Not quite. Claiming that you have Truth and getting people to believe it (the con game aspect of life) gets you rich. People are always looking Truth and willing to pay big bucks to get it - thus the 20% of the GNP that the medical industry swallows each year.

By whatever means science attempts to deny that consciousness exists (as they do with the concept of choice) the singular goal remains the same, that is to deny any possibility of the immaterial or more precisely the unmeasurable. The myth of science as being the sole holder and means to be truth must be upheld at all costs. There is a tremendous cost in quality of life for anyone who buys into the myth that only the material is real and everything else is an "illusion".

The least science can do is to stop pretending that such a reality does not exist." — darthbarracuda

They are not pretending it doesn't exist. They simply borrowing from Buddhism calling everything that doesn't fit neatly into their equations "illusions". In other words, the only things to take seriously it's that which can be measured. Everything else is inconsequential and just a fantasy created by chemicals. In literature such fantastical thought is called magical-realism, that is it seems possible enough until one steps back and realizes how fantastical the whole story really is.

Remember we are basically, fundamentally being asked to believe that chemicals created everything in some God-like moment of creationism including the illusions that are fooling itself.

That chemicals should magically form a consciousness is a story that befits a truly creative mind. That such same chemicals should move on to create illusions is magical realism at is finest. That someone could figure out how to make a good living off such myth-telling is pure genius in the style of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

I would agree that; beliefs are beliefs no matter what mouth they coming from and there is literally no difference between Genesis and the Big Bang.

Problems arise when beliefs are forced upon others whether it is in a Church or Public School and not acknowleged as a belief. In this regard, the is little difference between the Laws of the Church and the Laws of Science. What we have is two organized businesses fighting to be King of the Hill for economic reasons and perpetrating myths as Truths for their own welfare. It's always been this way since men discovered that holding the Truth is a great way to get rich.

Everyone is creating, experimenting and learning all the time. It is fundamentally consciousness evolving - and that is life.

One only has to observe a baby growing into adulthood and then into old age. Creating, experimenting, learning. Everyone dies it individually and in groups continuously and never-ending. Evolution.

Fundamentally government provides for the common defense and defines rules for economic trade.

Unfortunately, in most countries, government had morphed into a gigantic business that lawfully extracts money from workers in order to feed itself as well as the ultra-rich that controls it.

For me, the meaning of life is evident from observation of life from the moment of birth, that is life is endlessly exploring, creating, and learning for it's own fulfillment. In the process it will feel and encounter many emotions that are guides in the process.

If you understand the purpose of any academic study then you understand the purpose of teaching philosophy as it is taught. If you understand the nature of philosophy then you would understand how it should be taught.

The author is confusing that which experiences, which is the in the providence of living consciousness (which experiences duration) vs. that which is experienced, e.g. some computer output. Computers are simply not alive (experiencing duration) and conscious in the way life is.

As far as where experiences are "stored", no one had ever seen an experience in a brain. What they have observed is brain activity which is much different.

We have opinions that are a rough approximation of what we are observing. That is the best we can do given that all is past before we utter and everything is in constant motion.

What are called facts are just approximate opinions shared by many people, always subject to change. You may consider that you are alive to be a fact, but even that is subject to change. Is like knowing you are awake, just before you go to sleep. Everything is always changing and any fact is just a memory waiting to be uttered but subject to change between the memory and the uttering.

it is not pertinent to how General and Special Relativity attempts to create ontological value for itself.

The philosophical questions are:

1) Does anything ever stop moving?: The answer is no.

2) Does quantum or relativity address the real life experience of time?: the answer is that Relativity doesn't and quantum might with certain holographic interpretations .

Relativity is solving a measurement problem and quantum is solving a different sort of measurement problem. Whatever ontological value quantum has lies in interpretations and experimental results. Science may do as they want to solve their mathematical measurement issues. It appears you prefer mathematical symbols to the real thing.

The evidence I provided had nothing to do with Relativity or Quantum equations. The Call Tech article was experimental verification that nothing stands still.

Whatever attempts there have been to add large particle prediction to quantum mathematical equations and the ontological consequences are inconsequential to the ontological claims of General and Special relativity which are dubious at best. As I pointed out, Special Relativity (from which all of these sci-fi time paradoxes emanate from) rests on the idea of reciprocity of frames of reference. This same concept is denied in General Relativity where one frame of reference is given preferred treatment because it is accelerating. The two theories contradict each other and General Relativity denies Special. Time, in General is some ambiguous notion in an equation which hardly had any relevance to time as we experience it. None of these ontologically ambiguities has any effect on Quantum experimental results. Once again, measurement symbols In Relatively are casually bring used to replace real life experiences.

