If time is something {?}{!}

[Amorphos]

If time is something {?}{!}

I ‘believe’ that time is something, that it holds within it universal archetypes which denote cycles, something that the ancients alluded to with astrology ~ I think of this as cycles on a timeline rather than how it is traditionally perceived. I don’t think everything moves exactly by these cycles as there are many other factors, most notably that things take on their own causal strains.

Hence the overall effect is represented by the cosmic harmony we see in the universe e.g. the eclipse of the moon needs certain distances between earth it and the sun etc or it wouldn’t occur. The combined effect of denoted cycles multiplied by a things own volition describes the universe. The ambiguity betwixt these factors is the reason why things in the universe never work exactly by the cycles, but rather loosely so.

Chicken or egg first? For me time comes before causality [as we normally think of it] because causality exists >in< time.

Perhaps dimensions don’t exist? If we look at a rule then the rather ambiguous measures are upon it, we could ask if length, height and breadth actually exist or does only the rule exist. Yes the rule would not exist unless dimensions existed, and equally from what I can tell we don’t think of branes and other dimension as non existent and yet they don’t even contain material [or perhaps energy in some form], either way it just seams a bit vague to consider that only particles exist and what they refer to [holistic reality [not to mention consciousness, colour and information]] and belong to/within [dimension] don’t exist!

Before we discovered particles we lived in a world we considered to exist, so by what ontological tyranny [wink] has that term been stolen from our everyday world and other aspects of reality like time etc. So lets redefine ‘exists’ as thereness; is time a thereness? Are archetypes which may have influence a thereness? How can we derive a universe without the essential aspect to wit it is formed?

thoughts

.

[north]

@quetzalcoatl

If time is something {?}{!}

I ‘believe’ that time is something, that it holds within it universal archetypes which denote cycles, something that the ancients alluded to with astrology ~ I think of this as cycles on a timeline rather than how it is traditionally perceived. I don’t think everything moves exactly by these cycles as there are many other factors, most notably that things take on their own causal strains.

so how do you explain the essence of this cycle though ? ( before we get into anything else )

[Amorphos]

so how do you explain the essence of this cycle though ? ( before we get into anything else )

I have been trying to think of that since I made this thread, my first thoughts are that we are speaking in big terms e.g. if we take the analogy of the weather, its like studying the wind rather than individual or small groups of particles in the air.

I am dubious myself though, if we imagine the solar system forming and the moon ending up at just the right place between earth and sun for an eclipse, its hard to see how that can be anything more than coincidence. However it seams just as unlikely that there’s no reason at all for all the coincidences in the world/universe.

As time is closely related to space then if time contains anything such as archetypes and informations, then perhaps this may have a tiny effect on the warping of the plain of space ~ as like gravity does. Even that gravity ‘is’ part of that effect.

Its perhaps more likely that info and archetypes in time affect only the info/communicative layer of existence, where objects are the holographic layer derived of info.

My reasoning for the ’need’ here, is that something has to disturb the uniformity of creation ~ there needs to be opposites and essential differences which transform the course of events that there is not a continued uniformity. In my spirituality this adds to the idea of ‘purpose‘; the primary principle of that being where you take a oneness and keep diversifying [0>)|?|/|/|<>I]-[an approximation of that] until you end up with what we got now.
In such a context I am thinking of a metaphysical evolution, for want of a better terms?

[Innovice]

lets take snapshots of the universe

at time t1, the universe exists as a collection of particles each with some position relative to eachother

at time t2, the universe exists as a collection of particles each with some position relative to eachother

perhaps time is not continuous

perhaps time is an ordered set of discrete states of the universe

perhaps the almighty alone can perceive the difference between t1 and t2

at time t120498, the universe exists as a collection of particles, in which some entity (a subset of these particles) is (and the particles that define such entity) positioned such that a perception of time passing since t1 exists within the entity

at time t120499, some particle on the opposite end of the universe shifted slightly to the right (or left, respective to some other particles)

at time t120500, some particle on the moon moved slightly to the left

at time t120501, a particle in within a neuron in your brain moved towards the formation of your next thought

just thinking out loud

[north]

your suggesting that then time has " substance " , a real physical quality tied to time it self

true

[Amorphos]

incorrect

lets take snapshots of the universe

at time t1, the universe exists as a collection of particles each with some position relative to eachother
at time t2, the universe exists as a collection of particles each with some position relative to eachother
perhaps time is not continuous
perhaps time is an ordered set of discrete states of the universe
perhaps the almighty alone can perceive the difference between t1 and t2
at time t120498, the universe exists as a collection of particles, in which some entity (a subset of these particles) is (and the particles that define such entity) positioned such that a perception of time passing since t1 exists within the entity
at time t120499, some particle on the opposite end of the universe shifted slightly to the right (or left, respective to some other particles)
at time t120500, some particle on the moon moved slightly to the left
at time t120501, a particle in within a neuron in your brain moved towards the formation of your next thought

Interesting! It may be a bit more QM than that ~ dead/alive cat kinda stuff but far more subtle, such that particles tend towards certain kinds of collections. So you get an eclipse of the moon because bodies were pulled in certain directions, where the key term for me is ‘relationships’.

