Metaphysics of quality

[value]

With respect to a proposed explaination, one theory is that there exists a cosmic super-turtle resulting from logical necessity. You know, kind of like the logico-deductive reasoning from the ontological argument.

Would you share that theory? The Turtle theory occurs in Indian Hindu mythology, Chinese mythology, and the mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle

The British philosopher John Locke made a reference to the Turtle theory in his 1689 tract, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: "but being again pressed to know what gave support to the broad-backed tortoise, replied—something, he knew not what"

In your opinion then, are you thinking that infinity is like time (temporal time v. eternal time)?

The beginning-less type of Infinity is a concept that is derived from mathematical potential infinity by backwards reasoning that whatever precedes a begin fundamentally cannot know a begin while in the same time an observing mind can count into infinity (does not see a reason why the counting would ever need to end). The reference Infinity - as if it's countable - originates from the fact that the backwards reasoning that gave rise to the idea started from reason's ability to count.

Actual (beginning-less) and potential infinity are two very different concepts.

Yes , thank you for asking, my suggestion would be to maybe parse the difference between quality and quantity. For instance:

Quantity= materialism, physical-ism, etc..

Quality= immaterialism, metaphysical-ism, etc..

Thoughts?

It is interesting indeed to consider both concepts alongside. Are the concepts related to reality in a similar way? Do the concepts in fact describe different aspects of reality?

It seems that Quantity and Quality can be viewed as both being a different axis of the flow of reality.

Quantity seems to be applicable as a reference for 'persistence or a memory in space-time' for that which has a repeatable nature (i.e. that which is potentially recognizable by empirical science). Quantity can apply to a priori reason (mathematics) but only so by the same potential for rhythms that can be observed in nature and because it involves the act of counting in space-time.

Quality would involve a reference for the intrinsic nature or value of the same substance, equally as a reference for 'persistence or a memory in space-time' and the concept would therefore be comparable to Quantity as being an axis to view the flow of reality with. In

Perhaps the concept sensible would capture both concepts in the same way when viewed from the perspective of an axis of the flow of reality.

[3017Metaphysician]

With respect to a proposed explaination, one theory is that there exists a cosmic super-turtle resulting from logical necessity. You know, kind of like the logico-deductive reasoning from the ontological argument.

Would you share that theory? The Turtle theory occurs in Indian Hindu mythology, Chinese mythology, and the mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle

The British philosopher John Locke made a reference to the Turtle theory in his 1689 tract, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: "but being again pressed to know what gave support to the broad-backed tortoise, replied—something, he knew not what"

In your opinion then, are you thinking that infinity is like time (temporal time v. eternal time)?

The beginning-less type of Infinity is a concept that is derived from mathematical potential infinity by backwards reasoning that whatever precedes a begin fundamentally cannot know a begin while in the same time an observing mind can count into infinity (does not see a reason why the counting would ever need to end). The reference Infinity - as if it's countable - originates from the fact that the backwards reasoning that gave rise to the idea started from reason's ability to count.

Actual (beginning-less) and potential infinity are two very different concepts.

Yes , thank you for asking, my suggestion would be to maybe parse the difference between quality and quantity. For instance:

Quantity= materialism, physical-ism, etc..

Quality= immaterialism, metaphysical-ism, etc..

Thoughts?

It is interesting indeed to consider both concepts alongside. Are the concepts related to reality in a similar way? Do the concepts in fact describe different aspects of reality?

It seems that Quantity and Quality can be viewed as both being a different axis of the flow of reality.

Quantity seems to be applicable as a reference for 'persistence or a memory in space-time' for that which has a repeatable nature (i.e. that which is potentially recognizable by empirical science). Quantity can apply to a priori reason (mathematics) but only so by the same potential for rhythms that can be observed in nature and because it involves the act of counting in space-time.

Quality would involve a reference for the intrinsic nature or value of the same substance, equally as a reference for 'persistence or a memory in space-time' and the concept would therefore be comparable to Quantity as being an axis to view the flow of reality with. In

Perhaps the concept sensible would capture both concepts in the same way when viewed from the perspective of an axis of the flow of reality.

Value!

"Turtle Power", "Tower of Turtles", "Super Turtle", etc., refers to the infinite regress of causation. Or some would even argue that as a result of 'turtles all the way down', there is some logic to having a corresponding sense of eternity. The Super-turtle I suggested is that which is born from logical necessity, kind of like a tautology. The concept of a God or a super-turtle is in part, a mechanism that 'logically' stops infinite regress. Are you familiar with the ontological argument? There's a bunch more to unpack there, but that's all for now... .

In the meantime, this was the genesis of the infamous little story:

The following anecdote is told of William James. […] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.

“Your theory that the sun is the center of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it’s wrong. I’ve got a better theory,” said the little old lady.

“And what is that, madam?” inquired James politely.

“That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle.”

Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.

“If your theory is correct, madam,” he asked, “what does this turtle stand on?”

“You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question,” replied the little old lady, “but I have an answer to it. And it’s this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him.”

“But what does this second turtle stand on?” persisted James patiently.

To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,

“It’s no use, Mr. James — it’s turtles all the way down.”

Much like the word concept of emergence, theoretical physicist's tend to use that term turtle power quite a bit, as it's related to contingency in the universe and cause and effect.

To briefly answer your question about quality/quantity, that relates to the hard problem of conscious existence. Are you familiar with Qualia?

And as you suggest, it also refers to different aspects of one's ability to understand reality, including the fundamental questions of Being. The nature of the conscious mind itself, in a nutshell, can be thought of as properties that include both the physical and metaphysical descriptions/explanations that we have from experiencing cognitive functions, or cognition. Qualitative aspects being more meta-physical; quantitative aspects being more physical (with the exception of abstract mathematical descriptions). But that's another paradox (for another time) or irony for the extreme materialist to resolve... . I hope that helps some.

[value]

I am looking into Process Philosophy but it seems that I will have to do more reading. I am following your new topic on Process Philosophy:

The Metaphysics of Process Philosophy/being or becoming
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18116

A first impression after watching the video in the OP is that it is more of a religious type of view on reality (Process Theology), which might have an underlying strategic intent to make progress in breaking open the stubborn dogmatic belief in modern society that empirical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. to help create a basis for an open mind potential in society), but by itself - in practice - is more a sort of rational faith?

Does Process Philosophy address fundamental questions?

[3017Metaphysician]

I am looking into Process Philosophy but it seems that I will have to do more reading. I am following your new topic on Process Philosophy:

The Metaphysics of Process Philosophy/being or becoming
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18116

A first impression after watching the video in the OP is that it is more of a religious type of view on reality (Process Theology), which might have an underlying strategic intent to make progress in breaking open the stubborn dogmatic belief in modern society that empirical reality is 'all there is' (i.e. to help create a basis for an open mind potential in society), but by itself - in practice - is more a sort of rational faith?

Does Process Philosophy address fundamental questions?

Value!

Why yes it does. It addresses the quantum fluctuations/probabilities of randomness in nature, which analogically relate to the
Will to be and become...otherwise a purposeful participation in Being (differences between static/dynamic life forms).