Quote:
Originally Posted by oats
yes. it would. mathematics is not based on perception whatsoever, it's the complete opposite.
time is a measurement of change. Change occurs regardless of individual discernment (another hated law of physics - entropy). whatever meaning you derive from that is subjective, but nobody is talking about that.
|
good shit @
oats. by 'without life and death, would there even be time' i was more alluding to the 'ol "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it..." adage (which is why i brought up the subjectivity of the answer). But totally with you re: "time is a measurement of change".
Maybe where our perspectives differ (if they actually do) is in the concept of 'perception is reality' itself?
In a world that rewards "logic" (and in a job that pays for it), I eventually became so left-brained, to like a sad/robotic degree, that I wouldn't entertain any new 'information' if it couldnt be substantiated by science. As I kept asking 'why?' that learning process became exponential, until i became soo left-brained that i woke up one day more right-brained than i'd been since i was child. That's when i found myself in the "perception is reality" camp (a camp i used to literally think was naive - and don't blame those that still do).
I bring that up because you seem like a savvy dude so am interested in your thoughts on:
1. Jones' Double-Slit Experiment
2. what it means in terms of perception's impact on reality
Again, just curious in terms of how our perspectives might differ (and where they differ more than what on) -- because even the results of that experiment are subjectively debated amongst the scientific community today, but it's a good example of a left-brained study with (some) right-brained results.
pardon the long post, and again, good thoughts pawtna.