Regarding conspiracay to destroy middle class:
My first inclination is to balk at suspicion of grand conspiracy. After all, to plot long-range conspiracy, godless commies would need to be united by strong motivators. But how could they sustain such strong, caring levels of motivation, so long as their underlying creed is based on “scientific indifference”? What could unite them to care so deeply to resort to grand stratagems to try to remake the world under their vision? Upon reflection, I perceive that, indeed, a twisted mix of motivators could sufficiently carry them along in such quest. Such mix may consist in the following.
Marxists and others who seek “objectively complete” solutions for governance are driven by a mix of motivations:
1) They may have grown up conditioned to hate and envy the material success and spiritual happiness of all individual strivers who do not subscribe to their “objective” faith in collectivism.
2) They have learned, consciously or subconsciously, that competition to take over the fruits of individual entrepreneurs is eased by rationalizing communal, gang style competition over individual style competition. Many commies believe less in world peace than in rationalizing gangster predations. They “refine” individual competition and free enterprise by subjecting them to competition among minority gangs and gang style enterprisers.
3) Experience has indoctrinated them to believe in a kind of social Darwinism, which has twisted their minds to subscribe to a notion of natural and social entitlement for those communal gangs that are most deceitful and vicious, in order to reduce all less worthies to servitude or dhimminitude.
4) Their academic apologists seek a completely objective or indifferent accounting for all that is subjective, i.e., they want to show by “objective reason” (or force) the “falseness” (or weakness) of systems that purport to respect individual freedom of conscience.
5) Events have reduced them to frightened opportunists, blowing in the wind, mouthing platitudes and rationalizations of entitlement.
Whatever the reasons or causes, the result is inhuman: surrender or submission of individual freedom of mind.
Root them out!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Lolipop Liberalism
Neo-Maoism:
Those whose thinking remains rutted in childlike feelings will always consider themselves to be "good liberals," because they believe the State should make everything fair. They never really got over Santa Claus. They just changed his name to Statey Claus. It is their belief in Statey Claus that saves them. They need not do any hard work; they need not think to draw any hard lines. But a real liberal, as opposed to a la la liberal, should be grown up. Today, none are. Today, all liberals have been replaced by lolipop liberals. And their leaders have tenure at Harvard.
Those whose thinking remains rutted in childlike feelings will always consider themselves to be "good liberals," because they believe the State should make everything fair. They never really got over Santa Claus. They just changed his name to Statey Claus. It is their belief in Statey Claus that saves them. They need not do any hard work; they need not think to draw any hard lines. But a real liberal, as opposed to a la la liberal, should be grown up. Today, none are. Today, all liberals have been replaced by lolipop liberals. And their leaders have tenure at Harvard.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy:
There is no way to win with those most prone to holler “Hypocrite!” because, as Godel proved, there is no such thing as a non-trivial, perfectly consistent set of rules. A lot of folks will never be satisfied because they are hell bent to press beyond practical limits. So there will always be outbreaks of "hypocrisy." You can no more satisfy the hole in these folks' souls than you can satisfactorily answer a child's perpetual question, "Why?" And when you let instances of “hypocrisy” collapse your rule of practice, then, figuratively, you just facilitate a closer slouch towards Gomorrah (usually by anti-establishment leftists).
IMHO, it is not hypocritical to try to maintain standards. What is far more insidious and dangerously hypocritical is to pretend that objective perfection for enforcing rules is possible or even desirable. Complainers tend to embody the reason for the injunction: Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. (Classic example: tottering American system of arcane and indecipherable rules of legalese, now built up within a thick jungle of greedy, jealous, and conflicting regulatory bodies. We got here because many secular perfectionists actually believe legal utopia is possible.)
One needs to pursue consistency so far as is practical, while still enforcing lines for defending civil discourse. But we will often fail, unavoidably.
This is all the more true for a forum for the controversial exchange of ideas. A lot of folks see Blog rules as a red flag, and they are hell bent to deconstruct them. So rules will not be preserved by constructing a perfectly objective system of exceptions upon exceptions, because no such a system exists. In the end, it comes down more or less to a child's acceptance of judgment of a "parent."
