CATEGORY:
The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Here-and-Now by Clinton Kyle Miller
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Clinton Kyle Miller wrote on Sep. 23, 2008 @ 13:33 GMT
Essay Abstract
The following essay puts forward an academic conception of the here-and-now or "present moment." It is then identified as coincident to both our subjective moments and Nature. We then use this conjecture to construct a scientific and objective world-view, based on our human biology, to answer the question "what is reality?" First, time and the laws of physics are discussed, using the question "what is the nature of time?" The initial conditions of our universe--the cosmic microwave background radiation--are pinpointed as the origin of our perceived "arrow of time." Then, the nature of time is deemed subjective. Second, the objectivity of scientific physical theories is reviewed; here physical limitations and subjective assumptions are shown to impede this modality. Third, the importance of experimental empirical information for an objective world-view is stressed with examples. Next, the notion of an external objective reality is addressed and refuted on objective grounds. Lastly, a world-view centered on the here-and-now is created using a novel criterion. In the final discussion, the author reflects on the significance of human "positive psychology"--as it pertains to forwarding the human condition using a world-view rooted in the here-and-now.
Author Bio
Clinton "Kyle" Miller attends the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is 20 years old, and was born in California. When not attending college, he lives with his family in Greenwich Connecticut. His interests vary greatly--from snowboarding, hiking and swimming to art, camping out with his friends, and his passion science.
The essay PDF file has been removed at the request of the author.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
juan ramos wrote on Sep. 25, 2008 @ 08:55 GMT
great essay.
I would like some further development arround the "free will" concept.
How "free will" changes "here and now"?
John Merryman wrote on Sep. 29, 2008 @ 02:58 GMT
Kyle,
The most effective model I find for understanding reality is the convection cycle, as exemplified in Complexity Theory. Bottom up process is the energy that expands outward until it cools and coagulates into the top down order and structure which provides the frame which that expanding energy motivates and keeps from completely falling inward. Physics projects these two directions to...
view entire post
Kyle,
The most effective model I find for understanding reality is the convection cycle, as exemplified in Complexity Theory. Bottom up process is the energy that expands outward until it cools and coagulates into the top down order and structure which provides the frame which that expanding energy motivates and keeps from completely falling inward. Physics projects these two directions to infinity. That the energy filling the universe expands from the absolute to the infinite and that gravity collapses the structure defining the universe from the infinite to the absolute, but I'm not going to argue the extremes, just examine how they interact in the middle. The middle is the present, between the order of yesterday and the energy that will decide tomorrow.
For one thing, we exist in a Platonic culture which assumes ideals are both source and goal, whether it is monotheistic religion assuming a deity from which we have fallen and seek to return, or science seeking the Theory of Everything that explains all and answers all. This results in an inherent conceptual schizophrenia, because source is basis, while goals are aspirational apex. It's similar to assuming the infinite and the absolute are one and the same. We, the west, need to start thinking in terms of the dualities. Any monolithic frame you can imagine conjures up its opposite. There isn't even a happy medium, as that's just prelude to stagnation. Reductionist modeling is a form of order lacking vitality, dependent on the strength of its content, but shorn of context. Nodes sans network. Meaning is static reductionism, but reality is dynamic and wholistic.
Think how well this relationship defines everything from political and economic cycles, as they rise on raw energy, then cool and consume the structure which defined them. Just follow the news. Is this the end, or will another model rise to replace what we assumed was the law of the land?
Time itself is this relation between order and energy. We think of it as cause and effect, proceeding from past to future, but as you point out, only the moment exists. Time is like temperature, a measure of motion. As this motion creates frames of reference, one event is replaced by the next, so actually time really is these events going from future potential to past circumstance. The energy goes past to future. The order goes future to past. As our physical brains move into the future, our minds are the record of events receding into the past. It's not the sun moving east to west, but the earth rotating west to east.
As for free will, contrary to monotheistic tradition, good and bad are not a top down existential duel between the forces of light and darkness, but the basic binary code of biological calculation. Single celled organisms distinguish between beneficial and detrimental. Our bodies, our selves, our context are making near infinite numbers of these calculations every minute. What rises to the surface is the balance which decides what is good and bad. We don't arrive at that point and then decide. The decision is in the distinction. If we chose bad, we don't last very long and there is no will to express. This concept of "free will" is an artifact of the perspective of those fortunate enough to ride economic and political updrafts which allow them more choices than they can take advantage of. The alternative vision is of Nietzsche's theory of the "will to power." That's when the options are less then those wishing to take them, so those who chose correctly as to what is beneficial, vs. detrimental, are the ones which survive. Up until now, humanity has survived by whatever direction is most convincing to the most people, thereby providing the energy of numbers. Currently we are at an impasse, where our numbers are starting to exceed the carrying capacity of our planet. We can crash and burn, or we can transition to the next biological level, from being top predator in a collapsing ecosystem, to being central nervous system to the planetary organism. You are a good bit younger than I, so you will have the potential to see how it turns out. It should be an interesting life.
Between black and white are not just shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum.
view post as summary
John Merryman wrote on Oct. 2, 2008 @ 18:47 GMT
Kyle,
Pagels has always been one of my favorite authors, though it's been decades since I read him. I'm not a physicist, just someone for whom curiosity has been a primary emotion.
There is a fundamental Catch 22 that makes reality a tough knot to untie. The better we get at understanding the enormity of the situation, the more overwhelming it seems. This manifests itself in many...
view entire post
Kyle,
Pagels has always been one of my favorite authors, though it's been decades since I read him. I'm not a physicist, just someone for whom curiosity has been a primary emotion.
There is a fundamental Catch 22 that makes reality a tough knot to untie. The better we get at understanding the enormity of the situation, the more overwhelming it seems. This manifests itself in many ways. Even those who climb to the pinnacle of power find themselves trapped by it. For one thing, the higher up the ladder you are, the more dependent on the ladder you are. Also those who do climb the highest ladders are often those most adept at climbing each step, rather than those who can envision the larger situation and are at a loss when they do get to the top. As our current economic and political leadership so aptly exemplifies. Specialists when you need generalists, but no generalist could make it that far. The "Peter Principle" writ large. Also, definition is limitation and limitation is definition. To transcend this material reality, we need to shed the very knowledge of it that makes it real. That's something of the situation of the spiritual absolute, the source of our being, as the essence from which we rise, as opposed to the deistic assumption of an all-knowing ideal. We are limited by our very knowledge, as we use it to escape the limits of our ignorance. Consciousness is the raw energy of the moment, going into the future. Knowledge is that comets tail of information streaming away into the past.
The principles of this are not just a consequence of human fallibility, but are elemental to the nature of reality itself. In many ways, reality is an illusion. Just think of what you know from physics. It's mostly empty space, with an odd assortment of counteracting forces that do not seem to have an underlaying physical substance. Of course particle physics is determined to find one, but as far as they push the envelope, there seems to just be another layer of activity holding it up. Currently it's strings, with extra dimensions curled up inside. Could they just be describing vortexes, with the geometry of their inner surfaces curled around inside?. Instead of looking for answers at the extremes, how might this relate to our own scale. Apply the relationship I drew between energy and order to nodes and networks. This focus on particles is like defining the network in terms of the nodes, yet in our everyday experience, we have come to realize the nodes are effect and the network is cause. The problem with this attempt to create a static model, reduced to the nodes, is because, as I pointed out originally, reality is an illusion, manifested by competing forces, so if you freeze the frame, you don't have a bunch of nodes stopped in place, but just an non-fluctuating vacuum. So it seems physics has given us the concepts to see beyond the physical, even as it is stuck in the effort to find it.
Fortunately I'm not trying to make a living at this because those who do, don't care for this line of reasoning and I wouldn't be able to climb very far up the ladder. Which isn't to say there isn't a great deal to learn from crashing these particles together and seeing what comes up, but I do think the larger pattern might be as basic as the convection cycle. My first clue was learning that the expansion of the universe is effectively balanced, or nearly so, by the force of gravity; Omega=1. Gravity and the expansion co-exist, so if they cancel each other out, it's a complimentary cycle, not a sequential one. Think of the model of gravity as the ball on the sheet of rubber. Where there are not gravitational objects, would the sheet be flat, or would it be pushed the other way in reaction to those areas where there are gravitational wells? Yes, the space is expanding, but it's also collapsing into these wells at the same rate. It's like running up a down escalator. The floors are not actually moving apart because you have to cover more space, since that space is folding into the floors(and being pushed back out as radiation). So light that crosses space is stretched, but it's a front of a wave that is also falling into all the innumerable gravity wells along the way, so it is both stretching and collapsing. (Of course we are only measuring what collapses into our telescopes and that has climbed a long way.) The light is being continually stretched and the further it travels, the more this effect is compounded. The redshift light is further redshifted so that eventually the source seems to be receding at the speed of light and this creates a horizon line over which visible light cannot go, only black body radiation. Thus other galaxies are redshifted directly away from us, proportional to their distance. Big Bang Theory tries to explain why other galaxies are redshifted such that they appear to be all moving away from us and not have our position as the center of the universe by saying that it is space itself which is expanding. The rising loaf of bread analogy. The problem with this argument is that if space is expanding, than our only real measure of space, the speed of light, should increase proportionally. Example; If two sources are x lightyears apart and the universe were to expand to twice its previous size, should they be 2x lightyears apart, or should they still be x lightyears apart? If they are 2x, that's not expanding space, that's an increasing distance of stable space. If they still appear x lightyears apart, as they should if space itself is expanding, than the whole argument is meaningless in the first place, as it wouldn't explain redshift. So yes, our measure of space expands for the light which crosses these enormous distances, but it is effectively an optical effect on that light, just as the bending of light around a gravitational object is an optical effect that causes the source to appear to move from our perspective, not because it does move. I realize I'm going way out on a limb here, if you haven't followed the history of the Big Bang theory and all the questions raised and the logical patchwork required to save it, from Inflation Theory to Dark Energy. Not to mention all the minor fudges required to fit the age of its processes into 13.7 billion years. I must say though, that it is a masterwork of math, but than so were epicycles.
Say the universe is explainable as a convection cycle. Galaxies would be the gravitational vortexes into which matter falls and energy radiates away from. That which falls into the black holes is ejected as electron jets out the poles. On the other side of the cycle is the cosmic background radiation that has traveled over that previously mentioned horizon line and cooled to the point it is only stable to the "dew point" phase transition of 2.7k. Above that and it effectively condenses out as particles. How does radiation condense? Consider that it effectively travels as a wave, yet when we try to measure it, it strikes our sensors as particles/photons. Just as moisture in the air condenses out as drops of water.
Now put it into the relationship of order and energy, as I defined them in terms of the two directions of time; The energy is constantly going onto the future, as the information defining the units of time fall away into the past. Everything is ultimately only the energy, just as time only exists as the present, but as this energy is constantly radiating out as waves and collapsing back down as particles, it creates this dichotomy of the pure energy and the information it creates and which defines it. These are the two directions meeting in the middle. Just as the energy is constantly expanding and gravity is constantly collapsing, it is a simultaneous process.
I'll leave it at that for the moment, as most people don't get that far before assuming I'm another fool(which may be true, but isn't proof I'm wrong). If I wanted to win this contest, I would have been wise not to go this far, but the fact is that my observation that time as a consequence of motion, rather than the basis for it, means that time goes future to past, grew out of trying to make sense of cosmology, so it is hard for me not to get quickly drawn into this larger conversation.
view post as summary
John Merryman wrote on Oct. 4, 2008 @ 00:59 GMT
Kyle,
To the extent you distinguish between "scientific idea" and "explanatory (language-based) tool used to describe our situation," I suppose it falls in the latter category, as I don't have a PhD.
A possible schematic might be to describe time as an arrow(>) going forward, while we can really only see what is past(
John Merryman wrote on Oct. 4, 2008 @ 01:02 GMT
That didn't fully download!
Kyle,
A possible schematic might be to describe time as an arrow(>) going forward, while we can really only see what is past(
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 4, 2008 @ 01:05 GMT
Must be something about parentheses and arrows together;
Kyle,
A possible schematic might be to describe time as an arrow > going forward, while we can really only see what is past
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Oct. 4, 2008 @ 02:13 GMT
, so our understanding of time is the present as the point between these two arrows, , but if time is effect, not cause, another way to look at it is as both the order of the past and the energy which decides the future meeting to create the here and now, >
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 4, 2008 @ 06:14 GMT
John Merryman wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 01:21 GMT
Guess I'll try to finish that thought without the arrows;
Currently the classic view of time is the present on a line/dimension, with the past in one direction and the future in the other, but if it is an effect of motion, rather then cause, it is best described by Complexity Theory and all elements are contained within, rather than projected out. This is the intersection of top down order, as the information which once created is replaced by the next event, thus going from future potential to past circumstance. While bottom up process is the energy which forms these informational packets, then replaces them, thus going from past events to future ones.
