Time and the Reality of Now

[@Hypersonicmind]

Oh boy.! Finally found Roland at 2:20. Why didn't anyone tell me? i was hoping Ron would bring up C slightly future shifted, which he seemed to advocate/discuss? a decade ago. Hameroff is starting to think this. Also decisions being made before we think they are, and tennis/ baseball players must start their swing as the ball leaves the opponents hand. So cognition is "ahead" of Now. Having played some ball, i know this feels true when that rare "flow" state occurs. However, the brainwaves may go to gamma, so time slows down and microadjustments are potentiated. That could account for flow- or time slowing down in a car crash. This is adrenal, so gamma can be modulated by a gland. What Roland said about messing up in playing music- same happens in roadracing..you mess up a turn slightly and it may amplify in the next turn or two and crash you out. The 1/4 second distraction of that messup interrupts the future flow like a barrier creating turbulence and that processing delay is paid for later The subjective experience of time is very sloppy but interesting Insight is abundant. Most of those small trees have been climbed by almost all of us. It is time to look at the invisibly small and the inconceivably large if we want to "understand"

[@Hypersonicmind]

i just want to add that this vid captured my attention, but i could only listen to half of it. I'll listen to the rest tomorrow. i really wanted to hear what Roland Mann had to say, because he has sound metaphysical and scientific grounding, one of my fave VMers ever. Sadly he left early. Most of the discourse here was almost anecdotal, and i prefer to explore the edges of meaning and honestly Ron can be very good at that. I would like to ask Ron one thing: You mentioned back in 2009? on VM about our consciousness "existing" in the future. I remember violently disagreeing (adhering to Now), but guess what? i changed my mind! LOL i actually have several lines of scientific evidence and/or implication. So, i am not here to assassinate character. Just to define terms as accurately as possible. i'd love to Zoom with y'all (not really..i'm introverted) but i am addicted to Miami Dolphins football which captures spacetime segment humans call Sunday..btw, the crows around here have "Sunday chats" lol and another btw.. "I never believe absolutes" is in itself an absolute

[@Hypersonicmind]

To Terry: Particles are clocks

[@ronaldgreenphilosophy]

What do you mean?

[@Hypersonicmind]

@@ronaldgreenphilosophy to Terry- He's looking for "Time" Hadrons are clocks. See Feynman. Old 60s stuff

[@TerryBollinger]

@@Hypersonicmind not only are quark-based hadrons clocks, but so are all leptons. In fact, any particle with rest mass -- anything subject to the Higgs mechanism -- is necessarily a clock with a well-defined tick rate. That's due to its quantum frequency, which is another way of saying "its total energy." Rest mass just gives that total energy a well-define minimum. For stable particles like electrons, the impact of this internal clock can be a bit subtle. For unstable ones like muons and quarks it sets the scale for their decay half-lives. My inclination is to toss in as clocks anything with energy, like photons, except that for those, the energy (and thus clock rate) varies with the frame of the observer. I'll need to look back at the video to figure out what I said that was confusing on this point. Again, my position is that _anything_ with energy ticks like a clock, and anything energetic that also has a rest mass has a well-define tick rate.

[@Hypersonicmind]

@@TerryBollinger i'm confused. Photons have 0 rest mass. If photons do not "feel time" how could they be clocks?

[@ronaldgreenphilosophy]

@@Hypersonicmind So clocks have nothing to do with Time? Is that what you are saying? What is your point about Hadrons being clocks? You are, of course, alluding to the point that they are timed with near-perfect accuracy. You are not, I hope, saying that they are universally accurate no matter where they are. If so, this does not follow Einstein's special theory of relativity. Clocks - any clocks - have to do with the time *for an observer*. In other words, clocks are accurate to themselves only. For time to be accurate for an observer, clocks have to be synchronized with other clocks. How does CERN, for example, manage the kind of accuracy required? They use GPS, atomic clocks and a whole lot of optical cables to network together a vast array of technology. So what was your point about "Hadrons [being] clocks? It doesn't matter how accurate they are. The fact that "anything energetic has a well-define tick rate", as Terry says, means nothing as far as "real" or "absolute" time.

[@Hypersonicmind]

My question. Since your consciousness requires duration ie a parcel of time, why do you care about Now? It will always be a smudge, not pixilated. You are speaking of your experiences, which occur in response to stimuli within brackets of hundredths or at most tenths of seconds. This is thousands of lifetimes to a physicist, maybe a few hundred to a biologist. The amount of physical change that took place in your body in a few hundreths of a second would fill all the computers in the world a millionfold. You want to "experience" that? People have. It's called metaphysical experience. Please access newest info on psychiatric use of hallucinogens. I like Rons' views, really. I can see where he is coming from and agree with most of his perspective...But not being interested in Physics ("I'm interested in what time does, not what it is) or metaphysics (Subjective experience of the Eternal in the Now) show an interest only on a semantic level and it becomes dodgeball with words. i AM interested in the physics and i can tell you time is real and can be measured to inconceivable accuracy. Did you know that we can measure the difference in time rate (in earths grav) between your feet and the top of your head? That's pretty damn accurate. Now, YOU are a smudge in time rate perpendicular to your gravitational source. So now the question becomes WHERE is now? You are getting too accurate Ron...We NEED approximation or these smudges (Van Gogh used smudges...) Think of it this way..You speak of time. Super duper accuracy. What about time zones? They cover hundreds of miles and then jump an hour. (A quantum jump?) If things were as they were you'd have to set your clock every few minutes if you traveled in the X axis only (Note correlation with geometry as well as space?) Not practical. Approximation is now useful. You insist on getting smaller and smaller increments, but refute the world when things get below your Newtonian biases. You reject the quantum, so you reject the very language shared and the very landscape within these processes occur. This would be called ignorance. (Not being derogatory- i am ignorant of many things, sometimes unjustifiably: willfully) The smaller you get, you end up in Planck space or Planck time (they are same coin) This is where our vision stops.. I'm guessing Ron would ask, what is between those ticks? My answer would be Consciousness,...I see no way around recognizing it as fundamental. Physics is definitely moving towards just that. To me Consciousness is the shockwave that immediately preceded the Big Bang. It is running away from itself, faster and faster as it were, sorta what we'd see as Dark Energy(?) It is impulse that propagated time (as time always requires an observer- observer being particle) and they indeed mutually arise- A most important concept poorly understood by linear cognition. It was "Let there be light", yes- very cool But it was really "SPREAD OUT"! cuz everything was one big mess- Singularity. So Moe the Father of the Trinity of Stooges shouted that first phrase- He was the One that had to become everything else. (the Trinity being Perception>Decision>Action, the formula for C) Therefore the spreading out caused the invention of space, and light filled the space so we could realize individuation, by our beings changing in this new thing called time and space... the carrier of the information of change are waves (photons) bouncing between clocks called particles...clocks being condensed and static. Frozen waves which the cost of freezing the light motion is mass. You will never ever feel "exactly now" because the response time of the neurons is far, far too slow. You will however have the subjective feeling of now if you "flow" Old psych term. No metaphysics. There are many avenues to "know" Now. One of the best is the beautiful conception of zero. It is the only perfect metaphor. So perfect, i don't need to elaborate

[@ronaldgreenphilosophy]

There is a lot to answer here. So let me refer just to a couple of your comments: " i can tell you time is real and can be measured to inconceivable accuracy. Did you know that we can measure the difference in time rate (in earths grav) between your feet and the top of your head?" I don't know what you mean about time being real. I never said time doesn't exist. The problem is with "real". What do you mean? Real to whom? Real to everyone in at the same time? Of course not - see Einstein Special theory of relativity. We can measure time only relative to an observer. So when you refer to the accuracy of measuring time, you are making a broad statement that turns out to be wrong if you don't mention the observer. Time is not the same all over the universe as per Newton. If you don't take the observer into consideration, you will make erroneous statements, such as "we can measure the difference in time rate (in earths grav) between your feet and the top of your head." This is true only for an observer. There is no difference IN your clock between your head and your feet. My theory of time is backed up by physics at every step. It's not a matter of "semantics". It's a pity you didn't read my book "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick" in which you are mentioned in the Acknowledgements.

