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]

Icarus Fallen,

Funny, I see the phrasing of the question as completely non-ambiguous, in that all of the issues involved are restricted to the present tense and ultimately to the factuality surrounding X's existential status.

But given the universe as the one thing that exists, and calling all of its aspects the Xs, there are Xs that exist, in the present tense, for an Earthbound viewer, say the stars, that are not in actuality existing presently in the state noted by the Earthbound viewer. And the Earthbound viewer has no way to get current information about the location in space that used to house that star. Or what if we were to ask “do quasars exist�? Is the answer “not anymore, that was an aspect of an earlier universe�? Or what if the question is “does the cosmic background radiation exist? Is the answer “yes, the radiation is here now, but the aspects of the universe that emitted that light have not existed for 13.73 years, currently those locations in space are whatever 13.73 billion years of evolution has made them?
We are left with a dilemma. Anything we see are images of the past. Anything we deem currently actually existing, a mere speculation, a guess, a thing of the imagination.
How can we even claim X exists, much less say “or it doesn’t�?

I'm not inquiring as to the possibility of X's existence in someone's imagination in the past; I'm talking about a present state of affairs that actually obtains (the factual non-existence of X) and of its bearing on the matter of the possibility of X's existence in the here and now.

Well, if we are going by the here and now, then we are basically talking about what? The Earth? In the last 10 seconds? The last week?

It seems that you and I are in agreement that possibilities are contingent on actualities, because I, too, "would say no" in answer to the quoted question.

Yes, but I am still questioning the perspective from which we are determining “the actual�.

Our agreement in that regard carries some heavy implicit baggage. After all, in line with the relevant observation, not only should theists be hesitant to make claims involving the objective existence of their preferred god; they should also be reluctant to positively affirm the mere possibility of said existence. That's a pretty big deal, in this (pan)theist's humble opinion!

Yes, I agree. But I will add that being that us Atheists and (pan)theists and Agnostics, and Scientists and Theists are all here and now, trying to understand our relationship with an “actuality� that is both immensely expansive, and incredibly detailed in terms of time and space, and aspects, it appears that the actuality is beyond our comprehension and I have no issue with allowing a great deal of religious freedom to each of us to address our personal god (or personal understanding of the universe) in the manner we do. (Except when it comes to flying planes full of people in my WTC. I won’t have that.)

No, I believe in many points of view (each with its own set of unique and common limitations), from which the universe sensually experiences and interacts ...with itself.

Yes, in my view, the whole shebang is purely masturbatory in nature.

Can we PLEASE keep my personal habits out of this?!

I hope you'll allow me the liberty of bracketed interpolation, since it is my view you're trying to characterize:
"Within this view X either exists or it does not exist [as a temporal aspect of an eternally-existent object], whether or not a human [who is such an "aspect"] can experience it. This "truth" exists. This reality of "all [temporally-existent] things [being aspects of a common eternally-existent singularity] exists, independent of human [knowledge]..."

OK. But not the eternally-existent singularity thing. Makes no sense. There are no aspects to a singularity. Its just 1.

Many aspects of existence have come to light in the course of human evolution. As for any aspect whose 'existence' preceded human discovery, the previous state of human ignorance was obviously a shaky ground for denial. This acknowledgment renders the "context" of humanity a dubious standard, at least where questions of existence beyond the present field of human perception are concerned.

As a presently visible image that was recorded and projected 2.4 million years ago, yes.

As a currently-existent galaxy, not necessarily.

The galaxy exists ...or it doesn't.

The evidence of its past existence is just that.

Whether or not it continues to exist ...is a matter of speculation.

I do believe the context of humanity is the only one we have to work with. Having another is imaginary.

Regards, TAR

[tar2]

How is existence defined for this discussion?

AkiThePirate,

I think the discussion is trying to arrive at the definition.

