Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The concept of presence, i.e. a present or the present or a set of presents, is extremely equivocal.

Thus, in discussing anything related to time, fundamental physics, or presence, it will be to helpful to first define a few very different types of presence.

For simplicity, the following definitions use the assumption that fundamental physical reality is 4D, which is a facet shared by classical physics, Newtonian physics, and Einsteinian physics. Needless to say, the definitions could easily be modified to work equally with more or less dimensions of spacetime. In that way, I am not claiming that reality necessarily is 4D, versus 2D or 11D or whatever, but rather just using 4D reality as an example.


Types of Presence

• Geometric Temporal Point: An imaginary 0D point on a 1D line of preconceived time; commonly colloquially referred to as "a point in time"
• Universal Temporal Presence: A multidimensional spacial frame of objectively simultaneous events corresponding to a universal objectively current "point in time", which in 4D physics means that it is vast and all-encompassing in three spacial dimensions but infinitesimal, near-infinitesimal, and/or point-like in one temporal dimension; often referred to as a "Universal Now"
• Spacial Presence: Here-ness; a 0D point in 3D space, generally treated as the metaphysically special single origin point--i..e where X, Y, and Z all equal 0--for all mathematical and geometric purposes; colloquially it tends to be ill-defined such that it often arbitrarily includes a small multidimensional blob arbitrarily near the imaginary 0D point in space, such that someone might say, "these papers are over here in space, but those papers are over there in space," all relative to a certain imaginary reference point in space.
• Temporal Presence: Now-ness in time; a 0D point in time, metaphysically distinguished from all other points in time somehow such that it is conceived as the origin point (i.e. where T=0) for all mathematical and geometric calculations. It's the same as here-ness in space but in preconceived time instead of preconceived space. Colloquially, one may use words like soon instead of near to describe the same abstract geometric concept.
• Spacetime Presence: Here-and-now-ness in timeless spaceless spacetime (an imaginary 0D point in 4D spacetime).
• Conscious Presence: An equivocal ill-defined concept that either refers to consciousness itself or to something that requires consciousness and emerges from consciousness. It's similar to reports of conscious free-will in that it is ill-defined but often appears to refer to something that transcends sharable science. It is linked to if not defined by the reported sense that each human has at every point in their waking lives that at that point they are at the center of the 4D universe, both in time and space and in all of 4D spacetime, in some allegedly true non-illusionary way, which seems to violate the Copernican Principle. However, until if ever there is a resolution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness, this concept remains ill-defined and would presumably have to be considered to transcend all current science and scientifically known physics.

In this topic, I do not wish to discuss "conscious presence". In the context of this topic, I am not claiming that "conscious presence" (whatever that means) exists or doesn't exist. I'd quicker discuss the existence of Russell's Teapot or the proverbial tree that fell in an unobserved forest. In this topic, I do not intend to resolve or discuss the Observer Problem in physics, nor resolve The Hard Problem of Consciousness which is a problem that plagues both philosophy and physics.

Rather, my primary thesis is that all the above forms of presence, except for the ill-defined "conscious presence", do not really exist.

In other words, my thesis in this topic is that all forms of unconscious presence do not really exist.

In yet other words, without consciousness, the universe has no now or present in any of the above senses. For instance, it does not have a presence in time (i.e. a now in time); it does not have a presence in space (i.e. a here in space); and it does not have a spacetime presence (a here-and-now in timeless 4D spacetime).

Thus, any conception of the universe is fictional that involves the use of a special center or origin point, meaning a special point where objectively X=0, Y=0, Z=0, and T=0, which are basically just mathematical ways of saying here and now, or here-and-now.

However, because Einstein showed that space-ness and time-ness are relative (in part to each being relative to that origin point and a corresponding reference frame among other conceptual relativistic modeling constructs), that means that space and time are fictions too. In that way, space and time are like the X axis and the Y axis. Space and time are arbitrary fictional constructs that can be included in certain types of made-up reference frames to geometrically or mathematically model a fictional version of the universe. What is a dimension of space in one reference frame can be a dimension of time in another. Each reference frame treats its origin point as the center of the relativistic block universe (where X=0, Y=0, Z=0, and T=0), but neither such a center nor the reference frame actually exist. They are fictional constructs intentionally designed to create a fictional model of the universe.

Similar to denying free will, denying time or presence in any way can come across as counter-intuitive and possibly laughable to many people, even though the objections may at best border on the mystical and supernatural if not the utterly illogical. Even in 2021 on Earth, there are some people scattered on the globe (pun intended) who are convinced that Flat Earth Theory is true. They would laugh at the idea of the Earth being round.

To help sneak past the fallible laughter test, I will break down each crucial sentence of my position by number so that respondents can easily point to which statements they find objectionable versus agreeable.

However, one last note before I make my sneaky attempt to slide through the defenses of the laughter test. For the purposes of the following statements, for simplicity, by "really exist", I mean in the strict physical sense of actual fundamental reality and/or fundamental physics. This is the same sense in which Santa Claus does not really exist, even though the concept of Santa Claus does exist, and even though in relativistic contexts we might say it's true Santa lives at the North Pole, and false that Santa lives at the South Pole, even though really there is no Santa, and thus, in terms of actual fundamental reality, the concept of where Santa lives is incoherent nonsense. Asking me when or where something exists may be like asking me where Santa lives, in that I can answer but only by assuming useful falsehoods. In actual reality, there is no Santa, there is no where, and there is no when.

With that important last note about the strict fundamental context of what I mean by "really exist", I hereby give you my argument against presence and time:


[1] A 0D point is a mathematical construct.

[2] 0D points do not really exist.

[3] A 1D line is a mathematical construct.

[4] 1D lines do not really exist.

[5] The X-axis and Y-axis are each both mathematical constructs.

[6] X-axis-ness and Y-axis-ness do not really exist.
Example: If we have three different people draw a 2D graph to represent the location of pool balls on a specific pool table, and then ask each person whether or not the red ball is on the right side of the Y-axis, with such right-side-ness corresponding to positive values for X (i.e. X > 0), each person may give a different answer depending on how they graphed it. In that way, we can say that each X-axis and Y-axis is conceptually relative to the graphing process. The 2D surface of the pool table does actually have an X-axis or a Y-axis, and likewise thus doesn't have real leftness or rightness.

[7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless to ask if Mars is on the left side of the universe or the right side of the universe. Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts relative to arbitrary mathematical metaphysical fictions. For instance, one needs to first conceive of a fictional geometric model with an arbitrary fictional origin point and an arbitrary fictional axis (e.g. a Y-axis) with which to relativistically distinguish things as left of that fictional axis or right of that fictional axis. Thus, the relativity of left and right isn't merely a matter of relations between real things (e.g. one pool ball versus another ball), which is a lesser form of relativity, but more deeply than that they are also relative to fictional mathematical constructs such as an imaginary conceived axis and orientation, conceptually projected or imagined in some way. Asking if something is left or right is like asking if Santa gained weight recently, or if he is generous with his gift-giving on Christmas; strictly speaking; it is incoherent and meaningless because such ideas are relative to fictions that vary.
If this item (#7) is the first with which you disagree, please post reply in both of these other two topics instead of this one: Objective Leftness and Rightness Do Not Exist and Would Flat-Land Four-Eyed Freddy Notice a Difference?

[8] Up-ness and down-ness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless and incoherent to ask if Pluto is above the center of the universe or below the center of the universe. This is because like the X-axis on a pool table, the so-called center line to which it is relative is a fiction. It's not just fictional because the physics happen to be relative, but rather the physics are so relative because it's a fiction. When we ask how far a pool ball is from the X-axis, we are relating it to something the doesn't exist. in this case the X-axis and by extension x-axis-ness.

[9] Vertical-ness and horzional-ness do not really exist.
Example: Between graphs of the same pool table, what is leftness on one graph can be upness on another graph. So it's not just left and right that are relative to each other, but the concept of left-right-ness and up-down-ness are relative with each other. One person could say the ball moved 2 centimeters to the left, but another person would say the same ball moved 2 centimeters up, and yet another graph would indicate it moved 2 centimeters diagonally equally on the X-axis and the Y-axis.

[10] A universal line of vertical-ness does not really exist.

[11] An objective line of vertical-ness does not really exist.

[12] A single relative line of vertical-ness does not really exist.
Clarification: We could say that infinite possible relative lines (plural) of vertical-ness exist, but that is like saying that many possible variations of Santa Claus exist, or that many translations of Alice in Wonderland Exist. We can say that multiple fictions exist, but strictly speaking none of them really exist, in terms of fundamental reality and the fundamental physics. The fact that infinite equally true alternative but contradictory stories exist is a symptom of fiction.

[13] Flat Earth Theory is wrong and debunked.
Clarification: One can still use useful oversimplified models in narrow contexts to get useful results, such as using a flat 2D map on flat paper to go on a hike. In another example, an engineer designing a bridge can just falsely assume that gravity is pulling straight down in all directions for simplicity, even though that's not compatible with a center gravity at the center of a globe.

[14] Newtonian Mechanics are wrong and debunked.
Clarification: One can still use useful oversimplified models in narrow contexts to get useful results. For example, if timing swimmers at the Olympics, the humans holding stop-watches can all do their work using oversimplified false classical mechanics, rather than requiring all humans timing the race to solve Einstein's field equations before a winner can be declared.

[15]] Simultaneity is not objective, but rather relative to fictional reference frames.
Example: From one reference frame, A can precede B, and B can precede C; but from another reference frame B may occur first, and then A, and then C.

[16] Objective space does not really exist.

[17] Objective time does not really exist.

[18] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that left is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from right.

[19] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that x-axis-ness is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from y-axis-ness.
Clarification: Time is time only according to and relative to a given fictional graphing or given fictional conceptual reference frame; on a different reference frame the so-called time would then instead be space, or would be a mixture of space and time. Neither the reference frame nor up-ness, down-less, forward-ness, backwards-ness, or time-ness actually exist.

[20] Forward-ness in space and backward-ness in space do not really exist.

[22] Future-ness and past-ness do not really exist.

[22] In terms of their non-existence in physical reality, the future and the past are like up and down, left and right, front and back.

[23] There is no objective here.

[24] There is no objective now.

[25] There is no objective here-ness.

[26] There is no objective now-ness.

[27] There is no objective space-ness.

[28] There is no objective time-ness.

[29] For Special and General Reactivity to be valid and work, 4D spacetime cannot be and is not 3Ds of space plus 1D of time, but rather 4 fundamentally equal dimensions of timeless spaceless spacetime.

[30] None of the 4 dimensions of 4D spacetime is fundamentally special or different in any real objective way, meaning there is no fundamental way to objectively categorize 3 of the 4 dimensions together as being more alike than the others.

[31] In classical or Newtonian mechanics it may be a choice or matter of interpretation to use a block universe model instead of a non-block universe model, but in Special Relativity it is no longer a choice or matter of interpretation. Einstein's physics do not work without the relativity of space-ness and time-ness, rendering them as arbitrary as x-axis-ness and y-axis-ness.

[32] The universe has no X-axis or line of X-axis-ness.

[33] The universe has no axis of time or timeline.

[34] Anything that is a past event relative to one reference frame is a future event to infinite other reference frames.

[35] Anything that is a future event relative to one reference frame is a past event to infinite other reference frames.

[36] Your past is someone else's future.

[37] Your future is someone else's past.

[38] The 4D block universe contains everything that really exists physically in 4D spacetime, regardless of whether it would be considered past or future from any given reference frame.
Clarifications: In other words, roughly speaking, the 4D block universe contains everything you would consider past or future.

[39] The 4D block universe contains the Big Bang, real dinosaurs, all humans who have ever lived, the death of the Sun and everything else that physically exists.

[40] The 4D block universe has no real singular presence such that it is impossible to say that certain events (e.g. the death of the Sun or the Big Bang) exist objectively in the past or the future.

[41] All so-called events (e.g. the death of the Sun or the Big Bang) all exist together in the block universe, which has no present, no future, and no past, but rather is eternal and timeless.

[42] Objectively speaking, no part of the block universe is the past part and no part of it is the future part.

[43] There is no animated 'present' acting as a moving border between the past and the future because the past and the future do not objectively exist in the same way that right and left do not objectively exist.

[44] Assuming there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe, without objective time, change is incompatible with determinism.
Example: If the Big Bang and the death of the Sun are changing or could change, then determinism is not true.

[45] Causal determinism is true, at least in regard to everything that can be scientifically said to physically exist within the 4D block universe of timeless spacetime.
Clarification: If there are things transcendental to the unchanging 4D block universe (e.g. transcendental consciousnesses, plural), then those transcendental things could all each have their own changing relationship with the unchanging block universe, and the mechanics of those transcendental interactions could be deterministic or not. Because it's transcendental, it would presumably be scientifically immeasurable and physically unobservable, at least in any standard third-party way that doesn't result in a form of the Observer Problem.

