What is "spacetime" really?

[Michael Mooney]

Correction:

My challenge to Erasmus above should read:

If you can explain the nature of the 7 dimensions of string/M-theory beyond the obvious spacial three and time as anything but esoteric math with no traction where the rubber meets the road in the observable cosmos... then I will be very attentive to your insights.

 

Again, if it is untestable and unvalidated, why do you praise its *potential* if only it could be tested?

Cosmic ("objective") perspective can be directly experienced by anyone willing to do the discipline until one transcends personal point of view.

[Erasmus00]

I ask you yet again... with exactly what part of my often repeated exposition on time (and its erroneous reification) do you disagree. Do you believe that now (the present) extends into the past or future or that now is not omnipresent? For openers, please address how exactly you disagree with the ontology of time which I have so often repeated and claimed as obvious to any reasonable person

 

Obvious doesn't mean correct. I have given a competing ontology of time in a previous post. I believe that a universal "omnipresent now" cannot exist.

 

Meditation, as a "sacred science" predicts that anyone who directly experiences transcendental consciousness will know, from this direct experience the, the nature of the actual universe as "consciousness manifesting."

 

How do you define "directly experiencing transcendental consciousness"? Two of my colleagues are avid practitioners of meditation, neither subscribe to your ontology of time.

 

Again, if it is untestable and unvalidated, why do you praise its *potential* if only it could be tested?

 

The potential I describe IS the potential to be tested. The LHC could validate string theory. What can validate your theory?

 

Cosmic ("objective") perspective can be directly experienced by anyone willing to do the discipline until one transcends personal point of view.

 

Not everyone who "transcends personal point of view" subscribes to your cosmic perspective.

[Michael Mooney]

Here is a reprise of some potent quotes from and article/link...

The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry

shared by Modest somewhere way back in this thread:

 

Conclusion

Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding. The mathematics of Newton's theory of gravity were beautiful and successful for two centuries, but it conferred no understanding about what gravity was. Now we actually have two competing ways of understanding gravity, either through Einstein's geometrical method or through the interaction of virtual particles in quantum mechanics.

 

Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions. In non-Euclidean geometry and its application by Einstein, the most important conceptual question is over the meaning of "curvature" and the ontological status of the dimensions of space, time, or whatever. The most important point is that the ontological status of the dimensions involved with the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature is a question entirely separate from the mathematics....

 

These observations about Einstein's Relativity are not definitive answers to any questions; they are just an attempt to ask the questions which have not been asked. Those questions become possible with a clearer understanding of the separate logical, mathematical, psychological, and ontological components of the theory of non-Euclidean geometry. The purpose, then, is to break ground, to open up the issues, and to stir up the complacency that is all too easy for philosophers when they think that somebody else is the expert and understands things quite adequately. It is the philosopher's job to question and inquire, not to accept somebody else's word for somebody else's understanding.

 

The final paragraph captures the essence of my intent in this thread, i.e., not to go head to head with moderators here on math or designing experiments but to reconsider the overall ontology of the title subject...

most specifically and recently:

Is the subjective idealism (local perception creates reality) at the basis of relativity the ultimate "philosophy of science" and last word in describing the "actual distance between objects?"... (Ans: No.)...

 

And what is the true nature of space... emptiness or must it be filled with a medium to carry all forces? (Ans: Debate-able... tho my argument is totally ignored in favor of the latter as axiomatic among moderators here...

And finally, what is time? See my most recent summaries, none of which have been directly, specifically addressed... but for freedom of belief, reasonable or not.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I ask you yet again... with exactly what part of my often repeated exposition on time (and its erroneous reification) do you disagree. Do you believe that now (the present) extends into the past or future or that now is not omnipresent? For openers, please address how exactly you disagree with the ontology of time which I have so often repeated and claimed as obvious to any reasonable person

 

E:

Obvious doesn't mean correct. I have given a competing ontology of time in a previous post. I believe that a universal "omnipresent now" cannot exist.

 

So you again refuse to answer my direct challenge in the questions above. A cosmology of the whole universe is not limited to local perspective or the time-lapse, via lightspeed limit between what happens (wherever) and what can be seen (wherever.)

 

E:

How do you define "directly experiencing transcendental consciousness"? Two of my colleagues are avid practitioners of meditation, neither subscribe to your ontology of time.

