Eternalism and Conscious Experience

[Carnifex]

(05-08-2012 09:18 AM)kim Wrote:  I do not have preconceived ideas about art.

I would say that is unusual, because I certainly do and should think anyone with artistic taste would, otherwise how would you decide what art appealed to you or not?

Quote:In my opinion, I don't think consciousness is eternal - it dies when I die - if that's what you're asking about. My "story" ends with me.

Certainly. However if points in space-time never become non-existent then your consciousness in those places is still there within the event.



If you were somehow able to "look in" from "outside" you wouldn't see the linear progression of someone's life, you would just see various events at different locations.

[Bucky Ball]

(06-08-2012 05:57 AM)Carnifex Wrote:  If you were somehow able to "look in" from "outside" you wouldn't see the linear progression of someone's life, you would just see various events at different locations.

The diagram says "observer. Should it not say "observed" ? Secondly, what is the point of all this ? The point you made above is not in dispute. However there is no conceiveable way anyone can be both the observer, and the observed. Have you figured out how to be in two places at once ?

A better diagram for this is Brian Greene's video on time. See around 10:00
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fab...abric-time

[Carnifex]

(06-08-2012 06:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The diagram says "observer. Should it not say "observed" ?

Probably

Quote:However there is no conceiveable way anyone can be both the observer, and the observed.

Well in a sense everyone is already in more than one place at once. Since points in time are locations.

Quote:A better diagram for this is Brian Greene's video on time. See around 10:00
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fab...abric-time

Thank you for the link.

[Carnifex]

An interesting paper here arguing for Eternalism, "Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?" (from "Philosophy and Foundations of Physics" Series, pp. 207–228)

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/P...iverse.pdf

This is the abstract:

Quote:This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universe
view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional
world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. Second,
to argue that special relativity alone can resolve the debate on whether
the world is three-dimensional or four-dimensional. The argument ad-
vanced in the paper is that if the world were three-dimensional the
kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly the
experiments con¯rming them would be impossible.

and the Conclusion:

Quote:Conclusions
It has been shown that the three-dimensionalist view contradicts special
relativity and more importantly the experiments which con¯rm its conse-
quences. To demonstrate this contradiction relativity of simultaneity, length
contraction, and the twin paradox were analyzed and it was shown that if
one assumed that the world were three-dimensional, neither of these rela-
tivistic e®ects would be possible.
In this sense special relativity alone appears to provide a de¯nite proof
of the block universe view. One may argue that the arguments discussed
here are insu±cient for rejecting the presentist view since those arguments
demonstrated that presentism contradicts only special relativity, not the
other established theories (quantum mechanics, for instance). Such a posi-
tion could hardly be defended because if a view contradicts the experimental
evidence it is de¯nitely wrong. There is just one way to prove that the pre-
sentist view does not contradict the relativistic e®ects { to demonstrate that
the experiments which con¯rm the kinematic consequences of special rela-
tivity can be explained if it is assumed that the world is three-dimensional.

[kim]

(06-08-2012 05:57 AM)Carnifex Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:18 AM)kim Wrote:  I do not have preconceived ideas about art.

I would say that is unusual, because I certainly do and should think anyone with artistic taste would, otherwise how would you decide what art appealed to you or not?

Nah, one knows what one likes. As for any particular ideas about a piece of art; often knowledge of it is instantaneous upon observation, while sometimes, it might need further thought for that knowledge to seep in. In no way does that mean one has any preconceived idea about that particular piece, or even that what is being observed might be considered art, at all. To already have a complete idea about a work of art which one has not yet observed? No… I do not do that.

[Carnifex]

(08-08-2012 02:45 PM)kim Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 05:57 AM)Carnifex Wrote:  I would say that is unusual, because I certainly do and should think anyone with artistic taste would, otherwise how would you decide what art appealed to you or not?

Nah, one knows what one likes. As for any particular ideas about a piece of art; often knowledge of it is instantaneous upon observation, while sometimes, it might need further thought for that knowledge to seep in. In no way does that mean one has any preconceived idea about that particular piece, or even that what is being observed might be considered art, at all. To already have a complete idea about a work of art which one has not yet observed? No… I do not do that.

