pswfps wrote:I tend to visualise space-time like a bowl of lumpy custard. The lumps are "matter", a planet or star perhaps, and the liquid between is "empty space." In this way of thinking, the lumps and liquid are in actual fact made of the same wet powdery mixture and differ only in concentration. The analogy isn't perfect but I see the "matter" as super dense twists and knots in space-time whilst the space between is more tenuous or lesser twisted space-time. As with a lump of custard, a planets's physical boundary is not particularly definite and sort of bleeds out into the fabric of space-time as twists otherwise known as "gravity." Therefore I see matter, gravity and empty space as just different states of the same thing - space-time.
Einstein was an avid determinist and insisted on light being the fastest propagation of causality through space-time. This belief seemed to be in direct contradiction with the findings of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg; the apparent occurence of instantaneous non-local quantum interactions. (Google the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment") However, the fallacy seems to be one of assuming a causal relationship between the remote events. Bohr argued that the two events were an inseparable singular event in which there was no causal relationship. That is, the combined spin of the two remote electrons was a singular indivisible occurence regardless of distance between the two "particles." If one reverses spin, then so must the other. A non-local interdependency seems to exist. Einstein's disagreement with Bohr stemmed form his belief in local particle interactions only.
I think the really interesting thing here, is that both above paragraphs paint a picture of an inherently integrated and inseparable universe. On that they are compatible. That is, things do not exist in isolation, since there is no real distinction between "things." If there are no individually existing things, just a web of interrelated events in the fabric space-time, the concept of causality no longer works too well.
Is there a demarcation boundary between instinct and reason? Is there a demarcation boundary between anything between here and the Big Bang? Is demarcation boundary a part of nature or is it a necessity of human comprehension? Is category a fact of nature or is category a necessity of human comprehension? Is anything different in kind from anything else? Is everything different only in degree from everything else?
I conclude that demarcation boundary is not an essential characteristic of nature but is an essential characteristic of human comprehension. Everything is a seamless flow from the Big Bang to now. Only in our mind do we have a difference in kind.
I wrote the first two paragraphs of the OP several days ago and only 24 hours later did I fall off my horse. Lightening struck and I realized, finally, what I had written. This realization has led to a large number of connections for me. I was convinced of certain fragments of knowledge and only when I was knocked off my horse did I find these fragments became a synthesis that I shall have to realize by writing more essays.
To recognize as true that reality is a rainbow allows me to comprehend the error of classical metaphysical realism, which is the foundation of Western society's comprehension of reality. This may not be true for you but it is true for me.
Reality is a rainbow but we humans perceive reality as a myriad of containers! We perceive reality as containers because our "gut" tells us so and because classical metaphysics tells us so. Reality without demarcation boundaries means that everything is a seamless reality from everything else. It means that everything is not a kind of thing with its own necessary and sufficient nature but that all reality runs together and it is only in our minds that these containers exist.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace