The Big Rock Paradox: Stephen Hawking's Thought-Experiment

[DaveC426913]

Details are only important when you need them to accomplish something.

What an astoundingly strange thing to say. But highly insightful now that I think about it...

A poem, a photo, and a painting may not give you a blueprint of a star, but very few people actually need to create their own.

The blueprint of a star... in as much detail as possible, IS important to astronomers and physicists. But 'warm' and 'bright', do just nicely, for 99.9% of people, 99.9% of the time.

Yes, but it will not do in a Physics Forum discussion where we are trying to pin down such terms as omnipotence. The fact that 'warm' and 'bright' will "do" for most people most of the time is the reason we are having this discussion. Ambiguous, verbal terms are not sufficient.

Even you are admitting (without realizing it) that, when the chips are down, in that last .1%, when you "actually want to accomplish something", you've got to abandon what will "do", and go with the ol' reliable that doesn't let you down.

 

[JoeDawg]

Yes, but it will not do in a Physics Forum discussion where we are trying to pin down such terms as omnipotence.

The fact this is a physics forum really doesn't have much to do with it. Omnipotence is not a formula, its not even a word for a scientific idea. And how we use words, and their context and usefulness is very important, when discussing philosophy... regardless of who is discussing it.

The fact that 'warm' and 'bright' will "do" for most people most of the time is the reason we are having this discussion. Ambiguous, verbal terms are not sufficient.

Then I'm sure you can explain omnipotence using mathematics. I'd be very interested to see this.

Even you are admitting (without realizing it) that, when the chips are down, in that last .1%, when you "actually want to accomplish something", you've got to abandon what will "do", and go with the ol' reliable that doesn't let you down.

LOL. You're so patronizing, this I remember well.

I'm perfectly comfortable with what I have said. It has nothing to do with 'when the chips are down' partner. It has to do with what is appropriate to the situation, and what is overkill, in a given situation.

 

[JanClaesen]

I'm sorry for reviving this old thread. If I remember correctly the answer to this question is that God's omnipotence isn't to be seen in 'worldy' terms. His power isn't what we, 'mere humans' perceive as power.

 

[JoeDawg]

I'm sorry for reviving this old thread. If I remember correctly the answer to this question is that God's omnipotence isn't to be seen in 'worldy' terms. His power isn't what we, 'mere humans' perceive as power.

Technically that's not an answer to the question, its more analogus to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting: La la la, I'm not listening.

 

[Dadface]

Technically that's not an answer to the question, its more analogus to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting: La la la, I'm not listening.

Which can be a good way of responding to the paradox.If we define that there is an omnipotent being then how can we then go on to demand that he/she(or whatever title we choose) should conform to our logic and understanding?

 

[JoeDawg]

Which can be a good way of responding to the paradox.If we define that there is an omnipotent being then how can we then go on to demand that he/she(or whatever title we choose) should conform to our logic and understanding?

If something is beyond your understanding, how can you claim to define it?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Technically that's not an answer to the question, its more analogus to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting: La la la, I'm not listening.

I don't see how that follows. I have always had a hard time with this particular 'paradox' primarily because it does not seem to make sense. Why does an omnipotent being create a rock too heavy for it to lift? What is an omnipotent being doing lifting rocks? As I said earlier in the thread the question seems to unnecessarily anthropomorphize the being.

 

[Dadface]

If something is beyond your understanding, how can you claim to define it?

Precisely,you seem to have pointed out the contradiction between definition and understanding but in a different way to that presented by JanClaesen and myself.

 

[apeiron]

I'm sorry for reviving this old thread. If I remember correctly the answer to this question is that God's omnipotence isn't to be seen in 'worldy' terms. His power isn't what we, 'mere humans' perceive as power.

Definition actually seems a straightforward issue here. We don't need to complicate things by speculating about the further qualities or purposes of some actual god.

Potency is defined as - possessing inner or physical strength, having great control or authority.

Omni means all, or in the limit.

So omnipotent clearly means strong and in control of things without restriction, without constraint.

We are taking a word with a standard worldly meaning and extrapolating it to an unworldly extreme.

As is always the case in this metaphysical game, a dichotomy emerges. If you find you can head in a direction, then that means you are also creating the direction you are managing to leave behind.

In this example, the idea of control over events is dichotomous to the complementary idea of resistance. And naturally if we infinitise both - posit two extremes, omni-control and omni-resistance in interaction - then we must produce a paradox.

This should be no surprise. The two ideas arise out of each other as opposite directions in the first place and so you can never go so far in one direction as to have actually left the other completely behind. Therefore "omni" - the actual limit - is the place that cannot be reached.

So that in turn means in reality (as opposed to word play), a logical paradox cannot arise. You can never get the irresistable force or the unmoveable object as that would break apart what is actually the one thing. A move towards the idea of force that depends on a departure from the matched idea of resistance.

It is just like Newton realized he needed a third law to complete his mechanics - every action demands its precisely complementary reaction. You can't create the figure without also creating the ground, or event without the context. And this dichotomous connection has to remain intact for statements about reality to be meaningful - for the statement that relies on dichotomisation to be actually anchored at both of its ends to something.

Sometimes it is incredible that after 2500 years of philosophy and logic, people don't get these simple ideas. Or do they just have too much fun wallowing about in the confusion of Zeno-style logic twisters?

 

[ueit]

The resolution of the paradox is simple once you understand that a god cannot do things that are logically impossible. He cannot make a round square, he cannot express sqrt(2) as a rational number and so on. A rock that cannot be lifted by a god is also a logically impossible thing, therefore there is no paradox that it cannot be created by said god.

 

[apeiron]

If something is possible, then its antithesis is also possible.

If something is impossible, then its antithesis is also impossible.

That is the way the logic of reality works.

Get rid of ill-defined notions like gods and stick to definable terms and you can do philosophy.

 

[JoeDawg]

The resolution of the paradox is simple once you understand that a god cannot do things that are logically impossible.

It's still a paradox, all you've done is put constraints on omnipotence, which by definition, makes it not -- omnipotence. The whole point of the rock analogy is to get you to think about what a word like omnipotence really means, and how illogical the idea is. Words like nothing, infinite, omni-anything, are all problematic because they are conceptual and ill-defined, at least with regards to how they relate to the everyday world.

The most simple resolution is that omnipotence doesn't exist.
Its just a badly designed human concept.

 

[JoeDawg]

I don't see how that follows. I have always had a hard time with this particular 'paradox' primarily because it does not seem to make sense. Why does an omnipotent being create a rock too heavy for it to lift? What is an omnipotent being doing lifting rocks? As I said earlier in the thread the question seems to unnecessarily anthropomorphize the being.

The paradox showcases how difficult it is to logically discuss something like god. People often define god in the vaguest terms, which are often self-contradicting. Saying that god is beyond logic is simply evading the problem.

 

[DaveC426913]

The most simple resolution is that omnipotence doesn't exist.
Its just a badly designed human concept.

Eloquent and succinct. I think this is the answer to the paradox.

Omnipotence is merely a concept. That doesn't mean it exists - or even can exist.

 

[apeiron]

Eloquent and succinct. I think this is the answer to the paradox.

Omnipotence is merely a concept. That doesn't mean it exists - or even can exist.

That approach misses the point as well. Omnipotence is a definition of a limit state. The fact that it "does not exist" is a contentful philosophical statement in view of the argument it is indeed "the only form of potence that cannot exist". It is a direction that potentce can head for but cannot then reach.

Just like counting to infinity and other very useful limit descriptions we employ to model reality.

So don't just dismiss it as merely wordplay - concepts without meaningful content. We all know how important the invention of the zero, the representation of pure nothingness, was to maths. And dichotomously, a little later, the invention of infinity - pure everythingness. (Then the infinitesimal - the further dichotomisation of infinity into the perfectly large and the perfectly small).

God is indeed a weak concept. It avoids precise definition and so is not even interesting to a philosopher as a point of discussion. But omnipotent is fair game and holds instructive lessons.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is a direction that potentce can head for but cannot then reach.

Just like counting to infinity and other very useful limit descriptions we employ to model reality.

So don't just dismiss it as merely wordplay...

I'm not dismissing it. I'm (actually JoeDawg) is simply saying it is no longer a paradox. Just like infinity, zero and convergent series are no longer paradoxes.

 

[JoeDawg]

So don't just dismiss it as merely wordplay - concepts without meaningful content. We all know how important the invention of the zero, the representation of pure nothingness, was to maths. And dichotomously, a little later, the invention of infinity - pure everythingness. (Then the infinitesimal - the further dichotomisation of infinity into the perfectly large and the perfectly small).

Infinity and zero are useful mathematical concepts, they are meaningless outside that context, ie in terms of what actually exists.

I think the 'big rock' example is an important tool for people learning to think logically. As long as they don't get confused and think its an ontological problem, its conceptual, a definitional or language based paradox. Solipsism is also a useful thought experiment; when discussing epistemology, but not so much with ontology.

 

[apeiron]

Infinity and zero are useful mathematical concepts, they are meaningless outside that context, ie in terms of what actually exists.

I think the 'big rock' example is an important tool for people learning to think logically. As long as they don't get confused and think its an ontological problem, its conceptual, a definitional or language based paradox. Solipsism is also a useful thought experiment; when discussing epistemology, but not so much with ontology.

I'm being picky now but this is too sloppy.

Mathematics is modelling and so claims a very precise relationship to what exists (or doesn't exist). Concepts can't be useful in the one context and meaningless in the other if all we have at the end of the day is concepts by which we model.

The point I was making was about the modelling relationship - the fact that the unreal turns out to be the most useful vantage point for modelling the real. Limits states cannot actually exist because they are precisely what lies outside reality. And therefore having placed us outside reality (as ideas) give us the most efficient viewpoints to look back into the reality (in which we exist).

It sounds crazy put like this I agree. But it is important to get what "objectivity" is about. Extract the limit and treat it as the truth, even while knowing it is asymptotically the very place reality cannot reach.

And you will see from this that we are dealing with an ontic claim. A direct claim about what can exist, and what can't in turn exist. If you like, we are talking about the ontology of the epistemology! Why we find concepts like infinity and zero and omni so useful, but why they are also fundamentally the unreal. If we insist on treating them as states that exist in nature rather than goals which nature might pursue.

This is why when I hear "paradox" its like three fruit coming up on a slot machine. Jackpot. You have refined your concepts to the point they are successfully unreal. Your work is done. You are no longer standing subjectively inside the system you are trying to describe but standing "objectively" outside it. You have to move beyond the real to stand on the unreal and look back across all the reality you just departed.

 

[JoeDawg]

Mathematics is modelling and so claims a very precise relationship to what exists (or doesn't exist). Concepts can't be useful in the one context and meaningless in the other if all we have at the end of the day is concepts by which we model.

As a concept within mathematics, a zero has value, outside mathematics, its just a line joined at both ends.
You can't separate the concept from its mathematical context. The fact one can relate it to things outside of a mathematical framework is simply a matter of applying math. There is no inherent relationship. A model does not necessarily represent reality. Those that do are useful.

The point I was making was about the modelling relationship - the fact that the unreal turns out to be the most useful vantage point for modelling the real. Limits states cannot actually exist because they are precisely what lies outside reality. And therefore having placed us outside reality (as ideas) give us the most efficient viewpoints to look back into the reality (in which we exist).

But they don't actually place us outside anything.
I have no real problem with what you are saying here.. You can place limits anywhere you like... for instance if you want to narrow your focus, by accepting premises. But the model only relates to the thing being modeled in the way we define it. Whether the model accurately, for our purposes, represents the thing being modeled is a different question.

It sounds crazy put like this I agree. But it is important to get what "objectivity" is about. Extract the limit and treat it as the truth, even while knowing it is asymptotically the very place reality cannot reach.

Objectivity is an ideal.

If you like, we are talking about the ontology of the epistemology!

Clever, but I think that's still pretty clearly under the umbrella of epistemology.

This is why when I hear "paradox" its like three fruit coming up on a slot machine. Jackpot. You have refined your concepts to the point they are successfully unreal. Your work is done. You are no longer standing subjectively inside the system you are trying to describe but standing "objectively" outside it. You have to move beyond the real to stand on the unreal and look back across all the reality you just departed.

The problem I see is balancing that, the further into the unreal you get, the less correspondence it will have with the real. Objectivity, in this sense, doesn't guarrantee correspondence. Fantasy can be objective the way you use the word.

 

[apeiron]

A model does not necessarily represent reality. Those that do are useful.

A model should not even purport to "represent" reality. Models normally exist to control reality. And they prove themselves useful, or "real", to the degree they serve that purpose.

This goes back to faulty understandings of consciousness as veridical re-presentations of reality, when consciousness too is "just modelling".

If we want to talk carefully about epistemology, as we do here, these finer distinctions matter.

But they don't actually place us outside anything.
I have no real problem with what you are saying here.. You can place limits anywhere you like... for instance if you want to narrow your focus, by accepting premises. But the model only relates to the thing being modeled in the way we define it. Whether the model accurately, for our purposes, represents the thing being modeled is a different question.

I agree models don't have to be ultimate theories. They can be partial stories. But here we were talking about taking things to their limits. And the tricky relationship with ontology that ensues.

The problem I see is balancing that, the further into the unreal you get, the less correspondence it will have with the real. Objectivity, in this sense, doesn't guarrantee correspondence. Fantasy can be objective the way you use the word.

I don't really see how you can get further into the unreal. For instance, I said omni-potence would be the outer limit extreme to potence - as far as you could go in that real direction before you make the sudden transition to the impossible. But once you are (in the imaginary sense) into the omni-state, you can't keep getting more omni-. That would be illogical.

You could think of omni as an event horizon or some other kind of singularity shielding device. Or what the speed of light is to a massive object. Approach is possible. Arriving is impossible.

Anyway, the key point I wanted to make in this discussion was the way that all concept development is based on dichotomisation - thesis and antithesis. And then that the development of a concept must become unreal in the extreme - precisely because it is a bounding constraint to reality.

These standard epistemological features of our ontic concepts are crucial to understand to avoid getting mired in the kind of beginner paradox debates we see time and again,

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's still a paradox, all you've done is put constraints on omnipotence, which by definition, makes it not -- omnipotence.

Why would omnipotence not be constrained by reality? You are taking a word, an idea, and holding it to the standard of a mathematical proof. Words are naturally inexact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Mathematics is modelling and so claims a very precise relationship to what exists (or doesn't exist).

There are whole areas of mathematics that have no applicability or utility to anything real.

 

[apeiron]

There are whole areas of mathematics that have no applicability or utility to anything real.

I guess I have to agree with that.

Like philosophy and even science, people start off with tools that do a job and then go off into freeform exploitation of the tools that becomes decorative nonsense.

But I think you are evading the point I was actually attempting to make - the "paradoxical" fact that the unreal is the best place from which to model the real. And then that your unreals - your limit descriptions - must always come in dichotomous pairs.

So zero and infinity are good examples of things which are unreal concepts - and this is what makes them meaningful and valuable to the modelling of the real.

Of course, not any random unreal concept would be useful for modelling. Only those that have indeed been developed systematically from a dichotomy.

Dichotomies are where philosophy got started. That was what the greeks were all about from numero uno, Anaximander of Miletus.

And you will find them at every turn in modern thought from the object-morphism of category theory, to the location-momentum of QM, to the space-time of Newton, to the metabolism-reproduction of biology.

The immovable object-irresistable force dichotomy we were discussing here is just another example of what we must always find at the centre of any broad attempt to model reality. And the way people got tangled up in its logic shows yet again that we - as an intellectual culture - just don't really have a clear understanding of the very tools we are using.

The dichotomy is a logical operation which has proven to be the best way of developing models of reality. It is the basis of all successful thought since the greeks got the ball rolling. It is in fact the way the brain itself is organised - it is an architecture of thought so naturally effective that brains evolved to be dichotomising structures. Yet who actually studies its principles?

 

[JoeDawg]

A model should not even purport to "represent" reality. Models normally exist to control reality. And they prove themselves useful, or "real", to the degree they serve that purpose.

I'm not sure how a model can be said to control anything. Models as I understand it are useful in making predictions. Beyond that, their reality is irrelevant.

I agree models don't have to be ultimate theories. They can be partial stories. But here we were talking about taking things to their limits. And the tricky relationship with ontology that ensues.

But you're not really, taking anything to its limit with the word omnipotence, strongest, or weakest, are limits. Omni implies something is limitless.

I don't really see how you can get further into the unreal. For instance, I said omni-potence would be the outer limit extreme to potence - as far as you could go in that real direction before you make the sudden transition to the impossible. But once you are (in the imaginary sense) into the omni-state, you can't keep getting more omni-. That would be illogical.

And what I'm saying is, the omni state is illogical, in itself.

You could think of omni as an event horizon or some other kind of singularity shielding device. Or what the speed of light is to a massive object. Approach is possible. Arriving is impossible.

But I'm sure you know, an event horizon and a sigularity are not the same. If its an event horizon, then it doesn't describe the sigularity, which lies beyond. Regardless, I think the problem here is in trying to apply a conceptual idea to an observable. Absolute zero is another limit, but it's imposed by a physical constraint, heat is atomic motion, you can't get colder, because once something stops is can't stop more. Omni isn't really about constraints its about lack of constraints, which is why I think its nonsensical. Even infinite, describes a series of something, a progression that involves its own kind of constraint.

 

[JoeDawg]

Why would omnipotence not be constrained by reality? You are taking a word, an idea, and holding it to the standard of a mathematical proof. Words are naturally inexact.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Omnipotence means all powerful, which to me means its not constrained by anything.

Philosophy is about high standards :)

Words may be inexact, but when we are arguing about the nature of omnipotence, we are arguing about its definition too. Definitions can be very exact, even if the word used, can have multiple meanings, in other contexts.

 

[apeiron]

I'm not sure how a model can be said to control anything. Models as I understand it are useful in making predictions. Beyond that, their reality is irrelevant.
.

I can see that you understand the generality of modelling - which is great - but I don't feel you can be that familiar with the deeper literature.

Prediction is another way of saying control over observation, control over measurement.

And models are of course developed so a system can make things happen in its world. And I am used to treating DNA and other such things as forms of modelling.

So "control" is the inclusive term for things which include stuff like "predictions", "anticipations", etc.

But you're not really, taking anything to its limit with the word omnipotence, strongest, or weakest, are limits. Omni implies something is limitless.

And what I'm saying is, the omni state is illogical, in itself.

.

Omni should imply "all". That would be crisply everything. Limitless (like boundless) is instead about the vague. It implies something ill-defined, a potential.

So I am being careful with the words here. Though I am sure vagueness and crispness are unfamiliar ontic concepts and will cause confusion. However they are still essential to the points I am making.

But I'm sure you know, an event horizon and a sigularity are not the same. If its an event horizon, then it doesn't describe the sigularity, which lies beyond. Regardless, I think the problem here is in trying to apply a conceptual idea to an observable. Absolute zero is another limit, but it's imposed by a physical constraint, heat is atomic motion, you can't get colder, because once something stops is can't stop more. Omni isn't really about constraints its about lack of constraints, which is why I think its nonsensical. Even infinite, describes a series of something, a progression that involves its own kind of constraint.

To spell it out, the event horizon is what I am calling the real - an approach towards a limit - while a singularity is what must be unreal, the arrival at a destination which we would call "the limit". And so I was appealing to your familiarity with this common example, nature's abhorrence of naked singularities.

You have provided another example yourself - absolute zero. Another bounding limit that can be approached, never actually reached, but by its non-existence, is also fundamental to what exists.

You can cool even the vacuum as much as you like (by expanding the universe towards infinity) and there will still be the quantum rustle of a black body photon radiation. See Lineweaver and Davies on the radiation that arises in a de sitter space simply due to its still expanding event horizons acting on virtual particles.

So truly arriving at absolute rest, absolute zero, is impossible even for the empty vacuum. It is where what is real cannot reach. Yet it exists in a crisply "unreal" way. As a boundary constraint that prevents further action in a direction, it is mostl definitely "there".

I know this sounds strange because people are so used to taking the limit states of things as the real, but that is just a shortcut way of visualising matters. If I draw a picture of a house, the line is the boundary which then makes real all the space within the line - turns it into "house". So now just think of the lines we use to model the house as the boundaries where suddenly "house-ness" stops.

But hey, I'm sure you're much better mathematician than me and will know those tricks with integration and infinitesimals where you achieve great results by subtracting away infinitely small quantities - the equivalent of a bounding pencil mark - to leave only the "inside" of the quantity you seek.

 

[JoeDawg]

Prediction is another way of saying control over observation, control over measurement.

Fair enough.

Omni should imply "all". That would be crisply everything. Limitless (like boundless) is instead about the vague. It implies something ill-defined, a potential.

So I am being careful with the words here. Though I am sure vagueness and crispness are unfamiliar ontic concepts and will cause confusion. However they are still essential to the points I am making.

Can you supply a reference, because 'all' sounds pretty vague to me. Wouldn't all-powerful, imply not only the powers that exist, but any potential powers?

To spell it out, the event horizon is what I am calling the real - an approach towards a limit - while a singularity is what must be unreal, the arrival at a destination which we would call "the limit". And so I was appealing to your familiarity with this common example, nature's abhorrence of naked singularities.

Even so, when we talk about singularities, I could just as easily decide we are talking about Angels. So there are degrees of unreal.

So truly arriving at absolute rest, absolute zero, is impossible even for the empty vacuum. It is where what is real cannot reach. Yet it exists in a crisply "unreal" way. As a boundary constraint that prevents further action in a direction, it is mostl definitely "there".

But that is different from omni-temperature, which to me, makes no sense.

 

[apeiron]

Can you supply a reference, because 'all' sounds pretty vague to me. Wouldn't all-powerful, imply not only the powers that exist, but any potential powers?

.

omni-, omn- (Latin: all, every)
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1470

And I don't see why it would not include potential powers because - being a crisp thing - all that is potential would be actual anyway.

Note I'm note defending omnipotent as some perfect philosophical term. I am just saying it can be given a fairly precise meaning based on its Latin roots. And we can know it to be a reasonable idea as its antithesis, the immovable object, seems to make an equal amount of sense.

Even so, when we talk about singularities, I could just as easily decide we are talking about Angels. So there are degrees of unreal.

.

I can't prevent acts of irrationality on your part. A community of thinkers has developed the notion of singularity. If you want to assign private meanings to words, that of course kills any further useful argument.

