Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
WR does mention that an inertial plane does exist between any two masses, a place where the potential between the masses is equalised.
...it's about different potential pressures and it's consequences.
Simple physics...
You mean our current main theory in physics. As there are many many theories...And we must always remember all these are just theories, which do not and cannot claim to picture the complete actual truth!
Believe me, I had a lot of physics during my technical study. And our professor was working at the CERN, so we also got quite some information in this field of physics, and not only standard mechanics...
Actually, if you really know a lot in physics, you will easily come to the conclusion that physics doesn't know anything...
There are so many many effects already today observed which do not fit into the standard model...
So IMHO declaring anything that is outside this mainstream theory as "wrong" doesn't make sense...As there is no profound argument to say, the current theory is "correct".
Sure you can describe a lot of observed effects. But as mentioned before there are also a lot of effects not explainable by the current model.
There are no 'effects' ('causality' is an obsolete notion), there are observations of natural phenomena. That is what physics does.
Nameless, could you elaborate; is this your something to do with how the universe exists in moments, and does not actually flow?
Exaxctly.
Where is the linear notion of 'cause and effect' in a wholistic 'Reality' in which all moments are synchronous, Now!
'C&e' is a relic of a particulatly linear Perspective. What might 'c&e' be to a Perspective that perceives the 'flow of time' to be exactly the reverse from that which we might perceive? Or perceiving a 'stream' of linear appearing moments (memory) of every other possible juxtaposition in every possible combination of moments.
Yes, the appearance of 'causality', from a particular Perspective, is the appearance of 'causality' in Reality, a feature, but not the big picture.
Any clearer? *__-
Yes, but doesn't it matter why the universe would not in actuality flow?
In reality, in the quantum world there is what appears to be randomness, which 'gradually' becomes more flowing through upward causation.
Aren't the combination of moments determined by this causation?
So if the juxtaposition changes then the causation changes
wouldn't you get a completely different universe?
The 'why' is in it's structure. 'Why' a hand is not a wing, is that it is a hand, and not a wing. The isness is the only 'why'. Due to the perception of linearity, we imagine 'causality' which is context for the brains thoughts to posit a 'why'. No 'why', just is!
So, is this a philosophy for you then?
Reality is like a syntax for 'why' though.
And what is the logic behind regarding the Planck moment as a basis for assuming there is no flow in reality on a 'higher' causal level?
In actuality sure, I understand, but reality
This is why I brought up causation. Micro/quantum to macro perception let's say. The planck moment expresses the synchronicity and causal-free reality in the 'frame' (if we stick to the analogy) of the quantum causation, but does this mean the macro causation is inherently linked in some way? Automatically it is assumed that actuality provides this link, but it is an egoistic rendition here; fallacious, or rather, useless. (I know you don't use the term 'actuality', so don't mind me)
The planck moment implies discontinuity, right?
There is no 'infinite resolution'. I am confused though. What does the planck moment apply to? Is it both length and time? Length relates to causation, time relates to causality.
A Planck moment is the smallest quanta of 'time' that retains any 'integrity'.
Quanta are discrete and deny any possible 'flow' (as anything other than in the imagination/perspective).
I deny the existence of any 'higher causal level' other than as 'appearances' and 'ego'.
I am unsure of your definitional differentiation between 'actual' and 'real'?
If there is no linearity, there is no 'time' and no 'motion' and certainly no 'causality.
nameless wrote:
A Planck moment is the smallest quanta of 'time' that retains any 'integrity'.
Interesting. So if we gave the planck unit a value of 1, do we know what 0.75 is like?
Why is it that the integrity falls apart at all, and why at the level that it does?
nameless wrote:
Quanta are discrete and deny any possible 'flow' (as anything other than in the imagination/perspective).
I don't understand, I mean, I understand this concept, but why any possible flow?
Sure at the causal level of the quantum world I understand, but why in the macro world is it assumed so too?
Let's say the purely discrete causal level has a value of 0, just for the sake of it, not trying to imply anything whatsoever. And the macro level (our level for example) has a level of say, 100. Upward causation is the process of going from 0-->100. Downward causation is the process of going from 100-->0.
And I'm assuming of course that if 'integrity' were valued as is here, it would have a domain; I mean, if it has a domain in the quantum direction, being the planck length, then why not in the macro direction, like Olber's Bubble or something like that.
If we assign integrity as a y value, and the causation value as an x value, would there be any correlations, or can this be modeled by some form of measurement; or are causal 'levels' just some idealistic notion that has been turned into an assumption, and that's the fallacy you've been trying to drill into my head.
Is it possible that when talking about upward causation and downward causation, the processes themselves are intrinsically discontinuous?
When physicists (you seem to know everything about this stuff so I'm comfortable asking you) found this quantum length, does it apply to width and height too, or is it relevant to dimension?
So how should one go about transcending the "linear perspective" of causality?