The information, like TV signals) are out there in the holographic universe. — Rich

This is what I don't understand. What is the holographic universe?

Are you familiar with how a hologram works? If so, I have found no better explanation than Stephen Robbins videos. The first few pretty much describes it perfectly. It is a bit slow as she builds the case but it is worth the time. No doubt it would enhance your own personal ontology.

A hologram requires a surface, in the video demonstration it's a plate. Is Bergson saying that in the case of the human mind, the body acts as the surface, or as he says, "the screen"?

The surface is mind/memory (information) unfolding as duration. Our minds translate the waves of information into a projection that feels like space. We are wondering through and observing information waves as space.

One thing that I did was just look out of my windshield while driving and imagined it as a hologram that is being created as my mind flowed through it. It requires one to flip the way one normally thinks of space but anyone who has been in one of those immersive video fun rides has had somewhat of a similar feeling.

,


As I said, MWI-supporters take the correspondence between reality and mathematical formalism to an "extreme" level. Interestingly it is a MWI-supporter, Tegmark, who both holds the MUH (mathematical universe hypothesis) and gives a fundamental role to consciousness (which according to him is a "mathematical pattern"). But generally "mathematical consistency = actuality" is a very questionable tenet, even if in fact mathematics does a wonderful job to describe regularities in nature. But again I find this line of thought somewhat reductionistic: I cannot, simply, agree that our "existence" is described perfectly by mathematics.What about ethics, values, aesthetics etc? In fact I prefer Plato's view that if mathematical "ideas" exist then also the ethical, aesthetical "ideas", for example, exist. Regarding determinism, this is the main reason of my "break" with Spinoza and Schopenhauer. IMO while compatibilists disagree, ethics requires free will.

Anyway, according to them reality is the universal wavefunction. From the "bird's eyeiew" (an expression used by Tegmark quite often) there is nothing but it. We however cannot see the universe from the outside. Instead, what we are "bounded" to the "frog's eye view", where we see a particular "branch". So, from the bird's eye view, it is a perfect monism (in some sense similar to Adviata) whereas form the frog's eye view there are indeed "many worlds".

But even if we accept that "mathematics is a reality", this is very far from saying that "whetever is mathematical is actually existence". At best mathematics describes a potentiality!

Since the apple does not appear "red" if we close our eyes, then its colour is not a "property" of the apple itself, but of our perception of it — boundless

Note that the apple also doesn't appear solid if I'm not looking at or touching it. Yet it doesn't follow that it's not solid. Properties of things are identified in experience, but are real independent of experience. That's the nature of language abstraction.

So, in normal usage, there is nothing wrong with saying that the apple appears green but is actually red (e.g., because of background lighting or filter glasses). Or that the apple in the dark, sealed box is red. Whereas it would be wrong to say that it appears red when no-one is looking, or when there is no light, since "appears" refers to perceptual experience, not the object.

Even if we accept "mathematical realism" we can think about different "levels" of reality: the other branches exist potentially, and not actually. I concur that this solution appears inelegant, mathematically. — boundless

Yes, the problem is that that distinction doesn't arise in the mathematics - each relative state is treated equivalently. So why make such a distinction? As I suggested in another post, it seems like taking a heliocentric model and packaging it as geocentric.

Also the idea that "what is mathematical is actually existing" presupposes that (1) our world is no different from a mathematical structure (2) that the mathematics we "use" is a perfect representation of the "actual existing". — boundless

Yes, in the Aristotelian sense that the universe has a nature (form) and we are seeking to discover it.

There are several other reasons for my not acceptance of MWI. But in this discussion are quite useless, so I do not write them (unless one is VERY curious and VERY patient to read them, of course ;) ). — boundless

Feel free to write them - I'd be interested.

consciousness plays a role in actualising the potential through the process of observation. — Wayfarer

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg,

"Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." - Richard Feynman

"Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" -John Stewart Bell

But even if we accept that "mathematics is a reality", this is very far from saying that "whetever is mathematical is actually existence". At best mathematics describes a potentiality! — boundless

Even Everett viewed mathematical model as a fiction of the mind. It is a strange ontology that views symbols (mathematical, linguistical, or otherwise) created by the mind more real than the mind that creates them (for practical purposes).

The surface is mind/memory (information) unfolding as duration. Our minds translate the waves of information into a projection that feels like space. We are wondering through and observing information waves as space. — Rich

So the surface is the boundary between past and future? This boundary is the medium upon which the hologram exists?

So the surface is the boundary between past and future? This boundary is the medium upon which the hologram exists? — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely.

"it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration" — Heisenberg

In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful.1

(Besides which, 'the apparatus' is to all intents a human instrument, or a means of enhancing human perception, so it makes no sense to speak of 'an apparatus' as if it were part of what is being observed.)

The whole conundrum of the 'observer problem' is that the so-called 'particle' can't be said to exist prior to it being measured; it not in some place, waiting to be detected. It is merely a possibility, or a potentia. This is one of the reasons that the so-called 'many worlds interpretation' was devised in the first place i.e. there was no conception of the notion of something that could only 'potentially exist' and yet still be real (as per the Kastner paper.)

"Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? — Pseudonym

This is because science naturally assume a realist attitude; but that is precisely what is at issue in this whole topic. It is the reason that the particle-wave duality and so on are large, unsolved problems in philosophy of science, as I understand it.

"Everyone knows that the earth, and a fortiori the universe, existed for a long time before there were any living beings, and therefore any perceiving subjects. But according to Kant ... that is impossible.'

Schopenhauer's defence of Kant on this score was... [that] the objector has not understood to the very bottom the Kantian demonstration that time is one of the forms of our sensibility. The earth, say, as it was before there was life, is a field of empirical enquiry in which we have come to know a great deal; its reality is no more being denied than is the reality of perceived objects in the same room.

The point is, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, which apprehends all the objects of empirical knowledge within it as being in some part of that space and at some part of that time: and this is as true of the earth before there was life as it is of the pen I am now holding a few inches in front of my face and seeing slightly out of focus as it moves across the paper.

This, incidentally, illustrates a difficulty in the way of understanding which transcendental idealism has permanently to contend with: the assumptions of 'the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect' enter unawares into the way in which the statements of transcendental idealism are understood.

Such realistic assumptions so pervade our normal use of concepts that the claims of transcendental idealism disclose their own non-absurdity only after difficult consideration, whereas criticisms of them at first appear cogent which on examination are seen to rest on confusion. We have to raise almost impossibly deep levels of presupposition in our own thinking and imagination to the level of self-consciousness before we are able to achieve a critical awareness of all our realistic assumptions, and thus achieve an understanding of transcendental idealism which is untainted by them.

Bryan Magee Schopenhauer's Philosophy, Pp 106-107

The reason this is not merely 'subjective', is because it does not pertain to this or that individual mind, but to the way the mind interprets the nature of experience.

generally "mathematical consistency = actuality" is a very questionable tenet, even if in fact mathematics does a wonderful job to describe regularities in nature. But again I find this line of thought somewhat reductionistic: I cannot, simply, agree that our "existence" is described perfectly by mathematics.What about ethics, values, aesthetics etc? In fact I prefer Plato's view that if mathematical "ideas" exist then also the ethical, aesthetical "ideas", for example, exist. — boundless

Of course I agree. The problem lies with the interpretation of mathematics as describing the 'primary attributes' e.g. mass, velocity, and so on, and relegating the domain of the qualitative to the subjective realm of mind. This manifests as the attitude that science is the sole custodian of fact and that qualitative and ethical judgements, whilst they may or not have merit, are regardless a private matter. It is another facet of the modern 'mind-body' problem. (The subject of a classic text, E A Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science.)

Precisely. — Rich

OK, but that requires that the boundary between past and future is a real medium, a substance,as the holographic film or plate, and that's quite difficult to conceive of. I can conceive of "matter" as that which exists at the present, but matter is not substantial without form. And the forms of matter are already assumed to be what exists as a hologram. Now we need another form, to account for the real existence of the boundary, which must be independent of holographic forms. And we still need another form to be the cause of the brain's activity in creating the hologram, this would be the soul. So we have three distinct substances and we still haven't gotten to the substantial existence of all the independent physical objects, when there is no soul to produce the hologram. Is there a need for God as well, as a fourth substance, to produce the universal hologram?

OK, but that requires that the boundary between past and future is a real medium — Metaphysician Undercover

One has to consider the medium consciousness (mind) itself establishing itself as memory. Observe who you are. You are memory. You feel existence as past memory penetrating into the present with the mind establishing a possible future - but all in memory. That is the fabric of existence. Everything penetrates the fabric as some memory or as the physicists like to think of it, quantum information.

that's quite difficult to conceive of. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is difficult which it eludes common imagination. Actually. I think those who see it for what it is are called delusional and put in mental institutions. So one must be careful. :)

but matter is not substantial without form. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the mind creates form out of the pattern and vibrational structure.

And the forms of matter are already assumed to be what exists as a hologram. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not as a hologram but rather a wave pattern within the hologram.

Now we need another form, to account for the real existence of the boundary, — Metaphysician Undercover

There isn't really a boundary, but rather the hologram morphing from m what is into something new (the present).

this would be the soul. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would just consider it the mind, and I reserve the concept of the soul for the mind with memories that transcend physical lives. But yes, with this it can be considered the soul.

we have three distinct substances — Metaphysician Undercover

It's the same with differences in creative activity, will, and memory. So the trick is to figure out how it can be all the same with differences. Bergson gives ideas as do I.

No God but one unified mind and all if the little minds.

Observe who you are. You are memory. — Rich

I don't agree. I am much more than memory. I think, I anticipate, and I act, none of these things can be directly attributed to memory. So memory is only one of my many attributes.

Not as a hologram but rather a wave pattern within the hologram. — Rich

Those wave patterns of the universe are not necessarily within the hologram, they would exist even if the mind wasn't making the hologram. So they are a partial cause of the hologram. And those patterns are very specific, very particular, therefore there must be a cause of this peculiarity. That's why I asked if God was necessary, as the source of all these particular wave patterns.

It's the same with differences in creative activity, will, and memory. So the trick is to figure out how it can be all the same with differences. Bergson gives ideas as do I.

No God but one unified mind and all if the little minds. — Rich

If each mind creates its own hologram, where is the unified mind? That's what Bohm seemed to be onto, and why I asked about it earlier, how is there a universal hologram.

I don't agree. I am much more than memory. I think, I anticipate, and I act, none of these things can be directly attributed to memory. So memory is only one of my many attributes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there is also will and the ability to imagine a future possibility which is definitely an aspect of existence, but if you observe what is defining you as you, it is the memory of what was passing into a different what was. This duration of memory defines your existence.

Those wave patterns of the universe are not necessarily within the hologram, they would exist even if the mind wasn't making the hologram. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, mind and all it creates is embedded or comprises the hologram. The waves of mind cannot be separated from what it creates.

If each mind creates its own hologram, — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they are all weaving within the same hologram. Each wave in the ocean is creating but also part of the whole. There is no differentiation. It's all One as the Dao suggests.

Yes, there is also will and the ability to imagine a future possibility which is definitely an aspect of existence, but if you observe what is defining you as you, it is the memory of what was passing into a different what was. This duration of memory defines your existence. — Rich

Well, I can't agree with this.

No, they are all weaving within the same hologram. Each wave in the ocean is creating but also part of the whole. There is no differentiation. It's all One as the Dao suggests. — Rich

That's not what the Robbins video described though. It described each person's mind as creating a hologram from the brain wave patterns interfering with the wave patterns of the rest of the universe, so the hologram is the world as it is, being experienced within the mind. That's what supports his claim of direct realism.

So each individual has one's own hologram but I don't see the means for a universal hologram. All there is in the universe is wave patterns, except where the individual minds create holograms for themselves. But I wonder why all the wave patterns are such as they are, what causes them to be the patterns that they are? We still need to assume God don't we?

That's not what the Robbins video described though. It described each person's mind as creating a hologram from the brain wave patterns interfering with the wave patterns of the rest of the universe, so the hologram is the world as it is, being experienced within the mind. That's what supports his claim of direct realism. — Metaphysician Undercover

What Robbins described was the brain creating a holographic image via a reconstructive wave pattern. The singular universal hologram can create as many images as there are reconstructive waves passing through it.

So each individual has one's own hologram — Metaphysician Undercover

No individual is continuosly creating holographic images from the holographic universe. The holographic universe is all the wave patterns, the individual creates images that perceives as the outside v objects and inner memory.

I wonder why all the wave patterns are such as they are, what causes them to be the patterns that they are? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is the result of creative evolution of the mind, moving from the very simple to the very complex. In life we go through an analogous process when we learn art, music, math, speech, dancing, reading, everything we do. It is how we evolve and how mind evolves.

We still need to assume God don't we? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, just a mind that is learning, creating, an evolving. Even microbes can be observed evolving. This is the nature of Bergson's Creative Evolution.

What Robbins described was the brain creating a holographic image via a reconstructive wave pattern. The singular universal hologram can create as many images as there are reconstructive waves passing through it. — Rich

Within the brain, there is an agent, which creates its own wave patterns, interacting with the other wave patterns such that the person perceives the world. In the case of the universal hologram what would create the waves to interact with the other waves?

No individual is continuosly creating holographic images from the holographic universe. The holidays universe is all the wave patterns, the individual creates images that perceives as the outside v objects and inner memory. — Rich

The video clearly shows the individual's brain creating a holographic image.

Within the brain, there is an agent, which creates its own wave patterns — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this would be the mind or Bergson's Élan Vital.

interacting with the other wave patterns such that the person perceives the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this would be the holographic universe.

In the case of the universal hologram what would what would create the waves to interact with the other waves? — Metaphysician Undercover

So you have the holographic universe which is just entangled waves. That's the universe.

These same waves are the Mind and minds. It is monolithic. The mind in a sense is peering into itself. When the mind creates reconstructive waves, it is creating images which in a sense are images of itself depending upon how you conceive there Big Mind the the little minds. Yes they are different but they are the same. Just suppose the waves are minds.

The video clearly shows the individual's brain creating a holographic image. — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely. The image is part of the conception in the mind and it's also part of the holographic image.

What you are asking is precisely how is that transformation from waves to image accomplished, within the holographic universe? It is the transformation that is bewildering. Beats me. That is as far as I've got. I look at a hologram and it's just a mass of entangled waves, and light passes through it as a reconstructive beam, and we see an image! Somehow the mind imprints an image into a wave pattern and then is able to reconstruct it.

I'm reading a lot about light and I think about it when I draw or do photography. Light is that which illuminates. What it all means is a work in progress. Something for me to try to understand. Maybe I will someday via some of my practices. The mystery of image and qualia remains.

Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful. — Wayfarer

Here he's providing his opinion on what makes an observation meaningful, he's not making anything like the claim you're making, that concious observation is actually required to "actualise the potential". All those potentials were quite happily "actualised" well before the evolution of conciousness.

This is because science naturally assume a realist attitude; but that is precisely what is at issue in this whole topic. It is the reason that the particle-wave duality and so on are large, unsolved problems in philosophy of science, as I understand it. — Wayfarer

I understand that, but you keep shutting down the opposing stories as if they had some kind of world-dominating agenda. Other people do not agree that these unsolved problems are best solved by inventing some spiritual woo, they think they can be solved whilst maintaining realism, there are theoretical solutions to the problems of quantum physics that maintain physicalism, there are even interpretations that maintain determinism. No-one's trying to "push an agenda" against all the evidence as you so frequently portray it, people are just trying to fit the evidence into they way they see the world.

If more people see the world through physicalism than through your brand of spiritualism, then tough. You're going to have a hard time getting your opinions taken seriously. Same went for the likes of Galileo the other way round 400 years ago.

The alternative which I was trying to lead our discussion toward earlier, is to assume that the tinted glass cannot be avoided. This is to deny the reality of the non-dimensional point at the present, and to deny the soul its immaterial view point, as impossible, unreal. That is the result of your objection earlier, which is a standard materialist objection to dualism, that such a point would disallow the possibility of interaction between the soul and the physical world. All of this lead me to the long digression concerning the nature of "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, ok :wink: When I said I was "defeated" I meant that I admitted that we cannot accept both relativity and "the immaterial perspective". Yeah, a solution might be admitting we cannot "go outside" all "tints".

So we assume that the soul is fundamentally united with matter, and cannot be separated the immaterial perspective is impossible. We assume that the glass through which the world is observed is tinted, and this cannot be avoided, the tinting of the glass cannot be removed to give us a clear perspective. Therefore we must determine the nature of the tinting and account for this. Now we're back to where we began the discussion, with a slightly different perspective. The soul "interacts" with the world, and this means that it is a cause and an effect. An observation cannot be pure because we cannot adequately distinguish cause from effect, and this is the tinting of the glass. So we must determine the nature of the tinting. The soul interacts with the world through the concept of "matter" (in modern physics, "energy"). Matter is the potential for change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, if we cannot avoid all "tints", then we cannot have the "pure perspective", of course. So, our perspective will be always "conditioned" by some tint or an other. And even more importalntly all our observation cannot be "perfect" since our observations play a causal role.

So, in this view "the pure observation" seems nothing more than an useful abstraction, like, say, a "free particle". The problem is, however, that if there is not a "total pure point of view", then it is impossible to the "soul" to know "how things really are".

The illusion, which results in a failure to properly account for the tinting, is in the assumption that matter or energy is something physical rather than something conceptual. If the soul is fundamentally united with matter, or energy, denying the possibility of a clear perspective, then matter or energy is conceptual, of the soul. The soul observes the world through this concept (tinted glass), and when it is not diligent it perceives this matter, or energy, to be a property of the thing being observed, rather than as the concept (tinted glass) through which the world is being observed. The fundamental point being, that "matter" is a concept introduced to allow us to understand the nature of change in the world. There is nothing to prove that "matter" refers to anything real, independent of the mind (what Berkeley demonstrated). Aristotle simply assumed "matter" as a necessary assumption in order to make change intelligible. So it is something we assume "about the world", but it is fundamentally conceptual, therefor not really "of the world" — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed! In that case, the "reality" outside our mind(s) is simply unknowable to us. In fact even if we change our "basic concepts" we would still have the same problem. It would simply changing a tint with another one. In any case, the the tint through which we "see" reality is always arbitrary and therefore all "truths" we find are not "absolute truths", but truths that depend on the "tint" we use. We can still have "universal truths" (universal = shared truths by all members of a group), among who use the same "tint" but this ambiguity introduces a "pluralism" of "truths". This, therefore, undermines the possibility to find out, trough science how things are in themselves. Personally I have not a problem with this perspective (in fact I think this is exactly our "situation", so to speak).

Light is fundamental to the concept of energy, and the concept of energy relates light to matter and mass. As described above, the tinting of the glass is this concept, we interact with the physical reality through this concept. The extent to which this concept misrepresents itself, is the extent to which the tinted glass is a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is not better to say that "the extent to which "reality", is the extent to which the tinted glass is a problem"? If we rephrase in this wa the sentence then I agree. The problem, in any case, is that if we cannot avoid the "tints", then such a problem will never be solved.

What I suggest is that physicists are at position #2. The concept of matter, energy and mass, is the tint. The physicists know that they are looking at the world through this tint, but they do not actually know the tint, and how it affects the observations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed!

The appropriate metaphysical procedure is to recognize that we must determine precisely how the glass is tinted, before we can produce any accurate descriptions. However, the commonly practised metaphysics is to claim #3, that the physicists already know exactly what the tint is, they know what the concept of energy, mass and matter, "adds" to the observations, and therefore accurate descriptions are being produced. Adopting this metaphysical perspective amounts to, in reality, #1, that they are looking through a tint which they do not know is there, because they have assumed that all the tinting has been accounted for within the concept. This is why I say that if the concept represents itself, or is represented as, accounting for the tint, when it really doesn't, then there is a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

In fact I think that many physicists simply ignore this problem due to some "aversion" to philosophy. It is undeniable that, for example, QM is a great theory which is in (almost) perfect agreement with experimental data. But at the same time, we do not "build" all the "fundamental concepts" that we use to create the theory by "observation". In reality, even how we observe is conditioned by our "fundamental concepets", which as you rightly say are, in fact, our tint. However, many scientists tend to forget this issue, due to the fact that no other "mode of inquiry" has produced such spectacular results. I agree with it. But at the same time I admit that it is "a mode of inquiry, not the only possible mode of inquiry". I think that many issued about the so called "scientism" is due to this kind of problem.

This is also one of the most important reasons (if not the most important one!) why I follow more or less Bohr's (epistemological) perspective on QM.

Thanks for the insights! :wink:

Yeah, if we cannot avoid all "tints", then we cannot have the "pure perspective", of course. So, our perspective will be always "conditioned" by some tint or an other. And even more importalntly all our observation cannot be "perfect" since our observations play a causal role.

So, in this view "the pure observation" seems nothing more than an useful abstraction, like, say, a "free particle". The problem is, however, that if there is not a "total pure point of view", then it is impossible to the "soul" to know "how things really are". — boundless

I'm not convinced of the conclusion that if it is impossible to avoid the tint, then it is impossible to know how things really are. I think it just means that we have to take a detour in our proceedings, and work on determining the nature of the tinting. This is why we have numerous different senses to compare, we have logic, and we have philosophy. These are the tools for assessing the tint.

So for instance, I have assumed that the immaterial point of observation, the tint free observation point, is the non-dimensional point between future and past. Now we say, that this is impossible, unreal, it cannot be the case, there is no such observation point. This necessitates that we reconceive "activity", "change", to allow for this reality. We have assumed that as time passes, it goes from future to past, and the present marks the supposed dimensionless boundary. But this dimensionless boundary is a mistaken assumption.

Activity and change occur as time passes and are measured and understood in relation to time passing. Under the new principle, we must allow for the reality that activity occurs "at the present", not just as time passes the present, because we've denied the possibility that the present is a dimensionless boundary. We have no capacity to measure this activity "at the present" because it doesn't correspond to time passing. Therefore we must introduce another dimension of time (I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread), to account for the activity which exists at the present.

This was my analogy of objects coming through a plane, at the present. Suppose you could look straight ahead down a plane. To the right of the plane is absolute nothing, only possibility, that's the future. To the left is all the physical existence of the past. As time passes, the objects of physical existence are coming out of the plane on the left. Suppose that a tiny object comes out instantaneously, but a large object takes a little time to get out. How does this "little time" exist? So the plane must have breadth. The small object gets out immediately, and is in the past for a short period of time, before the big object gets across the plane.

Now assume that we've created a concept of time, duration, the flow of time, by looking across the emergence of the big objects. When the big objects are fully emerged from the plane of the present, this marks the moment when time has gone from future to past. So the non-dimensional plane, which is "the present", which we have created artificially, has been produced by looking across the moment when the big objects are fully emerged into the past. Now we look at the tiny objects, and these tiny objects must make a plane of "the present" as well. They emerge from the future slightly before the big objects, so we can create a separate plane of "the present" by looking across their emergence There are two planes of the present, and the breadth of the present is the entire area between. BY establishing a relationship between the one plane and the other, we can determine the passage of time at the present.

In the analogy, the tiny objects pop out from the future to the past, first. This seems intuitive, but it's not necessarily the case. To really understand the way things exist at the present, we need to look at the way we act in the world, and interact with it. There are some things, with large mass and inertia, which appear to be fully determined. And, we find possibility in small things, and this allows us to make changes which are actually very small in relation to the vast universe. If we assume that change only occurs at the present, then the large things must come out first, determined with mass and inertia, and by the time that the tiny human brain is out, and apprehends what is going on, it has no capacity to alter what has already come out into the past. So the human brain exercises the capacity of free choice only over the tiny things, because the big things are already in the past. This is consistent with the Neo-Platonist's principle of emanation, or procession. The One, which represents the unity of the universe is first, then the Soul, then the Mind.

However, it is clear that we would need to allow some way that the smaller, massless things which would come into existence last, at the present, can cycle back to have an affect on the massive, as the human mind, has the capacity to control the human body, which can control even bigger things. So I've considered before, that the tiny must be the first to emerge, to effect such change. I don't think that this is possible though, that the tiny emerge first, because the first must be the most determined, and this is contrary to what is known. So in reality, the tiny must only change the massive, through an instability in the massive. A tiny change, by a tiny thing at the final emergence of the present, will throw off, or change a larger object due to instability.

If this is the case, the ramifications are that when we divide time into shorter and shorter time periods, to observe tiny particles, we are taking duration measurements on the past side of the present. As we get into these smaller and smaller particles, we lose our ability to observe, because we are crossing the border into the past. If anything is still moving in the past, it has no capacity to affect the future, and appears as infinite possibility. But since it's in the past it's really the possibility for nothing, and so appears to be infinite. When we look out into the universe, on the other hand, at huge massive structures, we need to produce a system for measuring duration which is close to the future side of the present. In this way, we can establish the boundaries of the present, and work on the second dimension of time, which is the relationship between these two. The massive structure appear to be absolutely determined, because the possibilities which exist on the past side of the present appear to be incapable of penetrating through that inertial stability.

In the past, we have produced a system for time measurement based on the motions of the earth and sun, so this is pretty much in the middle of the breadth of the present. Now we have produced atomic clocks measuring duration with tiny objects, so this would be (presumably) measuring time duration at the past side of the present. But we have established no real principles to determine the breadth between these two. How much behind the present, which is determined by the motions of the earth and sun, is the present which is determined by the atomic clocks? Both these clocks can keep time in a synchronized, accurate way, but according to the theory above, they represent parallel "presents", with time, breadth between them.

Is not better to say that "the extent to which "reality", is the extent to which the tinted glass is a problem"? If we rephrase in this wa the sentence then I agree. The problem, in any case, is that if we cannot avoid the "tints", then such a problem will never be solved. — boundless

I think the issue here is that we approach a point where there is no separation between the concept and the reality represented by it. For example, there must be a concept of concept. And this is where we approach unintelligibility. That is what happens with the concept of "matter". Matter is fundamentally a concept. By the nature of the concept, as produced by Aristotle, there cannot be any real physical thing which corresponds to "matter", because the physical matter, necessarily has a form and form is not matter. So the physical thing is a form, and that the form has matter, is simply an assumption. We have to assume that it has matter to make the changing of forms intelligible. There is no such thing as "prime matter", matter without form, yet "matter" is a concept, and we must assume that this concept corresponds to something real, independent of the concept. Therefore "matter" is whatever we make it to be, as purely conceptual, but matter is still real, and that's why we need the concept of matter. So the concept must conform to real matter, but we really can't know real matter because what we know are the forms of matter, and matter itself is unintelligible.

This is the tinted glass problem in a nutshell. The tint is the concept, "matter", which is the means by which we make the changing of the physical world intelligible in relation to the assumed static, eternal "soul". We look through the tint, and we know that it's a tint because it's a source of error, and we have figured out that it's there. Therefore we must conclude that there is a part of reality independent from us, which is unintelligible to us, because of the tint. It is the inversion of the tint, what the tint negates, which is unintelligible. Whatever we assume as matter, the concept of matter, then the deficiencies of this assumption, is what remains unintelligible to us. What is not assumed, but ought to be assumed creates the unintelligibility caused by the assumption "matter". So we have to approach the concept of "matter" in a kind of trial and error way, we produce a concept, like Aristotle did, and see if it works. The success was limited, and the concept was replaced by a more comprehensive assumption, "energy". Now we have to assess this assumption for successes and failures. It's a matter of assessing failures which are the result of improperly representing the tint, on and on, until we figure out the tint and represent it properly.

Hi,

I think in this latest answer you have written really good points. Be patient but right now I cannot make a well-made reply due to the flu. I hope to be able to answer this week end.

Best wishes. Get well!

Here my attempt to answer :wink:

I'm not convinced of the conclusion that if it is impossible to avoid the tint, then it is impossible to know how things really are. I think it just means that we have to take a detour in our proceedings, and work on determining the nature of the tinting. This is why we have numerous different senses to compare, we have logic, and we have philosophy. These are the tools for assessing the tint. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agree!

Now assume that we've created a concept of time, duration, the flow of time, by looking across the emergence of the big objects. When the big objects are fully emerged from the plane of the present, this marks the moment when time has gone from future to past. So the non-dimensional plane, which is "the present", which we have created artificially, has been produced by looking across the moment when the big objects are fully emerged into the past. Now we look at the tiny objects, and these tiny objects must make a plane of "the present" as well. They emerge from the future slightly before the big objects, so we can create a separate plane of "the present" by looking across their emergence There are two planes of the present, and the breadth of the present is the entire area between. BY establishing a relationship between the one plane and the other, we can determine the passage of time at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some time ago, I actually considered an idea similar to this. I was wondering how "big" is the present. And in fact I arrived that if the "present" has some "thickness" change would be impossible. But interestingly, here you are giving an interesting perspective on this, i.e. that it is possible to accept both a "thick" present and change.

In the analogy, the tiny objects pop out from the future to the past, first. This seems intuitive, but it's not necessarily the case. To really understand the way things exist at the present, we need to look at the way we act in the world, and interact with it. There are some things, with large mass and inertia, which appear to be fully determined. And, we find possibility in small things, and this allows us to make changes which are actually very small in relation to the vast universe. If we assume that change only occurs at the present, then the large things must come out first, determined with mass and inertia, and by the time that the tiny human brain is out, and apprehends what is going on, it has no capacity to alter what has already come out into the past. So the human brain exercises the capacity of free choice only over the tiny things, because the big things are already in the past. This is consistent with the Neo-Platonist's principle of emanation, or procession. The One, which represents the unity of the universe is first, then the Soul, then the Mind.

...

In the past, we have produced a system for time measurement based on the motions of the earth and sun, so this is pretty much in the middle of the breadth of the present. Now we have produced atomic clocks measuring duration with tiny objects, so this would be (presumably) measuring time duration at the past side of the present. But we have established no real principles to determine the breadth between these two. How much behind the present, which is determined by the motions of the earth and sun, is the present which is determined by the atomic clocks? Both these clocks can keep time in a synchronized, accurate way, but according to the theory above, they represent parallel "presents", with time, breadth between them. — Metaphysician Undercover

The reasoning is in fact, sound. The possibility of being more "presents" as the "scale" of observation varies is something that I have never encountered in physics (and in philosophy for that matter). But again, nothing tells us that there is only a "present". In fact, the tendency to hyper-semplify sometimes had its side-effects: for example the Newtonian "absolute" space is certainly simpler than SR, but it is not really effective.

In any case, if you are right then there is an even stronger relationship between the measures of distance and time: atomic clocks measure a "present" which is different than "macroscopic" clocks. If this is the case we need a "meta-theory" which must explain the relationship between all these clocks, i.e. a theory about the "interaction" between the "knower" and the world, or something in that direction. Such a theory certainly would help us to understand better the tint.

This is the tinted glass problem in a nutshell. The tint is the concept, "matter", which is the means by which we make the changing of the physical world intelligible in relation to the assumed static, eternal "soul". We look through the tint, and we know that it's a tint because it's a source of error, and we have figured out that it's there. Therefore we must conclude that there is a part of reality independent from us, which is unintelligible to us, because of the tint. It is the inversion of the tint, what the tint negates, which is unintelligible. Whatever we assume as matter, the concept of matter, then the deficiencies of this assumption, is what remains unintelligible to us. What is not assumed, but ought to be assumed creates the unintelligibility caused by the assumption "matter". So we have to approach the concept of "matter" in a kind of trial and error way, we produce a concept, like Aristotle did, and see if it works. The success was limited, and the concept was replaced by a more comprehensive assumption, "energy". Now we have to assess this assumption for successes and failures. It's a matter of assessing failures which are the result of improperly representing the tint, on and on, until we figure out the tint and represent it properly. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here I see two possibilities, BTW:
1) We at best can have a "partial knowledge" of the tint. In this case our "trial and error" procedure allows us to know partially the "tint" by the "inside", so to speak. We can think that the "tint" actually has two "parts". One part is changeable by us: we can in fact use whatever concept we like and "test" it. However a part of the tint is completely "hidden", it is "a priori" in all our observations. We cannot "remove" it, so to speak. In this case we can never have the possibility to "see things as they are", but we can have a "partial knowledge". This IMO is quite a rational perspective.
2) On the other hand we can accept that we can "trascend", so to speak, all tinting. In this case the "tint" can be modified by our trials until we arrive to a "perfect" untinted perspective. Note that this is possible only if no "part" of the tint is "a priori", since in that case we could not even imagine "reality as it is". If there is no "a priori" part of the tint, then in fact we can infer how the untinted perspective is by studying the "behavior" of the results of our trials and errors.

Note that the apple also doesn't appear solid if I'm not looking at or touching it. Yet it doesn't follow that it's not solid. Properties of things are identified in experience, but are real independent of experience. That's the nature of language abstraction.

So, in normal usage, there is nothing wrong with saying that the apple appears green but is actually red (e.g., because of background lighting or filter glasses). Or that the apple in the dark, sealed box is red. Whereas it would be wrong to say that it appears red when no-one is looking, or when there is no light, since "appears" refers to perceptual experience, not the object. — Andrew M

Hi, sorry for the delay in answering (mainly due to the flu)...

By the way, I think that I agree with the above. Unfortunately expressing these concepts sometime creates a lot of confusion.

Yes, the problem is that that distinction doesn't arise in the mathematics - each relative state is treated equivalently. So why make such a distinction? As I suggested in another post, it seems like taking a heliocentric model and packaging it as geocentric. — Andrew M

I see what you mean. But at the same time, conflating the "actual" and the "potential" can appear to be inelegant in its way. In any case, if this perspective is used then one must accept MUH (Mathemaical Universe Hypothesis).

Feel free to write them - I'd be interested. — Andrew M

Yeah, I am very sorry but you have to wait a couple of days (the reasons being the aforementioned flu plus academic business :( ). I anticipate that it is a mainly ethical problem...

Even Everett viewed mathematical model as a fiction of the mind. It is a strange ontology that views symbols (mathematical, linguistical, or otherwise) created by the mind more real than the mind that creates them (for practical purposes). — Rich

Regarding mathematics, I think that a part of it is "real" and another of it is "conventional". But I still cannot see where there is the distinction...

Of course I agree. The problem lies with the interpretation of mathematics as describing the 'primary attributes' e.g. mass, velocity, and so on, and relegating the domain of the qualitative to the subjective realm of mind. This manifests as the attitude that science is the sole custodian of fact and that qualitative and ethical judgements, whilst they may or not have merit, are regardless a private matter. It is another facet of the modern 'mind-body' problem. (The subject of a classic text, E A Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science.) — Wayfarer

I am in agreement with this. To be more clear: I agree that a part of both mathematics and ethics is "conventional" or a "creation" of humans. On the other hand however there is a very important part of both which is "very real".

Therefore I agree with most religions that there is a "moral order" in the universe. And sages do discover it in some sense (in fact it is not a case that on ethical matters there is a strong agreement in most religions)

OK, but that requires that the boundary between past and future is a real medium, a substance,as the holographic film or plate, and that's quite difficult to conceive of. I can conceive of "matter" as that which exists at the present, but matter is not substantial without form. — Metaphysician Undercover

What exactly is matter? Ultimately it is just quantum stuff of some sort. Matter feels solid. Matter is perceived of as solid. But we know it is empty. It is something we call energy. It is energy tightened into a ball as one might imagine vapor tightening into a snowball.

So what is this stuff? What is the medium? It is mind. The mind begins its journey (the Dao) by creating waves of energy (yin/Yang/qi) and from there it learns how to evolve and create things. Everything is fundamentally vibrating (energetic) waves. Call it quanta if you will or call it intelligence (mind).

P.S. Not sure, but I may have previously answered this question.

Regarding mathematics, I think that a part of it is "real" and another of it is "conventional". But I still cannot see where there is the distinction... — boundless

There are patterns (habits) in the universe, because of the intelligence imbued in the universe. That which is not alive, tends to be more stable (habitual) because it cannot exert will or choice.

The human mind studies these patterns and creates symbolic patterns (math) that mimics these patterns in n such a way they they have predictive ability for practical purposes. They are not exact, but good enough, because everything in my the universe has some amount of non-predictably.

Math is simply a tool. A tool just like any other tool that had practical utility. But it is symbolic, and because it is symbolic can never accurately describe nature. Whatever symbolic language is issued, it will always be inadequate to describe that which is living and creating - its Creator.

Some time ago, I actually considered an idea similar to this. I was wondering how "big" is the present. And in fact I arrived that if the "present" has some "thickness" change would be impossible. But interestingly, here you are giving an interesting perspective on this, i.e. that it is possible to accept both a "thick" present and change. — boundless

The idea of a two dimensional present is becoming more common amongst speculative physicists. I think it provides a basis for explaining our experience of activity occurring at the present, and it might also help to create a bridge between relativity theory, and our intuitions, that the present is a substantial aspect of reality.

Have you ever wondered how we observe motion visually? If one's viewpoint is the dimensionless point of the present, then we can only notice static states at this non-temporal point. We'd have to infer motion by stringing together still frame states. What we see as activity would have to be a creation of the memory. It may be that this is actually how we observe motion, but the problems are numerous. If we observe static states at the moment of the present, then we have a big logical hole, between the static points, which needs to be filled. The actual passing of time would have to occur between the points, when we couldn't see it, and therefore actual change would have to also be occurring between the points of observation. So we'd be seeing a serious of still-frames, but the entire activity of change, whereby one still-frame is replaced with the next, would be completely invisible to us.

If this were the case, then the actual change that occurs behind the scene, which we cannot see, must occur extremely fast because it wouldn't be as if the object moves from point A to point B, while we're not seeing it, the object would have to be reconstituted at each point where we see it in a still frame. We cannot assume that the object "moves" from point A to B or else we'd have to allow that it could be at intermediate points. The behind the scenes activity would have to consist of a re-creation of each object at each moment of time, as time passes. So even this way of looking at motion requires a second dimension of time. There is the time that we know, which consists of the series of still frames, but there is a second time which we could call "real time", which is the time passing in between the still frames. I called it real time, because it is when the real activity is going on, which is the preparation of the next still frame. But all this activity is not evident to our eyes.

