The time

[Cerveny]

At last someone who can recognize the difference between the time before "now" and the time after the “now”. The time according Einstein (GTR) is the same before and after the "now" - by the other word we (by it) already exist in the future now :(

http://www.flinders.edu.au/science_engi ... s-physics/

By me the point "now" is a some case phase of border :)

[lancek4]

What a concept. If we consider cross disciplines, such as with modern philosophy, we can see Slavoj Zizek says this is what we have now: a condition of 'too soon' and 'too late'. The result of knowing this condition leaves us cynical.
The question then is how do we overcome this temporal duality?
I submit it cannot be in a knowledge, or conceptualization that hold such ideas in place. It likewise cannot be a 'zen' moment that we sometimes come upon in meditiation, since we inevitably 'come back' into the 'before and after'.

What do you propose to overcome the discrepancy between the apparent 'fact' of the situation, and our inability to remove it from funtioning?

[bus2bondi]

What do you propose to overcome the discrepancy between the apparent 'fact' of the situation, and our inability to remove it from funtioning?

"

could it be to first ask how we come to an answer? or where we find it? and then continue on in that same way?

for example, when we ask questions and there is an 'answer', was it because we asked another human being? did it come through ourself? did it come from non-space/time or space/time? or both? or other? etc..

thanks

[lancek4]

What do you propose to overcome the discrepancy between the apparent 'fact' of the situation, and our inability to remove it from funtioning?

"

could it be to first ask how we come to an answer? or where we find it? and then continue on in that same way?

for example, when we ask questions and there is an 'answer', was it because we asked another human being? did it come through ourself? did it come from non-space/time or space/time? or both? or other? etc..

thanks

So, to overcome the discrepancy between 'before and after now' we need ask how we come to an answer.
Yes , I agree. How is it that I might know something? then, how could it be that I 'could not' know something, as in, still be in this world and not to have a knowing of it? What do you suppose this is?

and I am curious, how could I know if an answer came through another person or myself, or space time or non-spacetime,etc?

[bus2bondi]

What do you propose to overcome the discrepancy between the apparent 'fact' of the situation, and our inability to remove it from funtioning?

"

could it be to first ask how we come to an answer? or where we find it? and then continue on in that same way?

for example, when we ask questions and there is an 'answer', was it because we asked another human being? did it come through ourself? did it come from non-space/time or space/time? or both? or other? etc..

thanks

So, to overcome the discrepancy between 'before and after now' we need ask how we come to an answer.
Yes , I agree. How is it that I might know something? then, how could it be that I 'could not' know something, as in, still be in this world and not to have a knowing of it? What do you suppose this is?

and I am curious, how could I know if an answer came through another person or myself, or space time or non-spacetime,etc?

maybe oneness in all things?

and the second question, i don't know:)

thanks:)

[Cerveny]

What do you propose to overcome the discrepancy between the apparent 'fact' of the situation, and our inability to remove it from funtioning?

It is necessary to leave the both theories of relativity. The reality is life in a border between the (growing) history and an unknowable, uncaused future. No space-time continuum. We live in 3-D surface of Universe’s sediment. Every quantum interaction, every "measurement" glues a new "time" layer to the history. The regular time axes ends at point "now". After it is nothing yet. Of course we need to figure the history as causal pattern, as a controlling port for new sediment, better, to new crystal layer of the space...

[lancek4]

What do you propose to overcome the discrepancy between the apparent 'fact' of the situation, and our inability to remove it from funtioning?

It is necessary to leave the both theories of relativity. The reality is life in a border between the (growing) history and an unknowable, uncaused future. No space-time continuum. We live in 3-D surface of Universe’s sediment. Every quantum interaction, every "measurement" glues a new "time" layer to the history. The regular time axes ends at point "now". After it is nothing yet. Of course we need to figure the history as causal pattern, as a controlling port for new sediment, better, to new crystal layer of the space...

HHmmmmm, I like what you are implicating, but the phrasing or terminology is...hmmm.. intreguing.
Could you elaborate a little more.

Are you saying that the present is an inscription of the past? But time only exists as a 'nexus' of these causal factors that is the present?

I think the only proposition i question is "the history as causal pattern". How do I know of this pattern? Is that pattern 'fixed'? Is it a history that is set in place?

[lancek4]

So, to overcome the discrepancy between 'before and after now' we need ask how we come to an answer.
Yes , I agree. How is it that I might know something? then, how could it be that I 'could not' know something, as in, still be in this world and not to have a knowing of it? What do you suppose this is?

and I am curious, how could I know if an answer came through another person or myself, or space time or non-spacetime,etc?[/quote]

maybe oneness in all things?

and the second question, i don't know:)

thanks:)[/quote]

I mean, how could i know of the oneness of all things, yet think upon it such that i might be able to consider an other thing?
What is the significance of knowing the onness of all things and yet not be able to enact that oneness by myself?

what i mean is: the difficulty of my exaplaining what i mean points to the problem with the means by which i am attempting to explain what i mean.

If the universe is One, and i know this, and so everthing i do and think is the necessary condition of reality as it only can be, what is the point of my existing thinking that i have some sort of control, or determinative role in life? The two ideas contradict each other. the universe may be One, but that I cannot fully 'come unto' this feature as a living human, points to a problem in how I come upon reality.

Yes? And...
Can we describe the the condition without reifying the condition? If this is the condition, what is the point of knowing it?
Yes?

[Cerveny]

HHmmmmm, I like what you are implicating, but the phrasing or terminology is...hmmm.. intreguing.
Could you elaborate a little more.

Are you saying that the present is an inscription of the past? But time only exists as a 'nexus' of these causal factors that is the present?

I think the only proposition i question is "the history as causal pattern". How do I know of this pattern? Is that pattern 'fixed'? Is it a history that is set in place?

There is no such real "time" as is descript by SR in fact. Such time is only an imagination derived from some "special" formalism. Better, we can consider the reality as 4-D (rather rounded) growing crystal. The Universe is its 3-D "live" surface of such reality. Rising such boundary of reality replicates in every new (crystal) layer every defect (dislocation) to new sediment. It is easy to imagine, say, screw dislocations with burger vector orthogonal to common space as a elementary particle with a spin. The less stable particle the more complicated space structure's defect. The border between the history and the future (moving, rising toward fourth dimension) - a quantum world bears mix of caused history and incidental, not yet ordered future. But more and more new reality layer smoothes all parameters of physical world. The Energy we can concieve as a world surface's tension of a reality... The growing crystal does not use any strict rules of growing (uncertainity), but the result is always perfect. On the opposite case it is difficult to smooth some cases of dislocation during a crystal growing. The quantum interaction (badly called as "measurement") is a needed touch of the reality to the history, to the rule, to the causally. The whole real matter thus rises toward the "future" along the fourth dimension - I like to name the galaxy as a whirl toward the future. "mc^2 we can interpret as a kinetic energy of such movement ...

[lancek4]

HHmmmmm, I like what you are implicating, but the phrasing or terminology is...hmmm.. intreguing.
Could you elaborate a little more.

Are you saying that the present is an inscription of the past? But time only exists as a 'nexus' of these causal factors that is the present?

I think the only proposition i question is "the history as causal pattern". How do I know of this pattern? Is that pattern 'fixed'? Is it a history that is set in place?

There is no such real "time" as is descript SR in fact. Such time is only an imagination derived from some "special" formalism. Better, we can consider the reality as 4-D (rather rounded) growing crystal. The Universe is its 3-D "live" surface of such reality. Rising such boundary of reality replicates in every new (crystal) layer every defect (dislocation) to new sediment. It is easy to imagine, say, screw dislocations with burger vector orthogonal to common space as a elementary particle with a spin. The less stable particle the more complicated space structure's defect. The border between the history and the future (moving, rising toward fourth dimension) - a quantum world bears mix of caused history and incidental, not yet ordered future. But more and more new reality layer smoothes all parameters of physical world. The Energy we can concieve as a world surface's tension of a reality... The growing crystal does not use any strict rules of growing (uncertainity), but the result is always perfect. On the opposite case it is difficult to smooth some cases of dislocation during a crystal growing. The quantum interaction (badly called as "measurement") is a needed touch of the reality to the history, to the rule, to the causally. The whole real matter thus rises toward the "future" along the fourth dimension - I like to name the galaxy as a whirl toward the future. "mc^2 we can interpret as a kinetic energy of such movement ...

That is a vivid and imaginative way of metaphor. i like it.
It has a certain 'real' quality for my imagination.
It reminds me of discourse. I could probably use the same description to describe how words are used and how communication interacts in the world.
I wonder though: are you describing The World as It Is, or is this an analogy?

[Cerveny]

That is a vivid and imaginative way of metaphor. i like it.
It has a certain 'real' quality for my imagination.
It reminds me of discourse. I could probably use the same description to describe how words are used and how communication interacts in the world.
I wonder though: are you describing The World as It Is, or is this an analogy?

Of course every describtion is some kind of analogy. We have (:mainly I have:) limited set of words, limited ways for expressing reach reality. It reminds the quantum theory that describes the real world by limited sets of values... The "question" is a "mesurement" and "answer" is a (discrete) result. :)

But I am perhaps to express this model by simpler words:

The ordered Universe condensates, crystallizes from other, odd causal phase;
"Now" is rather uncertain border between these two phases;
Elementary particles are defects in regular Universe's structure, in physical space structure, in“aether"
Complementary particles are complementary types of defects - the annihilation is (discrete) smoothing of the opposite space's defects, followed by some vibrations (photons)
Physical "fields" are some kinds of elastic tensions, stresses, torsions in space's structure

[lancek4]

That is a vivid and imaginative way of metaphor. i like it.
It has a certain 'real' quality for my imagination.
It reminds me of discourse. I could probably use the same description to describe how words are used and how communication interacts in the world.
I wonder though: are you describing The World as It Is, or is this an analogy?

Of course every describtion is some kind of analogy. We have (:mainly I have:) limited set of words, limited ways for expressing reach reality. It reminds the quantum theory that describes the real world by limited sets of values... The "question" is a "mesurement" and "answer" is a (discrete) result.

But I am perhaps to express this model by simpler words:

The ordered Universe condensates, crystallizes from other, odd causal phase;
"Now" is rather uncertain border between these two phases;
Elementary particles are defects in regular Universe's structure, in physical space structure, in“aether"
Complementary particles are complementary types of defects - the annihilation is (discrete) smoothing of the opposite space's defects, followed by some vibrations (photons)
Physical "fields" are some kinds of elastic tensions, stresses, torsions in space's structure

It is difficult for me to actually situate the categories you describe into the picture your attempting to create for me. But I get a rough image that seems satisfactory.
I can sense the 'truth' of your picture because it seems consistent with this one:

Let me see: when I consider the universe, or reality, I have to consider what is occuring.
I find that when investigating reality I am left with the irrefutable consequence of my own being. I cannot escape the meaning by which I come upon reality. This meaning is true for me. I can create all sorts of structural analogies to describe reality and reduce those structures upon one another to eventually come to a 'reality' that appears to me to account for all the other analogies that I have or had pondered. It is as if my searching mind researches, condenses, reduces, meaning until I become 'satisified' (somehow, as a function of me being myself) with whatever conclusion. This 'satisfaction becomes a sort of 'real truth' and it does reflect reality, so that the world 'has' appeared that way that I come upon that satisfactory picture, but also 'does' appear so, such that for my experience, the picture is overlaid upon the world and the world and my picture correspond in me to make sense.

Now, I have to be careful when viewing reality in analysis of this sort. I have to consider that everyone has a picture of this same type. Maybe not the same satisfactory picture as mine, but everyone comes to some sort of picture that satisfies them. 'Sane', 'insane', rediculous or sensible, everyone come upon thier own picture. i have to keep this in mind when I consider my picture of what 'reality' may be.

Because of this feature of the world, I have to consider that whatever my personal sitisfactory picture may look like, or how satisfying it is to me, it must not be true in a 'real' way, but only in 'my' way. Faced with this contradiction, I must reconsider my picture in light of the possibility of everyone's picture, that the picture may be anything.

But, it seems, upon considering my experience of that possible infinity of pictures, that there is not an infinite possibility of pictures, there is only a limited possible number of pictures as there are individual conscious people in the world for any moment.

This limitation, or as the confluence of limitations (of each individual), accounts for the general picture we have: of science, of religion, of physical things, of psychical things, of every common and uncommon thing. The total descriptions together amount for all possible potential for communicating at any time.

