#parmenides — Public Fediverse posts

A Story of the Case

Introduction

Hello, I’m Roberta Dawn Ezell; but, my friends call me Dawn.
I have cancer and may die.
I haven’t given up, but I have considered my mortality.
In this consideration, I have decided I want to share my understanding of the case, such as it is.
I hope my report on the case in some way helps you develop your understanding of the case.

What is the Case?

Things are as they are.
I call things as they are: the case.
The case is things as they are.

Whatever is, however it is, is the case.

• It is the case that I think.
• It is the case that wood floats on water.
• It is the case that humans have walked on the Moon.
• It is the case that one plus two equals three.
• It is the case that bishops move only diagonally in chess.
• It is the case that sunlight harms vampires in many stories.

The case is whatever is, however it is.
When a story reports the case, I call the story true.
The case is what true stories report.

What is Not the Case?

The case is things as they are.
A thing that is not, is not a thing.

The case is whatever is, however it is.
A thing that is other than it is, is a contradiction, so can not be.

The case is what true stories report.
There is not anything that literally is not the case.

We may call stories that do not report the case: not the case.
We do so figuratively.
We do not mean to say that the story itself is not the case.
The story, and whether or not it reports the case, is the case.

Nor do stories that do not report the case provide evidence of anything that is not the case.
Our possible subjects for stories have never been confined to things that exist beyond their stories.

What is not the case?
There is not anything that is not the case.

The case is not and has no peer.
The case is not and has no divider.
There doesn’t exist anything to separate the the case as space separates the stars.
The case is not and has no before, after, above, below, inside, outside, or in any other way a beyond.
The case is not broken up into units or parts, nor does it have any possibility for defect. There does not exist anything to thin the case as water thins wine, for instance.
The case is not changing. The case was not, is not, and can not be in any way other than it is.
The case is not moving. The case has nowhere from which or to which to go.
If it did, then it is already there, and can not move there anyway.

Or, to sum up these old arguments:
For a thing to relate, there must exist something other than the thing with which the thing can relate.
For the case to relate, there must exist something other than the case with which the case could relate.
There does not exist anything other than the case with which the case could relate.
The case can not relate.

The Case is Not Relative

Some have said of the case that is is describable only by what it is not.
While I disagree, I can appreciate the sentiment.

The case can not be any relative thing.
If a thing must relate with another thing to be what it is, then the case can not be that thing.
The case can not be a parent, child, producer, product, cause, effect, means, end, part, composition, substance, body, container, content, member, class, inside, outside, before, after, beyond, or any other relative thing.

What is the Case?

• The case is peerless.
• The case is one in quantity.
• The case is total, without anything in any way beyond it.
• The case is continuous/fully dense/without segments, gaps, or defect.
• The case is absolute, without variation or change, always the same.

The case seems… boring.
How can such a boring seeming case be the same case where I may die of cancer?

Well, something happens when you consider the shape of the case, specifically its size.

What is the Form of the Case?

Classically, there have been several attempts to answer this question.
The solution of Parmenides was on the right track, but Parmenides suffered from 6th century Mediterranean math.
The solution of Melissus was logically consistent, but boring.
The most successful solution was the the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus.

I noticed what I believe to be an error.
I won’t dwell on the error.
Read John Burnett’s, “Ancient Greek Philosophy” if you want more on that.
Here, I simply seek to show the corrected solution.

All the solutions of the form of the case are basically the same, save for the size of the shape.

The case could be zero, finite, or infinite extent.

The case can not be finite extent, as a finite extent would require a beyond to be beyond its limits or through which the finite extent could loop.

The case could be zero, or infinite extent.

If the case were zero extent:
It never was, and never shall be, for it is all here and all now a continuous one!
I believe this would have been the solution of Parmenides of Elea had he known more math.
The case would be like a geometric point, with zero extent with any dimension; but, there would not be anything else but the point.

I think the mathematicians might call that a singularity.

In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.

It still seems boring.

If the case were infinite extent:

It ever was, and ever shall be, for it is everywhere and every-when the same without end!
This was the solution of Melissus of Samos.
The case would be like a flat Euclidean spacetime.

In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.

It still seems boring.

The case cold be zero, or infinite extent.

The atomists decided both the solution of Parmenides and Melissus were correct, and used those different solutions to relate with each other. Here, we basically do the same thing, but with a corrected solution of Parmenides.

We found no reason reject either option on grounds of logical consistency.

However, each option seems boring.

This leaves us one more possibility.

Perhaps we are dealing with an inclusive or operator here.
What is the case were zero and infinite in extent.
As far as my knowledge permits, I do not think geometry has an issue with this.

Everyone is familiar with shapes like the cone.
On one end, you have the base: a circle.
On the other end you have a tip: a point.
Betwixt the two ends, you have the cylinder itself.
One can imagine the case as something like a cylinder, with an infinite base.

We can have the infinite space.
We can have the point.
We can have them both as ends of the same shape.
We are somewhere between those extremes.

Imagine a point within an infinite spacetime.
Can you move the point relative to the spacetime.
It starts an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
It ends an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
From start to end, every position was an infinite distance from the ends of spacetime.
The same still holds for changes in orientation and scale as well.
Motion relative to an infinite expanse is not possible.

There is one relation that works remarkably well: division.
You can take as many points as you like from a point without diminishing the point.
Zero from zero equals zero.
Imagine dividing the point into many points through spacetime.
With spacetime dividing the point like space divides the stars, the points may now relate with each other.
The points can relate positions, orientations, scales.
We have the ingredients of a simple geometry and can use them to describe a lot.

This brings our little model as close to the ancient atomic theory as it gets.
I mention this to help ground our model.

We have an infinite spacetime populated with many points of zero size.
Conceptually, we can take any number of points from any point without diminishing any point.
We may also combine any number of points together into a single point without producing a bigger point.
Conceptually, we can arrange these points to produce all sorts of interesting constellations.

The ancient atomic theory suffered a major flaw:

Why?
Why would its atoms have different shapes?
Why would they cling together or repel or move as the philosophers said they did.
Currently, our model suffers that same flaw.

Fear not, for there is an answer.
Better yet, there is a question.

If the point always is, and the point has zero duration, wouldn’t it seem to fall out of a spacetime with infinite duration in an instant?

That is not permitted to happen.

The point always is, and the spacetime always is.

This is so despite their massive difference in size. (I so want to torture that to reference HGTTG)

How can something with zero duration persist throughout infinite duration?

This our why.

I’ll discuss that later.
We have gotten diverted, and for good cause.

If the case is zero and infinite extent, then it does not seem boring at all!

Conclusion

The case is whatever is, however it is.
There is not anything else.
The case can not relate.
The case can have a form or shape so long as it is consistent with the case.
The case can consistently be both zero and infinite, but the case is one in quantity, so the case must be both in a single unified shape.
I’ll discuss that shape and how it works next time if I can.

Afterword

I do apologize for how rushed all this is.
My life was not one that afforded me the luxury to ponder such things.
I pondered them anyway.
Now that I see death on the horizon, even if I can not tell how far that horizon is, I want to share what little I figured out.

I started a new round of chemo yesterday.
So far I’m tolerating it well.
I miss being able to take long walks.
I’m going to go see if my sister wants to go out for some little walks.

Today I learned about the "A series" and "B series" perspectives on time. B series 4 life! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series #Parmenides

For #Parmenides, stability was the only reality; change was transient.

For #Heraclitus, change was the only reality, and stability was transient.

#stability #change

7/

I must, therefore, cast my bread upon the waters and trust search engines to eventually find the few people who might be interested lurking in the long tail of the internet.

Keywords: #philosophy #plato #parmenides #numberTheory #subitization

https://ibiblio.org/bosak/pub/numbers-parmenides-20240331.pdf

Apropos of Nothing | FT | The New York Review of Books
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2022/07/21/absence-and-nothing-stephen-mumford/
#BertrandRussell
#Parmenides
#StephenMumford
#RoySorensen

@chiffchaff

Do you mean John Palmer's 2009 book? (He wrote the SEP article.) I think it's had a very favorable reception.

If you want something that looks at the poetry and the Greek, I'm still partial to my advisor's book: Alex Mourelatos, The Route of Parmenides. And Matt Evans' book will be great when it comes out.

#GreekPhilosophy #Parmenides #Presocratics #PresocraticPhilosophy

Parmenides would argue that Being alone exists and that Truth was to think - the One and only the One. In his poem revealed to him by a Goddess in the House of Night, he would effectively invent Western Metaphysics and Logic. Dr Justin Sledge explains:
https://youtu.be/rh2l8ZvG7xA
#esoterica #philosophy #Parmenides #history

@bodhidave I imagine you'll have got into Parmenides? I got a lot from Peter Kingsley's takes on him in 'Reality'. #presocratics #Parmenides #meditation

@bryankam Hey, found this lecture that explains Plato's dialogue Parmenides as Plato's own self-critique so that you don't have to read the mess yourself 😂 I queued up the video so you don't have to watch the whole thing (it just introduces theory of forms and other stuff you know.) It only covers a couple of arguments but you can get the idea from it and then just multiply by 500.

https://youtu.be/CClQSBvRszI?list=PLV6A9JHmsrDZCL2a1s4du_kO-qQcbTKho&t=2271

#philosophy #plato #parmenides

Is there any #philosophy you've read that you just think, no, I refuse all of this, everything. Not "I disagree" or "this is wrong" but "I refuse to proceed, please stop the car, I'm getting out." I feel like this about #Parmenides

Updated #ReadingLog: #Abelard, #SextusEmpiricus, #DependentOrigination, History of #Philosophy podcast on #Parmenides, #Zeno, #Melissus https://clerestory.netlify.app/reading/

Yep it is, 4.1 of Introduction to #Metaphysics, p105–7 in the Fried/Polt, basically #Heidegger is opposed to the opposition of Being and becoming (I'm fine without that opposition). What I object to in #Parmenides has more to do with his attitude toward the senses than his stupid thing about Being

I get #Plato's description of the opposition of #Heraclitus and #Parmenides is wrong (H is not about flux) and I get the superficial similarities in their #philosophy that everyone is misled but they *are* opposed on the only important question, that of the senses, aren't they?

@ereliuer_eteer

@philosophy
@philosophie
#philosophy

It was #Kant suggesting that, where the #mathematician starts, #philosopher 's work is already done [Über die Deutlichkeit der Grundsätze... §1...]

Of course in a formal system, say #FOL, #identity is simply the strictest equivalence relation, the unit classes of the domain being its equivalence classes. And yes, this is really elementary stuff, high school level, if you like. And no, that's not, why #philosophers at least since #Leibniz (and in a sense since #Parmenides), and more recently #Frege made a case for it.

Typically math philosophical issues with identity from my point of view do include the question of indiscernibles, the sense of an identity statement wrt. redundance, the relation status of identity, ... open list

Oh brave new interface, that has such people in it!

I'm a professor of #Philosophy and #Classics at #umich, specializing in Greek and Roman philosophy, esp. the philosophy of mind (#intentionality, #consciousness, #MindBody, #perception). I have published mostly on #Aristotle and the #Stoics, but have interests from #Parmenides and #Gorgias through #Augustine.

I love #BaroqueOpera, #KingCrimson, #Calligraphy (broad edge and #Copperplate), and the game of #Go.