Universe and Time

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Thu May 29, 2014 5:25 pm

The word “consciousness” merely means “with-awareness”.

Lingusitics!

The people with English as their first language would have better done, if they had stayed more with their old language because foreign influences (here: Latin) hinder thinking in the first language.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Thu May 29, 2014 7:54 pm

In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.

But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything.

This text suggests or advises that an electron has a consciousness or at least an awareness.

The answer?

It has been long argued that the universe itself is a conscious entity regardless of any people or living creatures within it. The universe is certainly an entity that reacts to stimulation. It can be argued that the universe is made of nothing but such reactions. So is the universe conscious?

No.
It ... can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious.

But nevertheless: Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: "respond", "aware", "distinguish", "reacts", " attempting", "recognize", "attempt", "reaction")which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Thu May 29, 2014 11:20 pm

Arminius wrote:
In the case of the electron, it has been shown that an electron will not actually respond to the removal of a nearby charged particle until enough time is given for the field of that remote charge to also fade away. After the field immediately surrounding the electron has changed, the electron will respond accordingly. This indicates that such particles are not actually aware of the remote particle, but rather aware of the field immediately surrounding them.

But also there is strong evidence that an electron cannot distinguish any one charged particle from another as long as the charge field is the same. In fact, as long as the field surrounding the electron is the same, no remote particle need be involved. The electron reacts merely to the field itself regardless of source. There appears to be no evidence that an electron is attempting to recognize anything.

This text suggests or advises that an electron has a consciousness or at least an awareness.

The answer?

Thus it can be said that inanimate objects and creatures that have a disabled mental functioning, are not conscious even though there is still purely physical awareness of environment.

The thesis was demanding a distinction between direct physical response (awareness) and remote recognition (consciousness). Inanimate objects, such as that electron, have direct physical awareness in that they respond to their environment. But inanimate objects do not recognize anything at any distance away from themselves and respond only by simple, one-to-one contact, thus do not have cognitive awareness, involving memory references and recognition, nor what we normally refer to as "consciousness".

Consciousness ≡ Remote Recognition.


Arminius wrote:Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: "respond", "aware", "distinguish", "reacts", " attempting", "recognize", "attempt", "reaction")which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?

Because in the past people have not distinguished between a simple response and remote recognition response, thus their languages do not reflect the distinction. The difference in those is very relevant in distinguishing conscious vs non-conscious and a living entity and non-living entity (although it is not the definitive distinction for "life"). Without making that distinction, philosophers can run around endlessly speculating about what is conscious and what isn't as well as what is live and what isn't.


The reason this helps to resolve the object/subject issue is because of what it takes for remote recognition to work. For remote recognition to function at all, an ontology must be formed within the entity. That ontology is a "map of relevant existence for the entity" with which is attempts to discern objective reality in a relevant way. And we define "True" as the condition of the ontology when it is a reasonably accurate representation of the objective reality.

The conscious creature's mind functions entirely via his ontological map.

This is a diagram that I hadn't posted because it isn't really showing what I was after, but is still relevant to this discussion;
Image

The left image is an ontological "truth" for literally any and everything we call a "body". The outside circle, "Entropic Ambience" is referring to the objective world "out there", outside of the body, in all of its chaos. The inside circle represents a bonding mechanism that works against entropy such as to retard entropy, yielding a suspension in time. And the light brown circle between them is the Anentropic Interface (or what in other posts, I have referred to as the "Entropic Shell") that keeps the inside distinct from the outside.

The Anentropic Interface is possibly the most relevant issue in all thought. It is what separates the "good and bad" or the "positive and negative". It distinguishes angels from devils, Ego and superego from Id, nutrient from toxin, rational from irrational, and "Us from Them". It is the Media and Border Patrol between any entity and its surroundings and thus is used in every attempt to control or modify the entity through modifying the entities ability to filter what is to be considered good/positive or bad/negative. It is the source of all laws and thoughts other than the one law that forms the entire universe.