Meditation is not remembering/reviewing the past or anticipating/trying to predict the future. It is the experience of the absolute, eternal, ongoing now... the real present, not the not-yet real future or the not-still real past. It also transcends personal *programming/conditioning/belief.* It is the experience of the transpersonal dimension of consciousness, in which it is *realized* that consciousness is omnipresent ... that "personal identity (as between *-* above is an illusion.

Whoever your meditative colleagues if they have not experienced the above as ultimate reality they they are not experiencing meditation as transcending "personal mind and beliefs."

The potential I describe IS the potential to be tested. The LHC could validate string theory. What can validate your theory?

 

If only we had powerful enough machines and believed the math without any real referents in the real world.

 

(See quotes on the limits of math in the ontology piece above... and, how about anwering my challenge to explain the last seven of the alleged 11 dimensions in string/M-theory above.)

 

If only we had a "consciousness detector"... But we do... the conscious human being experiencing the cosmic unity of one omnipresent consciousness. This is universal among mystics of all traditions and those, like myself, with no "tradition" the "machinery" is generic to mainstream scientific materialism.

 

Not everyone who "transcends personal point of view" subscribes to your cosmic perspective.

 

What distinguishes transcendental meditation (not the brand name but generically) from "personal point of view" is the universal cosmic perspective... not "my cosmic perspective."

 

Michael

[watcher]

And what is the true nature of space... emptiness

what is space empty of?

emptyness is a concept. we understood its meaning in contrast to what we know as content or fullness. when we say things are empty, we meant to say that nothing has an inherent existence on its own. so actually by positing that space is absolutely and stand alone entity that exists on its own without dependence on the rest of the things, you are actually contradicting he essential meaning of emptiness.

 

or must it be filled with a medium to carry all forces?

 

spacetime is the medium itself.

spacetime is also the force (gravity)

 

acceleration = gravity

gravity = spacetime curvature

spacetime is acceleration is force

 

also:

 

the here and now can be claimed by any particles to be true to them.

when the particle is in motion, the meaning of here and now becomes obscured.

but we can imagine again that the "motion" itself is happening here and now.

this imply now that the here and now encompass the whole of cosmos and as a logical conclusion.. the here and now must be outside our cosmos (at least the 4D spacetime as we know it). the problem is that the here and now is a philosophical notion that can't be quantify, but only can qualify. to quantify it is almost like solving the hard problem of consciousness.

[Michael Mooney]

Watcher:

what is space empty of?

Do you know the meaning of the word empty? It means space with nothing in it... empty of any and all things.

spacetime is the medium itself.

This simply re-asserts the standard dogma of this forum's moderators without any argument at all addressing what I have said in this thread about space or time or this metaphorical 'fabric" spacetime.

spacetime is also the force (gravity)

 

Is just off the top of your head or what? Mass attracts mass. That is gravity. Masses exist *in space* rendering it full of said mass (not empty)at the specific location of the mass.

The emptiness (space) between the masses does not generate gravity, and time would simply describe the duration of any selected (by an observer) event or the "time it takes" whatever to "happen" regardless of observer but only express-able in time units devised as human conventions.

 

acceleration = gravity

gravity = spacetime curvature

spacetime is acceleration is force

Huh?Gravity is a force that can cause acceleration... like the apple falling, accellerating its speed until it hits Nweton on the head.

Space is no-thing. Neither is time. Together they are nothing plus nothing which still equals nothing. No-thing does not curve. Stuff traveling through space sometimes curves.

 

the here and now can be claimed by any particles to be true to them.

when the particle is in motion, the meaning of here and now becomes obscured.

but we can imagine again that the "motion" itself is happening here and now.

this imply now that the here and now encompass the whole of cosmos and as a logical conclusion.. the here and now must be outside our cosmos (at least the 4D spacetime as we know it). the problem is that the here and now is a philosophical notion that can't be quantify, but only can qualify. to quantify it is almost like solving the hard problem of consciousness.

 

It *is* here and now for every locus everywhere always. That's what is means.

Elapsed time can be said to apply to the motion of any object for a designated trajectory... from "here" to "there." During the movement, "It" (same "It" as in "It is raining") is always now, as everything is happening in the ongoing present.... Please get this. There is no "it" raining. Rain happens. There is no "it" as a referent to the perpetual now. Reification is making a thing out of a concept... the basis of the whole error of concieving "spacetime" as some thing.

