| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Helland" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2004 01:56:24 PM |
| Object: |
Greene and the problem of presentism |
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism. Presentism suggests that only the present (the 'moving
now') truly exists. Eternalism, by contrast, puts all times/moments on
an equal metaphysical footing, saying that they all exist in exactly
the same way. We basically just conceive of time as being another
dimension, complementing the 3 spatial dimensions we are more used to.
The result: a 4-dimensional space-time loaf.
....
The problem for Presentism: Presentism seems like the more
'common-sense' approach. It's the way we all intuitively understand
the world. However, if special relativity is true, then presentism
effectively collapses into eternalism (or at least a far more
expansive conception of time's existence than it originally aimed
for). In what follows, I will try to outline Greene's explanation of
why this is...
First of all, let's introduce the concept of a now-list. A 'now-list',
as the name suggests, is simply a list of all the events that are
occuring right now. It's a sort of mental freeze-frame image of the
entire universe at any given moment. This then lets us understand
presentism as the claim that all and only things on the now-list
currently exist.
</q>
Well, of course presentism collapses into eternalism when you do this.
But what happens if you assume that 'now' only exists within the
context of a single event, so every now-list has one event?
Realize that if a 'now' exists within the context of a single event,
not only does each 'now-list' contain only one event, each event will
only exist on one 'now-list'.
(An event in this case would have to be defined from a quantum
perspective. Although two observers in relative motion observe the
same "event", technically those observations are facilitated by
different electrons. We define the events as the unique
electromagnetic interactions each observer has.)
If we thought about time working in this way, the problem of
presentism that Greene presents is solved.
--
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry
and been widely regarded as a bad move."
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
20 Aug 2004 02:24:05 PM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408111056.2ccf42ae@posting.google.com>...
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism. Presentism suggests that only the present (the 'moving
now') truly exists. Eternalism, by contrast, puts all times/moments on
an equal metaphysical footing, saying that they all exist in exactly
the same way. We basically just conceive of time as being another
dimension, complementing the 3 spatial dimensions we are more used to.
The result: a 4-dimensional space-time loaf.
...
The problem for Presentism: Presentism seems like the more
'common-sense' approach. It's the way we all intuitively understand
the world. However, if special relativity is true, then presentism
effectively collapses into eternalism (or at least a far more
expansive conception of time's existence than it originally aimed
for). In what follows, I will try to outline Greene's explanation of
why this is...
First of all, let's introduce the concept of a now-list. A 'now-list',
as the name suggests, is simply a list of all the events that are
occuring right now. It's a sort of mental freeze-frame image of the
entire universe at any given moment. This then lets us understand
presentism as the claim that all and only things on the now-list
currently exist.
</q>
Well, of course presentism collapses into eternalism when you do this.
But what happens if you assume that 'now' only exists within the
context of a single event, so every now-list has one event?
Realize that if a 'now' exists within the context of a single event,
not only does each 'now-list' contain only one event, each event will
only exist on one 'now-list'.
(An event in this case would have to be defined from a quantum
perspective. Although two observers in relative motion observe the
same "event", technically those observations are facilitated by
different electrons. We define the events as the unique
electromagnetic interactions each observer has.)
If we thought about time working in this way, the problem of
presentism that Greene presents is solved.
Either way the decision to tell time by a clock in physics is
the choice, in the end.
A non-presentism definition in a theoretical analysis is not
the use of time. It is used abstractly in the thinking sense
of time's usage.
So in experiment a clock is always- presentism.
What else would be referenced? Another piece of the universe,
a particle, say.
And if the particle is used, the age of the particle is then
theorectical clock making again.
So this dilemma is Greene's maybe.
What is the clock, proper.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
21 Aug 2004 02:57:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408111056.2ccf42ae@posting.google.com>...
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism. Presentism suggests that only the present (the 'moving
now') truly exists. Eternalism, by contrast, puts all times/moments on
an equal metaphysical footing, saying that they all exist in exactly
the same way. We basically just conceive of time as being another
dimension, complementing the 3 spatial dimensions we are more used to.
The result: a 4-dimensional space-time loaf.
...
The problem for Presentism: Presentism seems like the more
'common-sense' approach. It's the way we all intuitively understand
the world. However, if special relativity is true, then presentism
effectively collapses into eternalism (or at least a far more
expansive conception of time's existence than it originally aimed
for). In what follows, I will try to outline Greene's explanation of
why this is...
First of all, let's introduce the concept of a now-list. A 'now-list',
as the name suggests, is simply a list of all the events that are
occuring right now. It's a sort of mental freeze-frame image of the
entire universe at any given moment. This then lets us understand
presentism as the claim that all and only things on the now-list
currently exist.
</q>
Well, of course presentism collapses into eternalism when you do this.
But what happens if you assume that 'now' only exists within the
context of a single event, so every now-list has one event?
Realize that if a 'now' exists within the context of a single event,
not only does each 'now-list' contain only one event, each event will
only exist on one 'now-list'.
(An event in this case would have to be defined from a quantum
perspective. Although two observers in relative motion observe the
same "event", technically those observations are facilitated by
different electrons. We define the events as the unique
electromagnetic interactions each observer has.)
If we thought about time working in this way, the problem of
presentism that Greene presents is solved.
Either way the decision to tell time by a clock in physics is
the choice, in the end.
A non-presentism definition in a theoretical analysis is not
the use of time. It is used abstractly in the thinking sense
of time's usage.
So in experiment a clock is always- presentism.
What else would be referenced? Another piece of the universe,
a particle, say.
And if the particle is used, the age of the particle is then
theorectical clock making again.
So this dilemma is Greene's maybe.
What is the clock, proper.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
The clock is a spontaneous event. Because we know "we can't rush time",
we have come to trust spontaneous events to effectively represent the
local passage of time which we accept as being spontaneous. This is seen
either in the sand falling in an hourglass, the relaxation time of the
quartz crystal in an oscillator, the electronic transition (higher to
lower level) in an atom, etc.
The measure of the passage of time is the measure of spontaneity, and
for this, any spontaneous event will do, in principle. A good start is
in considering the spontaneous evolution of the universe from which we
draw our experience of logic. If something happens spontaneously, it may
be understood as being the logical outcome of some pre-existant
conditions. Spontaneity, logic and the passage of time are closely
related...
Marcel,
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
22 Aug 2004 08:58:26 PM |
|
|
Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<LONVc.8522$pTn.2284@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
eagleson2004123@yahoo.com wrote:
mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408111056.2ccf42ae@posting.google.com>...
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism. Presentism suggests that only the present (the 'moving
now') truly exists. Eternalism, by contrast, puts all times/moments on
an equal metaphysical footing, saying that they all exist in exactly
the same way. We basically just conceive of time as being another
dimension, complementing the 3 spatial dimensions we are more used to.
The result: a 4-dimensional space-time loaf.
...
The problem for Presentism: Presentism seems like the more
'common-sense' approach. It's the way we all intuitively understand
the world. However, if special relativity is true, then presentism
effectively collapses into eternalism (or at least a far more
expansive conception of time's existence than it originally aimed
for). In what follows, I will try to outline Greene's explanation of
why this is...
First of all, let's introduce the concept of a now-list. A 'now-list',
as the name suggests, is simply a list of all the events that are
occuring right now. It's a sort of mental freeze-frame image of the
entire universe at any given moment. This then lets us understand
presentism as the claim that all and only things on the now-list
currently exist.
</q>
Well, of course presentism collapses into eternalism when you do this.
But what happens if you assume that 'now' only exists within the
context of a single event, so every now-list has one event?
Realize that if a 'now' exists within the context of a single event,
not only does each 'now-list' contain only one event, each event will
only exist on one 'now-list'.
(An event in this case would have to be defined from a quantum
perspective. Although two observers in relative motion observe the
same "event", technically those observations are facilitated by
different electrons. We define the events as the unique
electromagnetic interactions each observer has.)
If we thought about time working in this way, the problem of
presentism that Greene presents is solved.
Either way the decision to tell time by a clock in physics is
the choice, in the end.
A non-presentism definition in a theoretical analysis is not
the use of time. It is used abstractly in the thinking sense
of time's usage.
So in experiment a clock is always- presentism.
What else would be referenced? Another piece of the universe,
a particle, say.
And if the particle is used, the age of the particle is then
theorectical clock making again.
So this dilemma is Greene's maybe.
What is the clock, proper.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
The clock is a spontaneous event. Because we know "we can't rush time",
we have come to trust spontaneous events to effectively represent the
local passage of time which we accept as being spontaneous. This is seen
either in the sand falling in an hourglass, the relaxation time of the
quartz crystal in an oscillator, the electronic transition (higher to
lower level) in an atom, etc.
The measure of the passage of time is the measure of spontaneity, and
for this, any spontaneous event will do, in principle. A good start is
in considering the spontaneous evolution of the universe from which we
draw our experience of logic. If something happens spontaneously, it may
be understood as being the logical outcome of some pre-existant
conditions. Spontaneity, logic and the passage of time are closely
related...
Marcel,
A theoretical measure is not the same as a real clock.
A documentation of times passage, as with a change in
the universe is a relation unlike the repeated change of
the period of the clock.
We take a piece of the universe that repeats and call it
a clock.
And a piece to call the entire universe's progression is
what I call the theoretical particle clock.
So, the question you posed is the distinction between these
two pieces.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brodix" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
24 Aug 2004 04:20:56 PM |
|
|
A theoretical measure is not the same as a real clock.
A documentation of times passage, as with a change in
the universe is a relation unlike the repeated change of
the period of the clock.
We take a piece of the universe that repeats and call it
a clock.
And a piece to call the entire universe's progression is
what I call the theoretical particle clock.
So, the question you posed is the distinction between these
two pieces.
The question is between the unit of time, say the life cycle of the
universe, or that of a butterfly and the process of measuring it.
Think of this unit as the face of a clock, 12:00 to 12:00. The hands
circle the clock. The hands are presentism and the face of the clock
is eternalism.
Time measures the particular motion against context. The hands
against the face. As the context is relative and it is motion we are
measuring, then context is moving in the opposite direction. From the
perspective of the hands, the face is moving counterclockwise.
Our day is one rotation of the earth from west to east, but we think
of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
As the hands and face move in opposite directions, so does the unit
of time and its procession. The unit goes from beginning to end, but
the process is going on to the next, leaving the old. We think of
units of time as sequential, but they overlap. As the day is fading in
one side of the world, it is dawning in another, just as with life.
The individual goes from beginning to end, but the species goes on to
the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.
You move through your context, as it moves through you, as energy or
information.
Reality is energy, constantly changing form, thus recording
inFORMation. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information
is erased as new is recorded. Past is what has been erased, present is
what exists and future is what will be. Objective reality is the
energy. Subjective reality is the form.
What comes first, past or future? We see past events proceeding
future ones, but the events are first in the future, then in the past.
Two people communicating exist in each others future and are
perceived in their own past. The passage of time is a subjective
measure of energy in motion. The eternal present.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
25 Aug 2004 01:27:35 PM |
|
|
(brodix) wrote in message news:<a09976c7.0408241320.2d0bb0a8@posting.google.com>...
A theoretical measure is not the same as a real clock.
A documentation of times passage, as with a change in
the universe is a relation unlike the repeated change of
the period of the clock.
We take a piece of the universe that repeats and call it
a clock.
And a piece to call the entire universe's progression is
what I call the theoretical particle clock.
So, the question you posed is the distinction between these
two pieces.
The question is between the unit of time, say the life cycle of the
universe, or that of a butterfly and the process of measuring it.
Think of this unit as the face of a clock, 12:00 to 12:00. The hands
circle the clock. The hands are presentism and the face of the clock
is eternalism.
Time measures the particular motion against context. The hands
against the face. As the context is relative and it is motion we are
measuring, then context is moving in the opposite direction. From the
perspective of the hands, the face is moving counterclockwise.
Context is exactly the usage of time progressing into personnal
experience. It has no form and is the basis for the necessity of
time. Time is therefor subjective.
Our day is one rotation of the earth from west to east, but we think
of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
As the hands and face move in opposite directions, so does the unit
of time and its procession. The unit goes from beginning to end, but
the process is going on to the next, leaving the old. We think of
units of time as sequential, but they overlap. As the day is fading in
one side of the world, it is dawning in another, just as with life.
The individual goes from beginning to end, but the species goes on to
the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.
You move through your context, as it moves through you, as energy or
information.
Reality is energy, constantly changing form, thus recording
inFORMation. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information
is erased as new is recorded. Past is what has been erased, present is
what exists and future is what will be. Objective reality is the
energy. Subjective reality is the form.
Subjective form is the logical one only.
What comes first, past or future? We see past events proceeding
future ones, but the events are first in the future, then in the past.
Two people communicating exist in each others future and are
perceived in their own past. The passage of time is a subjective
measure of energy in motion. The eternal present.
And eternal present is the mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brodix" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
26 Aug 2004 12:08:23 PM |
|
|
eagleson,
Time measures the particular motion against context. The hands
against the face. As the context is relative and it is motion we are
measuring, then context is moving in the opposite direction. From the
perspective of the hands, the face is moving counterclockwise.
Context is exactly the usage of time progressing into personnal
experience. It has no form and is the basis for the necessity of
time. Time is therefor subjective.
Context is the scale.
Time is subjective, but what makes it the eternal present, rather
then the present as a point on an eternal line, is that as a relative
measure of motion, the context is also in motion, not fixed.
If the context did not balance all particulars accordingly, then it
would be a fixed dimension.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
27 Aug 2004 03:04:36 PM |
|
|
(brodix) wrote in message news:<a09976c7.0408260908.334deb6@posting.google.com>...
eagleson,
Time measures the particular motion against context. The hands
against the face. As the context is relative and it is motion we are
measuring, then context is moving in the opposite direction. From the
perspective of the hands, the face is moving counterclockwise.
Context is exactly the usage of time progressing into personnal
experience. It has no form and is the basis for the necessity of
time. Time is therefor subjective.
Context is the scale.
Time is subjective, but what makes it the eternal present, rather
then the present as a point on an eternal line, is that as a relative
measure of motion, the context is also in motion, not fixed.
If the context did not balance all particulars accordingly, then it
would be a fixed dimension.
I used to use this relation you mention, to visulise
the objective form of knowledge. You change the
subject from time to another either on purpose or out
of maybe a subconcious desire to learn the larger question.
That being the meaning of the relation you have stated here.
A sense of time is an aspect of the concious mind and not
that to which the mind applies time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
11 Aug 2004 02:30:43 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism.
Here are a third and a fourth for you, git,
Annalen der Physik 4, XLIX, pp. 769-822 (1916)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
[snip crap]
One doesn't expect a priest to deny god any more than one expects
a used car dealer to tell you about bananas in the crankcase oil
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
23 Aug 2004 03:39:31 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<411A73E3.6A517D5B@hate.spam.net>...
Mike Helland wrote:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism.
Annalen der Physik 4, XLIX, pp. 769-822 (1916)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
Fascinating. Here is my favourite in this field:
Balashov, Y., Janssen, M. (2002). Presentism and Relativity. Preprint
of article in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000525/00/presentism_and_relativity.pdf
Zeno always rears his ancient head when this subject is discussed (ie:
what distinguishes a set of things at an instant from an identical set
in motion?) see the redoubtable Mr Swift's Mathpages at:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm
By the way Mike, you did not stress the most important quote from your
discussion source:
"Here's the problem: As mentioned earlier, two observers in relative
motion have different judgements of what events occur simultaneously.
That is, they experience different nows, and so have different
now-lists. As Greene puts it, "Observers moving relative to each other
have different conceptions of what exists at a given moment, and hence
have different conceptions of reality"."
ie: the present for each observer contains a field of clocks which
differ between observers and must either be corrected with a constant
in the case of observers in the same frame of reference or a
complicated function in the more normal case of observers in relative
motion.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
11 Aug 2004 02:22:05 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism. Presentism suggests that only the present (the 'moving
now') truly exists. Eternalism, by contrast, puts all times/moments on
an equal metaphysical footing, saying that they all exist in exactly
the same way. We basically just conceive of time as being another
dimension, complementing the 3 spatial dimensions we are more used to.
The result: a 4-dimensional space-time loaf.
.....
Mike,
Presentism and eternalism are both words we invented, and they still
carry our own conception of time. If one wants to go metaphysical or
ontological, he has to go all the way! Below is a text I popped an hour
ago and I was just looking for such occasion to post it. You even appear
interested in considering things from a "beyond physical reality"
perspective!.. which is a good start.
It Still is the Big Question
What is the universe made of and how does it work by itself? Science can
make theories, tests and measurements but these measurements require
that we be in the picture and part of the theory! Since the universe has
been evolving long before we showed up, the scientific picture is flawed
from this circularity that forces our presence in the picture of the
universe.
The solution could be in philosophical ontology that consists in
considering things as they are, by themselves, without the observer’s
point of view. Pretty much everything we think we know about the
universe is in fact about how we relate to the universe. This approach
is fine as long as the goal is to make trains, television sets, and a
bridge or send people to the moon. But when it comes to understanding
how the universe does it on its own, this approach is inappropriate. In
order to understand the ontology of an evolving universe, we have to
address the logical cause for its spontaneity. The idea here is that if
it is logical, it will work and happen by itself! But, is the universe
logical? Where else did we take logic from in the first place, if not
from the observation of the universe and of its stable and basic way to
happen and be? The universe is our teacher and standard for logic.
Without this basic stability in the background, there would be no laws
of physics to look for and, anything would happen anywhere, anytime,
anyhow irrespective of any conditions. This is not the case. So, an
event in the universe draws its spontaneity from the logical outcome of
some pre-conditions.
Lets assume that the universe works by simple logic. The other
question remains; what is the universe made of? Well, if the universe
really works by logic it cannot be made of “apples and oranges” because
things would not add up! In other words, things would not exist or
happen, as they appear to do. So, the universe has to be made of only
one thing. In ontology, this “thing” is called a “substance”. By
definition, a substance is something considered by itself and it cannot
be seen or touched, because the sight and feel of it would only be about
our relation to it. Luckily, or on purpose, the best candidate substance
for the universe is the passage of time. The passage of time fits the
profile, and it is universal in its presence but local in its
properties, dynamic and variable, spontaneous and is inseparable from
existence and happening. It is indeed our luck that we can’t see or
touch the passage of time, for otherwise we would be technically blind,
like a goldfish in a glass of milk.
What are the properties, shape and forms of the passage of time as a
substance? We may start with the Big Bang. It appears that the universe
is expanding, not as the ballistic consequence of this primal explosion,
but rather because this explosion is still happening. We live inside a
continual explosion, which exploding substance is the passage of time.
The ontological consideration of present scientific knowledge leaves no
other choice.
Will understanding what the universe is made of and how it works
change anything to what we do with it? Most likely, if we consider all
that has been achieved without knowing what we were really doing!
M.LeBel 2004-08-11
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
23 Aug 2004 03:51:55 AM |
|
|
Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<xluSc.1199$x7h.262@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Mike Helland wrote:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism. Presentism suggests that only the present (the 'moving
now') truly exists. Eternalism, by contrast, puts all times/moments on
an equal metaphysical footing, saying that they all exist in exactly
the same way. We basically just conceive of time as being another
dimension, complementing the 3 spatial dimensions we are more used to.
The result: a 4-dimensional space-time loaf.
.....
The solution could be in philosophical ontology that consists in
considering things as they are, by themselves, without the observer?s
point of view.
[snip]
We may start with the Big Bang. It appears that the universe
is expanding, not as the ballistic consequence of this primal explosion,
but rather because this explosion is still happening. We live inside a
continual explosion, which exploding substance is the passage of time.
The ontological consideration of present scientific knowledge leaves no
other choice.
Surely you are still taking an external 'view' when relating us to the
'big bang'. If what you say is true how does the observer actually
observe this expansion? If you are going to connect these general
ideas into the system of inferences that we call 'science' you will
need to define observation in scientific terms. At the moment you have
a qualitative vague idea that needs fleshing out:
Are there arrangements of things at an instant? If so how are these
interrelated? Do we observe things simultaneously? Why do we observe
things from one side only if these things are sense data in the brain?
How do we observe sense data as if it is separate from the point of
observation? Could we observe anything at an instant? Etc..
Your proposition must provide some answers to these questions if it is
to provide a scientific transformation from things to experience.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
23 Aug 2004 07:22:18 PM |
|
|
Alex Green wrote:
Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<xluSc.1199$x7h.262@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Mike Helland wrote:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
<q>
There are two broad understandings of time's existence - presentism
and eternalism. Presentism suggests that only the present (the 'moving
now') truly exists. Eternalism, by contrast, puts all times/moments on
an equal metaphysical footing, saying that they all exist in exactly
the same way. We basically just conceive of time as being another
dimension, complementing the 3 spatial dimensions we are more used to.
The result: a 4-dimensional space-time loaf.
.....
The solution could be in philosophical ontology that consists in
considering things as they are, by themselves, without the observer?s
point of view.
[snip]
We may start with the Big Bang. It appears that the universe
is expanding, not as the ballistic consequence of this primal explosion,
but rather because this explosion is still happening. We live inside a
continual explosion, which exploding substance is the passage of time.
The ontological consideration of present scientific knowledge leaves no
other choice.