While I personally agree with “Second Amendment Sentiments,” there are other forums for fleshing those sentiments out. Any actual incitement “to arms” is hardly to be served at any Blog that hopes to preserve a lasting public forum for civil exchange of ideas.
One could reply to a complainer that we do the best we can, and then cite to Godel. Let him prove Godel wrong, without being a hypocrite.
There is no objective source of completeness or consistency. To get completeness, one must punt to subjective choice and decision (i.e., a Parent who says, "Because I said so"). Even then, there may be completeness, but not perfect consistency or coherence. But there is meaning, interest, and caring.
There is no way to win with those most prone to holler “Hypocrite!” because, as Godel proved, there is no such thing as a non-trivial, perfectly consistent set of rules. A lot of folks will never be satisfied because they are hell bent to press beyond practical limits. So there will always be outbreaks of "hypocrisy." You can no more satisfy the hole in these folks' souls than you can satisfactorily answer a child's perpetual question, "Why?" And when you let instances of “hypocrisy” collapse your rule of practice, then, figuratively, you just facilitate a closer slouch towards Gomorrah (usually by anti-establishment leftists).
IMHO, it is not hypocritical to try to maintain standards. What is far more insidious and dangerously hypocritical is to pretend that objective perfection for enforcing rules is possible or even desirable. Complainers tend to embody the reason for the injunction: Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. (Classic example: tottering American system of arcane and indecipherable rules of legalese, now built up within a thick jungle of greedy, jealous, and conflicting regulatory bodies. We got here because many secular perfectionists actually believe legal utopia is possible.)
One needs to pursue consistency so far as is practical, while still enforcing lines for defending civil discourse. But we will often fail, unavoidably.
This is all the more true for a forum for the controversial exchange of ideas. A lot of folks see Blog rules as a red flag, and they are hell bent to deconstruct them. So rules will not be preserved by constructing a perfectly objective system of exceptions upon exceptions, because no such a system exists. In the end, it comes down more or less to a child's acceptance of judgment of a "parent."
While I personally agree with “Second Amendment Sentiments,” there are other forums for fleshing those sentiments out. Any actual incitement “to arms” is hardly to be served at any Blog that hopes to preserve a lasting public forum for civil exchange of ideas.
One could reply to a complainer that we do the best we can, and then cite to Godel. Let him prove Godel wrong, without being a hypocrite.
There is no objective source of completeness or consistency. To get completeness, one must punt to subjective choice and decision (i.e., a Parent who says, "Because I said so"). Even then, there may be completeness, but not perfect consistency or coherence. But there is meaning, interest, and caring.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
TRINITY
TRINITY:
With any appearance of two of (measurable) [1] Mass (“Father,” in its fuzzy, pre-measurably observed collapse?), [2] Consciousness (“Son”?), and [3] Information (“Holy Ghost”?), the third is a necessary accompaniment. Of the Trinity, none can exist by itself, though each may reflect a different perspective of itself in respect of its interrelation to the other two. Each will most subjectively and intimately sense itself to be conscious, and will objectify the other two as consisting in mass and information. Yet, each may intuit that it also may be objectified by the other two, and not directly or measurably be sensed by them as being conscious.
Intuitively, the only possibility is to have perspectives for all three: mass, consciousness, and information. So information is a constant accompaniment to the existent Trinity. No matter the form or perspective by which information is expressed, any such expression must necessarily be synchronized (“finely tuned”) in respect of its Source, i.e., the Trinity.
Information entails a mathematical and sequential perspective for an organization of the “eternal-present,” and necessarily implicates mass and consciousness. This implicates inherent potential for expressing sequential arrangements. Time is purely a derivative, which, without information, would connote no meaning as anything in-itself. In accompanying capacities for reacting to feedback (mathematically and alternatively, both discretely and continuously) as information is organized, information implicates plural perspectives of consciousness. May Information (Holy Ghost?) also implicate a singular Consciousness (Son?) of perspectives?