But that is merely "a body".

The diagram to the right is "a body with a mind". A mind is an ontological type of body, the functioning of a neurological system. It has the same circles of relevance except that the outer circle, the ambience, is the physical body that it hosts. The neuro-physiology of the body is the ambience of the mind. And the inner circle of the mind is formed by a similar anti-entropic bonding that retards entropy of thought such as to yield greater permanence, known as "memory".


What all of this has to do with Objective vs Subjective is that first, such a distinction between a mere body and a body with a mind, is necessary for an understanding of what "subjective" actually means. The concept of "subjective" is itself a portion of the ontological map within the mind. "Subjective" is not itself an objective entity, but an ontological distinction or a declaration of a "reference frame": "With respect to John, X is good and Y is bad". Thus subjectivity is entirely an ontological construct that applies only within minded bodies. Subjectivity is not a part of the physical universe, but rather a part of an understanding, ontological map, pertaining to the physical universe.

When one asks whether he is in a dream, he is asking of the accuracy of his ontological construct. He is asking, "Is this image that I am seeing true?" Since every image he sees is merely an ontological map constructed by his mental mechanisms that is possibly flawed, it is a valid question. So he isn't actually asking about objective reality as much as asking about "Truth".

How do you know when an ontology is True?
    1) Is it consistent throughout the ontology?
    2) Is it comprehensive in every relevant detail?
    3) Is it relevant to my subjective concerns?

And that requires detailed analysis. How do you know when the media is lying to you? - Detailed analysis of those "Three Angels of Truth".

Many distinct ontologies can be all true and yet due to not making a distinction in the languages they use, people assume a common ontology referred to as "The Truth". In reality what is positive or good for John might well be different than what is positive or good for Mary. But when they communicate, they don't make that subjective reference distinction and thus conflate not only the subjective concerns of good, but also any objective concerns of good. Their language reveals their lack of understanding that everyone has his own ontology. And even though a common ontology for all can be developed ( such as Affectance Ontology), the struggles to dominate prevent a coherent and complete ontology from being known to the populous.

Once a True ontology is the common ontology, much like English being the common language, objective and subjective references and understandings will become so inherent that people wouldn't even understand how they could have ever been confused.


So to sum it up;
Everyone has their own eschewed subjective/relative ontology and tend to use common words when communicating and thus intending to be saying one thing while being interpreted as saying something at least slightly different. They have to use their own remote recognition mechanism, their consciousness, in order to live. And they do not currently have a common True ontology such as to be able to have a common reference of Truth to represent objective reality (spoken of in scriptures).

The way to discern truth from fiction is to carefully examine for;
    1) Inconsistencies
    2) Lack of details
    3) Irrelevance

And that relates to how one can know that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, although useful, are not actually True. Detailed analysis reveals inconsistency (and especially throughout the Mainstream Media).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 1:16 am

James S Saint wrote:The thesis was demanding a distinction between direct physical response (awareness) and remote recognition (consciousness). Inanimate objects, such as that electron, have direct physical awareness in that they respond to their environment. But inanimate objects do not recognize anything at any distance away from themselves and respond only by simple, one-to-one contact, thus do not have cognitive awareness, involving memory references and recognition, nor what we normally refer to as "consciousness".

Consciousness ≡ Remote Recognition.

Linguistically said: You use the distinction between the words "awareness" and "consciousness" in order to get a physical awareness and a cognitive awareness, thus consciousness. You use the linguistical distinction between the words "awareness" and "consciousness" because there is a distinction between living beings and lifeless things too. And your result is: animate and inanimate objects behave likewise.

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: "respond", "aware", "distinguish", "reacts", " attempting", "recognize", "attempt", "reaction")which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?

Because in the past people have not distinguished between a simple response and remote recognition response, thus their languages do not reflect the distinction. The difference in those is very relevant in distinguishing conscious vs non-conscious and a living entity and non-living entity (although it is not the definitive distinction for "life"). Without making that distinction, philosophers can run around endlessly speculating about what is conscious and what isn't as well as what is live and what isn't.

And what is life, exactly?

James S Saint wrote:The reason this helps to resolve the object/subject issue is because of what it takes for remote recognition to work. For remote recognition to function at all, an ontology must be formed within the entity. That ontology is a "map of relevant existence for the entity" with which is attempts to discern objective reality in a relevant way. And we define "True" as the condition of the ontology when it is a reasonably accurate representation of the objective reality.

The conscious creature's mind functions entirely via his ontological map.

This is a diagram that I hadn't posted because it isn't really showing what I was after, but is still relevant to this discussion;
Image

The left image is an ontological "truth" for literally any and everything we call a "body". The outside circle, "Entropic Ambience" is referring to the objective world "out there", outside of the body, in all of its chaos. The inside circle represents a bonding mechanism that works against entropy such as to retard entropy, yielding a suspension in time. And the light brown circle between them is the Anentropic Interface (or what in other posts, I have referred to as the "Entropic Shell") that keeps the inside distinct from the outside.

The Anentropic Interface is possibly the most relevant issue in all thought. It is what separates the "good and bad" or the "positive and negative". It distinguishes angels from devils, Ego and superego from Id, nutrient from toxin, rational from irrational, and "Us from Them". It is the Media and Border Patrol between any entity and its surroundings and thus is used in every attempt to control or modify the entity through modifying the entities ability to filter what is to be considered good/positive or bad/negative. It is the source of all laws and thoughts other than the one law that forms the entire universe.

But that is merely "a body".

The diagram to the right is "a body with a mind". A mind is an ontological type of body, the functioning of a neurological system. It has the same circles of relevance except that the outer circle, the ambience, is the physical body that it hosts. The neuro-physiology of the body is the ambience of the mind. And the inner circle of the mind is formed by a similar anti-entropic bonding that retards entropy of thought such as to yield greater permanence, known as "memory".


What all of this has to do with Objective vs Subjective is that first, such a distinction between a mere body and a body with a mind, is necessary for an understanding of what "subjective" actually means. The concept of "subjective" is itself a portion of the ontological map within the mind. "Subjective" is not itself an objective entity, but an ontological distinction or a declaration of a "reference frame": "With respect to John, X is good and Y is bad". Thus subjectivity is entirely an ontological construct that applies only within minded bodies. Subjectivity is not a part of the physical universe, but rather a part of an understanding, ontological map, pertaining to the physical universe.

When one asks whether he is in a dream, he is asking of the accuracy of his ontological construct. He is asking, "Is this image that I am seeing true?" Since every image he sees is merely an ontological map constructed by his mental mechanisms that is possibly flawed, it is a valid question. So he isn't actually asking about objective reality as much as asking about "Truth".

How do you know when an ontology is True?
    1) Is it consistent throughout the ontology?
    2) Is it comprehensive in every relevant detail?
    3) Is it relevant to my subjective concerns?

And that requires detailed analysis. How do you know when the media is lying to you? - Detailed analysis of those "Three Angels of Truth".

Many distinct ontologies can be all true and yet due to not making a distinction in the languages they use, people assume a common ontology referred to as "The Truth". In reality what is positive or good for John might well be different than what is positive or good for Mary. But when they communicate, they don't make that subjective reference distinction and thus conflate not only the subjective concerns of good, but also any objective concerns of good. Their language reveals their lack of understanding that everyone has his own ontology. And even though a common ontology for all can be developed ( such as Affectance Ontology), the struggles to dominate prevent a coherent and complete ontology from being known to the populous.

Once a True ontology is the common ontology, much like English being the common language, objective and subjective references and understandings will become so inherent that people wouldn't even understand how they could have ever been confused.