As I mentioned in correspondence, the information which goes future to past and the energy that goes past to future are essentially two sides of the same coin, so it would be impossible to have one without the other, as information defines the energy which manifests it. This precludes the existence of laws of nature which are not manifest, as that would be information without energy. The reason such definition is frequently repetitive and thus seemingly independent of circumstance is that identical cause yields identical effect, as the expanding energy and collapsing structure of this energy/information relationship interacts.
Dr.NN wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 08:44 GMT
Dear dear Kyle,
So far , i have still to go through full essay in detail. But you have impressed me deeply for the depth of insight you possess already at such a young young age. It seems prodigeous inborn quality/trait you possess! You seem to like the ending of my main essay. May i request you to go through my two attached mss too that were posted later on by me. Meanwhile i promise to comment further after going through the full text of your essay. Love
narendra wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 10:54 GMT
Let me refer you to the posting you made on MSS in the essay posting of Dr.H. Nikolic on ' Block Time'. In fact i saw your comments there as you pointed out your discussion on 'consciousness' in your own essay. it has made me very happy to see that you are well ahead of all the other essay contributors by well exceeding the 10 public votes already! At least i am happy to see the scenario as the more child-like amongst us wins the race! Bravo, keep it up by attempting to comment on other essays too in your own manner.
dr,nn/narendra wrote on Oct. 10, 2008 @ 00:12 GMT
Lengthy comments seem to be the result of lack of clarity of one's mind. Originality rests in peace and quiet, sort of thoughtless state of mind. Silence contains noise but not vice-versa. Order contains disorder/chaos but not vice versa. May be it will help us all to participate in the essay contest with some calmness and patience, attempting to comprehend as much before attempting to comment. This may help remove most of our ill-conceived biases.
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 16, 2008 @ 05:38 GMT
Dear Klinton and other postings on your essay,
In fact, i find long comments on your essay as well as of some others. The common thing i note is that each individual is trying to sell his essay or postings. Ours is a competition at the level of high degree of understanding about both science and consciousness. If i may add it involves the level of Spirituality (not religion) we possess by...
view entire post
Dear Klinton and other postings on your essay,
In fact, i find long comments on your essay as well as of some others. The common thing i note is that each individual is trying to sell his essay or postings. Ours is a competition at the level of high degree of understanding about both science and consciousness. If i may add it involves the level of Spirituality (not religion) we possess by way of understanding of Humanity. In one of my posting on another essay, i indicated that two World Conferences were held in New Delhi, under the sponsorship of the dept. of Oncology of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the last being in Feb., 2006. Unfortunately, it remained confined to the medical scientists from the world over, to discuss the ' Expanding paradigms: Science, Consciousness and Spirituality ' The dominant theme was the miraculous treatment of incurable diseases using off the beat treatment via meditation, yoga and other psychological approaches. Unfortunately, i happen to be the rare basic scientist who attended that gathering and presented an earlier version of my attached post titled ' Science Interface with Spirituality' , emphasizing how one may become professionally more competent too, adopting the techniques of Meditation & Yoga.
May i now give some comments on your essay too, which are more general than specific only to your essay:-
1.Consciousness has been examined way back about 4000 yrs by the original propounder of YOGA by the name of Patanjali. Out of several verses may i indicate two that appear most relevant to our essay discussion here. The first says ' The cognizer, the process of cognition and the object of knowledge sought must merge completely if one is seeking the TRUTH. The other is ' There are mental distractions like, I-ness or ego, pleasure/pain, fear,etc. that come in the way of the desired thought process that may lead to the TRUTH. Both these can be achieved if the mind is so controlled as to be at perfect peace with one's existance. The continious flow of thoughts need to be interpersed with stages of 'thoughtlessness'.
2.In order to have an expansion in Paradigms governing science today, one needs to open our philosophical horizon. If it remains confined to western philosophers, ignoring the rich heritege provided by asian saints/philosophers, one can't claim any expansion in Paradigm!
3.Wisdom is not tranferred by mere words. It is the deeds of great men of the times that provide examples to follow in one's life and that too after thorough introspection and self-criticism. That is why mere words of prose in our essays is not likely to bring any effective change in the living life of the people at large.
4. Your main point " here and now " is the guiding philosophy of a spiritual movement in India as well as abroad now called ' The Art of Living '. It emphasis that life can only be best lived in the present moment 100%. Plus, one needs to have a constant smile ( not laughs ) irrespective of the situations/circumstances one is faced with. The basic couse of these techniques involves meditation cum Yoga practices, besides participative games/dancing among the participants. Based my personal experience following such practices, i vouch improvements both in personal and professional capabilities. This comes only through attainment of higher levels of consciousness personally.
4. The wisdom of our entire world is in our possession. Unfortunately, the western world apparently shows poor reference to the concepts and precepts developed in the Asian continent. I still say that only the practice of such tenets in actual living can only present visible upliftment!
view post as summary
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 16, 2008 @ 13:35 GMT
i don't understand if Kyle is responding to my post of Oct 16, perhaps not. It seems he is qualifying his own essay further. To me the latest post isn't clear in its objective. I don't see any decoupling in the universe after 400,000 yrs. of the start, i.e. about 1/2 billion later. In fact, the lightest of elements started to form from the primordial matter around that time and hence there were signals of light from excited/ionised atoms of H / He. There appears to be no connection with black holes,as these could not have formed at that time. The first star of light nuclei congregation is supposed to form around 1/2 to 1 billion years. before that the universe was in the dark age.
However, dark matter and energy have been present from the start of the universe along with the baryon matter of the visible part of the Universe. The dark matter and its influence on visible matter through dark energy was giving rise to accelerated expansion of the Universe.
Consciousness connection with Planck scale and memory appears far fledged. Yes, consciousness being all pervading and eternal in nature is ever present even when Universe did not exist. Human consciousness evolved when humans got created some 30,000 thousand years form today. It must have also out from cosmic or universal consciousness.
The comment that Nature changes its mind faster than humans is not for humans to contemplate, as we ourselves resulted from a manifestation of cosmic consciousness, as per the latter's intelligent design for the Universe start from the very beginning!
Narendra wrote on Oct. 19, 2008 @ 04:57 GMT
CKM,
i am happy to see your response. Big-bang is currently holding better than the previous theories of Universe creation only because of WMAP measurements available thus far. You and i agree within the domain of these measurements and the Big-bang theory. However, speculation regarding 'causation' having speed of light can't be postulated as the consciousness behind it is not known. It is not physical in natute in the sense of the Universe as 'causation' itself may caused the creation of the universe. There has to be a precursor in the form of a 'Potential Unified Field' having an intelligence about the ceration of the universe and other 'intelligence' we are not presently able to comprehend. It has to be a very very powerful field compared to the four Physical fields we talk of currently in Physics. Kindly see the perspectives i have attempted in my main esssay in this regard. Your objections on these perspectives, as well as that of public as well as other authors/experts that i am eagerly seeking through my essay presentation. i am sure my perpectives may get discarded as specific cosmic measurements about the early Universe, first half-billion years of Bigbang may become possible! Comments are the only way our discussions can help clear the mysteries that surely exist for science to persue!
