Search results

But they cannot be separated, the apparatus is the consciousness, and "For Bergson, the quality of a thing is not separate from its place in time: there is no way to separate them. This includes human subjectivity. Bergson's notion is that by abstracting human qualities we completely miss their...

All watched over by machines of loving grace:💰

can you explain more also?

can you explain more?

So we have been conceptually led to believe that the atomic bomb rent a hole in the fabric of space time which left fallout layers discernible in never melting Arctic ice and it was all just a lie, the bomb was merely the biggest meanest continuation of mechanical war and the supposed chasm was...

Too difficult to know what space and time mean in such a sentence that includes man and god and even without these words also. The words need defining.

What is there not an anglo prejudice against right now? I hate this place

Yes. The forces holding atoms together may share some of the same rules, but I don't know to be honest. Quantum gravity would imply that. cool

So ‘quantum’ is related to electron energy (quanta) not nuclei splitting ?

Oh great, who are they? And yeah then define: space sorry to keep asking so many questions

So in fact no shadow was burnt, instead the rest was exposed like a film photo? (And the person was the matte?)

Thanks - in which case if atom nuclei are involved here as described and this is not quantum, then what does quantum mean ?

How did it burn the shadows of people onto Hiroshima pavements, what causes that? https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-nuclear-weapons-work too late, will read in morning

But that’s like digital

Oh is that true?

Camera rolling the AC says “speed” from when film had to get to 24fps

and yet the atomic bomb is conceptually quantum physics not mechanical time… and the mechanical/ progress idea with its split off spirituality is Christianity- ?

https://chilonas.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/time-and-free-will-bergson.pdf It’s important to read him then.

But this is like the movement image & time image of Deleuze on Cinema which splits (haha) the century pre and post ww2. Found this yesterday, interrupted temporality (1947) but the ending is 1950s already:

Please can you elaborate so I can better understand? I think I understand. Can the quote be interpreted that Einstein quantum physics’ disregard for Bergson’s speed (temporality or western idea of timeline/ progress as opposed to eg. cyclical) do not embrace consequences that appear in linear...