Surely you are still taking an external 'view' when relating us to the
'big bang'. If what you say is true how does the observer actually
observe this expansion? If you are going to connect these general
ideas into the system of inferences that we call 'science' you will
need to define observation in scientific terms. At the moment you have
a qualitative vague idea that needs fleshing out:
Are there arrangements of things at an instant? If so how are these
interrelated? Do we observe things simultaneously? Why do we observe
things from one side only if these things are sense data in the brain?
How do we observe sense data as if it is separate from the point of
observation? Could we observe anything at an instant? Etc..
Your proposition must provide some answers to these questions if it is
to provide a scientific transformation from things to experience.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
Alex,
To look for a mechanism for counciousmess is YOUR own quest, and it is
not necessary for me at this time. Suffice to say that we are the black
box, and that in order to even start understanding what goes on in
counsciousness, you must understand what is the input (Real universe)
and what is the output (our reality). Unless you can make this
distinction, you are going nowhere with your quest.
As for the Observer, he does not and cannot see this expansion. As I
said earlier, if could see time expanding, we would be technically
blind, like a goldfish in a glass of milk. If you like maths and want to
give it a try, here it is. The passage of time is in most equations as
1/t or "per seconde". Right in front of us, all the time.
Best whishes,
Marcel,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Greene and the problem of presentism |
24 Aug 2004 03:38:26 AM |
|
|
Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_SvWc.54042$UYx.2795@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Alex Green wrote:
Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<xluSc.1199$x7h.262@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Mike Helland wrote:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
Talks about Greene's discussion of time.
[snip]
To look for a mechanism for counciousmess is YOUR own quest, and it is
not necessary for me at this time. Suffice to say that we are the black
box, and that in order to even start understanding what goes on in
counsciousness, you must understand what is the input (Real universe)
and what is the output (our reality). Unless you can make this
distinction, you are going nowhere with your quest.
This is a physics newsgroup and the set of transformations and
phenomena that describe conscious experience is part of physics. I see
the problem in terms of the scientific description of an observable
phenomenon, 'conscious experience'.
As for the Observer, he does not and cannot see this expansion. As I
said earlier, if could see time expanding, we would be technically
blind, like a goldfish in a glass of milk. If you like maths and want to
give it a try, here it is. The passage of time is in most equations as
1/t or "per seconde". Right in front of us, all the time.
If the conscious observer does not observe a thing then that thing is
not part of 'conscious experience'. In fact we do observe changes and
physical inference has allowed us to lay out these changes as
variations in the physical world that occur parallel to a single
coordinate axis that we call 'time'.
It is intriguing that, as observers we infer that we are relocating
perpetually along this time coordinate. However this could be a false
inference because at each instant we have a defined set of things
extending into the past and have nothing but expectation of the
future. Other inferences are possible. For instance we could be
jumping around from point to point on our own time lines - if this
were happening how would we know?
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
24 Aug 2004 11:53:56 PM |
|
|
(Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408240038.56625c53@posting.google.com>...
It is intriguing that, as observers we infer that we are relocating
perpetually along this time coordinate. However this could be a false
inference because at each instant we have a defined set of things
extending into the past and have nothing but expectation of the
future. Other inferences are possible. For instance we could be
jumping around from point to point on our own time lines - if this
were happening how would we know?
Indeed. And how would we know if it was just our imagination making
time line-like to begin with. That time somehow exists beyond the
context of the current conscious experience could be a false inference
too.
Which again was the point of this thread. The assumption that time is
a dimension causes trouble in presentism, but presentism has no
problems when you remove that assumption.
I have a thought for you, Alex.
Take a system that is capable of observing itself. The system I'm
talking about the universe itself, not a human being. The universe
created us, and through us it is exploring itself. Putting yourself
inside the system is like blocking out everything that is not inside
the system. What is not inside, does not exist. All that exists is a
product of the system.
This means that what we called time when we existed outside the
system, is now nothing. The space that exists outside the results of
the system is nothing. And the matter we knew is nothing.
Yet parts of the system are observing other parts. To those observers,
there are still things; there is still distance between them; and
things are still changing. So we get the realization of time, space,
and matter as results of an evolving logical system.
What if we call this phenomenon consciousness?
I think this raises an interesting question that challenges some naive
assumptions about consciousness we may not even realize we have.
Does consciouness = self-awareness of the human being, or does
consciouness = self-awareness of the universe?
My position is that consciousness describes the universe's awareness
of itself. Which is nothing specifically human, and nothing
specifically neural, as most approaches seem to be.
I'll put some thought into how this idea can be tested, but for the
time being I think it's a thought worth consideration.
What do you think?
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
25 Aug 2004 11:41:33 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408242053.2d68d890@posting.google.com>...
dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408240038.56625c53@posting.google.com>...
It is intriguing that, as observers we infer that we are relocating
perpetually along this time coordinate. However this could be a false
inference because at each instant we have a defined set of things
extending into the past and have nothing but expectation of the
future. Other inferences are possible. For instance we could be
jumping around from point to point on our own time lines - if this
were happening how would we know?
Indeed. And how would we know if it was just our imagination making
time line-like to begin with. That time somehow exists beyond the
context of the current conscious experience could be a false inference
too.
SCIENCE is a consistent set of inferences within what you said could
be 'imagination'. It was Descartes who first realised that even though
everything experienced could be a dream this makes no difference to
scientific inference. Scientific inference applies if everything is a
'dream' as much as if there is an 'external world' and an 'internal
world'.
