tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post1873836893898833752..comments2018-01-14T06:12:56.056-08:00Comments on New Empiricism: Presentism and the denial of mindThoughtshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17866896441731516034noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post-91261955348670746882009-11-02T01:28:50.984-08:002009-11-02T01:28:50.984-08:00"So why isn't there some more apparent in..."So why isn't there some more apparent interaction between my brain and points in the distant universe at long-ago times." <br /><br />This was <a href="http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_15_3_rauscher.pdf" rel="nofollow">Rauscher and Targ's</a> "prediction" from a consideration of the possibility of multidimensional conscious experience. I say "prediction" because their paper was based on the, possibly dubious, US Remote Viewing experiments.<br /><br />Green's theory is not dissimilar to Rauscher & Targ's and would also seem to allow the whole universe to be its own conscious experience. <br /><br />However, these ideas would seem to be getting ahead of the empirical evidence. All that I know is that my mind is four dimensional - I can see and hear this - and, like Green, I can infer a fifth dimension from the layout of the four but this makes me uneasy. It makes me uneasy because we should always be able to check our inferences with predicted observations.Thoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17866896441731516034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post-23245847233139516482009-11-01T12:31:50.615-08:002009-11-01T12:31:50.615-08:00Thanks, that was lucid & helpful. One more th...Thanks, that was lucid & helpful. One more thing, if you have the time. On this understanding, a volume in my brain is in spacetime contact not only with other parts of my brain at earlier times, but with earlier points in the room, and the Earth, and the whole universe -- the connected points just get further back in time the further out you go, right? So why isn't there some more apparent interaction between my brain and points in the distant universe at long-ago times?Christopher Mhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post-65136483658766591892009-10-31T07:39:13.152-07:002009-10-31T07:39:13.152-07:00I just realised that I havent tackled your second ...I just realised that I havent tackled your second point:<br />"Second: Is it correct to understand you as arguing that we should conceive of the "self" or "mind" as extended in the fourth (time) dimension, rather than as something existing simply within a single 3D slice of spacetime? That makes sense to me, but I don't quite follow where the argument goes from there, so I feel like I'm probably missing something at the basic conceptual level."<br /><br />If the summary of Green's theory in my last comment is true then a spread out volume of brain activity would be in contact with its historical self through a point of connection in spacetime. The "self" would be a succession of brain states available now, at this instant. Spatial separations in our experience, such as those between the letter 'A' in the diagram: A------A being angular separations at the point of connection. Temporal extensions such as the extension of a whole word at the lips of a speaker being angular separations through time at the point.<br /><br />The vectors that extend into the point and have angular separations from each other are, according to the equation given above, of no net length so might correspond to a sort of infinitessimal leaning over of brain activity at one instant into brain activity in the same volume of brain at another instant. The overall effect would be to create a sort of modern "monad" or Cartesian point-soul.<br /><br />If dimensional time exists then there are some weird corollaries. For instance, if Green's five dimensional model were correct then I would be rocketing along but there is no reason why "I" should be at any particular point on the web of time. "I" would also be an hour ago and if "I" could be an hour ago then "I" could also be an hour in the future though each of these "Is" would be entirely separate.... My guess is that there are some rigid constraints not encompassed in Green's theory that prevent this weirdness.Thoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17866896441731516034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post-90142030952174122022009-10-31T06:27:02.633-07:002009-10-31T06:27:02.633-07:00Going from 3D to 4D involves more than just prolif...Going from 3D to 4D involves more than just proliferating 3D forms. Time is unlike the spatial dimensions because it enters the metric with an opposite sign (negative instead of positive in the convention that is used here). If time exists then this negative sign can give rise to a disappearance of separation between events. The equation:<br /><br />0 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2<br /><br />describes all the events that have no net separation from a given point in spacetime where x,y,z are spatial separations from the point and t is the temporal separation. Notice that this equation describes a disappearance of separation between events on a sphere surrounding the point, not a flow into the centre of the sphere.<br /><br />The clearest way to think of this is to consider the path of a photon. At the speed of light the whole universe has zero separation from an observer in the direction of motion. If dimensional time exists then the path of a photon is a geometrical entity, a line connecting two existent spacetime points. The length of this line is zero metres. If dimensional time exists then the path of a photon is actually like a door or bridge that directly connects two points in spacetime. Now for the interesting bit, if dimensional time exists then that path is there even without the photon to traverse it. <br /><br />So, consider a sphere of events, perhaps a sphere of events in the brain. All those events that conform to:<br /><br />0 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2<br /><br />will have no net separation from each other at a point and in the directions specified by the lines from (0,0,0,0) to (x,y,z,t). The events will be measured as being spread out in space and time but will also be no distance from each other in the directions that correspond to the paths of photons connecting them. Green(2002) pointed out that our experience implies yet another, timelike, dimension so that:<br /><br />0 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 + T^2<br /><br />which conjures up an image of a volume of brain activity rocketing along the positive time axis at near the speed of light so that time dilation would permit a second or two of four dimensional spacetime to be represented in a few cubic millimetres of brain. <br /><br />Green's argument is interesting but I would like to keep the theorising in two separate stages. Firstly our experience is clearly multidimensional - just look and listen, stuff is distributed in time as well as space so we need a theory of this observation. Secondly our experience is due to our brains so we need another theory about how measurements of our 3D brain activity at an instant transform into our multidimensional experience.Thoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17866896441731516034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post-49583280943595550962009-10-30T14:16:35.657-07:002009-10-30T14:16:35.657-07:00Hi,
I'm thinking about your arguments here and...Hi,<br />I'm thinking about your arguments here and I have a couple questions, if you feel like answering.<br /><br />First: when you say that it's wrong to think of four-dimensional spacetime as a series of three-dimensional "frames," is your point simply that the time dimension is continuous (like the spatial dimensions) rather than discrete? Or are you saying that the geometry of spacetime is (per modern physics) not like the geometry that you get by simply adding one perpendicular dimension to 3D space?<br /><br />Second: Is it correct to understand you as arguing that we should conceive of the "self" or "mind" as extended in the fourth (time) dimension, rather than as something existing simply within a single 3D slice of spacetime? That makes sense to me, but I don't quite follow where the argument goes from there, so I feel like I'm probably missing something at the basic conceptual level.<br /><br />Thanks -- this is all very interesting, I have a strong feeling that you're onto something here, as I've felt for quite a while that dealing with the problem of consciousness was going to require a fundamental conceptual shift rooted in how modern physics tells us that the world works.Christopher Mhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post-3100907410050416942009-10-13T01:40:08.661-07:002009-10-13T01:40:08.661-07:00Hi Doru,
I was recording Minkowski's original ...Hi Doru,<br />I was recording Minkowski's original approach to 4D in the article. Of course the metric is nowadays described using a metric tensor with a signature +++- or ---+. The use of a metric tensor is essential to preserve a bilinear form in General Relativity. However, the metric itself is preserved, it is still: ds^2=dr^2 - (cdt)^2, and the geometrical significance of this metric is unchanged if time exists.<br /><br />You say "The reality cannot be continuous and present in the same time". Well, that is one way of defining "presentism". It is entirely contrary to the modern physical view of spacetime as a continuum. <br /><br />Your statement that:<br /><br />"So you can think of reality as being rather discrete (a series of flashes)"<br /><br />is also a good piece of presentism. Now, suppose you are yourself one of these static flashes, how do you know anything? Or do you know things about the previous flash in the next flash?Thoughtshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17866896441731516034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6167285773245449447.post-50180497578637318952009-10-12T17:22:41.681-07:002009-10-12T17:22:41.681-07:00Hi,
Even though complex mathematics describes ver...Hi, <br />Even though complex mathematics describes very accurately the fourth dimension of space-time continuous, letâ€™s not forget that square root of -1 is an imaginary number and is introduced for theoretical reasons.<br />The problem with presentalism, seems to be the continuity of reality. The reality cannot be continuous and present in the same time. So you can think of reality as being rather discrete (a series of flashes) and not necessarily correlated to what is observed but with who is making the observation. So far, I found this to be in accordance with QM.<br />I know that there are cameras that can capture 500 images a second, however for human eye the visual reality is only at 50 images per second. 20 milliseconds is our sampling frequency that makes the visual reality appear continuous.Doruhttp://www.doru360.com/dorunoreply@blogger.com