the relevance of 'time' [was Re_ Physics [...]]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]
Wed Dec 31 09:39:45 EST 2003

"Alex Green" <dralexgreen at> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0312301517.2edf28f6 at
> [Alex]
> Ken, you did not seem to answer any of the points in my last post.
> Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Hold on, there, Alex. The topic that I was addressing is the non-existence
of 'time'.

I addressed such succinctly.

Now, and in previous posts, you're 'suggesting' that I explain
"consciousness", and I'll gladly do that - in-person, not in this
'sucking'-the-Life-out-of-me way. [It's a =long= story, but, I
presume, you're aware of all that.]

> Firstly, you describe things popping into consciousness but do not
> describe how they could be known. Suppose you imagine an 'apple', what
> sees the apple? The apple is clearly 'out there' in your imagination
> but how can it be imagined like this, what is doing the looking?


> Secondly, I brought up a well known problem in psychology and
> philosophy, the "specious" or extended present. We hear things
> extended in time, just listen to a word, how much of the word would
> you hear in no time at all? You 'answered' this by flatly denying that
> time exists

Kindly, when you try to 'put words in my mouth' [on my fingers],
quote directly from the words that I chose to put on my fingers.

What I said is =not= what you say I said.

> but we do indeed hear  words extended through time and see
> movements; if our consciousness were instantaneous this would not be
> evident.

I never asserted "instantaneous[ness]".

I never have, in my decades of discussion, either online or off,
asserted "instantaneous[ness].

I strictly connote other than "instantaneous[ness]" by including
'all' references to 'time' in single quotes ['seconds', 'minutes', 'hours',
'days', 'years', etc.]

And I explained [repeatedly] that what you refer to as a word's
non-"instantaneous"-ness is =just= nervous systems' 3-D energy-
dynamics unfolding in rigorous accord with their local WDB2T

You know - put a ball on a book that has one of its edges
elevated to a height greater than its opposite edge.


Watch the ball's motion.

Use =any= apparatus that records that motion - g'zillions
of frames per second.

The ball's motion is infinitely-divisible be-cause the under-
pinning 3-D energydynamics are infinitely-divisible, be-
cause the energy-flow that is WDB2T is infinitely-divisible.

Now, do the same with the 'word' of your choice.

Same-old, same-old.

> Most of our experience consists of experiencing things as if they are
> 'out there' and extended in time yet your theory does not seem to
> tackle these things.

NDT handles it, the problem is that you don't handle NDT,
but your own, Erroneous, presumption with respect to 'ndt'.

> (Can you imagine or perceive anything that has no
> extent and no duration?).

"Extent": Yes. I can imagine the whole universe, 'frozen', and
explore all the energy-gradients inherent in that 'frozen state',
and see, in that 'frozen state' that all relatively-local energy-
gradients are 'leaning-toward' the one universal energy-gradient
that is WDB2T.

Yes, in the 'frozen state', there =will= be relatively-local
energy-gradients that =seem= to be 'leaning-away-from'
WDB2T, but, when I explore them thoroughly, I observe
that they are rigorously-'connected'-to, and obtain-their-
'slopes'-from energy-gradients having larger energy-'volume'
that are 'leaning' in rigorous accord with universal WDB2T,
and, when I observe all possible such, I see =just= the
one universal energy-flow that is WDB2T.

"Duration": what will be actualized as I 'unfreeze' universal
energy is right-there Determined in the energy-gradients extant
within [comprising] the 'frozen state' - so I see "duration" right-
there in the energy-gradients.

What's more, at a WDB2T cost, I can 'thaw' the energy-
gradients at will, and make what's been referred to as "time"
conform to =any= Illusion to which I wish it to conform.

This's =all= that accelerator [super-cooling, laser-trapping,
etc.], folks, in fact, do, but since they believe in non-physically-
real 'time', they can't see the energy-gradients.


K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list