IMAGINATION CHALLENGES AND SHAPES OUR WORLD
Posted by dreamersmith 10 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
When life is contained within established thoughts of “what is” and memories of “what has been,” can one ever realize his or her full potential – can he or she even identify “what could be but has not yet been considered?” I would prefer to live amongst those who imagine what has not yet been proven – has not yet been established – for they will accept nothing less than the great things they are destined to accomplish in this world.
Even existentialists feel that existence precedes essence.
I have a couple dreamers in the extended family, who always have big ideas when you meet them Unfortunately, they either have no idea how to implement them or are just lazy, because none of them ever come to fruition. Dreams are great, but hard work makes things happen. You better know some history, or you will reinvent the wheel. I too hate the phrase, "It has always been done this way" - just an excuse not to improve. But a lot of dreamers put Obama in office, without the slightest idea what this change was all about - if only they had read Alinsky.
Division of labor is the essence of capitalism.
Everyone should keep this in mind. Today more than ever this is a key building block. the phrase is the same now as it was then. What is different is the full meaning. In this day we are what we think. It has really always been so. If you think of yourself as talentless, you will be. You will never discover the talents you do possess. Your “was” and your “will be” are the same. No growth, no change, stagnant.
Take the view “I was, but I will become...” You are not sure what you will become, but you know you will not remain stagnant and unchanging. You will use your gifts, your mind and you body to move ahead. You will grow and develop. You will create.
Put is simply, I agree with DreamerSmith +1
Ayn Rand (via Galt) called the Cartesian Cogito a "costly error" and called for its replacement with " I am, therefore I'll think."
That being said, she certainly knew the power of the potential. History shows what was, art shows what could and ought to be.
If you do (even if you don't) we can answer your question and we can say that one is true and the other false.
Don't have time for a complete answer tonight. Will tune in tomorrow.
Sorry to be a "Debbie downer."
I am currently discussing with a physicist friend several new ideas about the speed of light, and ways to overcome its limitations. He (and others) seem to think that Einstein was only right in a limited way. What fun to think some of these ideas may come to fruition. New breakthroughs in the attempt to create fusion are also happening. To paraphrase Dickens, It's the worst of times, it's the best of times.
Dreamersmith suggests that what is and what was may compel some of us to believe that what "will be" must conform (although he prefers non-pessimistic company with respect to the degree that this conformance is used to excuse mental stagnation). Ayn Rand would certainly have agreed that the observable reality of the future will continue to conform to valid generalizations made about observable reality of yesterday and of today, but to her, new conceptual layers were always feasible, so long as they integrate with, or refine, "valid" existing concepts.
Electromagnetic radiation is observable (and therefore real) because it is perceived. Instruments would not have been devised to measure the attributes of that radiation had we not had perceptual, then conceptual, evidence of its existence. Why general relativity was ever interpreted so pessimistically still boggles my mind. Black holes demonstrate how obvious it is that the speed of light is exceeded in reality by nature of the fact that they can reflect no light. Beyond the event horizon, reflected light is dragged back into the black hole at a speed that is faster than the speed of light. The presumption that the distance between two objects cannot decrease faster than the speed of light is preposterous.
Although there are potentially forces at play in the universe that are as yet un-perceivable, and therefore, theoretically un-measurable, one must ask the practical question: how much of my time is worth spending on that which has not been perceived? Although the length/time dilation/contraction observed from a single inertial reference frame is accurately predicted by general relativity, the observation is, and always has been, misinterpreted to mean that these things are "real" in an absolute way rather than in a relative way. Contemplation of time travel and wormhole space travel is probably the single biggest time sink that physicists and laymen alike can waste time on. Fiction writers, however, are quite wise to capitalize on the mysticism surrounding the implications of Einstein's equations.
Electromagnetic waves are emitted continuously over time or we would not be able to observe red and blue shifts, therefore light particles or photons or quanta are best interpreted as nodes within wave interference patterns (the wave is the entity, the particle is the node effect). I think that once mainstream physicists ditch the mysticism of quarks and quanta as entities rather than effects and quit wasting time on the ridiculous implications of general relativity in a single inertial reference frame, it will be free again to move forward with the study of real entities.
For the dreamer, here is something new and fun to consider. Two points are stationary relative to one another. One is the source of departure (A), the other the destination (B), for an object (C) that will travel at a speed close to that of light. Time for C will run slower than time for A, time for C will run faster than time for B, and yet time for A and B will run at the same rate. If time for A and B run at the same rate, how can time run both faster and slower for C? Reference frames offset perpendicular to the path between A and B at the intersection of A will see C's length dilate while reference frames offset perpendicular to the path between A and B at the intersection of B will C's length contract. How can C both dilate and contract simultaneously? Atomic clocks have "proven" that time dilation is a "real" phenomenon even though it is impossible. This points to something worthwhile to consider... What characteristics of the matter of C must change in order to provide a non-contradictory explanation of the phenomenon (for the only rational starting point is to assume that the matter of C has changed relative to everything else)? Could the fantasy of time dilation be flipped on its head to demonstrate the reality of proton/neutron compression or dilation in the plane perpendicular to the plane of acceleration? Could it be used to demonstrate what properties of atomic nuclei change in relation to the gravitational fields constraining them? In the end, the phenomenon of time dilation may still be a real "phenomenon", but it may no longer be interpreted to mean that time travel is possible, but rather that matter behaves differently based on it's position and orientation within and between various fields. Will this crush the dream of time travel, or further the dream of fundamental understanding of the nature of matter?
Now I am starting to take the actions necessary to bring the dream to life.
It has been hard to start venturing away from the safety of my dreams - a place free from those who refuse to see what might be.