I disagree, but that is the nature of the world. You wanted evidence, I gave it to you. Do what you wish with it, including ignoring it. For those who wish to follow this line of inquiry, they are free to do so. Key words would be Bohm, quantum potential, quantum entanglement, non-locality, Wheeler's delayed choice enjoyment. From this starting point, the is a very rich line of inquiry.

So how would the conscious, free will act move one particular object independently of the other objects? It cannot be by means of the wave perturbations which you describe, because these are not independent. It's easy to make the claim that Bergson's Elan Vital solves this problem, but until you explain how one object (a living being) moves itself independently of all the surrounding objects, your description of an ocean with waves remains incompatible with this reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't move it independently. It is embedded within the wave form and uses Will to attempt to move in a specific direction which would change the wave form within the field. Movement is thus a change in the flux of the waveform which is pretty much what quantum probability wave is describing.

When I push something out is one wave acting upon another within the field. The mind is using a reference wave to observe this movement and creating a corresponding memory wave form that itself is constantly changing. Everything would be waveforms but referenced in different ways and some some more substantial than others. Substantiality can be analogued by observing threads being compressed into strings and strings being compressed into balls.

It is necessary to use the creative mind to form the impressions. In the same way, musical sounds (more substantial)are transformed in impressions within memory (less substantial).

It's a rich line of inquiry. Other key ideas are Bohm' quantum potential and how it might explain the delayed choice experiment.

Moving an object would be analog to one wave in an ocean moving another. Ocean and waves provide the basic analog of nature (it is a mirrored manifestation). The only thing missing is the impetus behind the movement. This would be Consciousness or Bergson's Elan Vital. With this image (that can only be intuited based upon many manifested patterns) one can begin to understand the nature of nature without paradoxes (any unit derived symbol will muddy the waters :) ). What you refer to as parts are simply wave perturbations.

It is unfortunate, but my whole model and approach really does undermine all of academic philosophy as it is instructed since it denies the use of mathematics and logic as a method for penetrating nature.
As I said earlier, for probing nature, the arts should be the major part of the philosophical academic curriculum.

Quantum entanglement.

You don't think that there is evidence that the area of your field of vision is made up of separate objects, separate parts? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am saying that as far as empirical evidence exists at this time, there is no evidence of full and total separation. There seems to be more evidence to the contrary. You are speaking of separation (the concept of isolated particles) for which there is no empirical evidence and never was. The idea of somehow separate particles is a belief system, which one is free to embrace, but then one must explain what is in-between. It is rather simple, on the other hand, to have a continuous fabric of waves from which substantive matter is formed (and collapses into).

There is certainly empirical evidence for fields which are continuous and stretch forever. Much more evidence for this than separate and distinct particles. Particles are probably nothing more than perturbations (spikes) in the fields that appear and disappear in the field, but there is no empirical evidence one way or another. They would be real but they would also be part of and inseparable from the field since the field would be the fabric.

Actually, the splitting is a metaphor. Energy was release as the "droplet" (as Bohr described it) was reformed. One can analog this as one massive wave being reformed into two smaller ones and in the process releasing energy, as a wave hitting a beach might.

The wave in the above description is not part of anything, it would be the fabric of the universe. Consciousness, movement (energy) and memory are all sewn into this fabric and are everywhere just as an image is sewn into every part of a hologram. It is waves that make this all happen.

Is you saying this is your belief or are you saying there is empirical evidence? As far as I understand there is no evidence one way or the other, but there is evidence of persistent entanglement and fields that extend forever. I know of no evidence for separation of waves into distinct particles. Models should not be confused with nature and there is no splitting of atoms. Energy is merely being re-formed from less to more substantial and vice-versa. One way to picture this would be the shaping and reshaping of waves in an ocean. There is never separation. The "parts" we carve out (waves) are simply different shapes within the whole. Wheeler's quantum foam or Bohm's Implicate Universe might be two ways to visualize the fabric of the universe.

My metaphysics is one of waves and continuity. Definitely affects my outlook on life and the meaning that I perceive in it. Everything I do, I see as continuous waves, and continuity from past to possible future implies many things to me.

This is where you stray from observed empirical reality. Empirically proven principles demonstrate that anything which is divisible is such because it consists of parts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Explain any empirical evidence that anything is truly divisible, that is stands completely separate from all that surrounds it. It must be shown at the finest granularity that has been empirically explored.

