This one is some Work, but it's
worth it.
I'll Appreciate your comments.
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qiXMd.5598$Th1.1966 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
With respect to folks' wanting to
invoke non-physically-real 'time',
it's considerations like those that
I discussed in my preceding post
[linked-to above] that enabled
[required] me to see that 'time' is
a non-physically-real "mental con-
struct, be-cause it's the 'instantan-
eous' quantity of =energy= that
drives everything, at every locus
within nervous systems.
Invoking 'time' is =meaningless=.
To reiterate stuff that I discussed
in long-former posts, what's been
referred to as "time" has no phys-
ically-real existence even in "clocks".
"Clocks" don't meter 'time'. They
meter the energy that flows from
the potential-energy that was
'stored' in the "clock's" spring when
the "clock" was wound, or, if the
clock is battery-powered, from
the chemical energy that was 'stor-
ed' in the battery when it was man-
ufactured [or, if it's a rechargable,
when it was charged], or, if it's an
AC "clock", what it meters is the
energy flowing from the power
grid.
All "clocks" are are mechanisms
that are engineered to, more or
less, depending on the quality of
the engineering and manufacture,
match the energy-flow out of the
"power supply" to the "period" of
the rotation of Earth on its axis,
which "period" is, itself, 'just' an
energydynamic that has no phys-
ical relationship to 'time'. Earth
rotates on its axis be-cause it's
passing through a non-uniform
energy-gradient that exists rel-
ative to Sun, which, be-cause it
penatrates Earth's stuff non-uni-
formly from surface to core, puts
a torque upon Earth as a whole.
Earth's rotation has exactly =no-
thing= to do with 'time'. [This
was Reified, for the first 'time', in
Tapered Harmony, and I'm dis-
cussing it for the first 'time' here
in this post, so please don't think
you "knew it all along" :-] Use it,
if you've use for it, but, you know,
give Tapered Harmony a footnote.
All "clocks" are are energy-flow
meters that are engineered to
give readings that match Earth's
rotational "period", which, itself,
is a 3-D energydynamic.
All there is is =energy=.
No 'time'.
'time' is an artificial mental con-
struct.
These considerations are taken all
the way down to infinitessimally-
small 3-D spatial dimensions in
Tapered Harmony [even so-called
"atomic clocks" meter energy-flow,
not 'time'], but that's beyond the
scope of the present discussion.
So, returning to nervous system
function, yeah, one can 'time' an
action potential's progress as it trav-
els down an axon, and one can take
note of coincidences of 'timing' at
various 'points' within a nervous sys-
tem [within a "brain"], etc., but doing
so says =nothing= about the =energy=
gradients that are what actually
empowers nervous system function.
The energy-gradients are not static,
so, if one wants to make a "movie"
of their variations, one must use an
ordering principle, and 'time' is what
folks usually say they're using as such,
but that's never the case. Regular mov-
ies use "frames" as their ordering-prin-
ciple, and the "frames" are ordered by
mechanisms that are engineered in cam-
era and projector, to do the 'same'
thing "clocks" do, but with the "film" --
meter the "film's" passage before the
lens so that the "frames'" passage is
relatively 'synchronized' with Earths
"period" of rotation.
But, be-cause communication via the
"language"-interface is sequentially-
bound [more below], it's useful to use
an ordering principle that orders things
sequentially, which "streams" them in
a way that facilitates the needs of seg-
uential communication via the "language"-
interface, but doing so says absolutely
nothing about the way energy-flow
within nervous systems orders =nerv-
ous system= function.
'time' orders the "movie" that "cop-
ies" the =result= of the energy-flow..
It's the energy-flow that =orders=
nervous system function, and there's
just nothing in-there that can be con-
strued as "being 'time'" -- be-cause
it's the ='instantaneous'= energy-
gradient that Determines "the next
thing" that will happen at any 'point'
within a nervous system.
This is another example of stuff that's
"difficult" for folks to grasp be-cause
it's in Disagreement with an Ancient
Error that occurred before much of
anything else within physical reality
was comprehended. And, through
repetition, the Error drove 'blindly'-
automated TD E/I-minimization, with
the result being that non-physically-
real 'time' is perceived as 'being real'
and physically-real energy-flow be-
ing perceived as 'needing' non-phys-
ically-real 'time'.
And, "Woe!" to any who'd Correct
this Ancient Error be-cause endeav-
oring to do so induces TD E/I(up)
within all of the nervous systems that
have achieved TD E/I-minimization
with respect to non-physically-real
'time'.
"To hell with actually seeing 'physical
reality', I don't care what you say, I
need my time!" :-]
[See the Problem in-there?
If Truth is 'denied', folks remain 'blind'
to Truth, and Truth does what it does,
Regardless, which means that, while
folks acquiesce to 'thinking' in accord
with absence-of-Truth, nothing they
do can ever be maximally-functional.
So it Matters.]
'time' is only a mental construct. It
not only has no physically-real ex-
istence within nervous systems, it
has no physically-real existence
within all of physical reality.
Everywhere within physical reality,
all there is is =just= energy.
And the energy distribution at any
'instant' Determines what will hap-
pen in the next 'instant'.
Yes, I need an ordering principle
to address the sequential energy-
distribution variation, but that's
=only= be-cause I'm stuffing the
3-D energydynamics into my nerv-
ous systems "language" interface
so that, through this sequence of
"words" that I'm typing-out, others'
nervous systems' "language" inter-
faces can transform the verbal-
symbolic sequence back into
TD E/I, which is =just= 3-D en-
ergy-distribution in which the
'instantaneous state' can be =any-
thing=. The 'same' "information"
can be "contained" within an =In-
finite= number of different "lang-
uage"-interface dynamics as long
as the "transmitting" and "receiving"
"language" interfaces "understand"
the particular "language" that is be-
ing used [AoK, Ap1].
So, if the 3-D energydynamics can
be =anything=, how, then, can what
have been referred to as "time" and
"timing" be anything?
Gees! I should've learned by 'now'
to guard against the "can of worms"
that I just opened [again], but I'll
leave it so that I can sort that mess
out.
I've experienced folks asserting that
"everything is relative" [which is
what some folks do when they want
to "pretend to be" Albert Einstein],
but that's B. S. [on both counts :-]
You know, folks say stuff like, "Your
'red' could be my 'green', and there's
no way either of us could tell the dif-
ference, after all, we know that some
people are color blind. How do I know
you're not color blind, too?" :-]
Sort of a color-wheel-'relativity'.
But such never works-out because,
if it did, folks would also be arguing
about stuff that one of them can see
to be in one form and the other would
see to be in another form, and folks'd
be "bumping their heads" all over the
place because they'd be running into
stuff that, to them, was "camouflaged".
"Color" is 'just' specific visible-spec-
trum-frequency 'electromagnetic'
radiation. You know -- "light". And
each frequency within such has a spec-
ific "period" and "wavelength".
So, how could all of this same-stuff
become other than what it is because
it enters someone's eyes?
Inside the the visual apparatus, stuff
like color blindness occurs because of
variations in physical structures, and
such variations do result in folks see-
ing "color" differentially.
But "light" remains always the same-
stuff, so what evolutionary advantage
could there be in its perception being
"relative"?
This'd only result in a lot of injury, not
in the least from fist-fights that'd result
from folks' arguing about "what it is"
that they "see".
And the clincher is that the folks who
could see-everything would out-compete
those who didn't -- so, gradually, the
folks who remained would be uniformly
able to see-everything -- except folks
who are colof blind :-]
But the other "side" of this "can of worms"
is the sort of thing that's the topic of this
discussion -- folks 'think' they "see time",
when all they 'see' is the stuff of Ancient
Error that's been perpetuated be-cause,
through repetition, has come to almost
universally coincide with TD E/I-mini-
mization within folks' nervous systems
[just like the "reluctance" to switch over
to the more-efficient metric system of
measurement here in the U. S. A., etc.]
What underpins stuff like this sort of
cognitive/perceptual differential that
occurs within the information-processing
dynamics of 'normal' nervous systems
derives =solely= in differential =exper-
ience=. Back when the Ancient Error
that's come down to us as 'time' was
instantiated, there was no established
Science, nore was there any instrument-
ation that enhanced the capabilities of
the senses.
So folks "guessed" without actually be-
ing able to see what they were "guessing"
with respect to. And if a "guess" passed-
muster with others, usually by bearing
some productive usefulness [which was
recognized be-cause invoking it was
routinely correlated with occurrences of
TD E/I(down), whence arose the en-
hanced productive usefulness, be-cause,
to the degree that TD E/I-minimization
occurs within a nervous system, that nerv-
ous system's information-processing dyn-
amics become more ordered, and there-
fore, more able to exert force within
their host organism's experiential ex-
ternal environment, which enables the
host organism to do relatively-more work,
which enables it to out-compete other
such organisms, and therefore Survive
to reproduce [it only "doesn't work" for
folks who "rock the boat" of folks' 'fam-
iliar stuff :-]
Anyway, all of what's been referred to
as "behavioral relativity" derives solely
in the fact that experience is individualy-
unique, even in a hypothetical case of
organisms that are 'exact clones', and
always hang-out together, because two
organisms cannot simultaneously occupy
the same space.
So differential experience activates nerv-
ous systems differentially, which results
in TD E/I-minimization occurring within
them differentially, which results in their
perceiving "the world" differentially.
It all reduces to =experience=, not some
genetic 'predetermination'.
=Of course= there is genetic variation,
but the genetic variation always hovers
around the current optimal 'design', be-
cause that "optimal 'design'" is what Sur-
vives-best.
So, if genetic variation hovers around
the "optimal 'design'" [it does], then the
only stuff that's left with which to account
for differential "perception" is different-
ial experience, which is exactly what hap-
pens. [I understand that I'm "just asserting"
all of this in this post, but this is what I've
been discussing online over the course of
the last 17 'years', and I can't reiterate
everything that's been discussed in this
post. [So if anyone disagrees, let's dis-
cuss it in its specifics.]
