Whit, others...
Trying to clarify on my "experience exists; time does not" prior clarification (below) summarized as "experience exists; time and all the temporal relations are mental artifacts/categories and only part of our map (not the territory)", and me additionally hoping to retain both bath water and baby, please consider the following further attempt at a (nested) clarification.
My current storyline has it (currently) that, say, roughly, we can dial back to the ancient Greeks who hold that space and time are just TOO intrinsically intrinsic to be further divided or explained away otherwise. Then we fast-forward along the Western scientific paradigm trial through Descartes' cube/subjective-objective initial trial theory and model of physical reality AND consciousness, up through Newton's refinements and insertion of the trial absolute time, onward to Einstein's refactoring and merging into the only relativistic, curvy space-time, where, if you want to do any measurement, roughly, I guess you have to carry with you your own yardstick and clock. (So in that way it gets a little bit "nested".)
Then, that storyline sort of bifurcates and splits, I guess into the quantum electrodynamics (abstract mathematics) explored empirically with various stacks of nested fields within nested fields. I admit I know nothing about QED and summarize most of that region as "multiple-states".
But, in others' reported accounts of the non-classical (or non-ordinary) regions, some quibbles have also emerged about "observation influencing outcomes", and in addition and/or parallel to this, the larger cultural and/or scientific paradigm story is sort of dancing around the apparent need to groke an improved scientific paradigm that gives a better account of both the physical and the mental artifacts and features. Or, as in some quarters where folks consider a two-step process, some are currently involved in developing a stand alone "Science of Consciousness".
In the one-step trial theory that I am advocating and following, I
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Time and timelessness
Whit,
Some other questions and thoughts...
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 02:19:51AM -0700, Ralph Frost wrote:
...
There is so much about how knowledge works that's dependent on temporal relations, that it's hard to conceive how it might work beyond that.
[rf] Are you experiencing time as such an entangled tenet in your mind wrap capacity that you cannot conceive of the temporal relations just as different categories , as in "before, currently, potential or expected but not yet happened" -- "past, present, future"? Just mental categories...?
I recently found myself puzzling frantically over how to make a connection in an airport even though I had left home a hour or two late. Then I realized I was dreaming and that I could let the angst go because it did not, and in fact could not be resolved as in a regular, actual experience. I was in "dream time" -- "~neuron time". Armed with a memory, i am convinced of the "past". Able to guess or expect or predict, learn or surmise developing or repeatable events, I am convinced of the "future". And yes, the shadow on the sundial moves and night and day alternate and seasons changes in regular varying patterns. If I have batteries in the clock, the clock hands and date indicators move with great accuracy so I know when to pay my bills. But, again, these are part of our conventions and map.
As well, if you have taken or studied some calculus, please reflect on the conditioning of onboarding years worth of dx/dt meditations -- a change in some variable "x" relative to a small change in "time, t". A bird flying east overhead seems to be moving relative to time, but the actual change of it swimming through air occurs due to a lot of fancy, energy-related protein-folding, etc. So, the "time", the dx/dt, is part of our conceptual map, the comparative summary, as a function a shorthand approximated category. Time and the temporal relations are in our mental map, but not a fundamental part of the territory.
Some other questions and thoughts...
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-4, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 02:19:51AM -0700, Ralph Frost wrote:
...
There is so much about how knowledge works that's dependent on temporal relations, that it's hard to conceive how it might work beyond that.
[rf] Are you experiencing time as such an entangled tenet in your mind wrap capacity that you cannot conceive of the temporal relations just as different categories , as in "before, currently, potential or expected but not yet happened" -- "past, present, future"? Just mental categories...?
I recently found myself puzzling frantically over how to make a connection in an airport even though I had left home a hour or two late. Then I realized I was dreaming and that I could let the angst go because it did not, and in fact could not be resolved as in a regular, actual experience. I was in "dream time" -- "~neuron time". Armed with a memory, i am convinced of the "past". Able to guess or expect or predict, learn or surmise developing or repeatable events, I am convinced of the "future". And yes, the shadow on the sundial moves and night and day alternate and seasons changes in regular varying patterns. If I have batteries in the clock, the clock hands and date indicators move with great accuracy so I know when to pay my bills. But, again, these are part of our conventions and map.
As well, if you have taken or studied some calculus, please reflect on the conditioning of onboarding years worth of dx/dt meditations -- a change in some variable "x" relative to a small change in "time, t". A bird flying east overhead seems to be moving relative to time, but the actual change of it swimming through air occurs due to a lot of fancy, energy-related protein-folding, etc. So, the "time", the dx/dt, is part of our conceptual map, the comparative summary, as a function a shorthand approximated category. Time and the temporal relations are in our mental map, but not a fundamental part of the territory.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Common denominator of all ontologies and epistemologies
Bruno,
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Re: non-communicable truth, please notice that apparently I did communicate it so it's no longer non-communicable. Regarding, East and West, my perspective is the two are linked in a structural ~self-reference, just a convention, one being the ~opposite (dual) of the other relative to the Earth spinning on its axis in a particular way relative to "north".
You know, rather than continue to hide behind, "...[that] is too imprecise for me...", you could try to consider or learn, perhaps ask a question or two...
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ralph,On 7 May 2018, at 21:17, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno,You might try to reflect, perhaps, asymptotically, upon our reality as being nested structured~duality, fitting with Kushal's imagery/analogy with gas/liquid/solid, and observing the continuum as being within that sort of a nested fashion, including the remaining unknowns, where the ontology and epistemology are one.It is too much imprecise for me, so I can’t reflect on this. I doubt that the ontology and epistemology can be one, except from an epistemological perspective (which I guess is what you mean, but that is either the worst illusion, or a non communicable truth related to enlightenment. I explain this in my paper of East and West, but I don’t find the reference right now(*)).
Re: non-communicable truth, please notice that apparently I did communicate it so it's no longer non-communicable. Regarding, East and West, my perspective is the two are linked in a structural ~self-reference, just a convention, one being the ~opposite (dual) of the other relative to the Earth spinning on its axis in a particular way relative to "north".
You know, rather than continue to hide behind, "...[that] is too imprecise for me...", you could try to consider or learn, perhaps ask a question or two...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)