The latter part of your above quote makes no sense to me. "It" is always Now everywhere, regardless of the "where" being "there" to one observer and "here" to another. Please contemplate the above until you get it.

 

There is nothing philosophical about the "is-ness" of now, the present. The past is gone (not present) and the future 'ain't here yet (not present.) All there is is the present.

(One is tempted to punctuate with a "Duh!")

 

Michael

[Essay]

Recovering nicely from a small surgery....

Maybe it's the drugs, but I wrote this:

 

Hi Michael,

 

Duh!

 

...and yet that 'contemporaneous now' does not affect the present here, until years later, if that "Now everywhere" is light years away.

 

Does this make sense?

 

~ :cup:

[watcher]

Huh?Gravity is a force that can cause acceleration... like the apple falling, accellerating its speed until it hits Nweton on the head.

 

yes. like when you're in an elevator accelerating. you wouldn't know if your in space or in earth. the force is the same. and this force was found out to be the same if you treat gravity as a geometry of space.

 

Space is no-thing. Neither is time. Together they are nothing plus nothing which still equals nothing. No-thing does not curve. Stuff traveling through space sometimes curves.

 

does treating space and time as no thing can explain what gravity is?

 

It *is* here and now for every locus everywhere always. That's what is means.

Elapsed time can be said to apply to the motion of any object for a designated trajectory... from "here" to "there." During the movement, "It" (same "It" as in "It is raining") is always now, as everything is happening in the ongoing present.... Please get this. There is no "it" raining. Rain happens. There is no "it" as a referent to the perpetual now. Reification is making a thing out of a concept... the basis of the whole error of concieving "spacetime" as some thing.

The latter part of your above quote makes no sense to me. "It" is always Now everywhere, regardless of the "where" being "there" to one observer and "here" to another. Please contemplate the above until you get it.

 

LOL you have no idea what i can eliminate thru apophatic approach. but in the end even nothing cannot be differentiated without something. that is what makes thing effable and comprehensible.

 

so i understand it. its significance to science what i don't get. does recognizing the ishness of now can explain the expansion of space?

[Michael Mooney]

Essay:

...and yet that 'contemporaneous now' does not affect the present here, until years later, if that "Now everywhere" is light years away.

 

Does this make sense?

 

The cosmic perspective I am presenting (as a mental exercise in universal reality *as a whole*) is not the usual focus of relativity as to how long it takes events far away to effect events and observation "here" given the delay for lightspeed travel between two distant loci.

Yes, your statement makes sense. I acknowledged the reality of time delay in what is observed at a distance in my post #230, p.24, as follows:

 

It is also obvious that "now" is simultaneous and ongoing everywhere.

As previously discussed... when a supernova explodes many lightyears away, we on Earth don't see the explosion for many years after it has happened. This speaks to the relativity of local perception. But the ontological discussion of time must agree to the obvious, i.e., that now (the present) is omnipresent, even though "the present" for the supernova, by the time we see it is now long past its explosive phase that we now perceive.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Watcher:

yes. like when you're in an elevator accelerating. you wouldn't know if your in space or in earth. the force is the same. and this force was found out to be the same if you treat gravity as a geometry of space.

I think the elevator example was my intro to Einstein as a young man (long ago!) But, beside an aid to visualization of the effects of gravity as it makes object trajectories curve, what is the benefit of treating space as some "thing" with a "geometry", curvature, etc.?

(See the ontology of competing explanations of gravity in the quoted essay above.)

 

does treating space and time as no thing can explain what gravity is?

No. Neither does Einstein's non-Euclidean "geometry" of curved space or the elegant experiments and math of quantum mechanics as "the new" alternative explanation of gravity.

We do know that mass atttracts mass. We just don't yet know how.

 

LOL you have no idea what i can eliminate thru apophatic approach. but in the end even nothing cannot be differentiated without something. that is what makes thing effable and comprehensible.

 

Space can remain the emptiness between things, being "nothing in between" as contrasted with "things" which occupuy space, rendering it "full" at the locus of each 'thing." There is no need to (or benefit in) making the emptiness of space into some "thing" which fills all space. Making something out of nothing is the error of reification, upon which "spacetime" is built.

 

so i understand it. its significance to science what i don't get.

 

The significance to science is to see the error of reification and apply Occams Razor to cut out unneccessary and irrelevant "stuff" in relativity and just stick to the fine tuning of prediction that relativity supplies to understanding the effects of gravity without this "fine fabric, spacetime"... which, I predict, will eventually be seen as a pretentious embarrassment to science.... the scientific equivalent of "The Emporer's New Clothes."

 

does recognizing the ishness of now can explain the expansion of space?

Your question assumes that space is some "thing" that can expand rather than infinite emptiness. (An "end of space" is clearly an ill-conceived idea!) Cosmos (all "things") is (are) expanding outwrd *into space* Yes this expansion "takes time" as we consider "event duration. Yet it is happening now.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Before I go back to my "center" (off-grid) for awhile, I would like to ask the administrative staff here whether there are any philosophers on the staff who specialize in "The Philosophy of Science." This forum could certainly benefit from such specific philosophical expertise.

My "educated guess" is that the answer is "no," though Modest did share the quite impressive essay/link from which I have repeatedly qouted... "The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry."

 

Maybe this post would be more appropriate as an inquiry to admin. through the "proper channels", but I'm not much for adhering to protocol, and I would prefer that this inquiry be seen by any/all who have been following, or occasssionally visit this thread. In all honesty it is a protest of the lack of philosophical scope I have perceived in the moderators who have so far participated in this thread.

 

Thanks. (I may yet be around through this eve.)

Michael

[Essay]

it is a protest of the lack of philosophical scope

Thanks. (I may yet be around through this eve.)

Michael

 

Hiya Michael,

I may still be wonky, but....

 

I don't think there is any difficulty in seeing your cosmic perspective. Sure everything exists--and it exits now. I can imagine all of the universe.

 

Actual perception from a cosmic perspective means that part of existence could cease to exist, but you still wouldn't know it until the travelling light ceased to be perceived--but I can imagine part of it ceasing to exist--now.

 

But your point I think, is to illustrate that a different system of rules could be developed to explain physics--based on empty space, gravity as a force behaving like electromagnetism, ...and the history of an object's changing velocity causing it to behave differently relative to the omnipresent now.

 

hmmm... well you should probably revise that summary before I ask about where "energy" fits in to your framework....

===

 

I'm not sure though, how this different view would change the philosophical aspects of understanding reality. Obviously there are different definitions for space, etc., but does it philosophically change how things work or what things do?

...or is that the point--that a different system of rules will explain equally well "how things work or what things do."

===

 

~ :)

 

p.s.

Does energy have gravity? That is such a basic question, isn't it? Why don't i know the answer to that one?

owww... ...thinking too much... Must take a wonky break. :shrug:

[Moontanman]

I have to ask this question, I know it is only partially on topic but so much seems to depend on the speed of light being the only way (or fastest way) for information to be communicated but, knowing what we know about changes in science and what we know lets say that next weeks some bright boy finds a way to detect what is happening anywhere instantaneously. Would our universe continue to be the place we see as long as we didn't use that or would that fact cause us to have to see a phase change in the way we see or perceive the universe. Or maybe this is the a better way to say this, if we discovered that we could in some way know what was going on anywhere in the universe as it happens would that change our view of the universe as seen via electromagnetic radiation? Or would it just mean we could see things faster than we do now since we wouldn't have to wait for the light to get here? I'm struggling here so don't flame me too much.

[watcher]

We do know that mass atttracts mass. We just don't yet know how.

 

and yet when we infinitely divide mass we all end up with space.

and what's left are a few resonances with some eigenvalues.

where are these resonances coming from if space is a naive blank?

if space is simple emptiness, then particles won't jump. we will see their trajectories in space just like an arrow. and Heisenberg uncertainty is wrong. if the shortest distance between two points is an empty space, and the particle must follow a geodesic path, why would the particle bothered to jump? and not just cruise in space. please contemplate its significance.. you would have to change the way you think motion is. matter don' move in space. they are being "teletransported" and recreated bits by bits from one place to another. either space itself as the source of energy or the medium of energy exchanges to recreate matter.. or particles knew a more dense "region" we cannot perceived in our 4d spacetime where it go because transfer of energy is more efficient there.

if we have to unify all forces, i think assuming an infinite absolute space is a wrong direction, imo

 

Space can remain the emptiness between things, being "nothing in between" as contrasted with "things" which occupy space, rendering it "full" at the locus of each 'thing." There is no need to (or benefit in) making the emptiness of space into some "thing" which fills all space. Making something out of nothing is the error of reification, upon which "spacetime" is built.

 

as stated above, this thing (matter) turns out also to be nothing but resonating space too. so either matter and space are nothing or matter and space is a resonating energy system. either way, like it or not, they are of the same thing. they are either nothings or somethings. go make your choice.

 

The significance to science is to see the error of reification and apply Occams Razor to cut out unneccessary and irrelevant "stuff" in relativity and just stick to the fine tuning of prediction that relativity supplies to understanding the effects of gravity without this "fine fabric, spacetime"... which, I predict, will eventually be seen as a pretentious embarrassment to science.... the scientific equivalent of "The Emporer's New Clothes."

 

i believed in occam, one need not assume that space is empty when it is obviously full of things. LOL kidding aside, it's not that GR and QM are wrong, its just the way of looking the same things in a different way.

 

Your question assumes that space is some "thing" that can expand rather than infinite emptiness. (An "end of space" is clearly an ill-conceived idea!) Cosmos (all "things") is (are) expanding outwrd *into space* Yes this expansion "takes time" as we consider "event duration. Yet it is happening now.

Michael

 

i assume that distances between matter are constantly being created and destroyed.

the meaning for me when matter attracts or repels. or somethings get near or far.

 

an end of space means that space is bounded by c. the rate space is being created for you and me in each passing moment. what is beyond expansion is not therefore an empty space "waiting" to be filled by matter. matter and space are created at the same time. what is beyond is unknown. and you can't go beyond the edge of space because you can't overtake c (light). so i prefer not to call it nothing or something. just a perspective.

 

Yes this expansion "takes time" as we consider "event duration. Yet it is happening now

 

now is transcendental. i've been telling this repeatedly. now is non-local, prior to spacetime as we know it or outside it. eternal now is simply the infinite potential from whence everything arises. the present moment is also not the same as the eternal now. the present moment is the snap shot of an instant of the everchanging flow of change from one state of matter to another, the present moment is therefore the summation of all changes that all the things underwent.

 

notice how the expansion of space have two intrinsic directions.

one is an omnidirectional defined by euclidean space and the other is a general oneway "outward" direction. iow an intrinsic outward direction of force being translated to an omnidirectional expansion of space itself.. the former takes place in spacetime so to speak but the latter cannot.

therefore, the origin of expansion cannot be happening in time.

the expansion is the creation of space and time.

so for me, if something is created, it can't be absolute. sorry

[Michael Mooney]

I have to ask this question, I know it is only partially on topic but so much seems to depend on the speed of light being the only way (or fastest way) for information to be communicated but, knowing what we know about changes in science and what we know lets say that next weeks some bright boy finds a way to detect what is happening anywhere instantaneously. Would our universe continue to be the place we see as long as we didn't use that or would that fact cause us to have to see a phase change in the way we see or perceive the universe. Or maybe this is the a better way to say this, if we discovered that we could in some way know what was going on anywhere in the universe as it happens would that change our view of the universe as seen via electromagnetic radiation? Or would it just mean we could see things faster than we do now since we wouldn't have to wait for the light to get here? I'm struggling here so don't flame me too much.

 

I'm sorry if you think I am a militant flame thrower. I am in fact a man of peace who lives a philosophy of radical honesty (not the famous version you get when you Google it but just that i hold truth telling (as I see it, of course) above all else, including "hurting others' feelings." this is justified by my "gnosis" that "personal feelings" are merely attachments to personal conditioning programs which constitute the illusory "personal identity" of the egocentric mind. (I was a carreer transpersonal psychologist for many years. Please excuse the off-topic aside.)

 

The speed of light is clearly the liit of transference of visual and electromagnetic informatrion over all distances.

But you ask:

Would our universe continue to be the place we see as long as we didn't use that or would that fact cause us to have to see a phase change in the way we see or perceive the universe.

No. It wouldn't continue to be the universe we see with our eyes and instruments if we had , which we do potentially, omnipresent consciousness... the gift of transcendence of "personal perspective" in direct resonance with the transpersonal (ultimately the cosmic) dimension of consciousness... still beyond the realm of scientific materialism.