Narendra wrote on Oct. 21, 2008 @ 16:38 GMT
To CKM, to elaborate a bit more of what i have understood thus far about 'consciousness',may i request you to note that i addressed you first on Oct9 posting as 'dear dear ' and ended thst post with 'love'. These came spontaneously to me in view of our ages, 76 and 20 yrs. It usual to see that grandparents have special preference for grandchildren compared to their children. Such emotions didn't not direct me. I felt like your teacher and you as my favorite student! My expressions were a part of my state of being vis-a-vis yourself. I felt well connected with you via cosmic consciousness. The 'love' is far beyond the emotional physical feeling. It is the one that unites us as part of the same humanity the world over. Both student and teacher are learners, the latter may happen to possess a bit more maturity that's all, if at all! When individual consciousness connects better with universal consciousness, the strength of life force for the individual concerned gets boosted. Such is the nature of consciousness! Both the quotes from Patanjali's Yoga are relevant for scientists as also for any human being. We need not identify our body brain with consciousness. Even the human mind reflects it in a limited manner. Consciousness is what must have always existed, exists and will continue to exist irrespective of the Universe and we humans. Even so-called non-living matter may possess a lower form of it. It pervades every where and it seems to be uncreated, with capability of all creation and destruction. Yoga & meditation are the techniques that are considered helpful in enhancing one's level of consciousness and the quote " God created humans in His own image " becomes relevant in that context.
Gravitational field is a kind of field as also the other three postulated. What is unique thus far about 'Gravitation' is that it is not getting unified with the three other field forms so that we may consider all of the four to have emerged out of the Unified field, as per the requirements of the 'designed creation ' of the Universe.
Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 22, 2008 @ 10:12 GMT
To CKM and other authors of the essays too,
i am happy to see the oneness of spirit between us. The same actually holds for the entire universe if consciousness is the source of all things physical and non-physical.Let us not worry if we understand or misunderstand one another.Just be happy and keep others happy too. If opposites are taken as complimentary, the differences disappear. Silence contains the real truth and more & more words can only confuse us about the truth. Just experience it in silence, in vacuum, in total freedom and leave the rest in dump.
More the terms, more the variables and more the complications that arise in mathematical formulations.Simplest provides profoundness. Let us love Nature and all it has to offer. Answers to queries will come and go as life proceeds, live 'now and here' as best as one can!
Matti Pitkänen wrote on Oct. 23, 2008 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Kyle,
thank you for a beautiful essay.
I liked especially the manner you explained "subjective" and "objective". I have accepted that theoreticians never agree and also realized that there is nothing bad in this. Therefore I wanted to make some ontology related comments in this spirit. I know that ontology is the ultimate mine field but I hope we can still remain...
view entire post
Dear Kyle,
thank you for a beautiful essay.
I liked especially the manner you explained "subjective" and "objective". I have accepted that theoreticians never agree and also realized that there is nothing bad in this. Therefore I wanted to make some ontology related comments in this spirit. I know that ontology is the ultimate mine field but I hope we can still remain friends!
You adopt the ontology that only subjective reality exists; experience and reality are same; there is no objective reality. You are skeptic about the existence of Platonic realm. You also say that the essence of time is that it is subjective.
The basic objection against the idea that only subjective reality exists or any kind of monism is that it forces to give up either laws of physics or the notion of free will. The successes of physics rely on very specific assumptions about space-time symmetries implying conservation laws and it is difficult to do physics without this geometry based conceptual framework which seems to be lost if one accepts only subjective existence. On the other hand, at least to me it is obvious that free will is something very real so that the objective reality of physics does not seem to be enough. Both subjective and objective existence are needed and the question is how they relate.
My own view - inspired by the well-known problems of quantum measurement theory - is that both subjective and objective realities exists. Objective realities exist even in two variants: quantum states and classical states identifiable as space-time geometries and realizing quantum classical correspondence. This means ontological trinity rather than monism. Subjective existence in turn in the quantum jump between quantum states re-creating an new version of objective reality, between two objective realities. Subjective does not exist in any kind of geometric space. Consciousness theorist can say a lot about its structure and contents.
In tri-partite ontology objective reality is replaced with the space of all possible objective realities allowed by the laws of quantum physics rather than given up totally. Since subjective realities are at different ontological levels, also subjective time and geometric time are different notions, and can only correlate in the sense that the contents of conscious experience are about definite region of space-time and this region seems to shift towards geometric future: a view about what really happens is discussed in my own essay.
Accepting this view, one gets rid of theory-reality dualism since there is no need to postulate reality behind the mathematical description of physical states. Objective realities are identical with their mathematical representations. Subjective existence results as a sequence of quantum jumps between these objective realities. The pain in toe when you kick a stone results from a quantum jump between initial and final quantum states.
An objection against this picture comes from conservation laws. Even if one allows quantum jumps, conservation laws imply in standard ontology that only states with same energy and other conserved quantum numbers can be experienced. This looks highly un-democratic and leads to the unpleasant question about the criterion used to decide about total quantum numbers of the Universe. In quantum physics framework it is however possible to replace positive energy ontology with what I call zero energy ontology. In this ontology which physical states are represented as pairs of positive and negative energy states having opposite conserved quantum numbers. Conservation laws therefore allow quantum jump to lead to any state of this kind so that any state allowed by laws of physics can be in principle generated in the sequence of quantum jumps giving rise to subjective experience. In ordinary positive energy ontology these zero energy states correspond to "events" with positive energy part identified as initial state and negative energy part as final state of the event. Quantum jumps make these events conscious.
After all these disagreements it is amusing to find that these zero energy states -events- resemble in many respects your "here-and-now"'s.
Thank you for a nice essay,
Matti Pitkänen
view post as summary
narendra nath wrote on Oct. 24, 2008 @ 06:17 GMT
Kyle,
lovely poetic composition. it reflects the living in the every moment indepedently, noting what nature offers us, admiring the beauty with utter innocence but discriminating deeply when trying to interpret an explanation of how something is happening. 'Why' is difficult to answer , as Nature is not answerable to us while we are answerable to Nature!
When doing science, we need to be as broad-based as possible, no prior biases, precepts and concepts relevant toa problem to be carefully worked out, before any mathematical/geometrical/ diagrammatical tool is utilised. There lies the significance of the state of mind of the scientist as he does go about his work and study!
Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 28, 2008 @ 01:53 GMT
What a beauty you have cartooned out of the men and the mountain. The pun on US senators appears a bit cynical. We need to love all, independent of the way one does one's job. Consciousness in fact not only unites the Human race but the entire creation within the Universe!
I have posted a general comment post on the theme of the Essays ' The Nature of Time'. i now forgot on which essay i have posted. Kindly look at the essays that have more postings and you may find it somewhere. i want you to provide your opinion on the same.
Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 30, 2008 @ 05:52 GMT
Kyle, i have been admiring your courage in dealing with the oldies on your posts on other essays too. Keep it up, as you act positively, thanks to 'here and now' or in other words 100% living in the present!
i think the post i refered to was made on the essay of Dr Carlo Rovelli. He is still to respond and i noted your interjection! Below i mention a few observations on 'consciousness':-
There are five levels, waking, dreaming, deep sleep, meditation and cosmic. The first three are experienced by all, while the fourth can be culvitated or one may be born with. The last is the ultimate and one may have glimpses of the same through the fourth level. Meditation is 'beingness without localism'. The proof lies in being fresh,sensitive, awake but restful.Opposing forces appear complimentary, anxiety (future) and tension(past)go away and one lives 100% in the present moment! All-embracing love follows and each cell of the body is alive with full life-force. Clarity and innovation follows as complexities vanish along with I-ego.Both intuitive and inspirational thinking dawns, as ignorance is replaced by wisdom.
Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 4, 2008 @ 09:01 GMT
My last posting of Oct 30 continues to the last on your essay! Thus, it is impertinent for me to sign in again. In fact , i re-read your essay today and felt i have something to share. Let me give the same pointwise below:-
1.It is difficult but not impossible to know about the first 0.4 billion years about our Universe. In my essay, i have conjectured the primordial matter to consist of heavy neutral quarks that decayed quickly to the the fractional charged quarks currently known from Particle Physics. Also, the dark matter being non-baryonic, it most likely to be constituted by such Quarks, frozen as such. Then, visible universe gradually resulted in the nuclei of light elements like H and He. These are the ones we need to look for prior to the formation of the first star around 0.5 to 1 billion years after the start. Such searches are possible but very difficult as one needs to go to the farthest steller objects lying 13 billion years back in time! Only the telescopes looking at various e.m. parts of the spectra, installed at moon or beyond will enable such data to be observed even today!
2. Science can't test causation, as it only answers how and not why. Why's are the Nature's own logic evolution, with no control, except of cosmic consciousness itself! Getting the value of 'Pi' is merely a calculative problem, which will always remain limited to our capapbility to calculate. No more significance need be attached to it.
3.Objective/subjective duality is intrinsic to the universe as perceived by us, the observer/observed duality. To this one may even add a third element ' the process of observation'. If the process of observation takes care of both the individual and cosmic consciousness together, things can change!
4. Connecting consciousness to what we call Quantum Theory of the day and then invoking Planck's scale to work out quantum nature of consciousness, is really like giving dominance to Q.M. over the non-physical entity 'consciousness'. 25 millisec. gamma-synchron is not verifiable from Neurological studies. It is also in conflict with the ideas of telepathy, intuition, miracles like prior information or inkling a human brain is able to develop! Kindly note a mention of Prof. Ecless, Nobel Winner neurologist, where he talks about the neuron activity in the SMA of brain, as none was expected from within. He then postulates an artificail covering around SMA of brain that intercepts and records outside influences on neurons. That information never dies as the non-physical sheath does not die with the body/brain!
5. In your triangle, the body and mind needs triangulation with consciousness, which need not be 'The Planck Scale'.
NN wrote on Nov. 13, 2008 @ 05:05 GMT
Dear Kyle,
hope you are gone from this site temporarily as i didn't receive response to last post of Nov.04. May i also request that you find time to go to other MSS i posted on my essay site soon after the main essay MSS got posted. These are ' Science Interface with Spirituality' and ' Inconstancy of the Physical Constants and Strengths of the Force-fields'. Spirituality may be treated as 'consciousness' if you are allergic to its 'wrong' association with the religions in this world! My essay MSS is really the third in the series i penned down after experiencing ' broadening ' of my perspectives following meditation cum Yoga practice!
Don Limuti wrote on Nov. 14, 2008 @ 08:23 GMT
Your essay was a delight to read.
I was also pleased to note the respected shown to Heinz Pagels by yourself and as shown in the various posts.
I was worried that I was the only one who appreciated him.
Good Luck.
F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 14, 2008 @ 10:30 GMT
I do agree with you, Clinton Miller, that the question of Time is an unsolved question that is blocking modern science.
This question drives obviously to the scientific method and the physics’ tools/language in which the subjectivity introduced by Time plays a great part.
In other words, as Zeno of Elea and Aristotle pointed it, Time is the less objective ‘thing’ in the...
view entire post
I do agree with you, Clinton Miller, that the question of Time is an unsolved question that is blocking modern science.
This question drives obviously to the scientific method and the physics’ tools/language in which the subjectivity introduced by Time plays a great part.
In other words, as Zeno of Elea and Aristotle pointed it, Time is the less objective ‘thing’ in the Science’s field. The many ways to catch the Time through heart’s pulse, sun-dial, temperature-scale, light-scale, speed-scale, regular flow of a drop, symmetry with the past, music, pendulum, etc., is betraying the subtlety of the Time ‘phenomenon’.
But let me tell you that taking Einstein as an example is very surprising! Because Einstein is one of the most subjective scientists. ‘Multiplying entities beyond necessity’ is in fact exactly what Einstein is doing. In his special Relativity Theory for instance, one train motion phenomenon is multiplied in two speed rates. On this basis, exactly against Occam’s advise, in the ‘General Relativity’ we have many ‘arrows’ mixing time and space, that is to say an objective matter with a subtle phenomenon. Here one have an example of the big trouble that a retrospective subjective idea of time is bringing.
Your mistake here in my opinion comes from the fact that you think the ‘here and now’ as a ‘present time’, a little bit like the German philosopher Heidegger does in his lessons about antique Greek Science (‘sein-dasein’), although the ‘here and now’ is ‘past time’: coincidence is always ‘a posteriori’. You do insist on ‘present time’ but you are still in past.
The idea of ‘block time’ is of course as subjective as Einstein’s theory does. Instead of arrows you have cubes but made with time too. The strength of ‘block idea’ related to space and matter, is here only in our mind.
