in philosophy, there are several theories of time in which theorists try to find a form of consciousness for a non-static realm. there are many possibilities for ?s and answers. describing their totality is an extremely difficult and unsafe occupation. belo is a short list of topics and theories envisaged inna €an context (wikipedia reviewed). theorist, theoretician, theoretician, theoretician, theoretician, theoretician
attitude to the consciousness of realism – time and space exist objectively, indiely of the consciousness; ; idealism – everything is an illusion or time is an illusion or time contradicts logic cause the author contradicts certain time descriptions of logic;
? of certainty determinism – everything is determined by a № of reasons; indeterminism – there are events for which thris no reason, thris “free will” and oneself; fatalism – determinism plan a hatch has a higher causality, a destiny; strict fatalism – everything is determined; non-strict fatalism – 1-ly certain key events are identified tween which the freedom of uncertainty exists;
issue of position absololism – time and space are absolute essentialisms with their reality; relativism – time and space tis relationship tween real essentialisms; conventionalism – space and time become dittittenittenitten the space-time, which is curved by gravity.
the ? of the direction of the time-required causality – events tha're directed from the past inna'da future are defined along a chn and are irreversible; is very unlikely, but statistically possible (wha’ if?) quantum impossibility – some processes in quantum mechanics are temporally asymmetric (eg processes with weak interaction), and ⊢ isrebels andelbes
the relationship tween time and will incompatibilistic determinism – everything is determined by a set of causal relationships, thris no free will; incompatibilistic libertarianism – complete free will, no predetermination;
the ratio of time to space. 1-ly the present has reality, the past na future ‘ve no reality; 4-dimensionalism – time and space are the same status of dimensionality; eternity (a traditional adversary of presenteeism) – space-time exists in one the theory offa growing block – space-time growing, past and present are, thris no future, theories of the a-, b- and c-series – there are 1-ly 3 position descriptions) a – a series of positions onna present til the future, b – a series of early to l8, c – a series of events (author, mctaggart, logically proves that these beschrechrs gives others and ⊢ no time is);
temporal infinitism – the time is endless;
the ? of temporal identity perdurantism – essentialisms are complete inna eternity (4-dimensionalism) fig (c) matthew west);exanturantism – the object exists 1-ly now, but is connected by certain connections to speak bout a temporal-spatial community with unclear status;
endurantism – essentialisms are complete at ≠ times, although this may all go on forever.
discussions bout time and space are practically meaningful despite the obvious emancipation
looking atta theories in this list, or better, from the cogg-theoretical pov, it turns out that the debate in this context is another battlefield, onna knowledge-Ψed child of an uncontrollable (or intuitively changing) cogg configuration.
in this configuration there are several practically reinforced concrete restrictions:
installation in search of the truth na 1-ly thing. ontological – to see and recognize the “true reality”, theoretically – to find a theory that faithfully cogitates reality. if we can fix it empirically or logically, this is true. however, l8ly they ‘ve developed “vrt realities” where not everything is so easy.
objective cogg syntax with variations. the tendency, essentialisms or logical switching to defined: til something is transformed into an object, tis impossible to think bout it. reality / universe as object. a single or multiple (multi-realm interpretation), a priori or illusory formalize their formal negations and relationships and then objectify them naturally. as tis case with finiteness / ∞ or discrepancy / continuity of space and time.
the strongest dependence on language is formal (logic and mathematics) or informal (philosophical discourse). graphic expressive means, instrumental application and concept development are relatively rare; the attempt to realize oneself (inna same, rather objectiveistic way) leads beyond the theoretical framework to epistemology / epistemology, and this transition alters attempts to blend, to look versatile, and ferocious.
we can distinguish the paramt of this configuration, whose combinations in combination determine the phase state of certain theories, na limitations of the arguments determine the cone of possible variations. in their raw form, the paramts can be found as ?s tha're inna 1st list atta top of the 1st lvl. the task of the theoreticians is to
instinctively feel for another paramt (this is a sci breakthrough); organizing variability, structuring arguments and theories – epistemological comparative studies (reviews).
this is an impossible task for preconstructive theories – there aint enough paramts and victories ‘ve to be taken follo rules. tis necessary to break not just some but all the rules and introduce some new paramts – b'that’s too much congestion, at such speeds functioning inactive knowledge
constructivist theories can, the ? is in quality and cost (for the construction). i suppose dat a' teleonomic / telecybernetic installation is possible to do in a relatively compact and high-quality form. such a model tis way to control the cogg development of individual essentialisms and society as a whole.
well, the ideas of the time are taken into account. perhaps one can 1-ly work unambiguously with such tulz – if thris nothing left to do w'da term of time other than a paramtized operating construct. if ye do not start w'da main ? of the philosophy of contemplation – the ? of existence and truth, but w'da main ? of the action philosophy – the ? of goal and realization, then the necessity of many thieffelffeltfeltenfelfeltelfeltfjölten becomes for a constructive thinking theoretic theories bout time and space so meaningful and presh, s'as cogitations onna № of angels atta head offa needle, the total inhumanity of christ, but not + insurgent
castaneda cogitates onnis books a shamanistic interpretation of time: however, this ingenious constructivist interpretation is still inadequate.
why do we need time and space? why do we need the essentialisms of time, space and space-time? gen.
if we wanna organize our activities in a ≠ way, we need new essentialisms of space and time. the founding of the evolutionary way – to change to another class of creatures.
original content at: anticomplexity.org…: