Yes sure, a discrete entity can be composed of smaller discrete entities. The point is that if a discrete entity is active then that activity can only be understood to consist in relations between further entities — Janus

If the entity is composed of parts, then the activity which it is involved in may be an activity of the eternal parts. The activity of the entity is understood without relating the entity to further entities.

The point is that this is an infinite regress unless there are fundamental discrete entities which are not active. — Janus

I don't see the relevance of any claim to infinite regress. If each "frame" consists of activity which is composed of parts which are active, why is there a need to worry about infinite regress? The source of activity may remain an unknown factor.

Well, we do. Those justifications are just not valid. — BlueBanana

An invalid attempt at justification is not justification. If it is not valid then is doesn't qualify as a justification. X is not justified if the claimed "justification" for X is not valid.

I believe both that 'X' is false and justified.

Let 'X' be "The sun revolves around the earth". Let the timeframe be more than four centuries prior to Copernicus. — creativesoul

What are you saying, that you lived, and believed X is false and justified, four centuries prior to Copernicus? I think you're lying.

Think of the notio of "justification" as responsible belief. I believe that I have a very good argument that God exists. Because I believe that, I believe that "God exists" is justified - I believe it would be responsible for me to believe it. But, I'm a stubborn and dogmatic atheist and I don't really care much whether there are good arguments or whether I'm fulfilling my epistemic responsibilities. — PossibleAaran

I don't believe that you actually believe that "God exists" is justified and also false. I think it's easy to make up examples like this which are not really the case. They would be called lies.

Such a person would be strange, but not logically impossible. — PossibleAaran

I think it actually is logically impossible, by way of contradiction. To "justify" requires sound logic. If the premise or conclusion is false, then the logic is unsound. If the logic is unsound then there is no justification. To state that the logic is unsound, and that the conclusion is justified is to state a contradiction.

It cannot qualify as a justification if the belief which supposedly justifies is known to be false. Otherwise we could justify all sorts of irrational beliefs by asserting falsities. So, "technically speaking" it is not justified.

The Gettier problem is, in a general form, as follows: a person has a false belief a, from which a conclusion b is drawn. It is then found out that a was false, yet b is true (although only when interpreted in some different way).

Edmund Gettier made the following two assumptions:

1) b is a justified, true belief (JTB-definition of knowledge)
2) b is not knowledge — BlueBanana

The point is, that no one can truthfully say both, that (a) is a false belief, and that (b) being a conclusion derived from the false belief (a), is justified. To say both, that (a) is false, and that (b) is justified requires that one lie. Either the person doesn't really believe that (a) is false, or the person doesn't really believe that (b) is justified. In other words, Gettier is lying when he says b is justified.

The problem for this is if a moment is active it cannot be fundamentally discrete, because if it is active then there will be change, process, within it which can then be divided into further discrete moments and so on ad infinitum. — Janus

I don't see the logic here. You are claiming that a discrete entity cannot be divided. I don't see your principle to support this claim. A unity is a discrete entity, and a unity can be divided.

You are right in that one instance, but the other definitions I used still work when it is you believing that X is both justified and false. — PossibleAaran

I don't see this at all. All your examples are in the form of "You see that I...", or "I see that you..."

You see that I have tried my absolute best to investigate things. You see that I have considered all of the objections against P...

I think that you have very good arguments for your belief that P...

You think that my belief that P is produced by a reliable process. — PossibleAaran

None of this relates to "I believe both that X is justified and that X is false", nor "you believe that X is both justified and false.

I can believe that 'X' is true, while knowing that I do not have good reason for believing it. Thus, I can sincerely say that one can believe 'X' even when they knowingly do not have good reason for it. — creativesoul

As I explained already, the issue Is not with "I believe both, that X is true, and that X is not justified". The issue is with "I believe both, that X is false, and that X is justified".

Your examples, like PossibleAaran's are not relevant, because they are examples of one person believing X is justified, with another person designating X is false. They are not examples of one person believing both X is false, and X is justified.

In this model instead space and time are ontologically "prior" to objects. Objects need space and time for their existence. Space and time therefore are not merely an "abstraction" we use to "individuate" objects, but in fact are what allow objects to be "individuable". This is the big distinction between - as far as I understand - Kant/Schopenhauer and Newton. According to Newton space and time have no ontological role, so to speak. Instead in our case and in trascendental idealism space and time are necessary for the existence of objects (or phenomena). With space and time there is individuation. — boundless

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "space" is simply a backdrop for Newton because I think he looked at space in different ways, depending on the purpose of his inquiry. For the purpose of describing the motions of physical objects, space is just a backdrop. But Newton was one of the pioneers in the experimentation with optics, and he proceeded to speculate into the nature of light itself. In this more metaphysical speculation it is evident that Newton believed space to be more than just a backdrop for physics. Although he put forth a corpuscular theory of light, Newton did extensive experimentation with refraction, and I believe he attributed the wave properties of light to something other than the light itself, but to its interactions with an aetheral space. Also, if I remember correctly he posits a type of spatial inversion between matter and light which he claims to occur within the sun.

Yes, in SR everything we can observe is in the space of objects, not in the space of potentialities. But IMO this was also true in the Newtonian case: in that theory everything physical was "in" the space of objects. But "our" model splits the "potentialities" and "actualities", and therefore seems to take into account the double nature of quantum particles by saying that each aspect of "particles" is "real" in the two spaces. — boundless

Right, so in the space of potentialities, negative space, we cannot accurately say that particles are real. We have to look at positive space to find actual particles. And a real particle will occupy space, and have mass.

If this is so then photons are in fact not "objects" but in fact "potentialities". — boundless

I wouldn't go so far as to make this conclusion either. The problem which I alluded to in the last post is with the definition of "light". It is defined in the mathematics of physics as energy, meaning the capacity to do work, and therefore it is necessarily, by definition, a potentiality. But since it actually does work, then it must get related to physical objects in the cases that it actually does work, and so it must be described in an actual form which can relate to physical objects. This is the photon.

The problem is that objects do interact with light as it is an "actual" object. Think about the photoelectric effect. In that case you need to take into account the particle nature of light. — boundless

Great, you've followed well. Now we get to the nitty gritty of dealing with the incompatibilities of other theories, which necessitates picking apart the other theories if we want the model to survive. What I suggested in the last post is that the current representation of the speed of light is inaccurate. Do you agree that an electron has mass, and that it has a variable velocity? Having a variable velocity is directly related to having mass. A photon cannot have a variable velocity, nor can it have mass, due to conventional definition. So what I think is needed, is an adjustment to the constancy of the velocity of light, allowing that a photon can have an actual position on the orthogonal timelines.

Remember, the speed of light is currently measured as a phenomenon in the negative space, related to objects in the positive space. On the orthogonal lines, the nature of space is actually changing. So if we give more time on the orthogonal line, beyond the range of human perception, to allow light to come into positive space, we ought to allow that distances would change due to the changing space, the distance between the same massive particles would increase. This seems to imply that the actual velocity of a photon would be greater than the recorded speed of light. If we do not allow light into the positive space of actuality, it becomes the infinite possibility, which feeds the notion of time travel. But that's just a basic idea, there are different things to sort out, such as the relationship between different frequencies. If we establish the orthogonal lines, it may be the case that different frequencies of electromagnetism actually become fixed at a slightly different position on the line, and so have different photons. There are complexities here that need to be worked out, and we probably ought to start by fixing the position of the electron.

Now let's plug this into the model. We have two time dimensions, the traditional timeline, and the orthogonal timelines of each moment in passing time. There is a different type of activity associated with each timeline. The traditional timeline affords us change of place, locomotion. The orthogonal lines afford us "real change", and this is what I called spatial inversion. If we take an individual orthogonal timeline, an individual moment in time, the right side extends indefinitely toward the beginning (future), while the left indefinitely toward the end (past). The line indicates how things come to be at the present moment. They come to be from the future (potential), and establish actual existence of determinate being, toward the past. The human experience of being at the present, thought and sense perception, occupies an important section of this line. However we should assume that the orthogonal timelines extend beyond the limits of human perception.

Human beings have come to notice temporal extension of being, of objects. This is the continuity of sameness across the orthogonal lines, along the traditional timeline, existence. The continuity of sameness is attributed to mass, and inertia, and this is what we attribute to the determinateness provided by coming to be in the past. As something comes to be in the past its spatial position is fixed and it is passive. So from our perspective, massive objects come to be on the right side of our perspective of the orthogonal timelines, so we see them as passive matter with mass and inertia. They are always on the past side of the zero line present, from our perspective.

If we go to the other end of the human perspective, we'll find the energy of light. It is always on the future side of the present, from our perspective so we define it in terms of potentialities. Notice that the electron would be in between, and could be viewed in both ways. But let me get to the issue with the current theories involving the speed of light. An object, or particle, must have a fixed place on each orthogonal line in order that it may be engaged in locomotion. Locomotion is the particle's relative position from one orthogonal line to the next. If the particle has mass its position from one line to the next will be orderly according to laws of inertia. And, to fix the particle's position on the orthogonal lines is to give it mass. If it had a position without inertia, its relative position from one line to the next would be random and there would be no way of knowing its position. This is what happens to the photon under current definitions of light. Because the velocity of light is fixed, constant, and it is fixed in the position of negative space, potential, the photon cannot have a position on the orthogonal line. Not only is its position forced to be beyond the realm of human perspective, it is forced right off the end of the orthogonal line. By definition, the photon is not allowed to be apprehended as a determinate passive object, with a fixed spot on the orthogonal lines.

While in fact I can think about our experience as given by the "projection" on the positive space of the negative, I do not understand how a physical massive object can interact with a massless one in the model we are discussing. In fact in the negative space we have the interaction of the fields (e.g. QED describes the interaction between an atom and a photon as the interaction of fields, after all) but in the positive space we have the corrisponding interaction between particles. In fact the interaction between, say, two massive atoms is an interaction that takes place in the positive space. Whereas the interaction of a massless and a massive one is solely in the negative space (and the positive we have a "projection" of it). — boundless

Interaction is not a problem, because at the far right of the orthogonal lines, all existence must come from the negative space (potentiality). So in this zone, of the very beginning of the present moment, where even massive particles are in the form of potential, interaction occurs. Massive particles are compelled by the forces described by inertia, so they are not very susceptible to interference. However, changes to electrons can affect more massive particles, and electrons can be changed by photons. Even things at the low end of the scale (photons) can interfere with determined massive existence through the medium of electrons and existing instability.

It would not be correct therefore to describe any such interaction as within the positive space. In relation to "real change", activity takes place only within negative space, as negative space moves to become positive. In positive space, the position of things is fixed, as in the past, and the only change is locomotion, which is the fixed position of objects from one moment to the next. So a massive atom may move in relation to another, but this is strictly the locomotion of the massive nucleus. The electron however has an obscured motion because its locomotion (activity as an actual massive particle in positive space) is conflated with its real change (activity as potential within negative space). From one perspective, the electron has a potential position in its relations to the coming into being of massive nucleus, but from another perspective it has an actual position in relation to the coming into being of the photon. From the human perspective, the electron may be described as existing in negative space relative to the nucleus, or as in positive space relative to the photon. We model all real things as changing from potential to actual at each moment in time. This means we must adjust the constancy of the speed of light to allow that photons have actual existence.

Take any definition which I gave you of "justified" and you will see how it is so. If "justified" means "responsible in believing" then you might think I am responsible in believing that P, even though you think P is false. Hence, you would think that I am justified in believing P, even though P is false. — PossibleAaran

You're changing the subject. What we were talking about is a hypothetical situation when the subject believes that X is false. and also believes that X is justified. Now you are talking about whether or not I think that you are justified in your belief of X. That's a different situation altogether. involving two subjects instead of one.

Try looking at it this way PA. To say "X is justified" is strong evidence that one believes X. To say "X is not justified" is strong evidence that one does not believe X. So to say "X is justified but I do not believe X" is evidence that one is being untruthful.

It is certainly an odd notion I have, but there is a logic that I find persuasive. If something 'comes from' somewhere, it is not new, but merely a rearrangement and continuation of the old; this is the dictatorship of the reasonable, and it governs much of our lives, and much of the universe. — unenlightened

Do you not believe in "change"? For me, the concept of change allows that something new comes from the old. A butterfly is something completely new, despite the fact that it came from a caterpillar. A human baby is something new despite the fact that it came from its parents.

You rightfully claim, that a continuity of existence through time, denies one the right to claim newness. But I can question whether this continuity is real, or just assumed. Perhaps, your odd notion that there is a continuation of the old, is just an unsupported assumption. If we analyze "what" exists at each moment of time, and find that it is different from one moment to the next, then isn't each moment something new? Why are you inclined to say that this newness is a rearrangement? Does the caterpillar rearrange itself to make a butterfly? Do mom and dad rearrange themselves to make a baby?

My opinion is that we need to separate the thing which is continuous from the new things which pop into existence. This would be a categorical separation, such that one type of thing exists in a way of continuous rearrangements, while another type of thing determines new rearrangements.

So it seems to me that even if it is not true, the story we tell of ourselves must necessarily include our freedom, and freedom means unconditioned by the past, just as determined means determined by the past. It's curious how a discussion of consciousness involves these other philosophical strands of time and determinism... — unenlightened

I think consciousness is a very odd thing. It is the means by which we try to sort things out, to bring order to things, and understand them. But sometimes when things appear to be simple, we accept them as being simple, and ignoring the existing complications may cause us to proceed in misunderstanding. So for example, we hear the story you've told, about how nothing is new, everything is a rearrangement of the old, a continuity, and we have physical laws of conservation which enhance that story, so we accept the story, in its pure simplicity and ease of understanding.

Meanwhile, the mystic is insisting wait a minute, something is not completely right here, your story is leaving something out. That story cannot account for origins, newness, creativity, and freedom. So we have to look for another story to account for these things. However, the mystic's story consists of demonstrations of creativity, things coming from nothing, magical appearances, so it is completely incoherent as "a story" and not even a story at all. The mystic's "story" demonstrates that history is full of incoherencies, things coming from nothing, magic. So even the idea that there ought to be one coherent story is misleading, a misunderstanding, because any story glosses over, obscures all of the creativity, the things coming from nothing, in order that it be a coherent story. And the origins, creativity must be accounted for by something other than a story.

It's not myself that brings order; that would be intelligence. — JJJJS

But isn't your intelligence part of yourself? So for instance, if you use your hands to bring order to something around you, wouldn't you allow that this is yourself which is engaged in bringing order? And if you use your intelligence to bring order to things within your mind, wouldn't you allow that this is yourself which is bringing order?

I suppose it depends what is being built into the notion of being "justified" here. Normally, if I say someone is justified in believing something, I mean that they have good reason to believe it, and either no reason or a comparatively weak reason not to believe it. Clearly I could think there are such reasons for believing that P without my being psychologically convinced that P. Maybe I recognize the strong case to be made for P, but I just find the idea of P hard to believe. This is at least logically possible. Hence, it is possible to believe that X is justified without believing that X is true - in this sense of "justified". — PossibleAaran

I don't see how one could "believe that P" without being "psychologically convinced that P". Aren't believing and being psychologically convinced the very same thing? Are you arguing that one could think that P is justified, but still not believe in P? I don't see how that's possible. Justification is the act which cause belief, psychologically convinces. If the supposed justification fails to cause belief, it would be false to call it a justification.

If one still does not believe in P, after the supposed justification, this means that the justification has been rejected for whatever reason, so the person cannot really say that P is justified. If the reasons for rejecting the justification are unknown, then the person is being irrational, but I still do not see how one can truthfully say "I think P is justified but I still do not believe P". I think that would be a lie.

Other Philosophers define "justified" as "produced by a reliable process". On thwt definition, I could believe that my belief that X is produced by a reliable process. Its just that I also believe that on this particular occassion the process got things wrong - X is false. — PossibleAaran

I think you are appealing to contradiction here, saying I believe X is a reliable process, but I also believe X got it wrong. How can you believe that X is a reliable process and also believe that X got it wrong, at the same time? What you are arguing is nothing but lying to oneself, self-deception.

It's not the "I" which is self-determined, but the order is self-determined by the I. Have you never thought that the reason you are an orderly person is because you order yourself? It might be contrary to what you believe, but I don't see how that it is contradictory.

A friend of mine criticised the 'veto', claiming that this power still has to come from somewhere. I think this implied that it would have a metaphysical or generally non-physical source. — Furon

Right, so how would you account for the "free won't", in a materialist way? Suppose, for example, a chain of efficient causes, one action brings about another, which brings about another, etc.. How would you put an end to this causation without defying the law of conservation of energy?

But the disorder is not in the "I", which is the self-determined "order", it surrounds the "I". The delusion is in thinking that the I is the centre of the disorder. It is delusional to think of the I as part of the disorder, as its centre, because this is to claim that the disorder has an order (a centre).

Again, you're assuming 'exhaustive' when that was not what you intended. 'Reality' is a very plastic term; the forces are assumed to be part of reality but are really inferred not observed; so they may or may not be part of reality; whereas what we observe is obviously part of reality as it is perceived by us. — Janus

I understand, but the point is this. You have posited unchanging discrete moments of reality, with temporal duration. You have also posited other "forces". If the forces have any real effect, then they must act on, and therefore change the unchanging discrete moments. Obviously that's contradictory. If they do not act on the frames to bring about some effect, then necessarily, they are completely irrelevant to reality as it appears to us, and we can dismiss them as unreal, imaginary, having no basis in reality.

I have only been putting forward, and trying to think through, a possibility; that at the 'smallest' levels, reality is quantic, and consists of a succession of unchanging frames or moments, rather than a seamless progression where any discrete position or moment becomes arbitrary. — Janus

Do you remember how we started this engagement? I had proposed active frames. You made some points about the relationship between time and the frames. Now I am just demonstrating to you the reason why we cannot assume "still frames". The assumption of stills disallows the possibility of change. That is why if we want to accept the proposition that reality consists of discrete moments, we must assume active discrete moments. And this necessitates the two dimensional time.

It is when you use the words 'capacity', 'freedom', and 'creativity' that I start to reach my mystical singularity, where stories must end as explanations, and where they come from. Everything one can know, everything one can grasp, everything that makes sense, comes from the past, and this is the physicalist story that is all stories - almost. But we know, as part of that story, that the past is inadequate to the future; we know too that the emptiness of the vacuum is seething with activity.

So there is a capacity, an emptiness, that is capable of originating the new at any moment, and there can be no explanation of it, because an explanation would relate it to the past and it is new, original. Not the capacity is new, it is always there, but what comes from it comes from nothing, and that is what makes it original and creative. It is not thought, not memory, not sensation, though it functions through all of these. Let's call it 'consciousness', as it appears in humans. — unenlightened

Let me explore this "mystical singularity", will you? Consider the word "original". Something original, as you use the word, is something new, created, something which comes from nothing. Also, there is another sense of "original" which signifies going back to the beginning, the very first. Do you see, that despite very different meanings, there is a similarity here, because they both refer to something coming from nothing, a first.

However, "original" in the sense that you used it isn't really something coming from nothing, because creating something new is a matter of turning to the inside, the intuition and instinct, and using that part of one's consciousness to create something new. It's what you described already, the imagination. And if it's not coming from nothing, it's coming from that evolutionary memory within, what you referred to as DNA. So this directs us back toward "original" in the sense of the very first. In a way then, to create something "original", to be productive in this way, to produce something out of nothing, is to turn toward "the original", which is the coming into being of life and DNA in the first place.

But this idea of a first, a something coming from nothing seems rather repugnant to me. It seems unreasonable to me, to think that something could come from nothing. That's why when you described being creative, and original, as producing something from nothing, I turned to the inner instinct and intuition, imagination, to say that it didn't really come from nothing. So when I turn to the evolutionary memory, the DNA, and think about the first, the original life on earth, I don't think of this as something coming from nothing.

The centre of disorder is the I — JJJJS

But how could there be a centre of disorder? Only specific ordered forms actually have a centre. Disorder could not have a centre, and to refer to a centre is to say that it isn't really disorder. So it would be contradictory to say that disorder has a centre because giving it a centre is to give it some order.

Can we separate the I from the apparent "disorder" which surrounds it? The I is not part of the disorder then, it is a little piece of self-determined order in the midst of disorder. Since it is surrounded by disorder, it apprehends itself as in "the centre". But isn't this a kind of delusion, to apprehend oneself as the centre?

I didn't say "exhaustively consists", so your objection is inapt. — Janus

Inapt? You said "if reality consists in discrete durational moments within which no change occurs, there may or may not be forces at work which are not themselves perceptible within those changeless moments," Clearly you implied that these "forces" are outside of reality because you said that the discrete moments (reality) are changeless. If you bring the forces into reality, assume that they are real, then how is it that these forces are not acting on the discrete moments, such that the discrete moments are not actually changeless? The assumption of discrete unchanging moments is now contradictory to the assumption of forces acting on the discrete moments, because then they would be changing It's as I said already, you're just going back and forth between two incompatible models, refusing to address the real problems with your model, which is that it is inherently contradictory..


So what are you trying to say then, reality appears to us as discrete frames, but another part of reality is other than the discrete frames? But reality doesn't even appear to us as discrete frames, it appears to us as continuous. And since you have the need to assume a continuity, as the forces behind the discrete frames, then why even posit discrete frames in the first place? Why not just consider the discrete frames as a product of the imagination?

So how would disorder have a centre?

No the I is the nexus of disorder, dreaming is the brain's attempt at rectification of this disorder — JJJJS

Aren't "nexus" and "disorder" mutually exclusive, making this statement contradictory?

Dreaming is a disorder? I thought it was completely normal and necessary.

The point is that if reality consists in discrete durational moments within which no change occurs, there may or may not be forces at work which are not themselves perceptible within those changeless moments, and those forces may or may not be quantized into discrete changeless moments. I am still seeing no contradiction. — Janus

So these forces are not part of reality then? If they are real forces, then it is false to say that reality consists of those discrete unchanging moments. If they are not real forces, they are irrelevant, and are not "at work".

That is to conflate truth and justification. — creativesoul

No, I don't conflate truth and justification. I state the simple fact that believing X to be true is a necessary condition of believing X is justified. One cannot believe X is justified without believing X is true. But this does not mean all truths are justified.

It is irrational to deny that someone camping in unfamiliar woods who concludes that they are in danger because of hearing an unknown, unseen, and startlingly noisy entity coming directly towards them has justified belief simply because they were mistaken. Their belief was false, but if that doesn't count as sufficient reason to believe that one is in danger, and thus that that belief is justified, then nothing will. — creativesoul

That's silly. You are arguing that not knowing what is out there is reason to believe oneself to be in danger. How do you suppose that the premise "I don't know what's going on" leads to the justified conclusion "I am in danger"? That's ridiculous, you're trying to justify fear of the unknown.

Without memory and interpretation, the visual sensation is meaningless; it acquires meaning in relation to remembered experience, learned stories, models of world and self. I have been emphasising the sensory, because philosophy tends to neglect it's importance, and because my claim is that it is prior to what one might call the inner life, because all these stories, including the one we are building here, must enter through the senses. — unenlightened

I agree that all of the stories enter through the senses, but don't you think that there is a part of consciousness which is not a story? What about instinct and intuition? Things come to consciousness through these sources, and I don't think that this is a story, nor do I think that what comes to consciousness from intuition and instinct, comes through the senses.

Let's go back to the difference between a simple reaction, and a creative response. If all aspects of consciousness were simply reactions to what the senses were perceiving, there'd be no creative element. So we can appeal to that inner element, instinct and intuition, to account for creativity within responses. My question is, why would you give priority to the stuff which enters through your senses, over the inner element, when the inner element must give us the capacity to make sense of what enters through the senses?

It is nonsense if it does not accord with the senses. If it does not accord with other stories we might have heard, then it might be that those stories don't quite make sense. So if it is non-story, I don't mind too much, but if it is non-sense I'm in trouble. So immediately, most of my senses slot easily into a story of my familiar home my laptop, my favourite site, and my focus is on this new post that is trickling out as I type. All the background readily 'fits' the story of my life - the story makes sense of the senses. Where I have to pay attention, is to making sure if I can that the story I am telling of the nature of consciousness also makes sense of the senses. — unenlightened

Here is the issue, expressed in this passage here. If you could not make sense of what your senses are doing, what they're giving to you, all of your sensations would be nonsense. And it is the inner world, of instinct and intuition which allows for that making sense. Of course we find out that the more we make sense of things, the more capable we become at making sense of things, and this is very evident in "the stories", where we increasingly learn to understand the language, as we learn the language. But I think that there must first be an inner capacity to make sense of things, and this inner capacity allows us to construct things from what we perceive with the senses. That is why I would rather place the "inner" aspect of consciousness as prior to the sensing aspect.

All day long, I'm seeing, hearing, touching, etc, and importantly, acting -typing, walking, carrying, eating, etc. At the end of the day, I seek out a place that is dark, quiet, and lie down for preference on something soft enough that I can hardly feel my own weight. And just to be on the safe side, I close my eyes. Then, if the stories don't insist on telling themselves, I go to sleep. — unenlightened

See, even here you speak of the stories "telling themselves", and this is the creative role of the inner element of consciousness. It's very evident in dreaming. This type of thing, dreaming, calls into doubt the idea of the priority of the sensory experience. Yes, it is very true that the inner element makes use of sensory input in this dreaming, but this is from memory, and the inner aspect is actively creating a world, without the active sensory input. Now dreaming itself is not actually consciousness, but the inner activity which is responsible for dreaming may be prior to the sensory activity, only producing consciousness when the two are united.

This is all relevant to your notion of "present", and my question of where is the future. I find that I can only relate to the future through the inner element of creativity. I have no relation to the future through my sensory experience. I must be creative with my memories of sensations, in order to construct a future.

Your criterion for what counts as being "justified" cannot admit that one who is fleeing for their own life were justified in doing so, because they were mistaken. — creativesoul

Of course, to say one is "mistaken" (wrong) in one's actions is to say that the actions are not justified. To argue otherwise would be irrational. The danger they're fleeing from is not real, so the fleeing is not justified. Likewise, if you attacked a person whom you believed was a danger to your life, claiming self-defence, but that person really didn't endanger you at all, then the attack would not be justified. To make such a mistake is to proceed in an unjustified action.

A belief can be true and justified, or true and not justified. But a belief cannot be said to be false and justified because the designation of "false" denies the possibility of justification.

There is no contradiction. One frame gives rise to the next, without any activity being either in each frame or between them. It is the succession itself that we perceive as activity.

There may be "forces' operating "behind the scenes", including free will; but these do not appear within the frames; we do not perceive any operation of forces or exchange of energy, these are merely inferences to causation. — Janus

I'm quite sure there's contradiction here. If "one frame gives rise to the next", then it is impossible by way of contradiction, that there are forces behind the scenes.

The question is, what is it that really gives rise to each frame, is it forces behind the scene, or is it the prior frame? I suggest to you, that it is impossible that one frame gives rise to the next, because this cannot account for the difference between the two, unless the frame is active, but you've already denied that the frame is active.

What if the "doing" is not within each frame but consists in the the succession itself? — Janus

Then we just go back to the prior problem. We have to account for the production of the frames, and the mechanism which displays them. When I said this already, you said, what if it's the frame itself which produces the next frame. So you are just going back and forth, proposing one completely different scenario to resolve the problems involved with the other scenario, then going back to the other to resolve the problems of that one. Since the two are completely different models, and mutually exclusive, they cannot both be the case.

The other thing is the issue of free will which is being discussed. Whatever type of "frame" model one proposes, it must allow that the free willing being can interfere with the production of the frames, to the effect of real change.

P.S. I had some problems in posting this reply. In fact I edited two precedent versions of it and they "disappeared" automatically. I apologize for the inconvenience. — boundless

They were caught by our (apparently not very good) spam filter. Apologies for that. — Michael

I got a pile of notifications.

It seems quite odd to me... this idea... that it is somehow unjustified to concluder from false belief? That all belief based upon false premisses is unjustified???

What on earth would it take for that claim to be so? — creativesoul

Where's the problem? What the belief is based upon, is the justification for that belief. It has been stipulated that what the belief is based upon is a falsity. Why do you think one would be justified in believing something based in falsity?

One can and does infer from false belief.
It can be done validly.
It can be done reasonably. — creativesoul

It has been stipulated that the premise is unsound, false. Therefore the conclusion is unsound. An unsound conclusion cannot be said to be a justified conclusion.

At conception, we are completely void of all thought and belief. Belief is accrued. More complex belief is built upon the simple. Some simple is false. Some of our complex belief was built upon simple but false... belief. We all have no choice but to look at the world through the filter of our upbringing. All of our unbringings contained false belief.

Working from our belief system is unavoidable.
We all hold false belief.
It must be done — creativesoul

Do you not recognize that if you assert that some of your basic beliefs are false, you ought to acknowledge as well, that any beliefs based on these false beliefs are unsound and therefore unjustified?

It contradicts actual events in everyone of our lives. — creativesoul

I don't see any contradiction. If I know that a belief is derived from a falsity I will not claim that the belief is justified. If I do not know whether a particular belief is false, and it really is false, then I might claim that a belief derived from that belief is justified, but clearly I would be wrong. The belief is false and my conclusion is unsound and not justified.

One is camping in an unfamiliar forest when s/he hears - quite suddenly - a loud startling sound.

It is as if a very large animal is coming through the underbrush. It is far enough away so as not to cause too much immediate fright. However...

The sounds are coming from an unknown source on a path. If it continues it's course it is directly at you. Unknown entity...

Turns out it was a lost dog, who happened to be deaf. This is a valid conclusion drawn from a false premiss and we were completely justified in our doing so. So...

Your criterion for what counts as being "justified" cannot admit that one who is fleeing for their own life were justified in doing so, because they were mistaken.

Did I miss anything? — creativesoul

I don't understand your example. Where's the false belief? Where's the inference? Where's the supposed justified conclusion? All I see is a person in the forest who was scared by an approaching dog. Are you claiming that the person was justified in being scared, but at the same time ought not have been scared because it was just a dog? I don't get it, fear is instinctual.

That's Gettier problems in a nutshell... — creativesoul

You call that a nutshell? You lost my attention after about four sentences - pretty long sentences at that.

Look at the op. Conclusion b is drawn from the belief a, which is a false belief, in the first place. Therefore conclusion b is not a justified belief. That's the nutshell.

Agreed! — boundless

It's unusual to get such agreement at TPF, especially since most would consider my ideas to be rather unconventional.

We know that Newton was wrong and now most physicists tend to accept the idea that space is "a product" of objects. Instead, it might be the other way around. — boundless

There is a matter of distinguishing the concept from the thing which it is a concept of. The Newtonian concept of space was derived from an understanding of objects, and the need for a "space" for them to move in. In this way, space is derived from objects, but that's only conceptually, in abstraction. We can look at the relationship between space and objects logically (if there are objects then there is space) and conclude that space is necessary for the existence of objects. Therefore space is prior to objects. Of course the real existence of point particles would defy this principle, but as you say, the trend is to make space a property of what exists, not vise versa. We can look at time in the same way. The concept of time is derived from an understanding of motion and change. It is a generalization. So we can say "if there is change then there is time". This logical process leads to the necessity of positing "time" as something real, but its reality is only apprehended directly by the mind (intuited). But we cannot logically support "if there is time then there is change". So this allows for the proposition that time is prior to change.

This part is very interesting because speed of light can be both the limit speed of objects and be connected to time. However I have no idea how it might be related to the 0th dimension. — boundless

This is probably beyond my capacity to explain or even understand, but since you seem to have a fundamental understanding of my hypothesis I'll offer some further speculation. We have two distinct concepts of space, one allows for the movement of actual massive objects, the other has mathematical formulae, fields which allow for possibilities, wave functions. We have allowed that each corresponds to a real space, the former positive space and the latter negative space, and we have discussed a hypothetical zero time, zero dimension, which separates the two as the proposed precise moment of the present.

Consider Galilean relativity. Motion is determined relative to an inertial frame, but it could be any inertial frame, and the motion is through the medium, empty space. Now Einstein created consistency between Galilean relativity, and the constancy of the speed of light, so light is brought into this conception of space, which allows for objects moving in space. Light is positioned as the boundary to this conception of objects in space, but it is important to note that it is a conception of objects in space, rather than the alternative conception of light, which was waves in an ether. So light is placed into positive space, therefore it can only be understood, under the precepts of special relativity, as an object in space. Now we have a massless non-inertial particle, a photon, and this is a precedent for other such particles to follow in conception.

Let's separate negative space from positive space. We'll assume that from the human being's perspective, mass is the defining property of positive space, actual existence. Individual objects of mass have actual existence in spatial relations with inertia (temporal extension). Light is proper to negative space, and it is the activity of negative space, the space of possibility, which is most evident to us. Our understanding of the temporal extension of mass is as actually existing objects which will continue to be in a determinate way, expressed in a simple way, by Newtonian laws. However there is still instability of mass, which allows massive objects to be broken apart, united, or moved by energy from the negative space, so not even mass is free from possibility, in reality (this is why we can move our bodies freely, as inclined by free will). This means that even mass, despite its primary attribute of inertia, must come to be from the negative space of possibility. From our consciously produced temporal perspective, it appears to have already come to be actual, and has a determinate existence.

When we look at a massive object, we see a solid object. But sight sees in the negative space, so we are not really seeing the mass of the object. Mass doesn't really exist as solid objects it exists as tiny particles at the nucleus of the atom, with space between them. So there is space, as positive space, between particles of mass, and the representation of an object of mass as having a centre point of gravity cannot be accurate. Each particle of mass has its own spatial location. The problem is that this space within objects (or between massive particles) is understood by us through the interactions of light, electrons, and other massless particles which is most likely the activity of negative space. So our approach to positive space, using the speed of light as a constant, is through negative space and we have an inadequate understanding of negative space. This becomes more evident if we extrapolate to larger and larger massive objects, like the solar system, and the galaxy. Each planet is seen as a massive object with space between, and we understand and measure this space through the activity of light. But space between massive objects is positive space, and the activity of light is in negative space. So we have basic principles which measure distance in positive space, then we relate the activity of light as if it were moving in positive space, and we derive a speed of light. The designated speed of light is inaccurate because of this conflation of negative space with positive space.

To derive the true speed of light we must bring light into the positive space, as a particle of mass, having determinate, actual existence, instead of existing as possibilities. But this may be just out of the range of the breadth of the present of human perception, because light appears to us as the possibility for change. So it must be redefined as an actuality and this requires locating individual particles in relation to massive objects and establishing a positioning in this way. This could create the base for the zero dimension line.

