Thank you so very much for the excellent post!
But the question I wonder about is, because the human mind needs to work this way, and thus must impose itself in this manner on reality, could this then mean that somehow we are making reality “fit” our categories instead of the other way around? And if this is so, then could it be possible that there are aspects of reality that must remain forever unknown to us on principle, because we have no other method by which to engage or deal with them, given our present state of consciousness and our resulting notions WRT the problem of Time?
I believe there are aspects of reality which remain unknown to us on purpose. Our minds have difficulty with four dimensions as it is. Our eyes are not made for higher dimensional perception. Pondering extra spatial dimensions requires an almost out-of-body awareness, even more so extra time dimensions.
The Curse of Dimensionality (pdf) Therefore, I conclude that we do indeed “make reality ‘fit’ out categories instead of the other way around.”
Personally, I rather “shun” the idea of understanding myself as a “composite” built entirely out of the activity going on in a multiplicity of fields.
I agree. In this case, the sum of the parts does not equal the whole and looking at it that way is misleading, IMHO.
But “shunning” is silly, if what I wish to “shun” is the actual truth of reality: Which surely seems to be that I am composed of a multiplicity a different fields (or “ontological levels”). Truth is truth! My “opinion” of it matters not in the least.
Again, I agree. It will take a lot of courage on the part of integrative scientists to let go of the material landmarks and put it all at risk. The only parallel I can think of off-hand is the reaction one has the first time he dives in open, murky water. Suddenly he not only doesn’t know where land is, but he can’t tell which way is up without looking at the bubbles. But with high risk comes high reward.
Here’s what I wonder about, as it seems particularly related to our understanding of time. Isn’t in a certain sense something that is “universal” effectively “timeless?” In the sense that it never does move from past to present to future, it just IS? Just as physical laws themselves are effectively “timeless?” They do not build up randomly over a long chain of causation; they are that which constrains apparent randomness into the forms we see all around us; and without them, there could be no forms? It probably sounds pretty “Greek” to simply say that universals are timeless on principle – which in a certain way gives them a value as some kind of order of “time” – so to speak (if only to indicate negatively what is not subject to temporal change).
In my view, time and space are like two sides of the same coin. Both are created as the universe expands, and they can be transformed (Construction of the Lorentz Transformation). That is the difficulty I was having with the above article. Time (space/time) is already relativistic. The more interesting speculation was yours! Is time multi-dimensional? If the answer to your question is affirmative, then the four dimension worldview (3 spatial plus time) can be seen as a fixed block and within the extra-dimension of time the entire panorama is revealed, i.e. beyond any conceivable timeline. This rings true to my Spirit and fits nicely with the Tegmark musings on a Level IV multi-verse of mathematical structures. IOW, instead of a separate universe per mathematical structure as Tegmark proposes, an extra dimensional time within which the mathematical structures exist.
The article on gravity raised even more flags for me – in particular, could dark energy be a manifestation of extra dimensional dynamics? It might help explain why dark energy, which is 70% of the mass of the universe, has not been detected in laboratories.
It may also help explain some of the apparent superluminal anomalies such as the Feynman one you discussed:
Plus Richard Feynman has suggested that, at state vector collapse, one of the photon pair “must calculate” all possible routes to find its photon twin before it actually settles on one. This seems a little nutty to me (maybe he was speaking tongue-in-cheek); but if it’s true, it seems that calculation must proceed at a rate faster than the speed of light; for on state vector collapse, the photon twin “instantly” gets the same “information” as the original photon. So I don’t see why there cannot be “superluminal” velocities; especially if the field in which they are taking place is substantially “out of time” – and thus not constrained by our ordinary notions of space and time. Indeed, simultaneous “action at a distance” seems to require some kind of field or substrate that is not constrained for space and time.
Please let me know what you think of the articles after you look them over this weekend. I think you are “onto” something here, betty boop.
I’ve been thinking about writing a short article on the universality of consciousness as a potential fundamental field or principle of the Universe, based on some recent papers I’ve read from Raman, Rifat, and Grandpierre, that might shed further light on these issues, and perhaps aid in focusing our present speculation further.
That’s a great idea! I look forward to your article! Right now, I’m considering whether an extra time dimension would be the residence of the neshama. Hmmmm… Thank you so very much for all these thought-provoking ideas! Hugs!!!