Is the Speed of Light timelessness?
I always knew that Light travels at the speed of Light, and that time does not move for an object that is moving at the speed of light, but I also knew that it was impossible for any object to travel at exactly the speed of light (unless it was a photon, of course). But the light that we see--the REAL light that exists around us everywhere--actually does travel at the speed of light and therefore is always everywhere all at once because it does not take time to get there! If you have ever watched a Marching Band from Upper mezzanine across a stadium, you have seen the "time" it takes for sound to travel at the speed of sound. But how can one imagine that Light itself does not travel in that same sense--it essentially is already there, shining on whatever is in its path for infinity!
What are the implications of this? How does it affect your perspective of Reality?
1. Speed of Light equals non-time.
2. Non-time equals irrelevance of distance.
3. Non-time in distance means already there.
The speed of light is an arbitrary measurement, but time or non-time is a fact which imposes logical necessities on the existence of Light. Think it through!
“Does the process of Creation really exist? How can nothing become something?”
“Is Order a prerequisite to Design, or is Design a prerequisite to Order?”
“What is the Meaning of Life?”
“The more we know, the less we understand.”
"The Big Bang"....Pro or Con?
1. Everything that is possible has therefore already occurred. This is my assessment of the Universe, given an Eternity of Time and a finite amount of matter. This reflects Nietzsche's Theory of Eternal Recurrence, and demonstrates the basis for familiarity-in-strangeness and deja vu.
3. According to Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quark Chromodynamics, there is a preponderance of future-pointed Vibrations in the material Universe (i.e., When quarks emit vibrations into both directions of Time, the backwards-in-Time waves get canceled out by the receiving particle's response vibrations, leaving more vibrations freely flowing towards the future).
The midpoint of SpaceTime will be the occurrence of an equilibrium between future-pointed vibrations and backward-pointed vibrations. The Universe will begin to shrink when the balance tips in favor of backward-pointed vibrations. After the Big Bang's explosion, Reality (the Energy of the Universe existing as physical matter) formed a big bubble of expanding Space-Time. Naturally, the concept of a Big-Bang expansion lends well to a closed Universe (i.e., finite scale) as well as the proclivity towards shrinkage during the second half of its lifespan. Obviously, the Universe will end with a huge collapse back into the Singularity from which it sprang and the Laws of Physics as we know them (All that Quantum weirdness) will cease to function again.
Now, all this sounds nicely conclusive, and confidently plausible . . . so why am I not sold on my own theory? It just sounds too circular and tidy. Of course, I do like the fact that this theory gives as much room for God as it does for Atheism. I prefer to think in terms of the bubble of physical matter formed by the Energy of the Universe as a chosen state of affairs enacted by the Energy, while God exists outside of our Reality, observing it. But I am not certain of the plausibility that God could be "outside" of the Universe and therefore excluded from all Reality. It also negates the "Eternal Recurrence" Theory. I hope Nietzsche wasn't your hero!
This is Practical Philosophy (Now there's a contradiction in terms!)?
The Carpenter skipped along joyfully, kicking up sand with every footstep. "Don't look now, toothy-man! I know where the clams are!"
The Walrus spun around. "I doubt that!"
The Carpenter smiled. "Are you sure about that? Are you certain?"
"Oboy," the Walrus exclaimed. "I might be uncertain! Are we going to laugh about this later?"
The Carpenter snarled goofily. "I would like to laugh about this now, but I am too busy crying about the onions in my eyes."
The Walrus shrugged. "But what can I do about my uncertainty?"
The Carpenter tossed a handful of seaweed into the Walrus' face. "Have Faith, my friend! And follow this sage advice."
The Walrus looked down at the sand. "But I'm not cooking any chicken!"
The Carpenter waved off the remark and continued. "Death results in Certainty, so portion control is paramount in matters of spirituality!"
The Walrus blubbered incoherently.
The Carpenter continued, "Awareness of DOUBT is a confession of the banality of your existence, and defiles all sense of Atheism about you!"
The Walrus looked up. "Bless you!"
The Carpenter did a double-take. "What? huh?"
"I thought you sneezed."
The Carpenter flew into a rage. "Atheists don't say 'Bless you!' You're infected! You have been scrubbing your brain with one of those grilling steel-bristled brushes again, haven't you? I hope you remembered to use Murphy's Oil Soap this time!"
The Walrus dove into the water. Rising up for air, he exclaimed, "It's so liberating."
The Carpenter shouted towards the waves. "You might be on fire!"
The Walrus shrugged again. "How would I know that?"
The Man on the Brawny (a Paper Towel brand) packaging glanced over. "Stop looking at me like that!"
The Carpenter watched bemusedly for a moment, then looked out at the Asker. "Is he an Atheist, or an Agnostic?"
Can you pass the Obscurantist Challenge?
The Governor walked up and kneeled on the sand, dispirited. "What are you celebrating for?" He began to dig diffidently with his fingertips.
The Carpenter chuckled and replied, "I have offended his finer sensibilities." He clapped his hands jovially and resumed his silly cavorting and splashing. "Not everybody can speak Twaddle!"
The Governor held his hand out. "Hey, now wait a minute! I speak fluent Twaddle. It's the language of the Geese. Here, watch." The Governor dropped his arm by his side and began to trot along, flapping his hands at this waist to emulate tiny wings. "Honk! Honk!"
The Carpenter guffawed and slapped his knee. "That's the silliest thing I ever saw! But that's not much of a Goose-step!"
The Governor stopped in his tracks and stood up straight. "But that's how the Geese twaddle! You didn't think I meant something about Fascism, did you? There are many different dialects of Twaddle. In Texas , it's called "Tawdle." In Boston , they call it "Twa'tle." In New York , they say. "Shut up!"
The Carpenter stepped forward. "What do they call it in German?"
The Governor thought for a moment and then answered matter-of-factly. "Utilitiarianism."
The Carpenter did a double-take and then counted the syllables on his fingers. After a moment of thinking, he shrugged. "But what about Logical Positivism?"
The Governor gasped. "Ugh, that's anathema to us Twaddlers! It's like a bunch of dreamy-eyed Optimists took our School of Thought and called it their own. And all because of some Nit-pickey little detail."
The Carpenter scoffed. "Ah, it's just like a Twaddler to nit-pick."
The Governor jerked in annoyance. "But what is there left to do? After Hegel spouted all his senseless drivel, wandering too close to Solipsism to care if he was making any sense! After Schopenhauer's litany of contempt, somebody had to wriggle a way out of the traps that even Plato's Socrates would be unable to outwit!"
The Carpenter put his hands on his hips in exasperation. "Well, that's because he didn't have the gift of baffle-gab!"
Is opposition a concept defined by that thing's mere absence?
I think the part that I question the most is this statement: "It just strikes me as wrong to say that opposition is equivalent to absence."
What's the Difference between Non-Existent and Imaginary?
"There's no such thing as Unicorns!" The Cartoon Dog shouted. "Unicorns do not exist!"
The Stoic Cat jerked and almost choked on a hairball. "What? There are TOO Unicorns! I was gored by one several years ago. I spent weeks in the Veterinary Hospital recovering."
"Huh?" The Cartoon Dog gave a surprised look. "That's not very nice. Unicorns are supposed to represent Purity and Goodness."
The Stoic Cat did a double-take, then leaned forward to whisper, "You're not helping your argument with that."
The Cartoon Dog looked up, scratching his chin thoughtfully. "Oh! Uh, well. what did you do to provoke the Unicorn?"
The Stoic Cat snickered, but stifled himself and continued. "Nothing! I figured, I'm a mythical creature, you're a mythical creature, the Unicorn is a Mythical Creature, why can't we be mythical creatures together?"
The Cartoon Dog leaned forward in interest. "Then what happened?"
The Stoic Cat grimaced. "Apparently the Unicorn has a very different perspective of what it means to be 'together' in the same place."
The Cartoon Dog stood upright quickly. "Um, that still doesn't represent Purity and Goodness."
The Stoic Cat beckoned the Cartoon Dog closer. "And you're still not helping your argument about the Unicorn's non-existence."
The Cartoon Dog looked out of the screen. "What are you lookin' at? Didn't you have a stuffed Teddy Bear when you were a kid? What did you call it? Well, I do not know that name. But if Unicorns don't exist, then how do we ALL know what they are called?"