So to sum it up;
Everyone has their own eschewed subjective/relative ontology and tend to use common words when communicating and thus intending to be saying one thing while being interpreted as saying something at least slightly different. They have to use their own remote recognition mechanism, their consciousness, in order to live. And they do not currently have a common True ontology such as to be able to have a common reference of Truth to represent objective reality (spoken of in scriptures).

The way to discern truth from fiction is to carefully examine for;
    1) Inconsistencies
    2) Lack of details
    3) Irrelevance

And that relates to how one can know that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, although useful, are not actually True. Detailed analysis reveals inconsistency (and especially throughout the Mainstream Media).

Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 30, 2014 3:28 am

Arminius wrote:Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.

?? What do you mean by "the overcome" of it???

Individually, or throughout society?

If you are talking about the Truth/Deception dichotomy as proposed by the Persians, overcoming it individually isn't difficult, but to remove deception/magic throughout society would take some very serious expertize and time, but is doable. If the average IQ of the homosapian had been just a little bit higher, none of it would have been a problem to begin with. The past 10,000 years would have been extremely different. Technology would probably have been developed by someone like the ancient Sumerians.

Basically, you would be talking about banishing the Devil from humanity. It takes a few very special men for that. They would have to have a very strong desire for it and behave in a very precise manner. And that is why things have to go to hell before anything positive gets done, the desire for the positive is inspired by the negative against Life itself. Life only tolerates imbalance up to a point.


Oh, and;
Life ≡ Self-directed actions toward self-maintenance; anentropic effort.

It is distinguished from non-life by being self-directed. And that is why every time authority is given to a government, it is taken away from the citizens. They lose the ability to direct their own maintenance. They get disarmed, blinded, and caged ("golden handcuffs"). The ultimate all-powerful world government ends up being the only actual life on the planet, quick to become insane (even further).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 4:04 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.

?? What do you mean by "the overcome" of it???
Individually, or throughout society?

One or the human beings should solve the subject/object dualism, but one or they probably can not. One or they would have been able to overcome the subject/object dualism, if one or they had solved it before. That problem is not merely a philosophical one, but before it can be overcome in "social" or other ways it has to be solved in a philosophical way. Who of the philosophers is able to solve the subject/object dualism?

Here is the one, and there are the others, the world.

James S Saint wrote:If the average IQ of the homosapian had been just a little bit higher, none of it would have been a problem to begin with

Currently that average IQ is declining! You know the reasons?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 30, 2014 4:08 pm

Arminius wrote:Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.

What in my post did you disagree with or not understand?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 4:33 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.

What in my post did you disagree with or not understand?

You mean this post, right? If yes, I can say that I understand your post quite well, I do not really disagree with any point. The problem is the subject/object dualism itself. I or we human beings don't know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 30, 2014 5:02 pm

Arminius wrote:You mean this post, right? If yes, I can say that I understand your post quite well, I do not really disagree with any point. The problem is the subject/object dualism itself. I or we human beings don't know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.

Then there is something that one of us isn't understanding about what the other is saying.
I don't believe this part;
"I or we human beings don't know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem."

Obviously I didn't make it clear as to why I don't. Logic resolves the "problem".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 6:20 pm

Phlilosophemes or theories can be right or true without any solution of the subject/object problem beacuse we human beings merely decide and say this or that is true/right or false/wrong, but we probably do not know what is true/right or false/wrong. That decisions always change, but also repeat or recapitulate somehow, and only sometimes there is a moment of more wisdom. Maybe that this moment of more wisdom (of some philosophers or other thinkers - of course) can resolve the problem of the subject/object dualism, but it is possible too that this moment of more wisdom also indicates that the problem of the subject/object dualism can probably not be resolved.

Please don't forget: We - the human beings - decide or say that this or that is true/right or false/wrong. And we believe in that - more or less. Ask some members of this forum, whether they really believe in logic or not. Most of them would say: "Yes, but ...", and with their "but" they actually say "No(, but ...)" because they would rather believe in religious things, especially the so called "atheists".