Relativity wants to create an ontological model which is self-contradictory. Quantum interpretations does not inherit any of this in any form. In fact the Bohm interpretation wants nothing of it as it adopts non-locality.

As far as I understand, they are separate and distinct theories that have yet to be unified.

General and Special Relativity are weird beasts. Special Relativity claims that there is reciprocity in all frames and references and General goes on to say just the opposite, the accelerated frame is privileged and time will allow down. Nothing like two cherished theories contradicting each other and from this produce all kinds of other paradoxes.

For this reason, I reject the idea that Relativity in any form has any ontological basis. All they do is resolve some measurement problems with the Lorentz Transformations.

Real time (duration) has nothing to do with clocks creating movent in space. Duration is what we experience individually as humans. Trying to determine simultaneity of experiences is a separate issue which science is involved with.

It's not necessary to think of space as fixed. It is constantly evolving as it's duration. Thus it is not limitless but it is without limits as it continuously expands.

Honesty brings forth the comfort of trust so that it is there when you need it. A sense of security that others will believe you. It is very healthy when it suits one's moral center. It will not be as beneficial to someone who fully embraces lying and is comfortable with it.

Every quanta that comprises everything in the universe is in constant motion which creates constant change.

Quantum motion

"...quantum mechanics, the underlying physical rules that govern the fundamental behavior of matter and light at the atomic scale, state that nothing can quite be completely at rest."

This motion constantly changes everything. That you are not able to observe the larger and smaller effects of each and every one of these motions would certainly affect your metaphysics. In time, you may be able to understand that this motion and the changes caused by these motions are unstoppable. Until then, I am quite sure you will believe otherwise.

What one observes are changes. Constant and persistent everywhere. Then the electronic instruments are called in to confirm. The electronic cloud, never stops changing. Absolutely everything is in constant motion and with such motion is constantly changing. Did you notice any deterioration in your kitchen?



Observational skills improve with constant practice.

Observation is much more than a rudimentary and crude tape measure. One must really learn to observe skillfully. It is what the arts are all about. Refinement of observation.

If this were true, then how do you explain the fact that the layout of things in my kitchen is the same still as it was ten years ago? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's all about observation. You may not notice the changes, but even a casual observer most certainly would.

I believe that the earth is moving, but that fact is irrelevant to the fact that the layout of my kitchen remains the same. That's the point, we have to have respect for what is staying the same, as well as what is changing. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is quite clear to me that everything is changing in one manner or another all the time. There is nothing I can say or do to convince you of this. It must come to you by your own personal observations. Until then, your metaphysics will be determined by your belief that some things don't change some of the time. For me, it is an impossible chasm to cross until I observe something that is not changing. At this same point, physics itself will come crashing down along with my own personal beliefs.

Yes, I understand. You really can't see everything in constant motion. This would certainly affect anyone's metaphysics.

I don't understand how a metaphor is a better means for understanding the nature of nature than a description is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Metaphors are more of a holistic, active image that two people may share. Something like one picture is worth a thousand words.

OK, this is how I describe duration. I recognize a difference between past and future by means of memory and anticipation. This gives me a sense of being present. As I am aware of being present, I notice that things are changing while I am present, and I can refer to duration through describing these changes which occur. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not mean give a brief definition of duration. I am suggesting that you actual describe an actual experience in duration as you are describing it. This provides an actual observation of your own duration and the impossibility for you to describe it. I am asking for a more direct experience.

So at the same time that I am noticing changes, which enable me to describe duration, I also notice things which are not changing. I can describe these things as not changing, for the entire duration of the change which I am describing. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you are attempting to describe your own duration directly you may notice that your act of describing is melting into what you are trying to describe. There is no "state" . There is a continuous flow of one into the other. Observe closely that one memory that you are attempting to describe is flowing directly into the description itself, continuously and unceasingly. It cannot be stopped long enough for you to describe it. In other words, your act of describing is within that which your are attempting to describe.

I am not asking you to describe some past memory, which will be as complete as you may remember and subject to change, I am asking you to describe duration as you are experiencing it.