Do you think that you can sense a feeling of time when you are unconscious? I don't think so. Do you think you sense a feeling of time when you are dreaming? — Metaphysician Undercover

If one insists on a discontinuous space and time then Zeno will always be there along with Achilles not ever reaching the finish line and arrows that are forever stopping in mid-air and restarting itself. The only way out is to challenge the assumptions and the methods used. If mathematics as a tool to reveal is too precious to give up then so be it. As for me, the idea of symbols actually being used as a placeholder for nature has passed. A piano n teacher one taught me to disregard the notes when you actually play music. The notes are inadequate.

As for what happens to time once I am unconscious or in a state of sleep is a question I have been long exploring and I come back to it now and then. As far as I can tell, it is a state where time is at its slowest, where there is some feeling of existing (via dreams) but it seems as though time isn't passing at all. Possibly an analog for the life-death cycle.

There is always substance though, a surface which we mark, or a ruler, or some such thing. So we measure space by referring to material substance, but we can only go so small with material substance, that is the point. — Metaphysician Undercover

But if you examine it closely, you are not cutting space. The mark simply dissolves into space as more precision is required. There is no materiality but there a continuum of substantial or density of the underlying field. The is simply no way to create units within continuity and if one tries to, out pops Zeno. There is no way to say it other than mathematical ideas and symbols do not carry any underlying ontological weight. So what do you use instead? Bergson said intuition in the sense of conscious penetrating consciousness. Actually, this is the heart of meditation. One just needs to practice the art of peeling away the layers of the onion. A totally unique skill.

I do not believe that we get a sense of time simply from existing. — Metaphysician Undercover

When I examine time, all I sense is a feeling of flow memories. I don't feel and units of measurment. Time sometimes feel like it is passing slowly and sometimes quickly and sometimes it seems to disappear into something else when I am dreaming or call unconscious, this last experience being particularly interesting.

I see how this makes sense with space, but I don't think it makes sense with time. With space it only makes sense to claim that there is a half distance if we can actually identify the real existence of that half distance, to say that the object travels that distance. So if we start with 100m we can mark this, and see that the object travels that spatial unity. We can mark a 50m unit, a 25m unit, and so on, and see the object travel these units. Inevitably there will be a point where we can no longer mark the distance, or observe the object travel it. So it doesn't make sense to speak of space in terms of divisibility like that.

Time however is different. Time is a concept derived from the motions of objects. It relates one motion to another. Because of this, it is not the property of any particular motion. This abstractness provides that it must be inherently divisible in order that we may apply it to ever faster and ever shorter duration of motion. So in the case of time I think we must always allow that even in the shortest identified time period, there is still a possible shorter time period, to provide us the capacity to identify even faster and shorter motions, in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

The marks in space themselves are also symbolic since nor cannot truly divide space with a mark.

Time, or Duree as Bergson called it to avoid confusion, is not created by motion (this is the scientific time of a repeatable motion in space), but is a feeling that we capture via existing. It comes from consciousness not repeatable movements. I exist and feel my existence flowing as a duration whether or not can see the sun rise and set, or hear a clock. Real time is a psychological feeling of enduring in memory.

Bergson approached the problem in exactly the same way as Zeno did and for precisely the same reason. No doubt, Bergson was informed by Zeno.

Yes, Zeno certainly realized that where there are paradoxes there are flaws in the understanding.

Most of my views and approach parallel those of Bergson.

you can try your best to represent life experiences using symbols, but try as you might "1" does not in any way describe the experience of going from a bed to a bathroom and neither does the words (though early modernist writers tried their best the result being unreadable novels).

Symbols are not experiences.

The issue is attempting to find a half-way point when there isn't any. The problem begins with attempting to use a symbolic, 1/2, in a continuous flowing and changing motion. Can you find anything called half-way in the universe? No. Only when you start trying to symbolically attempting to dissect in memory does such things begin to emerge. I don't actually experience 1/2. I may label it as such for some practical application sometimes after the motion is accomplished.

It order to relieve oneself of mathematical symbolism of life experiences, one must stop layering symbolic concepts and observe what one is experiencing. I run from here to there. I don't run half-way. This is a very important observation to make. No one runs half-way. I don't hear letters. I hear sounds. I don't hear notes. I hear sounds. Symbols are awful representation of experiences.

As above, I don't get this. You do travel half the way before you reach the end. That's just a fact that's entailed by continuous motion. — Michael

But I didn't move half-way. I moved from here to there. In retrospect to may try to figure out what half-way might have been and you may be approximately correct with your measurements, but my motion was one motion as you viewed it and add I experienced it - the two being totally different.

