Universe and Time

James_S_Saint · May 28, 2014, 7:18pm

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??

Arminius · May 28, 2014, 10:20pm

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.

James_S_Saint · May 29, 2014, 5:34am

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”.

Arminius · May 29, 2014, 2:35pm

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?

James_S_Saint · May 29, 2014, 3:13pm

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;

Consciousness: Remote Recognition:

The issue of what constitutes consciousness is a common topic in philosophy. The word “consciousness” merely means “with-awareness”.

con·scious (knshs)
adj.
1.
a. Having an awareness of one’s environment and one’s own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
5. Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
6. Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

The Question
But a common question arises concerning the limits of that definition. If something reacts to touch, it is displaying an awareness of such touch, else how could it respond? So is it conscious of its environment?

In the case of a charged particle such as an electron, a behavior is noted that indicates that an electron is very aware of any other charged particle nearby, even without being directly touched. So is an electron conscious?

In the case of a person in a comatose state, it is hardly ever argued that they are conscious. Some will argue that there is a degree of mental activity still going on and thus perhaps a degree of consciousness, but certainly not what we call fully conscious. Yet the ears still react to sounds and send signals through nerves into the brain. They are in a sense, aware that their environment has touched them. So are the ears and nerves conscious?

The Distinction
There is a clear distinction that can be made between the more common usage of the term “consciousness” and the apparent awareness that inanimate objects display. That distinction can be made by the attempt at recognition of the source of stimulation.

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.

Also in the case of the comatose person, the ears and nerves make no attempt to recognize the remote cause of the sounds to which they respond. Recognition requires memory, association, and locating algorithms not present in the ears or signaling nerves.

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.

Since that distinction can be made, other philosophical issues can be clarified.

The Universe
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?

There is strong evidence that the universe does not attempt to recognize any source of stimulation any more than that electron does. It merely reacts to immediate surrounding conditions and nothing more. As long as the immediate surroundings are the same, the reactions are the same. Thus it can be concluded that the universe itself is not conscious.

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;

An ontology is an understanding of existence and is built upon predefined concepts proposed to be useful in the long run. Many varied ontologies (Truth Maps) can be built and be useful but can only be valued as true if they conform to the following stipulations;
  A) Consistent within the ontology
  B) Comprehensive in including details
  C) Relevant to the needs at hand

Arminius · May 29, 2014, 4:25pm

James S Saint:

Arminius:

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.

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.

Arminius · May 29, 2014, 4:25pm

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.

Arminius · May 29, 2014, 6:54pm

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?

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?

James_S_Saint · May 29, 2014, 10:20pm

Arminius:

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?

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).

Arminius · May 30, 2014, 12:16am

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:

Arminius:

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:

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).

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

James_S_Saint · May 30, 2014, 2:28am

?? 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).

Arminius · May 30, 2014, 3:04pm

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.

Currently that average IQ is declining! You know the reasons?

James_S_Saint · May 30, 2014, 3:08pm

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

Arminius · May 30, 2014, 3:33pm

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.

James_S_Saint · May 30, 2014, 4:02pm

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”.

Arminius · May 30, 2014, 5:20pm

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?

James_S_Saint · May 30, 2014, 5:54pm

Do you believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect?

zinnat · May 30, 2014, 6:35pm

OK.

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?

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

Arminius · May 30, 2014, 7:50pm

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:

Arminius · May 30, 2014, 8:06pm

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?