Universe and Time

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.

You mean photons as living beings? …

It is true that the modern, especially the current physicists are religious or ideological, that they are “crazy” about particles, especially exchange particles because they are „materialists“. I would prefer if they were more “crazy” about energy ( ).

You know that I mean „dissapear for ever“, do you?

According to your theory.

„Dark energy“ doesn’t act as gravity, but as its contrary.

It seems so.

Then “Hell no”.
My theory is that if a single photon is given an unlimited amount of space to travel through, it will eventually spread and, in effect, dissipate into obscure affectance, undetectable. But all photons can never disappear.

Logic dictates it.

If they are calling something “dark matter/energy” and proposing that it has negative mass (thus anti-gravity), they simply have no idea what they are talking about. Why call it “dark-matter” if they really mean “anti-mass”? Someone is confused. Anti-mass is a logical impossibility (anti-matter is a different thing).

James,

It is true that we tend to use possibility and potential almost in the same way and i do not think that even English language sees them much differently.
Having said that, i very well understand and also accept your interpretation of both terms. That is not a issue.
Aristotle also addressed the same issue and gave the same judgement.

I do not have two definitions of time either.

At metaphysical level, it is will and at physical level, firstly, it is time and then matter.
According to me, will, time and non-live mattter are the same things in different densities.

For more clarification, there is no time in the real world. Will transforms itself into physcial matter and one matter into anothe rmatter and time is merely our mental construct to guage that process or delay.

duplicate

duplicate

I don’t know what you mean by “the metaphysical level”. Metaphysics means “the logic or reasoning beyond the actual existence”. Metaphysics is about “why” things occur (logic and/or mathematics and concepts), not “what” is occurring (entities that physically exist).

Time is the difference in change rates. Certainly there is difference in change rates anytime there are changes.

How does will transform itself into physical substance? Why does it?

My understanding of Metaphysica is exactly the same as you put it -
At the level of concept/logic and beyond being physical.

James, as i see it, there is not much difference between physics and metaphysics. Metaphysics is nothing but subtle physics.
The difference is only in quantity, not quality. It is merely our comprehending capability that distinguish the two, otherwise, they are still the same.

The same is the relation of will and matter. Will is eternal, a perpetual energy. So, after once saperated from consciusness and coming into action, it cannot be stopped ever, but can controlled and guided only.

Thus, it keeps running, manifesting more and more of itself and creating its spread. Then, after some time, as the density of will increases in this spread, it has no option but to interact itself and create more and more complex and differnt wills other than just to exist. This leads to will to change. Then this will to change becomes even more complex and the process goes on, untill this complexity becomes a density and enters in the zone, which we call physical.

As far as the consciousness is concern, in simple words, it is the beholder of the willingness. It is also eternal (no starting, no end). At one time, willingness was inherited in the consciousnes as a potential. But, from the moment of Let there be light, the potential of expressing itself (will to exist) materialized and consciousness started willing.

Till the moment, the consciousness had only will to exist, it was fine. It was the stage of almost unentropy, with a very small about of negativity, just enough to get the things going. But, fortunately or unfortunately, it could have not remain so and the negativity increased continuously, in the form of will of change, instead of stopping at will to exist only.

So, at last, being too negative to remain with the big positive particle, some portion of the consciousness broke away from the mother particle and the total willingness of that isolated consciousness spread in the ambient. The willingness saperated itself from consciousness, leaving the particles of consciousness completely pure, void of any willing. The remaining big Mother particle is the Ultimate God, as Vedanta and Sufism and other schools describe it.

My guess is that this consciousness cannot be deducted further. Though, i am not sure and it is also possible that the quality of sensing or feeling may be at its roots, in the same way the quality of doingness is behind the will.

Thus, we have the cosmos made of two different qualities, feeling and doing, acting/affecting and witnessing.
That is precisely the point where i differ from AO as it relies only on affectance, not its witness.

Now, those particles of pure consciusness tend to roam in the ocean of will, till they found some form of matter that is consciousness-ready. Then they interact with it and create life. These life forms can be formed in different will densitiy zones and that creates humans like us, Deities and other Devine entities.

Consciousness, at its purest form, does not do anything but just witness what happens around it. It can feel, which is its default nature, and due to that that nature, it always gets attracted towards the most intensified will, which any particular live-form use to have at any given moment.

Time is merely a measurement of change/delay, which we tend to conceptulize for our conveneience and has no real existence in this creation. It is the same relevence as the kilogram use to have for weight.

with love,
sanjay

That won’t really cut it as a definition. It would be like defining an apple as “that which holds apple juice”, making even glass jars into apples.

What is it that distinguishes consciousness from every other kind of thing? If I see or think of something, how do I know if what I am thinking of is “consciousness” rather than something else?

My own definition is;
Consciousness ≡ Remote recognition

But what is yours?

James, I did not say that photons will disappear, but that black holes will disappear: