> > Rate of change implies that there are different rates. For
> instance,
> >the rate of change as water goes to ice in a cup, is detectable by
> our
> >senses. It happens in an abount of time we can easily measure and
> >understand. The symbolism is the nearly identicle for all of us. On
> the
> >other hard, the rate of expansion of Universe is not detectable
> easily.
> >If it were, so many people would have the symbols necessary to
> concieve
> >of a finite universe that is expanding, that false ideas and symbols
> >would fall into dis-use as inherently false. I hate to use religion
> >again, but it is an excellent example. Because people thought the
> stars
> >were placed by god to guide us upon the seas, and to read signs and
> >omens, incorrect and damaging symbolsm gained a foothold that cannot
> >easily be shaken. Had the bible said that stars are balls of
> hydrogen,
> >helium and several other elements in fusion and held together by
> gravity
> >and seperated by vast distances of nearly infinate space, religion
> >would be very different today. A rate of change, or the apearance of
> a
> >constant rate of change, make common symbolism possible. We both
> >understand that a map works because we use nearly identicle or
> similar
> >symbolism. A map of the universe could never be made because the
> >universe cannot be even close to static in a way that we coould store
>
> >the information.
>
> >I hope i did this justice in under 500 lines, but I am sure that
> there
> >is much room in this discussion for more ideas.
>
> >Sodom
> >Ask not for whom the flourescent lights hum
>
> List,
>
> So, recognizing change in a mental state leads to understanding...a
> more
> constant change would lead to a more uniform understanding...you are
> talking
> "uncertainty" by saying that we need the constant to recognize the
> change
> and the change to recognize a constant. Within the set of constants
> and
> changes a pattern (on a map for example) could be considered a
> constant;
> therefore, we would need a change to understand this pattern...and the
> more
> consistent change would lead to a better understanding. Assuming that
> two
> people who are looking at a map are beginning with the same
> constant--that
> is a pattern which is basically fixed into a "state" (am I using this
> word
> right, I'm not sure I see the difference between state and
> pattern...are you
> saying that the arbetrary nature of a pattern on a map is not the same
> as
> the more natural constant observed in the form of a consistent
> change? And
> if so, I'm not sure I agree...it would seem that the way we recognize
> the
> pattern on the map is because it is a "state"ed form of the same
> change
> which generates recognition...anyway)...assuming that symbols on a map
> are
> held constant the degree of recognition would have to be related to
> the
> consistency of the change from the pattern, to the state, to the area
> where
> all things are relative.
>
> So, I would argue that even a pattern is a state, and that we need the
> area
> of relativity to understand stateness (and in turn, patterns). Though
> I can
> imagine that if the universe external to consciousness (objective) was
> NOT
> random (in the sense of changing at a state which is relative from all
>
> perspectives) then objects would directly tell us of their exact
> nature due
> to our's and their constant rate of change from a recognizable state
> or
> pattern. Nontheless, we must have an original pattern or state to
> contrast
> this change from.
>
> If the pattern is arbetrary (like the drawings on a map...well,
> relatively
> arbetrary), then it is not the consistency of the pattern which
> generates
> understanding--nor the consistent change between states--but the
> evolution
> of the pattern itself. Translated, this implies that the changes
> noticed
> between one map and a second map give us the mental tool to judge the
> consistency between map and terrain. Because I like to view the
> universe
> as relative, I place consistency in consciousness...and therefore
> attribute
> understanding to individual development...an intelligently ordered
> change
> from one pattern to a--hopefully--more recognizable pattern (the
> differences
> between these two patterns providing the information needed to
> intelligently
> develop a next pattern which is even more recognizable).
>
> Brett
>
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
> but in ourselves.
>
> William Shakespeare
I'm with you here,
First: , rate of change will always appear constant since we are unable
to seperate ourselves from the time rate we experience. Lets use the
word "static" to describe changes that take periods of time beyond our
perception. So a map would appear "Static". Yes, and you could measure
this from map A to Map B. I have been thinking about "patterns"
constantly for about the last 15 hours, I even used a few dictionaries
to look for specific deifnitions. and have come to the conclusion that
my definition of "pattern" is too limited in scope. I now feel that the
word "pattern" has the definitions I have used, as an organization made
by the mind to grapple with the observed, but that it EXISTS and IS
present in all "states" - outside of interpretation. How's that for
backpeddling? I especially liked your last paragraph, Thanks.
Sodom
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, IT WAS CHILDPROOF