Intergalactic Summit

Maybe, but it's conceptually fascinating.

Perhaps you'd be willing to discuss this at length at some point?

Schere has provided one example:

"All sets are constructed by compounding the null set, {0}. From this central fact we construct all of mathematics, and from mathematics all other things."

"All of mathematics" wouldn't be bad, but for examples of "all other things," one might search on "physics of the empty set" and have at.

Hm. Well, I consider my horizons expanded.

The quantum physics applications are a little beyond me, but for the mathematical bits, it seems I misspoke. What lies outside the Totality is not the "null set," which would be a "nothing" that nevertheless has somewhere to not-be.

What I mean, is no-set-- much more difficult to conceptualize, as an excellent paper I encountered pointed out, because it's not an "empty box, with no fruit in it," but the lack of the box, as well: not the set containing nothing, but the set that doesn't even have a set.

The mathematicians seemed to be having a ball trying to conceptualize that. I can relate. However, it's mostly interesting by way of contrast, and how difficult it is to imagine.

In this case, I need to reframe my explanation: the "null set" would be included within the Totality, because the set exists, even if there's nothing in it at the moment.

Effect on basic thesis: ... a lot of good discussion aside and a misapprehension cleared up, no effect I can discern.

... My work does tend to get bogged down a bit in discussion of its initial assumptions. Perhaps that's natural: the rest flows from them.

I'm not sure if "no-set" is a sensible concept. But, you say that you're speaking beyond mathematics, so it is there the set theory conversation ends. I apologize for my pedantery.

I hope that your confidence in your theory is well-deserved, and that it is refined peacefully and to your benefit.

I am sorry-- I really am getting tired.... We seem to have got off track, albeit in some very engaging ways.

If we could return to the topic, I'm happy to discuss depths of meaning and significance, creation, and the underlying truths of reality until the end of time-- but, maybe in private?

Important as these things are, I'm presently more concerned with the somewhat more limited truth that, as a class, we are in danger of slipping into the Black-- speaking as a sometime tourist in those not-so-sunny depths.

Denizen, even.

I'd like others' thoughts on this.

Taking your thesis as true (I am no quantum physicist, and it would take a lot of doing for me to become one), the "hope" you speak of is a very broad one: a hope for the universe, for the Totality.

... But there are too many mysteries shrouding that, its origins, and its eventual fate for me to find either hope or despair in something so large. Nor do I presume that the Totality itself feels either, except, perhaps, vicariously, through little bits of itself, like us. Perhaps it is limited of me, but the most I hope for is to one day be able to perceive it.



This is true enough. However, I am not yet quite so enlightened as to be able to detach my concerns utterly from our own fate, and that of humankind-- and the way these two relate. Furthermore, the last time I approached that kind of universal perspective, it was a selfish act on my part, an embrace of the Black that nearly killed my ability to get up in the morning.

Not insight; detachment. To truly understand, one must see not only the Totality, but also one's self within it, and the currents one moves as part of.

Forgive me, but my willingness to explore the deeper reaches of "hope" for the universe itself is limited by my concern for our own more limited sphere. There are things of value here, worth protecting-- if not to the Totality as a whole, then to us.

Hmm, could you elaborate on this a bit? I don't think I totally get it, or maybe even not at all.

Anyway, the things discussed in here for some reason remind me of a similar...communication I had with another friend of mine. I'll use some quotes of what I wrote to him. He and I are both...believers, in the 'Nothing Matters' philosophy.
Although I've struggled with some of the inferences:

But then, some time later, I realized something: It does not matter that nothing matters. (Sidenote: when I applied the same sort of reasoning to one of my other "small" thruths, 'Everything Ends', it infered that there will come a time when the time of 'Everything Ends' comes to an end.) Therefor, you should not worry about it too much. (Unless, of course, when you are in need of some humility.)

(Another sidenote: I don't believe in 'free will')

The 'Nothing Matters' philosophy helps me to detach myself from ... everything. To refrain from desire. Yes, those things are goals for me, even though the desire to do so is a paradox. I pursue them to avoid suffering.
But for some reason, for the past year, I "fail" at an increasing rate. My empathy, my compassion, only seems to grow. I fear that one day, I will lose myself in them.

I'm beginning to suspect that I am attached to my suffering. That I desire it.
I already believe that there's beauty in suffering and tragedy.
In fact, it's one of the reasons why I was/am interested in you.

Or perhaps this is enlightenment, when (feeling) sadness makes you happy?

Yes.

Seeking an understanding of the universe around us, including the scope of how everything interacts with everything else to form a complete and total existence is a long journey subject to many changes as one discovery changes the understanding of another. It is a noble aspiration.

However, we are each capable of influencing the universe on a scale relative to our investment into it. If we detach ourselves from the universe we are seeking to understand, we sacrifice this influence and it leads to a total detachment as a whole. We, as much as anything else, are a part of this universe and we correlate and interact with it as much as anything else. Part of understanding the universe as a whole is understanding our part in it and making conscious, dedicated decisions regarding that part.

There are values and principles paramount to ourselves, our characters, our goals and our interactions with the universe that must not be forsaken in a pursuit to understand the greater whole. Knowledge without purpose is an empty, hollow thing.

This is, of course, only my perception and my viewpoint and I have no intention of usurping Jenneth's discussion here. My interjection was meant to compliment and emphasize, not undermine. If you wish to challenge my viewpoints for whatever reason, I would request you do so in private discourse.

I'm usually a fan, pilot Noh, but I think you may be cutting a corner or two here.

Aria - it's pleasing to see you plugged in again, and in such excellent company. Your thoughts are interesting, as always. I detect a thread in them similar to some of my own thoughts regarding the paradoxes of simplicity and complexity, power and humility, and life in general. Maybe I'll take the leap and write them down properly - floating around in my head, I can't be rightly sure if their depth is just an illusion brought on by Sooth Sayer overuse.

Ms. Noh:

Khross-haan is not only my superior, but the sort of Caldari who takes offense at the suggestion that honor is not absolutely "real." He has, within the last four days, described me as an apathetic cynic and wondered whether my actual purpose in joining the Honor Guard might not have been to corrupt young pilots. He is probably the least-likely person to be my yes-man. Because I do desire his approval, or at least his understanding (his recent praise virtually set my toes glowing), the reverse is more likely to be true.

Let me be plain: I am a student, and most likely will be for most or all of my life. Following the religious teachings of Achura Shuijing, I aspire to wisdom, but I am not wise. There is much that I know to be true that I do not understand, and much more that I lack the wisdom to explain properly-- with or without words.

That said, I think I have provided a response to your concern already. I said that to truly understand, one must see not only the Totality, but also one's self within it, and the currents one moves as part of.

Even if the contradiction you perceive were real in the way you describe, however, I think that the universe does not share your problem with contradictions.

Perhaps I can clarify further while responding to Mr. Biko.


Mr. Biko:

Hm. Ida ... I have not fully studied the Intaki faith or philosophy, but what little I know suggests that it is indeed similar to my own beliefs.

From what I understand of it, your instincts are more perceptive than you seem to trust them to be. It's a rare philosophy that will actually preach the "do as you please" line of thought.

Shuijing teaches only a single Great Truth (setting Ms. Noh's creative void as a second creates a false duality-- a creative vacuum, or even just plain vacuum, would be included within that single Great Truth). This Great Truth, the Totality, does not require our fear, hope, worship, or even attention: it is complete, indivisible, self-contained, pervasive, and, if not actually limitless, then certainly unlikely to be seen beyond. If there is a quantum multiverse, it is that. If there is a sort of serial universe, strung out like beads on a string, it is that, too. If there are spirits and ghosts, it includes them. If there are gods, it includes them. If there is an Amarrian-style God, it includes Him. It is vast beyond comprehension, complex beyond accurate simulation, interconnected from end to end, and almost certainly looks not a thing like either you or me.

In short, it doesn't need our help, our hope, our much of anything. Understanding this frees us from worrying about what the universe thinks of our actions. In this sense, the "Great Truth" is not so different from your "Nothing matters." We attempt to perceive it, to conform ourselves to its flow, not for its sake (it has nothing so anthropomorphic as a "sake," though it contains plenty), but for our own.

Compassion, then, is not called for because of some cosmic requirement. It is called for because lacking it will make life grimmer, nastier, and more miserable, both for those around you, and, as the causal ripples from arrogance and callous disregard tend to reverberate back, for you, as well.

The universe, as a whole, won't much care; only your fellow creatures will.

Put another way, acting in ways that disrupt others' lives isn't cosmically "wrong." It's rude.

Free will is a related topic. I, also, do not believe in it, but I do believe that the sheer complexity of the factors acting on a person's decision-making process (ranging from genetics, life experiences, relationships, and cultural background to current events, ambient humidity, and what the individual had for breakfast) is so great that it might as well exist.

That means that the real question is whether you want to have a society that acts like free will exists (punishing misbehavior and emphasizing solid personal decision-making) or whether you want on that acts like it doesn't (treating misbehavior and emphasizing a positive group environment). Each will require, and produce, different small truths.

Of course, it's never going to be that simple and clean....