In respect that meta-mass (fuzzy, un-collapsed mass) is not measurable, could “math-in-itself” (Information; Holy Ghost?) “be the territory” for objectifying relationships? But how could a meta-math which pertains only to other math, thereby and on its own, constitute the superior Source from which all other relationships, reactions, signs, sensations, and perspectives of consciousness are tricked out, translated, and derived? Must not any such meta-math implicate some essence or Source which has aspects beyond mere math, beyond mortal capacity to sense, measure, or comprehend? Must not such Source (aka, “God”) consist with that which mortals subjectively intuit, appreciate, empathize with, and remain generally receptive to, but unable to measure or objectify?
Mass-in-itself does not exist. In relation to Information or Consciousness, Mass does exist. It exists in holistic relation, and also in lower, derivative, particular relation. In holistic relation, it is meta, i.e., beyond our precise measure or reduction. “Meta-holistic-mass-energy” is inherent with our being’ness. But it is not quite like the practical, relational mass that mortals measure or deal with on a practicable basis. Rather, to us, in its meta-holistic sense, it is “spiritual.”
With any appearance of two of (measurable) [1] Mass (“Father,” in its fuzzy, pre-measurably observed collapse?), [2] Consciousness (“Son”?), and [3] Information (“Holy Ghost”?), the third is a necessary accompaniment. Of the Trinity, none can exist by itself, though each may reflect a different perspective of itself in respect of its interrelation to the other two. Each will most subjectively and intimately sense itself to be conscious, and will objectify the other two as consisting in mass and information. Yet, each may intuit that it also may be objectified by the other two, and not directly or measurably be sensed by them as being conscious.
Intuitively, the only possibility is to have perspectives for all three: mass, consciousness, and information. So information is a constant accompaniment to the existent Trinity. No matter the form or perspective by which information is expressed, any such expression must necessarily be synchronized (“finely tuned”) in respect of its Source, i.e., the Trinity.
Information entails a mathematical and sequential perspective for an organization of the “eternal-present,” and necessarily implicates mass and consciousness. This implicates inherent potential for expressing sequential arrangements. Time is purely a derivative, which, without information, would connote no meaning as anything in-itself. In accompanying capacities for reacting to feedback (mathematically and alternatively, both discretely and continuously) as information is organized, information implicates plural perspectives of consciousness. May Information (Holy Ghost?) also implicate a singular Consciousness (Son?) of perspectives?
In respect that meta-mass (fuzzy, un-collapsed mass) is not measurable, could “math-in-itself” (Information; Holy Ghost?) “be the territory” for objectifying relationships? But how could a meta-math which pertains only to other math, thereby and on its own, constitute the superior Source from which all other relationships, reactions, signs, sensations, and perspectives of consciousness are tricked out, translated, and derived? Must not any such meta-math implicate some essence or Source which has aspects beyond mere math, beyond mortal capacity to sense, measure, or comprehend? Must not such Source (aka, “God”) consist with that which mortals subjectively intuit, appreciate, empathize with, and remain generally receptive to, but unable to measure or objectify?
Mass-in-itself does not exist. In relation to Information or Consciousness, Mass does exist. It exists in holistic relation, and also in lower, derivative, particular relation. In holistic relation, it is meta, i.e., beyond our precise measure or reduction. “Meta-holistic-mass-energy” is inherent with our being’ness. But it is not quite like the practical, relational mass that mortals measure or deal with on a practicable basis. Rather, to us, in its meta-holistic sense, it is “spiritual.”
Monday, January 4, 2010
HIGHER CIVILIZATION
HIGHER CIVILIZATION:
Perhaps, Two Holistic Meta-Essences exist for accumulating, reshaping, or storing information, each being controlled by its own algorithm. The algorithms inter-react, each being asymmetrical to the other. The algorithms simultaneously process giving and taking, feeding and reflecting asymmetrical information back and forth between themselves, always preserving a balance. Holistically, each meta-essence, in how it trades information with the other, may be conceptualized as being “meta-conscious.”