As to degrees of unreal, I guess you might mean some concepts are usefully unreal and some are plainly stupidly unreal.

But that is different from omni-temperature, which to me, makes no sense.

Who said anything about omni temperature? Not me.

But a legitimate question for me would be what is the dichotomy to the limit state of absolute rest? If I claim that "good limits" come in complementary pairs.

Is it the absolute motion of the speed of light? Is it the Planckscale energy density, pressure and temperature?

Well, if we are defining temperature in terms of the motions of masses - the jitter of particles which can travel at a variety of speeds - then the dichotomy would be that of absolute rest and lightspeed motion. These are the two unreal limits which massive objects can approach but never attain and so bound their existence.

I mean do you agree these things? That the kinetics of mass have these two limits. Which are asymptotic. And if so, then where am I in error?

I could chose to call lightspeed omni-motion and absolute rest omni-stasis. Rest would be all-stasis because there would no longer be any degree of motion. None at all. And vice-versa for lightspeed. At c, there would not be even a smidgen of slowness.

I prefer to call them limits as that is a better technical term. But for the purposes of this discussion, omni- can serve as a prefix.

So I challenge you to find any significant physical or philosophical notion that you hold true (in a modelling axiom way) that is not derived from a dichotomy and so has exactly the kinds of logical properties I am describing.

Dichotomies define limits that can be approached, never reached. Because to get to one extreme would require completely getting rid of the other - which both being derived from the same reality is impossible. One cannot exist without the other. It is from each other that each arises. So they can only exist as directions, not destinations. As destinations, they are unreal.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you want to assign private meanings to words, that of course kills any further useful argument.

...

I could chose to call lightspeed omni-motion and absolute rest omni-stasis. Rest would be all-stasis because there would no longer be any degree of motion. None at all. And vice-versa for lightspeed. At c, there would not be even a smidgen of slowness.

I prefer to call them limits as that is a better technical term. But for the purposes of this discussion, omni- can serve as a prefix...

It seems you want to have your cake, but not let someone else eat theirs.

 

[apeiron]

It seems you want to have your cake, but not let someone else eat theirs.

A smart arsed comment which is actually 180 degrees wrong.

I both explained my preference of jargon and then continued in the spirit of the jargon established in the discussion. So I was both offering my cake and sharing that of others.

Apology accepted. Meanwhile, why not have a go at a contentful response to the post? Such as my challenge...

"I mean do you agree these things? That the kinetics of mass have these two limits. Which are asymptotic. And if so, then where am I in error?"

 

[WaveJumper]

Conversation between knowledgeable ants on an ant science forum:

The ant: "- Can a human being lift a rock 10 times as heavy as his body weight?"
Another science-oriented very knowledgeable ant: "- No, of course that's impossible, a human only has strength to lift twice his body weight."

 

[Descartz2000]

I was first introduced to this thought-experiment upon reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time . Suppose an omnipotent being exists. If it does, it would be able to do anything (by definition!). Therefore, it would be able to produce a rock it couldn't lift. Therefore, it wouldn't be able to do anything it wants, therefore it wouldn't be omnipotent. What do you think?
Please nothe that I have phrased this thread to avoid it being locked. Please keep that in mind if you comment.

But, it would be doing what it wanted. It could and would create something it could not lift.

 

[DaveC426913]

I both explained my preference of jargon and then continued in the spirit of the jargon established in the discussion. So I was both offering my cake and sharing that of others.

I suppose that's one way of justifying it.

Meanwhile, why not have a go at a contentful response to the post?

I'd say the 17 previous posts I've made to this thread demonstrate my commitment.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[JoeDawg]

omni-, omn- (Latin: all, every)
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1470

I didn't mean omni, I meant your use of words like crisp.

As to degrees of unreal, I guess you might mean some concepts are usefully unreal and some are plainly stupidly unreal.

Which would be a matter of opinion.

Who said anything about omni temperature? Not me.

That was my example of how using omni leads to stupid.

But a legitimate question for me would be what is the dichotomy to the limit state of absolute rest? If I claim that "good limits" come in complementary pairs.

Is it the absolute motion of the speed of light? Is it the Planckscale energy density, pressure and temperature?

And this is why, imo, its so easy to argue endlessly about omnipotence.

Well, if we are defining temperature in terms of the motions of masses - the jitter of particles which can travel at a variety of speeds - then the dichotomy would be that of absolute rest and lightspeed motion. These are the two unreal limits which massive objects can approach but never attain and so bound their existence.

I mean do you agree these things? That the kinetics of mass have these two limits. Which are asymptotic. And if so, then where am I in error?

