What's Possible...

[Icarus Fallen]

...existentially?

Question(s) for Debate: ( )

Is it 'possible' that X exists, if, in fact, X doesn't exist?

In other words: does the actuality WRT the existence of certain theoretical entities (namely those that don't actually exist) negate the mere possibility that they do?

[tar2]

I'm reluctant to agree on a few fronts.

First, in my view, whatever "presently exists" does so ...whether the speed of light is a phenomenal boundary that imposes limitations beyond those known by human perception or not. The capacity (or lack thereof) to perceive an existent aspect or an occurring event is thereby irrelevant to their respective actualities.

Icarus Fallen,

But I do think it matters, this idea of "present" or "current". I don't consider it a trivial subject. I think it is central to our understanding of "god" or the universe, in that we can take this omnipresent viewpoint, and consider the universe from beginning to end and corner to corner. While we consciously experience only one now at a time.

Consider TAR2 typing this post on a Thursday night in his basement. Now consider TAR2 driving to work Wednesday morning (my current yesterday). Now consider where TAR2 is and what he is doing as Icarus Fallen is reading this. Does TAR2 currently exist? Where? What is he doing?

It depends on whose now you are going by and when you ask the question.

And to God (or the omnipresent viewpoint) does TAR2 "currently" exist? In what state? In what location? Am I everywhere I ever was on Earth from my birth to my death? Considered as the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun and the Sun pursues it course around the center of the Milky Way and the Milky Way changes its position in respect to the local cluster...?

Second, even granting C, the denial of a singular, potentially 'omniscient' viewpoint isn't necessarily called for, allowing only for the prospect that 'divine perception' may be transcendent in relation to any physical 'constant' ...perhaps by virtue of its own brand of constancy.

Indeed, the speed of thought has no limit. I propose that both the Atheist and the Theist use the Omnipresent viewpoint as an anchor, as a standard, as a place from which to judge and consider.

Finally (and full disclosure: this is coming from a strident pantheist of no religious affiliation whatsoever), invoking the monistic paradigm allows for a number of basic phenomenological assumptions, not least of which being the principle of interconnectivity. Accordingly, my level of awareness of any of the specifics of 'present' activity beyond my personal field of perception is of no consequence to the principle that 'you', 'I', and all of those distant actors are merely subjective aspects of one and the same object -- the only "object" that exists: The Universe, which I call "God".

Oh, maybe we are in complete agreement.

Regards, TAR

[tar2]

Icarus Fallen,

But wait a minute. When the super nova is visible to Earth in 50 years at 700 lys distance, we will know only that when I asked the question, that particular super nova had occurred 650 years ago, and therefore was not currently happening when I asked the question. It occurred in the "now" of 1360AD to be visible to Earth in 2050. Not very useful to consider the omnipresent view of "current". At least at great distances, because what ever happens now, at those distances does not effect us, in any way, and we have no knowledge of it, until scores of generations later.

Happening "currently" still remains ambiguous. To me anyway.

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

But I do think it matters, this idea of "present" or "current". I don't consider it a trivial subject.

Nor do I.

I think it is central to our understanding of "god" or the universe, in that we can take this omnipresent viewpoint, and consider the universe from beginning to end and corner to corner. While we consciously experience only one now at a time.

There's no question that our conscious experiences in and of the present moment are fleeting; the question is this: is the present moment (independent of temporal un/sub or conscious experience) a fleeting or constant phenomenon, itself?

Without writing a book here, I personally take a sort of representational approach to the matter of 'time', positing the 'present moment' as an a-temporal phenomenon that is represented temporally by conscious experience. In accordance with this, the 'past' and 'future' are perspectival by-products that have no 'reality' outside of the minds that tend to perceive (and conceive of time) in purely linear terms.

[...]Does TAR2 currently exist? Where? What is he doing?

It depends on whose now you are going by and when you ask the question.

Yes, for linear perceivers (like you and I), the manner in which we experience the portions of the ever-present totality that lie within our respective fields of perception ...forces our hands (so to speak), both in terms of what we perceive and how we make sense of it.

[...]Am I everywhere I ever was on Earth from my birth to my death?[...]

In my view (that of a pantheist), yes.

What "you" are (in all of your human glory) is merely descriptive of a larger whole. You're an adjective; not a noun. So, instead of thinking of yourself in line with the phrase, "Here and now is Tar2", it may be more accurate to think and state that, "Here and now the Universe is Tar2ish.". The aspect brought into existence (or formulated) by your mother and father has thus far lived an apparently autonomous life ...and will continue to do so 'til the day of your death; BUT the bodily autonomy has always been illusory, by which I mean any believed disconnect between you and the totality of existence is imagined ...not perceived.

In my view, the appearance of autonomy is as much the product of what remains unperceived as it is the assumed fruition of our perceptions.

Indeed, the speed of thought has no limit. I propose that both the Atheist and the Theist use the Omnipresent viewpoint as an anchor, as a standard, as a place from which to judge and consider.

I think you're right on that point; and oddly enough, I believe that's true ...whether everyone involved realizes it or not.

But wait a minute. When the super nova is visible to Earth in 50 years at 700 lys distance, we will know only that when I asked the question, that particular super nova had occurred 650 years ago, and therefore was not currently happening when I asked the question.

Oh, I wouldn't say that's all we'd know. We'd also that a super nova "currently exist[ed] within 1000 light years of Earth" at the time you asked the question, even though it wouldn't have been "currently happening" at that time.

[tar2]

Icarus Fallen,

"Oh, I wouldn't say that's all we'd know. We'd also that a super nova "currently exist[ed] within 1000 light years of Earth" at the time you asked the question, even though it wouldn't have been "currently happening" at that time. "

Good point. I was thinking something similar as I was considering the puzzle. In a sense, when there is an event, like a super nova, 700 ly from here, it continues to happen as the resulting photons travel outward from the site at light speed. Probably followed by the matter ejected at lesser speeds. There is probably not a time, from the Omnipresent viewpoint, that you could consider the event over, because its effects are traveling outward from the site in spherical shells that will continue on outward for...well for just about ever.

Reminds me of a discussion I had with my cousin after my uncle (his dad) died. We were considering an observer on a planet 60 some light years distance away, with a very powerful x-ray telescope that could watch the Earth and see the people on it. They could watch my uncle, in real time, be born, and live his life. My uncle's life is still to be experienced by the rest of the universe. His birth is a future occurence as far as most of the Milky Way is concerned.

Regards, TAR

[tar2]

...is the present moment (independent of temporal un/sub or conscious experience) a fleeting or constant phenomenon, itself?

Hum. That is a good question. Have not sorted it out completely enough for a good answer. But I do think it an excellent question, and a central one, in understanding what consciousness is. Where I have gotten so far is that in the objective sense, even life on Earth, from the primordial ooze til now, is a fleeting accomplishment in the expanse of space and time. But a human consciousness, we will use mine, since that is the one I am most familiar with, is conscious, BECAUSE it is aware of only the current situation. Given the neurological structures I have, I am however capable of "remembering" past sensations, and highly capable of modeling and making analogies. These facilities in a sense though are due to the current arrangement of brain cell connections, the current situation going on inside my skull, along with the present sensations my brain is receiving from its connections to the rest of my body and sense organs, (skin, eyes, nose, tongue, and ears). So although I can imagine being in past situations, and future situations and even in other people's shoes, the only situation I am ever really in, really conscious of, is the current one. However, I constantly (at least for the last 57 years) seem to be in this state of being conscious of the present situation.

Without writing a book here, I personally take a sort of representational approach to the matter of 'time', positing the 'present moment' as an a-temporal phenomenon that is represented temporally by conscious experience. In accordance with this, the 'past' and 'future' are perspectival by-products that have no 'reality' outside of the minds that tend to perceive (and conceive of time) in purely linear terms.

Well I think we might be talking about the same thing. Perhaps we have had some similar insights.