Remember, the orthogonal timelines marking moments in time represent a changing space The zero point represents the emergence of massive existence, which means that things are fixed, determined as actual, inertial, at that point. If we hypothetically draw the zero line, it will go diagonally, or most likely curved (due to exponential features of changing space) across the orthogonal breadth of the present, toward the future of the traditional timeline. If the orthogonal timelines represent an inverting space, then spatial distances cannot be properly related from one side of the present to the other, without producing this diagonal line. The massive object comes into positive space, having actual existence, at the far right end of the hypothetical orthogonal timeline, t1, and it is determined in its positioning by spatial separations (distances) which are radically different from the spatial separations at the left side of the orthogonal timeline, where light obtains fixed, actual, inertial existence. By the time that t1 has reached this point of light having actual existence in positive space, photons, the coming into positive space of the more massive particles, is probably already up to t3, t4, or some higher number.

The speed of light is now the base speed for activity in the negative space. It is derived from the left hand side of the orthogonal timelines when space has fully inverted and spatial separation at 'the present" has maximized its meaningfulness. As we look toward the source of the orthogonal timelines, to the right, when the inversion of space is just beginning, spatial separation is completely different, allowing for interactions between particles, which if they were related at the other end of the timeline would appear as faster than the speed of light.

They are beliefs, they can be prelinguistic, which are shown in a form of life, viz., one's actions. — Sam26

How would this differ from instinct, other than the fact that we commonly doubt our instincts, and there is an unsubstantiated claim that "hinge-propositions" are beyond doubt?

These beliefs do reflect our subjective certainty about the world though, but this certainty is not epistemological certainty. — Sam26

So, why not allow that such "subjective certainty", which "is not epistemological certainty", be subject to the skeptic's doubt?

Otherwise you have a foundation whose strength and stability is dependent on deception. The hinge-propositions cannot be doubted, because it is asserted that they cannot be doubted. And that is deception because in reality they are no better than instincts which ought to be doubted.

Subsequent frames are products of previous frames. — Janus

OK, so each frame is active, it is doing something, it is creating the next frame.

There would then not actually be any frames at all. — Janus

Right, you have described continuous change. What makes you want to describe this as frames?

I am considering the possibility that no time is passing and that there is no duration between frames, also that no time is passing, but that there is duration within frames. ( So time doesn't really "pass" at all). — Janus

Now you're not making sense because you have no provision for change. How could change occur in this model unless the frames are not really still frames, but active frames? And if they are active frames why even propose a separation between them? They might just as well represent a continuously changing reality with arbitrary points of separation.

The only "preparation" for subsequent frames is previous frames. the previous frames infect or carry over into the subsequent frames. Change consists in the difference between frames, but there is really no 'continuous' change; a change is a quantum leap, so to speak. — Janus

We must be able to account for change. To say that one frame is different from the next, and that there is a "quantum leap" from one to the next does not suffice, because there is still the issue which I described as the production of each frame. Each frame, being distinct from the last, must be individually produced. The production of the frames must be accounted for.

All of which goes to say that to a huge extent, what I think I am is a story I have been told. — unenlightened

Yeah, so that's the point, we seem to say "I am conscious of X", using "conscious of" in a number of completely distinct ways. And that difference is evident, and sometimes confusing here at TPF. Sometimes I might use "conscious of" to include all those stories I have been told, without even questioning the truth of some of them. But other times I might use "conscious of" to refer strictly to things which I am immediately aware of through my senses.

When you put it that way, It seems not so much of a disagreement. Especially because I would rather say, 'The present is consciousness, consciousness is the present'. It is the 'place' where all posts are created. — unenlightened

I think that this is an over simplification now, to say "the present is consciousness". If we look back to what you were saying about modeling reality, I think that "the present" within consciousness is part of a model. So the question for me was, if the present is part of the model of reality, then what aspect of reality is it a reflection of. And I was trying to answer this as the division between past and future. But your example made me think that maybe the future is not even part of reality at all. Where are the posts of the future? Maybe the future is completely imaginary.

I cannot say that I am conscious of the future, in the sense that I use "conscious of" to refer to what I am immediately aware of through my senses. However I am conscious of the future in the sense that I know about it through stories. And, I think that I am conscious of the future in another sense of "conscious of". I am aware of things that are imminent, and I anticipate them without referring to stories. I am not immediately aware of these things through my senses, nor am I aware of them through stories, but I am still conscious of them, in another sense of "conscious of".

Yes, I can relate to your point. In fact to use the model of the five senses it only "explains" what we "see". In fact we are now saying that indeed there are "objects", which are not reflections. So Bohm's theory is incomplete in our reasoning. — boundless

There are numerous different theories which model reality as waves. Objects are described as disturbances, and interference patterns. They are incomplete, as you say, and there are two directions of incompleteness. We have to account for the cause of the disturbances which we know as objects, and we have to account for the effects of the disturbances, which we also know as objects. The cause being described by forces like gravity, momentum, and such, and the effects being what is observed as actual particles. These wave models might account for seeing, as you say, but to account for hearing, and the other senses, I think we need real moving particles.

I am very glad to have not misunderstood, then. It can also be said that in order to know "reality" we must know both the spaces. — boundless

Yes that's the way I model it in my mind, with two "spaces". One type of space is described by fields and wave functions, while the other type allows for objects moving freely in space. Then I propose that we draw a continuum between the two types of space, connecting them, that they are not really distinct, but one transforms into the other at each moment. This is the change which happens at each moment of passing time, and is allowed for by the time which is orthogonal to our timeline. I like to say, that at each moment of passing time, space inverts. The physical objects, particles which come to be at each moment, have traditionally been modeled as objects moving freely in a static space as time passes, but they need to be represented as features of an active space. Then space is the thing, and the objects are an attribute of it.

Yeah, I was only wondering the implications of what we are saying to see if I understood correctly (in fact it is a bit tangential). If there is a subject then time, space and objects are "real". Subject and objects cannot exist "on their own", so to speak. Like in Schopenhauer philosophy all that things exist in relation to the subject. — boundless

I suppose, it's not that the issue of "the subject" is completely irrelevant, it's a matter of determining the position of the subject, what the subject is doing, and how the subject is capable of doing that. All these points are tied together and need to be answered together. We've denied the pure observation point, and allowed that the subject interacts with the material which is being observed.

I've placed the physical objects, particles, on the effects side of the "field". Now we would need to turn toward the causal side. In my opinion, the field representation is inadequate. That's where I'm disappointed with Bohm, because he leads us directly toward this conclusion, but does not speak it, nor does he present any sort of alternative. Let me explain my misgivings in this way. A physical object, particle, or whatever, must occupy space in order that it be a real object. This principle allows that a particle may be infinitesimally small, but it cannot exist at a non-dimensional point. So there is a need to separate "a particle" which necessarily exists at a multitude of points, from the non-dimensional points themselves, which must be referred to in an effort to describe the dimensional particles.

It is implied therefore, that we need to give reality to the non-dimensional point, in a manner other than as a particle, such that the non-dimensional point may have causal influence over real dimensional particles. This is why we need to model time as the 0th dimension, rather than the 4th. Perhaps the speed of light could serve as the basis for the 0th dimension. We create a baseline, 0 time, which represents the precise "present", and this is a claim to the point of spatial inversion. On the one side is positive spatial existence, particles which actually occupy space. On the other side is negative spatial existence, and this is represented by mathematical formulae which determine points of causal influence in the positive space. The further step is to determine the activity within the negative space, which is not necessarily limited by the speed of light because spatial existence, and extension itself, is inverted on the other side of zero.

The difficulty with "the subject" is that the human being, in the form of the conscious mind, and free will, is active within the negative space. That is how we have the capacity of self-locomotion. So this refers back to the tinted glass problem, the subject doesn't really have the 0 time observation point, it must be created in hypothesis, and adhered to in order to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis. How the subject sees, or observes, an object is dependent on the type of object which the subject individuates, and this is dependent on the choice of a zero timeline.

Are you talking about unconscious thought, or more bodily processes? Usually, as you seem to suggest, people talk about self-consciousness in terms of being aware of thoughts, but do not talk about self-consciousness in terms of being aware of having an erection or a sore thumb. They identify as having a body, and being a mind. This is largely unchanged by the idea that the mind extends beyond what is conscious. And in such case, I would expect you to say, if not 'I am consciousness', then something like 'I am the mind of which I am incompletely conscious'. Which is to locate oneself as an inner world, in the body but other than it. — unenlightened

I think of my "self" as every part of me, my mind and body, not just mind. So if I say "I have a body", I mean that my body is part of me. But by saying "I have a body" I am implying that I am more than just a body. The problem I find, with talking about being aware of, or conscious of, different parts of the body, is that there are many parts which one is not aware of. I know I have lungs, kidneys, and liver, and I am to some extent aware of my lungs when I think about my breathing, but I don't think that I can say that I am aware, or conscious of my kidneys. Perhaps if something went out of order, like your example of a sore thumb, I might become aware of my kidneys, or even other types of changes might attract my attention like the case of an erection. That's probably why I can say that I'm aware of my lungs, because they are making changes. And I can be aware of my heart because it is beating.

This brings up a point of interest for me. How is it that I can know about a whole lot of internal parts, like intestines and such, yet I can't really say that I am consciously aware of them? It seems strangely contradictory that I could say I know about my duodenum, but I am not conscious of it. Am I using "conscious" in a bad way? Or am I really conscious of my duodenum, but not directly conscious of it?

In any case, it doesn't seem appropriate to locate my consciousness as my "inner world", because I know that so many inner parts escape my consciousness. I think I'd prefer to locate my consciousness as my "outer world", because being conscious describes more accurately how I relate to things other than me. So long as the things inside me are working properly, they escape my consciousness, because the problems which I need to think about, are mainly coming at me from outside.

Then a glance at this thread should convince you. You can readily scroll back and look at all the past posts, but where the future posts will be is blank. — unenlightened

That's an interesting way of putting it. But how do I know that the future posts are not out there, and I just can't see them? When I scroll back, I am not really seeing the posts in the past, I am seeing the past posts in the present. I cannot see the future posts in the present, so you think that this amounts to a substantial difference between past and future.

I'd agree with that, but where does this leave the future? The past is out there, and I can scroll back, or see evidence of what happened. You think that consciousness is "in the present", and I think that the present is "in consciousness". It appears like we would need to determine where the future is to resolve this.

Well, I wouldn't say "I am the thought world", I would say "consciousness is the thought world". So I would agree with you that I am conscious of both the thought world, and of the physical world, just like you say. But "conscious of the thought world" is very similar to "self-conscious". It is really nothing more than being conscious of my own consciousness.

I wouldn't say "I am consciousness" because I recognize that there is a significant part of my being which doesn't appear to be part of my consciousness. There are activities of my being which do not seem to enter into my consciousness, the unconscious part of me.

Where we seem to disagree is in how we relate to the presence, of our conscious being. You say that your consciousness is "in the present", explaining that there is a "present" in the physical world around you, which you are a part of. I am saying that there is only a future and past in the physical world around me, and "the present" only exists within my consciousness, as a thought.

However, I do recognize that if there is a substantial difference between future and past, then I ought to allow that there is actually a present in the physical world as well, to substantiate this difference. So the experiment, or demonstration which would settle this would be a demonstration which would indicate whether or not there is a real difference between past and future in the physical world.

.

The best sense I can make of it is that you are speaking as thought and in a thought world, because in the thought world, the model world, time has exactly that property, the model can be run forwards or backwards, restarted, altered, relived, and so on. One has equal access to every moment at any moment. — unenlightened

Well, isn't this the point? You are talking about consciousness. What is consciousness other than "the thought world"? You dismiss my description of consciousness by saying that I am talking about the thought world. What sense does that make? Consciousness is the thought world.

I have to confess I am struggling to relate this to my experience at all. — unenlightened

I expected you to say something like this, so I am not surprised. The fact is, that I have reflected on this matter many times, and I just cannot determine the reality of the present. If I try to pinpoint it by saying "now", it is into the past by the time I have said it. If I think of a future time, and expect to say it is present, when it arrives, I have the same problem. It disappears into the past by the time it even arrives. I can't find a real present because anything which I think might qualify as 'the present" always disappears into the past.

So it appears to me, like my consciousness has been deceived into believing itself to be in the present. People like you have probably told me that I am "in the present", and I have been inclined to believe that without giving it any real thought, when this is really an illusion, because when I reflect on it I realize that there is no present. "The present" is a product of the imagination. Your consciousness is not in the present, the present is in your consciousness, as a product of your imagination.

My pension is due next week, the government is usually pretty reliable. But I do not become conscious of these things themselves ( as distinct from the ideas that I have relayed here), before they happen. I cannot spend next week's pension today, or bathe in the spring sunshine. — unenlightened

How can you say that you are not conscious of your pension when you are talking about it? These things you say don't make sense. Of course you can spend your pension before you receive it, that's what credit is for. You speak as if there is a point in time, like noon next Friday when prior to that time you have no money, and posterior to that time you have money. Suppose this is really the case, how does that point in time become "the present". As soon as it gets here, that point which you receive money is in the past Now it is in the future, and when it comes it will be in the past. It will never be at the present. "The present" is only in your mind. All these things around you, in "the real world", are either in the past or the future. So if you are in the real world, you are in the past and in the future. You are not in the present, the present is in you, as a product of your imagination.

See, you are telling yourself, that you are living in the present, when in reality all the occurrences you relate to are either in the past or in the future, and this idea of "the present" is just something you've made up to help you understand the difference between things which have already occurred and things which have not yet occurred.

But the painful frustrating world I live in does not afford that freedom; the compensation though is that it is real, not thought. — unenlightened

I think you are trying to give to consciousness something which is not proper to it. You say that the frustrating world you live in is real, and not just thought. But how could this frustrating world be part of your consciousness except through thought? You appear to be saying that there is some part of consciousness which is other than thought, and this is the real frustrating world, when in reality that thing you call the real world is not part of consciousness at all, and that's why it's so frustrating.

