Comments on: Imagining the World without You https://process.org/discept/2009/10/11/imagining-the-world-without-you/ conversation and contention, for your attention Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:06:48 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.17 By: Loki der Quaeler https://process.org/discept/2009/10/11/imagining-the-world-without-you/comment-page-1/#comment-690 Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:06:48 +0000 https://process.org/discept/?p=516#comment-690 Well, the cone is really a subspace representation here – since we’re talking about four-space/spacetime really, there’s no way to get a good visual representation of something in that space and so a common trick is to drop a dimension. The cone in this case is really two spatial dimensions and one time dimension; imagine the finest smallest dot on your floor; now imagine in the next second, the dot floats to 1 cm above the floor, while growing constantly to become a disc 1 cm across; now imagine that over the next second, it continues to float 1 cm higher, the disc constantly growing to be now 2 cm across. If you can envision that entire process as a blur in front of you, like a photo with the shutter held open for 2 seconds, what you would see is a cone.

(As a thought experiment, imagine the point becoming an orb, not a disc, which grows with time – how that would look in a photo with shutter length of, say, 5 seconds)

]]> By: soulboy https://process.org/discept/2009/10/11/imagining-the-world-without-you/comment-page-1/#comment-689 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:14:24 +0000 https://process.org/discept/?p=516#comment-689 ok, so I’ve skimmed this twice, read it slowly in between both skims, and found the idea missing in a crucial point of ‘how’?
the analogy of a cone dynamic can be a quasi-mystical / scientific construct if used as a meta-phor what?

Or rather, how? Why I comment is that this is the middle of a whole discourse which I haven’t read yet. I am sure that there is a philosophical backdrop I’m missing here.

Movement of information is a measurable effigy? I would hazard that quantum mechanics would also imply that the information would exhibit dynamics beyond a cone as information becomes a wave when many believe mythos and hearsay, and particles..well they are points from which any angle the light is seen. That could be a scientific discovery which =true now matter how many times you reproduce it, or the innate cliche that is many a pyschodrama.
But given that you said we don’t transmit/receive in light speed, then I prefer an osmotic/liquid view whereby currents (and waves) and this time particulate, are carried.
And then there is sublimation.
Please expand. Or at least give links.

]]>