To understand experiences one must understand from the point of consciousness, not via some mathematical symbol or equation. Observe what you see.

We do not have to treat every halfway point as a discrete step in the motion from the start of that 100-m line to its end. We can traverse the one full interval (100 m) without individually traversing infinitely many half intervals (50 m, 25 m, 12.5 m, etc.). — aletheist

Yes, this is the whole issue. We are layering symbolic notions of divisibility onto a continuous flow, leading us to paradoxical concepts. We must stop using mathematics for describing life experiences. I saw Achilles moved from here to there. That is what happened. He didn't move half-way of anything.

I agree. Implying that zero duration has ontological meaning creates irresolvable issues as does trying to split time and space into a series of homogeneous, divisible units. One must cease using mathematical descriptions to describe living experiences. It doesn't work.

Sure there is. If the object is to travel 10 meters then it passes the half-way point after 5 meters. And this is true even if we're not measuring it. — Michael

Space and time must be thought of in a different way as not being divisible. An object doesn't travel half-way. It moves from here to there in one indivisible motion. There is no half in a continuously flowing and changing space.

It might be indivisible at a certain scale, but it's not indivisible at every scale — Michael

This just unnecessarily maintains the paradox. There is no half at any scale. There is just a fleeting representation of such which is necessitated by a desire to measure.

Even if we are to assume an operation which requires a zero duration of time, — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no such thing as zero duration. If there was, then the flow of duration (time) would have to stop and then what. Stop for how long? How does it restart? Duration (real time) is continuous and heterogeneous. It never stops and cannot be seen as stopping. Scientific time (clock time) is just a movement in space (not real time) that is symbolic and is used to approximately establish simultaneity. This is something different and shouldn't be given ontological significance. Doing so leads to all kinds of paradoxes such as those associated with Zeno's and Relativity's.

If there are paradoxes one must immediately look at issues with assumptions in order to resolve them. In this case the assumption is that time is divisible and homogenous and that is what Bergson challenged.

The is no paradox if one a treats time and space as indivisible - which is clearly the case. Only those trapped in the works of numbers would agree otherwise. Of course, the is motion and duration always flows, but for some their experiences are not as real as numbers.

We know that the present is real because of the radical difference between future and past — Metaphysician Undercover

I would agree that the future is much different in that it is a concept rather than a concrete event in memory. In memory, we have a possiblity of an action which defines the future. In regards to past and present things get much more problematic. Both are simply memory being apprehended. There is only a qualitative immediacy difference between that which feels like now and that which feels like before. I am watching a TV show but that apprehension is really what is known in my memory add qualitatively more recent than the show I watched yesterday. There is no hard line between any aspect of memory including an action with intent into the future. There is no reason to make one, it just muddies the water and creates problems in explaining such a line.

Adopting this approach creates a single aspect of life called Memory that endures in duration (time). An utterly continuous flow pushed on by consciousness (or Bergson's Elan Vital).

The justification is memory of the past which gives one a sense that it will continue, with obvious provisos.

Ever since Newton's laws, the discipline of physics has taken the continuity of physical existence for granted, it is a given. As such, continuity is apprehended as a necessity. It underlies the laws of physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is this the case, when physics uses discrete measurements to describe everything whether it be time, particles, etc. and then uses these discrete measurements to describe things? Physics has always taken the position of separate and measurable for practical reasons but such descriptions are just practical tools. Philosophers who take opposing views are quickly marginalized for not adhering to these mathematical descriptions. Even your description of time explicitly capitulates to discrete measurements by insisting on "moments of time". This is precisely the problem. The are no moments of time but philosophers adopt this point if view because t appears in equations. Further on you discuss parts of things, further concessions to discrete mathematical equations.

That there is no beginning, no end, no parts, no moments, cannot be represented in mathematical equations. Infinities and division by zero create havoc in mathematical equations, yet they constantly occur. Such situations should make it quickly apparent that equations are not useful for understanding nature. One must learn to use consciousness to penetrate consciousness, but when was Mozart or Van Gogh, or Eastern meditation (Tai Chi) ever part of a philosophy curriculum. All of this would provide real experience as opposed to awful, inappropriate symbols. Philosophers have been relying on tools of science which are simply incorporate for penetrating nature which is why Bergson and Bohm should be read by philosophers who are interested in understanding the nature of nature.

