Duality Becoming-Time

THE BECOMING AS DIMENSION

A dimension is the shortest path that tells us how to move from one point to another. Dimensions can be: straight lines and curved lines (geodesies) in space and the succession of changes (becoming) in duration. The dimensions have direction and sense. Space is 3D. The dimension of duration is becoming, where the direction and sense melt at a flowing point (present).

Characteristics of becoming:

1 - The becoming is a continuous succession of points.

2 - In time we go through all the points.

3 - To move from one point to another we should expect arrive.

4 - We know that a point is past because we remember it.

5 - The time interval is intuited.

The origin of the time coordinate can't be zero, a letter should be used, for example c = change. Zero represents nothing, the static. By this the origing point in the spacetime graphics must be (c, o).

Becoming: c ---------------------->

1 Reply

@sibilia,

the change is the reality of truth, so the abstract abstractions becoming objective freedom that truth concretly do realize

the change is the truth so the no possible change since truth is same always

but when truth is infinite proven fact objectively then truth must realize objective superiority as first value before its own

it is all matters of pur logics that never involve individuals but in forcing them to become more truly on their own so nothing to all and truth

0 Replies

Quote:

Imans says:
The change is the reality of truth, so the abstract abstractions becoming objective freedom that truth concretly do realize.

There's a pleonasm.

1 Reply

Becoming: c ---------------------->

Time is the extension of the phenomena, is represented by the length of a line or just a worth: 10 sec.

0 Replies

FOUR-DIMENSIONAL COSMOLOGY

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/284670_360002720741120_927608580_n.jpg

The mind conceives or intuits becoming ( c ) as an interval (time) by analogy with the dimensions of space.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

So all "events" are observer dependent ?

Really?

And that is something you know for a fact...or something you merely assert in order to further your concept of non-duality?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Isn't there that principle from quantum physics that says wave-function collapse occurs when a wave function is observed?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,

You simply cannot get beyond the level that your use of the word "fact" caries with it all the baggage of naive realism. My re-iteration of the point about the etymology of the word "fact" (from facere - to construct) falls on "deaf ears" in your case because you have a vested interest in a similar naive realist perspective on the verb "to know". Your whole rhetorical position, which you trumpet as "agnosticism", will crumble if you were to accept the constructivist theses advocated by many contemporary philosophers.

This is why your questioning about "knowing" is as vacuous to many of us as the child's annoying infinite regression of "and why is that" to any explanation offered.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Your point is well made, but Frank could cite the skeptics of such a model if he researched the matter.(Einstein being one !)

My approach to these questions has in essence moved on from citing "scientific authority" in support of philosophical arguments because I see "science" as a particular form of social discourse to which "philosophy" erroneously attempts to aspire, since its concerns are transcendent of the "goals of science". From that point of view, the directions of the discourse which we call "debate" are more revealing than the subject under discussion.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

From that point of view, the directions of the discourse which we call "debate" are more revealing than the subject under discussion.

..how contradictory is that reasoning, and how extremely tendentious...you speaking of on "how revealing" as suggesting a relation of cause and effect on how a subject approaches a debate from his internal circumstances and motives while all the way incapable of applying the same principle to that which is not the subject or beyond the subject...if nothing else say for instance other subjects...it is like if you are undecided on a solipsist approach to the world or otherwise incapable of seeing the necessary contradiction that such reasoning brings on as soon you admit there are other agents and causal relations between them...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

If you think "cause and effect" have any currency in a transcendent view, you have not understood that view. Think of gestalts. There are contexts, with foregrounds and backgrounds within a flux of interaction with no assumptions about mechanisms. That is probably as far as we can get.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Isn't there that principle from quantum physics that says wave-function collapse occurs when a wave function is observed?

Beats the **** out of me.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Frank,

You simply cannot get beyond the level that your use of the word "fact" caries with it all the baggage of naive realism. My re-iteration of the point about the etymology of the word "fact" (from facere - to construct) falls on "deaf ears" in your case because you have a vested interest in a similar naive realist perspective on the verb "to know". Your whole rhetorical position, which you trumpet as "agnosticism", will crumble if you were to accept the constructivist theses advocated by many contemporary philosophers.

This is why your questioning about "knowing" is as vacuous to many of us as the child's annoying infinite regression of "and why is that" to any explanation offered.

Ahhh...so you don't know it...you are just guessing.

That's what I thought.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

By the way, I am not picking on you here...so don't get that idea. I just do this kind of thing to all religious people to try to get them to think.

I usually doesn't work...so I am not particularly frustrated by it not working on you.

1 Reply

@sibilia,

no blissa there is no pleonasm in my sentence, abstraction is not the same thing then abstract, abstract is like nothing while abstraction is very objective thing, abstraction cant b but of and from objective visible fully facts

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Getting ME to think !......That's a good one, Frank !

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Getting ME to think !......That's a good one, Frank !

Yeah, that's the kind of reaction I often get from Christians when I talk about how lame the expression ""For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son...blah, blah, blah" is.

But your contention that "All events are observer dependent" is every bit as much a self-serving bit of rationalization as that. That contention is every bit as silly sounding to someone not wedded to a belief as any of the Christian contentions.

I am trying to get you to think about that no matter how absurd you consider the notion, fresco...and I am willing to accept that I am not succeeding.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Since when was the understanding , that "events" require "observers" to define them as such, "self serving"? Quite the contrary is the case because such an understanding also encompasses that of the illusory and transient nature of "self" Exclamation

.But of course, one whose thinking is entrenched...whose "awareness of self" is sacrosanct rather than itself being an ephemeral set of cognitive events characterized by inconsistencies and absences as it interacts with what it calls "the world" ....that one would indeed assume that its "thinking"was profound rather than superficial! Smile

2 Replies

@fresco,

Since zhe Germans came. Or was it the Greeks...

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Since when was the understanding , that "events" require "observers" to define them as such, "self serving"? Quite the contrary is the case because such an understanding also encompasses that of the illusory and transient nature of "self" .But of course, one whose thinking is entrenched...whose "awareness of self" is sacrosanct rather than itself being an ephemeral set of cognitive events characterized by inconsistencies and absences as it interacts with what it calls "the world" ....that one would indeed assume that its "thinking"was profound rather than superficial!

Please, Fresco...stop trying to change the rules in mid-game.

You wrote:

Quote:

So all "events" are observer dependent ?
i.e. No observer=no events =no "time" ? (...and presumably no "materiality")

You have repeatedly asserted that without an observer...there cannot be an event.

I say the assertion is on the level of "God so loved the world..."

It is nonsense...a mantra your particular form of religion requires.

But, as I have said several times, you are not going to realize it. Religious types seldom do.

2 Replies

Duality Becoming-Time

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know