"In a nutshell Marx's Theory of Alienation is the contention that in modern industrial production under capitalist conditions workers will inevitably lose control of their lives by losing control over their work. Workers thus cease to be autonomous beings in any significant sense. Under pre-capitalist conditions a blacksmith, e.g., or a shoemaker would own his own shop, set his own hours, determine his own working conditions, shape his own product, and have some say in how his product is bartered or sold. His relationships with the people with whom he worked and dealt had a more or less personal character." http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/…
I agree this is possible, but I stood at machines for years doing the same thing over and over. And I thought about what I was going to do with the money I would have performing such work. I appreciated that if I had to create by myself, like the old blacksmith, the entire piece of work that was being constructed in that factory, that I would not have as much money. Instead I would be like the shoemaker in the fable, who only had enough money to buy the leather to make one pair of shoes, and with the profits he had just enough money to buy leather for one more pair of shoes, and enough food to see him buy until he sold that pair of shoes.
If workers feel alienated as Marx said they would, it is because the merits of capitalistic division of labor have not been made clear to them. Instead, what has been made clear, is that while they stand at a machine all day long investing nothing but their time, "the man" who put up the money to pay them for their time is reaping profits.
The very system that allows the worker under capitalism to take home a bigger check than he could have dreamed of as a shoe maker, is make to appear to be the bad system.If you want your luxury car, your Iphone or your Ipad, your vacation to Orlando, your swimming pool, your McDonald's burgers and your children's bicycles and the braces for their teeth, you must have the division of labor.
Feel alienated, if you want to, but capitalism is the currier who brings the bigger paycheck.
Unfortunately, the messenger who would teach them that has already been shot.
People who cherish their lives are egoists, and therefore normative and good and decent people. But where does the blessing come from? At one time, it came from Jefferson, Madison, and their cohorts who gave us the legal "blessing" to be ourselves and find the best way to honor our own lives and the lives of those we cherished.
Today, the Originalist readers of that wonderful document called the Constitution of the United States are harassed as being behind the times. The only "blessing" we get from the progressive thinkers is the blessing of higher taxes to pay for enlargement of government and in the process for the shrinking of our liberties.
The Founders believed that God had blessed the U.S. and given all mankind a place to peacefully find a place to pursue his or her own happiness. Now, if it was God, he has either forsaken the idea of a place to seek our own happiness; or he has condemned us for choosing leaders who routinely destroy the Tenth Amendment. [For Tenth Amendment references seeAand B.]
I just read something I've heard before, written by William Hamilton:
On earth there is nothing great but man; in man there is nothing great but mind.
On earth there is nothing greater than man when man is at his greatest, and that is when he chooses to use his mind. But it is a choice. Our description as "the rational animal" doesn't mean we are infallibly rational. It means we have the capacity to reason unlimitedly. After all, by the rules of logic we know which deductions are fallacies, because they break the rules. But TV commercials use such fallacies to sell their wares and often they are upfront, blatant, about it, sometimes to prove a point, sometimes to make us laugh.
Shysters know the rules of logic and break every one they can get away with, so long as you believe them and don't know they have broken a rule of logic.
But even knowing all the rules we can sometimes make the mistake of missing one of them, or we become unwilling to do what is rational because it would hurt too bad. I think that most mothers who kill their children in post-partum depression know they are doing wrong; but the alternative of doing the rational thing, of giving up their kids, would hurt them unbearably so that they could not live with it.
Well, of course they could live with it if they were given immediate help, put on suicide watch, and coached back into the world of sanity. But moments of insanity are often only moments of refusing to live according to reason because it would cause insanity.
And yet, without mind, there is nothing greater in man than in any animal on earth. The mind helps others in their time of need, during earthquakes and typhoons and hurricanes; through the death of loved ones; with soup kitchens, food banks, and food stamps; and even going to war to save others from tyrants.
There is nothing on Earth that is worth having without mind, because to have known "mind" is to know all that is great in Man.
It's really simple, but not simple to always understand.
If "nothing" existed, then "something" would exist--namely, "nothing".
If "nothing" had no existence, by definition "existence" would have existence and anything that has "existence" absolutely exists. That would not be "nothing".
"Nothingness" cannot "exist". It also cannot not exist. If it did "not not exist", the double negative means something would exist, and it can't be "nothingness".
I made some additions a few days ago to the Wikipedia page "Naturalism (Philosophy)". One editor was not pleased, immediately deleted all my comments, and said he detected that I had an "agenda".
He was correct; I do have an agenda. It is to correct definitional differences between various pages of Wikipedia on the subject of naturalism; but more than that, to discover whether or not there exists a class of naturalists who are not "pluralists" or "dualists" yet who accept the natural first-person experiences of such "mental states" as mind, consciousness, ego, soul, volition (free will), and emotions.
After the deletion of my material in Wikipedia because of arguments I later thought might have some merit, not in terms of "agenda" but in the possibility that what I had written was incomprehensible or its purpose was incomprehensible, I began some investigating to see whether any other author was already "on to" the same subject of reviewing the terminology used in the science and in the metaphysics.
I immediately discovered "The Rediscovery of the Mind" by John R. Searle (MIT). When I read, "How is it that so many philosophers and cognitive scientists can say so many things that, to me at least, seem obviously false?", then I knew I was at least (and at last!) reading an author who thought like me. Whether or not I would agree with his review of the terminology and with his conclusions and professional recommendations for altering the terminology would have to be determined after I read the book. I'm only a little way into the book, but it seems I am not the only one who does not see "materialism vs. dualism" as the only way out of the morass.
Please read the Journal entry titled "Journal of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism" for the mission statement of this newly titled url, and then feel free to make serious and relevant comments. All points of view are welcomed.
The name of the entity at this url has changed in order to reflect the altered nature of the site, specifically that of its new mission as the "Journal of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism".
Its mission has become how to discuss the ontology of the definition of "materialism" its connection to "naturalism"; and of the definitions of metaphysical naturalism, ontological naturalism, and philosophical naturalism.
But more than that, it is to foster a discussion of whether "materialism" as it is historically defined has any bearing on naturalism at all, or whether, as John Searle puts it, the traditional vocabulary is "inconsistent with what we know about the world both from our own experiences and from the special sciences."1
For quite some time I have been personally dissatisified with those traditional meanings, which are often as not used or defined differently from one text or author to the next. Sometimes it a matter of semantics.
But overall the problem is greater. It is whether or not the third person objectivity of science which demands evidence based on behavior or physics for proof of "mental states", has any relevance to first person consciousness and "mind" and our very noticeable mental states that no third person examination can uncover. I have found that more often than not they do not reflect my own experiences.
And while the title "Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism" is just a place holder until I can form a proper entity worthy of that name, this new Journal welcomes and invites all serious comments.
Question: Is it possible to accept a materialistic naturalism, ("a 'monistic' form of naturalism in that it maintains that only one basic kind of stuff exists--physical stuff" [1]), while maintaining at the same time that the existence of nonphysical abstract objects are not "transcendent Platonic forms beyond nature"? [1]
In other words, isn't it possible that the "mind" (for example), typically rejected by naturalists as being "beyond natural" and therefore categorized as a species within supernaturalism, is instead the natural quality of the physiology of the brain, expressing the nature of the brain and without which the purpose of the brain would be unthinkable?
To restate it: is it not possible that "mind" is the ever-present but immediate and momentary phenomenon created by the physiology of the brain, and which is elusive as a defined quality as is the phenomenon of "life"? Is it possible to accept the metaphysical definition of "mind" while accpting that the existence of such abstract objects is the direct result of transient yet enduring qualities of the physiology of the brain itself, without reverting to calling such metaphysical evaluations "pluralistic"?[1]
If the mind can be so described, and be as physically real while being qualitatively transient, as is the form of lightening or of a thunderclap or of the "strings" in string theory, then why does naturalism deny the existence of "mind" while not denying "consciousness"?
The Question: Why is man rational? What makes us different from other animals?
The Answer: In Greek philosophy of "natural law" (physics) there was a term no longer used: perfection. This doesn't have the same meaning as the word we use.