Which again was the point of this thread. The assumption that time is
a dimension causes trouble in presentism, but presentism has no
problems when you remove that assumption.
But time as a dimension fits our scientific inferences in the case of
things that are in principle observable. Things that are in principle
observable acquire an arrangement along a time axis, we do not really
know about the other things but QM cosmology has some remarkable
speculations about them).
I have a thought for you, Alex.
Take a system that is capable of observing itself.
This is the nub of the problem that plagues neuroscience. How can a
system observe itself? Clearly if things can only be arranged in space
and along a single time axis there is a problem. 'Observation' in such
a system is limited to the flow of data in information systems. In an
information system you can only move stuff from place to place,
transforming and adding and subtracting as it goes. This means that
'observation' becomes no more than the replacement of one pile of bits
with another. Philosophers have long realised that a pile of bits is
not 'observation', it is just a pile of bits.
The system I'm
talking about the universe itself, not a human being. The universe
created us, and through us it is exploring itself. Putting yourself
inside the system is like blocking out everything that is not inside
the system. What is not inside, does not exist. All that exists is a
product of the system.
How does the universe observe itself? This reminds me of a Saxon
saint's argument for God. Think of the biggest thing, there must be a
bigger thing to contain your thought so God is the Big beyond any
other Bigness. Quite sweet for Saxons.
This means that what we called time when we existed outside the
system, is now nothing. The space that exists outside the results of
the system is nothing. And the matter we knew is nothing.
Yet parts of the system are observing other parts. To those observers,
there are still things; there is still distance between them; and
things are still changing. So we get the realization of time, space,
and matter as results of an evolving logical system.
Yes, 'Knowing' is the arrangement of things. Classification systems
ask 'what contains what' so we are immediately into some sort of
'space' the moment we 'know' anything. The space, in its broadest
sense, is a 'classification space'. If classifications are processed
(if there is the possibility of new knowledge) then movement occurs
and time is needed. The observer has a set of things arranged in space
and time which we might call current knowledge.
What if we call this phenomenon consciousness?
What if we call it 'conscious observation' or the field of 'conscious
experience'. We all have conscious experience and can compare it
between each other.
I think this raises an interesting question that challenges some naive
assumptions about consciousness we may not even realize we have.
Does consciouness = self-awareness of the human being, or does
consciouness = self-awareness of the universe?
Perhaps it is observation.
My position is that consciousness describes the universe's awareness
of itself. Which is nothing specifically human, and nothing
specifically neural, as most approaches seem to be.
I dont know how you can get to this conclusion from where you started.
Again, how can something be self observing? This is the problem.
I'll put some thought into how this idea can be tested, but for the
time being I think it's a thought worth consideration.
What do you think?
It needs to be stated mathematically for testing.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
25 Aug 2004 06:44:16 PM |
|
|
(Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408250841.2b8ad577@posting.google.com>...
SCIENCE is a consistent set of inferences within what you said could
be 'imagination'. It was Descartes who first realised that even though
everything experienced could be a dream this makes no difference to
scientific inference. Scientific inference applies if everything is a
'dream' as much as if there is an 'external world' and an 'internal
world'.
Ah. That would be the centerpiece of my own philosophy of science.
Seems I was prefigured, somewhat. ;-) So the Descartes guy did get a
few steps further than Cogito ergo sum.
I would state the idea something like "Onto our experience we impose a
series of nested assumptions and logical models". It's so blessedly
general, that hardly any further philosophical upset is possible. At
worst we have to role back an assumption or two. We may wish to add
the ingredient that various assumptions are invested with varying
levels of prior Bayesian confidence.
<...>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
25 Aug 2004 05:08:48 PM |
|
|
(Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408250841.2b8ad577@posting.google.com>...
mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408242053.2d68d890@posting.google.com>...
(Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408240038.56625c53@posting.google.com>...
It is intriguing that, as observers we infer that we are relocating
perpetually along this time coordinate. However this could be a false
inference because at each instant we have a defined set of things
extending into the past and have nothing but expectation of the
future. Other inferences are possible. For instance we could be
jumping around from point to point on our own time lines - if this
were happening how would we know?
Indeed. And how would we know if it was just our imagination making
time line-like to begin with. That time somehow exists beyond the
context of the current conscious experience could be a false inference
too.
SCIENCE is a consistent set of inferences within what you said could
be 'imagination'. It was Descartes who first realised that even though
everything experienced could be a dream this makes no difference to
scientific inference. Scientific inference applies if everything is a
'dream' as much as if there is an 'external world' and an 'internal
world'.
Either I did not express myself or you misunderstood me slightly.
I'm not saying "What if time doesn't exist?" I'm saying "What if time
doesn't exist as some type of line?"
You asked how do we know we're moving along the line instead of
jumping around on it. I'm asking how do we know there's even a line.
Even if there's no line there could still be a concept of time, like
the one described by Julian Barbour.
Whether time exists or not is unimportant to science, I agree, but how
time exists is.
I have a thought for you, Alex.
Take a system that is capable of observing itself.
This is the nub of the problem that plagues neuroscience. How can a
system observe itself? Clearly if things can only be arranged in space
and along a single time axis there is a problem.
Again, I'm looking at this from the perspective that time doesn't
exist as a dimension or a medium. It exists as the analysis that
change has occured. No more, no less. So no time axis is present.
How can a system observe itself?
What if we had a system that contained a bunch of particles. Some of
the particles form various atoms and the atoms are all arranged in a
row. The rest of the particles in the system are accross from the line
of atoms, and arranged as a computer. The computer intercepts light
that has refracted off the atoms, and then computes the frequency of
the light (or maybe, how many electrons are in the atom? It doesn't
matter, it computes something.). Anyways, the computer puts itself
into a state that describes in some way one of the atoms accross from
it.
That this phenomenon has occured means one part of the system has made
an observation about another part of the system. Not a perfect
observation, of course, but its something.
Is that much agreeable?
<snip>
My position is that consciousness describes the universe's awareness
of itself. Which is nothing specifically human, and nothing
specifically neural, as most approaches seem to be.
I dont know how you can get to this conclusion from where you started.
Again, how can something be self observing? This is the problem.
With my above description of a system that observes itself, is the
problem now less daunting?
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
26 Aug 2004 04:25:23 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408251408.14faf00d@posting.google.com>...
dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408250841.2b8ad577@posting.google.com>...
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408242053.2d68d890@posting.google.com>...
dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408240038.56625c53@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Again, I'm looking at this from the perspective that time doesn't
exist as a dimension or a medium. It exists as the analysis that
change has occured. No more, no less. So no time axis is present.
How can a system observe itself?
What if we had a system that contained a bunch of particles. Some of
the particles form various atoms and the atoms are all arranged in a
row. The rest of the particles in the system are accross from the line
of atoms, and arranged as a computer. The computer intercepts light
that has refracted off the atoms, and then computes the frequency of
the light (or maybe, how many electrons are in the atom? It doesn't
matter, it computes something.). Anyways, the computer puts itself
into a state that describes in some way one of the atoms accross from
it.
That this phenomenon has occured means one part of the system has made
an observation about another part of the system. Not a perfect
observation, of course, but its something.
Is that much agreeable?
This setup performs measurements rather than observations. A
measurement encodes the state of a system in the state of another
system.
There are two reasons why measurements are not the physical equivalent
of observations. Firstly, if a small measuring device and a small
thing to be measured are put in an isolated environment they become a
superposition of states to any external observer. No definite
measurement occurs until an observation occurs (ie: until data has
been transferred to the system that contains the observer). Secondly,
if a measurement has occurred and is stored in the system that
contains the observer (the classical environment) it is not an
observation until information encoding this state has entered the
observer's conscious experience. But how can this be done?
The incoming information produces a state in the brain of the observer
as a set of neural activity. It is here that the problem arises. The
neural activity corresponds to the CONTENT of observation but does not
correspond to the FORM of observation. If you ask observers to report
upon their neural activity they say "I can see a man's face 20 metres
away", however, in their brain the face of the man is a set of neural
activity in face representation cortex and the retina is a large area
of V1 cortex. Empirically, conscious observation is a geometrical
phenomenon in the brain that generates a 'view' of the world. Both
time and space are problematic in conscious observation - how much of
a word would be in experience at the present instant?
Your example of transferring encoded states from place to place is an
example of data transfer (measurement) not an example of observation.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
26 Aug 2004 10:02:35 AM |
|
|
(Alex Green) wrote in message news:<42c8441.0408260125.10224075@posting.google.com>...
mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0408251408.14faf00d@posting.google.com>...
Hello, again. I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I'm trying to
understand them as best as possible.
Again, I'm looking at this from the perspective that time doesn't
exist as a dimension or a medium. It exists as the analysis that
change has occured. No more, no less. So no time axis is present.
How can a system observe itself?
What if we had a system that contained a bunch of particles. Some of
the particles form various atoms and the atoms are all arranged in a
row. The rest of the particles in the system are accross from the line
of atoms, and arranged as a computer. The computer intercepts light
that has refracted off the atoms, and then computes the frequency of
the light (or maybe, how many electrons are in the atom? It doesn't
matter, it computes something.). Anyways, the computer puts itself
into a state that describes in some way one of the atoms accross from
it.
That this phenomenon has occured means one part of the system has made
an observation about another part of the system. Not a perfect
observation, of course, but its something.
Is that much agreeable?
This setup performs measurements rather than observations. A
measurement encodes the state of a system in the state of another
system.
There are two reasons why measurements are not the physical equivalent
of observations. Firstly, if a small measuring device and a small
thing to be measured are put in an isolated environment they become a
superposition of states to any external observer. No definite
measurement occurs until an observation occurs (ie: until data has
been transferred to the system that contains the observer).
In this case, the observer is the small measuring device in the
system.
Are you saying that the measurement is not an observation because
while information about the observee is created by the observer, it
has not been transfered somewhere as information? I think I'm failing
to understand what about this first requirement for an observation is
lacking in my setup.
Secondly,
if a measurement has occurred and is stored in the system that
contains the observer (the classical environment) it is not an
observation until information encoding this state has entered the
observer's conscious experience.
How do you know that the measuring device has not had a conscious
experience? Recall that I started from the premise that any act of a
system (in our case the universe) observing itself is a conscious
experience.
When you and I as human beings use our brians to accomplish this, our
conscious experience is acheived through a certain type of computer
(our brain and sense organs). The conscious experience we have is
produced by a certain class of logic. This doesn't mean that different
types of computers with other more primitive ways of accompishing
observation (like the measuring device) don't have conscious
experiences. Though I would admit that it does mean the conscious
experience of the spectrometer is going to be so different from our
conscious experience that it'd be meaningless to try and translate
between them.
You described neural activity as a conscious experience, how things
are viewed in the brain to get a picture of the world. What happens
when we take a blind person. How does this approach to consciousness
treat the experiences of the blind person? They obviouslly don't have
the same view of the world we do. Are they conscious?