[46] Without something transcendental to the 4D physical world and everything contained within the entirety of 4D spacetime, there is no change, and thus any alleged change is not real.

[47] The 4D block universe that contains everything in 4D spacetime is timeless, unchanging, and eternal.

[48] All humans including Oscar Wilde and Britney Spears timelessly eternally live in the unchanging 4D block universe of timeless 4D spacetime.


If you disagree with any of the above statements, please explicitly specify which one(s) and why.



Important Clarification about Consciousness

None of the above statements necessarily apply if one is speaking in relation to consciousness(es), some conscious present(s), or conscious observer(s), all of which could possibly be claimed to be some kind of real subjective/pseudo-objective thing(s) acting like reference point(s), but real, instead of fictional. It's very different to talk about something that's relative to some alleged consciousness(es) (presumably plural) than relative merely to a fictional made-up reference point in spacetime. In other words, there is a big difference between a fictional reference frame versus an alleged conscious experience that itself--if it exists--might favor or better correspond to a certain kind of reference frame, even though in practice the two often get falsely and confusingly conflated.

If a special form of relative emergent timelines emerge from the alleged existence of conscious presents, then presumably there is either 0 of those timelines, or there is infinite such emergent timelines, that is unless solipsism is true. If solipsism is true, then and only then could a single emergent relative timeline be logically said to exist.

The belief or consideration of such vague propositions of conscious presences would open Pandora's Box, so to speak, by raising all kinds of countless presumably unanswerable questions, such as but not at all limited to whether the "conscious presences" are each 0D like a reference point and to what degree do the "conscious presences" transcend the unchanging 4D block universe that includes all of spacetime. Anyone attempting to answer such questions might be wise to first register their religion as tax-exempt with the appropriate government authorities, if not just for the financial savings.

[Nick_A]

Hi Scott

You've described many concepts that you say do not really exist. the one concept you've left out is yourself. Do you really exist and if you don't, what does that calls itself "I"?

[Atla]

I'd say that this is perfectly correct for the known 4 dimensions. There is no spatiotemporal origin point 'presence' anywhere in the known universe. (Neither is there a known consciousness presence of finite extensions, but that's another topic.)

It might not entirely hold though, if we experiment with philosophy and science in 5 or more dimensions. For example it might be possible that there is a finite or infinite layeredness of relativistic block universes in 5 or more dimensions. And as we go "higher" in the layers, the layers or something about the layers, converge towards a certain point. (And at that point, the entire structure somehow loops through itself and is at the lowest layers again.)
Maybe this point could be seen as something like an origin point, not in the most fundamental sense, but in more like a probabilistic sense. This is all extremely speculative of course.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi Scott

You've described many concepts that you say do not really exist. the one concept you've left out is yourself. Do you really exist and if you don't, what does that calls itself "I"?

I know consciousness exists, and philosophically I consider that to be the real me, more than anything else such as my ego, the ever-changing memories stored in this forgetful human brain, or this ever-changing human meat-suit I wear like clothing, an outfit that changes from day-to-day or year-to-year. I am unable to scientifically disprove solipsism to myself or anyone else, meaning I have no real sharable evidence or proof that consciousness exists, and I doubt I could even explain what consciousness is to a philosophical zombie. The zombie would presumably conclude I was a crazy mystic having delusions of absurd supernatural experiences and ridiculous paranormal revelations, or a liar, and not a good liar or coherent crazy person because I would be so utterly bad at merely explaining consciousness to a zombie let alone convincing the zombie the thing I call consciousness actually exists.

What I firmly believe clearly does not exist is unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, and unconscious presence. I believe timeless spacetime exists, but not time or space, not really. I think--or hope--the OP is convincing on that matter of time and space not really existing, and unconscious presence not existing.

I'd say that this is perfectly correct for the known 4 dimensions. There is no spatiotemporal origin point 'presence' anywhere in the known universe.

Thank you, and that's a great way of putting it.

[Nick_A]

Hi Scott

What I firmly believe clearly does not exist is unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, and unconscious presence. I believe timeless spacetime exists, but not time or space, not really. I think--or hope--the OP is convincing on that matter of time and space not really existing, and unconscious presence not existing.

