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 » Sat May 31, 2014 2:20 pm

Do you know whether there is symmetry of time in our universe or not?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby phyllo » Sat May 31, 2014 2:25 pm

Have you ever observed time symmetry?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10743
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat May 31, 2014 2:48 pm

Have you ever observed time symmetry, Phyllo?

And have you ever been to other places outside of the planet Earth, Phyllo and the other members of this forum?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby phyllo » Sat May 31, 2014 6:18 pm

Have you ever observed time symmetry, Phyllo?
I don't think so. I honestly don't know what it would look like.

Why ask me the question? You are proposing it, so you should have a reason why you think it exists. A reason like ... you, or someone else, has seen it.
And have you ever been to other places outside of the planet Earth, Phyllo and the other members of this forum?
No . And I don't need to go outside of the planet Earth. What you are proposing is contrary to one of the principles of physics - which is :
We do not occupy a privileged position in the universe.

IOW, physics operates the same everywhere.

We can't prove it but without that principle, there is no possibility of knowledge about anything : everything which is observed could just be a local anomaly.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10743
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat May 31, 2014 7:50 pm

Arminius wrote:Do you know whether there is symmetry of time in our universe or not?

I thought that I made it pretty clear that I know that time cannot run backwards. I can know it as an absolute fact because it is merely a logic issue.

Time, Distance, Mass, and Energy are things that cannot have a negative value except with respect to an arbitrarily chosen standard.

Time is the measure of change. There cannot be negative amount of change, only a negative-direction of change.
Distance is the measure of immediateness of spacial contact. There can be no negative immediateness of contact.
Mass is a measure of existence. There can be no negative existence.
Energy is the measure of ability to cause change. There can be no negative of the ability to cause change.

Each of those have a range of zero upward to more. None can have a negative, from zero to less than zero.

There cannot be a less than zero;
Change,
Immediateness of contact,
Existence, nor
Ability to cause change.

Reversal of time could be crudely simulated by reversing the direction of motion of some items of concern. A ball rolling "forward" could be reversed such as to roll "backward" instead. The spacial direction of motion, vector, can be reversed for specifically chosen objects. That would give the appearance of motion moving backward as long as someone knew of a "forward" with which to compare it. But it is limited to the chosen objects and their situation.

Time can be circled such as to advance objects in spacial directions that lead to their return to a prior state that can then be called "a state of history". Chosen situations can be returned to a prior state. But their prior state cannot automatically advance to yet a pre-prior state in most cases due to the combinatorial effects of interaction.

Because there is no negative mass, there can be no negative gravity (mass and gravity being essentially the same thing). Thus an object such as a meteor being affected by gravity and striking the Earth could be given a reversed vector, but will not be able to find or maintain its prior course. The following situation cannot be reversed. Reflecting the photon will not cause the photon to reverse its path.
Image

Logic is omnipresent and omnipotent. It applies to all of reality regardless of location. So you could be teleported 1000 trillion light-years away and logic would still apply and still demand all of the same "laws of physics". A totally blind, deaf mute bestowed with logic and enough intelligence can discern the laws of physics without the slightest observation of them. If he was teleported far away and inside a steel vessel with no portals or outside measuring devices, he could still tell you a great many things that would necessarily be true about what was outside the vessel.

And that is the situation of every mind. It is inside a vessel from which it must deduce what is outside the vessel. The sensory ability it has merely reports on the current situation, not the eternal laws governing it. Those senses can be flawed and thus cause a misrepresentation of his current situation. But if his logic ability is not flawed, he will still know the laws of physics - "God is within you", but cannot be seen, merely known.

The Gordian Knot can be untied from within. In the film The Matrix, the superhero, Neo working for the Zionists, defeated the evil System agents by revealing "the light of God" from within them, "The Light of Logic".
Last edited by James S Saint on Sat May 31, 2014 9:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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 James S Saint » Sat May 31, 2014 8:48 pm

In short, you can change the location and directions of things, but you cannot change what they essentially are. What they are is what causes them to automatically change their locations and directions. Thus as long as things are what they essentially are (such as mass and energy), their automatic directions and locations will be determined in the same way as always. And that is what someone calls "Forward" or "Advanced" or the "Arrow of Time".

And no universe can exist without mass and/or energy as its fundamental elements (although named a variety of things, such as "body" and "will").
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 James S Saint » Sat May 31, 2014 8:59 pm

zinnat13 wrote: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.

You are reflecting both Schopenhauer and Fixed Cross's ontology (mixed with elements of RM:AO). FC calls it "self-valuing". Schopenhauer called it "Will". It is an ancient ontological concept. And the issue with all of such onologies is that they do not distinguish "intent", the distinction between living will and unwillful action. So define "intent" in your ontology, else you will be merely recreating an ancient, less useful, ontology.

But you cannot conflate the concept of time with that of will. Time is the actual difference between states whereas will is the cause of that difference. Don't conflate a cause with its effect.
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 9:49 pm

I know your theory quite well, but not in any detail. So please explain for all members of this forum what the following picture illustrates, what "photon path" exactly means, what "affectance gradient" exactly means, what "infinite mass" exactly means, and what "light fall" exactkly means:

Image

B.t.w.: For physicists, the time asymmetry is in the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, thus: in the entropy.
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 10:24 pm

Arminius wrote:B.t.w.: For physicists, the time asymmetry is in the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, thus: in the entropy.

And just as entropy is not universal in that it can be and often is defeated (by every subatomic particle), the Second "Law" of Thermodynamics isn't a universal "Law", merely a tendency and most common occurrence. But "time symmetry" requires more than merely defeating entropy.

Arminius wrote:I know your theory quite well [I haven't confirmed that], but not in any detail. So please explain for all members of this forum what the following picture illustrates, what "photon path" exactly means, what "affectance gradient" exactly means, what "infinite mass" exactly means, and what "light fall" exactly means:

Image


Photon ≡ an amount of radiant electromagnetic radiation.
Photon Path ≡ the sequence of spatial locations of a photon through time.
Affectance Gradient ≡ a variation in affectance field density, "a gravity field".
Infinite Mass ≡ maximum density of changing affects, maximum affectance density (although never actually infinite).
Light Fall ≡ the path of a photon as affected by an affectance gradient, gravity.

The anime is an emulation of a photon's reaction to a gravity field immediately surrounding it associated with an immensely strong concentration of "mass" (location of high affectance density). Note that the light, the photon, does not maintain a straight path (as noted in astrophysics, "the lensing effect"). Note that the speed of the light is also affected such as to come to nearly a complete stop (would be a complete stop if the mass were truly infinite).

The direction and speed of light is not constant in a gravity field. And then because a gravity gradient cannot be reversed, the path traveled cannot be reversed.

The speed of light can only be observed as a constant (Theory of Relativity) as long as the observer is within the same constant field as the light. And a constant affectance field cannot be obtained if there is a mass within the field. The Theory of Relativity is relative to the scale and completeness of the observation.
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 10:57 pm

Why can a gravity gradient not be reversed? And why can a path not be reversed?
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 11:30 pm

Arminius wrote:Why can a gravity gradient not be reversed?

Again, in a limited way, one could reverse the direction of the gradient, but not what gravity is. True anti-gravity is a logical impossibility that would require negative existence (less than being non-existent).

And since mass accumulates in 3D spherical concentrations, the "reverse" direction for its gradient is that of being greater outside the spherical mass and less inside. One would have to arrange for the surrounding "space" of a particle to be the accumulation of affectance (the mass or solid) and the particle to be the lack of mass within that solid, exchanging space and mass. That would require that space (nothingness) automatically accumulated (hence having affect yet being nothing = no affect) and dispersed mass (somethingness = affect). And that would require that when two quantities of affect added, their sum was less that either of them (the reversal of absolute zero with absolute infinity, "2+2=0 and 2-2=4"). The result of that is that the distances would add to be less than the original distance.

Geometrically, it would mean that you have to have the outside of a box smaller than the inside of that box in order to reverse time, which is why they have that effect in the Dr Who TV time travel series.

But even with that magically arranged, the photon would still not follow a reversed course. If reflected exactly, the photon would leave the (formerly) massive object and bend upward into the (formerly) space vertically, not along the originally horizontal path. It would require the reversal of "A is A" including "vertical is horizontal" and "forward is backward". But vertical and horizontal are not the only directions. With which do you reverse "far and near" (the Z-axis)?