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

[...]given the universe as the one thing that exists, and calling all of its aspects the Xs, there are Xs that exist, in the present tense, for an Earthbound viewer, say the stars, that are not in actuality existing presently in the state noted by the Earthbound viewer. And the Earthbound viewer has no way to get current information about the location in space that used to house that star.[...] [emphasis IF's]

Some of the X's "that exist, in the present tense, for an Earthbound viewer", E.G. many of those shining dots that speckle the sky on cloudless nights, simply aren't indicative of currently existent stars. Moreover, none of the images of the stars we perceive (including that of our beloved Sun, whose light takes about 8.5 minutes to reach us) are indicative of the present states of any of those stars.

How any of that is problematic to my view is completely beyond me.

That 'we' don't perceive other aspects in their 'real time' ...doesn't entail the wholesale negation of the principle that we can and do perceive other aspects concurrently, even though our simultaneous perceptions are bound to be different (spatially and temporally speaking).

We are left with a dilemma. Anything we see are images of the past. Anything we deem currently actually existing, a mere speculation, a guess, a thing of the imagination.

The dilemma, if there is one, has bearing on our capacities to know of the existential status of a given projector, not of its projection.

So...

How can we even claim X exists, much less say “or it doesn’t�?

So long as the "X" we're speaking of is the projection proper (I mean the image projected, as opposed to the aspect projecting it), we're perfectly within our rights to claim that X-image 'currently exists' during the fleeting instants in which we perceive it (often concurrently).

But you're right about our abilities to know of the current existence of a given projector, in that the best we can do in that regard is speculate in deference to the available evidence.

Well, if we are going by the here and now, then we are basically talking about what? The Earth? In the last 10 seconds? The last week?

I'm talking about any and all of our fleeting perceptions, in and of the present moment, as they actually occur.

[...]I am still questioning the perspective from which we are determining “the actual�.

And my answer is that various and fleeting takes on "the actual" can be determined simultaneously from a number of localized perspectives in the present.

[...]not the eternally-existent singularity thing. Makes no sense. There are no aspects to a singularity. Its just 1. [emphasis IF's]

Says who?

From the OED, on "singularity":

2 Physics & Mathematics a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole

Whose to say whether or not a universal "function" can be aspectually "infinite"?

Or, in other words, granting the monistic paradigm, whose to say whether or not the "1" can have/express an infinite many aspects throughout eternity?

I do believe the context of humanity is the only one we have to work with. Having another is imaginary.

As a human aspect of the universe, I couldn't agree more.

[Icarus Fallen]

ATP,

How is existence defined for this discussion?

I define it as the fact or state of being in aspective and objective reality.

[tar2]

Some of the X's "that exist, in the present tense, for an Earthbound viewer", E.G. many of those shining dots that speckle the sky on cloudless nights, simply aren't indicative of currently existent stars. Moreover, none of the images of the stars we perceive (including that of our beloved Sun, whose light takes about 8.5 minutes to reach us) are indicative of the present states of any of those stars.

Icarus Fallen,
Well thanks for that. You are the first person I recall yielding to or agreeing with that point. I am very glad you see it the same way I see it, because much of my worldview is built on that “truth� and now I feel I have at least one person to talk to, to check the veracity of the subsequent conclusions and insights I have drawn and had.

How any of that is problematic to my view is completely beyond me.

I think I may have misrepresented you, in the model of you I was building in my brain. If I can digress a bit, I would like to bring up the idea of insights, first on a personal level, and then on the level of communication, and finally on the existential level (x either exists or it doesn’t).
When I have an insight, it is new to me. Something that I notice about the model of the world in my head that I did not notice before. Now that I notice it, I cannot un-notice it, it is part of my neurological wiring. It can be corrected and amended as new evidence comes in, but that fact is now “known� to me, and true to me. That X exists.
When I meet Icarus Fallen on the Debate Christianity Board, I instantly add him to my model of the world, making all sorts of assumptions about what he is and isn’t, in the process. (he is human, not an aardvark, he knows some Greek mythology, he knows how to type, etc.). But one of the paints I use to create my picture of this “unseen other� Icarus Fallen, is insights. When he makes a statement, I instantly compare the insights that the statement suggests Icarus Fallen has had, with mine. And in a sense, paint his composite, in colors relative to my insights, and adjust my own pallet appropriately. That X (Icarus Fallen) exists.
And finally to objective truth. It is established with just a single common insight, with the first word spoken between two humans. This because each one knows he is an object in the other’s model.

That 'we' don't perceive other aspects in their 'real time' ...doesn't entail the wholesale negation of the principle that we can and do perceive other aspects concurrently, even though our simultaneous perceptions are bound to be different (spatially and temporally speaking).

That, and more. With the knowledge that our perspectives are spatially and temporally removed, we can assume the existence of a third perspective and assign it a reasonably logical view, as long as we acknowledge its speculative, made up, nature.

The dilemma, if there is one, has bearing on our capacities to know of the existential status of a given projector, not of its projection.

Yes, but if we agree on the likely status, we can thusly assign it a probability of existence. The current light arriving we are sure of, and that is what is real to us now, that is what matters. What the sun is doing from the sun’s perspective, NOW, will only matter to us, will only be apparent in 8.3 minutes. Even though we cannot actually take the sun’s perspective, we can still assume it.
(This, by the way is, in a sideways way, similar to my sense that even if we know God actually does not exist, we can still act as if he does. But I suppose that is a different debate.)

So long as the "X" we're speaking of is the projection proper (I mean the image projected, as opposed to the aspect projecting it), we're perfectly within our rights to claim that X-image 'currently exists' during the fleeting instants in which we perceive it (often concurrently).

Yes, and more.

But you're right about our abilities to know of the current existence of a given projector, in that the best we can do in that regard is speculate in deference to the available evidence.

Agreed.

I'm talking about any and all of our fleeting perceptions, in and of the present moment, as they actually occur.

Yes, but don’t forget the role of memory.(Hey, that sounds like a joke.) The�current� arrangements of our brains is a result of at least a lifetime’s worth of current perceptions. And as such, we have internalized patterns from past current moments, and can compare moments.

And my answer is that various and fleeting takes on "the actual" can be determined simultaneously from a number of localized perspectives in the present.

Yes, but you only know this, because you talk to other perspectives.

Says who?
From the OED, on "singularity":

2 Physics & Mathematics a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole

Whose to say whether or not a universal "function" can be aspectually "infinite"?
Or, in other words, granting the monistic paradigm, whose to say whether or not the "1" can have/express an infinite many aspects throughout eternity?

Well, just as long as you are not saying the Universe is unity. Because I don’t think it makes any sense. Unity has nothing to compare itself to.

As a human aspect of the universe, I couldn't agree more.

Agreed.

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

I consider you a contemporary thinker ...and a solid 'sounding board', as well.

Maybe, if we put our heads together, we can figure out what the hell it's all about.

...I am very glad you see it the same way I see it, because much of my worldview is built on that “truth� [...]

Well, properly interpreted, I think all of the 'evidence' supports us on this point of agreement.

I've long been a proselytizer of my own stripe of representationalism, according to which a firm distinction between our perceptions and the aspects perceived ...is foundational. Part and parcel to this is the issue of time delays in the transfers of information from the external aspects of reality (or projectors) to the internal representations thereof (or projections).

However, unlike some of the O.G. representationalists (ESP. Locke), I don't believe the tabula rasas (I.E. the relatively unfettered memories of conscious embryos and/or fetuses) are entirely "blank" to begin with, mainly because I see genetic predisposition as a form of internalized and pre-stored information.

...When I have an insight, it is new to me. Something that I notice about the model of the world in my head that I did not notice before. Now that I notice it, I cannot un-notice it, it is part of my neurological wiring. It can be corrected and amended as new evidence comes in, but that fact is now “known� to me, and true to me. That X exists.

I think it's important to be crystal clear in our definitions.

If, by "insight(s)", you're referring to wholly internalized, complex ideas that arise from the intentional organization and unintentional interplay of simple representations (I.E. from our remembered perceptions of the world outside of our minds), I'd still be wary of making claims to "truth" and "knowledge" based on those insights, any or all of which may well be distorted. If, for instance, your belief in the so-called "fact" that X exists is based on a series of misunderstandings and erroneous interpretations of the available evidence, your claim to knowledge of the truth and factuality X's existence would be ill-justified ...and potentially false.

When I meet Icarus Fallen on the Debate Christianity Board, I instantly add him to my model of the world, making all sorts of assumptions about what he is and isn’t, in the process. (he is human, not an aardvark, he knows some Greek mythology, he knows how to type, etc.). But one of the paints I use to create my picture of this “unseen other� Icarus Fallen, is insights. When he makes a statement, I instantly compare the insights that the statement suggests Icarus Fallen has had, with mine. And in a sense, paint his composite, in colors relative to my insights, and adjust my own pallet appropriately. That X (Icarus Fallen) exists.

Here your core "assumption", that I exist as a human being ...as opposed to an "aardvark" or some other non-human agent of intelligence, is based on primary perceptions (your readings) of secondary and tertiary types of evidence (the writing that appears on your monitor). That you don't directly perceive the author is the determinative factor that renders your assumption of my humanity just that -- an assumption.

And finally to objective truth. It is established with just a single common insight, with the first word spoken between two humans. This because each one knows he is an object in the other’s model.

The "objective truth" isn't "established with just a single common insight"; what's established is our common knowledge of a single point of agreement concerning some claim or proposition that remains objectively true or false ...irrespective of our agreement on the matter.

...With the knowledge that our perspectives are spatially and temporally removed, we can assume the existence of a third perspective and assign it a reasonably logical view, as long as we acknowledge its speculative, made up, nature.

First: I wouldn't claim to know that "our perspectives are spatially and temporally removed", despite my strong conviction/belief that they are.

Second: logically and empirically speaking, the "existence(s)" of any number of wholly distinct "perspectives" are NOT contingent on a material separation among them (see Koch's Snowflake, for a mathematical model involving the potential for an infinite many partial 'iterations' of an initial geometrical shape, minus any 'separation' along the way).

...if we agree on the likely status, we can thusly assign it a probability of existence.

Just as our agreement on the perceptual time delay thing is of no consequence to the objective truth or falsity of our claims on the matter, it is equally impotent on the likelihood of X's existence, so long as the "X" we're speaking of is a projector and not a projection.

...The current light arriving we are sure of, and that is what is real to us now, that is what matters.

The projections (or simple representations), during the fleeting instants in which we perceive them, are indeed known to us.

BUT, the goings-on in the projectors' 'real time', however unperceived, are no less "real" (or any less pertinent to wholesale existence) just because of the relative proximities involved.

In practical terms, solar flares are every bit as real, from genesis to revelation (so to speak).

...What the sun is doing from the sun’s perspective, NOW, will only matter to us, will only be apparent in 8.3 minutes [taking the elliptical average between the closest and farthest points of orbit, 8 min. and 18 seconds].

I beg to differ.

I'd say that what's happening in real time, across the friggin' cosmos, should "matter to us", whether those happenings are within our fields of perception/experience during our lifetimes (or for that matter, during the hairsbreadth of time and space occupied by humanity, from evolutionary inception to our eventual extinction) ...or not.

I'd written:

...various and fleeting takes on "the actual" can be determined simultaneously from a number of localized perspectives in the present.

You respond:

Yes, but you only know this, because you talk to other perspectives.

No, I believe it, because of my direct interaction with other agents of intelligence, each of which has seemingly occupied a unique point of view.

...just as long as you are not saying the Universe is unity.

But that's exactly what I'm saying.

In my view, the universe IS an objective and eternal "unity" ...of subjective and temporal aspects. -- That is, it's an object that remains forever intact, as its aspects come and go.

[tar2]

I consider you a contemporary thinker ...and a solid 'sounding board', as well.

Maybe, if we put our heads together, we can figure out what the hell it's all about.

Icarus Fallen,

Thanks for that. Can't tell you how good it made me feel. Too often in my forum experiences, posts come back, raising some surface objection to a particular point that I then feel I have to defend or explain, often setting up some sort of sub contest where the participants attempt to prove how smart, or logical or knowledgable they are, taking the conversation to a different level than the one I was attempting to investigate. I appreciate your statement also because it makes me feel that I have something of value to offer others, and that makes me feel good. And of course the feeling that I have a solid teammate in the "figuring what the hell its all about" arena, is a good one.

Well, properly interpreted, I think all of the 'evidence' supports us on this point of agreement.

I've long been a proselytizer of my own stripe of representationalism, according to which a firm distinction between our perceptions and the aspects perceived ...is foundational. Part and parcel to this is the issue of time delays in the transfers of information from the external aspects of reality (or projectors) to the internal representations thereof (or projections).

Well yes this is an important foundational distinction in my book as well. But, there is difference between considering a perception as an illusion, or as an analog replica of what is actual. As a projection it sounds like an illusion, it sounds "not" real. As a an analog replica, it is the real effect of the incoming stimuli on our persons.

As an example, consider the way sound was transferred through a horn to a needle that wiggled as the sound hit it, imprinting the pattern on the wax or vinyl, and then when the needle was circulated around the imprints, the original sounds would be produced. Where did the patterns of sound, stop being real, stop be actual? What was projection and what was projected?

However, unlike some of the O.G. representationalists (ESP. Locke), I don't believe the tabula rasas (I.E. the relatively unfettered memories of conscious embryos and/or fetuses) are entirely "blank" to begin with, mainly because I see genetic predisposition as a form of internalized and pre-stored information.

No disagreement here. Always had a problem with the nature/nurture debate, when it seemed so obvious that it was both. But along that line, the timing becomes very important. The human organism, did not start at birth. As an example I use the fact that women are born with their full contingent of eggs at birth. This means that half of you is as old as your mom. One quarter of you, as old as your Grandma. One eigth as old as your GreatGrandMother... one xth of you, as old as Lucy in Africa. The "memories" of reality that you have are not solely composed of the stimuli that your particular body/brain/heart group has received.

I think it's important to be crystal clear in our definitions.

If, by "insight(s)", you're referring to wholly internalized, complex ideas that arise from the intentional organization and unintentional interplay of simple representations (I.E. from our remembered perceptions of the world outside of our minds), I'd still be wary of making claims to "truth" and "knowledge" based on those insights, any or all of which may well be distorted. If, for instance, your belief in the so-called "fact" that X exists is based on a series of misunderstandings and erroneous interpretations of the available evidence, your claim to knowledge of the truth and factuality X's existence would be ill-justified ...and potentially false.

I am not real good at crystal clear definitions. I was using "insights" as a generic term to describe the "oh, I get it" feeling. When you see the connection between pieces of your model of the world that up to that point, did not make sense in that way, and now they do. Having an insight being like a stronger version of "getting a joke", or solving a riddle. And while I will admit that the state of your model after the insight might still be sorely lacking in representing accurately, the entire world, it is still an improvement in the model. And in talking to, and listening to other people, you can get a general idea of the "state of their model" and what insights of yours they most likely had or didn't have, to be in that apparent state. Of course it is hard to parse this, when the other model probably includes facts about reality and associated insights that your model does not contain. But if you allow for this, you can often take the other's insight on faith, trusting that it is an accurate representation of their model of the common reality you share, and add it to your model.

Here your core "assumption", that I exist as a human being ...as opposed to an "aardvark" or some other non-human agent of intelligence, is based on primary perceptions (your readings) of secondary and tertiary types of evidence (the writing that appears on your monitor). That you don't directly perceive the author is the determinative factor that renders your assumption of my humanity just that -- an assumption.

Yes. But that is what I have to work with. So I will take it.

The "objective truth" isn't "established with just a single common insight"; what's established is our common knowledge of a single point of agreement concerning some claim or proposition that remains objectively true or false ...irrespective of our agreement on the matter.

Well I'll have to think about that. Depends on how you mean it. I am not yet convinced of this "objectively true or false" idea. I don't yet know what I mean by it, and I think I might know what you mean by it, but since I have to rely on other people, taking what they say on faith, to constantly amend my subjective view of objective reality, I am at a loss to claim that it exists in the true and false, absolute fashion that people imagine it might. Here I go back to the timing and perspective problem.

As an example, I was driving my Dad to Port Imperial to take the Yankee Clipper, a ferry that would take us around Manhattan and up the Harlem river to the stadium. I was talking about the large Ferry Boat that was the permanent dock from which the smaller ferries were loaded/unloaded. Getting to the spot, the permanent Large Ferry was not there, they had removed it, and build a terminal a little further up the river. My model of the world was wrong, instantly amended, and the "actual" state of the world, now correctly reflected. But prior my arrival at the spot, the old large Ferry, used as a dock, was True. And it was True that it was that way for many years. I don't know when the change was made. Sometime in the last 10 years. My imagined observer with the very good telescope on a planet circling a star 10 light years from Earth would see the large ferry used as a permanent dock. One 50 ly from Earth, with an even better telescope would see the large ferry taking cars and people across the Hudson. What facts about the ferry are true? What position and abilities are we giving the hypothetical observer that is determining the truth about the state of the universe? What translations are we making, what reference points are we using?

My solutions start with my state. The state of my model of the world, currently. I make all the required corrections so everything fits, and fill in the blanks as required (not actually knowing if my fillers are correct). I do this with the understanding that whatever I have experienced of the world, will not change the fact that the universe indeed DOES fit together, quite independently of my experience of it. But I am hesitant to claim that I can know it by any other means than the current state of my body/brain/heart group.

...JUst fouled up and lost my response to your Koch thought, its getting late, and I will have to answer another time.

Regards, TAR

[tar2]

First: I wouldn't claim to know that "our perspectives are spatially and temporally removed", despite my strong conviction/belief that they are.

Icarus Fallen,

I am not sure I understand your hesitancy. There have been many experiments to prove that light travels always at C in reference to a rest frame that includes the observer, (or something like that). Can't say I ever was really satisfied with the explanations but non-the-less, have been convinced that spacetime exists. And although light travels at a speed we can't really compare to anything faster, we can compare to slower traveling impulses. When you see a bolt of lightning, and then later hear the thunder associated with the lightning, it becomes rather obvious that you are separated by a distance from the lightning, and it takes some time longer for the sound to reach you, than the light from the lightning. If the lightning was a mile away from you, in my direction, and I was standing half a mile from you, and raised my hands to my ears when I heard the thunder, you would still not hear it, for several more seconds. On what basis would you not feel convinced that our perspectives were spatially and temporarily separated?

Second: logically and empirically speaking, the "existence(s)" of any number of wholly distinct "perspectives" are NOT contingent on a material separation among them (see Koch's Snowflake, for a mathematical model involving the potential for an infinite many partial 'iterations' of an initial geometrical shape, minus any 'separation' along the way).

I looked at the snowflake, and the equation and indeed the iterations are impressive and mind boggling. But where are your one to one correspondences between a particular point on the curve, and something in reality, from which you could compare the next point on the curve with something in reality? Maybe reality is like this, and maybe not. And even in the example on the link, the iterations were expressed "in time" with a zoom in on one lump to show it consisted of the three, and then a zoom in on one of those lumps to show it consisted of the three... where did the rest of the pattern go? Yes its all on the same curve, but the other points on the curve are now separated from you, you would have to travel along the line to get to them, or pull back to see the star of david again. The repeating pattern was not the star of david repeating,(not the whole thing repeating) but one arm of the star of repeating, each one thing having three things, and each one of them having three and so on. it seems to matter if you are one iteration from the whole, or a hundred from the whole or a 100,987,884 or a zillion from the whole, because that would define the journey, you would have to make in time or space or trace in your mind to reach the whole. Which you, being on the curve, or being the curve , would not have the mechanism available to step out of curve and see the whole star. You would always be one of three that would make one, and be made up of three. And every level you reached outward or inward, would look exactly the same. How would you measure progress or regression? Impossible to get to the last iteration, and no way of knowing how many steps up would be required to be the whole star, and not just an arm.

Come to think of it, reality does appear to have some of those characteristics, but two points. One, if so, we ARE specially and temperarily separated from the whole, and see what we see, only BECAUSE of our unique perspective. We experience the world from a particular size frame of reference (our bodies), from a particular time frame of reference (the beat of our heart) and a particular point of current focus (our brain's current state). And two, what ever mind set the formula, and carried out the iterations, is something much different from, and much more capable than, a human, who under your oneness theory is just a point on the curve.

So if the universe is one curve, is that an argument for God? The one who set the formula, and carried out the iterations, and exists outside the curve so he can be mindful of the whole star? Would the universe thusly explained, not be a thought in the mind of God? Could he/she/it, not have another thought, thereby blowing the theory of one?

Just as our agreement on the perceptual time delay thing is of no consequence to the objective truth or falsity of our claims on the matter, it is equally impotent on the likelihood of X's existence, so long as the "X" we're speaking of is a projector and not a projection.

I am leaning toward a universe that creates itself, with each entity within, fulfilling both roles. That of a projector, and that of a projection.

The projections (or simple representations), during the fleeting instants in which we perceive them, are indeed known to us.

Although I exist in the current moment, I would not describe myself as fleeting. I am much older than that. My pattern is as old as Lucy, and my model of the world, the current state of my brain, includes analog representations of my lifetime worth of experiences, of sensory input, that were enhanced through the use of language, with the models of the world, of thousands and millions of other human's, each of them as substantial as me. As such, at any one fleeting moment, I am aware of everything I have learned about my past. Making me relatively "unfleeting" as compared to a beat of my heart. That all of life on Earth is but a fleeting moment, might be true, in the sense that I know it all, in a beat of my heart. But as an aside, the future has not happened yet. Not till the next beat, and I do not know, I do not contain, I have not yet internalized that.

BUT, the goings-on in the projectors' 'real time', however unperceived, are no less "real" (or any less pertinent to wholesale existence) just because of the relative proximities involved.



In practical terms, solar flares are every bit as real, from genesis to revelation (so to speak).

Except for this. We can contain the past, we can know the present, but the future is not yet ours. It will be real to us, only when it gets here. We can know it is coming, and we can imagine what it will be like. But it has not happened yet. Not for us. And I will remind you, that the future has not yet occurred for the nearest visible galaxy 2.4 million ly from here, and its NOW will not be real to us for another 2.4 million years. And when it gets here it will be 2.4 million years old.

I beg to differ.

I'd say that what's happening in real time, across the friggin' cosmos, should "matter to us", whether those happenings are within our fields of perception/experience during our lifetimes (or for that matter, during the hairsbreadth of time and space occupied by humanity, from evolutionary inception to our eventual extinction) ...or not.

It will matter to us later. It matters to us now only if we intend to make preparations for its arrival.

No, I believe it, because of my direct interaction with other agents of intelligence, each of which has seemingly occupied a unique point of view.

Agreed. And we can project our unique point of view to other times and places near and far, past present and future. But its a projection.

...just as long as you are not saying the Universe is unity.

But that's exactly what I'm saying.

In my view, the universe IS an objective and eternal "unity" ...of subjective and temporal aspects. -- That is, it's an object that remains forever intact, as its aspects come and go.

The mind of God? An eternal fixed ether against which everything else can be measured?

I would like an anchor as well. But I have talked myself in to using me as the anchor. After all, I (my body/brain/heart group) am(is) of, and in the universe, am as real as it comes, and can completely understand the time scale, and the size scale that I operate on, since they are the ones I operate on. Having others like me to commiserate with, is an added bonus. Together we can(and have) establish(ed) some pretty solid footing, a consensus perspective, from which we can view the rest.

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

Thought-provoking stuff, T2.

Processing...