For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Wonderful little cars, but I always preferred the A35.Obvious Leo wrote:I owned one briefly in a previous life but I treated it unkindly and it fell to bits.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The Morris Minor, although small was higher than modern cars.
Hologram = a human narrative!Obvious Leo wrote:It seems you got my clarification about the no background state for the gravity/time continuum. Neither Newton's flat space nor Einstein's geometric one is needed for a presentist ontology but this is not an easy procedure of thought to translate into words because our observational experience is of the hologram of a no longer existent past. We live in time's wake, which makes the Libet story a statement of the bloody obvious as well.PoeticUniverse wrote: “Quantum monads—bits with various states of what we might call energy or just levels. The ‘it’ of reality comes from ‘bit’, via an information process.”
It's a hijack, skip, and there's not much point in denying it, because PU and I are a tag team who go back a long way. However it's not off-topic because "where is here?" is a profound metaphysical question which deserves an answer. In the eternalism of the spacetime paradigm "here" is everywhere but in the presentism of the ontology which underpins this spacetime epistemology "here" is nowhere. Here is now and now is that which is continuously being made.Skip wrote:Best hijack of a thread. EVER.
Bullshit. For a start QM can tell us NOTHING about reality and Libet's experiments were about the nature of consciousness. These experiments demonstrate that consciousness is a PROCESS and that processes take time.raw_thought wrote:But Libet's experiments were about physiology not QM.
You can't understand the cosmic narrative without first understanding the human one. Existence is an evolutionary journey from the simple to the complex. What is true for a single human mind is true for all of reality.raw_thought wrote:I have nothing against human narratives. My point is that you do and yet rely on them all the time.
Good grief! You went back and edited out the Libet comment! You were trying to relate Libet to Heisnberg.Obvious Leo wrote:It's a hijack, skip, and there's not much point in denying it, because PU and I are a tag team who go back a long way. However it's not off-topic because "where is here?" is a profound metaphysical question which deserves an answer. In the eternalism of the spacetime paradigm "here" is everywhere but in the presentism of the ontology which underpins this spacetime epistemology "here" is nowhere. Here is now and now is that which is continuously being made.Skip wrote:Best hijack of a thread. EVER.
Essentially Heisenberg was not saying anything different than what Newton was saying and this is the unification of physics. The motion of every physical entity in the universe affects the motion of every other so there is no such thing as a location. This was Gottfried Leibniz's truth and it was both Galileo's and Poincare's relativity but somehow it got lost in the Minkowski translation and after that we finished up with random events, reverse causation, dead and alive cats and fuck knows what else. As they say, shit happens, and that shit happens is the most profound truth in the entire universe.
Sorry, wrong post!!! Here is where you tried to combine Libet with some "time wave wake" theory.Obvious Leo wrote:It seems you got my clarification about the no background state for the gravity/time continuum. Neither Newton's flat space nor Einstein's geometric one is needed for a presentist ontology but this is not an easy procedure of thought to translate into words because our observational experience is of the hologram of a no longer existent past. We live in time's wake, which makes the Libet story a statement of the bloody obvious as well.PoeticUniverse wrote: “Quantum monads—bits with various states of what we might call energy or just levels. The ‘it’ of reality comes from ‘bit’, via an information process.”
Essentially yes. However you haven't understood the point I was making with respect to the nature of time. Consciousness is a process and awareness is an observation of a process. As a statement of the bloody obvious we can't observe something until after it has already occurred which means we can't be aware of making a choice until after we've already made it. There's nothing particularly odd or mysterious about that but the "wake of time" comment referred to the speed at which the present moment becomes its own next moment which is in fact the speed of light. When one single electron in your entire embodied mind jumps into a different orbit you are no longer physically the same person which means you are becoming a new you at the speed of light. You are yourself becoming.raw_thought wrote:Libet's experiment was not about "time wakes" or any physics. His experiment "only" showed that we make decisions before we are aware of them.
In other words our brains make decisions and then our minds make up a story about how we consciously decided to do something.
That is not to say that his experiment is not relevant to QM. If the claim that neurones and consciousness work on a Quantum level then Libet is very relevant indeed.raw_thought wrote:It is bullshit that Libet's experiments were about physiology not QM??? I think you love the word "bullshit" and attacking me more then rational discourse. From what you wrote, it seems that you agree with me!!! Libet had nothing to do with QM!
In the mind of a head is where 'thing's are, silky smooth, as the answer to the ultimate quiz, we having dispensed with 'there' and also the Wiz.Obvious Leo wrote:A Klein bottle is a lucky find on a Polynesian beach, PU, where hairy coconuts are more commonly found between the beer cans, used condoms and cigarette butts. Do you by any chance still have it in your possession, mate, because I can't seem to get those silk pajamas out of my head?
PoeticUniverse wrote:I wonder if I can eek out any more poetic adventures as an end to my story.
You might consider the story of the Pitjanjatjara man who walked the big brown land for nearly 60,000 years whilst barely putting a mark on it. He knew the truth of time in his dreaming and needed no Anaximander or Charles Darwin to tell it to him. He didn't know he was the dust of stars but he knew he was the dust of stuff which came before and would be the dust of stuff to come after. He knew about the journey of himself enfolded within the journey of everything that is and most especially he knew that not is NOT.PoeticUniverse wrote:The bottle can found in the aboriginal 'dream';