kellychaos
Apr 26th, 2005, 05:27 PM
This is how the post should have debuted. Sorry, guys.
I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist. I mean that I am convinced that there is a consistent way of thinking about nature, that makes no use of the notions of space and time at the fundamental level. And that this way of thinking will turn out to be the useful and convincing one.
I think that the notions of space and time will turn out to be useful only within some approximation. They are similar to a notion like "the surface of the water" which looses meaning when we describe the dynamics of the individual atoms forming water and air: if we look at very small scale, there isn't really any actual surface down there. I am convinced space and time are like the surface of the water: convenient macroscopic approximations, flimsy but illusory and insufficient screens that our mind uses to organize reality.
In particular, I am convinced that time is an artifact of the approximation in which we disregard the large majority of the degrees of freedom of reality. Thus "time" is just the reflection of our ignorance.
OK, I got the quoting better arranged so that, by now, I hope you realize the original premise was not mine but that the rebuttal at the bottom was.
This whole statement appears to me like the Vonnegut "trapped in the amber" theory from Slaughterhouse Five. Things are active at our level of perception but at a macro level to a being "above" us, the dynamics of our lives is stillness to them. Sort of like hitting the bong and wondering if we're sitting on a pin in a higher dimension.
My answer to that is, "So what?!" Of what pragmatic value is it to us if it were so? Am I giving up on the metaphysical too easily? Have I lost the human spirit and faith in mankind to discover new realities when the truth is that I really don't care because it does not, and more than likely will not, impact my life in any practical way?
I don't doubt that there are, indeed, more "degrees of freedom" but our senses are limited. Is he proposing that there are unassisted ways to experience these other dimensions in our collective future? Have we just not found a way to "tap in" with, as yet, undiscovered senses. Or is it just a matter of perspective ... or faith? Again, so what?!
I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist. I mean that I am convinced that there is a consistent way of thinking about nature, that makes no use of the notions of space and time at the fundamental level. And that this way of thinking will turn out to be the useful and convincing one.
I think that the notions of space and time will turn out to be useful only within some approximation. They are similar to a notion like "the surface of the water" which looses meaning when we describe the dynamics of the individual atoms forming water and air: if we look at very small scale, there isn't really any actual surface down there. I am convinced space and time are like the surface of the water: convenient macroscopic approximations, flimsy but illusory and insufficient screens that our mind uses to organize reality.
In particular, I am convinced that time is an artifact of the approximation in which we disregard the large majority of the degrees of freedom of reality. Thus "time" is just the reflection of our ignorance.
OK, I got the quoting better arranged so that, by now, I hope you realize the original premise was not mine but that the rebuttal at the bottom was.
This whole statement appears to me like the Vonnegut "trapped in the amber" theory from Slaughterhouse Five. Things are active at our level of perception but at a macro level to a being "above" us, the dynamics of our lives is stillness to them. Sort of like hitting the bong and wondering if we're sitting on a pin in a higher dimension.
My answer to that is, "So what?!" Of what pragmatic value is it to us if it were so? Am I giving up on the metaphysical too easily? Have I lost the human spirit and faith in mankind to discover new realities when the truth is that I really don't care because it does not, and more than likely will not, impact my life in any practical way?
I don't doubt that there are, indeed, more "degrees of freedom" but our senses are limited. Is he proposing that there are unassisted ways to experience these other dimensions in our collective future? Have we just not found a way to "tap in" with, as yet, undiscovered senses. Or is it just a matter of perspective ... or faith? Again, so what?!