Re: The reality of entity
- From: brodix <brodix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 18:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
On May 9, 6:27 am, Haines Brown <bro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I plan to tackle the issue of the reality of an "entity", and here
offer some preliminary notes, for which I'd appreciate criticism.
The basic issue is the appropriateness of "entity" as our basic way to
apprehend the world scientifically, or whether it should instead be
"process". However, I here primarily offer a critical inspection of
entity, leaving the subject of process largely aside.
I think your mistake is trying to leave out "process."
If there is no motion, you have a temperature of absolute zero. I
think the conceptual mistake is trying to model time as a fundamental
dimension, but it makes more sense as a consequence of motion, rather
than the basis for it. Consider;
Time does go both directions.
While physical reality goes from past events to future ones, the
information of these events goes the other way. First it is future
potential, then past circumstance. If time were a fundamental
dimension, then physical reality proceeds along it, from past events
to future ones, but if time is a consequence of motion, then physical
reality is simply energy in space and the events, once created, are
replaced by the next and recede into the past. It isn't presentism
because time as a point would be meaningless as a measure of motion.
The only absolute time would be like absolute temperature; the
complete absence of it. Of course most motion is at the speed of
light, but we cannot process it in real time, so our minds create
flashes of perception, like frames of film. Thus to us, time does seem
like a series of instants. So the physical brain moves forward in
time, but the mind is a series of frames receding into the past.
Consider a thermal medium, say a pot of hot water, with lots of water
molecules moving about. To construct a timekeeping device out of this
we would measure the motion of one of these points of reference
against the medium it is moving through. The point is the hand and the
medium is the face of the clock. Obviously all the other points are
hands of their own clocks, but are medium/face for all other clocks.
The motion of any point/hand is balanced by the reaction of the medium/
face of the clock. So to the hand of the clock, the face goes
counterclockwise. At any one moment, the positions of all these points
constitute an event, so while any and all of them go from past events
to future ones, the medium against which any point is being judged is
the overall context, which once created, is displaced by the next, as
all these individual points move around, so the events go from future
potential to past circumstance. The illusion of direction is created
because the reference point moves through the series of circumstances,
though these events go the other way. There are innumerable points of
reference describing their own narrative, so every potential clock
constitutes its own measure of time. Whether the earth rotating and
creating days, or a cesium atom going through transitions, or strings
and their vibrations, conserved energy goes toward the future, as the
information defining it recedes into the past.
Think of the relationship between object and process as that between
a production line and product. The object/product describes a
narrative unit of time that goes from start to finish, while the
production line/process faces the other way, consuming raw material
and expelling finished product. The process of life goes from one
generation to the next, as individual lives go from being in the
future to being in the past.
Of course this point is worthless in terms of modern physics, which
describes time as an actual dimension and all information subjectively
exists on it, rather than being destroyed as new information is
created. Of course the same logic used to describe time as an
additional dimension of directional space could be used to argue
temperature is an additional parameter of volume space and the math
would be just as precise, but we function as intellectual particles,
so we have a more objective perspective on temperature and volume than
we have of time and distance.
Much of this ties into the Complexity dichotomy of top down structure
and bottom up process(Organism and eco-system). It also describes the
logical flaw with monotheism, since absolute is basis, not apex, so
the spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an
ideal from which we fell. Essential we have always confused unity
with unit, but unity is a neutral state and unit is a singular. Zero,
vs. one. The problem with assigning entropy to the universe is
assuming it is a closed set, but a unit isn't unitary, as there is
inside and outside, while a unitary state trades energy around rather
than losing it.
Regards,
John Merryman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The reality of entity
- From: Haines Brown
- Re: The reality of entity
- References:
- The reality of entity
- From: Haines Brown
- The reality of entity
- Prev by Date: Re: The reality of entity
- Next by Date: Re: The reality of entity
- Previous by thread: Re: The reality of entity
- Next by thread: Re: The reality of entity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
