Universe and Time

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”?

Depends on what you mean by that. Expound a bit?

Sometime between 10^18 and 10^27 years, the galaxies will have lost about 99 percent of their mass and therefore effectively be dissolved. The respective residual will then be collapsed into a single super-massive black hole. If the theories of the elementary particle physicists are right, then the matter will dissolve altogether. After about 10^32 yeras even the protons, the basic building blocks of matter, will disintegrate in positrons and photons. Will the positrons meet an electron, the particles annihilate each other, and there remain only photons.

Then there will be only gigantic black holes, “swimming” in a sea of ​​photons and neutrinos all-encompassing. Sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years, there will be nothing left except neutrinos and photons in the form of extremely long wavelength electromagnetic radiation in an extremely cold, empty universe.

Merely the energy is forever, everlasting, eternal.

Well, a photon isn’t an object, but rather an amount. Normal photons get produced by a specific means (electron orbital decay) that always yields specific amounts. But in the case of extreme disintegration, you could not expect all photons to be of such quantum amounts.

And what that theory seems to be missing is the concept of “dark matter/energy”. High concentrations of affectance (EMR, including photons of every size) aggregate into dense clouds. If the cloud becomes dense enough, it forms a new black hole. Between all of the black holes, the affectance field keeps gravity functioning such as to draw the black holes together. As they collide, they stand a chance of reproducing our more commonly observed “universe” of stars and planets. Because the universe is actually infinite, there can never be a time when a black hole isn’t headed toward another. Once two extremely large black-holes collide, a new “local universe” is born.

So there cannot really be any time when there are no photons and even the loss of matter is only temporary.

James, you should send on or add „to you“ or „for you“, because the current „mainstream“ physicists have a different theory. According to their theory a photon is a particle, a exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. According to your theory a photon „isn’t an object, but rather an amount“.

Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear „sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years“?

Well, it isn’t an issue of “theory” but of ontology. Some people might refer to other people as “objects” (the materialist’s perspective). Others would claim that they are not objects, but rather living beings. The language and associated concepts are the only difference.

Current religious physics requires that “particles” be involved in all exchanges of anything (monetizing or quantizing all exchanges). So no matter what is really happening, seemingly out of a fear of “infinity”, they refer to all exchanges of gravity, momentum, energy, or whatever as being “carried by particles”, as though there were discreet objects involved, which is actually silly. But that is their ontology and easy to prove it to be untrue unless you just define a “particle” as “any small amount”.

I am not afraid of infinity, so I have no problem with accepting that exchanges occur in indiscreet amounts that I refer to as “afflates” (Affectance Oblates). And with that ontology, I can explain everything they explain as well as things they cannot explain.

No.

It would be extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to cause a black hole to dissipate into space before anything else re-fed it or it ran into another black hole. And even if a black hole actually did manage to totally disintegrate down to a single particle, nearly impossible to get rid of, at that same moment, other black holes would be forming.

But for a black hole to actually dissipate would require an unimaginable amount of space void of anything else whatsoever (including any gravity not of its own). Each galaxy has its own black hole (so they say). There is a HUGE amount of space between those galaxies, yet the stars and planets are all falling INTO the black holes, not radiating out into the extreme open space. If you were to disintegrate ALL of the stars and planets in a galaxy, an extreme “dark matter” cloud would be the result. And as they already have decided, such “dark energy/matter” acts as gravity, thus drawing and holding energy in, resisting the open expanse.

If the open expanse around a black hole was extreme enough that the black hole began dissipating (probably requiring the entirety of the known universe for each black hole), as it lost mass, it would accelerate even faster toward another black hole far away. And the closer it got to another black hole, the slower it could dissipate.

The universe just can’t get rid of the buggers.