This question proved difficult to word without getting the wrong response.
I am here thinking of Merleau-Ponty and pushing back against the separation of mind-body, suggesting that we intellectually understand as much via our bodies.
Our bodies tells us the space we occupy and thereby what space, and time, are. it tells us about entropy and time and by doing so allows insights into further questions and answers. Time is the medium through which we move, not through speed but location.the form we inhabit identifies other forms. We cannot reembody the past, but it shows us why. Spacetime is 'us'. Entropy increases with time and movement thereby the future, that is the next movement we make, creates high entropy.
Stanley Wilkin : Yes, we can definitely understand the infinite and ever-changing universe, but only progressively and ever incompletely - the universe, which is a never-ending (eternal) process, mediated by quantum, dialectical and historical chance and necessity!
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”
― Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
"You are not a drop in the ocean, you Are the ocean in a drop" - Jalaluddin Rumi
"The Infinite as a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science": http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf
“… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” F. Engels, “Dialectics of Nature”.
Although we are supposed to understand through our brains/minds we can understand without the body which creates the experience we then conceptualise.
From Merleau-Ponty's Phenomena of Perception
At the outset of the study of perception, we find in language the notion of sensation, which seems immediate and obvious: I have a sensation of redness, of blueness, of hot or cold. It will, however, be seen that nothing could in fact be more confused, and that because they accepted it readily, traditional analyses missed the phenomenon of perception.
An understanding that primarily begins within the body's scope stations us in location, even when that location shifts, and there substantiates both materiality and our place within it. We live within Time and our negotiation with it. Movement places us within another Time frame, one related to previous locations.
Stanley Wilkin,
What you wrote that 'spacetime is us and time is the medium through which we move' is complete nonsense if not philosophical hallucinations, and I urge you to come back to your senses.
You,space,and time are all subjected to Einstein's relativity,and there's no way out.I do not want to cause you dismay, but try to understand what spacetime is through this short YouTube video by Tyson and Shatner.
https://youtu.be/u8lx19V7SNg?si=83524Tf3xyi4gTH2
"Can we understand the universe by referencing our bodies?"
First the gradual adoption of the erect posture and then the adoption of the hand to productive labour, were the two most fundamental aspects in the evolution of man and his consciousness.
Excerpts from “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to man”. F. Engels
“Labour is the source of all wealth; the political economists assert. And it really is the source – next to nature, which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth. But it is even infinitely more than this. It is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labour created man himself.
…It stands to reason that if erect gait among our hairy ancestors became first the rule and then, in time, a necessity, other diverse functions must, in the meantime, have devolved upon the hands.
…The number and general arrangement of the bones and muscles are the same in both; but the hand of the lowest savage can perform hundreds of operations that no monkey's hand can imitate. No simian hand has ever fashioned even the crudest stone knife.
… Before the first flint could be fashioned into a knife by human hands, a period of time must probably have elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to us appears insignificant. But the decisive step was taken: the hand became free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity and skill, and the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation.
Thus, the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations, by inheritance of the resulting special development of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods of time, bones as well, and by the ever-renewed employment of these inherited improvements in new, more and more complicated operations, has the human hand attained the high degree of perfection that has enabled it to conjure into being the pictures of Raphael, the statues of Thorwaldsen, the music of Paganini.
But the hand did not exist by itself. It was only one member of an entire, highly complex organism. And what benefited the hand, benefited also the whole body it served; and this in two ways. In the first place, the body benefited in consequence of the law of correlation of growth, as Darwin called it. According to this law, particular forms of the individual parts of an organic being are always bound up with certain forms of other parts that apparently have no connection with the first.
… First comes labour, after it, and then side by side with it, articulate speech - these were the two most essential stimuli under the influence of which the brain of the ape gradually changed into that of man, which for all its similarity to the former is far larger and more perfect. Hand in hand with the development of the brain went the development of its most immediate instruments - the sense organs.
… The reaction on labour and speech of the development of the brain and its attendant senses, of the increasing clarity of consciousness, power of abstraction and of judgment, gave an ever-renewed impulse to the further development of both labour and speech. This further development did not reach its conclusion when man finally became distinct from the monkey, but, on the whole, continued to make powerful progress, varying in degree and direction among different peoples and at different times, and here and there even interrupted by a local or temporary regression. This further development has been strongly urged forward, on the one hand, and has been guided along more definite directions on the other hand, owing to a new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged man, viz. society.”
Dear Issam, thank you but I do not think my reasoning is at fault but your understanding.
Are you insisting on your own cleverness (sic) over the insights of say Merleau-Ponty, one of the leading philosophers of the previous century? The trouble is, I think you are.
Abdul,
Organised labour was late and at best came in 6000 years ago. Can you expand as there was a lot of time in between.
I see labour as part of the growth of settled communities. There was also an upsurge in productivity whereby corn/wheat was bartered.
Philosophizer Stanley Wilkin,
Merleau-Ponty was a philosopher and not a scientist. Science is about facts and mathematics and not a Schizophrenia belief or a religion business or faith in gods. Sadly, when science and philosophy get mixed, nonsense may start to emerge. To grasp what I mean, listen carefully to what Krauss says about 'nothing' and 'philosophy' in this 3-minute short YouTube video.
https://youtu.be/y4D6qY2c0Z8?si=OMbTB1MqGR9Q9W5h
Issam, one more remark and then I will ignore you. I don't like your language nor do I like your congenital stupidity. You are in a fuss and confusing issues and are probably unwell. I sympathise.
From here on, I will ignore you. Why you are in a fuss is beyond me but your belief that Einstein and the scientists around him did not engage in philosophy, which you find peculiarly distasteful, ignores how they functioned. Niels Bohr is generally considered as much a philosopher as scientist. The two were not separate in their eyes as they are in yours.
You clearly do not understand what this is about and I suspect have for one reason or another exaggerated your abilities, believing your lack of understanding belongs to others. As this conversation is not congenial to you and you appear to be on a devotional path to make everyone aware of and accept your own limited views, and no doubt will be in a greater rage if they simply consider you a fool, do you not think you should go somewhere else.
A stupid human being rarely recognises themself as such. And I have spent too much time on you. Actually, I'm not sure anyone said this was a scientific debate.
Abdul you are correct in your estimate, but if I remember correctly that comes from Marx. And although I hold he has a point there are more reasons than that for these developments. I think I told you I once used his psychological ideas on labour, which I thought had justification. That the removal of the elite from labour, using the body for labour and instead engaging in 'sense' based activities that had no outcome caused failure in identity. That alone explains, or can explain, mental illness or what we consider mental illness.
Separating body and mind has results, I do not mean individually but socially.
Issam, I looked at your site and can see why you are in a fuss but try and calm down and learn to listen to others and moderate your language. If you believe that achieving a level in physics requires you to go around as a physics-apostle setting the world to rights if misguidedly while completely failing to understand the position of others-and honestly you actually do not understand Einstein and those around him.
The position I have taken here is capable of being adapted to science and actually is not far from Einstein's own inspirations on the subject. And even more so, Leibniz who was considered to be engaging in Metaphysics-although his monads dismissed in his own time are now employed. Leibniz too considered the nature of reality before he attempted to measure it! There are different ways to approach the same problems and get different results. Your statements on there being only one direction would have caused Einstein and his colleagues to consider you a fool! In the same way and for the same reasons as I do.
One more remark on this. We move through space and time and before this arrogant s...d came on, this is hardly a baseless notion nor a new one. Movement is through space and indicates time. In fact this was the way that early empirical thinkers understood the matter before any attempt to measure it. Abdul, many like you have quarrelled with the use mathematics and certainly new scientists have quarrelled with it too, but I forget their reasoning.
Stanley Wilkin > “Abdul, many like you have quarrelled with the use mathematics and certainly new scientists have quarrelled with it too, but I forget their reasoning.”
Stanley, I am not against mathematics as such, but certainly against its misuse in theoretical physics and cosmology, ever since Newton. My world view is based on materialist dialectics, which not only has “has quarrel” with modern official theoretical physics, but in some cases is the exact opposite!
I have been accused by some, both in RG and elsewhere, of crime and of many other evils against science, the accusation made against you above is nothing in comparison. But a discussion on this issue will make it out of topic here. But since you seem to be interested to know about my views, I present below a comment I made in a theoretical physics forum of RG, about 3 days ago:
[Abdul Malek added an answer 3 days ago at the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Twin_effect_from_relativity_of_simultaneity_alone_provides_a_totally_wrong_prediction_Is_somebody_aware_of_it/11
Joachim Domsta > “How impertinent one might be to dare continue crying against the consistent science of say Newton or Einstein only because they were not inspired by Inspire?”
Dear ALL: Is natural science in general and physics in particular a theology or Newton and Einstein are the prophets? Are their works, writings equivalent to Torah, Bible or Koran etc.? Must physicists worship them even if they are proved to be wrong?
Well, based on the works mainly of Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Leibniz and Hegel; the dialectical perspective of Hegel, Marx and Engels and my humble knowledge of the subjects, I have attempted to show (and open to correction) scientifically, mathematically and philosophically that a) Newton’s law of universal gravitational attraction is only valid on or near the surface of celestial body; but totally wrong beyond, in space. This is the very reason why fictitious entities of Big, Dark, Black Cosmic Monsters need to be invoked to explain new and evolving observational facts; b) Einstein’s theories of relativity based on geometrical axioms; have no basis in objective reality and hence have nothing to do with science. So, most of that is being done in modern theoretical physics and cosmology is nothing but scholastic tautology, where the conclusions and derivations done are already contained in (or subjectively made to conform to, by adding new parameters) to the premise /axiom and no new knowledge is gained!
References to my decades long published books, journal articles (along with reviews on my published works) are available through the Internet and in my RG profile. My comments and deliberations on modern theoretical physics and cosmology would be available from the archives of "The Guardian" (UK) under my adopted name "futurehuman" and of RG in my real name.
I am indebted to close friends (Late) Dr. Halton (Chip) Arp and (Late) Dr. Wolfgang E. Engelhardt for direct influence on my scientific knowledge and indirect influence from multitude of scientists and thinkers from around the world both in and outside RG; in particular Prof. Eric Lord in RG, whose patient and long discussion was very useful. My inspiration in theoretical physics and cosmology goes back to my student life in Dhaka from her pioneering sons - physicist Satyendra Nath Bose and astrophysicist Meghnad Saha.
Recently, I have been awarded Full Membership from Sigma Xi Society, apparently based on my published works on theoretical and astrophysics; which are now available (along with some reviews of my works) in the Internet. This is an award I never anticipated.
I had lots of difficulty in publishing my heretic works in regular journals, who rejected these just after reading the titles. Our fellow RG member and a friend André Michaud is my regional editor of "General Science Journal" (GSE), which (like arXiv.) uploads raw and un-reviewed manuscript in their website. André was very kind to upload a number of my manuscripts in the website of GSE, which then attracted the attention of some journals including INSPIRE, who agreed to publish my woks in their journals and/or displayed these works in their websites
We had been with Prof. Domsta about this issue few times before. Prof. Domsta had been very abusive to me in various RG forums even before my very significant publications on Newton’s and Einstein’s theories were published. He, along with others, tried hard to get me kicked out of RG. He now accuses me of cheating, crime against science and all evils in the heaven and the Earth (and some more); and excommunicates me just …to dare continue crying against the consistent science of say Newton or Einstein…”
Well, I am very much pleased to have committed these “crimes”, because I do not need any benediction from anybody, least of all from someone known as Joachim Domsta. I am a proud and independent scientist and a proud citizen of Canadian - a country that help-incubate and foster scientists like me capable of advancing human scientific knowledge, further ahead!
Please Note: As reported in my article, Einstein’s derivation of the Lorentz Transforms (LTs) is published in full in the Appendix of his book. "“Relativity, The Special and General Theory".
The integer 5 is an exactly known quantity and hence can be multiplied by anything, even 0. But ƛ and μ are unknown constants used in Einstein’s equations, discussed above. But if we know from the start of any mathematical procedure that ƛ and μ have values 0, then to multiply anything with it makes no sense. Is it the same thing as multiplying the number 5 with it, as our Professor Domsta proudly suggests!
Einstein used the very similar procedure in his equation m = m0 x gamma, where m0 (the mass of a photon) is 0!!!. The great Einstein uses alphabetic symbols to hide a mathematical (numerical) fallacy!
Einstein’s fudging mathematics to fabricate idealistic and axiomatic theories is not confined to his derivation of LTs (Lorentz Transforms) alone, please see the following RG forum also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_subtraction_error_in_the_addendum_to_Einsteins_1905_paper_about_E_mc22/3
Abdul,
You know or I hope you know that I feel alternative positions are necessary, as long as they are not conspiracy theories. There are others who worry over these matters like you and in order to reach some certainty, if ever possible, they need to be heard. What is accepted today is rarely what is accepted a hundred years from now.
In my desire not to have arrogant morons attempt to introduce themselves into this debate I will place here reference books that tackle the subject. These will be placed at certain points introducing the nature of the debate. While I know from experience such interruptions based on misunderstanding, arrogance and intellectual limitations, which they are not aware of, can happen on here these books will clarify the nature of the debate.
Ecstasies of space, Time and the human body. by David Farrell Krell.
In fact the human form was and is instrumental in General relativity although not entirely essential. Aspects involved are information and its conservation, entropy and part of the nature of increase.
but no more morons. one is enough.
On the origin of the observer Amrit Sorli
American Journal of Modern Physics 2014; 3(4): 173-177 Published online July 30, 2014 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajmp) doi: 10.11648/j.ajmp.20140304.14 ISSN: 2326-8867 (Print); ISSN: 2326-8891 (Online)
This one can be read online and relates to my first concept of the question and its importance.
Stanley Wilkin > "What is accepted today is rarely what is accepted a hundred years from now".
Stanley, Thanks for speaking out against what I call the “Talibans” of official science, who accuse anybody saying anything against Einstein as apostasy that needs to severely dealt with! Thanks also for your sympathetic words and the principled stand on positive knowledge. For dialectics, there can never be any final, ultimate, absolute etc. truth or “a theory of everything”; a foolish dream that conventional philosophy and theoretical physics pursued and still pursuing at enormous waste of human. Intellectual, technological, social, financial etc., resources; just to save the credibility of their outdated ruling tools and ideas; over a captive humanity!
A final, absolute etc., truth would mean the end of the contradiction between man and Nature (the world) or an end of all existence, which is impossible! To quote Engels, “Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker.” ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring).
Sorry, I have to indulge in some more of my personal issues, before other possible more substantive scientific or philosophical content that this forum deserves. I have faced unspeakable and ad hominem attacks, since I started my publications on these issues around 2000 elsewhere; and it continued in RG after I became a member near the end of 2017. One of the RG forums on Einstein’s theories of relativity initiated by me, became so heated that RG took the unusual step to close it down after it ran for about two years. But my two following (relatively recent) publications (which most people can follow); have now silenced my adversaries.
“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754)
"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
A summarized view: "Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!" Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...
I know that my heretic views (based on dialectics) represent a serious challenge to causality and formal logic based theoretical physics and cosmology (and the established order itself), continuing since Isaac Newton. Online campaign against my works and views continues. My published books on Amazon web-page are being corrupted; links to favourable reviews of my works (mainly in the leftist websites) are either blocked or totally removed from the Google list; fake websites pretending to discuss my works are in fact traps for cyber attack, to prevent interest in my works and so on.
Many theoretical physicists, including a Nobel Laureate who read my articles do not show the temerity to refute my claims, but only show opportunistic and stoic silence as if my works do not exist or of no value at all!
But in spite of all these, recognition of my contribution to theoretical physics and cosmology (even if slow and reluctant) is emerging. The award of Full Membership to Sigma Xi is an example. My following response (in a theoretical physics forum) to one of my most severe adversary (a “scientific Taliban”) got the status of top “popular answer”:
[Abdul Malek added an answer
November 29, 2022
Joachim Domsta : You Sir, unfortunately, seem to me to be the most confused formal mathematician/scientist of any others, I have seen in RG for the past few years. Please see how many times you make successive comments to clarify or correct your own immediate previous posts. Also, I am not a formally trained mathematician and have very limited ability in mathematics. So, we are a mismatch to continue discussion on Einstein's mathematics used in LTs.
I would rather leave the matter to the consideration of others who are more qualified and for better judgments. If you have any issue with my publication, please take it up with INSPIRE, who listed/cited my article in their website. The following is what "INSPIRE" says in their website:
"INSPIRE (http://inspirehep.net/) is a trusted community hub that helps researchers to share and find accurate scholarly information in high energy physics.
It serves as a one-stop information platform for HEP community, comprising 8 interlinked databases on literature, conferences, institutions, journals, researchers, experiments, jobs and data. Run in collaboration by CERN, DESY, Fermilab, IHEP, IN2P3, and SLAC, it has been serving the scientific community for almost 50 years. Previously known as SPIRES, it was the first website outside Europe and the first database on the web. Close interaction with the user community and with arXiv, ADS, HEPData, ORCID, PDG and publishers is the backbone of INSPIRE’s evolution".
Thanks.]
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Were_some_scientists_right_in_showing_that_the_Lorentz_Force_brings_to_a_paradox
"Can we understand the universe by referencing our bodies?" :
We can (progressively) understand the universe ONLY "by referencing our bodies"! Life even in its most primitive form have to have some sense (instinctive or conscious or both) about its surrounding and CHANGE it to create conditions for its existence and propagation through PHYSICAL interaction with Nature. This sense and capability is enhanced progressively through the evolutionary process reaching its highest level in the thing brain of man.
So, any positive knowledge of man can come only through social/historical practice, technology and other form of direct physical interaction with Nature. Positive "knowledge" is just the abstract image (a reflection) of the physical world in a perceptive brain of the species; particularly a thinking brain.
"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. K. Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach"
Yes, Abdul, precisely.
We have no concept of space and time without them. Nor, as I stressed, locality, that one thing is placed in a relationship to other things and together they build up a neighbourhood and universe.
Stanley Wilkin, this may be considered off-topic, but prompted by your statement that Niels Bohr was as much a philosopher as a scientist, I would like to note the following. Bohr is mainly known for his contributions to physics. Actually, for many, he is the most important contributor to the foundation of quantum mechanics. I suspect your statement is more a personal interpretation than an established view. In any case, it is an interesting point, and if you could provide some context for it – a reference maybe – I would be interested to read it.
I think that it is pretty clear that every physical theory has philosophical consequences, often important ones. Moreover and maybe more importantly, analytic philosophy and mathematical (formal) logic, which is the basis of modern mathematics and by extension of anything derived from mathematics (such as physical theories), seem to share common ground, with the natural deduction system being an example.
Spiros,
This question has given me many problems but honestly I think its because people do not know enough about the subject. I mean you tell me that Bohr was one of the most famous physicist and therefore could not have participated I think you feel in philosophy. I probably know far more about Bohr than you do. And no your suspicions that it is a personal statement is fortunately wrong. I expect, wrongly, more from this site. Pig ignorance (I am not referring to you but the previous objector) is not excusable.
The Philosophy of Niels Bohr
Aage Petersen
Pages 8-14 | Published online: 15 Sep 2015
Any other information you want on this matter, let me know. I do not understand why scientists reject the clear connection between Einstein's ideas and Bohr's and the science both formed. Einstein's thought experiments were surely a clue?
Spiros,
NATURE FEH. 18, 1939, \ 'oL. 143 Natural Philosophy and Human Cultures* By Prof. Niels Bohr, For. Mem. R.S.
A philosophy paper by Niels Bohr.
Stanley, thank you for the reference. I did not imply that being a physicist, or a scientist in gerenal, excludes one from being a philosopher, too. What I wanted to say is that Bohr is mainly known, and this I think is a fact, for his contributions to physics, which are of uttermost importance. If he was as much a philosopher as a physicist, then his contributions to philosophy would be as important as his contributions to physics, and this seems (to me) not to be exactly the case. Other historic figures, like Bertrand Russell, were more philosophers than scientists, although their contributions to science are also very significant. I did not mean that science and philosophy cannot coexist.
Spiros,
OK. I'm not sure he needed to be a great philosopher as anyway when he was doing his great work in physics the nature of reality was less an issue than human participation in it. I just felt the question has been misunderstood although I framed it as well as I could. It is not about any conflict between the two disciplines but our experience of and construction of time through space. Einstein was said to have had his understanding of time through working amongst clocks early in his life but reflecting on the everyday is what appears to garner insights. Was Russell a scientist of any kind? I thought he was a philosopher and mathematician.
As for the scientist/philosophy connection clearly philosophy comes into modern physics and probably inspired some of the research. Einstein's thought experiments are similar to or the same as some philosophic thought experiments. Especially ones connected to 'mind'. I do suspect some scientists are verging towards fanaticism on the purity of conventional descriptions of science as laboratories and maths. Both these approaches have been disastrous in psychology producing constructed realities rather than understanding.
Stanley, from my point of view, your question statements are fine. I just commented on a remark of yours that made an impression to me. I consider that mathematics is a science; not a natural one, but an exact one. Besides, it penetrates every (other) science.
What you write about purity in science is observed, but from my limited experience, it is mainly observed among mathematicians. I cannot say why, but I suspect that it has to do with their (wrong) belief that “truth” is their business only. Besides, some say that directly.
Spiros,
I was more concerned with the words employed, arrogance and dogmatic sense of knowledge. We remain in infancy where understanding is concerned.
My expressed notion of movement and space constructs our understanding of the world and may involve deeper insights in our interaction with and knowledge of the world. By itself it involves a breaking away from time as synchronised repetition or relevant only through perceptions of light speed, which, after all, according to Einstein depends on the observer and velocity. Speed and time are different to its relevance to us as we negotiate the reality of our worlds which is done principally through the body. Each movement determines another dimension of time and our appropriation of it as reality. Reality is to be understood and measured not simply accepted.
How Physics Confronts Reality: Einstein was Correct but Bohr Won the Game
Roger G.Newton. 147 pp.World Scientific
The concept of reality which Einstein felt was lost through Bohr's work, is a matter of what portion of reality we are focusing on.
Everyday Concepts as a Guide to Reality
Lynne Rudder Baker
The Monist
Vol. 89, No. 3, Coming into Being and Passing Away (JULY 2006), pp. 313-333 (21 pages)
Published By: Oxford University Press
If we create reality, or a kind of reality, through our negotiation of the world that does mean that one reality reflecting specific circumstances should be considered more worthy than realities reflecting other circumstances involving movement, speed, time.
From Eternity to Here, The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Sean Carrol.
Time increases in the direction that entropy increases (163)
While the above is accepted, is it possible, as Carrol considers, that time is different to all of us dependent on location in time, and our experiences can be connected with others when we or they connect with others. Such a connection must be within a specific time location-Carroll sees this time as these connections as 'kind of like space', although the kind of is not necessary. While we live or function within time and space those need not flow in exactly the same way, only in the same direction.
In the article above, Bohr suggests that perceiving space and time unambiguously is no longer possible in the world which quantum physics has described.
-Thousands of years ago Sumerian culture described a universe in which the gods and their creations shared the same space but on different planes so that although the gods could see into the human plane, human beings could not see into theirs. Somehow learnt as a consequence of the proximity of the gods and occasionally, at the right points, the gods entered the human plane. Their realities existed side by side.-
It is possible thereby variations on fixed time and space are wrong and thereby our ideas which rely on this belief? Can we not participate in time because we shared its direction, but exist within different spaces? If for some reason we are unable to share the direction of time, we cannot share anything.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India