Time simply does not exist

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

Maturana might go as far as saying that all of what we call "observation" is verbal/reported, but isn't his own model of consciousness based on cellular research (or a metaphor based on the same)? And wasn't cellular structure discovered in the course of mechanical observations of an undescribed substrate of biological existence? Maturana's metaphor is the product of the history of a phenomena, whose unspoken existence proceeds that metaphor by millions of years. You might be tempted to say that those "millions of years" only have a linguistic context...i would contest that, of course...but regardless, they have no linguistic precedent. They are not merely the product of a new combination of previously "known facts" -- their origin seems to be pre-linguistic...

Mightn't Maturana be oversimplifying the relationship between a languaging being and her environment, if he reduces that relationship to that one distinguishing characteristic? Mightn't all of those other common biological relationships be equally at play?

Don't get me wrong...i'm not opposed to the idea of autopoesis. i'm just questioning the relationship between "it" and consciousness, and consciousness's relationship to the non-auto-...

You're on to something here, Razzleg, and it is precisely this: how can correlationists (such as Maturana and Varela) account for events occurring prior to the advent of conscious beings? How can they deal with the statements proposed by scientists on such things as the beginning of the universe, which are realist (not necessarily naive realist Fresco, but perhaps causal, direct, indirect, speculative, etc. ) in their nature? A scientists does not say, "The universe came into existence 16 billion years ago 'for us'". Instead, they say, "The universe came into existence 16 billion years ago.", without any sort of qualification involving coextension, coexistene, etc. It's a good point. :-)

3 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

how can correlationists (such as Maturana and Varela) account for events occurring prior to the advent of conscious beings?

I don't know how those guys account for it, but this makes me think of quantum superposition.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...but in washing away time you are bringing mind out of its pedestal...my point precisely...now "observation" is just process in the powerset of reality...

...with a superposition what you are saying is that reality is what it is, whatever is true is true...will as power of consciously transforming the world dilutes...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...maybe now Raz will understand why I treat beliefs as being Karma...because I bet that was the reason he dodged a reply....

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

You obviously don't understand why Maturana and Varela have discarded "information" as an explanatory concept. This is not about "language games". It is about starting from "living systems" as the ontological and epistemological substrate rather than elemental particles or energy. Those concepts are evoked by those living systems (humans) which operate as though in "an observer realm" as a major aspect of their adaptive behavior. Essentially there are no "sensory inputs"....there are merely "perturbences of structure" which result in restructuring.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Essentially there are no "sensory inputs"....there are merely "perturbences of structure" which result in restructuring.

Which in turn means you cannot locate nor describe the workings of the observer anywhere you just assume it as an axiom...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Communication needs a medium of mechanical transmission from which "sensory input" could mean only able to transmit/emit as receive/capture language...but then going by your account language is the product of "mind"...perturbation and restructuring requires language, and mind cannot work without it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...you cannot have autopoesis without a base code firmly set in place...that base code is a form of language with an a priori set of rules from which new layers of specific communication are build deterministically from those base rules, it works like DNA...whatever emerges is the powerset of that primitive...

...you cannot have a unit building the components that build itself without a program which is an algorithm...an algorithm is not free thus mind is just a process...parts in a world, as mind is brought up from codes and rules and not from will...thus mind does not construct mind and autopoesis is a non fact...

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I am actually questioning if this is actually accurate. If space can be bent in the presence of gravity then how can you determine if time is an aspect of space?

Time is also distorted by gravity. The flow of time inside intense gravity wells (like black holes) slows down dramatically in comparison to the flow of time outside the well.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Your points are covered here, and in the Von Glasersfeld article (already cited on other threads)
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html#Language

1 Reply

@xxxx,

xxxx wrote:

time is an abstract measurment. Time is not needed in the universe. The natural world is simply movement through space and the coversion of energy to matter and matter to energy. Even without time the world would be able to function properly. There is no need for it.

NOW is also an illusion

0 Replies

@fresco,

if I just did post a video related to embodied cognition where processes of interaction between a program in a computer with its surrounding environment bring about what apparently seams rudimentary intelligent behaviour on which the computer does not know what a "wall" is or a "person" is and still can correctly interact with it through concrete objective measurements assigned from abstract algorithms in its programming ...programming which by the way is not free nor aware...so where in the hell (pardon me) is the biological observer ???
All you have there are functions in place, which by the way, environment and robot, could entirely be transposed to software, a game simulation constituted of binary coding top to bottom, and not necessarily a copy of natural world, but even, the all thing, could well be conceived with an artificial geometric non true to life, merely mathematical environment...
...intelligence is pure reaction of systems build upon mindless lower layers of systems...like a flock of birds there is no one on top controlling and "piloting" the flock, no master mind in place just pure mechanics...which not being algorithmically free, pretty much sound mindless process to me...though not chaotic...there is a reason why the book is called from bricks to minds...

0 Replies

...now what you mean Fresco is that each language has its own layer of context, its domain, and that interaction on that level between units, what you call disturbance, brings about an emergent language...but always you skip the part of explaining that the same set of rules for interaction apply s throughout all the domains...I don't care if the "wall" is conceptually a micro magnetic field or if it is bricks what I care when I use "wall" is a function...if the magnetic field let something pass through is not being a "wall" if it stops a lighter body then its being a "wall"...there you have your context...what it matters is function and function is the unwritten DNA of reality...a code on itself...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil wrote:

...yeah, yeah, but where, whom, and what, is the "observer" ? oh let me guess more "languaging" right ?
(not being deliberately provocative here really want know)
What "observation" itself consists off ultimately ?
(I know ultimate shouldn't be there but I leave it anyway)
Can there be progressive layer type levels of "observation" ?
Can or cannot observation refer to interaction in simple terms ? and if not why not and how do you know it ?

