errors and progress:
"i think generally history is put across as this catalogue of progress, as a grand accretion of knowledge, but there's something lacking, a recognition of error, or even that we could be wrong somewhat. it's all a little one sided."
"you think historians won't admit to mistakes made? it's all a glorification of the past?"
"something more insidious than that. it's like we make errors in our thinking, and we follow on from that, we build the craziness up until it almost consumes us, for decades or hundreds of years even, and then finally we recognize we were wrong and then it's wiped out, and we don't really talk about it again. it's not like it's a cover up. it's just this vacant time that's been lost."
"right, what were we thinking? so life is like the game of snakes and ladders? we make mistakes and back we go?"
"exactly. it's like, the truth is immortality. the very thought that you could be fundamentally crazy about reality or something in life is really frightening at some point for everyone, i think. and all the time you were crazy you were on the path to mortality. but i mean, even the thought that you might never know the truth about something important is pretty disturbing to anyone, right? and no one wants to really die, right? all this time spent being crazy isn't just not desirable, it's dangerous. it's hazardous to your health."
"but someone might say, we may never know the truth, that we cannot know anything for certain?"
"yes, and i think that's reasonable, but my theory is the truth fits better than a falsity. it's like it's ultimately easier to think about the truth than something that's false is the best i can put it."
"that makes sense. the truth works."
"like i have problems with belief about modern science. because i don't believe that people are powerless beings in a universe with fixed unchanging physical laws as it's put, that these scientific laws exist without the human element, so to speak, forever unchanging. i believe people are creative, sometimes very powerful beings. i wouldn't be shocked if it were put that great scientists were actually gods who created science not men who merely discovered it, that they had theories which they made real. they actually changed the way things work."
"so the world is more mental than physical. it's malleable by thought."
"yes. and that's why thought errors are dangerous."
"and Isaac Newton is the god of mechanics?"
"right, something like that. where science can't resolve something only says to me that something is false in the argument. it's like someone who has teleported knows the whole mechanical motion argument is false, but that's what the world seems. actually, nothing really moves as it seems, it's only the image that makes it seem so. that's the only explanation that works."
"i suppose it's one thing to teleport all the time in your dreams, i mean you move from one place to another in an instant, but another, quite shocking, to do it while you're awake. but how could it work, if physical laws have no original basis, that they were, in a sense, created later?"
"if it were true, you would have to imagine an earlier world, where things like these physical laws simply didn't hold, where objects behaved differently."
"so it's like the popular notion that magic existed hundreds of years ago to be replaced by modern science, that the world was a very different place a long time ago?"
"like that. the essence is that science really didn't exist hundreds of years ago."
"what else?"
"so i've thought about time and how a movie projector is supposed to work, and it's along the lines of best fit. the argument is that time and change are discrete, like the frames of the film passing through the movie projector at 24 frames per second. just as you couldn't show a infinite number of frames in the projector, time cannot be continuous, it cannot have infinitesimal change, change is discrete. it merely seems continuous like a movie does."
"but if change is discrete, are the states of real matter finite therefore?"
"well if they are finite, i guess that means repetition seems inevitable, but there is still the question of time how long states last and does that vary? but i guess it's still too early to tell. but discrete change doesn't necessarily mean there are finite states, does it?"
"i guess there still could be an infinite number of states. i'm going on like infinite is a good thing, aren't i?"
"yeah. nobody wants everything to happen, right?"
CLEARCHARGE
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Saturday, January 5, 2013
A Shifting Mosaic of Time
a shifting mosaic of time:
so, let us again posit that nothing moves physically in actuality, that physical motion is but an illusion, a delusion even, brought about by the sensational nature of our eyesight, a product of sense naivete about reality, a gullibility born of the way things look and appear. now i'm afraid i digress, i hazard a guess that the original meaning of the word "physical" was to do with the human body alone, for that is what it still means primarily to me, but that this later mutated to also mean about inanimate objects as well, and so on. i am not going to deal with the conflicting philosophical concepts of duality or monism here. here let matter mean anything that exists, to put it most simply, whether it be mental or "physical". this is somewhat different to contemporary usage and concepts, but again i hazard a guess that this is the original meaning.
in a reality where there is no physical motion, where all matter is static in space, where all matter has permanent neighbours, so to speak, the popular concept of "motion" actually happening would be the horrific breakup of matter in reality space, the ultimate sickness that cannot happen, that things actually moved away or left!
now matter does not move, but it does change, though again i digress, perhaps not all matter changes at all, that is a theoretical possibility. now let us dismiss the mathematicians' and physicists' concepts of continuous numbers, continuous motion, even infinity perhaps, and certainly infinitesimals, the infinitely little. but how does it change? what is time? the only concept that is left to me is that, if you imagine the entirety of reality to be a massive solid mosaic, and each tile representing a "least bit of matter" which i have explained in previous posts, is that all matter that changes changes suddenly to another "state" or "version", there is a "holding" period where it stays the same, then suddenly it changes again to yet another "state" or "version" of itself. as is apparent from thinking about light and our own eyesight and changes, it can be deduced that not everything changes "at the same time", each "tile" to its own beat, so to speak. "holding" periods of time when a "tile" stays the same are different too. all this could be visually represented by computer graphics, i am sure, but unfortunately i don't know how to code a program to show all this! of course, all this is predicated on the assumption that change is discrete, that infinitesimal increments of time are not real, it only seems so perhaps sometimes, and that "time" is different in a sense, everywhere.
CLEARCHARGE
so, let us again posit that nothing moves physically in actuality, that physical motion is but an illusion, a delusion even, brought about by the sensational nature of our eyesight, a product of sense naivete about reality, a gullibility born of the way things look and appear. now i'm afraid i digress, i hazard a guess that the original meaning of the word "physical" was to do with the human body alone, for that is what it still means primarily to me, but that this later mutated to also mean about inanimate objects as well, and so on. i am not going to deal with the conflicting philosophical concepts of duality or monism here. here let matter mean anything that exists, to put it most simply, whether it be mental or "physical". this is somewhat different to contemporary usage and concepts, but again i hazard a guess that this is the original meaning.
in a reality where there is no physical motion, where all matter is static in space, where all matter has permanent neighbours, so to speak, the popular concept of "motion" actually happening would be the horrific breakup of matter in reality space, the ultimate sickness that cannot happen, that things actually moved away or left!
now matter does not move, but it does change, though again i digress, perhaps not all matter changes at all, that is a theoretical possibility. now let us dismiss the mathematicians' and physicists' concepts of continuous numbers, continuous motion, even infinity perhaps, and certainly infinitesimals, the infinitely little. but how does it change? what is time? the only concept that is left to me is that, if you imagine the entirety of reality to be a massive solid mosaic, and each tile representing a "least bit of matter" which i have explained in previous posts, is that all matter that changes changes suddenly to another "state" or "version", there is a "holding" period where it stays the same, then suddenly it changes again to yet another "state" or "version" of itself. as is apparent from thinking about light and our own eyesight and changes, it can be deduced that not everything changes "at the same time", each "tile" to its own beat, so to speak. "holding" periods of time when a "tile" stays the same are different too. all this could be visually represented by computer graphics, i am sure, but unfortunately i don't know how to code a program to show all this! of course, all this is predicated on the assumption that change is discrete, that infinitesimal increments of time are not real, it only seems so perhaps sometimes, and that "time" is different in a sense, everywhere.
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, December 17, 2011
A Question of Precedence
a question of precedence:
the human mind is a powerful tool, apparently, as it can shape events. and the universe is ever changing. in an excited, unstable and highly emotional state, the mind can warp reality, indeed perhaps even change natural laws which hold in more normal, settled times. this is how it seems. now this could be dismissed as just flawed perception, that the actual universe has not changed, but to do so would be to dismiss and underweight perception and consciousness itself, to deny personal experience as important. in someone's strange, wild and crazy world, unusual things are happening! there is an assumption that we receive correct data from an "external world" to our brain and to our senses, that there is no great individual power to change this "external world" through our being, that there is no forceful feedback that can alter the state of it, so to speak.
posit that a great, and mad, scientist, perhaps in a dream, perhaps from an unusual experience, perhaps in an epiphany, creates a theory of how something works. his or her mind is engrossed with theoretical possibilities and detail, mechanical metrics and hypotheses and statistics. he or she, very excited, doesn't sleep for days and, when he or she does, has strange vivid dreams. then this mad scientist invents a machine or test to determine whether this hitherto only theoretical stuff is true or works. and it does. the question is, is this really science, is this the way things were or has the scientist changed them? or is it magic, is he or she actually a wizard of some kind? or just the god of this new machine and theory?
there may be true natural laws which came before thought chanced upon them, but what if we have altered the universe with our minds, created new systems, which we now label as "science"?
CLEARCHARGE
the human mind is a powerful tool, apparently, as it can shape events. and the universe is ever changing. in an excited, unstable and highly emotional state, the mind can warp reality, indeed perhaps even change natural laws which hold in more normal, settled times. this is how it seems. now this could be dismissed as just flawed perception, that the actual universe has not changed, but to do so would be to dismiss and underweight perception and consciousness itself, to deny personal experience as important. in someone's strange, wild and crazy world, unusual things are happening! there is an assumption that we receive correct data from an "external world" to our brain and to our senses, that there is no great individual power to change this "external world" through our being, that there is no forceful feedback that can alter the state of it, so to speak.
posit that a great, and mad, scientist, perhaps in a dream, perhaps from an unusual experience, perhaps in an epiphany, creates a theory of how something works. his or her mind is engrossed with theoretical possibilities and detail, mechanical metrics and hypotheses and statistics. he or she, very excited, doesn't sleep for days and, when he or she does, has strange vivid dreams. then this mad scientist invents a machine or test to determine whether this hitherto only theoretical stuff is true or works. and it does. the question is, is this really science, is this the way things were or has the scientist changed them? or is it magic, is he or she actually a wizard of some kind? or just the god of this new machine and theory?
there may be true natural laws which came before thought chanced upon them, but what if we have altered the universe with our minds, created new systems, which we now label as "science"?
CLEARCHARGE
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Observation and Manipulation
observation and manipulation:
when something happens that is fantastic, the natural line of questioning begins thus....
did i make this happen? am i responsible?
can i repeat it?
the old practitioner has long mastered the variables involved required to bring about a certain effect. if i do this and this, then that happens. if i alter this variable in such a way, then something happens that is different.
the master has sensed the importance of the sources of the event manifest, and become an expert in managing the result.
CLEARCHARGE
when something happens that is fantastic, the natural line of questioning begins thus....
did i make this happen? am i responsible?
can i repeat it?
the old practitioner has long mastered the variables involved required to bring about a certain effect. if i do this and this, then that happens. if i alter this variable in such a way, then something happens that is different.
the master has sensed the importance of the sources of the event manifest, and become an expert in managing the result.
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Chemical Reactions
chemical reactions:
mass is a complex form of matter, small in the sense that there are many elements at the atomic and molecular level. molecules are tightly bound complexes of atoms.
light is usually the primary influence over mass, violent changes in the light give rise to electric currents so that an altered state occurs. the natural state of mass is in equilibrium. in inequilibrium, further electric currents feed into surrounding matter, which may affect light and sound.
valencies may differ, which give rise to unexpected chemical reactions, though a common valency may apply across molecules.
the image of a substance feeds into chemical reactions. there is a tangible resonance between an object and underlying electric currents between atoms and molecules.
CLEARCHARGE
mass is a complex form of matter, small in the sense that there are many elements at the atomic and molecular level. molecules are tightly bound complexes of atoms.
light is usually the primary influence over mass, violent changes in the light give rise to electric currents so that an altered state occurs. the natural state of mass is in equilibrium. in inequilibrium, further electric currents feed into surrounding matter, which may affect light and sound.
valencies may differ, which give rise to unexpected chemical reactions, though a common valency may apply across molecules.
the image of a substance feeds into chemical reactions. there is a tangible resonance between an object and underlying electric currents between atoms and molecules.
CLEARCHARGE
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Electrical States
electrical states:
what is an electric current?
certain particles that flow and cause various changes in mass, light and sound. they are fundamental in all chemical reactions, all changes in mass elements arouse changes in other mass elements via electric currents.
as they are, some are inherently unstable and, of course, there are many kinds of electric currents....
as there are many kinds of colours and many kinds of substances.
CLEARCHARGE
what is an electric current?
certain particles that flow and cause various changes in mass, light and sound. they are fundamental in all chemical reactions, all changes in mass elements arouse changes in other mass elements via electric currents.
as they are, some are inherently unstable and, of course, there are many kinds of electric currents....
as there are many kinds of colours and many kinds of substances.
CLEARCHARGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)