The Centers of Time
According to Einstein, there is an atom of time that is required for light to move from a to b, unless of course an object is moving along with light at an equal speed - in which case a appears to be b, and b, a...
What this means philosophically is that if I were with you in a bar enjoying a beer, and you made some quip, which took point x seconds to reach my ears, nevertheless would also take z light atoms to reach my eyes; i.e.: there is some divisible instance between what your time is and what my time is. The quandary of course is that though your quip's time lagged behind my time, my response of course would lag behind yours. Sort of like my reaction to a star that's 5 million parsecs distant is 5 million year too late, it's reaction to my reaction will be a further 5 million years sadder. And so we echo our reactions.
Of course the lag between you and me and me and the star are significantly different in scope. they are nevertheless no less different in texture.
I've scoffed at the physicists who've declared an infinite number of parallel universes, not so much because they might be wrong, but rather that if so, there must be x to the infinite number of intersecting universes. (of course semantically, universe is "one" so, excuse me if I disagree...). mais, the perceivable singularity may have imperceivable iterations that are both intersecting and parallel, defining something other than a singularity - a "one" - rather a spectralverse of unparalleled diversity.
My point, if no one has gathered it by now, is that my center of time is me; yours is you, hers is her; etc. all other times, yours, hers, intersect mine, (or someone else's) (or sadly perhaps sometimes no else's) and that each defines a distinct universe. Uni, in being the one, the me, the you, the she, the he, but never the we, the they, the you the many, For the we, the they, the you the many are the intersections, and not the "one"; and the "they" and "me" and "you" and "me" - well the distinction is ... a word forgotten - google says 'except' (perhaps 'exception') ; i.e.: the spectralverse, the union of the many, the union of the the common and the exceptions, being an expression of set theory; the 'all' and not the 'one'. In the beginning was the word, and the word encountered the conundrum of grammar... Presumably something that popped up after the word...
What this means philosophically is that if I were with you in a bar enjoying a beer, and you made some quip, which took point x seconds to reach my ears, nevertheless would also take z light atoms to reach my eyes; i.e.: there is some divisible instance between what your time is and what my time is. The quandary of course is that though your quip's time lagged behind my time, my response of course would lag behind yours. Sort of like my reaction to a star that's 5 million parsecs distant is 5 million year too late, it's reaction to my reaction will be a further 5 million years sadder. And so we echo our reactions.
Of course the lag between you and me and me and the star are significantly different in scope. they are nevertheless no less different in texture.
I've scoffed at the physicists who've declared an infinite number of parallel universes, not so much because they might be wrong, but rather that if so, there must be x to the infinite number of intersecting universes. (of course semantically, universe is "one" so, excuse me if I disagree...). mais, the perceivable singularity may have imperceivable iterations that are both intersecting and parallel, defining something other than a singularity - a "one" - rather a spectralverse of unparalleled diversity.
My point, if no one has gathered it by now, is that my center of time is me; yours is you, hers is her; etc. all other times, yours, hers, intersect mine, (or someone else's) (or sadly perhaps sometimes no else's) and that each defines a distinct universe. Uni, in being the one, the me, the you, the she, the he, but never the we, the they, the you the many, For the we, the they, the you the many are the intersections, and not the "one"; and the "they" and "me" and "you" and "me" - well the distinction is ... a word forgotten - google says 'except' (perhaps 'exception') ; i.e.: the spectralverse, the union of the many, the union of the the common and the exceptions, being an expression of set theory; the 'all' and not the 'one'. In the beginning was the word, and the word encountered the conundrum of grammar... Presumably something that popped up after the word...
posted by quantom qurkington at 10:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home