We should see that there is no 'thing', no consideration, no thought, that can exist that is not mediated by the individual subject human being. If there is an essential, physical/ real 'thing' of the universe it is entirely obscured by the meaning we place on it. This meaning is the conflation of communicated pictures.

what this means is any picture I have of reality is ultimatly a condition of the greater discourse of pictures, that my picture is no more true than any other, but just as true.

this is the condition we have presented to us now. this is why discussion and debate prevail. As if we can come to some sort of 'real' picture of the world and thus be able to enact some solution upon the problems in presents. But this mode is always self contradictory. Because, the problems and solutions are always present as the condition of reality we are trying to overcome at all times.

This 'picture of pictures' is the problem we are faced with, having come to understand what this 'larger picture' is. it is no more true than any other, but it is true in that it seems to present the simplest answer that accounts for all the phenomena -- in that all phenomena is a discourse of meaning, a human discursive economy.

the difficulty with 'seeing' this picture is also a part of how consciousness functions.
The description of this functioning is beyond the scope of this comment.

Do you see how your picture resonnates with this picture??

[Cerveny]

Do you see how your picture resonnates with this picture??

Your analytical approach is very elaborated. I can be sorry only for my poor English (dyslexia) does not allow to appreciate it in full wideness. You have expressed strong accent at subjective moment of gnoseology. The reality can be painted by many ways, many tools. All can be true. Maybe some, say, Impressionistic way can provide even better description of reality then an exact photo (picture) does. We need to recognize really important facts, we need to recognize disputable, weak point of present models (pictures), we need to find the effective representation of the reality... Maybe we should move from phenomena's analyzing, from the "occurrences" to the principle, to the consistence... Maybe we should try to work with the sense of reality... I am afraid the Einstein's world has no sense :(

[lancek4]

Do you see how your picture resonnates with this picture??

Your analytical approach is very elaborated. I can be sorry only for my poor English (dyslexia) does not allow to appreciate it in full wideness. You have expressed strong accent at subjective moment of gnoseology.

I am not familiar with this term.

The reality can be painted by many ways, many tools. All can be true. Maybe some, say, Impressionistic way can provide even better description of reality then an exact photo (picture) does. We need to recognize really important facts, we need to recognize disputable, weak point of present models (pictures), we need to find the effective representation of the reality...

yes.

Maybe we should move from phenomena's analyzing, from the "occurrences" to the principle, to the consistence...

yes.

Maybe we should try to work with the sense of reality... I am afraid the Einstein's world has no sense

I absolutly feel you here.

I feel that our 'pictures' are quite correspondent.

I have a analysis that i feel does make sense of Einsien's world, and quantum theory.

I will not present it here, as it is a 20 page thesis.

Yes; somehow, we need to find a purchase to speak intelligently about phnomenological occurrences, while somehow 'getting around' the 'things' of our reality that constantly lead us back into the phenomenon of our reality.
this is dialectical, and why I propose that our current reality is not 'The True' reality, but merely one particular type, one representation for reality.

One premise I hold, is, that though our phenomenological reality grants the possibility of multitudinous represnetation, and in so is constantly deflecting 'other' various representation in debate and argument, there must be a 'basic description' that accounts for all the variable pictures. Somehow we have to find a route around the infinite set of contradictions that occur in our speaking about reality.

I cannot rest on "well, thats just the way it is.'

What informs our ability to come upon these limits, these "thats the way it is"?

[Cerveny]

I cannot rest on "well, thats just the way it is.'
What informs our ability to come upon these limits, these "thats the way it is"?

I think it is necessary to admit the reality can not be fully descripted by our, human "tools", by the present words or math expressions at the first... Today's physics is unluckily afraid of putting some basic questions on the table. Physics has become the faith and they who believe in are called Physicists. How someone can claim the singularities, infinities and the eternality really exist, how someone can claim the future already exist, how someone can claim the Universe has no sense, how someone can claim the all has became from the nothing? What is it the nothing? By Hegel the nothing = the being... Endless, impotent mathematical transpositions, representations, transformations of some weak ingredients lead for eighty years to nowhere. We cannot cook strong soup from the water :( New idea, new spice, new added value is necessary... We should to put simple, strong questions and try to answer it or mark it, try to determine the fixed (not relative) bases for our Universe. It is the right door into new science. We try to find easy answer instead of finding difficult questions. No one is trying to find out week points in Relativity base as a reason of inability of quantizing the gravity. It does not mind the gravitation behavior of antimatter is a big question, primarily not to threaten the faith (: