Oliver & Squeers

I am enjoying this discussion very much:

>> we don't see the full construction of the material universe, where things are happening outside of common experience <<

Many cosmic trees may be falling 'out there' or even 'in there' lacking a sentient observer.

oliver/quote..<<..In what sense/would time and space exist,..if not observed by sentient beings?>>on a purely practicle level...a sense..implies..a sentinant/being...able to sense...not cencor it

ignoring a non-sense...and going by simple practicalities../expanding on the tree/falling...[action]...its re-action...crashing sound,is more likely...than unlikely

[it would be impossable to disproove
[given the same conditions...in egsistance...now

i would note that the bigbang...was such a min-ute/event...yet huge affect..[its own occurance..could not have been...a bang...

[lets face it...all matter/..all 'reality'...was presumably...'inside'...this/let there be light moment

[light would convey beyond..the limitations/inherant of the big bang]..that would nessistate..the exclusion/of sound..beyond its bounds...as there is no..'matter'../beyond it..to convey it

further...this huge event..would have distoprted...time..and space...[in affect..there is no observable 'event'..beyond the light..till something...like matter..began to form/out of it

ditto...nothing to diferentiate time...except events that signify..a new stage...lets call these event/periods days[for want of a better word]..so each'stage/change..becomes one day..[or part of a sequence..that constitutes ..a..'day'

[god..[he]..being spirit/is not matter..[we]

so me..[i am]..ie..[he]..is looking...looking/looking..then

let there be light/then..let there be firmament...
then life...[3 days]..please note the light thing..is recorded in the bi-/two...-ble/books...TWICE

the first..is the big silent../let there be light/thing
the next the sun..that sustains life...

when you think of the primates..that wrote that stuff...they got it pretty near....what science..is only stagering toexplain/..to-day

<<the relationship/between sentience and intuition>>..is NOT complementary/thus not relitive/not com[aring same/same

same..regarding time and space?

sentance is aware-ness of fact...usefull in observing fact..and logic
intuition..[in this realm]..is a feeling..predictive/feeling

im against/the joinder of space/time..for much the same reasons..they are buzzwords..that in affect..create joinder..[effect]..between a reality..[all be it one/not personally observable nor measurable...

joined to an artiface of specific measure..
not even constant in its sepperat..measuring units

compare time..seconds
to distance..in light years
space is a thing..[a ruler/maybe a thing...but a measuring/unit a constant/..but not a'thing'

[ps..space is not a vacume]
we replicate..'space''.here/on earth..via a vacume

but space proper..cant be a vacume..
or it would suck us..off...the face of the earth...

[and clearly/were not being sucked off!]
well im not at anyrate..not sure about you

Dear Severin,

Agree: Time is a really interesting opic.

Roger Penrose maintains that there is time assemmetry in state vector reduction in jumps to the macro realm, from the QM realm, even through the two "ingredients" quantum theory and general relativity are each time-symmetric. I find this a curious prospect and wonder if there is any relationship with an experiment which suggest QM entanglements with consciousness, wherin a suggest is asked to press a button at will. What happens is there is as much as a second of measured activity in the brain before the "at will" response occurs, suggesting something is determining "free will" to some extent. In this context, there is a lapse of time in our realm, which is posited to interact with quantum calculations. Herein, it would be interesting to know; if any assemmetry in state vector reduction creates the intuition/perception of the passage of time?

Oliver

If memory serves, wasn't what you described an experiment on Catalyst recently, where the decision was made in the subconscious BEFORE the conscious decision, meaning that a person could be predicted in an almost "Minority Report" scenario? Which is the "real" person the subconscious mind or the conscious mind? There was sufficient "time" to read the intent before the subject had made a conscious decision.

Does time only exist in relation to events?

Severin,

Hi. I didn't see that Catalyst. Must have been a good episode. Even decades ago, Michael Polanyi (chemist cum philosopher) gives an account of classical condition like experiment, where the stimulus is too weak to be perceived consciously, yet conditioning occured.

It could be argued (in light of recent and not so recent theory) that to talk of consciousness and the self is philosophically naive. Hegel's notion of spirit is, in it's final dialectical stage, a comprehensive enlightenment that excludes individuals. The Buddha too considered individuality the final illusion to be overcome. Jacques Lacan posited the subconscious as "structured like a language"--in that meaning is perpetually deferred rather than traceable to an ego referent--the ego is the differential.
I have a recent book by Thomas Metzinger (in the field of "hard science" and analytic philosophy) called "The Ego Tunnel" (2009), in which the author says "I will try to convince you that there is no such thing as a self. But it is not just that the modern science of mind and cognitive neuroscience together 'are about to shatter the myth of the self'. It has now become clear that we will never solve the philosophical puzzle of consciousness .. blah blah blah" (my emphasis).
Note the revelatory rhetoric about "shattering the myth"! And there is no mention in the "index" of Kant, Hegel or any of the other enlightenment (or counter-enlightenment: Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, right up to the postmodernist) philosophers who have been all over this for 200 years!! Metzinger adds insult to injury by saying, "The best philosophers in the field clearly are analytical philosophers", yet his "clearly" is not attached to any forgoing argument that establishes the fact! Pure hubris. But he has the running in the popular mind--we drool (uneasily) over his mastery (that is his self-assertiveness) of the topic s/he reinvents!
Science and analytics don the robes of the prophet, but all they have is join the dots or plagiarised data. Oh Sh!t! revelations.