|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2021 14:12:24 GMT -5
Sure. It's a deep mental bunny warren, but going that far helped me at one time to stop digging. We perceive time and space as two different phenomenon, but Einstein demonstrated the underlying commonality: we live in a four dimensional world. There are three spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forward-back. There is one time dimension, past-future. Descartes helped to codify the spatial dimensions with his coordinate system, and one interesting aspect of that is that the origin is arbitrary, as is the orientation of the x,y and z axes. North and South only have meaning relative to the Earth. Out in space, there is no absolute North or South. So it is with the time dimension relative to the spatial dimensions. Which direction is the time dimension is arbitrary, and depends upon our motion relative to another observer. This is illustrated by time-dilation, like in the movie Interstellar. You can also understand it by the fact that looking out in space looks backward in time. Hubble sees the light of far-off stars as it was generated in a time long past dependent on distance. If you look across a wide open space, you don't actually see the image of a distant object as it is at the exact same moment you perceive it, but instead, as it was some very small fraction of a second defined by the speed of light. So, the reason for difference between time and space in our perception is that we live in the limit of that dimension of time where the differential between one moment and the next goes to zero. In Cartesian terms, we live on a point of the time-line, while we perceive some 3-d sphere of space surrounding that. And, which dimension is time and which of the other three is space is arbitrary, and depends on our motion relative to whatever we want to compare ourselves with. If someone passes you on a train going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light you each measure the length of a 1 foot ruler differently. This isn't just a trick of perception, but, instead, demonstrates how our perception of physicality is not really what it seems to us in terms of constancy. This is a deep dive into the Pilgrim's notion that "Only now functionally exists". This is true, in the relative, analytical sense. It's also a sort of shadow of the existential truth. As we meditate, we rest that function of our mind that re-constructs sequences of events into movies of past and future. As the mental energy devoted to those projections fades we become "present". We can describe this " presence" in these analytical terms of a greater awareness of living in that limit, of living at that "one point in time". But, the analyst has ultimately settled for pitching a tent at a rest stop. Change still happens. It's just not what the intellect - or, even intuition - makes of it. We can gain insight from this shadow as to how the mind contrives the projections of past and future. This doesn't mean that the change didn't occur, but, a conditioned false sense of identity can distort the projections. And, there is no undistorted version of these projections, even free of that false identity, because the projections are always, by their nature limited, while "what they are a projection of" is not. We cannot analyze our way to the source of the projections, and I can only point in that direction.
laughter,ive got an 8th grade education...i understand presence,present moment awareness,etc, and i realize that time is somethin we have invented...other than that im lost...talk to me like you would a 1st grader please.. I look forward to seeing the new Matrix film, Matrix Resurrection. The following is the basis of the first film, something I saw and came to understand as a teenager, I'm sure after Philosophy 101 and getting a taste of some of the past-dudes, I remember Bishop Berkeley made a deep impression on me, and Hume and Locke. But you can examine this right now as you read. Look at your computer screen, and then look all around. All of that is inside your own head. Everything you see isn't ~out there~, it's inside your own head. You have the five senses which gather information from the exterior world. I think it was Locke, maybe Hume, who called this info impressions. He said the brain is like wax, and the incoming sensory data makes an impression in the "wax". So we have sensory nerves which carry the info into the brain. We also have motor nerves which carry impulses to the muscles, the brain for example telling your fingers which letters to type out on your keyboard. But that's it, there isn't an exit means of nerves putting data back out into the world that you see (or hear or taste, touch or smell). So everything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is a construct formed by your own brain, and exists [only] in your own brain. Just as odd, it's very dark in your brain. And the incoming data is shifted around, sometimes its encoded by electricity, sometimes chemically via neurotransmitters. Now, Kant was the first (modern) philosopher to say time and space are not ~out there~ objectively in-the-world. He said time and space are our own subjective means of making sense of the world. He said we don't experience what's out there (the thing in itself), we only experience what our consciousness ~forms~ from what's out there. So those other dudes above built upon what Kant said. Heisenberg said the same. Those early formers of quantum mechanics were also philosophers, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, de Broglie, Bohr, Pauli. And then finally, The Matrix explained it all very well. Going one step further (while I'm here), I learned later studying perception, what we see is highly informed by ~already existing memories in the brain~. We basically have to learn to interpret the incoming data from the senses. Now we don't remember this learning process, as we were babies when we learned it. A