Among the most important philosophical concepts on which the foundations of our worldview are held, the concepts of "space" and "time" are in a special position. Many great thinkers have tried to penetrate into the essence of these concepts. And, although even a child intuitively understands what space and time are, the attempts of thinkers to express this clarity in words do not give satisfactory formulations - something important certainly escapes, and even several volumes of commentary do not help to grasp this elusive something.
The situation is also complicated by the fact that space and time are not directly accessible to us through experience. No one has ever measured space - but measured lengths, areas, volumes; similarly, no one has ever measured time - but measured durations. It was done like this: they found out how many times the reference meter would fit along the fence, or how many times the reference clock ticked from bell to bell. We got ratios between lengths and between durations - and nothing beyond that, no touching space and time! Reasoning without bias, we must conclude: no experiment confirms that space and time are an objective reality. A seditious thought immediately comes - are space and time a subjective reality, i.e. a product of the thinking subject itself? Moreover - the one who thinks is not free!
Indeed, the intuitive clarity, but the impossibility of formulating - the comparison of these symptoms leads to the suspicion that in the question of the essence of space and time we are dealing with the work of some special limiter of our thinking. It is known, after all, that both the perception and the worldview of the subject have their own limitations - for example, filters of perception, as well as prejudices about “what can be and what cannot be”. Therefore, it is not surprising that the subject's thinking also has limits, which we will call thinking filters. The origin of thinking filters is very simple: all our thinking is organized algorithmically, and each algorithm by which we think is itself a thinking filter - because when it works, the subject thinks exactly as this algorithm prescribes, and not otherwise. Note thatthat the subject is free to readjust his system of thinking filters within a wide range - as well as the sets of filters of perception and presets in the worldview. However, with regard to the filters of thinking associated with the essence of space and time, it seems that the subject has no power over these filters. If this is true, then this means that space-time filters are very firmly embedded in our thinking: in fact, they participate in the formation of all our thoughts. In other words: we cannot think bypassing these filters. And this state of affairs is not devoid of sense!that the subject has no control over these filters. If this is true, then this means that space-time filters are very firmly embedded in our thinking: in fact, they participate in the formation of all our thoughts. In other words: we cannot think bypassing these filters. And this state of affairs is not devoid of sense!that the subject has no control over these filters. If this is true, then this means that space-time filters are very firmly embedded in our thinking: in fact, they participate in the formation of all our thoughts. In other words: we cannot think bypassing these filters. And this state of affairs is not devoid of sense!
Indeed, this meaning becomes clearer if we assume that space-time filters were deliberately installed in the thought processors of people - in order to maximally adapt their thinking to the realities of the physical world in which their physical bodies live and act. Even babies, learning to navigate in the environment, begin to distinguish between what is “here” and what is “there”, and not just “there”, but “close” or “far”, as well as what is “now” and “not now”, and not just“not now”, but“before”or“after”, and if“after”, then“soon”or“not soon”. In the jargon of programmers, space-time filters in the subject's thinking create the most user-friendly environment in which the user, i.e. subject,formulates his judgments - since this environment most adequately corresponds to the laws of being at the physical level of reality.
The fact that all this looks like the truth is evidenced by the following fact: all those who, in altered states of consciousness, experienced the experience of being at other levels of reality, unanimously assert that at those levels our usual ideas about space and time are completely unusable. As an additional illustration of this fact, the following very rough analogy can be cited, with the participation of a personal computer, in which the picture on the monitor corresponds to the physical level of reality, and the contents of a hard disk correspond to the software level of reality. The inhabitant of the virtual reality world, drawn on the monitor screen, knows well what is "close" and what is "far": to get from one place of the monitor to another, you have to drag along the pixels, and - the more of them, the more hence, further. But,although everything that happens on the monitor is encrypted on the hard disk, nevertheless, the monitor approach no longer works there. The hard disk is divided into sectors - small areas in which file fragments are written. One file can be written on several sectors located in various parts of the hard disk. Files that form distant objects on the monitor can coexist with some of their fragments on a hard disk, but not with others. That is, the concepts "further" and "closer" for a hard disk - and, accordingly, for a software level of reality - do not make sense. So it turns out that thinking, well adapted to the realities of the physical level, cannot adequately judge the realities of the software level. The hard disk is divided into sectors - small areas in which file fragments are written. One file can be written to several sectors located in various parts of the hard disk. Files that form distant objects on the monitor can coexist with some of their fragments on a hard disk, but not with others. That is, the concepts "further" and "closer" for a hard disk - and, accordingly, for a software level of reality - do not make sense. So it turns out that thinking well adapted to the realities of the physical level cannot adequately judge the realities of the software level. The hard disk is divided into sectors - small areas in which file fragments are written. One file can be written to several sectors located in various parts of the hard disk. Files that form distant objects on the monitor can coexist with some of their fragments on a hard disk, but not with others. That is, the concepts "further" and "closer" for a hard disk - and, accordingly, for a software level of reality - do not make sense. So it turns out that thinking, well adapted to the realities of the physical level, cannot adequately judge the realities of the software level.which form distant objects on the monitor, on a hard disk can coexist with some of their fragments, but not with others. That is, the concepts "further" and "closer" for a hard disk - and, accordingly, for a software level of reality - do not make sense. So it turns out that thinking well adapted to the realities of the physical level cannot adequately judge the realities of the software level.which form distant objects on the monitor, on a hard disk can coexist with some of their fragments, but not with others. That is, the concepts "further" and "closer" for a hard disk - and, accordingly, for a software level of reality - do not make sense. So it turns out that thinking well adapted to the realities of the physical level cannot adequately judge the realities of the software level.
In addition, the time-space thinking filters that provide this good fitness play the following trick on us. As noted above, none of our judgments goes around these filters, and moreover: our ideas about space and time are, in fact, these very filters. Thus, trying to penetrate into the essence of space and time, we are trying to force our thinking tool to investigate itself - we are trying to make it so that the cognizing subject himself acts as a cognizable object. But such a task is unbearable if the research tool is an algorithm or a program. A research program fundamentally cannot investigate itself, it can only investigate something external to it, otherwise it will fail in an unpredictable way. That's why in orderin order to correctly combine the cognized object with the cognizing subject, i.e. in order to explore oneself, one needs to go beyond the framework of programs, and, therefore, beyond the framework of thinking - one needs to experience a spiritual rise. Those who succeed experienced enlightenment. It is not for nothing that among the many methods aimed at achieving enlightenment, there are the following: the student is given the task of hearing (or seeing) himself. "Know thyself!" Is a universal motto for all who yearn for spiritual growth.the student is given the task of hearing (or seeing) himself. "Know thyself!" Is a universal motto for all who yearn for spiritual growth.the student is given the task of hearing (or seeing) himself. "Know thyself!" Is a universal motto for all who yearn for spiritual growth.
Undoubtedly, among those who contemplated the essence of space and time, someone managed to rise above their thinking and experience enlightenment. But they did not write books: what was revealed to them were "words that cannot be spoken." Books on the essence of space and time have been written by those and for those who make judgments prescribed by the space-time filters of thinking. And, of course, the writers and readers are not to blame for the fact that these filters, if directed to filter themselves, can only produce some kind of "wisdom of this world" at the output.
It is interesting to trace the major milestones in the history of the deepening of this "wisdom". Noticing that all our thinking takes place within the framework of ideas about space and time, many philosophers have concluded from this that space and time are universal forms of being of all things. Physicists highly appreciated this gift. Before Einstein, they had only ideas about space and time, but there were no theories of space and time, since they all still understood that space and time are not physical reality. But serious problems were discovered in the physical picture of the world, and in order to make ends meet, Einstein said: "Yes, we do not understand what space-time is, but let's assume that it can be bent." This, to put it mildly, did not increase understanding, but it was striking in its courage. After all, taking into account what we tried to state here, it was stated,in fact, the following: “We are not satisfied with our space-time filters of thinking” - which, as we remember, correspond as closely as possible to the realities of the physical world. Therefore, allowing space-time to be curved to solve some theoretical problems is just an admitting a corresponding curvature of thinking. And if the extreme degree of space-time curvature is, as theorists say, in the formation of a "black hole", then one should clearly understand where this "black hole" is formed - after all, there are no curvatures at the physical level of reality. Physicists may argue that the curvature of space-time is observed experimentally. This is not true: experimentally, as we have already said, physical facts are observed, for example, a change in the ticking rate of a specific clock;and the curvature of space-time is just one of the possible interpretations of these facts, and the interpretation is not the best, for it is ridiculous.
Promotional video:
Unfortunately, those physicists who honestly admitted that they do not understand what the curvature of space-time is, were in the minority. But the fans of speculation howled with delight. After all, if space-time is capable of bending, then why not endow it with some other interesting properties? For example, like those that the space of dimensions actually has more than three, and time has more than one - it's just that for us these redundant dimensions are supposedly "folded". Similar, as well as others, the most violent fantasies of geometers-topologists were discussed in all seriousness. Finally, the question was raised: if physicists have been discussing theories of space-time for a long time and persistently, then what can these theories describe if not physical reality? And the status of physical reality was awarded to space-time - with all the ensuing consequences,of which the main thing is the presence of energy in space-time. The requirements for the theories of space-time have increased: now it is not enough to admit curvature, now it is still necessary to clarify questions with energy - where does it come from, what it is, and can it be used for practical needs … And so, the stream of these explanations does not dry out this day. Some theorists take the energy of space-time from the ceiling, others suck it out of their fingers, others offer some alternative sources … Anyone can try to contribute here.can it be used for practical needs … And so, the stream of these explanations does not dry up to this day. Some theorists take the energy of space-time from the ceiling, others suck it out of their fingers, others offer some alternative sources … Anyone can try to contribute here.can it be used for practical needs … And so, the stream of these explanations does not dry up to this day. Some theorists take the energy of space-time from the ceiling, others suck it out of their fingers, others offer some alternative sources … Anyone can try to contribute here.
Indeed, while we are thinking, space-time filters of thinking work, and this means that time flows, and space stretches.
