Only the concept of time exists.

Can you expand on the nature of this “item”?

Most issues can be resolved when one stops thinking of time as something that “exists”.
Time is to exist.

Consciousness being the separation of a small piece of temporal flow that observes the rest of it.
Matter being a manifestation of temporality.

Space being possibility.

When you start thinking of time as something….something that then exists within something else or when you think of space as a substance or fabric then you fall into error.

Combinations of what?

Combination of numbers, or bits, or any item - entity that can be distinguished from another. A pure number - item in an abstract mental space. A pure measurement… everything we perceive is a sequence of measurements, numbers and comparisons between said measurements. At least according to the scientific - physics decoding of the world (and also a language with symbols mapping onto the comparisons ?)

2^N=M so a one bit universe with a number of time intervals (N) is equivalent to a universe with a number of bits (M) but only one time interval, hence no time (a frozen universe of combinations). Time can be converted into space and vice versa because they are both arbitrary concepts, only information and combinations exist.

I am not getting into the language - semantics complications of it all, but just trying to show that it seems that if we just view the universe as information - mathematics the entire deal is just a combination of numbers that can eventually be mapped onto any kind of decoding and encoding of this information into any kinds of categories desired; the combinations, group of bits, can be broken up or merged in any way possible.

check out:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=151880

sounds similar …

This is just an extrapolation of a universe as a series of bits just as a DVD contains 40 billion bits and can produce a 2 hour movie. This is the informational content, or measurements of the entire universe, or state space it can occupy. We are a small subset of bits of this number. The laws of physics are just a series of strong filters allowing mostly only the major combinations, but quantum physics kind of tells us that all the combinations are possible and do indeed exist.

The laws of physics seem to be simply the combinations that have the highest probability of being repeated. I think this view could be a better view of the many worlds theory of quantum physics since in a pure combinational view all the combinations exist, only that we find ourselves within a given combination. Odd but somehow related to the many worlds - infinite parallel universe theories …

But then again if all the combinations exist, we simply find ourselves in a quirk combination that seems to follow very strict laws, but these laws don’t really exist they are just a design or pattern or painting superimposed on a subset of the combination of bits.

I have already explained why time does not exist during my previous incarnation as Pinnacle of Reason

Time is change. When we say time changes, what we are really saying is that things have moved. for instance the clock shows time change by moving. in fact you can’t tell time has changed if nothing moved.

So movement is time. but time is not some abstract concept, it’s simply comparing movements against an absolute stationary object.

A wise man once asked a wiser man, “is it possible to step into the same river twice?” The wiser man, upon deliberating for many a slide show, answered, “ah, but I would question the idea of stepping into the same river ONCE.”

Time is a river. We are pebbles floating down the river of time. There is point A, the beginning, and point B, the end. Time is what fills the gap in between the transition periods, and ultimately what prevents A from being joined/merged/at one with B.

Therefore, one could argue that the purpose of time is to prevent the unison of matter and energy into one singular, thus recreating the ‘X’ which was in existence right before the big bang occurred.

:^o

HUH?

two of the primary tenents in kant’s epistemology are his proofs for space and time… for kant, space and time must exist to provide a playground for external events…

-Imp

What makes A different from B ? they can be transformed into each other mathematically, and you need an external observer that measures the difference between them. But are they really different ? It could go from B to A and it would be the same, only change is being measured. Why should any configuration tend to go to any other ? If they were merged they would be the same, but maybe they are the same anyway even if they “appear” different. Maybe our mind invents differences. The universe is a point like object for a large enough observer, the observer couldn’t see the detailed changes.

Our pain/pleasure - sensation circuits are the only thing that measures differences. A is equal to B in another reference system, hence no time…

Whenever I think a philosophical conversation is getting too fundamental (if there is such a thing) I get a humorous professor voice and say things like “But what is the isness of it? Or is it?”

It might be one of those occasions. Time itself is an important and interesting issue, but I cringe at boiling the universe down to one property. Because then I go back to . . . the universe.

No, space and time are inherent conditions to how WE see the world. They didn’t have to truly exist. At least that’s what I red, translations are really bad in here. I think that’s what he wrote though

that’s why they are goggles.

we must wear them according to kant or the external world (external to humans) cannot exist…

“… Kant argues that space and time are both pure forms of intuition and pure intuitions. They are pure forms of intuition because they must precede and structure all experience of individual outer objects and inner states; Kant tries to prove this by arguing that our conceptions of space and time cannot be derived from experience of objects, because any such experience presupposes the individuation of objects in space and/or time, and that although we can represent space or time as devoid of objects, we cannot represent any objects without representing space and/or time…”

rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5

-Imp

Yeah, but they don’t have to exist, in Kant. They are conditions to which we must submit ourselves to view the world. That’s why it’s the so called representations - the world isn’t time and space, but we must see it that way, in Kant’s view.

exactly. that’s why they are kant’s (must - irremovable) - (see - goggles)…

-Imp

Was refering to this. That metaphor was perfect, I would like to use that myself :stuck_out_tongue:

notice: "space and time must exist [size=125]to provide a playground for external events…[/size]

-Imp

“To” indicates purpose, not condition.

Well, the “exist” is arguable. “Exist” as in an absolute existance is wrong in Kant’s philosophy, the “Exist” as in exist to particulars (empiric beings) might work in that case, but that doesn’t look like Kant’s view, and I’d use another term or specify.

But that doesn’t really matter, I accidentally got us into a silly uninteresting discussion :stuck_out_tongue:

Purpose must exist to provide a playground for any possible thought. Hence first purpose, direction towards which you want to drive your thoughts, then thoughts, then space and time …

On the other hand any possible purpose or direction presupposes an event hence time and something transitioning from event to event, hence space, but all is perceived through pain/pleasure …

Then again pain/pleasure is always a measurement, a comparison between two distinct states, items. Everything we think, every purpose is based on judgements which are measurements which imply mathematics as the fundamental basis. So the real question is, is mathematics outside space and time ?

Can we think without constantly applying judgements and therefore measurements of quantities ?

Some “primitive” civilizations have a hard time grasping any concept of number. They usually laugh all the time and can barely understand the difference between one and two. This leads me to think that the real problem is to expain and understand why there really is any difference between one and two. How did the mind abstract the concepts of numbers, quantities and measurements ?

Another interesting aspect is that our mind, our categories and conceptual “quantizations”, as in fact language is a quantization of reality, similar to quantum mechanics, has the ability to constantly abstract from its constraints. So we can always look outside ourselves and notice how our thoughts tend towards a goal, how we are constantly measuring and judging the path said thoughts are following. We can constantly abstract from where we are.

Within the framework of the technological singularity, when we will modify our neural circuits, our mind circuits, then we can think maybe without quantities, without judgements and without even the constraints of time and space. These modified brains would no longer be a point along the concept of “scientific progress” or even history since they would no longer be measurable to anything done in the past. The whole concept of progress, increase of knowledge would become void. We will enter a universe of combinations, mind A is different from mind B, but there is no way to see both A and B since A + B would be different from either, the observer cannot observe itself entirely, the universe is actually a self referential observer, a bit like a mind talking to itself.