Very well said, Z7. Nested processes. No, re-animating our dead temporal model does not make excellent sense.
Yet, would you go a step further and agree that relying upon a large useful fiction at the very heart of one's conceptual model/scientific paradigm is a rather unscientific, unhelpful and even disruptive, threatening endeavor, long-term?
Assuming we are nested fields within nested fields -- variable mass densities bobbling around within the enfolding quantum-electromagnetic-gravitational fields, nested self-energized encapsulated beings endowed with motility and many other exquisite, creative abilities---- yes, we appear to occupy fixed positions within the slowly changing geologic field, ourselves and our projectiles moving about within space and time , and/or within space-time (earth and near-earth environments), but which conceptual model actually is less fictional and more apt?
The expression which I often favor, "Experience exists; time does not", may be a tad extreme, but I see it more as an appropriate way --like smacking a rampaging steer across the forehead with a eight foot two-by-four-- just to get the beast's attention. Wake up!
Is the conceptual model of "time" scientifically correct. No. It may be the best we have been able to construct, and it is useful, but is the conceptual model actually correct? No, not really. The notions of time, and space-time are placeholders that sort of work until some of the other paradigmatic tectonic plates emerge from within the magma.
Nested fields within nested fields is one accurate and thus more helpful step along the Way.
It's rather hard to go through an open doorway if you cannot see or feel it.
Think about it.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
http://frostscientific.com
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment