Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:18 pm
What is it made out of?

It is made of time. That is a sort of the wrong question. It is like asking what electron is made of.

An electron has mass, charge, size, and other physical characteristics. What physical characteristics does time have? None, because it is not a thing, not an entity, not a substance or any kind of, "stuff." It is an attribute of the phenomenon motion and sans motion does not exist at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:18 pm What color is it?

It has the color of time.

Ah, yes. No color at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:18 pm How much does it weigh?

I don't think that time has mass.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:18 pm What shape is it?

It doesn't have any shape. It exists at now. It can be slowed down around a heavy object.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:18 pm Name one property time has that can be observed or detected by any physical means.

I said enough about the properties of time.

Exactly nothing, because time has no attributes of a substance.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:18 pm Time is no more a substance then length, volume, or weight are substances. Time is a metric, a way of measuring the relationship between different motions and nothing more.

Wrong. Space is a substance as well. It bends around the heavy objects.

The so-called geometry of space is a metaphorical description of the bahavior of physical entities, not a description of some kind of, "stuff." Einstein himself rejected that view.

I have no idea why it bothers you that time and space are not entities or substances but merely ways of describing the relationships between things that really are entities and substances unless you are trying to promote some supernatural view of reality.

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:53 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:18 pm Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, but, just out of curiosity, what aspect of my speculative (quantum-based) explanation of Deja vu (here: viewtopic.php?p=496110#p496110) made no sense to you?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:42 pm What you are saying is that there is implicit order in which things are non-local and simultaneous and there is explicit order in which things take time and are local. Dejavu to you is then a phenomenon that is registered in our memory through implicit order and then observed through explicit order. That seems interesting.

So far, that's a pretty good assessment.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:42 pm The only thing which I don't understand is that the non-local quantum world looks quite different from what we experience in daily life so I don't understand how could we possibly have a registered memory of something which is similar to what we experience normally.

All of the phenomenal features of reality, be they objective...

(as in what we experience outwardly in the universe)

...or subjective,...

(as in what we experience inwardly in the form of our thoughts, dreams, and memories)

...are founded upon interpenetrating (superpositioned) "fields of information" that bear no resemblance to the phenomena they represent. Yet, our consciousness is somehow able to decode and transform that information into something that we call "reality" (as in positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena suspended in a spatial arena).

The point is that you don't need to register a memory of something via the normal means. No, all you need is direct access to the information that underpins the phenomenal features of the universe, of which I am loosely postulating occurs in the case of Deja vu.

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than I did in the thought experiment in the other thread where I used physicist David Bohm's concept of the "Implicate Order" and the "Explicate Order" to make my point.

Anyway, the whole reason for me bringing it up in the first place was to deter you from seeming to imply that Deja vu might somehow represent a means for peering into the future.
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm Let's see if we can agree on these two facts, there is an objective world that exists on its own...

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm ...and it is not similar to what we experience subjectively.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm In order to explain Dejavu by means of implicit order and explicit order, one needs to have a register memory by implicit order...

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:25 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:53 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:18 pm Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, but, just out of curiosity, what aspect of my speculative (quantum-based) explanation of Deja vu (here: viewtopic.php?p=496110#p496110) made no sense to you?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:42 pm What you are saying is that there is implicit order in which things are non-local and simultaneous and there is explicit order in which things take time and are local. Dejavu to you is then a phenomenon that is registered in our memory through implicit order and then observed through explicit order. That seems interesting.

So far, that's a pretty good assessment.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:42 pm The only thing which I don't understand is that the non-local quantum world looks quite different from what we experience in daily life so I don't understand how could we possibly have a registered memory of something which is similar to what we experience normally.

All of the phenomenal features of reality, be they objective...

(as in what we experience outwardly in the universe)

...or subjective,...

(as in what we experience inwardly in the form of our thoughts, dreams, and memories)

...are founded upon interpenetrating (superpositioned) "fields of information" that bear no resemblance to the phenomena they represent. Yet, our consciousness is somehow able to decode and transform that information into something that we call "reality" (as in positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena suspended in a spatial arena).

The point is that you don't need to register a memory of something via the normal means. No, all you need is direct access to the information that underpins the phenomenal features of the universe, of which I am loosely postulating occurs in the case of Deja vu.

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than I did in the thought experiment in the other thread where I used physicist David Bohm's concept of the "Implicate Order" and the "Explicate Order" to make my point.

Anyway, the whole reason for me bringing it up in the first place was to deter you from seeming to imply that Deja vu might somehow represent a means for peering into the future.
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm Let's see if we can agree on these two facts, there is an objective world that exists on its own...

Disagree.

All worlds are subjective to some form of mind and consciousness. However, all minds are objective relative to each other.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm ...and it is not similar to what we experience subjectively.

Disagree.

Other than it (the objective world) being infinitely more ordered and more highly resolved, it is totally similar to what we experience subjectively.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm In order to explain Dejavu by means of implicit order and explicit order, one needs to have a register memory by implicit order...

Yes, of which I am suggesting occurs (is registered) at Bohm's Implicate level of reality a fraction of a second prior to what is experienced up at Bohm's Explicate level of reality.

Hence, Deja vu (speculatively speaking, of course) is a sort of eerie and off-putting "latency" effect that one encounters as one experiences an event up at the Explicate (local) level of reality while simultaneously experiencing a memory of the same event that was registered on the quantum fabric of your brain an instant earlier at the Implicate (non-local) level of reality.
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 5:45 pm How do explain color blind if the objective reality is similar to what we experience?

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 5:45 pm How do explain color blind if the objective reality is similar to what we experience?

That's a good question, bahman, and it shows me that you are applying some critical thought to this issue.

If I were smart, I would simply say "I don't know" and be done with it. However, where's the fun in that?

Therefore, seeing how I am simply offering pure speculation in regard to this Deja vu business, my guess answer to your new and insightful question would be the following...

Perhaps because color blindness can be rooted in some malfunction of the brain, and because the color-blind person is experiencing the Implicate memory through the same brain that experiences the Explicate event, then perhaps both experiences will have a problem with colors.

I'm furthermore guessing that in order to test this hypothesis, we would have to find a person whose color blindness is rooted in a problem with their eyes (and not their brain), and then hope that at the time of testing they would experience the phenomenon of Deja vu...

(which is extremely unlikely)

...in such a way where we could ask them if they can tell if there is any difference between the color of the implicit memory of the event and that of the color of the explicit event (a tricky proposition, to say the least).

Admittedly, while formulating this reply I realized that if said (eye-damaged) test subject had experienced Deja vu in the past, then they should have memories that are more color-correct than what their eyes would allow.

In which case, it stands to reason that at least some of their dreams might have better color than what they normally experience when looking outward into the universe. So, the trick is to find such a person in order to ask them about the status of their dream colors.

Again, it may have been wiser of me to have simply said "I don't know" and spared you this long read of what is probably nonsense.

Anyway, with all of this deeper thinking (guesswork) regarding the phenomenon of Deja vu under our belts,...

(and in keeping with the theme of this thread)

...my question back to you is:

Do you still believe that Deja vu represents some untapped (yet viable) means for peering (traveling) into the future?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:48 pm Do you still believe that Deja vu represents some untapped (yet viable) means for peering (traveling) into the future?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:00 pm The question is whether something which is going to happen in the future can have an effect on now. Please read Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%2 ... experiment. In his thought experiment, he suggests an experiment in which a photon decides to act accordingly before the setup experiment is changed. This suggests that something which is going to happen in the future can have some effect on now.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:00 pm To explain the Dejavu we need to have a registered memory of the future before we face it.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:00 pm That is possible if our minds have access to the immediate future before any decision is needed.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:05 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:48 pm Do you still believe that Deja vu represents some untapped (yet viable) means for peering (traveling) into the future?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:00 pm The question is whether something which is going to happen in the future can have an effect on now. Please read Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%2 ... experiment. In his thought experiment, he suggests an experiment in which a photon decides to act accordingly before the setup experiment is changed. This suggests that something which is going to happen in the future can have some effect on now.

Have a listen to Sabine Hossenfelder's debunking of that idea (here: https://youtu.be/RQv5CVELG3U).

Now I don't know if she's 100% right, but it at least shows that there are dissenting views on the subject.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:00 pm To explain the Dejavu we need to have a registered memory of the future before we face it.

Well, if you understand what I have been suggesting, then the "future" we are talking about is but a mere few nanoseconds ahead of the moment when we actually experience something, which, again, seems to produce nothing more than a sort of strange and off-putting "latency" effect.

And the point is that it is nothing we can take advantage of.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:00 pm That is possible if our minds have access to the immediate future before any decision is needed.

Again, in terms of Deja vu, we're talking about experiencing something that is not only just a few nanoseconds into the future, but, in truth, is simply an issue associated with our inability to experience the actual instantaneousness of the TRUE "NOW" of the Implicate (non-local) level of reality.

And that's because the "TRUE NOW" of the Implicate level of reality is not the same as the lagging-behind "now" that we experience up at the Explicate (local) level of reality - a level that is mediated by the limited speed of light.

Indeed, I speculatively suggest that the instantaneousness of the "TRUE NOW" has something to do with what quantum theory is saying about the instantaneous connection between entangled particles, regardless of them being on opposite sides of the universe.

The bottom line is that Deja vu has nothing to do with encountering a pre-existing future, but more to do with our inability to experience the "TRUE NOW" that underpins all of reality.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:05 pm The bottom line is that Deja vu has nothing to do with encountering a pre-existing future, but more to do with our inability to experience the "TRUE NOW" that underpins all of reality.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:54 pm What she is missing is that she does not understand the delayed-choice experiment.

(Caution: I know from personal experience from having discussions with her on her blogsite, that if you question the veracity of her ideas, she can be pretty feisty and will attempt to tear you a new one. )

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:58 am

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 10:05 pm The bottom line is that Deja vu has nothing to do with encountering a pre-existing future, but more to do with our inability to experience the "TRUE NOW" that underpins all of reality.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:54 pm What she is missing is that she does not understand the delayed-choice experiment.

Well, you need to take that up with Sabine.

(Caution: I know from personal experience from having discussions with her on her blogsite, that if you question the veracity of her ideas, she can be pretty feisty and will attempt to tear you a new one. )

Anyway, none of what you are talking about has anything to do with the point I was making about Deja vu not being a useful means of gazing into the future.

Just out of curiosity, do you by chance believe in "Eternalism" or the "Block Universe" theory?
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 5:15 pm I don't believe in the block universe because of the existence of the mind and decisions. I however think that the future is determined until the point of decision.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 6:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 5:15 pm I don't believe in the block universe because of the existence of the mind and decisions. I however think that the future is determined until the point of decision.

Well, it would appear that the first sentence in the quote above completely negates the assertion made in the second sentence regarding the future being "determined."
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:25 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm
It is made of time. That is a sort of the wrong question. It is like asking what electron is made of.

An electron has mass, charge, size, and other physical characteristics. What physical characteristics does time have? None, because it is not a thing, not an entity, not a substance or any kind of, "stuff." It is an attribute of the phenomenon motion and sans motion does not exist at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm
It has the color of time.

Ah, yes. No color at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm
I don't think that time has mass.

It doesn't have any shape. It exists at now. It can be slowed down around a heavy object.

I said enough about the properties of time.

Exactly nothing, because time has no attributes of a substance.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:17 pm
Wrong. Space is a substance as well. It bends around the heavy objects.

The so-called geometry of space is a metaphorical description of the bahavior of physical entities, not a description of some kind of, "stuff." Einstein himself rejected that view.

I have no idea why it bothers you that time and space are not entities or substances but merely ways of describing the relationships between things that really are entities and substances unless you are trying to promote some supernatural view of reality.

Time passes with a specific rate that can be experienced. This passage slows down near heavy objects. Gravitational waves have been observed!

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:25 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:53 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:18 pm Now I'm not suggesting that I can't be wrong, but, just out of curiosity, what aspect of my speculative (quantum-based) explanation of Deja vu (here: viewtopic.php?p=496110#p496110) made no sense to you?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:42 pm What you are saying is that there is implicit order in which things are non-local and simultaneous and there is explicit order in which things take time and are local. Dejavu to you is then a phenomenon that is registered in our memory through implicit order and then observed through explicit order. That seems interesting.

So far, that's a pretty good assessment.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:42 pm The only thing which I don't understand is that the non-local quantum world looks quite different from what we experience in daily life so I don't understand how could we possibly have a registered memory of something which is similar to what we experience normally.

All of the phenomenal features of reality, be they objective...

(as in what we experience outwardly in the universe)

...or subjective,...

(as in what we experience inwardly in the form of our thoughts, dreams, and memories)

...are founded upon interpenetrating (superpositioned) "fields of information" that bear no resemblance to the phenomena they represent. Yet, our consciousness is somehow able to decode and transform that information into something that we call "reality" (as in positionally-fixed, 3-D phenomena suspended in a spatial arena).

The point is that you don't need to register a memory of something via the normal means. No, all you need is direct access to the information that underpins the phenomenal features of the universe, of which I am loosely postulating occurs in the case of Deja vu.

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than I did in the thought experiment in the other thread where I used physicist David Bohm's concept of the "Implicate Order" and the "Explicate Order" to make my point.

Anyway, the whole reason for me bringing it up in the first place was to deter you from seeming to imply that Deja vu might somehow represent a means for peering into the future.
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm Let's see if we can agree on these two facts, there is an objective world that exists on its own...

Disagree.

All worlds are subjective to some form of mind and consciousness. However, all minds are objective relative to each other.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:25 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm ...and it is not similar to what we experience subjectively.

Disagree.

Other than it (the objective world) being infinitely more ordered and more highly resolved, it is totally similar to what we experience subjectively.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:21 pm In order to explain Dejavu by means of implicit order and explicit order, one needs to have a register memory by implicit order...

Yes, of which I am suggesting occurs (is registered) at Bohm's Implicate level of reality a fraction of a second prior to what is experienced up at Bohm's Explicate level of reality.

Hence, Deja vu (speculatively speaking, of course) is a sort of eerie and off-putting "latency" effect that one encounters as one experiences an event up at the Explicate (local) level of reality while simultaneously experiencing a memory of the same event that was registered on the quantum fabric of your brain an instant earlier at the Implicate (non-local) level of reality.
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:51 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 6:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 5:15 pm I don't believe in the block universe because of the existence of the mind and decisions. I however think that the future is determined until the point of decision.

Well, it would appear that the first sentence in the quote above completely negates the assertion made in the second sentence regarding the future being "determined."
_______

No there is no problem. The future always is determined in the block universe whereas in our universe is determined until a decision is required.