As you know from Plato's divided line, he assert that below the line in the visible realm we do not see reality as it is which is what forms our opinions and arguing over it creates the "ship of fools". It is only above the line in the intellectual realm where we get a glimpse of objective reality as it relates to the forms.

I would like to ask some related questions from this interview between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker. Normally it is difficult to discuss the value of questions concerning the unknown rather than arguing answers. These questions are to be felt as philosophy

Here is the first question:

https://parabola.org/2016/03/04/the-gre ... needleman/

JACOB NEEDLEMAN: I should start by saying, only half-jokingly, that philosophers don’t do answers. We do questions. We deal with discovering and deepening our sense of something that is unknown. But in the spirit of your question and—as an academic thing, and in a good way—when I hear this phrase “the unknown” I think first of all of Immanuel Kant, probably the greatest modern philosopher. He defined something essential about the modern era in the Western world through an extraordinary book called The Critique of Pure Reason. This is a vast, complex work of genius; it’s like walking into a great cathedral because of the immensity of it and the depth of thought and understanding in it. To put it briefly, he argued with unsurpassed persuasive power that the structure of the mind shapes our reality; that there are categories by which the mind operates and organizes the data that comes to us through our senses. It organizes all that data automatically beneath the level of consciousness so that by the time that we actually have a perception of that flower or that object, it has already been organized by the categories through which the mind works. All our experience is shaped by passing through these modifying functions. So we can never really know things as they are independent of our perception of them. He gave two roughly similar names to this unknown. One is “things-in-themselves” and the other word is the noumenon (meaning “that which can be apprehended only by a higher power of direct knowing, which in fact we do not have”). We’re forever barred forever from knowing reality as it is in itself.. Whatever certainty about the world that we seem to have—such as the law of causality—is simply a certainty that the mind irresistibly imposes on our perception. He demonstrated this with such force and such genius, it astonished the whole intellectual world. For many people it was –and still is– a shattering realization to think that humanity is never going to know reality as it is. Some people fell into despair.

Does the essence of a dog and a cabbage exist as relative related realities our senses cannot appreciate as "things in themselves?" or are they figments of our imagination with no basis in reality? Can we develop the power of direct knowing through noesis so as to experience noumenon? This is a question I believe many come to ponder as they begin to face the unknown in themselves and the potential for objective meaning and purpose in their existence

[Steve3007]

I've skimmed through the OP but, because of its length, haven't had time to read it thoroughly yet. I have issues with specific points that it makes, but the one overall issue that springs out to me is this: It seems, quite wrongly in my view, to conflate relativity with non-existence/fiction. For example, it seems to equate the fictional character of Santa Claus with various properties that only make sense as relationships, such as left and right. The fact that, for example, it's meaningless in isolation to say something like "my car is on the left" doesn't mean that "leftness" is a fiction in the same sense that Santa Claus is a fiction.

Santa Claus is a fiction in the sense that the name doesn't refer to a real extra-mental object. If the example of Santa Claus is intended to define how you're using the term "really exist" here (as it appears to be) then, in my view, you're mistaken to say things like "leftness and rightness do not really exist". They do exist extra-mentally. Santa Claus doesn't. The fact that when using relative terms I have to specify the reference frame against which I'm using them doesn't alter that. "From where we're standing, my car is on the left of your car" is an objective proposition about the extra-mental position of an extra-mental object.

[Steve3007]

If you disagree with any of the above statements, please explicitly specify which one(s) and why.

I'll pick one for now:

[47] The 4D block universe that contains everything in 4D spacetime is timeless, unchanging, and eternal.

To me, the word "eternal" means "for all time". So I would say that it's self-contradictory to call anything both timeless and eternal. I'd say the 4D block universe is not timeless, is not unchanging (i.e. it contains change) and it is eternal (i.e. by definition it denotes all of time, wrapped up in the spacetime concept.)

As discussed in the other topic from which this one sprang, to say "The 4D block universe is unchanging" is, in my view, to wrongly conflate the properties of a model with the properties that the model is supposed to be a model of. So it's similar to looking at a graph representing the worldline of a moving object, to note that the graph itself isn't moving and to conclude that the graph doesn't represent movement. It's the old confusing the map with the territory thing.


