| 1 dimension || 3 dimensions |
| Negative metric || Positive metric for all 3 dimensions |
| Western Idioms :|
‘I’m here now’ usually means, conditional upon it being now, the ‘I’ is located here. Definitely not vice versa.
| Idioms ?|
| Things change. For example take an object occupying a spacetime region, the space-shape changes (cutting perpendicular to t)
|| We never have the duration of an object’s presence/existence varying over different locations in space (line segments parallel to t). This might just be perceptual.|
| Harder to apprehend a drumbeat as a single entity || Easy to apprehend a ruler as a single entity|
| Now seems to ‘move’ inexorably || Here does not always move.|
| Discreteness in time confers a ‘then’-ness. || Discreteness in space confers object identity|
| We are completely unable to mentally select a moment. Worse for the future than the past.
|| Attention allows choice (or choice allows attention?) of a location in space for the mind (it settles on the spot)|
| Appears directionally asymmetric — entropy, statistics, and quantum states all due to ‘partial knowledge’ / macroscopicalisation i.e. directional knowledge at an instant
|| Appears isotropic. Directions have opposites and negatives, but few ways of telling them apart — we have no basic mental process that do this. Up., down, left, right, fore and aft are all interchangeable — at different moments in time, these can be swapped without cognitive side-effects |
| The now ‘could be’ many points in time — in the sense that we are unsatisfied by explaining ‘now’ by the particular state of the brain.
|| We seem to be satisfied by the explanation that ‘here’ is due to the presence of the brain |
| Repeteitiveness is unappealing || Spatial patterns are appealing |
| || Individuation of ideas, concepts, memories can be conceived as being in mental ‘places’ |
| Spacetime distances correspond to observer time, not ‘observer length’ || |
| Subjective existence is discontinuous in time — e.g punctuated by sleep
|| Subjective existence is continuous in space — perhaps even point-like in space|
Aside: cognitive descriptions are so useful — similarity and dissimilarity of internal processes. Does this mode of describing fall apart itself, under these circumstances? It is indeed circular, as we are using the mind to analyse the mind. However it is a notch better than intuition: the loop incorporates an empirical stage. By empirical, I mean we use the mind to observe, analyse, theorise, and re-observe. I would argue that this type of empiricism can be satisfactorily applied to mental phenomena.