Does many come from one or one come from many?
My interest in this topic arises from my studies in physics concerning 'Aether' and the notion of physical space. I believe, just as many before me, that the question is contingent upon the metaphysical question stated above as the answer to the question leads you down very different roads.
I would appreciate any thoughts and opinions on the matter and they do not have to be physical or material in nature, just related to the question.
I'd say pluralism. We define an object by listing its traits after all, and there are multiple objects that satisfy this condition.
I find monism hard to get, defining a class of object by being "like" something? Not for me, noperinio.
But this opinion isn't really worth much, skimming wikipedia while plastered doesn't generate the most erudite thoughts.
Is this an abstract shitpost? Is this for real? I don't know. The whole question sentence has me second guessing.
One comes from many I guess. Counter-intuitively.
Does many come from one or one come from many?
It's the same thing imo.
It takes paragons to come up with crazy ideas that spread to the public sphere, but it also has taken groups of people together to make amazing accomplishments they'd never have founded by themselves.
Much of the idea of the solitary inventor has been largely replaced with component manufacturers who try to figure new ways to assemble what's already there. When you see one rich dude getting credit, it's not too far off from a more legal version of Edison's fame.
I'm stuck mostly concluding that information is both contagious and prone to mutation, much like a virus, and the endgame of it can produce some wacky shit. Those who've added things to this world were inspired by those around them, and those around them were inspired by those things that were made. The two are equally deterministically factored off of each other, with the only real variation being through aspects of culture and the individual's talents within it.
You can't really have one without the other, as even reading a textbook reflects both idea's founders (the one) and where others have taken it (the many). As people stop inventing things as much from machine learning taking over steering for us, we'll likely lean closer to being "The many" from technology's "The One".
If you go a step further and make this into philosophy, "The One" is classic Western faiths while "The Many" is closer to Eastern philosophy. At it's core it's either solipsism-by-proxy or some sort of reincarnating cycle.
Well that's a good question really, if you eat lasagna and it turns into shit, then you get explosive diarrhea and splatter the wall behind you in little fragments of half digested lasagna, it both came from many and from one. In the end it's not the origin which matters but the end state. As such, the true nature of a thing is defined by its current state and the rest is irrelevant.
my opinion is that zygohistomorphic prepromorphisms are ephemereally interleaved with abstract taxonomical synergetics.
This was an interesting rabbit hole, thanks.
I'd say pluralism. We define an object by listing its traits after all, and there are multiple objects that satisfy this condition.
I find monism hard to get, defining a class of object by being "like" something? Not for me, noperinio.
Do find pluralism in this sense applicable across physicality in general or purely from a categorical and linguistic stand point?
But this opinion isn't really worth much, skimming wikipedia while plastered doesn't generate the most erudite thoughts.
Is this an abstract shitpost? Is this for real? I don't know. The whole question sentence has me second guessing.
I am genuinely interested in the question.
I am thinking about physical space, as in space more than merely point of reference. If space is physical then at the least it interacts with other physical phenomena in general (this is common understanding in the physics community, especially for those that focuses on GR problems). My thought is that space does not merely interact with physical objects but that objects (or rather phenomena) are actually manifestations of physical space – in this sense space/time can be viewed as a sort of aether. Hence many come from one.
I am just playing with ideas and wanted to see how others perceive the question across disciplines.
Does many come from one or one come from many?
It's the same thing imo.
It takes paragons to come up with crazy ideas that spread to the public sphere, but it also has taken groups of people together to make amazing accomplishments they'd never have founded by themselves.
Much of the idea of the solitary inventor has been largely replaced with component manufacturers who try to figure new ways to assemble what's already there. When you see one rich dude getting credit, it's not too far off from a more legal version of Edison's fame.
I'm stuck mostly concluding that information is both contagious and prone to mutation, much like a virus, and the endgame of it can produce some wacky shit. Those who've added things to this world were inspired by those around them, and those around them were inspired by those things that were made. The two are equally deterministically factored off of each other, with the only real variation being through aspects of culture and the individual's talents within it.
You can't really have one without the other, as even reading a textbook reflects both idea's founders (the one) and where others have taken it (the many). As people stop inventing things as much from machine learning taking over steering for us, we'll likely lean closer to being "The many" from technology's "The One".
If you go a step further and make this into philosophy, "The One" is classic Western faiths while "The Many" is closer to Eastern philosophy. At it's core it's either solipsism-by-proxy or some sort of reincarnating cycle.
I was actually having similar thoughts when diving down the rabbit hole that is Jims answer.
Perhaps a form of mutual recursion is at play when it comes to physical space and material phenomena, that is space can only be said to be physical if physicality materializes. As you say you can't have one with out the other.
I remember having similar thoughts when exploring Godels formulation of General relativity which leads to very interesting time phenomena (light cones being able to turn back on themselves a.k.a time loops), the physical implicated of his formulation are derived from a universe that is spinning but I always wondered spinning in relation to what? Does space only have reference if there's something to reference?
AliceInWonderland said:Do find pluralism in this sense applicable across physicality in general or purely from a categorical and linguistic stand point?
I don't really know how to answer this question tbh. I'll just write thoughts on it.
I like this view from purely a categorical and linguistic stand point. Perhaps conceptually, monism, if I understood it correctly is correct. Many come from one seems to be the way someone thinks, taking elements of the "aether" pool of conscience.
The way I thought of an object, as something that satisfies a collection of traits, doesn't necessarily imply one comes from many. If we're to see where the traits themselves are derived from, we'll eventually get to nothing, or a trait that's existing as an axiom. Square -> drawn geometrical shape -> geomertical concept -> geometry -> mathematics -> logic applied to axioms -> the concept of axiom -> nothing. I suppose you can simply choose whether those first principle sort of things are derived from an aether, or if they're monoliths standing on their own. If you view them as derived from nothing, I guess many come from one. If you view them as self-standing, one comes from many.
The choice seems kinda arbitrary, but there probably are subtle advantages, and disadvantages for having the "nothing/aether" as a thing that everything comes from, or not. There has to be an operating advantage over choosing one way of reference to the other. If, for the particular issue there can't seem to be any advantages, then it really doesn't matter. If there are, both ways of viewing things should be considered, because they may lead to different insights.
This being said. I can't really think of many examples where this abstract thing is relevant to me. For randomly philosophising, it has no practical impact. The null pointer is something where monism comes in handy.
It may simply be the case, that given how the two different ways of looking at it are not really that different, the choice where many come from one simply allows for simpler reasoning in many cases. Just imagining some sort of system where there are infinite first-principles, it may get very bothersome to reason about them in a way.
Do I have a shallow understanding of this? Yes. Do I post anyways? Yes >:).
