Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by maddog

I would question that. This not to invalidate your statement. It is just that I conjecture
that maybe our consciousness is more than signals traveling down neurons. I have no
physics to back this up. Pure conjecture at this point. Were to happen from QM it would
require that said "extra-sensory" communication would require to be done as Virtual particles.
You are no longer required to meet the C speed Law.

Just similar the lyrics of a Moody Blues song "Thinking is the Fastest way to Travel...".

maddog

You must of thought I was referring to brain signals traveling slowly.?

I was speculating that a macroscopic bodies motion is irrelavent, compared to the motion of the atomic materials. Though, I question my own statement now..

[Michael Mooney]

Hydrogenbond:

If space-time is a construct, when gravity bends space-time, does than imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct? If this was true, it would imply the mind gets bent, creating the impression reality is bending.

(I missed this one 'til now.)
Very good question! I have never gotten an answer either in all my repetitions of the essential, ontological question, "What is bending?"

I would say however that rather than positing that "reality is bending" the error is mental reification of "the fabric, spacetime" as if it were an actual medium rather than a mental construct.

(but the thread on that subject is still locked up!)
Michael

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

If space-time is a construct, when gravity bends space-time, does than imply reality is not what is bending, but only the construct? If this was true, it would imply the mind gets bent, creating the impression reality is bending.

No, that cannot be the case.

We humans "bend" the space-time-construct.

Gravity "bends" the space-time-reality.

If we do the first one correctly, it gives the correct observable description of the second.

If gravity were only "bending" our minds, the math would not work.
But it DOES work.
So the math (space-time-construct) is an accurate reflection of what gravity is doing to space-time-reality.

No other conclusion is plausible.

[arkain101]

So the math (space-time-construct) is an accurate reflection of what gravity is doing to space-time-reality.

What if we were to say, the math is a convenient method to apply, relative to the way we think and see (the way our brain thinks 3D) reality.

Which implies, there is other ways to see reality.

[Michael Mooney]

Pyrotex:

We humans "bend" the space-time-construct.

Gravity "bends" the space-time-reality.

How do you know the difference between what "we humans bend" (in our minds) and what "gravity bends,"(objectively, independent of our minds), and why do you assume the reality of 'space-time' as a given reality. (Notice the ontological error of assumption in the latter.)

If we do the first one correctly, it gives the correct observable description of the second.

If gravity were only "bending" our minds, the math would not work.
But it DOES work.
So the math (space-time-construct) is an accurate reflection of what gravity is doing to space-time-reality.

What do you see as the *Bridge* between "the first one"...humans bending the spacetime construct... and the second ... assertion that "Gravity "bends" the space-time-reality"....

Note: you assume a-priori a "space-time reality"
as if it were an ontologically given/proven/established "reality."

No other conclusion is plausible.

I will assume that you can or will not hear my feedback in this post ... a fair assumption based on past confrontations and your very insulting PM messages (Privacy will be maintained!)...

So this leaves your last dogmatic statement.
I'm glad you did not say that no other conclusion is possible.

There is still hope! The difference between plausable and possible is the slack in science for visionary exploration.... as "possible reakity."
Michael

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by arkain101

What if we were to say, the math is a convenient method to apply, relative to the way we think and see (the way our brain thinks 3D) reality.
Which implies, there is other ways to see reality.

I don't care what you're smoking, it isn't going to change reality.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Pyrotex:
How do you know the difference between what "we humans bend" (in our minds) and what "gravity bends,"(objectively, independent of our minds), and why do you assume the reality of 'space-time' as a given reality. (Notice the ontological error of assumption in the latter.) ...

No Michael,
YOU made the error of assuming that the moderators of Hypography would allow your pointless, inane, troll-baiting to go on forever.
You're suspended.

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

I don't care what you're smoking, it isn't going to change reality.

smoking? (I'll take that as a joke)

I was asking you what you think of that form of phrasing:

What if we were to say, the math is a convenient method to apply, relative to the way we think and see reality.

For example; isn't the math and visualization different depending on the geometry and dimensions used to represent or analyze reality?

That's all for now, I'd like to elaborate, but some other time.

[Michael Mooney]

Check-in... test. Still suspended?
M

[arkain101]

Hi Michael. Since I have given some of your threads a lot of my attention, would you mind returning the favor, as I think it is related to your thoughts.

http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...ntal-laws.html