On that point about the definition of "eternal": People often say things like "You're being too literal. I didn't mean 'for all time'". But then they can't really say what they do mean by it without waffling vaguely. In my view, that's what tends to result in long pointless arguments - vagueness of terminology.

[Steve3007]

One more!

[18] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that left is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from right.

I disagree. If the above were true then there would be no concept of timelike and spacelike intervals in spacetime. If two events in spacetime are separated by a spacelike interval then they cannot be causally connected to each other and the question of which event comes first, or whether they are simultaneous, is reference-frame dependant. If they are separated by a timelike interval then they can be causally connected and the question of which event comes first, or whether they are simultaneous, is not reference-frame dependant

At least, that's my understanding. If time and space were indistinguishable I don't see how the above could be true. I think it is true.

[The Beast]

Again, we are “living” in a paradox and we “choose” to be or not to be. Great post

[Steve3007]

[48] All humans including Oscar Wilde and Britney Spears timelessly eternally live in the unchanging 4D block universe of timeless 4D spacetime.

On this one: If I was peering into the block universe and spotted Oscar Wilde's worldline snaking through it, and then I stood there for a bit and watched it, and noted that it didn't move, I might conclude that it was unchanging. Other than that, I disagree. But on a more positive note, I'd say I agree with [0] to [6].

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you disagree with any of the above statements, please explicitly specify which one(s) and why.

I'll pick one for now:

[47] The 4D block universe that contains everything in 4D spacetime is timeless, unchanging, and eternal.

To me, the word "eternal" means "for all time".

That's not how I use the word, but I don't doubt some people do use it in the way you describe.

For what you are describing, I may use the word everlasting (within time), versus eternal (i.e. out-of-time). To me, eternal means that something transcends or is more fundamental than time. An example would be the eternal forms alleged as existing by Plato.

Wikipedia has a sloppy (IMO) article explaining the difference, and Stanford has a less sloppy but oddly Christianity-focused article about it.

As I use the words, an "eternal" truth wouldn't be a truth that happens to be true throughout all of 'time' (whatever that means), but rather it would be a truth that is true even if time does not exist, and possibly a truth that transcends spacetime insofar as such a thing is possible or meaningful to say.

However, for simplicity, you can just take my use of the word "eternal" as being a synonym for timeless, and thus my calling something eternal and timeless as being redundant. So anywhere you have seen me use the word "eternal" feel free to just swap out the word "timeless".

One more!

[18] Time is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from space in essentially the same way that left is fundamentally and metaphysically indistinguishable from right.

I disagree

Is that (#18) the first of the 48 numbered statements with which you disagree?



***

Again, we are “living” in a paradox and we “choose” to be or not to be. Great post

Thank you!

I do suspect that you are correct about the seeming paradox you mention, assuming I am understanding correctly. One way I would hint at or understand that general sentiment would be to say that in practice there are levels of consciousness, meaning what we would typically consider as a vague collection of physical matter in spacetime (e.g. a cruel human, a nice human, a mouse, a dog, a tree, a mountain, a bacterium, a blade of grass, a self-driving car, etc.) can all each resonate to a different degree with the presumably universal omnipresent capacity for consciousness that presumably permeates all of spacetime, in a very rough way of speaking. That may sound like mumbo jumbo, but I think it's more intuitive and possibly mundane in terms of utter obviousness if we look at it in example: In other words, for example, I do think that it could be true to say that a mouse is more conscious than a blade of grass, or that a tree may be more conscious than a mountain, or that a given human is more conscious than another, and that even different instances of the same human across spacetime (e.g. 10-year-old Scott vs. 34-year-old Scott vs 100-year-old Scott if he lives that long). If so, then that means that, for example, seeming choices to practice mindfulness, read certain books, or engage in spiritual practices can among countless other things increase or decrease one's level of consciousness, or in other words one's choice to consciously be, more or less.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