Everything actually doesn't have an opposite, despite popular propaganda. A truly negative universe cannot be arranged. Negative is opposite direction of positive, but not equally opposite affect. And the Higgs theory (of opposites) is a fallacious ontology.
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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:33 am

So, should we "close" this thread? I mean: what you said in your last post is not new - I know -, but this thread should enable something like a discussion, but if the question, whether there is an asymmetric time, allows only one answer, then we can "close" this thread, can't we?

This is a philosophy forum, and philosophy - as well as mathematics - has no limits of thought, no thinking borders .... Probably I am as well a rational human being as you are, but I am not generally against the so called "irrationality" because irrationality has often been changed into rationality since the beginning of thinking. Is the proposition that asymmetric time is possible really absolutely irrational?
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:43 am, 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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:42 am

Arminius wrote: Is the proposition that asymmetric time is possible really absolutely irrational?

Yes. And that is why the closing of the thread doesn't make sense.

I am proposing arguments concerning the absolute necessity of "time asymmetry" (as it has been defined), but you are basically just say, "yeah maybe.. maybe not". You don't appear to be looking to see what, if anything, I have over looked in the logic, but rather merely saying that maybe I have.

If I am possibly in error on some point, other than the conclusion, where is that error? And if not, then there should be no remaining "maybe" question about it. Yet you keep expressing a "maybe".
Last edited by James S Saint on Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 James S Saint » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:42 am

..
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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:52 am

James S Saint wrote:Yet you keep expressing a "maybe".

Yes, James ..., but ... why not?

I think a thread with the topic "Universe and Time" requires straightforwardly a "maybe" when it caomes to talk about the possibility of time
symmetry or the negation of the time arrow and so on.

Do you not think so?
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Jun 01, 2014 3:13 am, 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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:56 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Yet you keep expressing a "maybe".

Yes, James ..., but ... why not?

I think a thread with the topic "Universe and Time" requires straightforwardly a "maybe" when it caomes to talk about the possibility of time
asymmetry or the negation of the time arrow and so on.

Do you not think so?

Once you include Logic, "possibilities" become very limited. If you want to fantasize about magical, fun things, then leave logic out of it. It is a question of whether one is pursuing philosophy or fantasy.
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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:28 am

A scientist can never say: "I have finished my work". A "scientist" who says that is no scientist.

This thread has many scientific dues, but also many philosphical dues. Therefore a "maybe" is not generally wrong or false, besides: the probability indicates this too.
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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:02 am

Arminius wrote:A scientist can never say: "I have finished my work". A "scientist" who says that is no scientist.

This thread has many scientific dues, but also many philosphical dues. Therefore a "maybe" is not generally wrong or false, besides: the probability indicates this too.

The scientist who refuses certainty of what he has done (properly) can never understand the complexities of reality. Understanding is built up from one certainty to another to another. The questions should always be at the top of a mountain of certainties, else the top of the uncertainties will be nothing but so uncertain as to be not worthy of building upon. Clouds just produce more clouds, not mountains. But a scientist is not a philosopher, merely a technician.

If you have a confidence level of 80% for each of 20 dependent issues, what is your confidence of the conclusion concerning the issue?

0.80^20 = 0.011529% probability of being right.

If one is not willing to find certainty and build upon it, one never finds confidence nor courage.
And if one builds upon mere probability of being right, one will be very probably wrong before long.
Slaves are made out of the doubtful.
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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:41 am

James S Saint wrote:The scientist who refuses certainty of what he has done (properly) can never understand the complexities of reality. Understanding is built up from one certainty to another to another. The questions should always be at the top of a mountain of certainties, else the top of the uncertainties will be nothing but so uncertain as to be not worthy of building upon. Clouds just produce more clouds, not mountains. But a scientist is not a philosopher, merely a technician.

If you have a confidence level of 80% for each of 20 dependent issues, what is your confidence of the conclusion concerning the issue?

0.80^20 = 0.011529% probability of being right.

If one is not willing to find certainty and build upon it, one never finds confidence nor courage.
And if one builds upon mere probability of being right, one will be very probably wrong before long.
Slaves are made out of the doubtful.

So you are saying that scientists are slaves. Okay, maybe (ah: „maybe“ again :) ) you are right.

