.
May any complete, coherent, consistent model explicate how the Reality of measured sensations is synchronized, reconciled, normalized and buffered? Is Reality reconciled in respect of a quantifiably unifying and indifferent field of particle-expressing physics? Or is Reality reconciled in respect of a qualifiably unifying and invested field of perspective-expressing consciousness? Does there abide an indifferent Reality-in-itself, in terms of causes and effects, as opposed to shared rationalizations of measurable relational associations in space-time? What may measure the potential power of each perspective of consciousness?
.
Consider parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax) and telescoping of spatial and temporal perceptions and experiences. When one measures a 3 dimensional perspective and graphs it to a 2 dimensional perspective, one will not be able to render a completely consistent graph for all simultaneous perspectives. Relative positioning and distorting of features will depend on the purpose, technological skill, and line of focus of the rendering observer (or telescoping camera), much like reducing a globe of the world to a 2 dimensional map. Features will differently affect observers, depending on their relative positions, directions, and speeds in space-time. The unfolding of features will seem to different observers to occur in different sequences and changing speeds. Except among relatively shared points of geometric impact, derivative of cross fluxes among cones of experience, there seems to abide no relatively favored "real" sequence, direction, or speed. Rather, each perspective rationalizes its own grid for the relative locating and sequencing of all measurables around it. Space-time does not of itself avail a favored grid for unifying measurable Reality. It makes little sense to try to rationalize that all that seems to have occured in the Past must retain some measurable reality, independent of potential of shared perspective. Whatever grid of measurable Reality that we may share avails only such technology as crosses our shared points of potential experience.
.
If there is no such thing as matter-in-itself, then there is no such thing as matter-in-itself of any certain age or sequencing, apart from happenstance of shared cross point of relative reference. Not without crossing some potential for relation to some conscious perspective of beingness. Consciousness is not itself directly measurable. No perspective of consciousness can be measurably certain that any other actually inhabits or associates with any other material avatar.
.
Suppose two asteroids crashed together and fragmented into rocks, each rock thereafter traversing a different path, always retaining, because of having at one time come together, a connection to a shared level or cone of potential sequential beingmess. Each such rock may retain a record of information of sequentiality in crashing together. But, insofar as neither rock is real-in-itself, it would seem that each may record a different sequence and record of Information concerning its relation to beingness. In what ways may the rocks' respective records diverge, and in what ways must they remain consistent? Their respective chronologies, up to each point of common collision or coming together (whereupon each imparts to the other a commonizing and vectoring influence in respect of point and direction and speed), must remain, relative to one another, established and normalized. As the rocks separate, however, they can never again come together as exactly their same previously relational identities. Nor, as they separate, need they relate to any observer therewhile as aging at the same rate. Nor, as they separate, need an observer who is infused to relate to one thereafter perceive the other as remaining the same or as aging at the same rate --- except insofar as remaining renormalize-able to a relatively shared point, direction, and speed.
.
While I empathize with other perspectives, I cannot know them to say that they are the same persons or identities as I may have previously interfunctioned with. During each sequence that we are apart, we will have changed in ways that I cannot know --- regardless of those who intuit and experience themselves as remaining the same identifiable person. (Yet, I can intuit that all consciousness shares a same fundamental aspect or quality of immeasurability.)
.
Somehow, each separation in the relative signification of the geometry of space-time allows each conscious perspective to experience and measure events and chronologies differently, albeit amenable of being normalized in respect of shared assumptions, normalized and rationalized with respect to each sequential interlude to their reuniting.
.
I can think of no way to rationalize the twin paradox or the relative experience of an absolute limiting speed of EMR, except by postulating differently buffered recordations and rationalized experiences of chronological distortions of space-time to conscious-renormalization. I could not rationalize the twin paradox were I to assume that each part of matter "really" carries a "property" of identifiable existence, in itself.
.
May any complete, coherent, consistent model explicate how the Reality of measured sensations is synchronized, reconciled, normalized and buffered? Is Reality reconciled in respect of a quantifiably unifying and indifferent field of particle-expressing physics? Or is Reality reconciled in respect of a qualifiably unifying and invested field of perspective-expressing consciousness? Does there abide an indifferent Reality-in-itself, in terms of causes and effects, as opposed to shared rationalizations of measurable relational associations in space-time? What may measure the potential power of each perspective of consciousness?