JACOB NEEDLEMAN: I should start by saying, only half-jokingly, that philosophers don’t do answers. We do questions. We deal with discovering and deepening our sense of something that is unknown. But in the spirit of your question and—as an academic thing, and in a good way—when I hear this phrase “the unknown” I think first of all of Immanuel Kant, probably the greatest modern philosopher. He defined something essential about the modern era in the Western world through an extraordinary book called The Critique of Pure Reason. This is a vast, complex work of genius; it’s like walking into a great cathedral because of the immensity of it and the depth of thought and understanding in it. To put it briefly, he argued with unsurpassed persuasive power that the structure of the mind shapes our reality; that there are categories by which the mind operates and organizes the data that comes to us through our senses. It organizes all that data automatically beneath the level of consciousness so that by the time that we actually have a perception of that flower or that object, it has already been organized by the categories through which the mind works. All our experience is shaped by passing through these modifying functions. So we can never really know things as they are independent of our perception of them. He gave two roughly similar names to this unknown. One is “things-in-themselves” and the other word is the noumenon (meaning “that which can be apprehended only by a higher power of direct knowing, which in fact we do not have”). We’re forever barred forever from knowing reality as it is in itself.. Whatever certainty about the world that we seem to have—such as the law of causality—is simply a certainty that the mind irresistibly imposes on our perception. He demonstrated this with such force and such genius, it astonished the whole intellectual world. For many people it was –and still is– a shattering realization to think that humanity is never going to know reality as it is. Some people fell into despair.

Does the essence of a dog and a cabbage exist as relative related realities our senses cannot appreciate as "things in themselves?" or are they figments of our imagination with no basis in reality? Can we develop the power of direct knowing through noesis so as to experience noumenon? This is a question I believe many come to ponder as they begin to face the unknown in themselves and the potential for objective meaning and purpose in their existence

Hi, Nick,

Thank you for the question.

First, I don't know much about Jacob Needleman, but if he was able to verbally summarize some of Kant's ideas that well off the top of his head, then that is extremely impressive. I couldn't do that if I was given a week to write down what I wanted to say and read my one-paragraph speech off of paper.

Even though your question uses certain Kantian terminology (namely "noumenon"), I think Plato's infamous Allegory of the Cave may best represent my views on the matter. I am also a fan of the movie The Matrix and the film/book Fight Club, which to me both act as artistic relatable modern day allegories in their own right that also represent those general ideas of the dreaminess of life including in the ways shown by Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Additionally, an advantage of amped up action movies, or the books on which they may be based, is that it can help avoid that falling into despair that Needleman mentions. Reading or watching Fight Club probably typically doesn't leave one sitting around unmotivated with teary eyes and bland despair. I think borderline nihilism can sometimes be the most liberating and revealing of experiences. Indeed, for myself sometimes I feel like the most spiritual experiences I have might be when I am boxing my friend in my backyard until bloody or riding my motorcycle at high speeds. I don't feel despair when I get a faint whiff of the utter dreaminess of life and the unknowability of the presumably eternal reality that makes it all possible. Alan Watts said that the godhead can't know itself just like light does not illuminate itself and a knife doesn't cut itself. The way I like to say it is this: even when we look in a mirror, the unfathomably beautiful essence is still always clothed in form. But yet maybe we can have some small rough indirect sense of the infinitely beautiful nakedness underneath.

Even though mentioning movies I watched repeatedly in the 90s as a teenager may be childish, for me that's a much more accessible way to relate to those ideas in 2021 than Kant, but Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is presumably a much more philosophically rigorous explanation of and argument for some of the roughly related ideas.

[The Beast]

To be.
We can only expand the paradox of our intelligence to include many more frames of reality as we see it. In the term Eternity there is eternal particles. The frame is an Eternal frame, and they might be alive in the sense of Eternal reality. The paradox is one of Eternal change or no change. Me at ten or at thirty-one only play out at the level of my energy tier. Most of my atoms are spread out along my lifetime and they might be around in one form or another the same as some of the human DNA is being alive for more than 300000 years as genes moving from one life to the next. There is a larger spectrum to understand and no known frame to consider for we don’t know of any Eternal particles… as some say they believe or don’t exist. The decisions I made are mine along written in some form of energy signature that might or not be part of Eternity. As of now, I believe the Agent of this signature is my Free Will as such I extend my believe the energy signature of our Universe might be one of Free Will.

[Terrapin Station]

Abstractions such as "0D points," number lines, etc. are simply ways of thinking about relations. You can't take them as objective ontological facts. Woo you appear to be reifying concepts.

The present is simply the changes that are happening, as opposed to the changes that already happened, or the changes that will happen, from a particular ontological situatedness.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops-"Woo" above should have been the word "So."