Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:05:57 EDT Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness <QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU> Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness <QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU> From: Donald Mender <Solzitsky@AOL.COM> Subject: [q-mind] Consciousness, Reality, and Time- A Andemicael Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Adhanom Andemicael <andemicael@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Subject: Consciousness, Reality, and Time
[Klein] ...Clarification needed from Adhanom Andemicael. You seem to be making a distinction between physical time and subjective time. But in your example all you are doing is making the standard distinction between physical time and physical time between two systems moving with different velocities and accelerations.
[Andemicael] Subjective time DOES play a role in the "standard" scenario you describe. If it were not for non-physical, subjective consciousness, there would be no *sequences of events* to talk about. (Objective reality is, as we know, inherently static.)
Variations in velocity do not affect subjective time. This phenomenon maintains its steady, relentless flow, regardless of the physical circumstances.
[Andemicael] How does consciousness create temporal passage?
Time passes because our non-physical, subjective, mental states persist for brief durations (the duration of each state can, in principle, be arbitrarily short; but it cannot logically be zero). I do not have the space here to get into all the details. These are matters that I have already addressed in various articles that may be easily accessed at my web site. I invite readers interested in this subject of time and consciousness to examine some these articles: http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/intro.html
The following is an excerpt from an abstract of mine at http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/process1.html:
To date, we have not formulated a truly satisfying theory explaining time's "flux" (or "passage") and its relationship to consciousness; but this stems from a mistaken assumption on our part regarding the relationship between the concepts "existence" and "persistence."
Clearly, a thing (e.g., a material entity) cannot exist if it does not *remain* in existence. After all, a thing which exists, but does not persist, exists for a total duration of only one moment. One moment, however, is by definition only zero seconds long--no length of time at all. We must realize that if we say a material object (or anything else for that matter) has existed for *no* length of time, we are stating, in effect, that it has *never been* in existence. All things which exist necessarily exist for some *length* of time, however short this may be.
This argument applies to the present moment. If the present moment is to exist, it must remain in existence: it must endure. We often picture the present moment as moving up through time, into the future; this, in fact, is our way of visualizing the idea that the present moment maintains its existence, as time passes.
Clearly, the mystery of time's passage is solved. Given that:
1. the present must *endure* in order to exist, it follows that 2. time *must* pass if the present exists.
Time passes, therefore, for the simple reason that the present exists.
============================================ Contributions distributed to this list are automatically archived at http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html ============================================== For information on how to customize your subscription options, or to un-subscribe, send an "INFO REFCARD" command to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU. ==============================================