On this basis -Einstein or Quanta physics- you can multiply dimensions as many times as you will as Superstring theoricians do.
In my own statement I point the difference between two scientific languages or tools: Geometry and Algebra, and I explain why Algebra triumphated during the XVIIth in France. Geometry speaks about the internal structure of Matter although algebraic language is trying to catch outside ‘phenomenons’.
For example Helmholtz or Riemann are misunderstanding Euclide when they think he is not precise enough: measurement or localization is not Euclide’s goal.
And here is the risk of algebraic tool: although it let think that it is more precise and objective than Geometry, Algebra is the most approximate and subjective scientific tool.
When scientists are splitting the particle in their model in matter and wave, what do they do? They give to matter the value of a subjective ‘a posteriori’ algebraic idea of matter’s motion. Future? Here and now? Dynamics? No: Past and statics!
There is one difficulty more, coming from your sagacious description of the (actual) laws of Physics as ‘something akin to a notion of ‘God’. This makes everybody going against these laws a ‘Blasphemer’. I personally do not believe in the ‘free Science’ idea. This forum is an exception: scientific debate is usually as closed as a Monastery.
view post as summary
Michael Sherbon wrote on Nov. 14, 2008 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi Kyle,
The essay and document very much remind me of a wonderful book by William Samuel,
The Child Within Us Lives!
A Synthesis of Science, Religion and Metaphysics
And from a review by Richard Fuller,
"The Child Within Us Lives!, by visionary and philosopher William Samuel, pulls together the true nature of things, particularly time, space, matter and awareness (life). The result is a deeply meaningful perception of our original nature, the child within."
This really is "new" to me, and thanks for writing it.
Narendra wrote on Nov. 15, 2008 @ 06:42 GMT
Welcome back , Kyle. Your presence on the site is refreshing as you possess perhaps the maximum 'child-like' nature amongst us all in this essay competition. i shall get back to you after studying your 1 1/2 page on 'consciousness'.
Narendra wrote on Nov. 16, 2008 @ 09:22 GMT
Dear Kyle, your note on 'consciousness' is well presented. However, you have kept its scope limited to the three stages of wakefulness, dream and dep sleep only. There is a comprehensive aspect of it beyond the human beings (few thousands yrs. of existence) that links to the creation of the universe itself. It is clear that nothing physical has led to the creation of the physical universe! Cosmic...
view entire post
Dear Kyle, your note on 'consciousness' is well presented. However, you have kept its scope limited to the three stages of wakefulness, dream and dep sleep only. There is a comprehensive aspect of it beyond the human beings (few thousands yrs. of existence) that links to the creation of the universe itself. It is clear that nothing physical has led to the creation of the physical universe! Cosmic consciousness is the most appropriate candidate as it is timeless,birthless and indestructable! Let me present a few points below to elucidate the preamble given above:-
1.There are plenty of mysteries documented alround the world relating to the prodigeous behaviour of young children ( beyond the DNA linkages ). These stand in contrast to your statement 'human is born without an understanding of the world around and only the interactions with othersd....'.
2. Some years back, i happen to see on the Internet a quote from Prof. Eccles, a Nobel awardee neurologist from University of Oxford, U.K.. He observed neuron activity in the Supplementary Motor Area (SMA) of the brain when none was expected. He postulated there appears to be external interactions that are stimulating the neurons in SMA. He expressed the belief that such interactions are getting recorded in a non-physical covering around the SMAS. The latter does not die with the death of the body and thus such interactions record is carried permanenetly after death of an individual.
As per the eastern traditions, with belief in re-birth of the soul in another body, there is a term called 'Samskaras'. That carries in nutshell the cosequencies of actions in the past birth into the present life.
3. You are correct when you assert about the harmful effects of 'conditioning' of a child through the modern education system. " We are not what we are made of!". It is true in our education system too. We all need to broaden the outlook to all existing knowledge in a holistic manner.
4. Asc indicated in earlier postings too, it is unfortunate that the people in the west confine to the western philosophy. There are hosts of personalities in the east who developed rich concepts for good living through their inward life research on human experiences, self as well as others. Any one can look up ancient literature on Upnishads, Puranas, Gita and Patanjali Yogashstra. Max Mueller of Germany was one author of modern days who has written extensive commentaries on such ancient literature of India. It is all about secular living with no connection to any practiced religion of the day.
In my own essay, the term Spirituality is secular in context and relates better with Humanity than religion.There is a misnomer in the west about Yoga/meditation, as propounded by Patanjali, as a religious text!
5. You are right to conclude that 'consciousness' is a conceptualization of exisitence and that we have still to go far and continue to 'wonder' about the mysteries of life as also of the Universe we live in!
6. May i request you to see my post of Nov., 13 on my own essay site!
Hope this post will also interest other authors in this essay competition, in order that we broaden our outlook beyond our upbringing and acquired education in the respective locations.
view post as summary
F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 16, 2008 @ 18:42 GMT
Once again your contradiction -Clinton Miller- is that you take the more subjective theoretical statement, Einstein’s Theory, to prove that there is a break between objective Nature and subjective Scientific language. Although the break is between objective Nature and MODERN Science. That is to say C.K. Miller is himself prisoner of the vicious circle that I call ‘Teleology’.
The matter becomes ‘wave’ or ‘flow’ through the Algebraic tool which is an approximations successives of Nature phenomenons that became model idea (see my own statement on this forum for more details -‘Square Wheels Or Real Dynamics?’). Or:a Snowboard idea of Snow that becomes Board.
The paradoxes are obvious in the Algebra, not in the Matter, especially the paralogism of the ‘Standard model’. The lack of dynamism is included is this word ‘standard’. If you think ‘standard’, you will deduce a standardized Nature and this is the Quest for Higgs Boson!
- Dr Narendrah Nath should notice that starting from an opposed postulate, suggesting to let the Time and ‘cognition’ on one side, Dr C. Rovelli is adopting temperature scale at the end, chemical/biological analogy like C. Miller. Rovelli is driving the Subjectivity off but he does need a scale nevertheless. But the Scale IS Subjectivity.
C. Miller at is turn is fighting the Time with his ‘here and now’, but ‘here and now’ is ‘Past Time’ again coming back like a boomerang, not ‘Present-Time’ (about the same ‘here and now’-Time that ‘Quanta Physics’ is translating in Future-Time!).
Furthermore, asking the question of the Nature of Time in the framework of ‘Quanta Physics’ or Einstein’s theories is like asking the question of Light. Time which is everywhere now has been introduced by the studies and experiences on Light in France and England during the XVIIth Century (especially R. Descartes, C. Huygens, I. Newton).
Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 17, 2008 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Kyle,
Nice to see that you have broadened your outlook a bit. However, i find you don't care to look at the eastern philosophies of Zen, Buddhism and the ancient litrature i cited for you from India.i even provided a reference of Max Mueller, the well-known German Philosopher cum Theologist who extensively translated the ancient Indian scriptures for the convenience of the Western world. UNless we open up ourselves to all the knowledge available today, how can one be sure about new cotributions, original or amended in a different language format. Words are often found to be inadequate to reflect the level of one's own thinking, what to say of others! Often i feel language/vocubulary needs to grow constantly if we hope to achieve something unique/innovative. The well known facts from the History of Science indicate taht many a great scientists were not understood or appreciated for great lengths of time, untill some others came on the scene to project those works in a different language so as to be better understood. When i was in USA during my graduation, i was told H.A. Bethe could not be understood until Weisskopf explained what Bethe had done!
Patajali Yoga Shastra surely will be available in the University Library of the University of Wisconsin. Only then you may appreciate how Pitanjali was able to comprehend the intricate relationship between the observer, the process of observation and the object under observation ( he called it 'cognition')way back 3000 yrs. back!. The subtle distinctions we are all attempting to make to define 'consciousness' is a mere intellectual exercise, rather any understanding in depth about this non-physical entity. Can one who is a creation by the 'other', ever comprehend the latter exhaustively or very positively?
Please do not mind if i appear blunt in my comments here, as i genuinely appreciate your originality in many other ways. None of us has the capability of a finality about fundamental matters!Even a majority in such matters can well be proven wrong one day. That is how TIME operates on all of us, truly a wonder!
F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 17, 2008 @ 22:48 GMT
I read your answer Clinton Miller that says: 'my 'here and now' is maybe part of the past but not only? That is splitting the split! Are you joking?
The subjective idea of Time we are turning around is Algebraic time, that is to say a reference where 'Past' is a vector, 'Future' another one and 'Present' the dot between the two vectors. On this level of subjectivity, Zeno of Elea proved that you can do away with motion and time in dividing the speed vectors 'ad infinitum'; symmetric of Zeno's demonstration is Einstein one.
One can make a figure of your 'here and now' using Riemann's algebraic sphere. But why not temperature scale? You just need a board.
What about intersubjective experiences now? The risk is autosuggestion in my opinion. And I am sure you will agree that computing many equivalent subjective ideas is not Dynamics.
An example: thermic laws are going both directions:decreasing when you sleep or increasing when you make an effort: here you have two subjective ideas of time that is going faster when you make snowboard (I do not and may be the snow is giving the idea of eternity in this sport?) and slowly when you are sleeping. And you, CKM are picking the death, which is properly an 'event', your 'here and now': it is autosuggestion in my opinion and Dr Narendra Nath will tell you that death is a new birth (and you have trigonometry).
But your example of one clock seen by two people is a good example of common autosuggestion of objective Time too. If nobody had the idea of making clocks, many other tools could have give us the same idea of objective time such as a sun-dial.
Anonymous wrote on Nov. 18, 2008 @ 02:16 GMT
Causal Explanations in Thermodynamics...
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Nov. 18, 2008 @ 02:18 GMT
http://www.jstor.org/pss/187068
report post as inappropriate
Nath wrote on Nov. 18, 2008 @ 05:21 GMT
Dear Kyle & LeRouge,
Let us come out of the biases that often become so much a natural part of ours that we don't see them so anymore. This requires a very strong training of the human mind. The quotes of Patanjali i made in my essay just indicate how very very difficult it is to get the mind to work beyond the distractions we all have. That is where Yoga cum meditation can help, but individual experiences may still differ as one doesn't truly surrender to the 'total knowledge' of the 'cosmic consciousness'. We all agree that science is rationality but we human beings can't get rid of 'emotionality' that gets reflected through our biases!
i tender my unqualified apology if the above comment appears like a sermon, i have no right to give to others!
Narendra wrote on Nov. 18, 2008 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Kyle,
Kindly see my post of Nov., 13 on my own essay too. Also, reading literature is one aspect, the other concern the comprehension of the same. There we all may show differnt reactions to the same literature, as we comprehend the same according to our orientation of up-bringing, education and individual experiences in our lives.We can not hope for finality in any argument/reasoning, but we can approach a higher level towards relative truth by critical self analysis based on own experiences.
F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 19, 2008 @ 13:02 GMT
Are you sure, CKM, that the algebraic language, the angle made by ‘vector time’ and ‘vector space’ is the metaphor for ‘hic et nunc’ or ‘hic et nunc’ is the metaphor for algebraic language? Last one is my opinion contrarily.
In fact I do not doubt that Paris where I am is real; I do no doubt of my binary computer and keyboard either... But the 'now'? My intuition is that it is nothing else than a conventional word that makes the debate possible between three people like you, me and Narendra Nath for instance, but that is hiding different subjective ideas of time, related to different cultures and personal experiences. The dot is the consistency of your 'now' in other words, but there is no consistency in a dot.
Your 'here and now' do recall the latin culture as the 'ultima necat' just before. But Plato’s idea about Time is not Aristotle’s one, different from Zeno of Elea, who is not thinking like Zarathoustra, very different from M. Heidegger or K. Marx, not to speak about French M. Proust… (See Bergson’s idea of 'duration' taken by Christine Dantas, close at hand of your idea.)
What I try to explain about algebra or arithmetic language is that although it seems to be the more neutral language that make intercultural debate possible, that do suggest objectivity too, it is the less neutral and the more subjective (contrarily to other languages, geometry first of all, but not only).
This suggested idea of neutrality and objectivity made Einstein’s theories possible for instance and the ‘travel in time’, especially the theory based on one ‘here and now’ (simultaneity) recorded by two different observers, a theory where the subjectivity through algebra becomes more natural than Nature is. Special and General theories are based on algebraic autosuggestion and ‘Higgs Boson’ hypothesis too.
Last point is about the thermic or temperature scale you and C. Rovelli at least want to use instead of time/space ratio. In my opinion it is coming from the fact that you ‘feel’ that the speed ratio is not ‘natural’. But temperature is as much intimate and subjective as time is, although this scale is less commonly used -it is by Helmholtz in his ‘experiences’ on gas particles.
But the key is not here, it is in the fact that ‘space scale’ is governed by two opposite ideas: idea of 'full space' and idea of 'empty space'.
- C. Huygens and his friend acting ‘in loco parentis’ R. Descartes ‘think’ space in terms of ‘empty space’;
- I. Newton their ‘opponent’ ‘think’ either in terms of ‘full space’ or in terms of ‘empty space’… in the ‘inspiration’ of sun light.
What is tempting in Helmholtz thermic scale is the idea of 'full space again', that disappeared due to Einstein theories and useless static ‘Probability theory’ that creates ‘fake time’ and 'fake matter' on this basis.
Narendra wrote on Nov. 19, 2008 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear Kyle,
let me wish you the very best in your professional quests.Your response to me before the last post of F. Le Rouge is very apt and i wonder if you will care to respond again, for your studies demand a lot at your stage of life. All good luck!
Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 11:31 GMT
To F. LeRouge's post above, it is interesting to distinguish between filled and empty space. What will you say about the emptiness of atom's structure when compared with mighty nucleus having almost the entire mass. To me, atom is empty except for the nucleus. At the microscopic level as well as at the macroscopic level of the Universe, i see empty space far far dominate over tiny specks of filled space. What will you make of it. i personally see that 'consciousness' is playing some sort of 'havoc' with Physics. To the human senses, we feel almost all space as filled. Just goes to show that we use words or terms just to play around in our physico-biological world while the reality lies with 'consciousness'- a non-physical entity! As some one felt that the science has ended or if i may add it has just begun to emerge!
Maay i hope our youngest friend , Kyle will speculate further on such aspects so that the humans have a better future in this Universe than what we have had thus far!
Narendra wrote on Nov. 22, 2008 @ 13:19 GMT
Read your also post and also glanced through the two reprints enclosed. The Halographic quantum Geometry appeals to me more than the other paper concerned with Quantum Gravitational effects and Grsnd Unification. Yes, we truly are living in a virtual world generated by the non=physical 'consciousness'. Pure vibration free consciousness is beyond observation while its manifested vibrational consciousness is what appears as our Universe and all its contents , including the Human beings!Science presently is limited by what we can sense through our instruments.The accuracy and sensitivity is improving day by day and thus new facts /interpretations of observed facts are becoming possible. But this does limit us to reach even near the ultimate possibility, since costs will become tremendous, as are evident from the cost of Geneva Large Beam Collider.The present failure in beam sustenance is a small way the nature has indicated the forthcoming difficulties. These are all a product of human fancy but certainly there is a limit to it. The best Lab. given to us is the Nature of the Universe available to us. in my persona;l opinion, the better approach lies with Wilkinson Type telescopic probes put in outer space. These have already given us clues through Microwave Anisotropy of what little we know scientifically about our Universe. Carrying similar stations to the Moon and beyond are going to help better than earth based Accelerators! Cosmic radiations in space are also good indicators where we can see the particles not yet discovered or even postulated. In my essay,i have speculated on some of such possibilities!
Finally, i am convinced taht Human Mind is the best Laboratory that we have. Keeping it in the 'right mind' can help us a lot. For this we need to sacrifice the kind of high technology life we have built thus far in the human comforts. These have only increased human anxieties and tensions at the cost of 'Peace of Mind'. In a way, i hint at such points in my essay. As a scientist, i have fely how very important it is to value our Humanity over what scince has done for us thus far! Let us learn to match and balance the two, before the nature gives a final warning of doom/collapse. The current so-called financial/economic crisis is entirely due to human mistakes we have committed, ignoring to balance the technology with humanity in a way all the people the world over can assimilate in their life-styles. Living beyond one's means is just a small aspect of the same! Our future Science is also tied to it closely. There are things beyond the money wealth and we as humans need to do vigorous search for such 'wealth'!!
Narendra wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 07:31 GMT
I lost my posting for the second time because of server connectivity. Sunday it seems is a bad day. Kindly look up my posting of today at Paul Butler 's essay site, as it quotes your essay! I agree with Education being given today all our the world, more so in the developed nations of the west, specially USA. Because of your history being too recent, there is a tendency to ignore ancient wealth of Knowledge attained thousnads of years back in the east, including India. The reason is obvious as Europe and Asian civilizations took time to evolve much later, as Asia and Africa got colonised by the fire power emphasis in the west. being under slavery shuts oneself from the contemporary world. Now that the situaation has changed and both awareness and sanity appear to have been restored, Educational Curriculum need urgency for revision, in order to have greater peace and happiness alround the World.
F. Le Roux wrote on Nov. 24, 2008 @ 23:23 GMT
My idea of Time is very different from the Indian idea of Time, Narendra Nath; And I could not say too as Clinton Miller, because of my French culture, that I live in a 'phenomenological world'.
Einstein is very close to this idea of 'phenomenological world' which is not far away from Indian's one.
Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 25, 2008 @ 06:51 GMT
Dear Kyle & Le Roux,
My lost post agreed with Kyle's suggestion that the educational system all over the world needs updating with the times we are living and going to live in the near future! Sorry, Le Roux, i am unable to comprehend your last post of Nov., 24 on Kyle's essay. Perhaps i am not apt at understanding French english! Sorry that is entirely my limitation. Whatever world we live in, phenomenological, real or virtual, IT is the same. Our MIND works differently and that is not in one's own control what to say about others!
As many many new essays have cropped up recently, it is becoming impossible to satisfy the due significance of the latter ones. That is my limitation at least, i wonder!
Narendra wrote on Dec. 25, 2008 @ 08:04 GMT
Kyle,
Missed you for nearly a month after the last post. There is a composition on my site for you to read. You have sent me better peoms though your postings. What i find today is that the 'overdose' of some of the high technologies in use seem to dull the human mind. It is not able to have flights of freedom free from bias,as it was when most of our best Phyisc was developed the great ones we have had. We now mostly do parapheral jobs along with much of mathematical jugglary. i don't wish to sound harsh but that is my hunch! i have enjoyed my interactions with you, beverly and Stoica, all far youngers than me, an old foggy!There must be a common current that flows through us all. i have enjoyed this website essay contest for it has provided a common ground that is not currently available through the other means in use. Let us start to think about International web education to break the various barriers that have come up in the growth of both humanity and sciences. The world will be better place to live if we build such bridges, without having to fly by jet planes!
amrit wrote on Dec. 25, 2008 @ 10:12 GMT
Hi Klinton
In atemporal space there is always present. Universe exist into present. Science main stream will get that in a few years.
yours amrit
attachments:
1_Time_Searching_of_Einstein_and_Buddha___Sorli__2009.doc
Michael Thomas Deans wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Kyle,
Please review my essay 'The chip in the brain', it contains an account of the biological clock and may interest you!
Thanks
Michael Thomas Deans
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.