young child doesn't see a tree for example, it sees/senses a something extended up from another something (the ground) and it in turn extends in all directions, the extensions getting smaller. Mom or Dad says, that's a tree. That info is stored in the brain, later when another similar something is seen, kid says, oh, that's a tree. This process also occurs in psychologically interpreting the world. We have a certain world view, and this world view forms our own interpretation of the incoming data. This is why it is so difficult to change, we think we can be objective, know correctly what's out there concerning culture and politics and all manner of other subjects. But we don't see objective facts, our own psychology sways what we think and feel. We think we see correctly, but we don't. To make it simple, just think of self as a filtering mechanism that lets in, itself, only what corresponds to its own view of the world. IOW, self distorts all incoming information to confirm what it already believes about the world. Several past dudes, or ladies, put it this way, We don't see what is, we see what we are. laughter put it succinctly (in a nutshell) above.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 14, 2021 17:59:27 GMT -5
... Now, Kant was the first (modern) philosopher to say time and space are not ~out there~ objectively in-the-world. He said time and space are our own subjective means of making sense of the world. He said we don't experience what's out there (the thing in itself), we only experience what our consciousness ~forms~ from what's out there. So those other dudes above built upon what Kant said. ... But we don't see objective facts, our own psychology sways what we think and feel. We think we see correctly, but we don't. ... Training wheels: "time" slows you down, "space" narrows your perception and influence. Imagine him loose, without his baby walker ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 15, 2021 8:55:10 GMT -5
laughter,ive got an 8th grade education...i understand presence,present moment awareness,etc, and i realize that time is somethin we have invented...other than that im lost...talk to me like you would a 1st grader please.. I look forward to seeing the new Matrix film, Matrix Resurrection. The following is the basis of the first film, something I saw and came to understand as a teenager, I'm sure after Philosophy 101 and getting a taste of some of the past-dudes, I remember Bishop Berkeley made a deep impression on me, and Hume and Locke. But you can examine this right now as you read. Look at your computer screen, and then look all around. All of that is inside your own head. Everything you see isn't ~out there~, it's inside your own head. You have the five senses which gather information from the exterior world. I think it was Locke, maybe Hume, who called this info impressions. He said the brain is like wax, and the incoming sensory data makes an impression in the "wax". So we have sensory nerves which carry the info into the brain. We also have motor nerves which carry impulses to the muscles, the brain for example telling your fingers which letters to type out on your keyboard. But that's it, there isn't an exit means of nerves putting data back out into the world that you see (or hear or taste, touch or smell). So everything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is a construct formed by your own brain, and exists [only] in your own brain. Just as odd, it's very dark in your brain. And the incoming data is shifted around, sometimes its encoded by electricity, sometimes chemically via neurotransmitters. Now, Kant was the first (modern) philosopher to say time and space are not ~out there~ objectively in-the-world. He said time and space are our own subjective means of making sense of the world. He said we don't experience what's out there (the thing in itself), we only experience what our consciousness ~forms~ from what's out there. So those other dudes above built upon what Kant said. Heisenberg said the same. Those early formers of quantum mechanics were also philosophers, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, de Broglie, Bohr, Pauli. And then finally, The Matrix explained it all very well. Going one step further (while I'm here), I learned later studying perception, what we see is highly informed by ~already existing memories in the brain~. We basically have to learn to interpret the incoming data from the senses. Now we don't remember this learning process, as we were babies when we learned it. A young child doesn't see a tree for example, it sees/senses a something extended up from another something (the ground) and it in turn extends in all directions, the extensions getting smaller. Mom or Dad says, that's a tree. That info is stored in the brain, later when another similar something is seen, kid says, oh, that's a tree. This process also occurs in psychologically interpreting the world. We have a certain world view, and this world view forms our own interpretation of the incoming data. This is why it is so difficult to change, we think we can be objective, know correctly what's out there concerning culture and politics and all manner of other subjects. But we don't see objective facts, our own psychology sways what we think and feel. We think we see correctly, but we don't. To make it simple, just think of self as a filtering mechanism that lets in, itself, only what corresponds to its own view of the world. IOW, self distorts all incoming information to confirm what it already believes about the world. Several past dudes, or ladies, put it this way, We don't see what is, we see what we are. laughter put it succinctly (in a nutshell) above. Thanks for the nod 'pilgrim. Tolle makes the distinction between "clock time", and, as you allude to there, "psychological time". Etolle said he has realized that time is something we've invented. This is the realization about "psychological time". About how our minds make fictional movies based on our ability to form memories. But there is also no objective "clock time", either - a subject from which Tolle refrains. This does not mean that change doesn't happen. Some people say, flat out, that "time is an illusion". I won't disagree with them, but that's not the way I'd put it. There is no analytical or other intellectual resolution to the question, "what is clock time?". The word "time", has a bad reputation, so, rather, I'd phrase that question "what is change?", which is just another form of the existential question. Just another form of self-inquiry. This was the reason I originally replied with that distinction about the "functional now" you referred to, and the here and now that can be pointed to as transcendent of time. The eternal moment.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2021 12:22:17 GMT -5
I look forward to seeing the new Matrix film, Matrix Resurrection. The following is the basis of the first film, something I saw and came to understand as a teenager, I'm sure after Philosophy 101 and getting a taste of some of the past-dudes, I remember Bishop Berkeley made a deep impression on me, and Hume and Locke. But you can examine this right now as you read. Look at your computer screen, and then look all around. All of that is inside your own head. Everything you see isn't ~out there~, it's inside your own head. You have the five senses which gather information from the exterior world. I think it was Locke, maybe Hume, who called this info impressions. He said the brain is like wax, and the incoming sensory data makes an impression in the "wax". So we have sensory nerves which carry the info into the brain. We also have motor nerves which carry impulses to the muscles, the brain for example telling your fingers which letters to type out on your keyboard. But that's it, there isn't an exit means of nerves putting data back out into the world that you see (or hear or taste, touch or smell). So everything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is a construct formed by your own brain, and exists [only] in your own brain. Just as odd, it's very dark in your brain. And the incoming data is shifted around, sometimes its encoded by electricity, sometimes chemically via neurotransmitters. Now, Kant was the first (modern) philosopher to say time and space are not ~out there~ objectively in-the-world. He said time and space are our own subjective means of making sense of the world. He said we don't experience what's out there (the thing in itself), we only experience what our consciousness ~forms~ from what's out there. So those other dudes above built upon what Kant said. Heisenberg said the same. Those early formers of quantum mechanics were also philosophers, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, de Broglie, Bohr, Pauli. And then finally, The Matrix explained it all very well. Going one step further (while I'm here), I learned later studying perception, what we see is highly informed by ~already existing memories in the brain~. We basically have to learn to interpret the incoming data from the senses. Now we don't remember this learning process, as we were babies when we learned it. A young child doesn't see a tree for example, it sees/senses a something extended up from another something (the ground) and it in turn extends in all directions, the extensions getting smaller. Mom or Dad says, that's a tree. That info is stored in the brain, later when another similar something is seen, kid says, oh, that's a tree. This process also occurs in psychologically interpreting the world. We have a certain world view, and this world view forms our own interpretation of the incoming data. This is why it is so difficult to change, we think we can be objective, know correctly what's out there concerning culture and politics and all manner of other subjects. But we don't see objective facts, our own psychology sways what we think and feel. We think we see correctly, but we don't. To make it simple, just think of self as a filtering mechanism that lets in, itself, only what corresponds to its own view of the world. IOW, self distorts all incoming information to confirm what it already believes about the world. Several past dudes, or ladies, put it this way, We don't see what is, we see what we are. laughter put it succinctly (in a nutshell) above. Thanks for the nod 'pilgrim. Tolle makes the distinction between "clock time", and, as you allude to there, "psychological time". Etolle said he has realized that time is something we've invented. This is the realization about "psychological time". About how our minds make fictional movies based on our ability to form memories. But there is also no objective "clock time", either - a subject from which Tolle refrains. This does not mean that change doesn't happen. Some people say, flat out, that "time is an illusion". I won't disagree with them, but that's not the way I'd put it. There is no analytical or other intellectual resolution to the question, "what is clock time?". The word "time", has a bad reputation, so, rather, I'd phrase that question "what is change?", which is just another form of the existential question. Just another form of self-inquiry. This was the reason I originally replied with that distinction about the "functional now" you referred to, and the here and now that can be pointed to as transcendent of time. The eternal moment. Gurdjieff said: In the whole of the universe, time is the unique subjective. PD Ouspensky was a mathematician and wrote a couple of books before he met Gurdjieff, wrote on the 4th dimension. Tertium Organum came out in Russia in 1912. Gurdjieff once asked Ouspensky to explain his theory of dimensions to the other students. I will skip the whole description as I have written about it before. Ouspensky called time the 4th dimension (later we know space is 3D and space-time is 4D, from Einstein's work). Ouspensky called the 5th dimension eternity. You can look at time as a horizontal line, past, present and future. Eternity is vertical to time and is a record of every moment of time. And Nicoll called eternity a living record. (This means if you access either 5D or 6D, they seem real, actual). So every present moment still exists in a very real sense, just in (hidden) higher 5D. But it is accessible. Now, going a little further, the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM says that all possibilities are actualized, that every possible outcome of an event occurs, but in a different branch/world, not accessible to us. The future exists as a superposition of possibilities until one possibility is actualized in the functional present moment. I may have given this example previously. Say you are moving up a highway and see a fork in the road ahead, two possibilities. You can't turn up one fork or the other, until you get there. Arriving at the fork, in time, is the meaning of the functional moment in time. Ouspensky basically said the 6th dimension = the Many Worlds Interpretation, except on collapse of the wave function only one possibility is actualized, in time. All the different possibilities remain as unactualized in the 6th dimension, and are accessible. I prefer Ouspensky's view to the Many World's view. If you take the right fork, all the possibilities of the left fork still exist in the 6th dimension, but they cannot be actualized, in time, because that moment of time has passed. All this is very interestingly demonstrated in the film The Adjustment Bureau, which is based on a Philip K D!ck short story. Did D!ck ever read Ouspensky? Possibly. Curious, I once looked up the short story in a bookstore to see how the computer-tablets were written about, as the story was written in the '50's and in the film the Adjustment Bureau dudes used very up to date tablets. Very curiously, PKD precisely describes today's computer tablets in the story about 50 years in advance.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 15, 2021 22:40:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the nod 'pilgrim. Tolle makes the distinction between "clock time", and, as you allude to there, "psychological time". Etolle said he has realized that time is something we've invented. This is the realization about "psychological time". About how our minds make fictional movies based on our ability to form memories. But there is also no objective "clock time", either - a subject from which Tolle refrains. This does not mean that change doesn't happen. Some people say, flat out, that "time is an illusion". I won't disagree with them, but that's not the way I'd put it. There is no analytical or other intellectual resolution to the question, "what is clock time?". The word "time", has a bad reputation, so, rather, I'd phrase that question "what is change?", which is just another form of the existential question. Just another form of self-inquiry. This was the reason I originally replied with that distinction about the "functional now" you referred to, and the here and now that can be pointed to as transcendent of time. The eternal moment. Gurdjieff said: In the whole of the universe, time is the unique subjective. PD Ouspensky was a mathematician and wrote a couple of books before he met Gurdjieff, wrote on the 4th dimension. Tertium Organum came out in Russia in 1912. Gurdjieff once asked Ouspensky to explain his theory of dimensions to the other students. I will skip the whole description as I have written about it before. Ouspensky called time the 4th dimension (later we know space is 3D and space-time is 4D, from Einstein's work). Ouspensky called the 5th dimension eternity. You can look at time as a horizontal line, past, present and future. Eternity is vertical to time and is a record of every moment of time. And Nicoll called eternity a living record. (This means if you access either 5D or 6D, they seem real, actual). So every present moment still exists in a very real sense, just in (hidden) higher 5D. But it is accessible. Now, going a little further, the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM says that all possibilities are actualized, that every possible outcome of an event occurs, but in a different branch/world, not accessible to us. The future exists as a superposition of possibilities until one possibility is actualized in the functional present moment. I may have given this example previously. Say you are moving up a highway and see a fork in the road ahead, two possibilities. You can't turn up one fork or the other, until you get there. Arriving at the fork, in time, is the meaning of the functional moment in time. Ouspensky basically said the 6th dimension = the Many Worlds Interpretation, except on collapse of the wave function only one possibility is actualized, in time. All the different possibilities remain as unactualized in the 6th dimension, and are accessible. I prefer Ouspensky's view to the Many World's view. If you take the right fork, all the possibilities of the left fork still exist in the 6th dimension, but they cannot be actualized, in time, because that moment of time has passed. All this is very interestingly demonstrated in the film The Adjustment Bureau, which is based on a Philip K D!ck short story. Did D!ck ever read Ouspensky? Possibly. Curious, I once looked up the short story in a bookstore to see how the computer-tablets were written about, as the story was written in the '50's and in the film the Adjustment Bureau dudes used very up to date tablets. Very curiously, PKD precisely describes today's computer tablets in the story about 50 years in advance. Thanks for taking the time to share some of that culture 'pilgrim. Now, I do have to add though, that what I mean by eternity and the present transcendent of time, has nothing to do with dimensions, many-worlds, records, wave functions or any other intellectual abstraction. No disrespect intended here, I just want to differentiate.
|
|