But scientists want to find certainty - as well as capitalists want a monopoly -, but they can't find certainty because they are scientists, and only few of them find certainty, but when they have found it they are no longer scientists, but bought slaves. For comparision: only few capitalists catch a monopoly, but when they have caught it they are no longer capitalists, but communists, socialists, globalists - because they have no competition, rivalry anymore.
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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:03 am

Arminius wrote:But scientists want to find certainty - as well as capitalists want a monopoly -,

And the poor want to find wealth. But what do you think is really keeping them from it?

From a poor foundation, only a poor building can rise.
From a weak under-standing, only a weak standing can be formed.

Arminius wrote: but they can't find certainty because they are scientists, and only few of them find certainty, but when they have found it they are no longer scientists, but bought slaves.

I have yet to hear of one who found certainty, merely high confidence. And again even at 90% confidence;
0.90^ 20 = 0.121576% probability of being right.

If one is careless enough to begin with anything but 100% certainty, one is highly unlikely to reach the height required to stave off the horde of doubt and chaos. Of course most scientists are really all that concerned about being right as much as appearing right enough to get payment and/or glory.

Arminius wrote:For comparision: only few capitalists catch a monopoly, but when they have caught it they are no longer capitalists, but communists, socialists, globalists - because they have no competition, rivalry anymore.

That depends on what they do with it. Because they didn't seek absolute certainty of understanding, what they do with it stands an extreme probability of being the wrong thing.
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 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:47 am

James S Saint wrote:
zinnat13 wrote: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.

You are reflecting both Schopenhauer and Fixed Cross's ontology (mixed with elements of RM:AO). FC calls it "self-valuing". Schopenhauer called it "Will". It is an ancient ontological concept. And the issue with all of such onologies is that they do not distinguish "intent", the distinction between living will and unwillful action. So define "intent" in your ontology, else you will be merely recreating an ancient, less useful, ontology.

But you cannot conflate the concept of time with that of will. Time is the actual difference between states whereas will is the cause of that difference. Don't conflate a cause with its effect.


It was not Schopenhauer that originated this concept but he borrowed it from Hinduism through Upnisads.
It is slightly different from FC's ontology of self valuing, for the simple reason that FC's concept of self valuing is very subjective, while Hinduism visualizes will as objective also.

FC's N says will to power but Hinduism says power to will. It is not merely a linguistic issue but the question of deciding the basic nature of the will.

FC says - Get power through willingness. It is a straight line and infinite process, without any control.
Hinduism says - Get control on your willlingness. Do not be its slave but master it.

And, that changes all. And, that is precisely the difference between N and Buddha. One says acuumulate as much as you can while the other says let go as much as you can. One says change the ambient according to you, while the other says change yourself according to the ambient.

Secondly, at the metaphysical level, there cannot be anyting but will only. It is one of those concepts that cannot be logically challenged ( without an alternative, as you always put it).

For a will to exist, firstly and lastly too, it must have will to exist. Then, this will would have two alternatives only. First alternative would be to maintain the status quo, means there would be nothing else except the will to exist only. It does not want any change but just to remain in existence. This is the state of perfect unentropy; The Eternity (nothing changes).

The second option would be to berak away from the status quo and will for something more than mere existence. There cannot be any third option. So, as soon as the will wills to change, entropy takes a start. From hereon, RM can take the baton and can explain the formation of small and large particles from the metaphysical concept of will to change. Different particles would be formed but still all that manifestation of this universe is nothing but trandformed will to change into different shapes.

That is why all religions say that this world is not real but illusion. That is technically true but it is also true that it is for real as far as we are in it. To move out from it ( realize and eliminate all wills except to exist) is enlightenment.

Schopenhauer had only a broad idea of this subtle concept and was not gone deep enough. He was not wrong but incomplete.

Thirdly, comes the question of consciousness. I do not think Schopenhauer got it in its entirety, though he had some glimples of it for sure. Without taking a saperate feeling entity other pure will, ontology cannot be completed. It cannot explain what we call life. If complexity was the only cause of consciousness, this universe would have been evolved differently. Big stars, white dwarfs and black holes would have been evolved as life forms instead of small manifestaions like humans, animals or even ameabas. Logically, odds are in the favor of that but that did not happened. That is what pursuaded ancient thinkers to look to alternative explanations.