.
Consider parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax) and telescoping of spatial and temporal perceptions and experiences. When one measures a 3 dimensional perspective and graphs it to a 2 dimensional perspective, one will not be able to render a completely consistent graph for all simultaneous perspectives. Relative positioning and distorting of features will depend on the purpose, technological skill, and line of focus of the rendering observer (or telescoping camera), much like reducing a globe of the world to a 2 dimensional map. Features will differently affect observers, depending on their relative positions, directions, and speeds in space-time. The unfolding of features will seem to different observers to occur in different sequences and changing speeds. Except among relatively shared points of geometric impact, derivative of cross fluxes among cones of experience, there seems to abide no relatively favored "real" sequence, direction, or speed. Rather, each perspective rationalizes its own grid for the relative locating and sequencing of all measurables around it. Space-time does not of itself avail a favored grid for unifying measurable Reality. It makes little sense to try to rationalize that all that seems to have occured in the Past must retain some measurable reality, independent of potential of shared perspective. Whatever grid of measurable Reality that we may share avails only such technology as crosses our shared points of potential experience.
.
If there is no such thing as matter-in-itself, then there is no such thing as matter-in-itself of any certain age or sequencing, apart from happenstance of shared cross point of relative reference. Not without crossing some potential for relation to some conscious perspective of beingness. Consciousness is not itself directly measurable. No perspective of consciousness can be measurably certain that any other actually inhabits or associates with any other material avatar.
.
Suppose two asteroids crashed together and fragmented into rocks, each rock thereafter traversing a different path, always retaining, because of having at one time come together, a connection to a shared level or cone of potential sequential beingmess. Each such rock may retain a record of information of sequentiality in crashing together. But, insofar as neither rock is real-in-itself, it would seem that each may record a different sequence and record of Information concerning its relation to beingness. In what ways may the rocks' respective records diverge, and in what ways must they remain consistent? Their respective chronologies, up to each point of common collision or coming together (whereupon each imparts to the other a commonizing and vectoring influence in respect of point and direction and speed), must remain, relative to one another, established and normalized. As the rocks separate, however, they can never again come together as exactly their same previously relational identities. Nor, as they separate, need they relate to any observer therewhile as aging at the same rate. Nor, as they separate, need an observer who is infused to relate to one thereafter perceive the other as remaining the same or as aging at the same rate --- except insofar as remaining renormalize-able to a relatively shared point, direction, and speed.
.
While I empathize with other perspectives, I cannot know them to say that they are the same persons or identities as I may have previously interfunctioned with. During each sequence that we are apart, we will have changed in ways that I cannot know --- regardless of those who intuit and experience themselves as remaining the same identifiable person. (Yet, I can intuit that all consciousness shares a same fundamental aspect or quality of immeasurability.)
.
Somehow, each separation in the relative signification of the geometry of space-time allows each conscious perspective to experience and measure events and chronologies differently, albeit amenable of being normalized in respect of shared assumptions, normalized and rationalized with respect to each sequential interlude to their reuniting.
.
I can think of no way to rationalize the twin paradox or the relative experience of an absolute limiting speed of EMR, except by postulating differently buffered recordations and rationalized experiences of chronological distortions of space-time to conscious-renormalization. I could not rationalize the twin paradox were I to assume that each part of matter "really" carries a "property" of identifiable existence, in itself.
.
1 comment:
From A.T. -- Re: "What we truly require is a return to ethics on the mass scale. How this is to be done I have no more idea than anyone else."
Well, the last good American Presidents were Ike and Dutch. Americans rolled up their sleeves and got those guys after the suffering of WWII and the shame of Jimmah. Otherwise, when times are good, hubristic callowness leads us running to ignorance and depravity. It's a shame to need bad times in order to fill Americans' needs to trip back to the woodshed. Our hubristic electorate believes it can find assimilating principles without needing to believe in any real Source of principles. So now we have a hubristic electorate mainly guided by no principle apart from: Cannibalize yours while the cannibalizing's good! With so much at stake for so many unprincipled actors, the coming elections will break all records for corruption. Neither will we find principled leaders in practiced phoney religionists. It seems elites and louts are united to bring down national borders, as if West and East would then unite in peace. Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right.
Post a Comment