Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion.

On 04/28/2025 06:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/28/2025 06:06 PM, rhertz wrote:

Using on-the-shelf electronics, you can have AN IDEA about the flow of
time.
>
The human vision system has developed a sense of "real motion", if every
"picture" captured by our eyes in a film, is presented at a minimal rate
of 24 frames/sec. This means one frame about every 41.6 msec.
>
If I place a camera far away from me, so it can capture my walk from 10
meters away, and film myself for (say) 10 seconds, I've captured
sequences of the flow of time, each one 41.6 msec ahead of the former
instance.
>
If I use any advanced camera that can repeat the sequence, but at a rate
of 100 fps, I can now observe the flow of time every 10 msec.
>
Now, if I display in a single picture every captured frame (at 24 or 100
fps), I really can observe THE PAST FLOW OF TIME with different
resolution between instances.
>
>
I could refine this using 500 fps, 1000 fps, etc. And that is THE BEST
AND ONLY WAY TO OBSERVE THE PASS OF TIME, but happening in the past.
>
>
The only way that humans can observe the pass of time IS IF THEY CAN
STORE AND REMEMBER EVERY INSTANCE, as a camera does. As this thing is
IMPOSSIBLE, humans CAN'T OBSERVE THE PASS OF TIME in real time, as we
don't have embedded enough visual processing power and associated
memory.
>
So, WE CAN'T FEEL TIME NOR WE CAN OBSERVE THE FLOW OF TIME. No living
specie can.
>
Science is an illusion, so you are forced to believe (films,
oscilloscopes, graph from experiments, etc.).
>
But how do you know that such past events WERE REAL?

>
>
What you need is a mental model of mathematical continuity.
>
Otherwise what you get there are paradoxes of motion, that
in merely inductive half accounts that stymy themselves,
are not true about the elements of motion, mathematically.
>
So, a usual sort of instrumentalist/observationalist physicist's
after a sort of nominalist logicist's has only physical stimuli
of physical senses, or, correspondingly the sampling apparatus
of the instrumentalist, with regards to observer/detector.
>
There's though that a realist can have, besides the usual senses
touch/sight/hearing and instruments of a stopwatch and a meterstick,
these "noumenological senses" that are _mathematical_, an object-sense
of a number-sense and a word-sense of a continuum-sense and thusly,
a "sense of time".
>
>
The philosophy of physics has a lot going on about "realist"
positions like these, when "nominalist instrumentalist" positions
have gone all anti-realist, the things like "particle spaces"
and "discontinuous time" are antinomies.
>
>
Then, sampling, measurement, and observation, as with regards
to a great conversation here one time "i am a measure-man",
has that time as a continuous quantity goes into the theory,
then it solves these problems you have that others need not have.
>
>
>

>
>
It's sort of a difference between "science" and "catharsis",
where science sort of develops over time and catharsis
makes to relate events in time, and different times.
>
Then, catharsis reflects on events that provide knowledge
of understanding of events in the past, that makes for
understanding feelings of the past, as what sentimental
feeling beings do in their mere understandings. Of course
catharsis can be profound and realists can be cathartics, also.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis
>
Then, the inter-subjective as the usual sort of goal of
a formalist's theory may be seen as a usual sort of gestalt,
so that realists may be formalists also.
>
>
Contrast "mimesis".
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology , contrast
"structuralist psychology".
>
Some will have that "gestalt psychology" is more the sort of descendant
of "structuralist psychology" that the "functional" and "transactional"
are rather moreso merely mimetics of it.
>
Of course the structuralist in formal methods then is for critique after
deconstructive accounts for making constructive accounts.
>
>
>
"Through a series of experiments, Wertheimer discovered that a person
observing a pair of alternating bars of light can, under the right
conditions, experience the illusion of movement between one location and
the other. He noted that this was a perception of motion absent any
moving object. That is, it was pure phenomenal motion. He dubbed it phi
("phenomenal") motion.[14][16] Wertheimer's publication of these results
in 1912[17] marks the beginning of Gestalt psychology.[16] In comparison
to von Ehrenfels and others who had used the term "gestalt" earlier in
various ways, Wertheimer's unique contribution was to insist that the
"gestalt" is perceptually primary. The gestalt defines the parts from
which it is composed, rather than being a secondary quality that emerges
from those parts.[16] Wertheimer took the more radical position that one
hears the melody first and only then may perceptually divide it up into
notes. Similarly, in vision, one sees the form of the circle first, with
its apprehension not mediated by a process of part-summation. Only after
this primary apprehension might one notice that it is made up of lines
or dots or stars. " -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
>
So, your meta-theory either has continuous quantity and a continuous
physical quantity like time, or it doesn't, in which case it doesn't.
Mathematics does, so, others may.
>
>
>
>
>