Staticity is an abstract construct

2 minute read

[2022-02-08 Tue 21:56] - 7953

Temporality is an inherent part of any primal observation (check primal closure from the “Theory of Agnostic Perspectivism”).

I reach this conclusion via my augmented closure 1: societally well-established knowledge can be used as black-boxes over the primal closure.

Note that - given I’ve already spent ~20 years without awareness of the notion of a primal closure, thinking that the only major epistemological extension one goes through is via their augmented closure - old habits die hard.

Something is only ever static if one analyses it on a higher, abstractualized 2 level.

Recollecting what the senses actually sense:

  • neurons can sense pressure: consequence of interatomic forces, which exist above absolute zero
  • darkness is a consequence of our lack of sensitivity for low intensities and frequencies out of the visible domain (one always emits and observes heat above absolute zero)
  • matter always vibrates above absolute zero; silence is again a consequence of our lack of sensitivity for lower and higher frequencies
  • the sense of taste and smell, though superficially chemical, can be ultimately reduced to physics, and the concerned neurons can be consequently subjected to molecular reactions (hence atomic forces)

Note that, as a side note, this does somewhat enforce the hypothesis that time stops at absolute zero

Hence, the idea of an instantaneous observation does not make sense. Any static appearances are exactly that - only appearances:

  • a seemingly static light bulb that seems to be consistently bright, is simply fluttering at very high frequencies, beyond the human eye’s sensitivity
  • when pressing you palm against a wall, the neurons consistently fire and recharge to fire again at the same intensity: it’s only your brain’s different treatment (possible entry point to the notion of attention) of the same rapid fires that makes you forget that you’ve been sitting on a chair for some time: the interatomic forces always exist and are dynamic in nature

Hence, I would hypothesize

  • the word static(the way humans intuitively understand it) actually only refers to the non-changing nature of a rate of change of some entity and not that of the entity itself
  • there is no static equilibrium on the atomic level - only dynamic equilibrium exists
  • the word static is essentially is a perceptual black box that humans use to mask the coarseness in their observational sensitivity

I write this article after spending a week observing and recollecting my old augmented closure, regarding how we sense things temporally

  1. all seemingly novel phrases are novel: check Neologisms on home page (the top-left QR is a hyperlink) 

  2. again, check the neologisms 

Leave a comment