You say:
"Empirically, conscious observation is a geometrical phenomenon in the
brain that generates a 'view' of the world."
And I would agree if we added the word human:
"Empirically, conscious observation of humans is a geometrical
phenomenon in the brain that generates a 'view' of the world."
But to think that all conscious observation must arise from similar
logic to that of the human brain I think would be a hasty assumption.
We could alternatively say that regardless of what the mechanism
behind the observation is, whether it be to a blind person, a
bullfrog, or a spectrometer, consciousness is still present because in
all these mechanisms the universe is observing itself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JonTi" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
26 Aug 2004 02:25:49 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:53:56 -0700, Mike Helland wrote:
dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) wrote in message
news:<42c8441.0408240038.56625c53@posting.google.com>...
It is intriguing that, as observers we infer that we are relocating
perpetually along this time coordinate. However this could be a false
inference because at each instant we have a defined set of things
extending into the past and have nothing but expectation of the future.
Other inferences are possible. For instance we could be jumping around
from point to point on our own time lines - if this were happening how
would we know?
Indeed. And how would we know if it was just our imagination making time
line-like to begin with. That time somehow exists beyond the context of
the current conscious experience could be a false inference too.
Which again was the point of this thread. The assumption that time is a
dimension causes trouble in presentism, but presentism has no problems
when you remove that assumption.
I have a thought for you, Alex.
Take a system that is capable of observing itself. The system I'm
talking about the universe itself, not a human being. The universe
created us, and through us it is exploring itself. Putting yourself
inside the system is like blocking out everything that is not inside the
system. What is not inside, does not exist. All that exists is a product
of the system.
This means that what we called time when we existed outside the system,
is now nothing. The space that exists outside the results of the system
is nothing. And the matter we knew is nothing.
Yet parts of the system are observing other parts. To those observers,
there are still things; there is still distance between them; and things
are still changing. So we get the realization of time, space, and matter
as results of an evolving logical system.
What if we call this phenomenon consciousness?
I think this raises an interesting question that challenges some naive
assumptions about consciousness we may not even realize we have.
Does consciouness = self-awareness of the human being, or does
consciouness = self-awareness of the universe?
My position is that consciousness describes the universe's awareness of
itself. Which is nothing specifically human, and nothing specifically
neural, as most approaches seem to be.
I'll put some thought into how this idea can be tested, but for the time
being I think it's a thought worth consideration.
What do you think?
I like the idea that matter, space, and time exist in the analysis of a
phenomenon. Things have to be thought of in that way (it's so general,
there is no alternative), so that's the way things really are. Shades of
Descartes -- except that he started with the facts of cogito,
consciousness, and of time, or duration. Matter is then not-me; and space
is not-here.
But you haven't followed Descartes in seeing cogito and time as
prerequisites for any possible analysis of phenomena. That's led you to
assert that, when we clap our hands, the duration associated with the
movement each hand has its own medium, dimension, or continuum of time.
Moreover, you say the two durations do not exist in a common time.
But that cannot be the case. The two durations certainly exist in a
common time, that of the cogito of the clapping hands; the mundane time of
the applauding audience, so to speak.
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Consciouness as self-awareness of the universe (was Re: Greene and the problem of presentism) |
26 Aug 2004 11:07:14 AM |
|
|
JonTi <jonti@london.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.26.07.25.48.707607@london.com>...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:53:56 -0700, Mike Helland wrote:
dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk (Alex Green) wrote in message
news:<42c8441.0408240038.56625c53@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
I like the idea that matter, space, and time exist in the analysis of a
phenomenon. Things have to be thought of in that way (it's so general,
there is no alternative), so that's the way things really are. Shades of
Descartes -- except that he started with the facts of cogito,
consciousness, and of time, or duration. Matter is then not-me; and space
is not-here.
Descartes was an empiricist. He sat down and observed his own
observation. He realised that there were two problems with
observation. The first was that thoughts just pop into mind. In
Descartes' day they knew nothing of the possibility of non-conscious
information processing so he assigned this 'popping into mind' to the
soul. The other problem is that we appear to observe from a point,
Descartes was no fool and had cut up enough corpses to know that our
experience is based on sense data, not actual things. He was
confronted with a brain that contained sense data spread out within it
but an observation in which this data was seen from a point. Descartes
proposed correctly that the senses created an extended field of
experience in the brain but then proposed erroneously that there was
an extensionless point, the soul, from which the field was observed.
Hence dualism.
Interestingly Malebranche, at around the same time as Descartes,
argued that putting data into a geometric point was impossible. Being
religious he reported this then he said that this paradox was evidence
for the involvement of God.
But you haven't followed Descartes in seeing cogito and time as
prerequisites for any possible analysis of phenomena. That's led you to
assert that, when we clap our hands, the duration associated with the
movement each hand has its own medium, dimension, or continuum of time.
Moreover, you say the two durations do not exist in a common time.
But that cannot be the case. The two durations certainly exist in a
common time, that of the cogito of the clapping hands; the mundane time of
the applauding audience, so to speak.
I agree with you here. Experience is a field of things in the brain
with common space dimensions and time. The only issue is the sort of
space and time. It could be something obscure such as string theorists
and cosmologists speculate upon or it might even be quite ordinary,
just a small volume of brain in which QM and space-time geometry
provide the appropriate properties. Whatever it is it must be part of
the physical universe because its content can be based on sense data.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