"The things of this world are or exist only so far as they participate in the being of the eternal ideas, or so far as man in his creative capacity of craftsman, artist, and especially lawmaker copies these ideas. Here teleological thinking enters the scene. In the concept which gropes after and apprehends the essence or the idea of the thing there is contained at the same time also its end, the completion or perfection of the idea of the thing.
"The essences of things, which are exemplifications of the ideas conceived by the divine intellect, constitute at the same time the end or goal of the things themselves. The perfection or fulfillment of the things is their essence: formal cause and end are one (causa finalis is ultimately identical with causa formalis)." http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_s…
So, in evolution (becoming) all things tend toward the perfection of the idea naturally inherent in the subject that has "being". What it evolves into (the act of "becoming") can be described as the acorn that can become nothing but an oak. It can't become a donkey or a pine tree. In the essence of the "being" of the thing called "mind", there is the evolution into what it can only become, like the acorn into an oak.
Other natural forces could have prevented it, as they prevented the dinosaurs from remaining on earth. Something natural could have wiped out all life on earth, or all life containing "mind". But that didn't happen. So the mind had to evolve from the simplest forms, to its "perfect" form. That would appear to be "rationality." The chimp is said to be closest to man in this respect but is 400,000 years behind us. Perhaps in another 400,000 years we will discover whether "rationality", in the act of "becoming", will find a new perfection.
The question: Are the cognitive capabilities of all organisms(including humans)limited by their biology? If yes, does it also imply that sciences ( which are made of the results of human cognition) are cognizant of only those aspects of existence which fall with in the spectrum of their cognitive faculties, rathar than of all aspects of existence?
Answer: Man has the faculty of reason, which is not fully developed yet in our nearest cousin, the chimp. Evolutionary and cognitive sciences tell us the chimp is about 400,000 years behind us in that category, (though it does deserve to be removed from the genus Pan and placed in the genus Homo).
Our reason is, or at least can be, continual. In other words, where "Brutes abstract not", [Hume] humans continually abstract. It doesn't mean they always use their faculty of reason, but they are capable of continuously doing so if they have the will and the discipline. A chimp moves unwillingly in and out of states of reason.
Our ability to remain continually rational (thought not always right) means that what Kant called "Noumena" and Plato called "Forms" are no longer barriers. No such things exist any longer--they never did--, because we know we have the means to discover tomorrow what we don't know today, if we stay the course of reason.
This does not mean we are not limited by our biology. We are not omniscient, nor can we ever be. We must, as Aristotle said, "acquire knowledge". But the things that Plato would have said were Forms, and which Kant would have said were Noumena, have since been proved to be phenomena. Reasons task is to discover the nature of the phenomena, and that is an ongoing, never-ending task precisely because of the limitations of our biology, limitations which reason itself overcomes with time.
I keep seeing the word "transdoxical" used in the Philosophy forum of Yahoo Answers (YA!), and it seemed to have a misleading nature, as if the users wanted to flumox anyone who tried to answer the question containing the word.
So, I Googled the word for its definition. I found exactly 4 references, none of which gives a serious definition demonstrating the word is in actual usage. What I found was this YA! "question":
"Transdoxical a word created in this philosophy section ( i believe by the master of points himself, Morpheus) that means beyond (trans) + opinion (dox). Panoptic, I'll let you find this seldom used word on your own." The poor grammar and syntax are (sic).
("Morpheus" is the screen name of a YA! user.)
The YA! question that made me inquisitive was this one: "What is the transdoxical character of the cosmos?" After seeing the word so many times I had to Google it. To my surprise, my first intuition about the word was correct; it is made up by the biggest, most foolish character in YA! philosophy.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online defines "panoptic" as ":being or presenting a comprehensive or panoramic view "
It appears obvious that "trans", meaning "across", combined with "opinion", has nothing to do with "panoptic".
If the attempt was not being made to pull the wool over people's eyes as to the existence of this word and as to its undefined "definition", let me put it to bed now.
"Transdoxical" is a non-sense word, intended to demonstrate the ability of this "Morpheus" character to demonstrate his ability to lead sheep to an oasis where no etymological water exists.
If that is too alliterative a characterization, let me say it this way: the word "transdoxical" is metaphysical bull crap.
P.S.; Now there will be at least 5 Google references to the word.
The question was recently posed: Does Metaphysical Naturalism accept the epistemological premises of Plato's intuition of knowledge, or those of Aristotle's acquisition of knowledge?
The fact is that man acquires his knowledge from the time of birth, filling his tabula rasa from sensory experiences. This is an Aristotilean concept. Plato, on the other hand, believed there were "permanent objects of knowledge [Forms or Ideas] directly apprehended by intuition (Gk. nohsiV [nóêsis]), the fundamental capacity of human reason to comprehend the true nature of reality." http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2h.htm
Plato held intuition to be the highest form of "knowing" because it demonstrated reason's ability to comprehend these Forms, which he defined as universals. The question then becomes, where does one acquire the concepts by which intuition is revealed?
They are acquired initially as simple sensory experiences, placed upon the tabula rasa where the faculty of reason then applies the hard-wired faculty of epistemological identification. Just as the faculty of sight and the other senses are hard wired and begin working immediately, so is the mind's faculty of epistemological operations.
Nothing is in the mind which was not first in the senses--"'Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu.' All the materials, or content, of higher, intellectual cognition are derived from the activity of lower, sense cognition." http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html
But intuition is not moot to the subject of epistemology. It merely does not work until there is sufficient material in the mind from which the subconscious can extract such "intuitions."
Plato believed intuitions to be direct, non-inferential awareness of abstractions or of concrete truths. Metaphysical Naturalism defines them as direct inferences, "that a subconscious entity of knowledge or of speculation integrates with conscious material to present to the consciousness both a comprehensive and immediate metaphysical analysis of the integration." Metaphysical Naturalist Glossary
In plain English, the subconscious is always on, always working, always analyzing. When a "light bulb comes on over your head" it is an intuition presented to your consciousness through its connection to the subconsious, which was working on the problem all the time.
If "something is on the end of your tongue" but you can't find the word that on the tip, it is because the word has not been culled from the subconscious. The conscious mind cannot be conscious at all times of all the things of which it was at one time previously conscious. We would be overwhelmed with images and words and music playing in our minds. What is not necessary to have in the "forward" consciousness is stored in the subconsciousness.
Aristotle is thus correct about the acquisition of knowledge. Plato is incorrect both about the nature of "intuition" and about the metaphysical nature of that which can be known.
But Aristotle thought knowledge of the essences and natural laws were objects of cognition which no intuition can reveal, but which science can prove to exist. When defined as in the Metaphysical Naturalist Glossary, intuition does not contradict the acquisition of knowledge through the senses, nor does it contradict abstract knowledge which necessarily is abstracted from sensory knowledge and only sensory knowledge; or from concepts, which are formulations made from previous abstractions.
NEW YORK - Truth Wins Out [TWO] condemned Manifested Glory Ministries in Bridgeport, Conn., for practicing child abuse in the name of religion, after a video surfaced where the church tried to exorcize demons from a gay teenager....Patricia McKinney, pastor of the nondenominational church who describes herself as a prophet, told CNN that she believes homosexuality, like crack addiction can be influenced by demons. "It's not just the homosexuality spirit. It could be the alcohol spirit, the crack cocaine spirit, the adultery spirit. Everything carries a spirit," McKinney told CNN. http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/church%E2%80%99s-exorcism-of-gay-teenager-is-child-abuse-and-fanaticism-disguised-as-faith/
"Everything carries a spirit." We would expect Christianity to employ supernaturalism; it wouldn't be Christianity if it didn't.
But, "Things of this sort [spirits] are the Platonic Forms, abstract entities that exist independently of the sensible world," says Britannica. (Platonism was inextricably welded to Christianity, most notably by St. Augustine, as well as by many others.)
This means that that which are objectively considered abstractions by the the bulk of western civilization are considered to be real objects, or "reifications" of the abstractions, in the tradition of Platonic metaphysics.
This means that the "spirits" are considered to be universals inherent in things. About universals: "The metaphysical issue is whether or not these features exist independently of the particular things that have them: [Platonic] realists hold that they do..." Britannica
Universals in the Platonic thinking are "special existents unrelated to man’s consciousness—[not] to be perceived by man directly, like any other kind of concrete existents [tables; apples; children], but perceived by some non-sensory or extra-sensory means," wrote Ayn Rand.
"Unfortunately, this terrifying incident is not unique" continues TWO. "It is a standard part of groups such as Exodus International, which promise to help people "pray away the gay." "When talking to the public or media, such organizations try to appear mainstream and uncontroversial," said Wayne Besen, TWO's director. "But, when they get behind closed doors, they engage in practices that are barbaric and backwards. While demons do not cause homosexuality, the efforts of churches to 'cure' gay people can accurately be describes as quite evil."
The attempt to view such intangible universals as non-material entities in a supernatural world, to be perceived only by supernatural means, provides an evil view of existence, where the burning of witches by the Catholic and Protestant churches comes to mind. But even in modern Catholicism, "[exorcism is] but rarely used, and never without the express permission of the bishop," says the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.
Why is it rarely used? Because "there is room for no end of deception and hallucination when it is question of dealing with the unseen powers." New Advent
When humans attempt to perceive "deception" and avoid "hallucination" while dealing with supposed supernatural inhabitation of humans, there is not only room for error, but the error is inherent in the nature of the beastly act itself.
Sometimes, metaphysics isn't so complicated as many of the blogs I have written about here, such as the "tree falling in the forest" question that answer to which lies in the "primacy of existence." Sometimes metaphysics is just simply simple. Kant is not considered to be "simple" philosophy, but when you break it down, it can be shown to be simpler than Kant would wish you to think his ideas were.
In this blog, someone asked the simple question of whether or not "death" was an example of Kant's "Noumenon" theory.
Death is phenomenon. "Noumena", according to Kant, is anything our animal senses cannot detect about what is empirical, and which our logic cannot reach.
Death is empirical, observable, and logically explainable. What lies on the other side of physical death, if it exists, would not be a Noumenon either, because a Noumenon regards only that which is undetecable about a phenomenon.
In other words, we see a baseball, but that is the empirical phenomenon. What we cannot detect about the baseball is Kant's "real reality" precisely because our animalism (which he abhored and which therefore prevented him from being objective about it,) prevents us from seeing it.
But the baseball and the state of physical death are still empirical. There is nothing about the afterlife that is empirical--it is supernatural; therefore it cannot be noumenal.
It has been asked repeatedly whether altruism can actually exist. Even Mother Theresa has been doubed as an altruist, since, if the claim that no one can be one is true, then she was not.
The reason the Vatican published her letters of fear that for 12 years her God had forsaken her was to prove that indeed, she was an altruist.
Auguste Comte coined the word to mean: "the discipline and eradication of self-centered desire, and a life devoted to the good of others; more particularly, selfless love and devotion to Society. In brief, it involved the self-abnegating love of Catholic Christianity redirected towards Humanity conceived as an ideal unity." http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html
In Comte's use of the word he invented, Mother Theresa was indeed an altruist. All she wanted was to have her God speak to her, and he did not. Why do you think she looked so sad all the time?
It's amazing how people have twisted the word "altruist" to mean that no one can be one "because we all do things for our own benefit." If she wanted to work for 12 years without a word from God, she had a reason, which was "the self-abnegating love of Catholic Christianity.
"But "self-abnegation" is not to one's benefit if one thinks that that action has caused God to forsake you. If you hear from God on a regular basis while abnegating your sense of self in the service of other people, then you are benefitting, and cannot be considered altruistic.
Bill Gates and his wife have done more for the third world than 1000 Mother Theresas could do in terms of providing material needs. They are not in the Third World 100% of the time as the Mother was, so they cannot provide for the spiritual needs of people when they are not there. But do you think that when they do visit the places to which they send their philanthopy that the happy faces and filled stomachs and dancing and music provided by the villagers are not better for the spiritual needs of those villagers than a self-abnegating altruist with a sad and spiritless-looking face?
It has been asked often why man considers himself, over other animals, to be "the rational" animal, when he often doesn't act rational, and even commits acts of irrationality.
What we do with our intelligence is not the question. The answer is: Brutes abstract not. (Locke)
Because they cannot abstract, at least with any degree of mnemonics, the naturalist Loren Eiseley said that animals live in an "eternal present" from which they can never escape.
Ayn Rand described it as "range-of-the-moment consciousness", which explains the lack of mnemonic cognition. They can't teach their young what they've learned in a manner which gives the young something to build on. Whatever they learn, it stops rights there, even it is passed on to the entire tribe, like those macaques who learned to wash their food. This action was caught on camera by scientists who had been studying these particular groups of monkees and had never seen them do it until one accidentally dropped his food in the water-------and liked the result. So he continued to do it, and the other monkees mimmicked him and discovered they liked it too.
But that didn't lead to an abstraction. Nothing more was learned than that washing food tasted good. Perhaps in an act of evolution, only the monkees who wash their food will survive someday during a storm of biological pestilence upon their food. But it wasn't because they learned to make anti-biotics.
Man can learn to understand that because he washed his hands and his food, he prevented himself and others from getting sick. That knowledge was an abstraction, and it can be taught to others.
THAT is what makes man intelligent. That he foolishly or criminally uses his intelligence is a different question.
The official New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has no problem with evolution or science.
"God does not interfere directly with the natural order, where secondary causes suffice to produce the intended effect" (De opere sex dierum, II, c. x, n. 13). In the light of this principle of the Christian interpretation of nature, the history of the animal and vegetable kingdoms on our planet is, as it were, a versicle in a volume of a million pages in which the natural development of the cosmos is described, and upon whose title-page is written: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
"To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God."
"The scientific theory of evolution, therefore, does not concern itself with the origin of life. It merely inquires into the genetic relations of systematic species, genera, and families, and endeavours to arrange them according to natural series of descent (genetic trees)."
"The formation of new species is directly observed in but a few cases, and only with reference to such forms as are closely related to each other; for instance, the systematic species of the plant-genus Œnothera, and of the beetle-genus Dimarda. It is, however, not difficult to furnish an indirect proof of great probability for the genetic relation of many systematic species to each other and to fossil forms, as in the genetic development of the horse (Equidæ), of ammonites, and of many insects, especially of those that dwell as "guests" with ants and termites, and have adapted themselves in many ways to their hosts."
"At present, however, it is impossible to decide how many independent genetic series must be assumed in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. This is the gist of the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. It is in perfect agreement with the Christian conception of the universe; for Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and of animals were originally created by God. As early as 1877 Knabenbauer stated "that there is no objection, so far as faith is concerned, to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types" (Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XIII, p. 72)."http://www.newadvent.org/ [italics added]
Evolution therefore is not inconsistent in the theology of Christianity with the statement, "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth," because "Scripture does not tell us in what form the present species of plants and animals were originally created."
Husserl wrote "The Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness." One thing it demonstrates clearly is that "time" is a phenomenon of consciousness, not of of physics.
The physics in it is the consciousness of movement, and then of difference in the lengths of those phenomenons, such as a star moving across the sky versus a caterpillar walking up a tree.
Since "time" is a phenomenon of consciousness, it cannot be manipulated outside of consciousness, in the empirical world.
However, we know that the pictures taken by the Hubble Telescope are of events that happened millions or billions of year ago. So if we were able to invent a means of transportation that would get us to one of those events in a second, would that be considered time travel? Nothing would have changed in the universe except your placement in it; yet you would instantly be at an even which in your original placement had already passed a long time ago.
But transportation to a place in the universe where something happened in a different "time" when compared to the relationship of Earth to "place X" is not the same as travelling back to yesterday.
If travelling back to yesterday becomes possible, then once again it is merely moving your own physical and mental existence from one place to another. What makes yesterday on earth different from what is photographed by the Hubble? Nothing at all, except the Hubble cannot see that close up.
So if you can go in the blink of an eye to what the Hubble sees, yet you have merely moved materially through a long distance of space, then why is that different from moving materially back to yesterday?And if that becomes possible, is it possible to move materially to an unknown place when that "place" (tomorrow) has not yet happened?
We could conceivably create a transportation device that would move us materially across the universe faster than the speed of light. To return to yesterday, we would have to invent a "Hubble" that can see yesterday on Earth by the same means. It would simply be a "closeup" shot.
But how are we to see tomorrow?Such a form of travel, to what Hubble sees, is not time travel, because time is a phenomenon of consciousness, not of physics.
