|
Blog 23.02 |
Do you know about Planck-units? And that analog phenomena are digital, namely contiguous stacking of quanta? Definition is form, and it is form in terms of past definitions as swarms. Directly. It is not conversion, signal or sign. “A is B” is not digital. It is what everything is. If you are not explicitly aware what you're doing, is it analog? What about being explicitly aware of it as the past, as Ronald Green says that we ought to be, about everything? So, then what I say is that everything, past, present and future is existentially a point-derivative now, and not a quantum or infinitesimal derivative, and that it is linguistically continuous. However, everything is language, and absolutely not existence. The only objection I have to Ronald Green's ontological time is that to be integral, continuous or form, it has to be in the past, in the necessity of the self to maintain the story of existence. Everything certainly is in the past, iff the point is existence (thus another word for reality, and exactly as representationally problematic, the definition of problem), i.e., in terms of subject/object phenomena. To clarify “the contiguous stacking of quanta” comment above. Wikipedia “The Planck unit of time is 5.39×10−44 s. No current physical theory can describe timescales shorter than the Planck time, such as the earliest events after the Big Bang.” No period of time is not a multiple of Planck units of time, which is what the quantum is, as one of the five basic quantities that it is. It is not possible to measure it any other way. The other kinds of measurement are length, charge, mass and temperature. Thad Roberts: “If you’re a red pill kind of person, here’s what you need to know to get started. The simplest explanation I know of starts from the assumption that the substrate of reality (spacetime) is a quantum fluid. A quantum fluid has 5 prescribed boundaries. (1) A minimum temporal resolution (reflecting the cut off due to quantization), (2) a minimum scale (defining the radius of the minimum piece (or quantum) of the fluid), and three maximum boundaries, (3) the scale in which a fluctuation in the arrangements of the fluid’s parts can be distinguished from noise, (4) the maximum scale that resolves the fluid as being made up of parts (the zero-boundary of discretization—beyond which the fluid behaves like a continuum), and (5) the boundary that defines the entire collection of fluid (the radius of the universe). “If we take those 5 boundaries [universal constants] to be the 5 Planck constants (1 = the Planck time [minimum], 2 = the Planck length [minimum], and 3, 4 and 5 [maxima, given the two minima]: 3 = the Planck charge, 4 = the Planck mass, 5 = the Planck temperature, then all the constants of Nature are simply explained as the intersections of those 5 boundaries (and two dimensionless numbers π and ж which characterize stable [fluid] mixing of those boundaries).” By the way, re. Ronald Green . We can define anything but existence... because absolute indefinability is the magic necessary for the explanations agency and action. ... or for the observer's observation of some context as systemic continuity. |