Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience. However, as you point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world. This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective. For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action. Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment. The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience. Moreover, as you suggest, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
Time is imaginary. A construct of the human mind. Motion is more fundamental than time. Think of it, without motion there is no time. Thus the ever-present "now" is the only "time" we have.
"Experience should trump belief" doesn't quite mean that. We experience the sun moving down below the horizen. That should not trump our understanding of what is actually happening. That said, it is a wonderful thing to notice the experience that there is only ever here and now.
But we understand what is actually happening because of _experience,_ not belief. It may not be direct, unaided experience but rather experience mediated by instruments; but that’s still experience, not belief.
When you talk of loss of information, are you saying that we, sort of, lose concentration?! Why do we only have "partial" information, please?? Could we change our "projection" so that it didn't "lose information"??? Btw, does this finding imply that planning's futile, in a sense?
Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience.
However, as you point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world.
This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective.
For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action.
Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment.
The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience.
Moreover, as you suggest, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
AI is a useful tool, unless you've no idea what it's talking about
This is pseudoscience.
@@RRR1-z9c perhaps science is pseudoscience!???
Physics is simply a set of models to help us understand how things interact. It's a thought model, a mental tool, but it is no master of reality.
Now as the only constant in the eternal gives existence a place in forever.
wd the fact that our evolution is driven genetically rather than environmentally change Professor Hoffman's conclusions, please?
It can always be now because the future, past and present happen all at the same time.
What do u mean experience should trump belief?
There is no past piled in storage, and there is no future waiting to be picked off of shelves. Both are thoughts now. So where is *now*?
For people interested in consciousness, see my papers like "The Quale of Time", author Cosmin Visan.
Time is imaginary. A construct of the human mind. Motion is more fundamental than time. Think of it, without motion there is no time. Thus the ever-present "now" is the only "time" we have.
"Experience should trump belief" doesn't quite mean that. We experience the sun moving down below the horizen. That should not trump our understanding of what is actually happening. That said, it is a wonderful thing to notice the experience that there is only ever here and now.
But we understand what is actually happening because of _experience,_ not belief. It may not be direct, unaided experience but rather experience mediated by instruments; but that’s still experience, not belief.
When you talk of loss of information, are you saying that we, sort of, lose concentration?! Why do we only have "partial" information, please?? Could we change our "projection" so that it didn't "lose information"??? Btw, does this finding imply that planning's futile, in a sense?
There is no future and there is no past, so how could there be a now?
It's always now forever