Which of the following ancient ideas of the Cosmos do you like the most?

[Kyriakos]

A poll about the presocratic (7th-5th century BC) ideas of the origin or form (or other) of the Universe (Cosmos)

Poll question is the one in the title:

Which of the following ancient ideas of the Cosmos do you like the most?

Poll options are:

1) Anaximander: The Cosmoi are born from the Infinite, seperated from it, return to it to be again destroyed.

2) Pythagoras: God always calculates geometrically, the Cosmos is math-based.

3) Parmenides/Xenophanes: The actual Cosmos is also the God, and is not to be known by humans, but it is a perfect sphere, infinite in division, and a Oneness.

4) Heraklitos: The actual Cosmos is forever unknown by virtue of being hidden beyond the limit of the infinite changes in the progressions it caused.

5) Anaxagoras/Protagoras: The Cosmos is only viewed from the human mind, and thus any truth is merely reflected on human thinking, creating a model of the Cosmos which is in meters of our own making and significance.

*

I mostly love 4 and 5. The options are placed in chronological order, by the way I'll probably vote for Heraklitos

And let's just all be happy with the words of Thales of Miletos:

I am thankful to have been born a Human and not an Animal, a Man and not a Woman, and a Greek and not a Barbarian.

Happy voting...

[Taiji]

Yeah 4 and 5 seem sensible for me. They seem to be the same, just viewed from different angles.

The first 3 use god-models and try to say more than is worth listening to

[Himster]

I like the first one: cyclical and deterministic, win win.

[Kyriakos]

It is also (afaik) the first time the term Infinite (Άπειρον) was used in this sense, in ancient Greece. Anaximander argued that the universes (he used plural) are not in the same realm as a much larger and formless part, which is infinite, and from which they rise, and later on return there to become once again the source for future worlds. The important other thing with that original quote is that the Infinite exists beyond any edge of the universe as defined.

Maybe it had some similarities to the earlier notion of Chaos, in Hesiod's Theogonia (Anaximander lived in the late 7th- mid 6th century BC, in Miletos, and was the student of Thales. His own students probably were Anaximenes and Pythagoras).

[Dargaron]

I also went with Anaximander. He was my favorite when we were learning about the pre-Socratics, (although my dislike of Heraclitus was probably because he talked big and talked down to people who disagreed with him, but his actual theory didn't survive in a particularly coherent form, so he looked like a guy who can talk tough but without any substance).

It's always best to assume that there is something beyond the reach of what we can perceive, or rather, it's very dangerous to assume there's nothing beyond the reach of what we can perceive, because our abilities might increase, and if we assume we know everything, we won't know where to look for anything else.

Interestingly, Άπειρον was defined by my professor literally as "something that cannot be sailed all the way through." I thought that was a very interesting way to arrive at the idea of infinity.

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure what the etymology of Apeiron is, but it surely is (only now?) used also with the meaning of 'unexperienced', and the root term does seem to be Πείρα (Peira), which means experience (empirical comes from it). So Apeiron in that sense primarily is that which axiomatically cannot be experienced, pretty much as in the quote by Anaximander, for it exists outside of the universes anyway and nothing can see it. All return to it so as to be destroyed and become again part of the mold which brings life to the next things, again to be sent away from the realm of the Infinite

[High Fist]

The second one is physics, essentially?

[Kyriakos]

Afaik Pythagoras/The Pythagoreans were mostly interested in numbers and geometric shapes, so in the actual math system and its symmetries, not particularly the external forms of the visible world

For example they were said to focus a lot on the so-called Tetrad, ie the 1+2+3+4=10, which carried from 1 to the next order of magnitude (10) and so on exponentially. They are even said to have been taking vows on account of the Tetrad.

Of course the Pythagorean theorem (and pi) are clearly the most crucial math developments of the era, and maybe even of all time in human math, considering that they came about in the 6th century, and only 2 centuries later there were explosive developments in Greek math (from Eratosthenes and the sieve of prime numbers, to Archimedes and proto-calculus, and a myriad other stuff about 3d forms and spirals)

By contrast, prior to the Pythagorean theorem the most notable math development is said to have been the late 7th century BC 'Thales theorem' and proof, about the right angle in an inscribed two parts of a triangle, the third part (hypothenuse) being the diameter of the circle those sides are meeting in the periphery of.

[snuggans]

i liked both #1 and #4 but voted for #4. #1 makes sense especially with some of the theories being brought out about the universe in relation to the discovery of the Higgs boson, the universe will cease to exist at some point. but i went with #4 ultimately because i believe we will never fully understand it, and that the only constant is change.

[Kyriakos]

Very balanced voting

[Sir Adrian]

The second one because our world IS mathematics. If you are able to calculate the equations of everything on our planet and every possible movement you will be able to foretell the future for an infinite number of years.

[Biggus Splenus]

The second one because our world IS mathematics. If you are able to calculate the equations of everything on our planet and every possible movement you will be able to foretell the future for an infinite number of years.

