COMPLEX IDEAS FOR YOUR SIMPLE TIME

       The  Incoherent Coherent

                                                      Is a technically correct but abstracted  

                                                        time possible?  What can it have to do

                                                        with the clock in my own den?

                                                      Can it keep time with my life or must it

                                                        by necessity keep the time of a facet 

                                                        of my existence that is related to my

                                                        active pursuit of nature/perceptions

                                                        and cognitions from life experience

                                                        that motivate my pursuits.  

                                                      If I assume that my knowledge of the

                                                        world, constructed from my sensory

                                                        experiences is incomplete, can I

                                                        arrive at anything but the

                                                        abstracted/invented that is

                                                        necessarily an inductive reasoning

                                                        whether it corresponds validly or not

                                                        with the real/empirical?  In this case

                                                        what time  does it show if it reveals a

                                                        truth?  The size,shape or motion of

                                                        the universe though I am not able to

                                                        envision an object named universe?

                                                        If the universe  is expanding or

                                                        contracting, I as well as all else I am able to visualize must also   

                                                        be changing in size at different rates less their would be nothing with which to make a

                                                        comparison. 

   If the universe is changing how can I compare it with myself if I cannot visualize it tangibly as an object or entity.  What does the expansion or contraction of the universe mean? Is the concept falsely interpreted to mean it to be consequence of construed natural processes or it descriptive of processes themselves, of external/universal processes as well as internal processes involved in my life functions such that the fact of it is valid, all processes of the universe  may proceed in a specific direction but it's positive or negative value may have no coherency in reference to the self.  Ask again though, what other reference can any fact have? It is suggested that the eye and mind work in opposition to invert the changes it detects to cast a positive sense of increase and to compare it with its' original sensual detections  as well as with itself with respect to space/volume changes involved in metabolic processes such that we are able to gauge/"feel" our way around.   If this is the case, valid, though abstracted, absolutes employed in human industries diminish, increase, skew or reflect abberations  in contrasts meant to guide, diminish their diversity as a result of  general influences assoiated with a failed comprehension of their state of unfinished meaning and can only result in disturbances to senses, behaviors  employed gainfully for life/species successes.                                                      

Cognition and Universality : Incoherent Coherency

Marvin E. Kirsh
Kirsh2152000@yahoo.com



Abstract

Incoherency in communications normally entails abstraction that refers to particulars, entailing a self possessed location dependant uniqueness, that fails in description . One might test for incoherency with the ability to visualize a corresponding representation of the referred topic. For instance the topic of color does not possess this capability where as the color red does. Though one also must attach to his representation a physical shape to his representation, if not just a flat plane or volume of some kind that is red in color. In this manuscript I wish to present an alternative and separate definition for incoherency that entails facets of the world, and the individuals place in it, such that seemingly coherent construable valid and logical deduction, universal, can emerge as meaningless with respect to life experience and survival. Oddly, the example used, Albert Einstein’s query concerning expansion verses contraction of the universe itself refers to potentially construable volumes of space although the universe, fitting into the category of abstraction, is a visually unconceivable entity. In this example I wish to demonstrate that it potentially possible to arrive at fairly certain argument suggesting that the universe must be either one or the other, expanding or contracting, but that this fact has no application, inclusively, to the endeavors of individuals or mankind, other than it’s emergence into the arguments presented here. In order to present my argument, new perspectives regarding history and human behavior, with semi-conceptual roots in ancient and medieval philosophical writings, will be introduced.

Discussion

Second, in re-examination of the theory of relativity, that it draws a concept of perspective from a sensory objectivity that there is a primary mathematical constant to nature that is based on a ratio of geometries rather than a ratio of ratio as a ratio. Meant by this, existing at the fringes of reality and question, is a reflection about a standard perspective. For example, two men traveling apart from one another at a given velocity, with respect to a third stationery party they should have velocities that are vectoraly addable if a standard perspective coherently exists. With respect to the philosophy of Berkeley, his communications are none other than conceptually oriented in this direction, disregard abstraction as incoherent, yet might be taken to be accepting of the notion of relative velocity if a conceive and add velocity( for example) identically. However he might had rejected the existence of unwitnessable electrons and photons with mass that traverse space, especially if they are conceived to exist universally in the absence of a perceiver. Boethius, speaking about its’ possessor , if taken in a strict sense leave no room to discuss the particulars of knowledge, but that all human beings possess it.

Third, I wish to introduce for comparison a separate notion of relativity, arising from the notions of Berkeley, Boethius and Einstein , excluding questions about a divinity, but considering consciousness , the sense of self, soul as a parallel fact to the existence of the brain and not a product of it alone. Assuming, that Einstein in his/mathematical/geometrical considerations are correct only with respect to a description of transmission of energy-i.e- E=mc^2 but c, if it is proposed that velocity exists only as common knowledge of its existence but has no coherent content in terms of mathematical comparisons/ratios exists only and can be held only as existing variable that is exempt from ratio-i.e. relates only to the possessor of the knowledge that construes it. Jokingly, but conceptually related, to satisfy the logic of both Berkeley and Boethius, if one were to maintain his correspondences, to construe a logical path from concepts involving the velocity of light, the theory of relativity to the practicalities of conscious experience, language usage, he might arrive at a the principle, in combination of these philosophical (indivisible) concepts that each individual would require the physical mechanical facilities to inspect the evidence from concepts that forecast (invisible) divides as a matter of the practicalities of existing: each attributed with his own knowledge depending on his nature. Though this is an exaggerated example with respect to the intended purpose to present a philosophical concept other than refute scientific method, one can ask about the meaning of scientific concepts, if they have no apparent practical meaning, can they also yield tangible coherent facts that ultimately relate to facts about experience, abstraction and knowledge instead of the physical world. With regards to philosophical proof, probably considered, ultimately more important, of the practical than scientific, it is not impossible to conceive of a wish for common, hands on experience to know the world.

As a distinct notion of relativity one can jump from this argument and hypothesis about consciousness to suggest, as the most important, that distance/velocity is ubiquitously relative, and that its’ conception, consciousness itself is a synergy of the detection of processes external to the self and parallel internal processes related connected with sequestering of processes, energies and forces brought about by the physiological; variable space, time, force, energy, as an elemental ubiquitous unit, each entailing the other/conceptually equal to one another as if the world an inflatable surface with a peculiarity that surface, entails force, entails energy, entails a contents of paths and courses that are all modulated/definable by the same non mathematical unity. Its’ procession, a total and contained by all the paths to present, such that the concept of soul, a world of individual uniqueness’s descended from it, is totally contained by it, and is yet is indivisible, immune to the genera established by scientific method-one results the world of the nominalist, excluded realists.

Related to the notion of relative distance, obviously, are the concepts of relative time, expansion verses contraction of the universe of the theory of relativity. If distance is relative, space/total volume of the universe can be either increasing or decreasing. The energy of light can be applied for the generation of space and mass with a remainder, or it can be construed, that light, in the process of transmission consumes space. If one considers history, all processes, as an unfolding, it is suggested that at each stage the material in the folds in some manner, undergoes a parallel change to changes in volume/space with expression, yet at the same time there is obviously new expression, addition, yet with a loss of total complexity/space.