One Meta-Essence may be “like” a sum of discrete particles, each particle carrying a “fractal seed” or interpretative replication of the whole. The other Meta-Essence may be “like” a continuous wave. The interacting interrelation of these Essences may produce information, the interpretation of which will depend upon context of relation, i.e., meta-point of recordation and meta-frame of reference.
Each Essence will only sense Itself and the Other in respect of how It experiences informational feedback that derives out of how it is affected by the Other. Each Essence knows Itself, whether holistically or sub-particularly, only because of the Other’s effect upon It.
Each sub-particular or mortal perspective that derives out of the interaction of the Essences must be modeled, based either with a conception of information as being derivative of discrete particles or a conception of information as being derivative of continuous waves. However, no such perspective can be interpreted in respect of any measurably complete, consistent, coherent, or unified model in itself, because sub-particular information is inherently to be experienced relationally, not independently-in-itself.
That is, no single, mortal perspective can precisely and simultaneously model a recorded event from the plural of perspectives of particle discreteness and of wave continuousness. Rather, each perspective must experience each event in one or the other of the different ways for focusing and relating, in a chronological sequence, and cannot collapse an inherent plurality of experiential options and chronological sequencing into a single way of modeling. That is, no particular, mortal perspective can experience information from a holistic model.
Information necessarily has potential for being interpreted from any number of different, particular perspectives, subject to any number of wider frames of reference by which it may be contextualized. As aspects of information evolve, particular perspectives may become self-replicating within sustaining niches. Perspectives may experience reactions or sensations: of being reactive, alive, conscious, self conscious, conscious of others, and eventually, perspectives may intuit consciousness of the Meta-Essences, i.e., the constant inter-reacting Source for availing ever-changing feedback of information.
So the Source is constant, always existing in the present. And the informational feedback, when experienced reactively, is chronologically organized. Information, as it effects or records reactions, is chronologically organized. Memory is merely a complex function for organizing overlays of informational feedback. As informational feedback changes and reshapes, memories change and eventually lose fine details.
The interactions of the two Meta-Essences produce epiphenomena in the nature of Perspectives of Consciousness, both holistic and particular. “I” am a particular perspective produced out of their interaction. “I” am evolved to sense with fine detail only that which I am presently focusing upon. I may derive precise models for measuring, replicating, and directing that which I am able to focus upon. However, being particular, I can never focus simultaneously upon the synchronizing whole as it unfolds around me. At my fuzzy interface with the whole, I proceed with intuition, practice, skill, luck, and faith. Even so, how that fuzzy interface unfolds is also seeded within my perspective, which is a part of it.
Information, as a concept, is meta-preserved. Qualities of perspectives of information are meta-preserved. But fine details about chronological experiences are preserved only during their epiphenomenal serviceability. Within the different meta-perspective of each of the two essences, the holistic counterpart for the information that constitutes “me” is not entirely lost, but it is continuously subjected to new forms, shapes, and even chronologies.
The past exists insofar as storage of memory of it carries forward epiphenomenal after-effects. The past does not exist as a thing or as it was; but information and appreciation regarding the effects of the past is continuously processed and re-mixed. That is, identities of consciousness continue to exist, but their quality is subject to continuous change. “I” will be re-mixed, in a series of chronological forms, some of which may or may not intuit or appreciate the general inter-relation of all perspectives of “I-ness.”
In higher, more enlightened perspectives of I-ness, there will be empathetic appreciation of our common Source. Perhaps the Meta-Essences are seeking to produce those higher grounds of unfolding civilizations.
Perhaps, Two Holistic Meta-Essences exist for accumulating, reshaping, or storing information, each being controlled by its own algorithm. The algorithms inter-react, each being asymmetrical to the other. The algorithms simultaneously process giving and taking, feeding and reflecting asymmetrical information back and forth between themselves, always preserving a balance. Holistically, each meta-essence, in how it trades information with the other, may be conceptualized as being “meta-conscious.”
One Meta-Essence may be “like” a sum of discrete particles, each particle carrying a “fractal seed” or interpretative replication of the whole. The other Meta-Essence may be “like” a continuous wave. The interacting interrelation of these Essences may produce information, the interpretation of which will depend upon context of relation, i.e., meta-point of recordation and meta-frame of reference.
Each Essence will only sense Itself and the Other in respect of how It experiences informational feedback that derives out of how it is affected by the Other. Each Essence knows Itself, whether holistically or sub-particularly, only because of the Other’s effect upon It.
Each sub-particular or mortal perspective that derives out of the interaction of the Essences must be modeled, based either with a conception of information as being derivative of discrete particles or a conception of information as being derivative of continuous waves. However, no such perspective can be interpreted in respect of any measurably complete, consistent, coherent, or unified model in itself, because sub-particular information is inherently to be experienced relationally, not independently-in-itself.
That is, no single, mortal perspective can precisely and simultaneously model a recorded event from the plural of perspectives of particle discreteness and of wave continuousness. Rather, each perspective must experience each event in one or the other of the different ways for focusing and relating, in a chronological sequence, and cannot collapse an inherent plurality of experiential options and chronological sequencing into a single way of modeling. That is, no particular, mortal perspective can experience information from a holistic model.
Information necessarily has potential for being interpreted from any number of different, particular perspectives, subject to any number of wider frames of reference by which it may be contextualized. As aspects of information evolve, particular perspectives may become self-replicating within sustaining niches. Perspectives may experience reactions or sensations: of being reactive, alive, conscious, self conscious, conscious of others, and eventually, perspectives may intuit consciousness of the Meta-Essences, i.e., the constant inter-reacting Source for availing ever-changing feedback of information.
So the Source is constant, always existing in the present. And the informational feedback, when experienced reactively, is chronologically organized. Information, as it effects or records reactions, is chronologically organized. Memory is merely a complex function for organizing overlays of informational feedback. As informational feedback changes and reshapes, memories change and eventually lose fine details.
The interactions of the two Meta-Essences produce epiphenomena in the nature of Perspectives of Consciousness, both holistic and particular. “I” am a particular perspective produced out of their interaction. “I” am evolved to sense with fine detail only that which I am presently focusing upon. I may derive precise models for measuring, replicating, and directing that which I am able to focus upon. However, being particular, I can never focus simultaneously upon the synchronizing whole as it unfolds around me. At my fuzzy interface with the whole, I proceed with intuition, practice, skill, luck, and faith. Even so, how that fuzzy interface unfolds is also seeded within my perspective, which is a part of it.
Information, as a concept, is meta-preserved. Qualities of perspectives of information are meta-preserved. But fine details about chronological experiences are preserved only during their epiphenomenal serviceability. Within the different meta-perspective of each of the two essences, the holistic counterpart for the information that constitutes “me” is not entirely lost, but it is continuously subjected to new forms, shapes, and even chronologies.
The past exists insofar as storage of memory of it carries forward epiphenomenal after-effects. The past does not exist as a thing or as it was; but information and appreciation regarding the effects of the past is continuously processed and re-mixed. That is, identities of consciousness continue to exist, but their quality is subject to continuous change. “I” will be re-mixed, in a series of chronological forms, some of which may or may not intuit or appreciate the general inter-relation of all perspectives of “I-ness.”
In higher, more enlightened perspectives of I-ness, there will be empathetic appreciation of our common Source. Perhaps the Meta-Essences are seeking to produce those higher grounds of unfolding civilizations.
NUKES
NUKES:
Regarding I-Ran-A-Nuke:
I see Obama is calling for worldwide cooperation to ban nukes. I guess some N.W.O. or proxy of the U.N. is supposed to have moral enforcement authority. The thing is, the world is a seething cauldron of competing nations, cultures, and cults. And some of them are, let's face it, crazy. Imagine you're in a room of competitors, all armed, some of them sociopathic robbers. Do you, as leader, propose that everyone lay down their arms, and then, to give the example, lay yours down first? Only if you're quite the stupid one.
Assume, by dint of hard work, cooperation, and courage, a society has achieved power a level above every other society. Should you, as leader, deliberately reduce its power, to give sociopathic leaders a chance to catch up? Only if you're quite the stupid one.
Someone is always going to have a leg up on power. Do we want that person or country to be the one that is sociopathic? Do we really want to be so "fair" to obvious criminals and sociopaths as not to be "hypocritical?"
OK, I appreciate the concern among other nations that the U.S. may itself sometime fall under the leadership of a sociopath (or a malignant narcissist!). And recent events have exposed chinks in America's checks and balances and separation of powers. So, what is the solution? Capitulate to sociopaths? Or fix the chinks? Among other nations, how many really want America to unilaterally disarm? And of those, how many are led by sociopaths?
Two words to the Obamanots: Grow up.
Regarding I-Ran-A-Nuke:
I see Obama is calling for worldwide cooperation to ban nukes. I guess some N.W.O. or proxy of the U.N. is supposed to have moral enforcement authority. The thing is, the world is a seething cauldron of competing nations, cultures, and cults. And some of them are, let's face it, crazy. Imagine you're in a room of competitors, all armed, some of them sociopathic robbers. Do you, as leader, propose that everyone lay down their arms, and then, to give the example, lay yours down first? Only if you're quite the stupid one.
Assume, by dint of hard work, cooperation, and courage, a society has achieved power a level above every other society. Should you, as leader, deliberately reduce its power, to give sociopathic leaders a chance to catch up? Only if you're quite the stupid one.
Someone is always going to have a leg up on power. Do we want that person or country to be the one that is sociopathic? Do we really want to be so "fair" to obvious criminals and sociopaths as not to be "hypocritical?"
OK, I appreciate the concern among other nations that the U.S. may itself sometime fall under the leadership of a sociopath (or a malignant narcissist!). And recent events have exposed chinks in America's checks and balances and separation of powers. So, what is the solution? Capitulate to sociopaths? Or fix the chinks? Among other nations, how many really want America to unilaterally disarm? And of those, how many are led by sociopaths?
Two words to the Obamanots: Grow up.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Judaism
Judaism:
What is meant by Jewishness? Is it mainly based in intense belief, or exposure, to sacred texts? Or is it based in ancestry and genetics?
What accounts for Jewish success in science, business, and the arts? Is it inculcation in habits that lead to success, or is it based in genetic filtering from trial by historical ordeal?
I try to be aware of Jewishness as a conflation of factors for background profiling. But a person's Jewishness has little to do with how I determine who should be admired and who should be discredited. Broadly, I tend to admire Jews of Israel, but to discredit Jews of Hollywood.
Of all the main religons, Judaism seems least evangelical. Most Christians see Jesus as a figure inviting of acceptance, but, unlike Islamists, not forcing acceptance.
Do religious Jews tend to conceptualize God as being responsive to those who are receptive to invite God into their lives? Maybe Jews see God as Someone who should be invited, but who does not invite, except to those most keen to a still, quiet voice. Maybe a higher level of abstract reasoning ability is requisite to have capacity to "hear" that voice. Maybe the most intellectually keen of Jews "read God," beyond sacred texts.
Regardless, a world with room for Jews is a world that avails enlightenment and individual freedom of conscience. A world without Jews would be a world of totalitarian thought control. It would be a blight on creation, for fallen derelicts to worship a false and hellish god.
May one be both an "allegorical Christian" and a "sympathizer with Jews"?
Insofar as The Word is made flesh, why not?
What is meant by Jewishness? Is it mainly based in intense belief, or exposure, to sacred texts? Or is it based in ancestry and genetics?
What accounts for Jewish success in science, business, and the arts? Is it inculcation in habits that lead to success, or is it based in genetic filtering from trial by historical ordeal?
