[MD] False Messiah

[Scott Roberts]

SA,

> SA said:
>      Are you saying the world is non-spatiotemporal
> without reason (consciousness and value; the latter
> two according to what you are saying are the same as
> reason)?
>
> Scott:
> I'm afraid I don't follow this question. What do you
> mean by
> "non-spatiotemporal without reason"? I'm just saying
> that sense perception
> turns the non-spatiotemporal (the quantum) into the
> spatiotemporal (the
> world we see, hear, touch, taste and smell).

SA said:
     What I am saying is 'non-spatiotemporal without
reason', yet, with reason we have spatiotemporal
existing in our lives, in our perception, and thus,
the way we see the world.  The former
('non-spatiotemporal without reason') does not exist
due to us having reason.

Scott:
If reason, in some esoteric sense, is fundamental, then reason creates/is 
the non-spatiotemporal, and unconscious (to us) reason (in its guise as 
sense perception) also projects it as spatiotemporal. Note that I am not 
restricting reason to human beings. You might also note that what I said 
sounds like John 1:4 "By [the Logos] were all things made that were made", 
though I began thinking this way before making that connection. So it is 
important to remember that reason has levels. The reason to which we 
ordinarily refer, for example that which theorizes about spacetime and the 
non-spatiotemporal, is not the Reason that creates them.

> SA said:
>      Thus, if you are saying yes to the above
> question, then you are saying perception is tied to
> how we view the world, thus, our values placed by
> perception will be found in photons, neutrons,
> etc...,
> and this is how value is found in these latter
> (which
> these latter [photons and such] usually thought of
> strictly absent of moral and value pieces of the
> world
> would actually have morals and values due to our
> reasoning tied with these particles?
>
> Scott:
> How can we "find value" in photons and such if they
> are not perceived? Of
> course, the theory of photons and such is a valuable
> theory, but I assume
> that is not what you are talking about. Again, I
> don't understand you.

 SA said:
    What do you mean photons are not perceived?  We
see light.  Sure we don't see a photon as a particle
or wave, but we notice the larger scale version called
light.

Scott:
I meant that we do not perceive massless, spin 1 whatevers. Photons, 
neutrons, etc. are physicists' constructs. And what we *do* see is particle 
effects or wave effects, while photons are neither particles nor waves, so, 
no, we don't see photons.

SA continued:
  Maybe you are stating that photons are
filtered out via experiment and we do use theory to
guide us into having these 'things' we call photons.
Maybe you are saying as long as the theory holds, we
value photons or the theory of photons.  I guess maybe
I am jumping from theory of photon to photon itself at
times.

Scott:
On the last sentence, yes, I think you are, which makes your other sentences 
off-base with respect to what I am saying. A physicist uses a concept called 
'photon' in his or her theory. I don't think we can say anything about 
photons beyond that.

SA continued:
  So using theory of photons (theory is our
perception, our reasoning) to notice photons (as long
as our reasoning holds up, or in other words, as long
as the theory of photons holds up) then our reasoning
is not just valuing, but supporting something we call
photons.

Scott:
I seem here to be using 'perception' differently than I have been. I have 
been using it strictly as "sense perception": our seeing, hearing, tasting, 
smelling, and touching, not in the more vague sense of "how one perceives a 
situation (e.g., as good, bad, etc.). So theory is precisely *not* sense 
perception in the way I have been using the term. Theory is our reasoning. 
Our reasoning (thinking) does not turn the non-spatiotemporal  into the 
spatiotemporal. Our senses do.

SA continued:
  Our value of photons, is in other words, our
reason and consciousness of photons, thus, photons
exist as long as we value and perceive photons as
existing.  Is this what you are saying?

Scott:
No. I presume that if we all die, there would still be the 
non-spatiotemporal reality that, while we were alive, we understood as 
photons, etc.

- Scott