The epistemologies of science versus faith are indeed extremely controversial when pinned against one another. Science requires evidence. Faith requires solid belief. Science can be (physically) proven. Faith is basically just cognitive; it can defy logic, nature, and science. But is faith just what science can’t explain naturally (YET)? Perhaps the world as it truly is is actually very different than the world as we are capable of knowing it. Not to say that science is behind, but is it inconceivable that we just don’t have the technology to prove faith-based ideas of knowledge and reality. If evolution and natural processes have taken billions of years and comprehending these processes has taken even longer, perhaps the supernatural IS natural and possible. There’s always a loophole in science. There can be exceptions. Nothing is certain in either faith or science. The search is the same. The pathways are just different. And is there a destination; a final spot where we have acquired knowledge of all the possible, impossible, natural, supernatural, real, and "fake"? If so and we can take strides towards it, does it really matter how or what we call it?

In his article "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to Survive the Culture Wars" Thomas W. Clark suggested that the ultimate goal of many worldviews is "to establish the one true view of reality in the minds and hearts of all, and have it rule their lives." Why do humans want uniformity so badly? According to Clark, it’s because of our “innate predilections for cognitive security, tribalism, and egoism.” There are extremists (we know many of them as religious terrorists/martyrs) who believe that when it comes to worldviews, it’s their way or die. Plurality, a concept that is the easiest approach to cultural peace suggests that we agree to disagree. Empiricism, the idea that all knowledge stems from what we can physically experience and scientifically prove, is often mistaken for undermining religion and supernatural beliefs/worldviews. Naturalism, however, is the view that goes against such beliefs. Naturalism is not simply empiricism, “it requires the additional, philosophical assumption that we should place our cognitive bets with science in deciding what ultimately exists.” Naturalists will see empiricism as a means of explaining and understanding the cosmos but supernaturalists can still believe in higher powers while accepting then nature of the world (just not agreeing on what caused or created it).

One might assume that a supernaturalist or religious believer might reject the idea of empiricism because of the common misconception that it attempts to rule out a higher power, but it doesn’t. Unlike naturalism, empiricism does not suggest that science decides what ultimately exists, it only suggests that to fairly judge and address public policies (such as abortion, civil, rights, dignity, and dying), we must refer to only the tangible and factual evidence of this world. It does not out rule the possibility of supernatural worlds, entities, or concepts (we still have our right to free speech and belief); it does, however, express that the pragmatic world is the only thing we can be sure of and, therefore, arguments over ideas or beliefs that can’t be proven are a waste of time.

I can’t speak for all Christians, but as someone who might be assumed to reject empiricism and naturalism, I can say that this is not the case. I agree with Clarks views completely. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all just agree to disagree on issues that can’t be proven? Such peaceful existence is ideal, yet inconceivable and almost impossible, and I find that somewhat disheartening.

It all comes back to apples...

All concepts are in the mind (concepts are mind-dependent)
All concepts are conceptualized (there are no unthought thoughts)
All concepts are concepts-of-some-x.
All concepts-of-some-x are in the mind.
There can be no unconceptualized concepts-of-some-x.
All concepts of TIME are concepts-of-some-x.
Can there be unconceptualized time?

Perhaps there can be an unconceptualized objective time but it cannot be fully understood.Can we experience the same perception of time? If we take von Glasersfeld’s point of view about conceptualized apples, there can be no unconceptualized apples or ideas of apples (or any other object for that matter). Therefore, objective time can only be spoken about through our individual (or sometimes conceptual) perceptions, senses, and experiences. This issue is even more complicated because time itself is not visual so we can’t paint a common picture of what an objective time might look like. We can illustrate its affects and changes on our lives or objects, but that brings us right back to perceptions, senses, and experiences of these affects and changes which makes all possible descriptions of time inevitably subjective. Just as we can’t all perceive the same apple, we can’t perceive the same objective time because our perceptions are ultimately subjectively based upon experience.

Life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quickly you hardly catch it going (Tennessee Williams) so, Laugh as much as you breathe and love as long as you live (Unknown.) Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment (Buddha) and time will seemingly fly.

--------------------------

In 2004, scientists Dr. Anthony Chaston and Dr. Alan Kingstone asked children to engage in scavenger hunt activities on paper, similar to “Where’s Waldo?” After they had found various images, the children were then asked how much time had passed since they had begun. According to Express News, "The harder the search tasks were, the smaller the estimates became," said Chaston, whose study is published in the latest edition of Brain and Cognition. "The results were super clean--we have created a new and powerful paradigm to get at the link between time and attention."

So it has been scientifically proven that more direct and challenging attention equals a faster perception of time. But attention and focus isn’t always considered enjoyable. So, does ‘fun’ affect our subjective perception of time? Many people believe that it does. We’ve all heard the declaration “Time flies when you’re having fun.” I have my own theory as to why this is so and although I can’t scientifically affirm it, I think it’s quite relatable to mankind.

Living in the moment is something many existentialists strive to achieve. How is happiness attainable if we’re dwelling on the past or worrying about the future? These worries only lead to stress, regret, and anxiety. Focusing our attention to NOW gives us a sense of purpose and enjoyment. If we take advantage of the good things we have now, it’s not being selfish; it’s being grateful and excited. When we’re having fun, our bodies and minds are filled with peace and ecstasy. These emotions stimulate our brains and consequently “speed up” our perception of time. The (objective) measurements of a second, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year and so on still hold universally true as tools of organization. However, those who choose to enjoy themselves, take advantage of life’s enjoyable aspects, and accept what they can’t control may live “quicker” years than worry warts and those whose minds and hearts are planted in an unreachable regrettable past.

Choice, Chance, and Fate

Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved. -William Jennings Bryan

The theory of existing parallel universe(s) is often linked with the idea that each choice we make in our lives transports us from our current universe to a new one instantly. Ergo it is believed that our future opportunities, fate, and choices are altered each time we choose and enter into the universe corresponding to the consequences of our decision. There are infinite possibilities and when we decide, we are capable of controlling (to an extent) the outcomes of a situation. The bigger question, however, is to what extent do our choices change our fate? And how much control do we have over the outcomes and consequences of our choices? How much of our future and fate is determined by chance and how much by choice? If I wake up one morning and opt to wear a black shirt in lieu of a blue shirt, and it takes me four seconds longer to put on the former, would those four seconds have been used for something else (significant) in a parallel or alternate universe? There are those who would think so. I happen to believe in a less extreme theory. I don’t think that the color of a shirt or the song we choose to listen to on the way to class has a substantial impact on our entire lives. I do, however, find the existence of parallel universes fathomable relative to big decisions such as choosing or denying a school, career, relationship, or residence. There is never only one possibility for anything. If the outcome of a choice or decision is perceivable, then certainly it can exist somewhere else. Whether that somewhere else is only hypothetical or tangible, we may never know. We can’t be aware of ourselves in two universes at once, but can we exist in multiple universes without being aware of it? Or do we exist solely in one universe and travel to another via choices? And how do we explain relationships with other people? If we are constantly changing universes and opening up new chances, choices, and destinies for ourselves, are our friends and family the friends and family whose choices coincide with our own and thus bring them to the same dimension, or do we bring the idea of them with us? Are there are more questions than explanations in this entry? Yes, but it only seems fitting in a world of choices, chance, and fate. I chose to ponder with a microscopic chance of arriving at a finite answer (as is all philosophical thinking) and as fate would have it, I end this entry where it began: the theory of existing parallel universe(s) is often linked with the idea that each choice we make in our lives transports us from our current universe to a new one instantly. Take me where you must…I choose to post this blog.

Flatlanders in a World of Time

The video "Imagining the Tenth Dimension" does a great job of making an otherwise strictly idea-based explanation into a very visual and therefore, more feasible clarification of the theorized ten dimensions we supposedly live in according to Rob Brayanton. It made it easier for me to comprehend why time is a dimension that is so difficult to perceive physically (/beyond experience or thought).
The comparison to the mobius strip shows how we could be walking, as three-dimensional beings, along a curved dimension of time but it would feel like we are walking in a straight line. This is because we are three-dimensional beings who logically are only capable of perceiving and comprehending (fully, at least), the corresponding three dimensions-length, width, depth. We can, however, exist within more extraneous dimensions if our perceptions of them are based upon the existence and functions of our basic three dimensions. Since time as seen as change/duration, then the curves of time could be the environment in which we exist- everchanging and eternal- and we would perceive it to be flat. In this sense, we would be flatlanders living in time. Furthermore, perhaps time exists within other dimensions, being perceived relative to its capabilities. Who's to say that time does not have cognitive capabilities similar to our own? Perhaps since it is the fourth dimension, it can exist within itself and the fifth dimension (yet again perceiving the fifth dimension related to its four). This process could continue not only to the ten dimensions mentioned in the video, but infinitely. In that case, everything would either be infinite/recurrent or-more realistically-contained within dimension upon dimension upon dimension which would eventually end where it began.

The Gift of the Present

The theory of Presentists is intriguing to me. According to the article we read on time, "Presentists suggest that necessarily only present objects and present experiences are real; and we conscious beings recognize this in the special "vividness" of our present experience." One might inquire that if this is true and the only real moment is “now”, how then, do we know that what we label as our “past” and “future” are not merely our own cognitive conceptions based solely upon the feelings bound to what we are currently experiencing. Although I do not necessarily agree with the presentist’s theory that the present is the only real time, I do think that it’s the most important. Maybe someday we will encounter the technology and knowledge that will allow us to travel back in time to fix mistakes, or into the future to assist us in making important decision, but until then, the present is the only time that we can control, and even then we only have control over our own actions, not other people, nature, or forces.

And why would one want to manipulate something that has already occurred or (in the future) is possibly the will of the universe, a god, or nature? Learning from the past is beneficial. That’s not to say that using records and predictions of former and latter day times is trivial. Observation and inquiry are categorically purposeful. Studying the past and present in order to derive new technologies and ideas to improve living conditions in the future are very practical. But my view is that while the mistakes, possibilities, and realities of before and after are most definitely significant and essential in any human’s life and the chance of improving it, the present is irreplaceable and should be cherished, savored, and never taken for granted. Everything we do has a consequence but everything we do also teaches us something; helps us grow. Therefore, attempting to “fix” mistakes in the past or “prevent” possible hardships in the future is almost inane to me. I don’t think that the past is worth trying to change or the future is worth worrying over to an extent that may cause one stress, doubt, or insecurities. I don’t think choices are worth trying to change because they show us who we are and even if they happen to be the “wrong” choice, consequences and lessons learned from them teach us about ourselves, situations, and life in general. I don’t think relationships are worth overanalyzing. It hurts to lose someone (whether physically or emotionally), but it’s inevitable. How many people can truly say that even though they are no longer with a lover, they’re content simply because there was a period in their life that they were happy with them? How hard is it to appreciate what we have and let go when the time comes? I honestly don’t think it has to be as hard as many people make it out to be. In my opinion, now is the only thing that's worth anything. We shouldn’t worry over what we’ve done if we’re happy now. We should always enjoy what we have in the moment because even though it might not be the only “real” thing, it’s the only thing we can be sure of now and in that sense, it’s all we have.

"To live in this world, you must be able to do three things: to love what is mortal; to hold it against your bones knowing your own life depends on it; and, when the time comes to let it go, to let it go."
-Mary Oliver

The Dream Dimension

This entire entry could be a stretch, but my mind has a tendency to link certain subjects with others that one might consider barely related without my awareness until after the fact. I hope this isn’t the case and that I haven’t strayed too far from the subject of time.

In class today, I jotted down something from the magazine DJ shared with us: "Saint Augustine of Hippo, the famous fifth-century theologian, remarked that he knew well what time is-until somebody asked." I find this to be exceptionally relevant to nearly any philosophical, scientific, or religious debate, but I find time to be particularly inclusive to this statement since it is a generally accepted standard (although not necessarily exactly uniform in all cultures) universal concept and I personally would not have thought to question it had it not been of focus in Constructing Reality. Like Saint Augustine, I (thought I) knew what time was until somebody asked. Now the most I can do is introduce more inquiries based on the theories of others.

The spacetime relativity theory attempts to scientifically illustrate the behavior and construction of the universe, including governing forces such as gravity, light, speed, and time. In Euclidian perception, the universe is suggested to consist of three dimensions of space (height, width, and depth) and one (temporal) dimension of time. In this theory, the universe does not consist of four dimensions, but of 3 + 1 dimensions. The relationship between the two types of dimensions is additive, yet codependent. These dimensions provide arenas where all events of the universe take place. Time cannot be separated from the continuum because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light and also the strength of intense gravitational fields which can slow the passage of time. According to the block theory of the universe one can travel through time if he discovers worm holes and thus, time must exist like length, width, and depth because it would be continuous and simultaneous.

If time travel is possible, we would have to change location (space) as well as time. Continuous and simultaneous time would provide infinite locations and events at any given moment. We’d only have to find the specific coinciding coordinates to reach a certain instant.

…which makes me wonder…

Is the dream world contained within our own and can/do we control our ventures into it? "People in primal societies were unable to distinguish between the dream world and waking world or that they simply choose not to make such a distinction. They saw that the dream world was not only an extension of reality, but that it was a more powerful world." (http://www.dreammoods.com/dreaminformation/history.htm) Maybe our subconscious when we are asleep isn’t ‘sub’ at all. Perhaps it IS just an extension of reality beyond our control to which our minds travel routinely. It is possible that dreams are a different time and place which are experienced by deeper parts of our minds and bodies during the nighttime time and space which we naively consider purposeful for sleeping alone.

Temptation to Understand the Creation and Limitations of Knowledge

http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/2007/cranach/adam-eve5.jpg

I made a perhaps rather exaggerated stretch from Ernest von Glasersfeld's problem of unconceptualized apples to the story/theory of Adam and Eve. Now, because relating philosophy and religion is almost inevitable, given that philosophy strives to discover or unveil the forces behind the workings of the universe and its creatures, it's difficult to argue a strictly philosophical
case when contemplating the beginning of the universe and reality as we know it. I will attempt to adequately form and word one possible theory as to why mankind will never know the true nature of an apple (or any object, for that matter) with the assistance of the Bible's recordings of the first humans and their sins.

If we put aside religious beliefs and assume the following story to be at least somewhat reliable, we are given a possible explanation as to why there are certain things-the nature of an apple, for a common example- that we'll never know.

THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE

It is plausible that the tree of knowledge was not a tree bearing fruit, but rather a concept held by a force-call it whatever you want: God, gods, nature, science, intelligent design, fate, luck, creation, discovery... Perhaps a creator or force has a reason for withholding such knowledge as nature beyond perception from us. Or maybe we are withholding it from ourselves. If Adam and Eve symbolize the human race, the tree of knowledge symbolizes those things that cannot be conceived, the serpent represents temptations and limitations of the mind/consciousness, and God symbolizes whatever reason exists for the denial of such knowledge, then whether or not we can discover an apple's true properties, or a universal truth is beyond our control.

But maybe we can create it, instead.

A Final Thought on Infinity

I am incapable of conceiving Infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.
Simone de Beauvoir

The topic of limitations arose in class on Monday and thus stemmed a debate over individual limits versus societal or limits imposed on/composed in humans as a whole. One student pointed out potential and drive. Perhaps potential is infinitely and exponentially expanding parallel to our experiences and the drive behind them. Drive must be an individual choice since ultimately, all humans decide at least semi-consciously in order to act or react. I wonder then, if limitations are ever-depleting individually and with the evolution of the human race and its technological advance and the formulation of new ideas, concepts, and theories. Or does the world, or even more vast, the universe possess concrete limits which are far beyond the imagination and/or capability of even the highest powers? And as we advance as a civilization, are we coming closer to reaching those limits and being denied access beyond or breaking the barrier and exceeding them? Namely, can we exceed a prior set "law" of the universe if such restrictions existed because we were not expected to reach them? Just as in mathematics, if the limit never approaches anything, the limit does not exist. If humans approach the limits of the universe, do they expand? And if not, what will happen if we (try to) defy them?

On a more personal note, when I kook at the sky, I just don't see how there can be an end, limit, or restriction to something so vast. How can there be an end to possibilities? Yes, logic, mathematics, "laws" and theories of nature can "prove" infinity wrong but that doesn't stop one being out of billions, one entity out of trillions, from not being able to comprehend the end. We'll never know the true potential of the universe and I think I like it that way. Mystery has its own mysteries and there's some comfort in knowing that although searching for possible explanations and philosophies useful and fulfilling in acquiring knowledge of the universe and oneself, the impossibility of never comprehending anything in its entirety gives me something to live for. A friend of mine once told me that "without doubt there would be no questions and without questions there would be no learning". A quest for more questions is as endless as philosophy. And I like it that way.

Truth Versus Interpretation

Kant: Experience and Knowledge

I wonder, how did Kant encounter the idea of a noumenal world containing differential perceptions and conceptions if it is said to be a realm that is beyond human comprehension or expression? If we are ignorant of this realm and the true nature of its contents, how do we acquire knowledge about it? According to Kant, we acquire knowledge of this ineffable domain, "the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality," through experiences of the phenomena-"appearances, which constitute the our experience". The only a priori judgments (judgments that are independent of observation or experiences and based entirely on an entity's true nature, unattainable by the human race) that we can make must derive from experiences in the phenomenal realm. Kant believed that the laws of nature, science, and mathematics are apprehensible exclusively because they intend to explain the world as we experience it. What is the true nature of a pencil? Surely, it is more than the words we produce with it and the smell of its shavings, but these experiences are the only things that will define a pencil's purpose to us. Experience truly is the only way we can attain knowledge. If we could comprehend the world as it is in the noumenal realm, then life would be utterly inane. I think it's safe to say that perspectivism is relevant in terms of radical constructivism. We must perceive the same things (from the noumenal world), yet interpret them differently based on experience in the phenomenal realm which we are familiar with. We can contrast radical constructivism with metaphysical realism even further by suggesting that radical constructivism is creation and interpretation based on experience while metaphysical realism is interpretation of a description. A skeptic would ask how Kant discovered the idea of Noumena if it isn't accessible to mankind. It's possible that a radical constructivist would suggest that we could create that access and possibly merge the two realms together, bridging the gaps between truth versus perception and description versus interpretation. Exactly how, whether consciously or by means of an inconceivable inner force, we could achieve this, is another question.