Does every piece of writing have a philosophy?
The Stoic Cat charged in front of the desk, blocking its further advance into the room. "Oh, no you don't! They're not going to fall for your shenanigans anymore, you silly mutt!"
The Cartoon Dog stood up, drooping its paws at its sides. "Aw, shucks! I was really looking forward to smacking your paw on this desk again."
The Stoic Cat grimaced. "What really disturbs me is your eagerness to strike me dead afterwards. I can't do this forever--I've only got four lives left. Why is this so important to you?"
"The look on your face is so worth it." The Cartoon Dog reminisced thoughtfully, grinning a silly grin and drooling slightly. "Ah, well. What's the question this time?"
The Stoic Cat looked up and did a double-take. "Yaish! We ARE the question!"
The Cartoon Dog wagged its tail excitedly, and shouted, "Yippee! Does this mean that we get to determine the question?"
The Stoic Cat blinked. "Well, I suppose we do. What would you like to ask?"
The Cartoon Dog struggled to think, contorting its ears and snout. "Durh, I've never been asked to provide a question. What is it supposed to feel like?"
The Stoic Cat raked its claws against the inside of the Dog's leg. "Nothing like this!"
The Cartoon Dog yelped, "Yeee-Aaaahh!" and began to wail loudly. After awhile, the wailing subsided into muffled sobs. "What's Wordsworth?"
The Stoic Cat leapt up excitedly. "Tennyson, anyone?"
The Cartoon Dog scowled, a low grumble escaping his throat timidly. "That's not funny, and you know it."
"Well, you are just a cartoon, after all. Besides, if I remember, you prefer Bacon."
The Cartoon Dog scratched his chin thoughtfully. "Well, he DID write all those essays in English, thereby avoiding the problem of meanings lost in translation. He's much more accessible than that Montaigne character--and tastier!"
The Stoic Cat looked over quizzically. "How strangely Anglo-centric that is for a canine! So, is it possible that all narratives contain philosophy? I mean, can a narrative successfully portray a philosophy, or be the product of one?"
Is Perception based on representation?
The Stoic Cat rushed in front of the desk to block its further progress towards the center of the room. "Oh, no you don't! They're not going to fall for this anymore!"
The Cartoon Dog stood up irresolutely. "Aw, gee. Why does Solipsism get to win every time?"
The Stoic Cat did a double-take, "I'm not sure. Maybe it's because it has insufficient presentation?"
The Cartoon Dog scratched its ears thoughtfully. "Don't you mean RE-presentation?"
The Stoic Cat looked away, perplexed. "Have you reading Diderot again?"
"Nope, I'm illiterate." The Cartoon Dog shook its head decisively. "By the way, what's the question this time?"
The Stoic Cat looked up quizzically, reading the menu bar. "It says, 'File, Edit . . . ' I don't think that's much of a question."
The Cartoon Dog looked up with dish-pan eyes. "Yikes, you don't suppose that we are the question, do you?"
"Well, you are just a cartoon, after all."
The Cartoon Dog grinned proudly. "You see, I told you it was about representation!"
The Stoic Cat swiped the Cartoon Dog's nose. "You silly canine! That which is real is real, no matter how it is presented."
The Cartoon Dog looked out of the screen at the Answerer. "What do you think?"
The Stoic Cat grabbed the Cartoon Dog's snout aggressively. "Don't ask them! They don't know anything about being real!"
The Cartoon Dog leered at the Stoic Cat. "Duh, they're more real than we are." The Cartoon Dog pulled away and looked at the Answerer again. "He's not used to being an Asker, so I'll speak for him. Is perception based on presentation, or representation?"
Is Knowledge based on Awareness, or Memory?
The Stoic Cat rushed in front of the desk to block its further progress towards the center of the room. "Oh, no not again! They're getting weary of your brainless prattle!"
The Cartoon Dog stood up irresolutely. "Does this have anything to do with what Socrates did to that boy in the street with a stick?"
The Stoic Cat did a double-take, "Didn't you even read Plato's Meno?"
The Cartoon Dog scratched its ears thoughtfully. "Nope, I'm illiterate. At least as far as I know I am"
The Stoic Cat looked away, perplexed. "Welcome to the world of semi-sentient beings!"
The Cartoon Dog nodded decisively. "Well, I am just a cartoon, after all."
The Stoic Cat looked up sharply. "Hey, that's my line. Ah, well. What do you know?"
The Cartoon Dog drooped slightly. "Well, I am conscious." The Cartoon Dog held an inviting paw out towards the Answerer and asked, "Does awareness constitute knowledge?"
"Nope, don't drag them into this!" The Stoic Cat held up its paws against the screen, blocking the Answerer's view of the question.
The Cartoon Dog sneered pridefully. "You Stoics are all the same with your belief in the primacy of education!"
The Stoic Cat swiped the Cartoon Dog's nose. "You silly mutt! That which is known is learned, no matter how it is derived."
The Cartoon Dog looked out of the screen at the Answerer. "I think he just defended MY side of the argument!"
The Stoic Cat grabbed the Cartoon Dog's snout aggressively. "No, I didn't! I want a recount!"
The Cartoon Dog leered at the Stoic Cat. "Math has nothing to do with it." The Cartoon Dog looked inquisitively out at the Answerer again. "Maybe you can help us resolve this argument. Does awareness constitute knowledge, and what is known is learned no matter how it is derived? Or is knowledge an experientially-developed set of memories which can be interpolated in different and unrelated situations?"
The Stoic Cat's jaw dropped cartoonishly. "Wow! That's a lotta words for a bunch of brainless prattle! What did you say?"
The Cartoon Dog gave a dumbfounded look. "Maybe I am saying that conscious awareness is a meat which tastes like chicken but is kinda bitter like a house which is not like a house?"
The Stoic Cat grinned. "Now, that's the ignoramus that I know and love!"
Can a Philosophy of Mind be compared to the thought that "Weather is not a product of Land"?
As I have stated before (in other Questions), I believe that our "Self" is a relationship between the Body, the Soul, and the Mind. Do not confuse this with an interpretation of mixing or blending of the three entities in question, for these three elements are already coexistent in the "person" that is who we are. Our true "Self" is a direct result of the relationship of these three elements because they coexist in the same "person." I cannot reconcile the Buddhist claim that there is no self in the same way that I cannot reconcile my Quantum (and Berkeleyan) perspective that there is no physical reality with the evidence of the senses. The tactile experience which betrays the physical existence of Reality must be "married" to the notion that the physical Reality does not actually exist. There is something magical about the assessment of a friend being dependent of how one feels about that friend. When one is pleased with a friend, one's assessment of that friend's personhood is pleasant. When one is angry with a friend, one's assessment of that friend is negative and hostile. The "Mood" (as I will now call it) of the relationship between our Body and our Soul affects the "Self" in that same way. It is also true of the relationship between out Mind and our Body, our Soul and our Mind. And relationships in this coexistence are also two-way streets: There is a different relationship between Soul and Body, between Body and Mind, and between Mind and Soul. All six of these interactions affect the Self in different ways, and at least one of them is a by-product of the matter (Brain) and processes (synaptical transmissions) which result from that matter. Recall also that that our circulatory systems are not just the veins, vessel, arteries and heart, but the living, breathing ocean-like creature (multi-celled organism) called our blood. Yes, the blood itself is technically an organ, but is more accurately a population of one-celled organisms much like paramecium or amoebas (Dare I say it? "The Great Pond Within Us All"). But does this mean that all creatures with a synaptic-based nervous system have minds? I suppose it would, but I am having a bit of trouble swallowing the necessary conclusion that gastropods have Minds.
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The reason physical reality concerns you so much is you haven't really fathomed Sartre's nausea, that reality collapses under careful examination. One of the reasons physical reality affects us so much is because we pick and choose what to "see" and what "not to see" (ala The Secret) and so the story we tell ourselves has it's own gravity. What is fascinating is how we need reality to be "deeper" than our understanding. If we create the world, why IS it nauseating? Why does it have levels of cells, molecules, atom and the like beyond ANY one person's understanding? What are we doing to ourselves?
Perhaps nausea is a proof of God, or at least a proof that we WANT A GOD very very badly.