly square rocks on some planet somewhere. — Janus

I don't see any difference here. If it is something which could actually come to be, then it is "not self-contradictory". And if it is not self-contradictory then it s something which could actually come to be. Your examples support this. You have just said the same thing in two different ways, "not self-contradictory", and "could actually come to be", are just different descriptions of the same type of possibilities. So all you've done is defined "real possibilities" as being the same as logical possibilities, rather than describing a distinction between these two.

But the receptors can disappoint the writer's desires. This actually happened with some other artists such as Kurt Cobain, for instance. — javi2541997

Consider the fine line between simply giving the audience what they've said they wanted, and showing the audience what they want, and giving that to them, which I described above. It's a very delicate balance, which destroys the artistry, and perhaps even the artist, if taken too far one way or the other.

I understand you better now. I agree that maybe my original post is generalizing the process of writing. My intention was not to divide this into two parts but to discuss with you to what extent you agree with Fosse's lecture on the Nobel ceremony. Although it is only a seven-page paper, I think it is very worthwhile to read because he focuses on some philosophical questions and topics, apart from literature itself. — javi2541997

On your advice, I've read the speech, and will provide some suggestions of interpretation for you. To begin with, and in general the speech is loaded with ideas which are not well presented. One could say there's abundant content with poor form. However, you should keep in mind that this piece of writing is meant as a speech, therefore it is principally a spoken act of language, rather than a written act of language, so it demonstrates that difference between the two, where content rather than form is usually more important to spoken language, and form over content is usually more important to written language.

The paradox I referred to is well expressed at the bottom of page two.
"One thing is certain, I have never written to express myself, as they say, but
rather to get away from myself."
The writing act as explained by Fosse can be seen as a retreat into oneself. So he's describing a way of hiding from himself within himself. It's so paradoxical, that we must really question his form of presentation. To "express myself" implies others, whom I express myself to. We cannot truly escape the reality of others, so this reality, "others" must be included into this statement. Therefore, what I suggest is really meant by Fosse with this statement, in order that we avoid the paradox of hiding from oneself within oneself, is 'to get away from others'.

This allows us to make sense of that statement, and also put the division between spoken language and written language which he speaks of into a better context. The spoken language provides a communion with others, while the writing provides a communion with oneself. It cannot be described as "to get away from myself", because despite the fact that it might allow me to relate to myself as if I am another, like I might be communicating with myself as another person, allowing myself to be other than myself, I am not really getting away from myself by hiding within myself, rather I am getting to know myself even better.

This act, of getting to know myself better, I think is essential to any artist. It is how the artist comes to know one's own capacities, skills, inclinations, ambitions, etc.. Notice how he describes moving away from music to focus on writing. There is also another essential feature of artistry which he describes quite well, and this is the process of being recognized by others, which produces what is known as success.

The existence of "others" is paramount to success. The artist turns inward, hiding from others within oneself, as I described above, and this is well explained by Fosse with his innate fear of public speaking, originating as the fear of reading out loud. The fear is centered on reading the words of others, probably because he does not necessarily know those words which originate from others, and would mispronounce them or something like that, causing great embarrassment. So the fear is based in the possibility of misrepresenting what is wanted by others. Therefore Fosse retreats into himself, to find and do what he better knows is wanted, wanted by himself.

Success, however, has the prerequisite of providing for others, what they want. Now there is a fine line of balance for the artist to walk. You can tell me what you want, and I can give that to you, hopefully resulting in my success, or, I can show you want you want, by giving it to you, thereby influencing you to want what I have to offer. Notice that the latter is what provides real success for the artist because it allows the artist to maintain the internal relation with oneself, as knowing what is wanted, without succumbing to the desires of others. But of course, these are idealistic representations, and the artist will always be "corrupted" to some extent by the desires of others.

This process which I call corruption, he describes as turning toward writing drama. It is a paid job, where he must write the form of material which he is paid for. His form is then very much restricted. However, he describes a way of retaliation, what he calls "the silent speech", where the content, imagination, is allowed to overpower the form. This is an example of what I referred to as the artist showing the audience what they want, and giving it to them, rather than having them tell you what they want. That amounts to the success of an idiomatic form.

Notice how he describes using that technique when he goes back to writing novels like "Septology". Also notice how this "corruption" of the artist, when he is paid to write dramas, becomes very evident as a negative feature, when he goes back to writing prose. " And during the writing process of that novel, I experienced some of my happiest moments as a writer...". At this point he has freed himself from the formal restrictions which he had forced upon himself by the need to be financially successful.

However, he also describes how writing dramas had provided him with a very important, positive lesson. That is that he got to observe his own plays, allowing him to, in a way, see himself as others see him. I believe that this is an extremely important aspect of how an artist relates to success. Notice at the beginning he is very adamant that he is not expressing himself. But then he has to realize the reality of the situation is that if he has any degree of success, others inevitably will see him as expressing himself. This is when he must realize that he has to play to the audience, and actually see himself as expressing himself, otherwise he would be forever locked within the paradox, never being able to relate to his own success.

Good luck with that javi. I hope it gives you at least something to chew on. The speech is jammed full of "stuff", as I said abundant content, and the lack of form leaves interpretation wide open. The chronological order appears as the principal logical form, so it is sort of an expression of a life of learning.