Universe and Time

I edited in a link, did you see it? I wrote that long ago (wasn’t my best), but I can go into any extreme of detail concerning any part of (I think).

"The Never End.

That is how your universe got here and how the other distant universes are forming. And as this universe dissipates from its initial explosion to become extremely thin in mass density, the whole process is already reoccurring elsewhere, fore the attraction effects never really stop - ever. Every new cluster of galaxies forms in its own vast segment of space from its own Big Bang. Infinity is a very, very large place.

It is all an eternal dynamic process that never began and will never end. The larger infinite beginningless and endless universe view is that of clouds forming until rain drops fall upon the surface of an endless ocean that in turn generates more clouds. Each splash is another Big Bang and to us, an entire universe." - JSS
To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time? Can you imagine that there is a reverse of cause and effect, so that there is at first the effect and at last the cause?

Somewhere in the universe there probably is such a reverse. The arrow of time is what we experience - perhaps wrongly experience -, and the arrow of time as the experienced asymmetric time violates the basic laws of physics. What’s wrong?

[list][list][list][list][list][list][list]1.) Our laws of physics,
2.) our experience of the arrow of time,
3.) our laws of mathematics,
4.) our thoughts,
5.) some of them,
6.) all of them,
7.) nothing.[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

No.

I would have to think about it more, but I’m pretty certain that there is no combination of changes that you could make that would cause a given state of the universe to roll backwards in time, even a small limited universe.

It is kind of an interesting problem, part of which would involve reversing the following;

To reverse that occurrence, one would have to reverse the vector of the photon and also reverse absolute infinity with absolute zero. The vacuum of space would become solid and mass would be a hole in that solid. And also if you did that, “2+2” would equal “0” and “2-2” would equal “4”. And that wouldn’t be a problem except for the fact that it would reverse distance addition. If you added the distance between A and B twice, you would have less distance than what is between A and B. And that would then require that you defy logic itself such that “A = !A”. And by making “A = !A”, the photon is everything but the photon. If the photon is everything but the photon, then the photon isn’t running backwards. But that is okay because running backwards is not running backwards (A=!A).

So in the long run, I suspect that an attempt to reverse time would reverse the attempt to reverse time and yield nothing.

Thus, no, I don’t believe that there can ever be any region of space wherein time is reversed. Logic cannot be used against itself (else it wasn’t logic to begin with). What we experience as the “real laws of physics” is the only possible way it can ever be anywhere at any time.

What is being called “The Arrow of Time” (whoever labeled it) is merely the effect of logic itself and can never be altered. But that is a slightly different issue than entropy reversal.

So I guess that means;
4.) our thoughts - is the problem. Once logic is fleshed out concerning physical existence, there is a total lack of alternatives. No universe can be any other way (except its current state, which must always be different).

Interesting, James. But if our thoughts are merely the problem, then it is difficult to say, that our laws of physics and especially our laws of mathematics are no problem because laws of physics and laws of mathematics are products of our thoughts, and we really don’t know with safety whether the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics reflect the realitiy or not and whether the reality is “really” real or not. :exclamation: :-k :bulb:

We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept “In-der-Welt-Sein” (“To-Be-in-the-World”) as an existential of human beings’ “Dasein”, as a human existence in the world.

Sounds like a good reason to get “our thoughts” in order, doesn’t it? :sunglasses:

If you get the thoughts straight (form a consistent, comprehensive, and relevant ontology), the proposed laws of logic, mathematics, and physics will be the accurate laws of logic, mathematics, and physics, right? But if you merely got the laws of physics right, how would you know if your thoughts are still eschewed? And the thoughts being eschewed leaves you with not even knowing whether the laws were right. You end up searching past what you were looking for.

Heidegger was a serious thinker (despite looking like a demonic psychiatrist). I’ll give him that credit along with many of that era, but with a little perspective, you have to realize that they were “breaking ground” and not entirely coherent yet in their thoughts. The object/subject dualism is not really a very complicated issue to resolve and is actually a bit irrelevant other than removing potential confusion concerning what is really going on. Once one gets his thoughts straight on what the conscious mind is and fundamentally how it works, it becomes sort of an “Oh okay, no big deal”. The fantasies of days past fade into memories of youthful, misguided musings, (“womanly”).

For example, Einstein described time as “how fast one clock turns relative to another”. That is more or less right but can be a little misleading. Time doesn’t really have anything to do with what clocks do or don’t do. He could have said that “time is the measure of relative change”. That is a more fundamental and universal truth. But no doubt, the question was relatively new to him and his response was understandable and not really wrong, just not totally precise - yet.

