KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA61 (Andemicael)

Commentary 4

 

TIME FLOW
by Chris Hooley
12 August 2003, posted 26 August 2003

 

<1>
Abstract

Andemicael's paper started me thinking about the "flow of time." It stirred up some questions. Are there non-MIRish theories concerning time flow? Is it useful to limit "existence" to that which manifests in spacetime?

 

<2>
Dr. Mueller is correct, I think, to remind us that SE is primary. We KNOW that there is an experiential space. All concepts, including that there is a world or that there is such a thing as time, arise within that space. We can have no KNOWING that any object or idea precedes experiential space logically or otherwise. So, we do well to handle these "downstream" elements as working constructs. If they work keep them. If not, construct new ones with greater functionality.

<3>
Andemicael equates existence with persistence. I understand his logic and appreciate it. However, I am reluctant to follow. Clearly expression in four-dimensional spacetime requires extensions of time and distance. If something does not persist, or function in a fashion that SE constructs its apparent persistence, then it cannot express here. If "existence" is limited to that which is manifested in four-dimensional spacetime, Andemicael is right.

<4>
I am unsatisfied with this limited idea about existence, however. Perhaps there are other spacetimes with additional dimensions, allowing additional expressions. Perhaps there is some sort of Bohmian implicate order out of which manifestation arises. Perhaps the manifestation, including the entire world, our thoughts, and even our selves, is a field of dreams, an epiphenomenon of deeper dynamics.

<5>
Even twentieth century science points toward unmanifested existence. At the speed of light space and time contract to zero. FOR THE PHOTON, here is there and then is now. Yet light manifests.

<6>
So, why do we perceive a flow of time? It's a great question. Perhaps there is no flow at all. Discontinuous "scans" of manifestation are precluded in Andemicael's model because existence entails persistence both before and after the "now." However, if the continuity were constructed within SE, then we must only satisfy the appearance of the flow of time. Is there some scan rate that SE would perceive as a flow?

<7>
Perhaps the apparent flow of time is a product of wave mechanics. Temporal and spatial expression may be the result of interacting waves that exceed some threshold. Quarks, people, ideas, galaxies, all may break into expression for a time, like waves on the surface of the sea, only to recede into the unmanifest again. Our sense of the flow of time might arise directly from our immersion in this ocean of cyclical manifestations.

<8>
Perhaps the most useful models are entirely different. At any rate, I thank Adhanom for his article. Its clarity and vigor inspired me to look again at this intriguing subject

----------------------------------

Chris Hooley