While this is slightly off topic I didn't mean a complete idea about a work of art. For example, I have a preference for science fiction literature as opposed to, perhaps, the crime genre. This might mean I will pay more attention to certain novels more than others; or even disregard some novels entirely.

[kim]

(08-08-2012 03:52 PM)Carnifex Wrote:  While this is slightly off topic I didn't mean a complete idea about a work of art. For example, I have a preference for science fiction literature as opposed to, perhaps, the crime genre. This might mean I will pay more attention to certain novels more than others; or even disregard some novels entirely.

Mmm, not really all that off topic...

Is it possible you might pay more attention to certain types of scientific theories, or even disregard some theories entirely, in the hope that those certain ones will be more likely to fit your desired... whatever? Admittedly, it's interesting to think about time travel... but personally, present time and space keep me busy enough.

By the way, the diagram you provided has the "observations" quite low - well below the event horizon.... I don't think that's possible at this time. However, the NuSTAR telescope put up in July might be able to do just that. So, maybe then, we'll see what we can see, hmm?

[bemore]

I suppose the universe could throw out multi-dimensions with every single feasible scenario instantly being played out simultaneously..... but if potentially infinite other versions of me do exist..... there not really me.

If somehow you did jump into another dimension and meet yourself you may be similar, however you are still two nervous systems/brains both experiencing different and unique versions of "I"

Are these seperate identities consequence of you.... you of them..... or the universe???

I believe time is more man made than it actually exists as we percieve it (like Kim said an observation/dimension)..... I only believe we think we move in a direction because of our mortality..... In my opinion there is only now and this ever changing instant

The past only exists as a perception in our minds from memory and the future in our imagination.

[Carnifex]

(09-08-2012 07:39 AM)bemore Wrote:  I suppose the universe could throw out multi-dimensions with every single feasible scenario instantly being played out simultaneously..... but if potentially infinite other versions of me do exist..... there not really me.

If somehow you did jump into another dimension and meet yourself you may be similar, however you are still two nervous systems/brains both experiencing different and unique versions of "I"

Are these seperate identities consequence of you.... you of them..... or the universe???

I believe time is more man made than it actually exists as we percieve it (like Kim said an observation/dimension)..... I only believe we think we move in a direction because of our mortality..... In my opinion there is only now and this ever changing instant

The past only exists as a perception in our minds from memory and the future in our imagination.

Then allow me to introduce you to the "Andromeda Paradox"

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheAndromedaParadox/

Quote:Rietdijk, Putnam, and Penrose independently proposed a thought-experiment to explore the concept of simultaneity in special relativity. The Andromeda galaxy is approximately 2.5 million light years from Earth (≈2.5×m) . Assume, for simplicity, that the galaxy and the Earth remain momentarily at this fixed distance, with no relative motion. Suppose an Earthling is slowly strolling in the direction of Andromeda. Then events on Andromeda that occur, in concept, simultaneously in the Earthling's frame of reference, depend rather sensitively on his or her walking speed. Roughly, an increase in walking speed of one foot per second corresponds to a simultaneous event occurring on Andromeda about an Earth day later! This can be deduced from the Lorentz-transformation equation , where is the time advance on Andromeda, which can be considered simultaneous with an event on Earth occurring at , most conveniently set equal to 0. Note that the observer on Earth can only "infer" what is happening simultaneously on Andromeda. He would not actually "see" what is occurring until 2.5 million years later.
Roger Penrose called this argument the "Andromeda Paradox". To a stationary observer on Earth, the Supreme Galactic Council on Andromeda might be engaged in a debate on whether to attack Earth, whereas to an observer strolling at a leisurely pace of 2 feet per second, the Intergalactic Battle Fleet has already been launched toward Earth. Needless to say, this paradox has stimulated a great deal of controversy, even leading some to doubt the metaphysical underpinnings of the theory of relativity.

I think that this "paradox" clearly demonstrates that 'past', 'future' and 'present' are merely relative concepts.

[dantoki]

Carnifex, this question is actually at the center of my research. I'm currently writing a longer thesis about it, but if you want I can send you a somewhat shorter paper on this question.