Q&A#6 Question Two

Is our ‘experience’ within the block the closest thing we can get to reality?

The experience we are living seems perfectly real to us (as long as we allow to not question it), but is there a way in which we are actually able to understand what is out there? We have touched on this question in past discussions such as with time and supernaturalism vs. naturalism, but we still seem to be at a standstill for a real answer. Since we can’t arrive at an answer it seems that everything is a matter of opinion which derives from our experience. It seems then quite easy to say that our experience is the closet thing we could get to within regards of reality. Everything is really just a concept, but now this sounds like constructivism/idealism. At the same time though, the conclusions we come to take to be real through the interactions of others shows that their must be some kind of consistency “out there.” Since now it seems it is just our experience at play, it seems ignorant to take any one side too highly and should agree that maybe there is a harmony between the two, or until there is we can really never know for sure.

Q&A#6 Question One

Can one actually change his/her life (have free will) and thus use discretion/judgement?

If we bring to mind the “eternalized” idea of the universe then free will is just an illusion. If our universe is developing as it progresses then we could possibly have a choice in what outcome the universe has by consciously making decisions, but to some degree it would be influenced by the past no matter what. Where the distinction of whether this means we can have a choice is still debatable though. Since we can not be sure of if this reality actually is progressing or has happened, whether your a realist or a constructivist one would have to admit that what we see is just an illusion whether the ‘material world’ is actually there or not. For the realist should know objects are made of atoms so to some degree it is an illusion, while the constructivist would be in favor of an illusion regardless if it actually there. Is there a way then that makes sense for us to use judgement, regardless of if it is an illusion or not? I would say yes. 

In Pedro Calderon de la Barca’s ‘Life is a Dream’ he brings up the idea that life is merely an illusion, interestingly enough though he suggest that there is free will (or at least the illusion of it). In his play though, a king is told by the oracle that his son will grow up to kill him. The king now frightened locks his son in a tower and tells his people his boy died shortly after his birth. The boy grows up in the tower thinking this is reality. The king now plans to tell his son of his heritage so he has him drugged and to wake up in the palace. When the son learns that his tower life was not the ‘real’ reality he gets outraged and acts out. The king fearing his own safety has his son drugged again and brought back to the tower. The son wakes up and begins to cry as he can’t tell if what he was just living was a dream or not. From then on he decides to do good at all times, for he would never be able to tell whether anything is really just a dream or real. To this end, we can assume that whether an illusion or not we should use our judgement (regardless if this too is an illusion) for the sake of good and therefore are forced to use our discretion . . even if it is just an illusion. 

I dream that I am here

of these imprisonments charged 

and I dreamed that in another state

happier I saw myself.

What is life? A frenzy.

What is life? An illusion,

A shadow, a fiction,

And the greatest profit is small;

For all of life is a dream,

And dreams, are nothing but dreams.

Q&A#5 Question Two

Can time be slowed down by our mental processes such as in a state of nirvana? 

Nirvana is essentially a state when you are in complete harmony with the world around you and due to this everything slows down to an instant which would seem like an eternity (this is how I have come to understand it). This seems rather impossible to most people (for those who think time is a physical time is real) as time seems to move at a pretty constant rate, at least in the physical idea of it. Psychological time would then need to come into play when talking about Nirvana. This is because it is effecting the subjective experience of the person. For instance, when I am on stage or acting, time seems to become irrelevant and usually altered. If you mess up, or there is a gap of time when a line slips, that moment seems at least three times as long than the audiences perspective of what it actually is. Or you can just be acting and time seems to have gone by in a no time at all.This must be due to the adrenaline and your brain function during that time. 

Now brain function is composed of neurons and electricity. The appearance of time being longer would then be relative to the activity in the brain at a faster speed. If we think of how fast we can send messages wirelessly today, we see that electric waves move at an almost unfathomable speed. This speed of electricity though is occurring constantly within our bodies and brain effecting how we interpret and interact with the world. If being in a trance like state, such as acting, can effect our psychological time, then why couldn’t a meditation master control his brain functions to the point of it seemingly stopping time? It seems almost unreal, but the experience/state/idea of nirvana to me then seems real and possible, just extremely difficult (why else would so many Buddhists dedicate their lives to becoming enlightened?)

Q&A#5 Question One

Was there a beginning to physical time?

        I do not think that there could be a beginning of time. If we look at time as going forward, then we see it moves within the confines of a linear fashion. This is because of time, at least in our perspective, of having a “now” (present), past, and future. If we look at an instant however, we can see that it has no real duration. A duration of an instant is always a fabricated measurement by us. Time then is just our perception of change (whatever that actually is) from instant to instant. This would mean then that for physical time to be real it would have to have these instants be connected. This would imply there is a point of contact between the past and now, along with now and the future. If they were connected though, how could any change actually occur? Since an instant has no real duration though how could physical time continue? It seems then that time is only real due to our subjective nature of it. Since it is not real then how could it have had a beginning?

An easier way of looking at this questions is by saying, okay, there is a beginning of time. This for instance could be the Big Bang, but as soon as we have discovered this “beginning” we can right away ask, what came before that? Thus, this idea of a beginning falls flat on its face. In terms of questions then, asking if there is a beginning of time becomes a pointless question.