Invocations of non-physically-real 'time'
derive in folks experiencing of the Ancient
Error ann achieving TD E/I-minimization
with respect to it, under the pressure of
enforced-"consensus", which derives in
groupwise TD E/I-minimization.
In the Error of its being invoked, 'time' is
analogous to the Error of invoking 'epi-
cycles' in Ptolemaic Astronomy, which
derived in folks not having experienced
"heliocentricism before the work that was
done by Copernicus, Galileo, and, later,
Kepler and Newton.
What these Gents did was drag the ability
to See in out of the "Jungle" where it 'lived',
undiscovered and unrealized.
They wrote it down so that it could be
=experienced= by others, so that others
could see-better, too.
I'm doing the analogous thing with re-
spect to a number of things, in this
post, with respect to non-physically-real
'time'. [Why doing such is =always=
"messy" is because, when concepts are
newly-discovered, they are relatively-
TD E/I-minimized within only one nerv-
ous system, so there's no correlated nom-
enclature that's already generally-held
across groups, so Communication of
the newly-discovered stuff is hard-to-
do, and, when such is attempted, doing
so induces TD E/I(up) within the nerv-
ous systems of those who are 'unfam-
iliar' with it, which is everyone except
the "discoverer", which is why Discovery
isn't for the "faint-hearted". But, as the
"discoverer" persists in his efforts to
communicate the new stuff, if it is in-
Truth, which folks "discern" in whether
or not it allows TD E/I-minimization to
occur within their nervous systems [which
never happens at first, be-cause, at first,
new stuff is =always= 'unfamiliar', so
folks =always= 'move away from' it,
which prevents their experiencing it,
which prevents the occurrence of TD
E/I-minimization with respect to it] it
gradually becomes correlated with TD
E/I-minimization, and, as it does, folks
start working with it, a groupwise nom-
enclature begins to develop with respect
to it, including stuff like Maths techniques
that take advantage of what's newly-
reified within it, all of which enables fur-
ther TD E/I-minimization to occur, to in-
creasing degrees, within more and and
more nervous systems, and, finally, a
groupwise cognitive implosion occurs,
and the new stuff displaces the old,
less-useful [less-TD E/I-minimization-
enabling] stuff.
With respect to nervous systems, yes,
one can put meters in-there, and one
can cross-correlate their readings using
'time' as an ordering principle, and doing
so does allow one to sort-out when and
where one energy-gradient is this or that
with respect to another energy-gradient.
But doing so says exactly =nothing=
about what is actually Determining
nervous system function.
To say =anything= about what De-
termines nervous system function
one must work exclusively with the
the =energy=, because it's what
drives =all= aspects of nervous system
function [and =everything= else within
physical reality].
Invoking non-physically-real 'time'
'just' =gets-in-the-way= of under-
standing nervous system function.
Yes, use 'time' as an =ordering prin-
ciple= when it's useful to do so, but
=understand= that it's =completely=
an artificial construct that was "in-
vented" because having an ordering-
principle facilitates communication
via sequential 'language"-interface
dynamics. [All uses of "clocks" gain
their "usefulness" via passage thriugh
"language"-interfaces. If one does not
interact with other Human Beings, one
has no use for 'time'. [Trust me on this.
I know it from my experience. I stop-
ped wearing a watch last spring.
"Wasted energy". I have a "clock" on
my wall, so I know when to "change
the channel" and when to go to
Church. If I have several "errands" to
run, I wear my watch so I can alot
my energy-expenditrue in a way that's
proportional to their workloads. Others
would say so that they "have enough
time" to do what needs to be done
on each "errand". 'time' is energy :-]
Within the vast-majority of nervous-
system ["brain"] function, everything
is 'just' 3-D energydynamics that
are everywhere =continuous= --
everywhere simultaneously-para-
llel, so "putting a clock" here, but
not "putting a clock" =everywhere=
is completely non-sensical, because
doing so gives the completely-False
=illusion= that this or that "clock's"
reading atually "means something",
when, without the rest of the 3-D
energydynamics that are in-there,
it's =nothing=.
You know?
Folks who say that 'time' is anything
other than an artificial mental construct
that is, typically, used as an ordering-
principle within sequentially-ordered
communication are 'just' "fooling"
themselves, and =blocking= their
own comprehension of how and why
nervous systems work [and how and
why everything else within physical
reality works].
When anything is synchronized, this
way or that, within a nervous system,
that happens =be-cause= of the under-
pinning 'instantaneous' energy-grad-
ients. It doesn't matter what "clocks"
'say'. If the energy-gradients are not
topologically-distributed in ways that
Determine that this or that will happen
within a nervous system, what the
"clocks" 'say' can be =anything=, but
this or that will not happen within the
nervous system.
If you've read this, Thank You.
k. p. collins
