About part the second: I barely remember my grandfather intoning the Lord's Prayer with this strange word 'trespasses' that we want forgiven. Later in Sunday School, there was more. But I couldn't say that word 'trespasses'—too many 's' sounds. 'debt' makes more sense and is easier to say.
The original Greek word was indeed opheilēmata (ὀφειλήματα), which translates to a debt or a due. I associate "trespass" with the Anglican Cranmer prayer book.
Compounding interest is a feedback loop. Given the degree to which financial interests control every aspect of society, focusing on this particular doom loop might not be the best strategy.
What would be more effective is a conversation of the basic thermodynamic physics driving activity on the surface of this little orb, in which wealth and power leveraging ever more wealth and power in a compounding curve is like heat sucking up moisture from the surface, then with these enormous vortices, such as endless wars, as the storms developing.
So the most basic crack in the dominant paradigm is our narrative, past to future view of time being a perceptual construct of mobile organisms with a sequential process of perception, rather than the more basic physical dynamic of activity and the resulting change turning future to past. Potential to residual.
Then exploring those underlaying thermodynamics would be a necessity. Especially as the financial AI based bubble bursts and all those people involved and invested in studying the nature of information and knowledge can't simply be stuffed back in the box and will seek ways to further the conceptual awareness.
You can't hemlock or crucify a couple million Socrates, or Jesuses.
"So the most basic crack in the dominant paradigm is our narrative, past to future view of time being a perceptual construct of mobile organisms with a sequential process of perception"
John, do you think we perceive time as before vs. after (as opposed to front vs behind, above vs below, left vs right) because we appear to have free will, and we need to think in terms of before and after a choice is made? Does that give rise to the sequentialism you mention?
Also, I loved this line:
"You can't hemlock or crucify a couple million Socrates, or Jesuses."
Those might be useful analogies, but the simple fact is that our cognition functions as fairly static sequences of perception, like frames of a film. Otherwise it would all just be blurs of light, sound and physical contact. We then try other project this conceptual stasis as the basis, rather than subjective effect, so math, as static formalisms, tends to be treated as foundational, rather than abstracted.
As I posted out, consciousness functions as energy, so it is affective, but then these static frames come across as deterministic, because they are static. Seemingly engraved in stone.
Apparently the Eastern and Native American view is the past is in front and the future behind, because the past is known and what is in front can be seen, while the future is unknown and what is behind can't be seen. Which accords with the fact we do see events after they occur, then the energy transitions to other events and observers.
As opposed to the Western view of the future in front of us and the past behind, because we see ourselves as entities moving through space, toward the future and away from the past. Which is why correlating distance with duration and calling it spacetime made some modicum of sense.
As I keep saying, our edifices of knowledge are patches over the tears in the previous patches, all the way down. This intersection of philosophy and AI debates on Substack seems to be pulling at various of those layers.
If I were a 2-dimensional observer trying to apprehend a 3d sphere, I'd have to take it on as a sequence of circular MRI slices.
I'd need some convention to organize those cross-sectional slices straight into a continuum. That, to me, is "time"; a way of glimpsing higher dimensions from a disadvantaged perspective.
The geometry of the 3d sphere does indeed "determine" the circular shape of the 2d slices in this example. But with a cylinder sliced cross-sectionally, the level of geometric determinism would depend entirely on which angle the observer chooses to take their slices.
Yet you are still the center point of your reference frame. You do see the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
So is this a mapping device, an abstract model used to clarify and codify a dynamic that otherwise would not sit still, or is it the foundations on which that dynamic rests?
Are longitude, latitude and altitude foundational to the surface of this planet, or are they a useful mapping device, aka, Cartesian space?
As you say, it is a convention. A useful tool. A convenience.
So then the question is, is there that fourth dimension of time? Can we go time traveling through wormholes in the fabric of spacetime, or is it just using the speed of light to correlate measures of distance and duration, similar to ideal gas laws correlating volume with temperature and pressure?
If there is not, then what is gravity? Given the need for enormous amounts of Dark Matter to make it work, maybe GR is not the answer.
I still go for structure being inherently recursive. The various properties we describe as matter, weight, density, definition, are effects. Ones our tactile, object oriented minds refer back to and build on. Recursion.
I believe we'd have to ascend to a 4th dimensional perspective to "time travel." But because our sense of of self is based on our perception of time, we'd lose our identities as individuals in the process.
I love your use of the ideal gas law, John, to illustrate the possibility that spacetime is derivation (or a convention) rather than bedrock reality.
Does your recursive model REQUITE that past versions of reality to be "consumed" by newer versions as energy is conserved?
Mathematically, interest follows an exponential curve, eventually rising to infinity. Economies follow a 'S' curve, much related to the seasonal shift in productivity of the yearly cycle.
I usually credit Professor Hudson, but I studied exponents in math, the mysterious e. We also did sine waves, et al cyclical functions, so when Michael said that economies follow an S-curve, that made instant sense.
When we consider a piece of paper folded in half 100 times, our brains picture the NYC phone book. We're surprised to learn that the 103rd fold would yield a wad of paper thicker than the observable universe.
Exponents ARE unintuitive. But once you know, you know!
About part the second: I barely remember my grandfather intoning the Lord's Prayer with this strange word 'trespasses' that we want forgiven. Later in Sunday School, there was more. But I couldn't say that word 'trespasses'—too many 's' sounds. 'debt' makes more sense and is easier to say.
Haha very funny, Tedder!
The original Greek word was indeed opheilēmata (ὀφειλήματα), which translates to a debt or a due. I associate "trespass" with the Anglican Cranmer prayer book.
Nathan,
Compounding interest is a feedback loop. Given the degree to which financial interests control every aspect of society, focusing on this particular doom loop might not be the best strategy.
What would be more effective is a conversation of the basic thermodynamic physics driving activity on the surface of this little orb, in which wealth and power leveraging ever more wealth and power in a compounding curve is like heat sucking up moisture from the surface, then with these enormous vortices, such as endless wars, as the storms developing.
So the most basic crack in the dominant paradigm is our narrative, past to future view of time being a perceptual construct of mobile organisms with a sequential process of perception, rather than the more basic physical dynamic of activity and the resulting change turning future to past. Potential to residual.
Then exploring those underlaying thermodynamics would be a necessity. Especially as the financial AI based bubble bursts and all those people involved and invested in studying the nature of information and knowledge can't simply be stuffed back in the box and will seek ways to further the conceptual awareness.
You can't hemlock or crucify a couple million Socrates, or Jesuses.
"So the most basic crack in the dominant paradigm is our narrative, past to future view of time being a perceptual construct of mobile organisms with a sequential process of perception"
John, do you think we perceive time as before vs. after (as opposed to front vs behind, above vs below, left vs right) because we appear to have free will, and we need to think in terms of before and after a choice is made? Does that give rise to the sequentialism you mention?
Also, I loved this line:
"You can't hemlock or crucify a couple million Socrates, or Jesuses."
Those might be useful analogies, but the simple fact is that our cognition functions as fairly static sequences of perception, like frames of a film. Otherwise it would all just be blurs of light, sound and physical contact. We then try other project this conceptual stasis as the basis, rather than subjective effect, so math, as static formalisms, tends to be treated as foundational, rather than abstracted.
As I posted out, consciousness functions as energy, so it is affective, but then these static frames come across as deterministic, because they are static. Seemingly engraved in stone.
Apparently the Eastern and Native American view is the past is in front and the future behind, because the past is known and what is in front can be seen, while the future is unknown and what is behind can't be seen. Which accords with the fact we do see events after they occur, then the energy transitions to other events and observers.
As opposed to the Western view of the future in front of us and the past behind, because we see ourselves as entities moving through space, toward the future and away from the past. Which is why correlating distance with duration and calling it spacetime made some modicum of sense.
As I keep saying, our edifices of knowledge are patches over the tears in the previous patches, all the way down. This intersection of philosophy and AI debates on Substack seems to be pulling at various of those layers.
If I were a 2-dimensional observer trying to apprehend a 3d sphere, I'd have to take it on as a sequence of circular MRI slices.
I'd need some convention to organize those cross-sectional slices straight into a continuum. That, to me, is "time"; a way of glimpsing higher dimensions from a disadvantaged perspective.
The geometry of the 3d sphere does indeed "determine" the circular shape of the 2d slices in this example. But with a cylinder sliced cross-sectionally, the level of geometric determinism would depend entirely on which angle the observer chooses to take their slices.
Very true.
Yet you are still the center point of your reference frame. You do see the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
So is this a mapping device, an abstract model used to clarify and codify a dynamic that otherwise would not sit still, or is it the foundations on which that dynamic rests?
Are longitude, latitude and altitude foundational to the surface of this planet, or are they a useful mapping device, aka, Cartesian space?
As you say, it is a convention. A useful tool. A convenience.
So then the question is, is there that fourth dimension of time? Can we go time traveling through wormholes in the fabric of spacetime, or is it just using the speed of light to correlate measures of distance and duration, similar to ideal gas laws correlating volume with temperature and pressure?
If there is not, then what is gravity? Given the need for enormous amounts of Dark Matter to make it work, maybe GR is not the answer.
I still go for structure being inherently recursive. The various properties we describe as matter, weight, density, definition, are effects. Ones our tactile, object oriented minds refer back to and build on. Recursion.
I believe we'd have to ascend to a 4th dimensional perspective to "time travel." But because our sense of of self is based on our perception of time, we'd lose our identities as individuals in the process.
I love your use of the ideal gas law, John, to illustrate the possibility that spacetime is derivation (or a convention) rather than bedrock reality.
Does your recursive model REQUITE that past versions of reality to be "consumed" by newer versions as energy is conserved?
Mathematically, interest follows an exponential curve, eventually rising to infinity. Economies follow a 'S' curve, much related to the seasonal shift in productivity of the yearly cycle.
I've been delighted to notice @professormichaelhudson greatly expanding his presence on Substack of late, Tedder!
I usually credit Professor Hudson, but I studied exponents in math, the mysterious e. We also did sine waves, et al cyclical functions, so when Michael said that economies follow an S-curve, that made instant sense.
When we consider a piece of paper folded in half 100 times, our brains picture the NYC phone book. We're surprised to learn that the 103rd fold would yield a wad of paper thicker than the observable universe.
Exponents ARE unintuitive. But once you know, you know!
That curve starting slowly, then shortly going straight up, seems the best way to grasp it.
After I bought my graphing calculator, I would run functions over and over, amazed by how the exponent rose to infinity. I forget the word for that