Abstractions

all possibilities eternally exist, it requires 'whatever a mind is' to access the realm of all possibilities

Thanks user, I will read it.

I'm not sure I disagree with this, but it will require more thought to be sure. Even should I agree, I would first need to rationally prove it, and then it would only be one link in the chain.

In any case, what makes you say they 'eternally' exist? I can conceive of hypotheticals which would allow past possibilities to be perpetually relevant, rendering the notion of past meaningless, but is this the vein in which you've made your statement?

hm, im thinking: If no mind like things were to ever exist, there would only be what existed, material.

Though there is the concept that like with story telling for example, animation, art, anything, everything humans do requires borrowing on past learned concepts and knowledge, like its hard to completely invent anything purely so far distant from everything, because conceptually there are limits... or something like this.

Like dragons, centaurs, griffins, for example, dont exist in physical reality, but are composites of multiple existing ideas.

Somewhere we get to math, geometry (and all the sciences of substance and their laws), and at least some concepts of math and geometry appear to approach eternally universality, like the concept of a point, the concept of a line, geometry.

So I can acknowledge, what if there was a point, what if there were 10 points, or 30, I can conceptualize all these points, plot them on a grid, as numbers, connect the lines, make shapes.

I guess the trickier aspect comes in with actual physics, the complex nature of physics.

Because I can say something like the concept of a dog and car exist beyond physics, though I am really asking that, ? Do they?

In other hypothetical realities, that are not made of atoms and em fields, could dogs and cars be theoretically possible?

How many ways can dogs and cars be represented in video games, they represent the concept, but at not the actual physical mechanical thing.

But the idea of a car. Body, holding, movement.

I can imagine a point. I can imagine a point moving. I can imagine a small point on a big point and remaining there and moving. Is that a very distant conceptual cousin of the car?

chariot, bike, wheelbarrow

Think of all the science fiction that has been written (that which may be possible), all that does not physically exist accessibly, but because minds can access potential, minds are realms of recognizing and creating, discovering, generating potential. By taking all these possible concepts, and using them to mix and match and build.

If minds never existed, I would at least argue, that the concept of points, lines, cars, 'beings', would even if not exist, still in some sense exist.

This is the meaning of platos realm of forms, I think.

Its just tricky, and maybe dumb, because its like, it doesnt exist, it doesnt exist, it doesnt exist...but it exists, in some abstract sense. maybe.

Just like right now tomorrow doesnt exist, we can not physically be shown the events of tomorrow right now, but in some sense, they exist right now, because their ability to have an impact on the now, and be thought about.

Before a car existed on earth, the spirit of the car existed as potential, and if man had never developed a car on earth, that spirit would still """"exist""""

just rambling uncertainties

but yeah, now I don't know because the universe is very specific and particular in its physicality, its substance and physics.

The car is very complex and particular (though I gave much simpler examples of like 'wheeled movers'). So I don't know about the 'eternally exist' as you mention, how many other types of reality could exist over eternity that would be different from the types and styles of 'atoms', and would cars be possible there.

There are things that are specific to earth, and the universe, and I wonder how specific. All the foods, and tastes and flavors for instance. Even the concept of taste, the concept of sweet and sour. Do these exist beyond atoms? These concepts? In different style realities, could these things be approached as concepts? Or is it eternally unique and original and one place and time thing?

I presume it may be more possible universally, as it appears the massive universe shares the same similar formats, of elements and laws, so that maybe on another planet something like a carrot exists.

also color, where does the concept of color come from? Is the concept and possible appearance of red, and blue, and yellow and...exist eternally, and can they, do they, transcend atoms and light?

Or is the only way in eternal possible history of all possible realities to present the 'possibility' of color, and these specific particular colors at that, via atoms, and light, and eye systems?

Unironically Being and Time.

burmp

does pic related count, OP?

>I do mean abstract objects in a sense, but what precisely I mean is difficult for me to define - which is why I'm looking for someone who has written in depth on abstractions. Are any of these articles stunning enough for you to recommend? I am looking to devour as much subject material on this as I can.
Study math.