So there ist merely a small group of human beings who search for a solution for the problem of the subject/object dualism. And currently the average IQ of the human beings is declining. What does that mean? In any case: It also indicates that the most human beings do not want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid. Or, in the orther case, they want wisdom, but are not wanted to want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid.

But the greatest barrier is the human Geist itself. How can we really know that a subject "is" and that a object "is" without thinking that they are always different or even not existent?
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 30, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 30, 2014 6:54 pm

Arminius wrote:How can we really know that a subject "is" and that a object "is" without thinking that they are always different or even not existent?

Do you believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby zinnat » Fri May 30, 2014 7:35 pm

James S Saint wrote:A measure is "a distinguishable difference", not "a measuring". You are thinking of the actual measuring process being after the changing took place. I am talking about the "amount of difference in the changing" is what we call "time".


OK.

James S Saint wrote:The amount of difference in changes occurs at the same moment as the changes occur.


Are you saying that time starts tickling exactly at the same time when an event starts to take place?
Or time is merely our metal construct that we assume to help ourselves while measuring the changes?

James S Saint wrote:Well, make a coherent ontology out of that, and I will consider its usefulness.


I am trying but it is not complete yet but has many loose ends.
Basic concept is something like that-

I see this universe made of infinitely small but unstable particles of time, which roam here and there, in all directions. Then, they slowly start forming some unstable and small congestions, which ultimately converts themselves into slightly bigger (yet very small) stable particles.

Now, these small stable particles use to float into the ocean of time and face resistence by that in moving within it. This resistence is what we define as time, thus it is not uniform but localized. Those small stable particles tend to grew bigger and bigger while tavelling in the ocean of time particles by accumulating similar particles and thus our physical matter is formed.

There is one more type of entities exist in the ocean of time, that is particles of consciousness. It interacts with some specific type of physical matter and newly formed amalgamated entity is life. This life may exist in different varities and that depends on the ratio of the consciousness and physical matter in the unified entity.

So, basically what we see around us in the form of matter and space is nothing but time in different forms, with some of its portions amalgamated with consciousness. That is how different life forms like plants, animals, humans and even deities come into existence in different densities of time ocean.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 8:50 pm

Your question whether I believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect can be a rhetorical question because you are referring to your theory, but nonethelesse: generally I believe that I "am" or the world "is" or both: I "am" and the world "is". What really "is" is basically undecidable - scientifically and probably also philosophically. As I said:

Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 30, 2014 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 9:06 pm

It is possible that particles do not exist and that they are merely in the perception or cognition of the so called "human beings".

According to the current mathematicians it is possible that the time run forward and backward, according to the current mainstream physicists it is not possible, but perhaps the current mainstream physicists are wrong because the universe is huge.

If we think and talk about the universe and the time we should keep in mind what that actually means, shouldn't we?
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 30, 2014 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 30, 2014 9:18 pm

Arminius wrote:Your question whether I believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect can be a rhetorical question because you are referring to your theory, but nonethelesse: generally I believe that I "am" or the world "is" or both: I "am" and the world "is". What really "is" is basically undecidable - scientifically and probably also philosophically.

No, I wasn't referring to my theory. I was asking if there can be anything that YOU would say exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect. I am talking about the concepts of having affect and existence, not anyone's theory.

And to say that "what is, is undecidable" or unknowable, seems a strange thing to claim. I happen to know otherwise, but realize that everything we "know" is actually just a naming of things. And you are saying that we can't even name it. That just seems odd.

But my question is simply, "Would you ever say that a thing exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect?"


zinnat13 wrote:Basic concept is something like that-

I see this universe made of infinitely small but unstable particles of time, which roam here and there, in all directions. Then, they slowly start forming some unstable and small congestions, which ultimately converts themselves into slightly bigger (yet very small) stable particles.

Now, these small stable particles use to float into the ocean of time and face resistence by that in moving within it. This resistence is what we define as time, thus it is not uniform but localized. Those small stable particles tend to grew bigger and bigger while tavelling in the ocean of time particles by accumulating similar particles and thus our physical matter is formed.

There is one more type of entities exist in the ocean of time, that is particles of consciousness. It interacts with some specific type of physical matter and newly formed amalgamated entity is life. This life may exist in different varities and that depends on the ratio of the consciousness and physical matter in the unified entity.

So, basically what we see around us in the form of matter and space is nothing but time in different forms, with some of its portions amalgamated with consciousness. That is how different life forms like plants, animals, humans and even deities come into existence in different densities of time ocean.

:lol: Well, that is more than just a little familiar. But a few concerns;

) First, just an issue of language, you can't use both "particle" and "infinitely small" to refer to the same thing. "Particle" implies size. You can say that it is "almost infinitely small" as the Quantum Magi do. In their ontology, their "particles of space" are 10^-31 meters (almost infinitely small to us). Or if you mean that it can truly be infinitely small, then it is a "linear substance" or a "property", not a particle.

) So you are saying that in your ontology, there are two basic elements; time and consciousness, both infinitely divisible?

) But I have to ask why you are calling it "time". What about it makes it time rather than orange juice, pickles, beauty, or light?

) What is between the "particles of time"?

) You have this time-substance/particle congesting, which means that you have "time-density" that varies from place to place. What makes it move? Why does it move?

) And you seem to have two definitions for "time"; a fundamental element and the resistance of that element moving within an ocean of itself.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 10:00 pm

I said it can be, not it must be a rhetorical question. And b.t.w.: I have nothing against your theory.

Everything we "know" is actually just a naming of things, that is what I say too. But we are talking about the problem of the subject/object dualism or dichotomy, and we know not very much about the solution of that problem, but we name it. I am not saying that we "can't even name it". We should name it, we have to name it - that is what I am saying. If we say "what is, is undecidable", we do not say "what is, is not nameable". That's not the same.

Your question: Do you believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect?
I have answered that question with the following words:


And I have never said that we can not name anything. Never. I love linguistics very much, so I would never say that we can or should not name anything.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 30, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 30, 2014 10:06 pm

Arminius wrote:If we say "what is, is undecidable", we do not say "what is, is not nameable". That's not the same.

Well, I think those really are the same, but my real concern is why you think it is not decidable, "indiscernible". I say that it is.


So are you arguing that no one can ever know anything with absolute certainty?
Is that what this is about?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 10:40 pm

I am arguing that no one can ever know anything with absolute certainty, and because of the subject/object dualism as a problem which probably can not be solved, we can even not know with absolute certainty whether the subject(s) and object(s) exist or not and what they mean. But if we do not name them, we have no chance to come closer to any solution of all scientifical and philosophical problems.

And b.t.w.: If we do not name them, we would be no human beings anymore.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 30, 2014 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 30, 2014 10:43 pm

Can you know with certainty what you think?
When you say or think "box", do you know for with absolute certainty what it is that you are talking or thinking about? And I am not asking if the box exists. I am only asking if you know your intended concept?

And also, can you know with certainty that "A is A"?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri May 30, 2014 11:05 pm

James S Saint wrote:Can you know with certainty what you think?
When you say or think "box", do you know for with absolute certainty what it is that you are talking or thinking about? And I am not asking if the box exists. I am only asking if you know your intended concept?

And also, can you know with certainty that "A is A"?

Can you? :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat May 31, 2014 12:34 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Can you know with certainty what you think?
When you say or think "box", do you know for with absolute certainty what it is that you are talking or thinking about? And I am not asking if the box exists. I am only asking if you know your intended concept?

And also, can you know with certainty that "A is A"?

Can you? :)

That kind of response doesn't help. I need YOUR answer.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat May 31, 2014 12:51 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Can you know with certainty what you think?
When you say or think "box", do you know for with absolute certainty what it is that you are talking or thinking about? And I am not asking if the box exists. I am only asking if you know your intended concept?

And also, can you know with certainty that "A is A"?

Can you? :)

That kind of response doesn't help. I need YOUR answer.

You do not need my answer, James, because you probably know the answer, whether one can know with certainty what one thinks, what it is one is thinking about, and that "A is A". Right? :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat May 31, 2014 3:54 am

Then I guess it all goes back to my question of whether you meant whether a single individual can know or people throughout society can know. Those who don't find out how to know will never know whether anyone else ever found out how to know and thus remain in their doubt and dream until someone wakes them up.

Some people just don't care enough to find out.
No one is more blind that he who wills to not see.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby zinnat » Sat May 31, 2014 8:45 am

James S Saint wrote:Well, that is more than just a little familiar. But a few concerns;


Yes, it is because i included your concept of RM ( not AO ) in it as i found it quite useful in explaning the formation of particles.

James S Saint wrote:First, just an issue of language, you can't use both "particle" and "infinitely small" to refer to the same thing. "Particle" implies size. You can say that it is "almost infinitely small" as the Quantum Magi do. In their ontology, their "particles of space" are 10^-31 meters (almost infinitely small to us). Or if you mean that it can truly be infinitely small, then it is a "linear substance" or a "property", not a particle.


Yes, you are right as my language is somewhat confusing becasue i do not have any proper name for Infinitely small Particles ( not particles yet ). They are almost in the state of concept or property (metaphysical level).

To be more precise, it is the concept of Will that forms the basic structure for the existence of physical matter. To me, will and time are the same things. When one will comes in the way of another will, both tend to face resistense and delay. That is what time is. Will is omnipresent. It is some sort of the radiation that consciousness use to omit in initial phase.

Actually, there is no space but timespread or willspread only.

If we move one more step backwords from this stage of time (will) and consciusness, there would a stage when all those would be one. That would be the stage of perfect unentropy, no changing at all. But, something happened and some chunk of consciousness saperated from the mother part and its will scattered all around, leaving some of pure consciousness behind roaming in the ocean of will/time.

Scripures describe this moment as - Let there be light.

James S Saint wrote:So you are saying that in your ontology, there are two basic elements; time and consciousness, both infinitely divisible


No, there are limits, though technically only.

For time (will) the will to exist is the lower limit, because without it, it can neither maintain its existense nor manifest anything else. Everything else is built upon this primary will to exist.

I am not sure about the consciusness but my assumption is that there must be some fixed lower limit also for it.

James S Saint wrote:) But I have to ask why you are calling it "time". What about it makes it time rather than orange juice, pickles, beauty, or light?


For others recognition. After all, we have to name it.

James S Saint wrote:What is between the "particles of time"?


Nothing. Time/will is omnipresent because it is a concept and starts from the metaphysical level and then converts itself into physical form.

James S Saint wrote:You have this time-substance/particle congesting, which means that you have "time-density" that varies from place to place. What makes it move? Why does it move?


Yes, time-density varies from place to place and i think that is necessary to form a complete ontology.

It moves because of its very nature. As time starts from the will at metaphysical level, thus it cannot be stable even for a moment. Its energy is eternal. The perfect example is our mind. It cannot stop itself from willing (thinking), no matter how hard we try.

It is what it is and so the consciousness. We cannot deduct it further.

James S Saint wrote:) And you seem to have two definitions for "time"; a fundamental element and the resistance of that element moving within an ocean of itself.


Yes, that is true.

Actually, fundamental metaphysical elemant is will, not time. Time is merely our mental construct or measurement issue and comes into existence when two different wills interact and face resistence by each other.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat May 31, 2014 2:14 pm

James S Saint wrote:Then I guess it all goes back to my question of whether you meant whether a single individual can know or people throughout society can know.

Your guess is wrong.

James S Saint wrote:Those who don't find out how to know will never know whether anyone else ever found out how to know and thus remain in their doubt and dream until someone wakes them up. Some people just don't care enough to find out.
No one is more blind that he who wills to not see.

That is right.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users