I try to be aware of Jewishness as a conflation of factors for background profiling. But a person's Jewishness has little to do with how I determine who should be admired and who should be discredited. Broadly, I tend to admire Jews of Israel, but to discredit Jews of Hollywood.
Of all the main religons, Judaism seems least evangelical. Most Christians see Jesus as a figure inviting of acceptance, but, unlike Islamists, not forcing acceptance.
Do religious Jews tend to conceptualize God as being responsive to those who are receptive to invite God into their lives? Maybe Jews see God as Someone who should be invited, but who does not invite, except to those most keen to a still, quiet voice. Maybe a higher level of abstract reasoning ability is requisite to have capacity to "hear" that voice. Maybe the most intellectually keen of Jews "read God," beyond sacred texts.
Regardless, a world with room for Jews is a world that avails enlightenment and individual freedom of conscience. A world without Jews would be a world of totalitarian thought control. It would be a blight on creation, for fallen derelicts to worship a false and hellish god.
May one be both an "allegorical Christian" and a "sympathizer with Jews"?
Insofar as The Word is made flesh, why not?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
TIME
TIME:
SEE: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0119.pdf
“We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higherdimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change.”
….
“An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alternatively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a conceptual level?”
….
“Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in physics is in fact subjective or invented.”
….
“From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D Minkowski pacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.”
….
“We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes, and argue that they are all deficient.”
….
“Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a STUBBORN ONE.” ”
….
“In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion (Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a holdover from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with equal reality.” ”
….
“Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.”
RE: http://soundlearning.publicradio.org/subjects/science_health/einstein_and_god/illusion_of_time.shtml
My summary: Dyson simplifies on an interpretation of Einstein’s view as if everything is geometry (i.e., higher math, not actual physical things or time?).
RE: http://www.flipkart.com/stubbornly-persistent-illusion-stephen-hawking/0762430036-45w3f5adqb
I don’t have this book by Hawking. If memory serves, he believes there exists, not time itself, but merely some sort of “chronological protective mechanism.” My concern is: Is that mechanism “physically” existent, or is it a construct derivative of subjective consciousness?
My suspicion: I suspect that how we communicate any point of view about “reality” depends on the assumptions or models about a frame of reference from which we begin. Depending upon the purpose of one’s perspective of consciousness, one may model time AS IF it were illusion, geometry, granular, or continuous. But I am not confident that “time in itself” exists to be any of those things or aspects. IOW, I suspect time does have a fluxing reality, but one that is dependent upon a higher reality, i.e.: purposes of perspectives of a unifying consciousness, communicating in respect of variously assumed frames of reference.
ABOUT MODELS:
The PROBLEM WITH WORDS of laymen is that they are not rigorous; therefore, such words are ambiguous. Their meaning in any particular application must be subjectively derived, based on some sort of holistic intuition or feel for the context. Even animals do this, as when they “speak” with ears laid back and hair on edge.
The PROBLEM WITH MATH of empiricists is that it proceeds from a conceit that some “physical thing” (Higgs boson?) actually exists, objective in itself, which translates its relations in mathematical models, by which we can eventually map reality, perfectly. IOW, they ASSUME a model is available to mortals by which math may be adduced for providing us with an objective map of “physical” reality. IOW, they assume empirical “rigor” is possible. (I think a holistic algorithm may eventually be available to us, but not based on any notion that there actually exists any “physical thing or ultimate particle in itself.”)
MY TAKE: There is a holistic Source of rigor, but it is beyond the “perfect comprehension” or control of any particularized or “mortal-ized” perspective of such Source. As mortals, we would enjoy no “freedom” at all were there no such rigor. Were there no law, there would be terror, not freedom. Even so, we are availed with “fuzzy comprehension.” Depending upon how we limit our focus and purpose, we may achieve astounding relative rigor. That is: That which we consciously experience is precisely and measurably what we consciously experience.