To create life, we need something extra than mere will to change (complexity). That is why i repeatedly said that there cannot be any AI ever. A will cannot feel by itself. A large planet like earth is also a manifestation of will and so the humans. But, we feel while planets cannot. We need something extra to complete the sequence.

And James, it is not mere a theory. It can be varifed at personal level.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:35 am

zinnat13 wrote:It was not Schopenhauer that originated this concept but he borrowed it from Hinduism through Upnisads.
It is slightly different from FC's ontology of self valuing, for the simple reason that FC's concept of self valuing is very subjective, while Hinduism visualizes will as objective also.

FC's N says will to power but Hinduism says power to will. It is not merely a linguistic issue but the question of deciding the basic nature of the will.

FC says - Get power through willingness. It is a straight line and infinite process, without any control.
Hinduism says - Get control on your willlingness. Do not be its slave but master it.

I am not saying that the entire ontology is the same. I am saying that the one thing that you are calling "will" is what Schopenhauer called "will" and what FC calls "self-valuing". And I am aware that the Hindu's were saying the same thing much earlier.

But still, if you do not distinguish between inanimate action and living will, you will merely be repeating ancient ontologies.

zinnat13 wrote:Secondly, at the metaphysical level, there cannot be anyting but will only [in your ontology]. It is one of those concepts that cannot be logically challenged ( without an alternative, as you always put it).

I can challenge it. The Potential-to-Affect, PtA, can exist without the will (or action) for it to exist. In fact, PtA doesn't have to do anything in order to exist. It is something that cannot be avoided.

zinnat13 wrote:For a will to exist, firstly and lastly too, it must have will to exist.

Then it IS the will to exist. That could be said to be the "effort to exist".

zinnat13 wrote:Then, this will would have two alternatives only. First alternative would be to maintain the status quo, means there would be nothing else except the will to exist only. It does not want any change but just to remain in existence. This is the state of perfect unentropy; The Eternity (nothing changes).

The second option would be to break away from the status quo and will for something more than mere existence.

So now, you have not merely the will to exist, but a different will to do something else. Where did that come from? And how is the decision being made whether to will for something else or not? What causes the decision to go one way and not the other?

zinnat13 wrote:Thirdly, comes the question of consciousness. I do not think Schopenhauer got it in its entirety, though he had some glimpses of it for sure. Without taking a separate feeling entity other pure will, ontology cannot be completed. It cannot explain what we call life. If complexity was the only cause of consciousness, this universe would have been evolved differently. Big stars, white dwarfs and black holes would have been evolved as life forms instead of small manifestations like humans, animals or even amoebas. Logically, odds are in the favor of that but that did not happened. That is what persuaded ancient thinkers to look to alternative explanations.

To create life, we need something extra than mere will to change (complexity). That is why i repeatedly said that there cannot be any AI ever. A will cannot feel by itself. A large planet like earth is also a manifestation of will and so the humans. But, we feel while planets cannot. We need something extra to complete the sequence.

When man did not understand flight, he defaulted to believing that only what already could fly is all that could ever fly, certainly not machines. The same is true of "consciousness". Until you understand consciousness, you just default to the belief that only living things can be conscious.

I can easily give consciousness to an AI.

zinnat13 wrote:And James, it is not mere a theory. It can be verified at personal level.

I'm not so certain of that. I verified mine by having a computer emulate only the fundamentals. It ended up producing all of physics without me having to tell it anything about physics. I don't think that you can do that, or not yet anyway.

You are going to have to define consciousness if you are going to have it as a fundamental element in an ontology.
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 Fixed Cross » Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:54 pm

Zinnat, what you call consciousness is what I call valuing.
But what Nietzsche calls will to power is what I call self-valuing.

By the way, Nietzsche's will to power means the will to power to will to power to will to power to will, etc.
His concept seems to include yours.
A new day, new dawn.../A grasshopper jumps and makes /The fresh dew scatter
- Pezer
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7640
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Universe and Time

Postby zinnat » Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:56 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Zinnat, what you call consciousness is what I call valuing.


I have talked about Will only yet in this thread, not consciousness. That would be entirely different than will.
Please look for my next post to James regarding my defenition of consciousness.

Fixed Cross wrote:But what Nietzsche calls will to power is what I call self-valuing.


Yes, i am aware of that.

Fixed Cross wrote:By the way, Nietzsche's will to power means the will to power to will to power to will to power to will, etc.


I am aware of that too but that is your interpretation of N, not mine.
To me, he was not generalizing Will but emphasizing at a particular subjective use.
If that was not the case, there was no need for him to present his premise of will to power as an alternate or amendment of S's premise of will to exist.

N chose his words very carefully to underline his intent.

I can see that through his words, tone and chosen subjects. He wanted to counter nihilism and pessimism, spreaded in that era.

Fixed Cross wrote:His concept seems to include yours.


Well, that is again your interpretation.
N was not interested in metaphysics at all and his will to power was merely psycological premise for him.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby zinnat » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:35 pm

James S Saint wrote:But still, if you do not distinguish between inanimate action and living will, you will merely be repeating ancient ontologies.


I may be repeating ancient ontologies but still there is clear cut distinction between a living will and a non-living will. And, the simple difference between the two is interacting ability with consciousness.
There are some forms of matter which are consciousness ready while some are not.
The second distinction between the two is that consciousness ready forms of matter have the capacity to evolve and reproduce on their own (animals, plants etc).

James S Saint wrote:I can challenge it. The Potential-to-Affect, PtA, can exist without the will (or action) for it to exist. In fact, PtA doesn't have to do anything in order to exist. It is something that cannot be avoided.


James, here you are talking about the scenario before the existence. According to me, that is the stage where consciousness and will are one, not saperated. Willingness (potential to will or affect) was hidden in the joint entity as a possibility, but not manifested yet.

James S Saint wrote:Then it IS the will to exist. That could be said to be the "effort to exist".


Yes, one can say so.

James S Saint wrote:So now, you have not merely the will to exist, but a different will to do something else


Yes. But, at the conceptual level, it is still will.

James S Saint wrote:Where did that come from


From that very source, from where the very first will (will to exist ) comes.

James S Saint wrote:And how is the decision being made whether to will for something else or not? What causes the decision to go one way and not the other?


I struggled with this very question for years.
In simple language, this is a very common question that atheists use to ask to theists -
Why your wise God made such a hell like this?

But, you helped me to find the answer via RM.

Will to change is the condensed or evolved form of will to exist.

First of all, there was no will in the unified entity of will and consciousness, and will was hidden there as a possibility in consciousness(PTA). It was perfect unentropy but entropy was initiated within some part of it. Means, some part of consciousness lost some of its potential (density) becasue of the release of the will to exist.

Now, that particular less dense part of the consciousness became a negative particle within the ambient and unimately broke away from the mother entity. Then, as it comes it open now, and there was nothing in its surrounding ambient, thus, it had no option but to release its all potential (willingness), till only pure consciousness remains, because it cannot be deduced further.

Thus, this all released willingness create a ocean of wills, having some pure particles of consciousness floating in it, and serves as a foundation for the further manifestaion of both living anf non-living forms. There are all types of will present in this ocean. They interact with each other and pave the way for more and more complex wills (again as per RM).

James S Saint wrote:When man did not understand flight, he defaulted to believing that only what already could fly is all that could ever fly, certainly not machines. The same is true of "consciousness". Until you understand consciousness, you just default to the belief that only living things can be conscious.


James, i am not a person of blind faith but always open to amendment and change for something better.
And, i think that i understand you concept of consciousness also.

James S Saint wrote:I can easily give consciousness to an AI.


Not possible, at least how i define consciousness.

James S Saint wrote:I'm not so certain of that


But,i am.

James S Saint wrote:I verified mine by having a computer emulate only the fundamentals. It ended up producing all of physics without me having to tell it anything about physics


I do not doubt you but believe what you are saying is true. Your computer may emulate physics.
The problem is that you are emualiting only physics in computer, not life. The formation is life very distant from that stage and if you ever come close to emulate something Life-ready complex particle, you will realize for sure that something is missing. Life is not going to be manifested from all that.

James S Saint wrote:I don't think that you can do that, or not yet anyway.


To some extent, yes.

James S Saint wrote:You are going to have to define consciousness if you are going to have it as a fundamental element in an ontology.


Yes, but in the next post.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users