Yes, for linear perceivers (like you and I), the manner in which we experience the portions of the ever-present totality that lie within our respective fields of perception ...forces our hands (so to speak), both in terms of what we perceive and how we make sense of it.

I do believe we are traveling the same path, here. I am looking for something to take issue with, but see more common insight, than places to quibble.

What "you" are (in all of your human glory) is merely descriptive of a larger whole. You're an adjective; not a noun. So, instead of thinking of yourself in line with the phrase, "Here and now is Tar2", it may be more accurate to think and state that, "Here and now the Universe is Tar2ish.". The aspect brought into existence (or formulated) by your mother and father has thus far lived an apparently autonomous life ...and will continue to do so 'til the day of your death; BUT the bodily autonomy has always been illusory, by which I mean any believed disconnect between you and the totality of existence is imagined ...not perceived.

Except in this aspect. Tar2 is a noun. From a godlike perspective, all the universe being one and so on, I can go along with the Tar2ish idea, but that is a construct, an imaginary model, built from a perspective Tar2 can't really have. The real Tar2, the child of mother and father, the human organism built generation by generation by evolution, the inhabitant of planet Earth, the conscious being sitting at his computer typing, is a noun, a different noun than the organism Icarus Fallen.
We are each 100% universe material, but you are 100% Icarus Fallen and I am 100% Tar2.

In my view, the appearance of autonomy is as much the product of what remains unperceived as it is the assumed fruition of our perceptions.

I think you may have had some insights I have not yet had, because I can't understand that. Or perhaps what we deem real, and what we deem model, differs.

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

I was thinking something similar as I was considering the puzzle. In a sense, when there is an event, like a super nova, 700 ly from here, it continues to happen as the resulting photons travel outward from the site at light speed.

To me, that smacks of equating the airing of a movie to its initial shooting. A blockbuster may be aired in theaters around the globe for several months following its creation, but the airings shouldn't be confused with the creative event. Likewise, there's a definitive line between viewing stellar events from 'real time' proximities (or as the events are "currently happening") and viewing them from significantly time-delayed distances (in many cases, long after the 'events proper' have ended) -- a line that I think becomes more pronounced with increasing distances and with the correspondingly longer delays in the transfers of information.

...There is probably not a time, from the Omnipresent viewpoint, that you could consider the event over, because its effects are traveling outward from the site in spherical shells that will continue on outward for...well for just about ever.

I have to disagree with you here.

I believe proximity is the determinative factor in the objective duration of a given event, from 'beginning' to 'end'. In my view, the recording and projection of the entire event across the cosmos should never be mistaken for the event itself.

As for your Uncle:

...My uncle's life is still to be experienced by the rest of the universe. His birth is a future occurence as far as most of the Milky Way is concerned. [emphasis IF's]

No. As far as most of the Milky Way is concerned, his life (from beginning to end) is no less a past occurrence, even though the movie won't be reaching the majority of the theaters in our beloved galaxy for many years to come.

Gotta run (big plans, don'tcha know ... ), but I'll try to have my response to your most recent contribution posted tonight.

Thanks, for your patience.

[tar2]

Icarus Fallen,

Well I will have to be sort of stubborn here, since we are talking about "does X exist", it matters completely "to whom".

Let me try to explain my dilemma by asking you to consider the microwave background radiation. To us, here on Earth, some 13 plus billion years after the "last scattering" we sense radiation that was released by events that occurred when the matter that makes up the Milky Way was in a similar state, just having emerged from the last scattering, emitting photons freely.

We, here at the Milky Way have had 13 plus billion years to evolve, clumping matter, blowing it apart, building heavier elements, in several generations of stars.

Pick a spot on the celestial sphere and consider the microwave background radiation again. Has that spot not also had 13billion plus years to evolve? Why do we consider it "background radiation" when "currently" it is a region of space that houses whatever 13 billion years of evolution made of it? A region of space that is farther away from us than when the photons were emitted, due to the expansion of the universe.

The separation we have, from that region of space is significant. We have no way of ever knowing what currently exists in that region of space.

So if you are sure that X exists, or it doesn't, I ask, from whose perspective are you establishing that truth?

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

Skipping the points of agreement...

...The real Tar2, the child of mother and father, the human organism built generation by generation by evolution, the inhabitant of planet Earth, the conscious being sitting at his computer typing, is a noun, a different noun than the organism Icarus Fallen.

The adjective analogy isn't perfect, I know, but the point I was trying to illustrate is that the opposing paradigms from which you and I operate are equally interpretive in nature. You perceptually interpret the universe as a place of many distinct objects; I perceptually interpret it as an object with many distinct aspects. So, it seems that both of us see the world in terms of pluralities. Where we differ is in our respective ascriptions of those pluralities -- yours' to the objective; mine to aspective.

We are each 100% universe material, but you are 100% Icarus Fallen and I am 100% Tar2.

Agreed.

However, in my view, neither one of us is disconnected from the common material pool from which we arose. We are merely the waves of one and the same ocean. And since I see disconnective autonomy as a prerequisite to objectivity, that "ocean" is the only 'object' that exists, in spite of the distinctiveness of all of its waves.

I'd written:

In my view, the appearance of autonomy is as much the product of what remains unperceived as it is the assumed fruition of our perceptions.

You respond:

I think you may have had some insights I have not yet had, because I can't understand that.[...]

It may be helpful to consider whether you perceive or infer objective autonomy, bearing in mind our likely agreement that a substantial portion of the reality we seemingly share (across the micro/macro spectrum) lies outside of our fields of perception.

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

...since we are talking about "does X exist", it matters completely "to whom".

No, it really doesn't.

You can't out-stubborn me, Mister.

So if you are sure that X exists, or it doesn't, I ask, from whose perspective are you establishing that truth?

I'll take a stab at answering that question by posing and answering one of my own:

Q) MBR notwithstanding, in what way is the current existence of X a matter of perspective?

A) It's not!

Whatever presently exists, however many billions of light years away, does so, in spite of my biological inability to sensually experience it (from my present locale, that is). That I can't see it from my current POV doesn't make it non-existent, any more than my inability to see beyond a bend in the road on my way to work back in January ...rendered non-existent the doe I smacked at 55 mph, no matter how badly I wish it had.

[tar2]

The adjective analogy isn't perfect, I know, but the point I was trying to illustrate is that the opposing paradigms from which you and I operate are equally interpretive in nature. You perceptually interpret the universe as a place of many distinct objects; I perceptually interpret it as an object with many distinct aspects. So, it seems that both of us see the world in terms of pluralities. Where we differ is in our respective ascriptions of those pluralities -- yours' to the objective; mine to aspective.

Well perhaps, but that is because I attribute my consciousness to the very fact that I am a separate and distinct "aspect" of reality, that has a particular limited view from a very particular place and time. And I give great credit to life's accomplishments on this planet, and owe all to the evolution that crafted and passed on this human pattern to me. Different and distinct from the universe (while obviously being 100% universe material). A separate object, a separate entity, whose job it is to be separate, and maintain and pass on the unique pattern.

However, in my view, neither one of us is disconnected from the common material pool from which we arose. We are merely the waves of one and the same ocean. And since I see disconnective autonomy as a prerequisite to objectivity, that "ocean" is the only 'object' that exists, in spite of the distinctiveness of all of its waves.

So I am not sure if we are saying the same thing, or if the disconnection that I presume is responsible for our consciousness, is not the prerequisite you are talking about.

In my view, the appearance of autonomy is as much the product of what remains unperceived as it is the assumed fruition of our perceptions.

Here I am guessing that I took "the appearance of autonomy" as "autonomy comes on the scene" where you might mean it as "what we think is autonomy".
If so, that is probably why I don't understand it, I am convinced I am autonomous.

It may be helpful to consider whether you perceive or infer objective autonomy, bearing in mind our likely agreement that a substantial portion of the reality we seemingly share (across the micro/macro spectrum) lies outside of our fields of perception.

I think I definitely consider I perceive objective autonomy, and I infer my connection to the universe.

Regards, TAR