However, while the focus of any sense (or senser) is diverted to a partial attraction, “other things” will be going on, at a level of complexity that we cannot holistically reduce. (Even though the Nobel twins, Al Gore and Obama, think they understand global warming.) We may eventually understand an algorithm by which such Source produces us, but we will not be able to control its essentially subjective nature.
In short, we will need to reconcile with a higher dimension of subjectivity, whose existence is superior, which is beyond measure, but which avails subordinate dimensions, which can be experienced as being measurable in relations among subordinate forms for expressing consciousness. We may reconcile, intuit, and even appreciate aspects of such higher dimension in each of us, but we mortals will not measure or control it, as Itself.
SEE: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0119.pdf
“We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higherdimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change.”
….
“An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alternatively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a conceptual level?”
….
“Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in physics is in fact subjective or invented.”
….
“From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D Minkowski pacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.”
….
“We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes, and argue that they are all deficient.”
….
“Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a STUBBORN ONE.” ”
….
“In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion (Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a holdover from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with equal reality.” ”
….
“Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.”
RE: http://soundlearning.publicradio.org/subjects/science_health/einstein_and_god/illusion_of_time.shtml
My summary: Dyson simplifies on an interpretation of Einstein’s view as if everything is geometry (i.e., higher math, not actual physical things or time?).
RE: http://www.flipkart.com/stubbornly-persistent-illusion-stephen-hawking/0762430036-45w3f5adqb
I don’t have this book by Hawking. If memory serves, he believes there exists, not time itself, but merely some sort of “chronological protective mechanism.” My concern is: Is that mechanism “physically” existent, or is it a construct derivative of subjective consciousness?
My suspicion: I suspect that how we communicate any point of view about “reality” depends on the assumptions or models about a frame of reference from which we begin. Depending upon the purpose of one’s perspective of consciousness, one may model time AS IF it were illusion, geometry, granular, or continuous. But I am not confident that “time in itself” exists to be any of those things or aspects. IOW, I suspect time does have a fluxing reality, but one that is dependent upon a higher reality, i.e.: purposes of perspectives of a unifying consciousness, communicating in respect of variously assumed frames of reference.
ABOUT MODELS:
The PROBLEM WITH WORDS of laymen is that they are not rigorous; therefore, such words are ambiguous. Their meaning in any particular application must be subjectively derived, based on some sort of holistic intuition or feel for the context. Even animals do this, as when they “speak” with ears laid back and hair on edge.
The PROBLEM WITH MATH of empiricists is that it proceeds from a conceit that some “physical thing” (Higgs boson?) actually exists, objective in itself, which translates its relations in mathematical models, by which we can eventually map reality, perfectly. IOW, they ASSUME a model is available to mortals by which math may be adduced for providing us with an objective map of “physical” reality. IOW, they assume empirical “rigor” is possible. (I think a holistic algorithm may eventually be available to us, but not based on any notion that there actually exists any “physical thing or ultimate particle in itself.”)
MY TAKE: There is a holistic Source of rigor, but it is beyond the “perfect comprehension” or control of any particularized or “mortal-ized” perspective of such Source. As mortals, we would enjoy no “freedom” at all were there no such rigor. Were there no law, there would be terror, not freedom. Even so, we are availed with “fuzzy comprehension.” Depending upon how we limit our focus and purpose, we may achieve astounding relative rigor. That is: That which we consciously experience is precisely and measurably what we consciously experience.
However, while the focus of any sense (or senser) is diverted to a partial attraction, “other things” will be going on, at a level of complexity that we cannot holistically reduce. (Even though the Nobel twins, Al Gore and Obama, think they understand global warming.) We may eventually understand an algorithm by which such Source produces us, but we will not be able to control its essentially subjective nature.
In short, we will need to reconcile with a higher dimension of subjectivity, whose existence is superior, which is beyond measure, but which avails subordinate dimensions, which can be experienced as being measurable in relations among subordinate forms for expressing consciousness. We may reconcile, intuit, and even appreciate aspects of such higher dimension in each of us, but we mortals will not measure or control it, as Itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
