Existence is mass, waves or fields in immaterial space. Motion can be defined as CHANGE of place. Why, then, is motion the fundamental process of existence?
Whereas space is place for existence, motion makes existence possible. How so? If all motion ceases to exist, the big crunch will follow. Without motion there
would be no change; everything would remain the same. Even on the micro level, motion or change (decay) is activated by the weak force of quantum mechanics.
Motion, then, is the fundamental process of existence or reality; it is necessary but light is not. In considering existence, motion is paramount.
That’s right.
Existence IS motion…more precisely…
Existence= dynamic, interactivity experienced as constant motion, interpreted as change.
All is Energy (ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑ- Greek for ‘at work,’ in a state of agitation).
Energies that can be patterned ([size=80]order[/size]) or non-patterned, ([size=80]chaos[/size]).
We can only perceive order because only patterns can remain consistent to harmonize with other energies, participating in unities that can become large enough to be perceived.
Also, as organisms ourselves we can only perceive and interpret ([size=80]a priori[/size]) patterns, order.
Two relatively disharmonious energies can also form stable unities with the participation of a mediating third type of order, acting as a harmonizing mediating pattern.
My definition of ‘interpretation’ is given elsewhere.
My analysis of what interaction means, i.e., attraction/repulsion force, is also given elsewhere.
Harmony describing a relationship where repulsion is exceeded by attraction, i.e., reducing frictions.
Motion is not an attribute of what exists - implying a static thing that is then set in motion by some force - but is motion itself.
Motion, again, is how we experience existence.
Ergo, Heidegger uses the allegory of ‘throwness’ - we are ‘thrown into existence’ meaning we awaken to our participation in the dynamic flux.
Flux implies both order/chaos.
In this context ‘will’ describes a focus of our organic movements, momentums - intentional movement towards an objective, or a direction increasing probabilities of interacting.
This intentional directing towards or away, is what differentiates the living from the non-living.
An interesting conceptualization of light is given in this vid:
Spacetime rotations, understanding Lorentz transformations
Lorikeet,
I don’t know how to hear what he said about Galileo, Lorentz, and Minkowski without it being mentioned that it’s about the origin point/location of space (or…time/Time?)—and in one example “space” (or something at that location/origin) LEFT its location & MOVED to another LOCATION, and in the other example, “space” (or something at that location/origin) STAYED in the same LOCATION. BOTH points/locations moved through time toward the future at the speed of light… no? But in only one did the point/location/origin stay the same. The other one involved several points/locations/origins.
Is it a location/origin in time/Time, or is it a location/origin in space? (…is there a space/Space? …maybe it’s a location/origin in SpaceTime?)
I have other questions, but I’m just frustrated that this is where I’m stuck.
Infinity equals motion.
Nobody can count all the numbers even though they know they’re there.
When infinity is itself, motion occurs because it can’t count itself, but it tries.
Many beings with lots of power will tell you they can count infinity. It can’t be counted in time, and it’s a construct of time.
What does it mean to count all the numbers when they never end?
That’s what causes motion. Counting them all… because you never get to the end.
Some people count so fast they don’t even have to count one at a time, & they don’t even have to count five at a time, and they don’t even have to count 10 at a time, and they don’t even have to count 20 at a time, and they don’t even have to count one hundred at a time, and they don’t even have to count yada yada yada yada yada, and they’re so smart they just have it all in their head without counting. Plus the divisions are just arbitrary sometimes.
Some people call me the fastest being that exists.
My ability to answer the most difficult problems.
Usually I’m just silent when I’m attacked.
I wait. And then I know how to beat you.
I watch with laser sharp accuracy.
I have a restful sleep and then I know how to beat you.
People think it’s a mystery why you should protect people here.
The answer is simple …. Their potential.
I’m a living example of this.
I’m cosmic in scope now.
Just because someone gave a fuck about me.
Thought, especially philosophical thought, is fraught with jackass traps.
¿if motion is constant, is it really change?
¿is the big crunch really absent motion?
¿isn’t everything “location/located”?
…(w)here??? echo echo echo echo…
Space/Time are mental constructs - a priori Kant, and Schopenhauer called them, evolving to interpret fluctuating dynamic existence.
Time is a relationship between the subject and flux, using the minds processing speeds, i.e., perceptions speeds, or the organism’s metabolic rhythms, as the standard - systolic/diastolic rhythms.
This is the organic root of binary thinking: inhale, inflation - exhale, deflation - spirit they call or ΠΝΕΥΜΑ in Greek, referring to breathing or organic cellular biorhythms.
Man can use an external standard, like seasonal changes, or pendulum swings, or the vibrations of a crystal.
Space is the way the mind interprets possibilities for interaction - matter being an interpretations of probabilities within this expanding field of possibilities.
Here/Now are mental constructs indicating a portion of space time determined by the start and the end of a thought, or some other arborary beginning/end point, viz., beginning and ends are mental constructs.
Existence has no beginning and no end - and no static immutable, indivisible points.
All existence is dynamic and interactive - when interactivity is perceived it becomes a mental point in space/time - causality = interactivity, i.e., sufficient reason.
Kant began with ‘thing’ - metal interpretation of a pattern - whereas Schopenhauer began with intent, will making Kan’t thing-in-itself more intimate, experienced first-hand as intentionality - focus on an objective. As such Schopenhauer implied that existence was intentional, and its intent is to live - Will to Life.
The lines between life and non-life were blurred.
But existence has no intent, only life does within existence and in relation to it.
An explanation of existence cannot be projected in some non-existent outside, beyond, it must be found within existence.
In my model what distinguishes life form non-life is intentionality, will to… or will from…: attraction/repulsion = interaction, i.e., Flux.
Change is how interactivity is experienced after-the-fact, due to the time required for a consciousness to collect and process stimuli, data, creating a lag between the act and an interpretation/perception of it.
When conceptualizing the Big Bang - as the ‘beginning - and the Big Crunch - as the end - we are approaching the same theoretical event from two different directions.
The Big bang is the other side of another universal iteration’s Big Crunch.
Both states describe an approach to a singularity that is never finalized: absolute order/chaos.
In such a theoretical state all is reduced down to a near-infinite mass which cannot become absolute because of a flaw - chaos is order’s flaw, and order is chaos’ flaw.
The completion, finalization of such a dualistic state to a singularity implies the negation of existence, and so we have two types of nihilists:
1- pure nihilism, seeking relief in absolute chaos, i.e., elimination of life and consciousness.
2- positive nihilism, seeking relief in an imaginary alternate reality where this one is inverted, and negative becomes positive, i.e., life returning to absolute order - god - as a nothing/nobody, escaping existential need/suffering through its immersion in an imagined absolute singularity where all are returned to oneness, viz., an end to multiplicity.
Lorikeet, did your reply address mine?
As to the original post, this goes unanswered…
Putting those two quotes together, I have a follow up question:
In the way the video presents the matrix according to Galileo, assuming that is the correct interpretation of Galileo, it presents one object as NOT changing location but still appearing to move, while the other one does appear to move AND changes location.
If Galileo is correctly interpreted, and also correct, then everything appears to move, and everything appears to be stationary, whether or not anything changes location.
But there is the appearance, and then there is the reality that is appearing.
Science is supposed to get at the reality, but if all of reality is an intentional appearing, then it is the reality of appearing.
When an appearance stops appearing does it still exist? Do I touch the appearance or the thing-in-itself? Do I taste the appearance or the thing-in-itself when I look at it
while eating my apple? The naive realist (so called) sees reality at the macro level depending on sensibility; the quantum scientist eliminates appearance; objects are not
visible at the micro level. Objects cannnot move and move. Its regrettable that the great philosopher Kant was so handicapped by religion to the point where he had to espouse
idealism.
You say Kant espoused idealism like you say I espoused naive realism.
Anywhayz…
There are structures at every rung. Full stop.
No, that’s a mis-read. Kant claimed to espouse transcendental idealism. Thanks for reading post and responding. In my remarks, my intention is never to attack
personalities.
You are correct that idealism is a misread.
No, appearance is how a consciousness perceives a presence.
Life being of order can only perceive order, i.e., dynamic interactive, consistent, repeating, predictable patterns.
Chaos can only be perceived via its interactions - effects - on order.
Present/Presence is past manifested - a continuity of past/PRESENT/Future, where “present” is what we experience as existence, since it is dynamic and interactive.
Past is determined, it no longer exist, other than in memory, or as manifesting presence.
Past= = determined
PRESENT/PRESENCE = Determining
Future = yet to be determined. Future is what is being determined presently. Life participates as an intentional agency in what is being determined, and to the degree of its power, i.e., freedom.
Non-living energies only follow paths-of-least-resistance.
Existence is defined as that which is dynamic and interactive.
Touching, hearing, seeing, smelling, etc., all describe an interaction - some using some mediating type of energy, like atmosphere, light etc.
Organic senses evolved a priori methods of interpreting interactions.
Sensual acuity is a factor, but anything that exists, i.e., is dynamic and interactive, can be perceived using a sense organ evolved for this use.
Every sensory input is its own context.
Nervous systems evolved to transmit interactivity, sensory input to a processing rogan, the brain, where they are converted to what we experience as sensations, feelings, vision, sound, touch.
All senses refer to how we process interactivity.
All is energy.
“Objects”, i.e., things, are mental construct of dynamic interactive energy patterns.
It is natural to reduce everything to a comprehensible level.
Simple minds reduce everything to sensations, feelings; more complex minds reduce them to abstractions, ideas/ideals - Platonic ideals refer to such abstractions taken literally.
Like Abraham’s one-god, or Schopenhauer’s ‘will’, or Kant’s ‘thing-in-itself’, or Spinoza’s ‘Deus/Nature’.
The mind is tempted to consider its representations of existence as more real, as ideal.
The idea/ideal is all it knows - subjectivity - because it reduces, converts, translates, interprets everything into a form it can process and use.
There are, at least, three stages of interpretations, one is automatic and innate - physical - primal. even plants do it.
It is a rudimentary form of interpreting stimuli - interactions - requiring no nervous system and not brain.
Then there’s the interpretations of the brain/nervous system creating the mind/body dichotomy. More sophisticated, adding a second layer of interpreting sensory stimuli.
Now we have two sources, physical and mental; two memory pools.
The third is when the organism converts these sensations, stimuli back to actions - reactive.
In higher life-forms, like our own, sensations, feelings can return to the world, via the nervous system and the muscle system, as action.
So, interactions are interpreted and then converted back to interactions.
A more sophisticated method is art, including language, or technologies, innovations.
The mind converts the sum total of tis gathered, processed and stored interactions into a synthesized form using a different medium, like stone or wood…
Art and technologies express a mind’s knowledge and, more importantly, its understanding of the experienced world.
I dive art, including language, into two general categories:
Art that expresses the minds knowledge/understanding of existence.
fArt that expresses a mind’s reactions towards its knowledge/understanding of existence.
Nihilism belonging to the second, as it attempts to escape, or correct, or dismiss experienced reality and replace it with its own fabrications.
This begins as an adaptation, but can progress to the level of detachment, insanity, necessitating some protective agency to survive in a world a mind is wilfully and selectively receding from.
Lorikeet,
You are saying we are presently determining the future out of the presently manifesting past that no longer exists.
How can a past-us, that doesn’t exist, presently manifest the past, or presently determine the future?
In my view time does not exist–never has and never will be.