Saturday 22 March 2008

How Soon Is Now (2) - The Phantom Premise

[a continuation of an evolving thought-process began in previous posts: How Soon Is Now and Peakeian Daemonology ; and stimulated by Ken, Jesamyn and Susan-Marie's recent comments regarding Time]

When, exactly, IS now? Is it now as I write this in a London hotel (at 4am on a particularly insomniacal night); or is it now as I type this (at 1.00 pm in a Thames-side pub); or is it now as you read this (whatever time that may be)?
The answer is most certainly, none of the above, as each instance of potential 'now-ness' has already become the past and was already the past well before you perceived the initial illusionary moment of now.

We think of Time as a linear progression from A to B with causality and effect: Past, Present and Future; Time’s Arrow! Time, in Einsteinian terms, is curved; curve something enough and it eventually bends back upon itself: But how soon is now? Is now an anomaly of space-time and indeed is your conception of now precisely that of mine? Recent neurological research would suggest not, as our perception of now is delayed, by the neuronal configuration in our brains, in being presented to our consciousness. Can this “Consciousness Buffer” be identical, to a trillionth of a second, for every solitary human being? I personally doubt it, so my now and your now can be very different.

Consider the now of an Eidolon and Daemon compared to the now of a Virgin Life; The now of the Eidolon and Daemon are by definition different to each other as the Daemon is conscious of future events; now-with-an-eye-on-the-past being necessarily different from now-with-an-eye-on-the-future. And consider the now of the Virgin Life: this now will also differ from the Eidolonic now as every moment is new and not a replay, but all of this leads me to more and more questions, the leading ones being:

Is Time a consciousness construct? Is Time an empty ephemeral evanescence? Does Time require an observer? Is Time a constant stream or a series of quantised 'Now's?

Or is Time the phantom premise.

A Dark Philosopher
Karl L Le Marcs


Karl Le Marcs said...

It is arguable that the shortest amount of TIME is that of the "Planck Time" (although I tend to disagree following the Hubble Deep Field images - look it up, it's very interesting).
Anyway, as short as Planck Time no doubt is, it may not be as fleeting as the 80s phenomena known as "Hammer Time"
Or even more so "Chico Time"
*Oh how we all laughed!!!*

Hurlyburly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SM Kovalinsky said...

Thanks as always, Karl, for enlightening us with your lively posts, which twist and turn but always elegantly hit the mark. Oh, would that you were not a virgin!

Karl Le Marcs said...

*exlaims* S U S A N M A R I E !!
*fans self with overly elaborate handkerchied*
Susan Marie, you always flatter me with your words, and I thank you for that *hugs*
I'm just glad you enjoy listening to my ramblings as much as I enjoy hearing your words.
And my Virginity lies but within just one realm, dear Lady - that of existence.
Everything else I've done loads of times!!!
*blows on fist and rubs on suit lapel*
I'd be interested to hear you comments regaring my Now-Ness of Time as you consider it in relation to Nietzsche, Ouspensky and Gurdijeff.
***additional aside to Susan Marie: we need to communicate privately as I'd like to collaborate with you (oooer, obviously) on a post for this blog on the Ouspensky-Gurdijeff philosophies***

SM Kovalinsky said...

KARL; You do always manage to rise to the occasion and rap out a sound rejoinder, don't you? And now my imagination is running riot with me. And I most certainly would be delighted, not only to remark on the NOWness of time as it relates to Nietzsche, Ouspensky and Gurdjieff, but also to collaberate with you on a post. BUT I must regain my equilibrium, as I am in a HORRIBLE state, as can be seen in my rant below to Hurly. Brought on by U.S. politics - a real mess over here as of late. So, so sorry. In fact I will go apologize to him now. And why is it that you seem, and have always seemed, so familiar to me??? Many thanks. I will get myself together. . .

Karl Le Marcs said...

No need to apologies at all Susan Marie and I didn't think New Jersey was such a "horrible state"
UK Politics is bad enough (and I'm involved in one particular aspect of that regularly) and don't even start me on Russian Politics (about which I also write), but the US McCain vs Clinton or Obama saga does seem to be depramental to certain civil liberties doesn't it!! *cough* passport records *cough*

Jesamyn said...

Oh may I interrupt??? Or should I throw a Bucket of cold water over the pair of you?!!!!Sorry Susan Marie... you are a fine Lady !!!Just joking.... I just wanted to throw in a non-quantum-physics naive post... i. e. as to Time.... as I have found in talking regularly to Susan Marie on opposite sides of the Globe, we allow for 16 hours difference(I always assure her she will be the first to know if the World blows up!!!)so,*blithely disregards Hammer, Planck and Chico time*(wasn't one a Marx brother?? )I just thought if it can differ so much just in our small frame of the Earthly Globe, there must be more to all this than meets the casual eye....and it all ties in to the Itladean Theory...
Naively but Earnestly

ken said...

More of my musings ...

Seems to me that time, despite the common assumption that it "flies like an arrow", by its very definition is circular. What measure of time do we have that does not depend on something returning to an initial state? The year is the time it takes the earth to make one revolution about the sun and end up right where it started. A day is one rotation on the axis and again back to where it started. Even the scientific standard for time is based on vibration which is periodic, circular.

Is not time really more of a difference measure than an absolute measure? "It is 10:00" is meaningless without another data point - sunrise, or midnight, or dusk. Time of day is how far along the earth is in one of its rotations. Length is an explicit difference measure but I don't think it is common to conceive of time as a difference. We talk of "supper at 5:00" and "a meeting at 3:00" as if it meant the same as supper at McDonalds on Broadway. Plus, we can REmeasure length or distance by visiting the two endpoints again with our tape measure. But time measurements are inherently UNrepeatable.

Furthermore, if my time difference differs from your difference (as when I have a fever and you do not) and my "now" is not the same as your "now" then how can time NOT be, at least subjective, if not a construct of consciousness?

I'm working on a post about time which, I hope, will be up soon.

Karl Le Marcs said...

*wipes self off from splashes*
Susan Marie would be the first to know of a global catastrophe as it is highly likely to occur in the USA
*political humour*
HA HA Chico Marx Time!!!
But in essence, I think you are correct. Time is a relative constant only when the conditions are relatively constant, which they seldom are, but are marginally so in our existence.
As the conditions become less arbitrary then Time becomes the emphemeral evanescence that it is.

SM Kovalinsky said...

Kaaaarl??? Did you get my eeee-mail??? *asked in a whining voice, akin to a nagging wife*

Karl Le Marcs said...

I agree; your "flies like an arrow" was reflected in my post by my "Time's Arrow" comment.
I have a small issue with your "The year is the time it takes the earth to make one revolution about the sun and end up right where it started." as it isn't at all "right where it started" as the sun itself revolves around the centre of the Milky Way (Black Hole?).
I do agree regrading your time "data point" anaologies, as without a contrast there can be no singular.
Finally, taking Einstein's General Relativity, everyone would have their own personal time (Subjective Time); the times of two people would agree if the people were at rest with respect to each other, but not if they were moving.
This has been confirmed by a number of experiments including one in which twohe accurate atomic clocks were flown in opposite directions around the world and returned showing very slightly differing times.

Karl Le Marcs said...

Susan Marie,

Yes, will get a reply to you asap