Check out Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. It might be what you're looking for

look up category theory; the branch of mathematics that concerns itself with abstraction, in a more general way than say abstract algebra.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory/#3

I want to put this out there for other people to read. One of the best essays from one of the best philosophers of recent times.

selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf

Thank you user. Can I dive into Heidegger having only read the pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, a few snippets of Kant & Nietzsche, a smattering of Kierkegaard, two works of Russell's, one of Whitehead's, and an introductory summary of existentialism by William Barret? *This is a serious question.*

I assumed it was an out-dated pop-sci meme on the golden ratio, so I skipped it. You tell me, please - does it count?

Thanks user. I am actually. I'm a phys/maths undergrad (sophomore) who reads a lot of poetry and philosophy in my spare time.

Thank you, user - will do.

Sounds great! I can't wait to dive in!

Any more contemporary philosophical recommendations? I need a much clearer view of the problems of 21st century philosophy; what are its frontiers?

Very interesting user, however, I'm not certain you got at the heart of my question. I really meant to ask, how, in your mind, do you relate these abstractions to time? How do you relate your conception and perceptions of time, abstractions themselves, to the reality of time? Is it possible to separate the two - even partially?

However, in your speaking of points and lines, you have also touched on something else which is an interesting question to me about abstractions.

Are there abstractions which are humanly-objective? In other words, can certain categories or classes of abstractions be conceived without fundamental variation subject-to-subject within a human domain? Numbers and certain mathematical concepts seem to fit this criterion, however, are they the only abstraction which would? Do they even - or am I missing something?

>how, in your mind, do you relate these abstractions to time? How do you relate your conception and perceptions of time, abstractions themselves, to the reality of time?

Nice interesting question. The mind requires time to process, and some events of nature require time to process (or all of nature). Some things change, some things stay the same. The math rules of a triangle stay the same.

How is conception and perception of time, abstractions (what is meant by abstraction? everything funneled through the device of perception? Everything in the mind is abstract?)

The reality of time is a continuous 'non existent' metronome that is ticking far beyond the fastest physically possible.

Time is 'steady increments' (of movement). A hypothetical fastest velocity over a hypothetical shortest space.

My conceptions and perceptions of time, are inconsequential to the reality of time. I dont even really get what you mean, unless you are more interested in what is the reality of time.

The reality of time is the real concept of movement/change/entropy/sequence.

I am aware of this in some sense, so that is my conception and perception relating to time. But there are all kinds of stop watches, and metronomes, and atomic clock sequences, and orbits that can be grouped in their own 'repetitive velocity over distance cycles', that I am not at all times aware of.
>Are there abstractions which are humanly-objective? In other words, can certain categories or classes of abstractions be conceived without fundamental variation subject-to-subject within a human domain?

You would have to give me some more examples of abstractions (besides numbers and mathematical concepts as you do)
>Numbers and certain mathematical concepts seem to fit this criterion, however, are they the only abstraction which would? Do they even - or am I missing something?

I think numbers are hardly an abstraction, I guess they become abstracted once you reach high enough numbers that cannot be physically pointed to, I can point to 1 marble, and then a group of 3 marbles, and then a group of 5 marbles, and we can likely agree, along with many others, but when we get to the number 9999999^99999 its harder to show, but this is where the abstraction and the composite comes in, as in example of griffin and centaur: ive seen a horse, and ive seen a man: so I can image quality of horse plus quality of man = composite.

ive seen 5 and ive seen 5, so I can understand, without seeing a group of 10, quality of 5, and quality of 5, = composite. I have not seen 99999999^99999, but by compositing things I have seen, I can reason with the concept of 'larger'. Thats the abstraction? Taking elements (as I did with the time example 'faster than the fastest possible speed') and using them to go beyond what is available.

and thats where the concept of numerical infinity comes in, as we can imagine the concept of more, so we can imagine the concept of continually saying mor