Now consider how we observe motion with other senses. Let's take the tactile senses, touch, taste, and smell. Heat will burn, and that's a sensation of molecules moving fast, causing damage. The olfaction senses are themselves extremely active, with nerves and other activities, and they sense molecules which are less active (unless they are overly active causing burns). In these senses we have activities of the nerves, which are sensing states of the object. And this is what seeing does as well, it is activities within, which are sensing unchanging things (objects). The conscious mind, sees movement within sight, and in understanding the movement of these large objects, it turns back toward the movement of tiny objects, which the unconscious already uses to sense states of existence.

So we must account for this difference in "direction" when we try to understand motion. The conscious mind produces a concept of motion from large objects moving, and looks back toward the tiny, from this artificial perspective. But the living being already has a natural perspective, which is the reverse of this, it is already utilizing these tiny fast motions to rule over the more static, temporally extended states. The natural "rule" of the living being therefore may be derived from the "real time", the activity between the static states, and the static states may be completely artificial.

The reasoning is in fact, sound. The possibility of being more "presents" as the "scale" of observation varies is something that I have never encountered in physics (and in philosophy for that matter). But again, nothing tells us that there is only a "present". In fact, the tendency to hyper-semplify sometimes had its side-effects: for example the Newtonian "absolute" space is certainly simpler than SR, but it is not really effective. — boundless

Consider the possibility that the static states of the still frame representation are artificial, created at the conscious level. The states correspond to objects. The objects we see are masses of molecules in different shapes. We create a present, a timeline by giving these shapes temporal extension, inertia. But if we look at individual molecules, as shapes, then we have created a different set of static frames with a different, but supposedly parallel timeline. If we go to atoms, we have a different set of frames, and a different parallel timeline.

This model of reality is of course very complex and the natural inclination is to reject its complications as unnecessary. But the key to believing it, or accepting it, is to recognize the logical necessity of concluding that physical objects are necessarily re-created at each moment of passing time. There are different approaches to this conclusion, mostly presented by different religions. But the best, I believe, is the direct approach from personal experience. Consider the difference between what has been in the past, and what may be, in the future. All of physical existence is in the past, and it has been sensed by us. Now turn your attention to the future. I see an abrupt wall, where my senses cannot go. There is nothing here to sense, no physical existence. I sit here without moving, and I realize that I can move my arm whenever I want. So it's impossible that where my arm will be in the next second is already existing, because only I can make that designation, now, and I can do it whenever I want. If there is no definite place where my arm will be in ten seconds from now, then it is impossible that it has physical existence at that future time. So I must conclude that it comes into existence at the present moment, at each moment as time passes. Now I can look around the physical world at all the things which human beings have the power of changing, and I can extrapolate to conclude that all physical existence must come into being at each moment as time passes.

This produces all sorts of problems and complexities with the nature of spatial extension. Let's assume that all physical objects, static states with temporal extension and inertia, are artificial, created by the conscious mind, as described above. This means that "space", which is our conception produced to allow for the real existence of objects, is created according to our observations of these objects as well. So if we go to a parallel time line, as described above, we need a different conception of space at this timeline. And each timeline requires a different conception of space, to allow for the necessity that spatial existence, and therefore space itself, comes into existence at each moment of passing time.

Here I see two possibilities, BTW:
1) We at best can have a "partial knowledge" of the tint. In this case our "trial and error" procedure allows us to know partially the "tint" by the "inside", so to speak. We can think that the "tint" actually has two "parts". One part is changeable by us: we can in fact use whatever concept we like and "test" it. However a part of the tint is completely "hidden", it is "a priori" in all our observations. We cannot "remove" it, so to speak. In this case we can never have the possibility to "see things as they are", but we can have a "partial knowledge". This IMO is quite a rational perspective.
2) On the other hand we can accept that we can "trascend", so to speak, all tinting. In this case the "tint" can be modified by our trials until we arrive to a "perfect" untinted perspective. Note that this is possible only if no "part" of the tint is "a priori", since in that case we could not even imagine "reality as it is". If there is no "a priori" part of the tint, then in fact we can infer how the untinted perspective is by studying the "behavior" of the results of our trials and errors. — boundless

So I think that the issue with the tint is to figure out the exact nature of the tint. I believe it is as you say "a priori" within all our observations, but that does not mean that it must remain hidden to us. The reason, is that we have different senses, so the tint will appear differently to the different senses. And this is how we will determine the nature of the tint. Notice, that in my discussion of the different senses above, I did not even approach the relationship between seeing and hearing, of which the Fourier transform and the frequency/time uncertainty are derivative. The uncertainty, being a product of the tint, ought to have a different measure in sight than it has in sound, and that would help to expose the nature of the tint.

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the tint is in how we draw our timeline. If for example, we create a timeline by using relatively large bodies like the earth and sun, and stay true to that timeline, we will produce accurate knowledge of things within this spatial realm of "objects", objects this size. But this knowledge would not be very reliable in relation to larger objects like galaxies which exist on a different timeline, because we would be making a diagonal across from one timeline to another, without knowing this. The desire would be for an orthogonal relation between timelines, but how would we know what's orthogonal? Likewise, if we study tiny subatomic particles, an atomic clock would give us a good timeline, but to relate this timeline to the one of the earth and sun would be problematic because we would know the orthogonal relation. To determine the orthogonal relation would require figuring out how spatial existence comes into being at each moment. Anytime one timeline is related to another, without determining the true tint, it would cause a problem.

What exactly is matter? Ultimately it is just quantum stuff of some sort. Matter feels solid. Matter is perceived of as solid. But we know it is empty. It is something we call energy. It is energy tightened into a ball as one might imagine vapor tightening into a snowball. — Rich

Why would you assume that matter is "quantum stuff"? Why wouldn't matter be better represented as a continuous field, or wave function. Matter is how we understand continuous existence, not how we understand particular changing forms.