Kay17:


Then if progression removed from the picture, it implies that everything happens in an instant, right?

"In an instant" is begging the question, but yes (sort of). It would be a bit like experiencing a landscape instead of looking through a heap of snapshots of the landscape.

Kay17:
Also is this figment of man's imagination, is a conscious or unconscious function of the brain?

I think consciousness pervades everything, so it is conscious.

AllNaijaBlogger:


So you're not a christian.

Okay.


What if time does not exist? Or time is relative?

Have you seen the movie "interstellar"

In science, time is relative.

No, I haven't seen the movie.

PastorAIO:


The brain scanner creates TIME to measure these changes. But this TIME does not exist to the whole brain. TIME is just a side effect the scanner suffers due to its limited perception.

After creating TIME, the scanner then tries to explain the artificial CHANGES in terms of CAUSE AND EFFECT. But CAUSE AND EFFECT is just an illusion caused by the creation of artificial TIME.

The scanner goes on to ask about ORIGIN. Because of its limited perception, it sees one cell appearing before another. It thinks it is all due to CAUSE AND EFFECT. So, it asks, where does it all begin.

BUT the image is ONE. TIME is an illusion. CAUSE AND EFFECT is an illusion. ORIGIN is an illusion.

Hmmmm.... Can we stretch this idea out? We experience events as occurring one after the other in time and we presume a Causal chain. Yet is it only Time that is a tool for organising experience? What about space? We see events occuring here and there and we presume that there are influences that extend from one event to the other. e.g I'm hot because the Sun above is hot.


But to be fair to this presumption of causality there does seem to be patterns. When a guy sows it follows (more often that not) that a few months later he will reap according to what he sowed.

Further more we have a sense of being able to exercise choices. ALSO we have a sense of being faced with a number of possible futures.

So if, as you claimed, we can 'visualize the whole' ....



... How whole is that Whole? To Wholly visualize something we would need to grasp NOT ONLY it's contours along a Time dimension but also all it's POSSIBLE manifestations. This would require us to 'factor out' an Hyper-space.


I hope what I'm writing doesn't sound to convoluted.

I'm trying to postulate an object that is perceived Wholly and immediately, i.e it's contours extend through our normal 3 dimensional space, it also extends across Time, and furthermore it's contours also extend across a number of hyper dimensional spaces (perhaps an infinite number of hyper dimensions).

When we return to experiencing Time moment by moment we lose sight of the object's contours across time, and also we lose sight of all the infinite possibilities that could be occurring in that instant. The object becomes an Actuality. So Actuality is nothing but a fragment of the real essence of being.

I just want to add that we should not forget that our perceptions are limited to 3 dimensions.
We are made to believe that there are additional dimension beyond the 3 that we are able to perceive. A 4 or 5 dimensional object might have a tangent where Length, Breath , Height and Time intersect and interact.

sinequanon:


In science, time is relative.

No, I haven't seen the movie.

What if time doesn't exist?

sinequanon:


A figment of our limited perception.

It is a way our brain organizes events.

If we had "perfect recall" and "perfect infinite anticipation" we would comprehend everything in an instant, and there would be no TIME as we commonly know it.

If there were no such thing as change then there would be no need for Time. Yet there are also differences of qualities from Here to There. So Space too is just a field created to facilitate perception of a variety of qualities.

Differences can be marked across Time (evolution) and across Space. If everything were always the same there would be no need for time. If everywhere were the same as everywhere else then there would be no need for Space.

London is cold, Lagos is Warm. That difference (all differences) is at the heart of every distinction between here and there. Now and then.

AllNaijaBlogger:




Thanks for eloquently stating the bold.

My problem with Sinequannon is that he/she turns science into a religion and makes it sound more philosophical than it is.

We are learning though science and we are seeing how time, matter and space are things that can be counter-intuitive at the quantum level.

To suggest that science is stuck (as Sinequanon did) means that we aren't learning new things about time, space and matter.

If I may jump to the defence of Sinequanon, I believe what he meant was the Philosophy of Science, i.e. the attitude that informs a lot of science. Especially Materialism comes to mind.

the findings of Quantum Physics were not readily accepted because they confounded deeply held beliefs about Nature. Was it Einstein that said something about 'God and Dice'. Scientists have shaken off those attitudes and beliefs about nature when it comes to that field but that philosophy still informs the way they do Science in other fields.

Religion too has been afflicted with this way of thinking but definitely it doesn't apply to all religionists. It is a certain way of seeing the world that has informed both Science and Religion. Yeah Science is first off the mark to begin to shake of that attitude publicly, but many religionist are still stuck in that way of thinking. However many religionist, moreso in the past than in the present, are also open to learning new things.

PastorAIO:
I hope what I'm writing doesn't sound to convoluted.

I'm trying to postulate an object that is perceived Wholly and immediately, i.e it's contours extend through our normal 3 dimensional space, it also extends across Time, and furthermore it's contours also extend across a number of hyper dimensional spaces (perhaps an infinite number of hyper dimensions).

When we return to experiencing Time moment by moment we lose sight of the object's contours across time, and also we lose sight of all the infinite possibilities that could be occurring in that instant. The object becomes an Actuality. So Actuality is nothing but a fragment of the real essence of being.

Absolutely! Not convoluted at all.

If it wasn't for my original focus on temporal origin, and how it has spawned religious questions, I could have included spatial dimension.

Quantum Mechanics, and the multi-verse hypothesis is modeled much in the way you have described, and the "object" you describe is a "non-classical" object. It has been hypothesized that a classical object description of matter leads to time/space inconsistency -- something happening and not happening at the same time.

PastorAIO:
But to be fair to this presumption of causality there does seem to be patterns. When a guy sows it follows (more often that not) that a few months later he will reap according to what he sowed.

Further more we have a sense of being able to exercise choices. ALSO we have a sense of being faced with a number of possible futures.

Could that be TIME simply obfuscating the whole?

What is sown and what is reaped is all one, but the latter is made to look remote by the interposition of TIME?

sinequanon:




Could that be TIME simply obfuscating the whole?

What is sown and what is reaped is all one, but the latter is made to look remote by the interposition of TIME?

Yet Time doesn't give us the impression of reaping without giving us the impression of Sowing.

So if I hope to have the impression of bountiful reaping I would be best advised to exercise the impression of sowing.

PastorAIO:


If I may jump to the defence of Sinequanon, I believe what he meant was the Philosophy of Science, i.e. the attitude that informs a lot of science. Especially Materialism comes to mind.

the findings of Quantum Physics were not readily accepted because they confounded deeply held beliefs about Nature. Was it Einstein that said something about 'God and Dice'. Scientists have shaken off those attitudes and beliefs about nature when it comes to that field but that philosophy still informs the way they do Science in other fields.

Religion too has been afflicted with this way of thinking but definitely it doesn't apply to all religionists. It is a certain way of seeing the world that has informed both Science and Religion. Yeah Science is first off the mark to begin to shake of that attitude publicly, but many religionist are still stuck in that way of thinking. However many religionist, moreso in the past than in the present, are also open to learning new things.

Oh definitely.
It is human nature to oppose change.
It happens to all of us too.

But unlike religion, science has evolved a methodology for sifting through and evaluating information, so that the personal bias and personal dogmas are diluted to the bearest minimum influence. Science shows a progressive(even if slow) trend to always re-evaluate itself and it's path.
We cannot say the same for religion.
There are no ways to compare science and religion.

PastorAIO:


If there were no such thing as change then there would be no need for Time. Yet there are also differences of qualities from Here to There. So Space too is just a field created to facilitate perception of a variety of qualities.

Agreed.

PastorAIO:
Differences can be marked across Time (evolution) and across Space. If everything were always the same there would be no need for time. If everywhere were the same as everywhere else then there would be no need for Space.

London is cold, Lagos is Warm. That difference (all differences) is at the heart of every distinction between here and there. Now and then.

But even if we didn't have isotropy, would we need a concept of space.

Space and time are concepts of remoteness of information. Our concepts of space and time evolved in order to help us estimate acquisition of information. We don't need those tools if we have perfect comprehension.

So I would say that space and time are figments of our lack of comprehension.

sinequanon:


Absolutely! Not convoluted at all.

If it wasn't for my original focus on temporal origin, and how it has spawned religious questions, I could have included spatial dimension.

Quantum Mechanics, and the multi-verse hypothesis is modeled much in the way you have described, and the "object" you describe is a "non-classical" object. It has been hypothesized that a classical object description of matter leads to time/space inconsistency -- something happening and not happening at the same time.



Could that be TIME simply obfuscating the whole?

What is sown and what is reaped is all one, but the latter is made to look remote by the interposition of TIME?

On this , I would agree.
By this, the past, the present and the future could all be happening at once, and the element of time, the duration of consciousness, separates them.

PastorAIO:


If I may jump to the defence of Sinequanon, I believe what he meant was the Philosophy of Science, i.e. the attitude that informs a lot of science. Especially Materialism comes to mind.

the findings of Quantum Physics were not readily accepted because they confounded deeply held beliefs about Nature. Was it Einstein that said something about 'God and Dice'. Scientists have shaken off those attitudes and beliefs about nature when it comes to that field but that philosophy still informs the way they do Science in other fields.

Religion too has been afflicted with this way of thinking but definitely it doesn't apply to all religionists. It is a certain way of seeing the world that has informed both Science and Religion. Yeah Science is first off the mark to begin to shake of that attitude publicly, but many religionist are still stuck in that way of thinking. However many religionist, moreso in the past than in the present, are also open to learning new things.

Only material things can be measured. That is not philosophy but evidence and cold hard fact. I wonder why people need to philosophize science and lie about it to attack atheists.

Christianity deals with both material and spiritual. I believe that there is another dimension....a spiritual dimension that is beyond science. But I do not need to philosophize science

plaetton:


Oh definitely.
It is human nature to oppose change.
It happens to all of us too.

But unlike religion, science has evolved a methodology for sifting through and evaluating information, so that the personal bias and personal dogmas are diluted to the bearest minimum influence. Science shows a progressive(even if slow) trend to always re-evaluate itself and it's path.
We cannot say the same for religion.
There are no ways to compare science and religion.

It depends on what you mean by religion. If you include religion as a means of social engineering then we're more likely to see resistance to change.
Similarly, when science becomes a political tool we get all sorts of hanky panky. For example the debate on Global warming. When a corporation is aware that science is about to expose that it's way of making money is harmful for humanity, all it has to do is pay some scientist to do research that will counter the discovery.

There is nothing human that cannot be corrupted. Science is allowed to exercise it methodologies only as long as it's results yield a political advantage for a certain elite. Of course Religion has been a political tool a lot longer than science has been but it's only a matter of time.

PastorAIO:


Yet Time doesn't give us the impression of reaping without giving us the impression of Sowing.

So if I hope to have the impression of bountiful reaping I would be best advised to exercise the impression of sowing.

But these are impressions.

What if the "WHOLE" were a clap of thunder. The thunder and the lightning are one event whose effects arrive at different points in time, because of our remote and limited apprehension. Time may give us the impression of two events, even, one perhaps causing the other. But, if we were omniscient, there would be no such figment of our perception.

PastorAIO:


It depends on what you mean by religion. If you include religion as a means of social engineering then we're more likely to see resistance to change.
Similarly, when science becomes a political tool we get all sorts of hanky panky. For example the debate on Global warming. When a corporation is aware that science is about to expose that it's way of making money is harmful for humanity, all it has to do is pay some scientist to do research that will counter the discovery.

There is nothing human that cannot be corrupted. Science is allowed to exercise it methodologies only as long as it's results yield a political advantage for a certain elite. Of course Religion has been a political tool a lot longer than science has been but it's only a matter of time.

You are countering yourself and proving how science is the least biased/political tool know to man.

Science eventually corrected itself on the climate change hoax. (despite fraudulent climate change research works)
Science eventually admitted that our universe had a beginning. (despite classical scientists claiming the opposite)
Science eventually admitted that ecstasy as a drug had little or no negative side effects (despite govt research claiming the opposite earlier)

AllNaijaBlogger:



You are countering yourself and proving how science is the least biased/political tool know to man.

Science eventually corrected itself on the climate change hoax. (despite fraudulent climate change research works)
Science eventually admitted that our universe had a beginning. (despite classical scientists claiming the opposite)
Science eventually admitted that ecstasy as a drug had little or no negative side effects (despite govt research claiming the opposite earlier)

Dude, you seem to not know what we are talking about.

double post

sinequanon:


But these are impressions.

What if the "WHOLE" were a clap of thunder. The thunder and the lightning are one event whose effects arrive at different points in time, because of our remote and limited apprehension. Time may give us the impression of two events, even, one perhaps causing the other. But, if we were omniscient, there would be no such figment of our perception.

I totally get you. That would suggest that Real Cause is outside of time and that it works by creating an apparent cause and effect (in time).

PastorAIO:


It depends on what you mean by religion. If you include religion as a means of social engineering then we're more likely to see resistance to change.
Similarly, when science becomes a political tool we get all sorts of hanky panky. For example the debate on Global warming. When a corporation is aware that science is about to expose that it's way of making money is harmful for humanity, all it has to do is pay some scientist to do research that will counter the discovery.

There is nothing human that cannot be corrupted. Science is allowed to exercise it methodologies only as long as it's results yield a political advantage for a certain elite. Of course Religion has been a political tool a lot longer than science has been but it's only a matter of time.

The methodology of science eventually weeds out the bias and dogma, whether politically or economically motivated.
Global warming deniers, just like their Intelligent Design counterparts are eventually exposed, and are forced into shame as the facts eventually and inevitably bear down on them.

plaetton:

The methodology of science eventually weeds out the bias and dogma, whether politically or economically motivated.
Global warming deniers, just like their Intelligent Design counterparts are eventually exposed, and are forced into shame as the facts eventually and inevitably bear down on them.

plaetton:
double post

Like when? Where have Global warming deniers been exposed? Especially when it comes to providing evidence that will affect industry.

PastorAIO:


Dude, you seem to not know what we are talking about.

Wow. So disrespectful considering that you started talking to me first?

Thanks for your time

PastorAIO:

Dude, you seem to not know what we are talking about.

Did I not just make the exact point with Plaetton?

plaetton:


The methodology of science eventually weeds out the bias and dogma, whether politically or economically motivated.


Global warming deniers, just like their Intelligent Design counterparts are eventually exposed, and are forced into shame as the facts eventually and inevitably bear down on them.

AllNaijaBlogger:

You are countering yourself and proving how science is the least biased/political tool know to man.
Science eventually corrected itself on the climate change hoax. (despite fraudulent climate change research works)
Science eventually admitted that our universe had a beginning. (despite classical scientists claiming the opposite)
Science eventually admitted that ecstasy as a drug had little or no negative side effects (despite govt research claiming the opposite earlier)

PastorAIO:


Like when? Where have Global warming deniers been exposed? Especially when it comes to providing evidence that will affect industry.

Some of the notable anti-global warming scientists have been exposed as receiving direct and indirect research funding from corporate interests .
A few have changed their stance on the issue.
But the rightwing political elite continue to spew the anti-global warming propaganda.

Another example was when , for a long time, industry funded scientists insisted that nicotine and cigarrette smoking did not pose a serious health risk.
Now, all have recanted because the same science has proven otherwise.

AllNaijaBlogger:


Wow. So disrespectful considering that you started talking to me first?

Thanks for your time

Bros, I'm very sorry. Abeg accept my apology.

I guess at the point that I saw your post my head was deeply into what Sinequanon was saying and it seemed that your post was a distraction.

However you were totally on topic, so once again I apologise.

Please can you provide any links for where global warming deniers were exposed? Especailly when it comes to providing evidence that will affect industry.

plaetton:


Some of the notable anti-global warming scientists have been exposed as receiving direct and indirect research funding from corporate interests .
A few have changed their stance on the issue.
But the rightwing political elite continue to spew the anti-global warming propaganda.

Another example was when , for a long time, industry funded scientists insisted that nicotine and cigarrette smoking did not pose a serious health risk.
Now, all have recanted because the same science has proven otherwise.

Please can you provide me some links. I'm not being strong headed, it's just that this is the first that I'm hearing that htey've been exposed.

PastorAIO:
There is nothing human that cannot be corrupted. Science is allowed to exercise it methodologies only as long as it's results yield a political advantage for a certain elite. Of course Religion has been a political tool a lot longer than science has been but it's only a matter of time.

Science is beset with political conformance, ritual, taboo, pressures of self-preservation, etc. etc. just like any other religion. Science has also developed an extremely slick PR machine over the generations, capable of duping folks with shallow understanding of science in practice.

To be honest, I measure things by their behaviour in practice, not by their purported intent.

AllNaijaBlogger:



Only material things can be measured. That is not philosophy but evidence and cold hard fact. I wonder why people need to philosophize science and lie about it to attack atheists.

Christianity deals with both material and spiritual. I believe that there is another dimension....a spiritual dimension that is beyond science. But I do not need to philosophize science

Aaaah! This was why I spoke sharply to you, I quoted the wrong post. It seemed that you didn't know what I meant by Materialism.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.
Materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Materialism is a philosophical position and it informs a lot of scientists. I wouldn't lie to attack atheists. I wouldn't even attack atheists. But I'd argue against atheism and I don't need lies to do that.

PastorAIO:


Please can you provide me some links. I'm not being strong headed, it's just that this is the first that I'm hearing that htey've been exposed.

I saw it in 60 Minutes documentary some time ago where the same set of scientists were linked and funded by the coal industry, The GMO companies and even cigarette companies in past to use science to counter arguments against global warming, GMO foods and the health effects of nicotine, respectively.

I will search and see if I can find any web links.

sinequanon:


Science is beset with political conformance, ritual, taboo, pressures of self-preservation, etc. etc. just like any other religion. Science has also developed an extremely slick PR machine over the generations, capable of duping folks with shallow understanding of science in practice.

To be honest, I measure things by their behaviour in practice, not by their purported intent.

The PR thing is essential. When you rely on public funds to conduct your experiments then you need to convince the public that is worthwhile. Hence all the popular science books that many of us pseudo-scientists on NL are fond of reading. These books seek to simplify the latest discoveries just enough to convince us that our taxes are being spent on worthwhile projects.

sinequanon:


Science is beset with political conformance, ritual, taboo, pressures of self-preservation, etc. etc. just like any other religion. Science has also developed an extremely slick PR machine over the generations, capable of duping folks with shallow understanding of science in practice.

To be honest, I measure things by their behaviour in practice, not by their purported intent.

This is where you are wrong.

It is ok to say that individual scientists, mainstream scientists, may have a bias towards certain areas of study , or a taboo towards certain areas of study.
That is also true of economics, politics, even philosophy. In fact, humans as a whole , love to imprint their bias on whatever they do.
Now, to state that science , as a body, has a PR machine that they use to dupe the public is quite an immature use of language, to use a mild tone.
What is science by the way?

Astrology, for example, is a science. It is a science for which many scientists will keep their distance, for many reasons.
First, it does not have parameters that can be calibrated, tested and measured in any reasonable way and time.
Secondly, there exists no profit motive to spur or encourage funding for research.
Thirdly, there is no forseeable immediate or longer term benefit for either the curious scientist or for humanity at large.
Therefore, the science of astrology, once the most important science in antiquity, is relegated to realms of superstition and pseudo-science.

Does that take away the fact that it is still a science? I think not?
Does it in any way threaten the fabrics of mechanistic mainstream science? I think not

It is simply that no one is interested in it.

Time to comment on some of the things I disagreed with in that excellent and insightful video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI

4:10 humans are the only creatures who empathize (the frontal lobe enables us to empathize "for the first time".)

Animals do it all the time. A dog doesn't just bite. It has a good idea how much pain it may inflict, and will be gentle if it just wants to hold something. Even an elephant would avoid trampling something that is not a threat.

One of my favorite observations is of 3 crows. One huge crow (may have been a raven) and two smaller crows found a small road kill. HUGE monopolized the kill while LITTLE A and LITTLE B stood back. Eventually, they got impatient, and together they approached HUGE from behind. HUGE swung round, and the LITTLEs backed off. Then an interesting thing happened..

As LITTLE A and LITTLE B approached HUGE from behind once more, LITTLE B slowed down a bit, and then STABBED LITTLE A in the behind!!

Taken by surprise, LITTLE A shot forward in what looked to HUGE like a concerted attack. At this point, HUGE lost the psychological battle and took off!

So LITTLE B figured that HUGE would be deceived! Quite Machiavellian!

PastorAIO:


The PR thing is essential. When you rely on public funds to conduct your experiments then you need to convince the public that is worthwhile. Hence all the popular science books that many of us pseudo-scientists on NL are fond of reading. These books seek to simplify the latest discoveries just enough to convince us that our taxes are being spent on worthwhile projects.

But is the science the problem or the political and economic hegemons that we have all surrendered our wills to?