Friday, January 10, 2014

RE: Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Happy New Year,  RLG

I get the impression that your statements and defenses in your post are quite furtive and demanding. Like you are very anxious about certain developments.

It's likely you are making coherent statements from within the box of the relativistic storyline and about  the relativistic invariance imagery that you've mastered and  that you like to repeat.  However, beside being correct from within that box, it looks to me like what you are not allowing  for is the natural emergence of additional  (slightly more useful)  ~equivalent expressions and adaptations.  

How I phrase it is to point out that we're experiencing the shift from the flat-to-curvy-to-nested paradigms, or conceptual models and in the nested imagery, the developing truth is experience exists; time does not. 

Thus, where you drag forth the linguistic artifact of the so-called 'thin present', granted, if we all mesmerize to the familiar tune  all of the must be's and have to's that you demand seems so very logical. Yet, from within the nested fields within nested fields motif you (and Einstein, et. al) apparently don't notice when you dissociate from one of your ingrained internal models to another.  

Perhaps it is just our overwhelming enchantment with  words, but please notice that before you get  to a differentiated 'thin present', you sort of have to first upload and ingrain  the entire basic past-present-future storyline, like we ALL typically have done.  This storyline COMES with the assumption of a very thin present.  But more than that,  from within the nested structured~duality or the nested fields within nested fields model 'the past', 'the present' and 'the future' are also just three different structurally coded widgets -- linguistically encoded secondary associations, or perhaps what Serge might call different intellectual products, or with respect to our love affair with 'time',  what is a mis-shapened part of our western scientific spiritualism or religion.  That is, time,  it's a deeply ingrained but still erroneous paradigmatic assumption. 

I suggest that the anxiety associated with letting go of that scientific~religious-like belief prompts your  agitated demands for the 'true nature of time' a la the flawed or  limiting argument in your post.

Again, I suspect you correctly state the partyline position from within the box. But the point is, that does nothing to advance the ongoing shift from flat-to-curvy-t- nested.   And notice that even when you get through  you have relativistic space-time nested within at least a few other levels of enfolding  intellectual products, so where do you hide or how do you express the overall conceptual model of it if not as nested curvature within nested curvature, or more simply as it is as nested fields within nested fields?

I'm suggesting a non-dual approach -- both and more -- and that there is or are more that one more unified, more accurate and useful conceptual models that match up with our overall experience.  Curvy is the initial approximation which obviously works well. But the nested ones are the more unified and more robust ones which will serve to carry us forward and further.  

It's a matter of changing the questions.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

---In, wrote:

Andy suggested that the models need re-animation by inserting change from the outside. But really, every part of the physical four dimensional space-time is animate and existing at all times and places. It is a necessary consequence of relativistic invariance, and that invariance is overwhelmingly verified empirically. Every time has null geodesics to past and future times so those past and future times must have the same animation as the present time at the present time. Humans have erroneously reified the intuitive and false idea that only the present time exists. People do this because it is useful and serves a utilitarian purpose in daily life. But it is not useful for understanding the true nature of time.

It's good to review the problem with the infinitely thin present. No thing can exist over no time at all, including time. Therefore, the "present" cannot be infinitely thin. So the "present" must contain some "past". Thus, some duration and so some of the past must exist now. But for that past time which exists now, its future, which is the "present", clearly exists. By symmetry, then, the "present" must contain some of the "future". By transitivity and induction, the same is true for all past and future times; therefore all times and places exist now, just like they do at every other time and place.

All of this is true even if time is divided into discrete little time intervals: There exists no flow of time across the thickness of any discrete time interval because that takes one back to the infinitely thin present contradiction. Since this is true for all such discrete time intervals there can never be flowing inside and therefore between any such intervals. In other words, it cannot be that one tiny time interval exists and its predecessor and successor do not. We are forced to relativistic time just by thinking about what it means for something to exist. It is a mistake to think of real space-time as a static dead thing. Rather, every part of it has a kind of life to it and yet no part of it is ever born and no part of it ever perishes. Logic and modern physics point to the same conclusion that the conscious experience of a flowing time is an issue for consciousness studies. It is not an issue for physics. The experience of a `flowing time' is itself a qualia and like other qualia, it shouldn't be projected as existing in the external world. Nobody should claim that the redness of red exists outside of conscious experience.

From: [] On Behalf Of Z7
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] RE: Re: Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

I’m not familiar with the ‘traditional’ definition of process that you appeal to. It sounds very teleological to me, and not at all how I am using the word. I’m inclined to leave teleology to those of a more poetic and ... let’s say, ‘spiritual’ disposition than I have. And I’m afraid we will have to agree to differ on the issue of re-animating our conceptual models by inserting change from the outside. The idea of erroneously reifying the time dimension and then claiming that human consciousness somehow perceives this erroneous reification holds no appeal for me at all. Humans have no sense organ dedicated to the perception of time – the idea of time is abstracted from the fact that the data supplied by the sense organs is constantly changing (i.e. sensing is process, but not in any teleological manner).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment