Success! I pasted it into
Success! I pasted it into Word and removed the formatting. This concludes my first reply to YMS:
I think if you look carefully at the above definition, you’ll be hard placed to spot any reference to ‘No-Thing’ — whatever that is.
Again, the rest of what you say looks like yet more dogmatic metaphysics, which is, as I have shown, non-sensical.
“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.”
I’d like to see the non-metaphorical proof (which, if you are correct, will have to be written in a non-human language) that “human language…[is]…ultimately metaphorical.”
“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.”
1) Which ‘best science’ shows that there are vast regions of space and time that can’t be connected, let alone interconnected.
2) I didn’t snip it. I apologised later for missing it — did you alter your original post on edit?
3) The point about gravity does not alter my argument in any way. Unless you think gravity acts instantaneously across all regions of space and time, then most things in the universe, past, present and future, can’t be connected, let alone interconnected.
Unless, of course, you are operating with a mystical notion of ‘interconnection’ — something Einstein called ‘spooky’.
“An atom that was once part of him is now part of you.”
So, let’s imagine that you move house, and want to be connected with the internet. You ring your favourite IP and ask them to connect you with the web. The person on the other end of the phone, who has read Dietzgen and believed far too much of it than is good for any human being, tells you that since all things are connected, you are still connected to the world-wide web, so why are you ringing her.
Would you accept such an argument?
I think not.
The only conclusion possible is that you are operating with a novel sense of ‘connection’ — and one which, as I noted, depends on a mystical view of nature, with all those ‘spooky’ influences.
“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.”
I think you need to re-read the material on light cones, since that tells us that there are vast regions of space that we will never be connected with each other or with us — unless, once more, you are using ‘connected’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense.
“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.”
[This sounds a bit too much like Christianity to me.]
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Unfortunately, you neglected to prove that light is everywhere — or why this shows everything is connected — except in your odd sense of ‘connected’, which you have yet to explain.