 

After 40 yrs of transcendence of personal point of view, I can see the whole cosmos from metaphysical perspective. it "won't fly" as science, but "vision" is the cutting edge of science, while finding empirical evidence in support comes later, if such a mystic is actually having visions of "what is" in the real universe. Of course the "if" is debateable. that's why I am here debating it with whomever is open to a view beyond the relativity of subjective perception as the last word on "reality."

 

Not done but need to go now. back asap.

Michael

Ps, quickly, re:

if we discovered that we could in some way know what was going on anywhere in the universe as it happens would that change our view of the universe as seen via electromagnetic radiation

Of course! No more time delay waithing for the images to arrive via light. The "light" of consciousaness is omnipresent and available to everyone who will do whatever discipline works for them to transcend the instrumentation of the human mind/brain/sensory-perceptive organism.

Science is still under the hypnosis of materialism. Soon to change, but meanwhile, what i said above will certainly be good for a laugh by the moderators here... so sure of the ultimate reality of subjective ,local perception/perspective and so in denial of the transcendental perspective as above.

 

Family yanking me away from computer....

MM

[Moontanman]

I'm sorry if you think I am a militant flame thrower. I am in fact a man of peace who lives a philosophy of radical honesty (not the famous version you get when you Google it but just that i hold truth telling (as I see it, of course) above all else, including "hurting others' feelings." this is justified by my "gnosis" that "personal feelings" are merely attachments to personal conditioning programs which constitute the illusory "personal identity" of the egocentric mind. (I was a carreer transpersonal psychologist for many years. Please excuse the off-topic aside.)

 

The speed of light is clearly the liit of transference of visual and electromagnetic informatrion over all distances.

But you ask:

 

No. It wouldn't continue to be the universe we see with our eyes and instruments if we had , which we do potentially, omnipresent consciousness... the gift of transcendence of "personal perspective" in direct resonance with the transpersonal (ultimately the cosmic) dimension of consciousness... still beyond the realm of scientific materialism.

 

After 40 yrs of transcendence of personal point of view, I can see the whole cosmos from metaphysical perspective. it "won't fly" as science, but "vision" is the cutting edge of science, while finding empirical evidence in support comes later, if such a mystic is actually having visions of "what is" in the real universe. Of course the "if" is debateable. that's why I am here debating it with whomever is open to a view beyond the relativity of subjective perception as the last word on "reality."

 

Not done but need to go now. back asap.

Michael

Ps, quickly, re:

 

Of course! No more time delay waithing for the images to arrive via light. The "light" of consciousaness is omnipresent and available to everyone who will do whatever discipline works for them to transcend the instrumentation of the human mind/brain/sensory-perceptive organism.

Science is still under the hypnosis of materialism. Soon to change, but meanwhile, what i said above will certainly be good for a laugh by the moderators here... so sure of the ultimate reality of subjective ,local perception/perspective and so in denial of the transcendental perspective as above.

 

Family yanking me away from computer....

MM

 

I asked this question again in the question and answers section so maybe we should move it there but I would like to say that I see no reason the think that the ability to detect something happening the instant it happens would confer some sort of omnipresent view point. From my perspective the speed of light is instantaneous between me and the house next door but it still doesn't confer to me what is going on behind closed doors. Being able to detect something as it happens doesn't mean you would be aware of everything that is happening.

[freeztar]

The "light" of consciousness is omnipresent and available to everyone who will do whatever discipline works for them to transcend the instrumentation of the human mind/brain/sensory-perceptive organism.

 

Science is still under the hypnosis of materialism.

 

Soon to change, but meanwhile, what i said above will certainly be good for a laugh by the moderators here... so sure of the ultimate reality of subjective ,local perception/perspective and so in denial of the transcendental perspective as above.

 

Family yanking me away from computer....

MM

 

Michael,

 

While we welcome alternative scientific theories here at Hypography, it's best that all scientific discussions adhere to the empirical standard (which includes perception, measurement, and objectivity).

 

The "transcendental perspective" is rather elusive as far as scientific inquiry is concerned. If we can test the hypothesis, it's scientific. In this case, we can not test the hypothesis.

 

You may very well be right that we can not perceive the complexity surrounding us, but unless we can devise an experiment capable of positive replication of results we can never be sure, empirically.

 

I'm a moderator, and I'm not laughing. Let's keep this thread scientific! :)