I think omnimotion would be unstoppable motion, not a simple speed limit like C.
Again, I don't think Omni is a limit, the way the word is used seems quite different.

So I challenge you to find any significant physical or philosophical notion that you hold true (in a modelling axiom way) that is not derived from a dichotomy and so has exactly the kinds of logical properties I am describing.

Holism?

Dichotomies define limits that can be approached, never reached. Because to get to one extreme would require completely getting rid of the other - which both being derived from the same reality is impossible. One cannot exist without the other. It is from each other that each arises. So they can only exist as directions, not destinations. As destinations, they are unreal.

How very yin/yang.

 

[apeiron]

II think omnimotion would be unstoppable motion, not a simple speed limit like C.
.

Amused to think that c is a simple speed limit. Even more amused you don't see how it is observational evidence for my approach.

We know from observation that omni-motion (a useage I pursue here purely for the sake of argument) cannot be unlimited motion. Speed cannot keep rising to infinity. Instead it is limited. Just as motion is limited in the other direction, that of rest. You can get GR close to the limit of c and QM close to the limit of rest.

So I offer a metaphysics which has this kind of in-built duality - one that accords with observation - and you...? Well you make sniffy comments about holism and yin yang.

If you want to refer to the "Eastern" version of this metaphysics, then the Buddhist theory of causality, the Paticca Samuppada or dependent co-arising is even closer than Taoist approaches.

See Joanna Macy - Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Living Systems (SUNY Press, 1991).

 

[JoeDawg]

Amused to think that c is a simple speed limit. Even more amused you don't see how it is observational evidence for my approach.

I don't think observational evidence has much to do with it.

We know from observation that omni-motion (a useage I pursue here purely for the sake of argument) cannot be unlimited motion.

No, we know that the idea of unlimited speed doesn't make sense with what we know of the universe. Just like we know unlimited power doesn't make much sense either.
And what I'm saying is, when it comes right down to it, omnipotence doesn't make sense either.

So I offer a metaphysics which has this kind of in-built duality - one that accords with observation - and you...? Well you make sniffy comments about holism and yin yang.

My mom always said: ask a silly metaphysical question, get a silly metaphysical answer.

If you want to refer to the "Eastern" version of this metaphysics, then the Buddhist theory of causality, the Paticca Samuppada or dependent co-arising is even closer than Taoist approaches.

I don't particularly, but you seem to. You asked, after all.

 

[apeiron]

The ship has sunk but it still blows bubbles...

If you are unwilling to have your metaphysical claims constrained by observation (what does and doesn't make sense to you in the light of what your mum advises) then you are not engaging in meta-physics. Just the armchair piffling that scientists despise.

 

[JoeDawg]

Just the armchair piffling that scientists despise.

You mean, like when you use nonsense words like omnipotence?

When you have observational evidence of an all-powerful being, please feel free to share.

Otherwise, your hypocrisy is just amusing, and your insults, unimpressive.
Thanks for playing.

 

[apeiron]

Show anywhere where I have championed notions of all-powerful beings in this thread. Show anywhere where I was doing other than attempting to analyse what a word like omnipotence - introduced by others - could be found to mean. Get your facts straight if you want respect.

 

[JoeDawg]

Get your facts straight if you want respect.

Pot Kettle Black.

 

[apeiron]

Well show where I misrepresented your arguments then. Do something apart from bubbling from a watery grave.

 

[Hippasos]

If we can imagine omnipotent, we can say it exists in our imagination just like numbers, but they are not reality?

For omnipotent every weight is the same.

So for omnipotent every rock is the same whatever it weights.

Therefore for omnipotent its simply a matter of decision (free will) whether lift the rock or not.

Careful political life of an omnipotent:

If omnipotent (or its omnipotent similar) once should decide it should not to be omnipotent any more, or to be non-existent, it wouldn't be omnipotent never again - unless of course he had a good omnipotent friend...

:)

 

[JoeDawg]

Well show where I misrepresented your arguments then. Do something apart from bubbling from a watery grave.

You championed observational evidence. There is none for omni - anything.

But feel free to continue the insults, it only makes you look like a rabid troll.

 

[apeiron]

Please get it right at some stage. What I championed was limits. Omni- was misleading I said. And modern physics is all about discovering limits too scale.

 

[JoeDawg]

Please get it right at some stage. What I championed was limits. Omni- was misleading I said. And modern physics is all about discovering limits too scale.

And I said Omni wasn't about limits, it was nonsense. Round we go.

 

[apeiron]

Fine. So you say omni is nonsense. I say its limits. And I challenged you to refute the observational evidence we have for limits.

Are you saying c is nonsense or something? You will do anything to avoid answering a direct question.

So the only one spinning aimlessly here is you. Gurgle, glug, glug.

 

[apeiron]

1) So for omnipotent every rock is the same whatever it weights.

2) If omnipotent (or its omnipotent similar) once should decide it should not to be omnipotent any more, or to be non-existent, it wouldn't be omnipotent never again -:)

Nice thought but "a rock that couldn't be lifted" would have to have a different effective weight from the set of all those ordinary rocks that could be lifted. You would have just sorted rocks into two classes, the infinitely heavy and the effectively weightless.


The question of whether an omnipotent being should have the power to make itself merely potent has more mileage though. I've seen it argued out before.

Myself, I would examine the assumption that this being exists in time and so could be something before, and then something else a little later. It would seem the being would have to be outside merely space and time (so as to control them rather than being subservient to the limits they exert). And a timeless being would be thus by nature unchanging.

It is not a question of could it, or even would it want to, but that change is just not a meaningful qualifier regarding its situation. We may as well ask whether an omnipotent being would jgd[kes[m? There is no answer because the question is contentless.

Of course, really the problem here lies in the positing of a "being" in the first place as it is a concept that brings with it linguistic baggage asserting autonomy, choice and other human associated qualities. The issue does not arise if we just stick to the more naked idea of omnipotence - as when we move the discussion to irrestible forces meeting immoveable objects. A force would have no reason to want to change. Now we can see why the question would be properly contentless.

 

[JoeDawg]

Fine. So you say omni is nonsense. I say its limits. And I challenged you to refute the observational evidence we have for limits.

Limits aren't relevant to the discussion, because omnipotence is not a limit issue. Its about being limitless. Omnipotence has no basis in observation, it is fantasy.

Are you saying c is nonsense or something?

C would be a limit, which omni is not.
You can't be this dense, so I'm going to guess, its just insufferable arrogance.
Or maybe you're drunk.

 

[apeiron]

Limits aren't relevant to the discussion, because omnipotence is not a limit issue. Its about being limitless. Omnipotence has no basis in observation, it is fantasy.

Again you have not followed the argument. It was an epistemological issue that was being discussed originally. Modelling. And I was saying that omnipotence is a limit concept that would have to be derived by taking the notion of potence to its extreme. It would be where you would get to if you went as far as you could go in that linguistic direction.

So ontologically, you might feel the urge to call omnipotence a limitless ability. But epistemologically, you would in fact be taking the limit of potency. It is just the same as we use other limit concepts such as infinity. You are imagining what it would be like to be able to count forever, when of course you could never in reality count forever. But you then just take the limit and start operating with that limit concept (encountering paradoxes as you go).

By tracking the derivation of concepts it becomes easier to see why paradoxes arise. In your mind you have created the unreal to bound the real. Then what most people don't get (unless this is an area they have studied) is that extremes like this always must come in complementary pairs. It is not just concepts like omnipotence. You always must get a clash between two mutually contradictory concepts - because it was in opposition that they were derived. Going in one direction to an extreme must leave behind everything that it is not.

A challenge: think of any useful metaphysical extreme that is not part of a familiar complementary pair. Scott Kelso recently wrote a whole book just listing them.

However I then made the further argument that reality itself is observed to be dichotomously bounded by limits. So - surprise - limits-based logic looks also to have ontic validity. It is the way reality operates out there too.

But sorry if this went right over your head and made you grumpy.

It is a good job I didn't correct you on the proper definition of limitless in this new context.

The limitless (indeed, the apeiron if you study your metaphysics ) would be the vague - the sea of pure potential from which crisp dichotomies arise.

It would be Peircean firstness, Mahayanan sunyata, the quantum foam, to invoke various metaphysical traditions. Or the limitless would be a state of maximal and unbroken symmetry I would say.

You can't be this dense, so I'm going to guess, its just insufferable arrogance. Or maybe you're drunk.

Pot kettle black I think.

 

[JoeDawg]

But sorry if this went right over your head and made you grumpy.

LOL

Reread your responses, you are the one who got rude and indignant.
Not me, I find your arrogance amusing.

I disagree with your assessment, if that hurts your ego or feelings, too bad.
I think you are wrong. Get over it.

Its a simple matter of vague and contradictory defintion.
This is what the rock analogy is designed to do.
Make people think about the definition of omni.

You've gone beyond that, trying to fix and redefine the word.
This doesn't address the issue, it ignores it.
Which seems a good enough thing to do now with regards to you.
Thanks for the laugh, though.

Omni is self-contradicting and vague, period.