Quantum physics disagrees... there's random values everywhere, just too small for us to notice. But yeea, I think the universe is a bunch of brain-mashing maths.

[Himster]

Quantum physics disagrees... there's random values everywhere, just too small for us to notice.

Variables we don't understand because they're too small or intricate for us to easily understand is not synonymous with "random".
But still, a valid point.

Originally Posted by Sir Adrian
The second one because OUR WORLD IS mathematics.

Or mathematics is the language we invented to quantify and measure our world. It is primarily our opposing stance on metaphysics that causes this disagreement.

[Kyriakos]

Useful to note that Math is placed higher than any other human-centered ability, in Platonic thought (specifically the Republic), but still below the 'reality' of the archetypical ideas and their own world, and moreover the towering idea of 'Agathon' (which i suppose can be loosely translated as 'Benevolent'). At any rate math ability itself - as we all know - is not tied to an ethical stance, while Plato argues that the latter is the main guiding force for discovering 'reality'. But the theory of ideas came just later of the presocratic era, which this poll is about

Also worth noting that math is a human system. It is a system rising from some axioms (such as the basic ones for differentiating between integral sizes and dimensions, 1+1=2 etc), and the axioms themselves likely are not those they would be for a species with high intelligence but other differences (if an alien being did not have extentable limbs or something similar, or was not at all mobile or crucially non-mobile, it seems unlikely it would develop a math which would be tied to differences in extentions).
Protagoras very clearly regards human thought as its own meter, and something outside the phenomena it is used to count and examine. His most famous saying was that "Man is the meter of things [...]"

(sadly Plato reverted to his own 'God is the meter of things', which did not help, despite his theory of ideas. The eleatic vs Democritian debates are also of importance in all those notions of a god or a set origin or even a cosmos we can actually study from a correct point of view ).

[Biggus Splenus]

Variables we don't understand because they're too small or intricate for us to easily understand is not synonymous with "random".
But still, a valid point.

I'm pretty sure studies have proven (not sure how they'd prove this, but I'm not the scientist ) that there's random values in matter and space that are only decided (eg. positive or negative) once observed... so maybe not random, but never certain

[Himster]

I'm pretty sure studies have proven (not sure how they'd prove this, but I'm not the scientist ) that there's random values in matter and space that are only decided (eg. positive or negative) once observed... so maybe not random, but never certain

Yes, the uncertainty principle is deliberately named that, it's not called the random principle.

[Kyriakos]

Just to ask if there is no more will for discussion on this
The presocratic era seems very interesting to me. Some argue even (including Nietzsche) that Socrates (and Plato) mostly ruined the great prospects which were there before in philosophy, by reverting to a more god-centered model (as in the theory of ideas, anyway, and Plato himself considered Parmenides the father of his own philosophy).
Of course Parmenides is a more shadowy figure, but in his own model god (a perfect sphere) is clearly in the center of all things. But the eleatic philosophy was far more involved in examining the Oneness vs Multiple forms, debates. Zeno is likely the top of that school of thought.

[Taiji]

The second one because our world IS mathematics. If you are able to calculate the equations of everything on our planet and every possible movement you will be able to foretell the future for an infinite number of years.

That's not a rationally sound statement because it's not possible to do that (calculate the equations of everything), and so it's not possible to verify one way or the other.

Also mathematics is a modelling tool, which logically disqualifies it from being anything within the model, and so at least one logical level removed from the objective reality science measures.

So you can't know that what you say is true is in fact true, and logic says you are outright wrong, basically.

[Kyriakos]

That's not a rationally sound statement because it's not possible to do that (calculate the equations of everything), and so it's not possible to verify one way or the other.

Also mathematics is a modelling tool, which logically disqualifies it from being anything within the model, and so at least one logical level removed from the objective reality science measures.

So you can't know that what you say is true is in fact true, and logic says you are outright wrong, basically.

I would argue that the opposite is more the case, namely that math due to being a system of examination rising from axioms (and further below from the ability to set any axioms) is already part of the system, in a similar way that a Group is 'part' of that Group (it is all of it) (keep in mind that it is not a modelling tool distinct from us in the way that, let's say, a 3d modeller is distinct from the human user).
On the other hand math is not an external object and nor is it tied to external objects in any direct manner. It is tied to human thought, and human senses which present external objects as something apparently in existence.

In the 'theory of ideas' (Plato's dialogues like the republic or Parmenides) math is placed below the Archetypes, which are argued (and very correctly in my view) to exist as mental attributes without any need of math for them to be there. Math is also argued to be of great use in examining the Archetypes (archetypes are, in short, the purely mental prototype forms of material or immaterial objects, including anything which can be regarded as a distinct notion in our thoughts).

It is likely (in my view) that the archetypes are a very significant part of the foundation of human-specific logic as well as unconscious mental progressions in our mind. Math, by contrast, is mostly a conscious examination and a developed tool, defined by usually very stable axioms, and thus can only be a very small part of our thinking ability in any specific system devised from it. Which doesn't mean it is not of huge importance (i am very interested in geometric/shape-based math myself)