Ding an Sich wrote:

If language is an abstract function, then language exists! Simple existential generalization. However, it does not exist independently of us, and it seems nebulous to talk about it in such a away.

Close enough to what I also think - I was using my original reply as a statement of comparison, not as a literal statement regarding the state of things.

Although, you can use autopoiesis to account for the languaging of given organisms, but even then this requires a observer noting phenomenal domains. So really it's nebulous to talk about language independent of some observer.

I probably should have left this part out of the quote I cut & pasted. That's what happens when you lazily read the second paragraph after finding you agree with the first

As you may recall from previous threads, I disagree that we ARE language. I consider that language gives our brain greater structure, but also that language isn't the foundation of that structure, nor the sole 'structure / influencer of behaviour within our brain.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You obviously don't understand why Maturana and Varela have discarded "information" as an explanatory concept. This is not about "language games". It is about starting from "living systems" as the ontological and epistemological substrate rather than elemental particles or energy. Those concepts are evoked by those living systems (humans) which operate as though in "an observer realm" as a major aspect of their adaptive behavior. Essentially there are no "sensory inputs"....there are merely "perturbences of structure" which result in restructuring.

Uh, but I do. I just read the damn book. I know what it's all about. And, no, I do not conflate language games with anything occurring in Autopoiesis and Cognition.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Fil wrote:
...yeah, yeah, but where, whom, and what, is the "observer" ? oh let me guess more "languaging" right ?
(not being deliberately provocative here really want know)
What "observation" itself consists off ultimately ?
(I know ultimate shouldn't be there but I leave it anyway)
Can there be progressive layer type levels of "observation" ?
Can or cannot observation refer to interaction in simple terms ? and if not why not and how do you know it ?

Ding an Sich wrote:
If language is an abstract function, then language exists! Simple existential generalization. However, it does not exist independently of us, and it seems nebulous to talk about it in such a away.

Close enough to what I also think - I was using my original reply as a statement of comparison, not as a literal statement regarding the state of things.

Although, you can use autopoiesis to account for the languaging of given organisms, but even then this requires a observer noting phenomenal domains. So really it's nebulous to talk about language independent of some observer.

I probably should have left this part out of the quote I cut & pasted. That's what happens when you lazily read the second paragraph after finding you agree with the first

As you may recall from previous threads, I disagree that we ARE language. I consider that language gives our brain greater structure, but also that language isn't the foundation of that structure, nor the sole 'structure / influencer of behaviour within our brain.

I agree too that we are not language. I'm simply playing devil's advocate, being the correlationist.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Krumple wrote:

I am actually questioning if this is actually accurate. If space can be bent in the presence of gravity then how can you determine if time is an aspect of space?

Time is also distorted by gravity. The flow of time inside intense gravity wells (like black holes) slows down dramatically in comparison to the flow of time outside the well.

Well this is what I am objecting to. The thoughts come from the course electrons take. The theory goes that electrons will take every single path possible which doesn't make sense if you talk about the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. But what if that straight line is actually bent but appears to not be? But to the electron the line is bent and therefore it takes the shortest path which to us seems to not make sense? It is taking the real true path between the two points but we see it as a path of strangeness.

You see the similar thing with light near blackholes. The light itself is not being bent. The space that the light is traveling in is being bent by the blackhole, the light is still traveling in a straight line but to us it appears as though the light is being bent. However if we start talking about time slowing down near blackholes then light would HAVE to travel slower according to the space it is traveling in and there goes the constant.

I say in my theory, light wouldn't be effected by the gravity and would still be able to maintain it's velocity regardless of the strength of gravity but since the space itself is distorted the light is forced to corrispond with the space. Just like light traveling through water. Looking from the surface at an object sitting in the water the image seems to bend and distort. I think space has this same effect on light yet the light is actually not effected by the medium. It is the medium that is distorting the light.

This also would free up the paradox that occurs near the event horizon. Using the double point of view problem. If two people are near an event horizon, where one is falling into it and another is outside observing the person falling in. One would see constant motion while the other would see a freezing of time. How can two events happening at the same time be both frozen and moving at the same time? Not to mention the light traveling between the two people wouldn't be effected by crossing these time moments? How could you see the other object if time were to freeze?

I think these tought experiements neglect a crutial aspect of space-time. I say it works for space but not for time. Time HAS to be seperate from space even though on many observations it appears to be connected but that is because space distorts in the presence of gravity. You can't then determine if time is seperate and thus you would conclude that it is connected. I say these thought experiments reveal that time can not be connected if they were to work.

0 Replies

...the problem is not non euclidean space but variation in velocity from different observers in relation to light which is constant...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...I seams as given increasing motion all processes travel more space to occur, including cellular activity which in turns means ageing would slow down in relation to a third party observer with a different speed although it would stay the same to us...

Quote:

light wouldn't be effected by the gravity and would still be able to maintain it's velocity regardless of the strength of gravity

light not affected by gravity in a black hole ? its the benting of space that changes its direction towards it and not a "force" pushing it in...even if a photon had a rest mass zero since is in motion with momentum and energy it works as having mass, since energy is equivalent to mass, but that is beside the point...

1 Reply

Time simply does not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know