The usual view is that physics must find something definite, crisp, determinate, atomistic, once it drills down to the bedrock of existence. This is why the micro-physical laws are taken to describe something substantially real while the macro-physical laws - like the second law of thermodynamics in particular - are dismissed as merely emergent in the sense of being descriptive illusions. A way of summing over the fine detail as a convenience. — apokrisis

The problem is that physics never does drill down to the bedrock of existence. Metaphysics and ontological speculation, propose some principles of existence, that's what does the drilling, and physics may take some of these for granted, as the "bedrock". But all the experiments by which physics purports to prove these principles as general "laws" are very restrictive and cannot support the claim to universality of the principles.

This is why the micro-physical laws are taken to describe something substantially real while the macro-physical laws - like the second law of thermodynamics in particular - are dismissed as merely emergent in the sense of being descriptive illusions. A way of summing over the fine detail as a convenience. — apokrisis

The "micro-physical" suffers from the exact same issue as the "macro-physical", in the inverse way. The human perspective is in the midrange so any extrapolation in either direction produces an approximation. So any claim that laws applied to the micro represent what is real, is just as mistaken as any claim that laws applied to the macro represent what is real.

The issue is not "the emergence of laws", as if "laws" are some sort of entity which come into existence, and are responsible for creating stability through placing constraints on physical reality. The issue is the limitations in the human capacity to create laws which have universal applicability.

What if each frame persists for a while without change? — Janus

That's definitely a possibility, but I think it makes things unnecessarily complex, producing unresolvable difficulties in deeper analysis. To begin with, you have proposed that time is passing between the frames, without any physical change occurring. However, some sort of change is necessarily occurring at this time, because the next frame is being prepared for observation by us. Furthermore, we must allow that the free willing human being has the capacity to influence the change which is occurring, between frames, such that we are actually taking part in this preparation of the next frame.

So we have now assumed an entire level of activity which is "not physical", it is entirely unobservable because it is prior to the presentation of the frames, which is all that can be observed. The real difficulty with this perspective is in describing the production of the frames. You have proposed that the frame is fixed, unchanging, so we must conclude that the frame comes into existence at a point in time, fixed, and remains fixed from that point. Prior to that point in time it is being prepared. This allows no time for the frame to "come into existence", to "become". There is simply a division between preparation and existing, when the frame pops into existence. So all we have done now is pushed that timeless division of "now", to a deeper level, leaving us with the very same problem, of how to account for "becoming", but at a deeper level.

If the frame is unchanging as time passes, it must just pop into existence from the underlying preparation, without any changes happening to it. If changes happen to the frame, then it is a changing frame, like I described. And we know that things don't just pop into existence without change, that is contrary to our experience. Everything which comes into existence, "becomes", requires time to come into existence, there is no such thing as fixed state (an object) just popping into existence from one moment to the next without a time of becoming. This analysis indicates that the frame itself must be changing in some way, even though it may appear to us as if it is not

This reminds me strongly of the "Implicate and Explicate Order" by Bohm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order): I discussed (maily) with Rich about it some time ago in this thread.
But also of "Advaita Vedanta" and Neoplatonism. Also this article https://phys.org/news/2015-05-spacetime-built-quantum-entanglement.html may be of interest.

In this view plurality arises in the "representations" rather than in "reality". In fact, the notion of "reality" itself is challenged. Time and space exist only in the representation. And outside it these concepts do not apply: "reality" is neither spatial nor temporal. And so since discernible objects are possible if and only if there is space, then if space is a representation, then objects must exist only as a construction (like in a "hologram"). — boundless

I read Bohm's "Implicate and Explicate Order" and I found that there was a deficiency in establishing a relationship between the two, implicate and explicate. If the explicate is what is evident to us, and this is proven to be illusionary, such that we must assume an implicate, then we need stronger principles upon which to found the implicate. So I find that there are two vague and deficient assumptions. The first is in the proposed illusionary nature of the explicate. There is actually a large amount of "reality" within what is taken to be representations or reflections, and this reality must be accounted for. The second, is that since the reality inherent in the illusionary explicate is not accounted for, then the implicate can be whatever one wants it to be, completely imaginary, because it does not necessarily need to relate to the explicate which is void of reality.

And here with other senses "objects" return. So, we "see" the potentiality and with other senses we "feel" actual, existing objects. If this is true then our concept of "space" is mistaken because it is really the "space" of potentialities, rather than actualities. So "reality", thanks to the "two dimensional time" is both a sort of hologram of "potentialities" and a world of real objects. It is not that one is "more or less" real than the other but simply if we consider the totality of our sensations we see both "aspects" of reality. Very nice (I hope to not have misunderstood something... in that case, I am sorry). — boundless

Yes, I think you've understood what I was getting at quite well. That's the type of reality I propose. I may or may not be looking in the right direction, but this needs to be further developed to expose any deficiencies. I propose that the human consciousness straddles the divide between past and future, and that there is no crisp line of division. At this division between past and future, an inversion occurs whereby potentialities become actualities. The "space" of potentialities is entirely different from the "space" of actualities, so what is happening at the present is that space is changing in this way, from the space which accommodates potentialities to the space which accommodates actualities. I call this an inversion of space, perhaps the inside becomes outside.

We've denied the non-temporal point of division between past and future as unreal, so we assume that the inversion requires time, and is not instantaneous. We have no observational access to this inversion because it occurs as an activity in a time which is perpendicular to our constructed flow of time. The constructed flow of time is a continuous present, whereas the inversion is constantly occurring across the present from future to past. We must therefore take observational data from each side of the inversion to create parallel timelines on each side of the inversion, and use logic to infer the nature of the inversion. So I suggest that we determine which senses receive data on which side of the inversion, and proceed from there. It appears like sight may be an interaction with existence on the side of the present which consists of potentialities, while hearing may be an interaction with existence on the side of the present which consists of actualities.

But...
I might wonder however to what "happens" if there is no "perciever". If all what we said is right then objects, time and space are all real if there is a subject (in some sense this is reminiscent of trascendental idealism, especially the version of Schopenhauer). But if this is true, then the "object is always in relation with a subject", therefore if we remove the "subject", the object too "disappears". Well, this reminds me of "neither one nor many" of Mahayana Buddhism (also for that matter Schopenhauer noted a common ground here) :wink: — boundless

The issue of removing the "subject" is not a real issue. It is a distraction. It is impossible to remove the subject, because this would be an act carried out by the subject, self-annihilation, and this would leave us with nothing, no perspective. If we imagine "no-perspective" then all time and space become one. there would be no individuation of one part of time, or one part of space. But the individuation and identification of objects, events, or anything, requires an individuation of a place in space, and a place in time. So it doesn't really make any sense to talk about these things as if there were no subject, because the existence of the subject is already necessarily assumed as inherent within us talking about these things. To ask questions about whether "the object" disappears without a subject is just to introduce contradiction into the discussion through the back door, because "the object" is something individuated by the subject in the first place. And introducing undetected, contradiction into the discussion, renders the discussion unintelligible.