[@Hypersonicmind]

Calculation is not "understanding" i read your book some years ago. I liked it and agreed with most, even comprehending most of your worldview as being quite "logical" My memory has gotten pretty bad- and i have trouble remembering details of just about any book i've read. Please, dont take it personally. As far as time goes- It can be described in many ways. All would be true. We humans have a way with words. Words break down when you mess with the smallest and the biggest. When something like SpaceTimeMatterEnergy is becoming/expanding/unleashed in vacuum of Consciousness- shit happens When you have enfolded and superpositioned elements mutually arising in eleven dimensions, the human reductive linearity can't juggle cats and chainsaws. None of those fundamentals of Nature came "before" the other They come into being together, and are always in relation. We can minimize one or the other. But never to zero. The inter-relatednesses persist despite our attempts to cleave them and bless one as the progenitor. I guess what i'm saying Ron, Is i'm not sure what your cosmological system you, lets say are most agreeable to. i prefer to talk about the physics of it, but if things like tunneling, superposition, entanglement are disallowed as "theory" ..well, then i'm talking to someone in the 90s. Our Physics is going submolecular. Moores law for computation speeds is now almost at molecular saturation. I'm afraid woohoo QM is inevitable. It is the next step beyond electronic age. A lot of what you say is what Time is not. So ..Physics

[@ronaldgreenphilosophy]

@@Hypersonicmind What do you mean by 'Calculation is not "understanding'.? What is calculation if it is not a means for understanding? Is calculation done for mathematicians, or is it a way of expressing the nature of nature? You sound like a fan of "Shut up and calculate". I have no idea what "vacuum of consciousness" means, btw. When you say that fundamentals of nature come before the other, I suppose you mean that we need to think of them concurrently. Fair enough. I am aware, though, that no two things happen at exactly the same time, especially if they are in relation [to each other], as you point out. Inter-relatedness does not mean that they exist together at the same time. When time is involved - as it always is - there is change, which is our perception of things happening. I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that "things like tunneling, superposition, entanglement" are facts, not theories? Should I treat them as "facts"? When you say that "Our Physics is going submolecular", you seem to be dismissing macro physics as passe. Certainly much of physics is looking at subatomic particles, much of which needs to be examined in the light of what is meant by "existence" and the re-emergence of physics+philosophy. Existence is as much a philosophical issue as a science issue. And yes, much of what I say - as does physics - is about what Time is not. It is Einstein who made us think again about what Time is not. That, btw, is what science is about: to re-examine accepted theories and to find out they that are wrong. Much of what I write is about physics, since it is placed as a background for my philosophical thoughts. Philosophy deals no less with "facts" than does physics. Actually, it goes one step further: It asks what "facts" are and whether there are such things.

[@Hypersonicmind]

@@ronaldgreenphilosophy again, thankyou for replying >What do you mean by 'Calculation is not "understanding'.? What is calculation if it is not a means for understanding?< It means exactly that. A calculator is an adding machine. It does not know what it is doing. A crow (SOME crows) understand that a stick can help them get a morsel of food out of a hole. "Understanding" is an integrated mapping response that copies a pattern of dynamics or behavior (memory) and that when repeated will facilitate a result that satiates an emotional need...or whose avoidance does the same. IMhO Consciousness is required for understanding, and therefore binary logic machines can only simulate C by ridiculous over-complexification- sometimes a passable though clumsy facsimile can be generated.

[@Hypersonicmind]

>I have no idea what "vacuum of consciousness" means, btw.< It is meant to imply the vastness- the emptiness- the UNchanging Eternal- as a matter of Poieses You know, metaphorical understanding. Meditators are wedded to "emptiness' When C becomes "no thought"- which i am astonished that you can't seem to recognize. It IS possible to listen to the birds without forming words- and it is possible that crows use tools. i would like to continue this ...and YES i am a fan of "shut up and calculate" but while calculating the unconscious is boiling with potential eruption of words if the "meaning magma chamber" overpressurizes and a lightning bolt of cascading and branching insight fires up dopamine ecstasy. Emotion precedes and enables calculation in humans. Tomorrow then :)