It seems that the world wants to stop all thought at the “enlightenment era” as though all truth to be found was found and is irrefutable, “YOU can’t know anything THEY didn’t already know!!”. Well sorry, but “Homey don’t play that game”. They were in an “Enlighten-ing Era” but never really woke up before wandering off into dreams and fantasies of world conquest and are now dreaming of their glory - “day-dreaming” as the evening fades to night.

Get the thoughts straight (a proper ontology) and everything gets straight (and pretty quickly).

I beg to differ slightly, James.

You are giving the impression that the change predates time but i see it otherwise.
As far as i am able to think, no event can take place without time being existed in the first place.
I see time as a form of matter, while your concept of time is totally imaginary because it exists only in our mind, not in real world.

What we see aound as as space is time, in different densities, both materialized and unmaterialized, and that includes the dark matter too.

with love,
sanjay

…[size=85]love to make them beg[/size]… :evilfun:

No. 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”. The amount of difference in changes occurs at the same moment as the changes occur.

Well, make a coherent ontology out of that, and I will consider its usefulness. :sunglasses:

I agree with that.

I agree with that too but with one caveat.

This MCR is not uniform or fixed accross the universe but tends to differ according to the density of time particles in that particular zone. As a submarine has to put more energy in denser water to move forward than thinner water, in the same way, events tend to take more time to happen in denser time zone than thinner time zone.

It menas that if there would be any inhabitance in the universe, except earth, in any such planet, which mass is 100 times to the earth ( quite possible), or even moving 100 times more speed than the earth in its orbit ( again possible), events would have to happen quite slowly there to our perception. In other words, we can also say that if someones like humans would be living there, their life span may be easily 10 mines more than us, if not 100 times more.

That is precisely what happens to a space traveller in a very fast moving spaceship. As he his moving very fast, thus he has to go trough manytime more time particles than a person on the earth, and his life becomes slow than others.

with love,
sanjay

The object/subject dualism is not really a very complicated issue to resolve?

That “MCR” doesn’t ever change with the density of any water. It is 100% “uniform”, “universal”.
And there is no such thing as a “particle of time”.

It would take a whole lot more than merely 100 times, but yeah, they would appear to us differently than we would appear to them. But the speed of the relative entropy (aging) might not change at all, or it might. That is actually a different issue. Time =/= Entropy.

That’s not really why.

?? Do you think it is??

I think the subject/object dualism is one of the fundamental problems. Heidegger as the last great philosopher tried to overcome the problem with his „Existenz(ial)-Ontologie“ („existenc[e]ial ontology“), also called „Fundamentalontologie“ („fundamental ontology“), especially with his concept ›In-der-Welt-Sein‹ (›To-Be-in-the-World‹) as an existential of human beings’ ›Dasein‹, as a human existence in the world. I really don’t know whether Heidegger succeeded in that case. Probably it is not possible to resolve that problem.

So that I don’t have to guess, what do you think the confusion or “problem” is?

And btw, that “Ocean of Motion” blog was talking about an “ocean of light and dark matter/energy”.

I think that the subject/object dualism is one of the greatest philosophical problems - perhaps even the greatest.

How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the “truth”?

What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself “really” exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it “really” exist? And especially: Which of both sides is true, or are both true? Which? (1.) The subjective one? (2.) The objective one? (3.) Both?

Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true? Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer, “Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung” [“The World as Will and Representation”], 1818), or merely nothing but my thoughts, or both?

Well, I’m glad that you explained that, because I would not have guessed that to be a serious “problem” for you.

But I would have guessed that you believe in an objective reality; a reality distinct from whatever you might think of it. Is that right? If so, the whole thing is pretty easy to resolve by understanding consciousness and ontologies.

I had a thesis here long ago about “Consciousness: Remote Recognition”, but it got shifted around to who knows where now since the forums changed. The OP was something like this;

And an ontology is an inner map produced through remote recognition with which an entity guides itself through an outside reality. When trying to confuse the populous, people preach that the map itself is the “only reality” (conflating the map with the terrain), which of course makes it pointless and yields a lack of reverence for the actual outside world in favor of an imagined media production - the virtual reality magic show. The end effect is to reduce the ability to think and make muppets of men.

And “Truth” is determined by;

No, it is not actually a problem for me, beacuse you are right with your guess.

The problem is a philosophical one, but because of that fact we all are involved in that problem, whether we want to or not.

Yes, that is right, James. At least for the most part. For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists hae always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. To me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.

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.

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

The answer?

No.

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?

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.

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;

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).

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.

And what is life, exactly?

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).