Time Moves in Waves; Not a Barrage of Particle Strings

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Time Moves in Waves; Not a Barrage of Particle Strings

Postby d63 » Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:45 am

“Reality, for me, can be deduced as a wave, as in an interaction between humanity and nature. As soon as they completely mold their paradigm or whatever pattern, they move away from Nature and Constructive Interference (which are multiple waves interacting harmoniously), and instead define their own Reality and impose it on others, while not being open to other things (Destructive Interference). It's pretty much a concept, like aesthetics, where opposite forces work in conjunction with each other to produce thought, which manifests in a concept. One post of mine you may find interesting is "A Social Organism", found at the Political philosophy section of this forum.”

Okay:

You’re sitting in a bare room at a table drinking a cup of coffee. There is only a clock, ticking, and an open window. You reach for the coffee but suddenly a dog barks outside and you turn to the window as your hand, detached from your attention and as dumb as the heart (too dumb to resist the momentum of its trajectory ( topples the cup. You turn and watch in disgust as the dark stain crawls, in a fractal multiplicity of directions, across the table.

Now, at a superficial molar level, you can see a Newtonian chain of cause and effect through narrative: the dog happened to bark at the worst possible time; you got distracted; and, if you want to relieve yourself of accountability (see Sartre), your hand spilled the coffee. At the same time, at this level, there are still relationships of cause and effect. For instance, why didn’t the clock intervene? What was the cause for its not being a cause? And why did the window allow the sound of the bark pass through? Of course, in order to answer these questions, we would have to go through an infinite series of describing the various and multiple chains of cause and effect. In other words, to truly describe the cause and effect (or better: causes and effects) involved we would have to engage in a process similar to Derrida’s Di’ferrance in that the meaning of a statement, or the description, through cause and effect, of why the event occurred, would always be a deferred and infinite process of describing the cause/effect event before the cause/effect event -what Camus referred to as the Absurd.

But it gets even tougher for the Newtonian determinist when we work to the molecular level which they always seem to defer to when cause and effect gets sticky at the molar level or when I ask them to give me next week’s lotto numbers. In order for it to work the way they assert it does, it would have to be a barrage of particle strings (particles that, like the chain of cause and effect, engage in a serial relation of cause and effect at a micro level). Take, for instance, the hand as it hits the coffee cup. What we are suppose to see, at a molecular level, is the particles of the hand moving forward in these parallel strings that, in turn, create motion in the particle strings of the cup. But let’s follow through with this model and simplify it. Take three chains of cause and effect working in parallel and use language as a kind of stand in:

Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.

And let’s follow the model though to the collective effect of:

Because of this, that.

The molar effect of the molecular:

Because of this, that.
Because of this, that.
Because of this, that.

Now: note the contradiction at work here. On one hand, the Newtonian model can compress the three different causal chains into the collective: Because of this, that. But at the same time, this puts off the impression that these causal chains work in isolation –that is until they displace the trajectory of another causal chain. But it gets worse for the Newtonian when you consider the gaps that must be explained in causal terms as well. Much as the clock stayed out of the situation (for which there must be a cause)you have to explain the cause for chains of cause and effect that don’t effect another chain of cause and effect. In other words, between the three initial chains (in those spaces between the lines) there are still causal relationships working at all points within the spaces between the sentences. If everything must have a cause, then there must be cause within the very spaces left by the chains of cause and effect we can describe.

In other words, time (that is as a description of change –thank you Dr. Tallis!) must move in waves, not a barrage of particle strings. In our situation, it is as if the BwO (the Body without Organs) of time radiated from the dog outside, swept through the open window, through you, then converged in your hand to knock the cup over, then shitted in your face as it spread the dark stain across your table while the clock, and everything else in the universe, just watched.

Anyway, I’ve gone past the 500 words I like to limit myself to in these sessions. But before I go, I want to list (in cliff notes style) some the other points I want to go into:

-the possibility that your model could also be referred to as a fractal approach to causation and reality.

-the similarity of your take on reality and how we fix it to the relationship between difference and repetition.

-and how I am conditionally sympathetic to your distrust of quantum physics, but probably for different reasons than you.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5561
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users