Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
In which case, it can’t have a relation to anything that is actual (since it’s not a ‘it’), and nor can it ‘struggle’ with anything actual. At which point your dialectic stalls.
And yet we can only define Things by relation to No-Thing and the flow of information through things relies on the gaps, aporia, absences between them. The forces acting on (and against) Things comes about only because there is a limit to Thingness. Whether we call that non-thingness Nothing, or fishcakes, or spleen, is irrelevant. The binary distinction remains. This binary opposition is inherent in thing, and merely implies fishcakes; but we have seen things, and cannot see fishcakes.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Sure, the universe is running down (so scientists tell us), but how does that show there is a ‘struggle’ going on here? Are atoms really struggling to stay atomic? And what form does this ‘struggle’ take? Are electrons slugging is out with protons (or is with positrons)?
Systems move from high entropic states to low entropic states, energy seems to have an impulse to spread itself about a bit. All language is ultimately human language, and ultimately metaphorical.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
What do you mean by ‘Things in themselves’? I know this term has been bandied about since Kant dreamt it up, but it seems to me to be an empty word, like ‘Slithy Tove’ — and so, with all due respect, what you posted makes about as much sense as this.
In the context, I meant there is no way of defining thing without reference to nothing, or a third term, action.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Indeed, it is metyaphysical, since it purports to tell us about fundamental aspects of the universe that are way beyond any possibility of confirmation or disconfirmation — ad is based on no little speculation dressed up as popular science (of the sort that Cox is happy to pass of as solid sicience).
Or, based on the best science available to us now. BTW, I note you snipped my comment about gravity, since that would, even with old Newtonian science, seem to present an adequate and provable example of all things being connected.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Your thought experiment about Julius Caesar, even if correct, hardly shows he has touched me — unless, of course, you are using the word ‘touched’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?
An atom that was once part of him is now part of you.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
But, even if you are right, how does this show that regions of space and time that are outside our light cone are interconnected with us now?
The key word is now, over time they will be connected, but if space/time is fundamental then each point is atomic, unless there are further dimensions to be unpacked.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once”‘Could’ is not the same as ‘is’; you need to prove with evidence, not speculation, that light is everywhere at once.But, even if it is, how does that show that everything is interconnected? That yawning chasm in your argument has yet to be filled.
If light is everywhere (and when) at once, then we are all simultaneously bathed in the same universal sea of light, which touches us all.