It is trivially true that no representation reproduces its object in every respect, and the purpose of musical notes - and mathematical symbols/equations - is obviously not to represent "the experience itself." — aletheist

That's the point. Yet, that is exactly what was done with Relativity. This is what Bergson objected to. Time in the Relativity equations and space-time represented by intervals has no ontological basis. They are just symbols for measurements convenience. As such, relativity did not describe the nature of nature. What's more, not only is scientific time at odds with experience, Relativity itself is internally inconsistent (accelerated systems do not exhibit reciprocity), but also introduces all sorts of paradoxes. This would be an example of how science has used mathematical equations to disrupt reasonable philosophical thought that seeks to free itself from mathematical symbols. The other example being the bottom of discrete particles.

I am not suggesting that musical notes are not useful. What I am saying is that they, as are all symbols, are an absolute awful representation of the experience itself. Music itself is transmitted via experience. Notes have limited symbolic value and have absolutely no resemblance to music itself. Such also is the nature of mathematics and words. They cannot replace or be mistaken for the actual experience.

As for predictive value, mathematics is extremely limited but if we focus only on that which it can approximate, e.g. the behavior of some non-living matter within extremely limited constraints, then we walk away thinking that science had the power of a god. In practice though, the approximations that v are given by equations are notable, but in the scheme of things hardly make a dent in the uncountable number of events that one experiences in life. We must put mathematical equations in proper perspective and not get carried away by them. Otherwise they just become yet another idol.

As I just finished practicing piano, I observed that the notes that I was playing as I read them off paper was can awful representation of the music that I was creating. So are mathematical symbols and equations an awful representation of nature. Yes, notes have value (for some, not all) but to understand music one must penetrate it with the consciousness - that is what the great musicians and teachers proclaim. The notes are empty, lifeless representations of the music artists create. This so are mathematical symbols.

Yet, for some reason, philosophers have allowed mathematical symbols to replace that which they barely represent in nature. It is interesting that Bergson used music as his analog for duration as opposed to others, such as Einstein, who extraordinarily have given ontological value to some equations. With this act we received, not a better understanding of nature, but instead we get the paradox of time travel, a sure sign that things have gone awry. Paradoxes are a red flag for any one examining a particular line of thought.

What I think is that it is necessary to assume that the entire physical world is reborn, comes into existence anew, at each moment in time, and this is discrete existence. But as I said, the soul provides continuity, so it is not the case that we are constantly dying and being reborn, the soul is immaterial and not part of this discrete material existence. So as living souls, continuity is our actual experience. But when we deny dualism we suffer from the illusion that the physical world is continuous as well as our own existence as living beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not understand the concept of being reborn at each moment in time (exactly what is this moment and what is happening in between?), But do I understand why one should even entertain such a concept when all is well and good by just acknowledging what one is experiencing, i.e. a continuous experience of consciousness which we experience within a duration. Such a point of view helps things along mightily in understanding the nature of existence while admittedly it may be too obvious and easy to consume for those who are looking for academic debates about stuff.

If indeed we are all just accumulated memory within a universal field, with the brain acting as a reference wave that perceives the holographic-like images within this field (as opposed to someone storing images within it), then the soul is nothing more than the persistent wave pattern which we call memory coupled with the same consciousness that consumes it. Conscious, memory and the field are aspects of one. In Daoism it all begins as one, the Dao (consciousness) which becomes Yin and Yang (the wave) which then moves as Qi (energy). The model is straightforward. No need for discontinuities or paradoxes.

Everything falls into place very quickly. Traits, inherited characteristics, inborn abilities are all nothing more than persistent memory.. Nature this becomes very concrete and real and rather than discuss what is occurring between discontinuities and paradoxes, we can get down to the business of understanding life more fully in a manner that encourages full exploration of life.

By this I mean, a self-fulfilling journey into the arts, for without such a journey, all I am suggesting will seem like gibberish. One can surely understand nature without mathematics but I believe such understanding without experiencing art is not possible. I will reiterate, science confuses and muddles by utilizing symbols to replace life.

The simplest way to understand mathematics failure to deal with experience are the unresolvable internal conflicts within mathematics, e.g. infinities, division by zero, paradoxes and the appeal to illusions to explain concrete, real life experiences. Unfortunately, much of philosophy had fallen into similar quagmire in order to cling to some fanciful notions that discrete symbols (whether it be words or mathematical) can in some fashion be used to understand the nature of a fluid and ever changing nature. To say that science and mathematics has failed in the realm of understanding nature would be casually polite. It is simply a contradictory mess. But then again, such playful endeavors are in itself part of nature and can be understood as such.