So for example, I have the blueprint for the layout of my kitchen, and this is a description of the things which are not changing in my kitchen. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, this is s metaphysical viewpoint that I cannot argue because it is something you believe very strongly. However, if I was to be put in the same kitchen, I would observe everything changing on the macroscopic level (the dust in the air, the deterioration in the wood, your life itself, the ink on the paper), and at the microscopic level (the energy of all quanta). This is why I say, philosophers need to be constantly exercising their observation skills via the arts. I first learned of the skill in the art of observation when I studied photography many years ago. A philosopher must always be exercising and refining the art of observation.

ignoring the things which are passive, or unchanging — Metaphysician Undercover

A single example?

Are you saying that descriptions are absolutely false? If not, then there must be some truth to a description. Just because it doesn't describe every aspect of the scene which it is describing, doesn't mean that it is false. So if a description describes some things which are unchanging during a period of time, then don't you think that there are some aspects of reality which are unchanging during that period of time, corresponding to the description? — Metaphysician Undercover

Descriptions are necessarily limited, inaccurate, imprecise, and provide no avenue to understand the nature of nature in themselves. They are simply a tool for communication which may or may not help two explorers to better understand. To this end, I have always felt metaphors to be far more helpful.

Have you ever tried describing duration in words or mathematics? Just your own memory as it flows continuously and unceasingly and never stops evolving. You should try it. Direct observation of what you are suggesting is possible. Stop duration, create a state, and describe it while still observing your efforts to describeit in the same duration. with such an attempt you should witness the impossibility of what you are suggesting as should anyone who believes that mathematics, words, logic, or any symbol is adequate to describe the nature of experience in duration.

The discrete can only express a contiuum by reference to its connection to that pantheistic layer of reality. The greeks termed it, "Han Kai Pan", the one that is all. — Wolf

This would even go deeper, and it certainly shares much with Daoism. If the nature that we are connected with is all continuity and waves, is there an opposite of Singularity from which it all began - the Dao?

Descriptions are descriptions and in all situations must be taken as some attempt but in no way or manner so they ever come close to the actual experience. They c are far too abbreviated and limited by the symbols they use. The poor modern novelists would use pages upon pages of words to describe a single experience and still fall short of describing the fleeting memory of such experience and the experience is interwoven with so many others.

First, before any description, one must penetrate deeply with all faculties. Forget about all the symbolic tools learned in school. And once one behind to fanthom the actual experience, then and only then it's one ready to attempt to create a metaphor that may describe that experience.

Labeling with descriptions are useless. What is useful, is watch the ocean and the waves and observe closely what is actually happening as forms come and go in seamless never ending pattern of becoming and going. No states, no division, no difference between the whole and the parts, no way to divide, no way to say this is where it begins and this is where it ends, yet it is all there.

To describe a thing, and to describe the activity of a thing, is two distinct description. — Metaphysician Undercover

As a discussed earlier, the problems involved in accurate descriptions is not at issue here, e.g. how to describe things that are separate from their environment. Usually approximate descriptions are sufficient for practical purposes. What is at issue is a precise description of the nature of nature. Physical objects, as normally understood, in themselves have degrees of substantiality, e.g. energy, air, water, fire, humans, rocks etc.. The continuum between it all cannot be broken though substantially most certainly can be sensed to a certain degree.

I'm not talking about energy here, I'm talking about the physical things in the room. — Metaphysician Undercover

They are one and the same. It is a continuum. The is no discontinuity between that which physical and that which creates it. I am bewildered at how you are able to separate the two. If we aren't energy, then what are we? And what do believe surround us? The energetic form is simply moving within an energy field as a wave moves in water. There is no separation.

Following on, this also means particular continuities don't have a beginning or end. Yes, any given object has a start and end — TheWillowOfDarkness

Impossible to do so this. Everything is in a constant change as much as at the edges as anywhere else, where we have clouds not edges.

disagree. I can look around my room and describe the positioning of the objects, and this will stay the same until it is changed, therefore it is a state that naturally persists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, it is constantly changing. Some quite overtly others very subtly. But everything is constantly changing in one manner or another. Energy never stands still. Heraclitus was right and my guess is that he intuited it. If you were correct, then a whole new problem is created, like how does all quanta stop long enough, in concert with each other, to create your state. That would be interesting.

However, if we establish that they are continuous, then we can investigate whether anything within space and time is also continuous. — aletheist

This should be interesting, finding anything that is within space and duration (real time) that is not continuous.

The only candidates for non-continuity that I can imagine are the unconscious state (including death), and the sleep state. Perhaps dreams themselves have duration, but certainly of a different type, which symbolically is almost impossible to describe. But then again it appears that even within a sleep state, and I would include daydreaming in this, duration seems to pop in and out. Consciousness seems to have an ability to exit memory when it is unconscious. Interestingly, Bergson had very little to say on this rather perplexing switch in states. It is sort of a mini birth/death cycle. Without question, mathematics cannot be applied to this activity.

The problem with this perspective is that what exists between the described states, is activity, becoming — Metaphysician Undercover

There are no states in nature. Everything is continuously evolving. Problems arise when attempting to describe this and replacing the existence with the symbolics. For this reason I do not utilize discrete symbolics, but rather I attempt to utilize imaginative metaphors such as the ocean and the waves. Problems in communication and description should not interfere with the actual experience. For the most part, Bergson also used metaphors in his books. Metaphors are good because the macro reveals itself in the micro and vice-versa.

Of course there's a loss of continuity. The description of the wave as one wave applies no longer, and the description of two waves applies. — Metaphysician Undercover

The description changes, not the intrinsic continuity. And yes, everything is ultimately energy with differing substantially imbued into the fabric of the universe. As with mathematics, descriptions (for communication purposes only) is symbolic. Symbols are not that which is being described. Just because I describe two different events in my life does is constantly starting and stopping. Duration is continuous when observed directly. Symbolics only are necessary for communication or as a tool for manipulation. The important point is that no continuity is ever lost and no symbolic, which is intrinsically formed by individual units can possibly capture this continuity. This thread is basically about the ability for symbolics to adequately describe continuity. It can't. In fact, the description they yield is pretty much totally contrary to experience. The waves never, ever, ever break the continuity of the ocean. The objects are formed and reformed out of the continuity.

If we associate continuity with the whole, with the unity, then each time we divide something, we destroy a continuity, and create new continuities. — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely not. When a wave in an ocean transforms in two or more or even dissolves in the ocean, no continuity is lost whatsoever.

Forms of substance are nothing more than waves in the fabric of the universe. They are just more solid by degrees. How does one break continuity in the universe, in space, in duration? With a very fine knife? Exactly how fine? Finer than Planck's constant? Continuity can never be broken. It can only be reformed, as waves reform in oceans.

Which is the reason that mathematics is constantly giving a awful picture of nature. It's layering is own self-induced picture of the universe onto a universe. It's like putting a cardboard full of holes over a picture. It gives an incomplete and quizzical view of the picture itself. If you want to look at the picture and understand the picture, look at the picture itself, not through lots of holes in the cardboard.

There isn't a conflict. Ideal continuity is present. Any infinite can't be divided such that it said to begin or end. We don't divide continuous things, such as objects and wholes at all. Our "cutting" of a whole is merely picking out something specific. It doesn't affect continuity. If I pick out a rock, it doesn't make the whole of the world go away. The whole remains, uncut and indivisible, no matter how many times we might suggest we separate it, an all together different object to the individual states we pick out.

A whole has or is no parts, even as parts belong to it. When we pick out a part, the whole remains and is undivided (and is indivisible).

The mistake people make is thinking wholes as defined by parts in the first instance, such selecting a part would somehow divide and destroy the whole. It hides the indivisible nature of whole from us and sees us misread the wholes we do encounter as failed continuity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is precisely the question at hand. If we indeed are able to separate duration or space into parts, what the heck is left in-between?

What is happening is space is being reformed and duration is indivisibly evolving. I have absolutely no idea how anyone can possibly understand a space or a unit that is in any manner being spliced up as mathematics would have it. It is all a just symbolism which is being taught in schools. It's not really happening - is it? Is space and time really being partitioned. Does everything stop an infinite amount of times so Achilles can't move - because he can't leap across non-space??

The real life issue is that it is impossible to define and we are constantly being pushed and pulled by standards and rules from all over what it be at work, by government, in the family, religious and non-religious organizations, our individual center, the friends we hang with, etc.. We all do the best we can and our own sense is often conflicted and challenged by the many groups we bring to. It's a good case for becoming a hermit.