Universe and Time

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.

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?

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”.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, i am aware of that.

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.

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

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, 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.

Yes, one can say so.

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

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

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, 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.

Not possible, at least how i define consciousness.

But,i am.

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.

To some extent, yes.

Yes, but in the next post.

with love,
sanjay

Yes, self-valuing is entirely different from valuing too.
And yet they depend on each other.

It’s Nietzsche’s interpretation of will.

You misunderstood. The WtP is not an amendment. It is meant to replace the whole idea of will to exist, will to survive, etcetera. These aren’t actually existent forces. The potential that is existence (WtP, PtA, etc) is always aimed at accomplishing something, not at existing.

“Existence is an act, not a fact.”

He made great care to be correct, is all.

And Nietzsche’s.

You could not be more wrong. It is all about metaphysics, but psychology is the only honest means for a psyche to address that.
Nietzsche’s honesty goes a long way.

I advise you to read the Birth of Tragedy, his first work. It will completely alter your perspective on him.

“Entirely” different?

I think of self-valuing as valuing applied to oneself, thus not entirely different, merely valuing applied in a specific direction.

No, you are again conflating “potential” with “possibility”. Those are two different concepts, but often confused or conflated.

When I say “potential”, I am referring to the cause or ability already being present. Nothing has any potential to do anything unless it is already beginning to do it. The concept of “possible” means that something might happen or might not, we don’t know. So when I refer to “Potential-to-Affect”, I am not speaking of “Possibility-to-Affect”, but more “Cause-to-Affect” or “Ability-to-Affect”.

An apple hanging on a tree has zero potential for falling, until the stem is cut. Once the stem is cut, the apple has the potential to fall. But an apple hanging on a tree has the possibility of of falling at any time, because I don’t know when the stem might get cut.

“Potential” is in reference to the actual immediate situation. “Possibility” is in reference to how much I know of the situation concerning the future (similar to “chance”).

And remember, RM requires every relevant element to be uniquely and precisely defined. There is no ambiguity allowed. So “consciousness”, in your ontology isn’t allowed until it is precisely defined. And “time” can only have one definition.

I wil try and come back to you in a couple of days.

Till then, we have to agree to disagree on N.

with love,
sanjay

No. What I am proposing is [size=120]not[/size] contrary to one of the principles of physics. And I do [size=120]not[/size] occupy a privileged position in the universe rather the contrary because I am proposing a part of the universe to be - perhaps (!) - in a privileged position far away from the planet Earth. That is a Gedankenexperiment (thougt experiment).

What do you think about the theorem: “The photon is an everlasting phenomenon”?