In regards to penetrating the nature of nature, I prefer Bergson's and Bohm's approach which is the use of intuition, or otherwise described to use the mind to penetrate the mind. At least in my life, this already had been highly successful and progress continues. At least I don't believe I'm a computerized robot.

The issue is not defining properties independent of a person or group of people, it is things having properties independent of what any person or group of people thinks about it — aletheist

This then goes into defining what is a property that is independent of that which is defining the property. From my position, everything is simply "fields" given definition by consciousness. In this regard, the internal dream field shares similarities with external fields but are different in how they are shared.

I believe on analysis Pierce's definition is impossible to implement, e.g. defining properties independent of a person or a group of people. For this reason, I don't embrace it. I prefer viewing things exactly as experience warrants it, i.e. properties are revealed by individual observation followed by group consensus subject to contiguous change as observations and memories of those observations change.

I am inclined to subscribe to how Peirce addressed this.

'Real' is a word invented in the 13th century to signify having Properties, i.e. characters sufficing to identify their subject, and possessing these whether they be anywise attributed to it by any single man or group of men, or not. Thus, the substance of a dream is not Real, since it was such as it was, merely in that a dreamer so dreamed it; but the fact of the dream is Real, if it was dreamed; since if so, its date, the name of the dreamer, etc. make up a set of circumstances sufficient to distinguish it from all other events; and these belong to it, i.e. would be true if predicated of it, whether A, B, or C Actually ascertains them or not. The 'Actual' is that which is met with in the past, present, or future. — aletheist

There are experiences (memories) that are shared and those that are not. It is quite a task to separate those that are Real from those that are not. Best to just accept them as all being Real, with different attributes of firm. My dreams are very real to me. If I relate them, then they also become real to others though in a different qualitative sense. What all experiences share is the essential quality that they are memory of some sort.

This is questionable though. We can understand time as discrete units, or we can understand time as a continuity. We can also understand it as some kind of composition of both. What if real time, which we are experiencing, consists of discrete units, and it is just the brain and living systems which are creating the illusion of continuity? I tend to think that the only real continuity is the existence of the soul itself, and the soul, during the act of experiencing, renders the appearance of time as continuous, to make it compatible with its own existence, and therefore intelligible to the lower level living systems. Now, as highly developed life forms, we have developed mathematics, which will allow us to understand the true nature of time, as discrete, but we must get beyond the way that time is presented to us by our lower level living systems, (i.e, that intuitive impression of time) to be able to understand time mathematically. — Metaphysician Undercover

If one takes the position that duration (real time) is consciousness that endures - which is precisely what we experience - then it is difficult to explain the notion of discrete. Are we constantly dying and being reborn in some discrete firm of unknowable duration? It would seem that continuity more accurately reflects our actual experience.

Wikipedia he does a reasonable job on Bergson, duration, and continuity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duration_(philosophy)

It is a reasonable starting point for further study.

Yes. I am quite a realist myself. It is all real but being experienced differently. A dream, therefore is as real as anything else. There is no illusion, just different experiences or forms of memory.

Yes, there is such thing as continuity and we experience it quite concretely as duration (real time). To better understand life and the universe one must use the arts. Bergson uses the quality of musical sounds flowing into each other as one way to understand memory (the foundation of life) and duration as we experience it.

I personally am spending my later years of life immersed in music, art, dance, Eastern meditative practices such as Tai Chi, to expand my toolset for greater knowledge. Without experience in the arts, I do not believe one is properly equipped to understand life.

100% agree.

Pretty much all of Bergson's works revolves around around this subject. It is best to start at the beginning and work forward as he refined his ideas and criticism taking particular notice of his critiques of Relativity Theory in his later works. For a more modern take (though incomplete) Stephen Robbins explains Bergson's ideas his Youtube videos which are easily found. Bergson meticulously describes his reasoning though you may from time to time choose to zigzag between papers on his writings and his writings to better understand his thought process. Gunter did a good job.

Quite interesting.

The OP substantially calls to question the whole premise of using discrete to describe the continuous. As the OP describes, by discarding the discrete, one quickly resolves the paradox. Similar paradoxes can be similarly addressed with this approach. But first, discrete must be discarded in the realm of ontology.