Coming from emptiness to universe, if we don’t have a given set of archetypes then I don’t know how you get complexity rather than simplicity [why isn’t the universe just a single line if there are not many things affecting it from the beginning?].

Another way to look at chance and coincidence is this;
Could we calculate the numbers on the balls moving around in a lottery machine, with the math of friction x direction, momentum etc, or are the numbers themselves more relevant.
That is to say; does information determine the numbers or particles? In the holographic model the material is a hologram >derived< from informations!

Right down the line to human relationships and astrology, are our relationships derived from info or chemistry? Probably a blend of both, no?
.
north

your suggesting that then time has " substance " , a real physical quality tied to time it self
true

I was thinking more ‘effect’ but perhaps that effect would like energy have to have substance when its at work in the world. Not sure there, the potential energy of a pulled bow has no substance but when the arrow is released it has effect.
Prior to the universe there is only potential, so maybe it’s a case that time is connected to such potentials which in turn contain information and information sets.

.

[north]

if time has or is something

then the change(s) in any mathematical equation that includes time should then change the physical object you are investigating

without disturbing the physical object first or before the changes in the equation

[eyesinthedark]

Everything changes, but the way things change remains. There are similarities between people, places and things across time and/or space, these/those similarities are the archetypes. They’re the objective similarities between different nouns.

Hate equals order and love equals chaos. Hate says I am not you, I am me. Thus, out of the monistic chaos (quantum), dualistic/pluralistic order is birthed. After individuals are birthed from hate, love brings them back together again, chemically and mechanically. This is the period when things are halflove and halfhate, or clockwise/counterclockwise circling, teetertotterhood. Finally, love again triumphs over hate, the fat one implodes, and chaos reigns. If you want to remain distinctified, keep the fat one from imploding, or put him on a diet. No worries, after he implodes, new individuals are birthed, and the process repeats itself ad infinitum. Thus, the world is both essence and existence, order and chaos… murder death kill.

I think I’m getting weary, it’s time to return to love, to god, the only question is, shall I take a few of you with me? God is indefinite, indistinct, god is matter, energy and consciousness.

Civilization, the cities are like stars, the towns are like planets, and the country side is like space, and you know what they say, the bigger they are…

Give me sleep from dreaming, I don’t want to wake up.

[Amorphos]

north

if time has or is something
then the change(s) in any mathematical equation that includes time should then change the physical object you are investigating
without disturbing the physical object first or before the changes in the equation

Do dimension change objects? Or do they allow objects to take on their properties I.e. become 3D objects, to gain momentum etc. time then allows things to move in it just as spatial dimensions allow depth, height and length.

Aside from that we could ask what gives a thing the energy to propel itself or be propelled ~ in terms of beginnings and in terms of that propellant - if I may, being the forces enveloped in all things. Its multifaceted.

Not to mention that time on the other hand may be something that makes effect on a more holistic level of objects ~ if we view it from top down, then the whole’s are deterministic as well as the parts therein, perhaps? Something determines shape. …as eyesinthedark suggested with archetypes.

[finishedman]

@quetzalcoatl

Do dimension change objects? Or do they allow objects to take on their properties I.e. become 3D objects, to gain momentum etc. time then allows things to move in it just as spatial dimensions allow depth, height and length.

…. then time’s movement is the time it takes to capture a part of understanding. These time frames then move within a larger dimension of understanding which then becomes a part of an even larger dimension, etc. … thus expansion of understanding and grounding of experience structure.

[finishedman]

@quetzalcoatl

Aside from that we could ask what gives a thing the energy to propel itself or be propelled ~ in terms of beginnings and in terms of that propellant - if I may, being the forces enveloped in all things. Its multifaceted.

Not to mention that time on the other hand may be something that makes effect on a more holistic level of objects ~ if we view it from top down, then the whole’s are deterministic as well as the parts therein, perhaps? Something determines shape. …as eyesinthedark suggested with archetypes.

We don’t know how the whole thing got started, but there sure is now a great momentum. Despite the gap created by the unknown, I can see where you apply the holistic/parts configuration to what we have capacity for. I assume you are piecing together the notion that given time, we will be able to chip away at the veil which, when removed, reveals a whole of prodigious volume. Yet, perhaps what we might discover is a vast dimension of consciousness, but void of answers therein.

Is it possible for us to comprehend or experience something that is a-causal?

[Amorphos]

…. then time’s movement is the time it takes to capture a part of understanding. These time frames then move within a larger dimension of understanding which then becomes a part of an even larger dimension, etc. … thus expansion of understanding and grounding of experience structure.

Indeed, well I would interject the term ‘info’ + ‘utility’ rather than ‘understanding’, we don’t know if time and consciousness are the same thing or more likely are different facets of reality.

We don’t know how the whole thing got started, but there sure is now a great momentum. Despite the gap created by the unknown, I can see where you apply the holistic/parts configuration to what we have capacity for. I assume you are piecing together the notion that given time, we will be able to chip away at the veil which, when removed, reveals a whole of prodigious volume. Yet, perhaps what we might discover is a vast dimension of consciousness, but void of answers therein.

Is it possible for us to comprehend or experience something that is a-causal?

Very interesting. Anything we find will yield some answers even if unspecific, after all we use terms like ‘energy’ in such a way when mass is essentially empty etc. as to the latter, when we make a decision we hold things up in the mind and compare, then make an assessment and a decision as we see fit. For me it stands to reason that there is an a-causal element to that process. Naturally if we attempt to know that then that info is causal, yet we utilise this in everyday thought and so can know it generally rather than specifically.

[lizbethrose]

The James Webb Space Telescope scheduled for launch in 2018. According to the NASA web site, it …

…will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Webb will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. Webb’s instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.

Where, then, will time be?

[finishedman]

@quetzalcoatl

Indeed, well I would interject the term ‘info’ + ‘utility’ rather than ‘understanding’, we don’t know if time and consciousness are the same thing or more likely are different facets of reality.

Then we would have to get into consciousness and find out what it’s all about. Of course, it would take us time to do that. So, there is a movement of thought that has a beginning and, at some time in the future relative to the beginning, a point where thought captures the understanding of what consciousness is. Thought creates its own time element. Yet, we can feel that there is something beyond the limits of thought – something behind the ability to think – something vast, beyond your understanding. If the reality of the ability and capacity is consciousness, then it’s as if ‘time’ is relative to a movement within consciousness – or it may be that time is a never ending continuum where there’s a plurality of more than one consciousness.

…. when we make a decision we hold things up in the mind and compare, then make an assessment and a decision as we see fit. For me it stands to reason that there is an a-causal element to that process.

This seems to me to be an experience which also seems to me to be causal due to deliberate act of extracting info from memory and deliberately judging.

Naturally if we attempt to know that then that info is causal, yet we utilize this in everyday thought and so can know it generally rather than specifically.

Yes, we constantly utilize thought to maintain a ‘self’ internally, mentally. But what if thought backs off and is not utilized continuously? When thought is there, deliberateness is there, time is there. When thought is not there, time is not there. When time is not there, the space created by time is not there – so, mentally, the ‘self’ is not there because it has no time or space in which to be.

But life is very much there. All the energy of life is there throbbing away which does not necessarily equate to consciousness being there. The life energy which supports consciousness does not have anything to do with time and space which lie in conscious thought. Life’s purpose is to survive now and for the next present moment.

[Amorphos]

Liz, thanks for the interesting info!

Where, then, will time be?

Well I have always said its multifaceted, each and every thing has its own reality map to wit time is relative to that thing. Here we are looking across time in much the same way as we could a landscape, except its change rather than scenery we are viewing. In other words, in each instance of change time is something. The shapes things take on, the archetypes by which we arrive at spheres and eventually people and life-times, are all in there on the informational and communicative level prior to the holographic we call ‘physical’.

finishedman

See also above ^^

Then we would have to get into consciousness and find out what it’s all about. Of course, it would take us time to do that. So, there is a movement of thought that has a beginning and, at some time in the future relative to the beginning, a point where thought captures the understanding of what consciousness is. Thought creates its own time element. Yet, we can feel that there is something beyond the limits of thought – something behind the ability to think – something vast, beyond your understanding. If the reality of the ability and capacity is consciousness, then it’s as if ‘time’ is relative to a movement within consciousness – or it may be that time is a never ending continuum where there’s a plurality of more than one consciousness.

Hmm indeed. I’d say that mind is a facet of the multifaceted reality map, and that when the wheel turns - so to say, and certain configurations occur [like the Rubik’s cube analogy I’ve used before], then a complexity of that creates consciousness. We begin with the empty facets of a thing and continue into complexities thereof. I wouldn’t say its all about mind alone as there are many facets to consider.

This seems to me to be an experience which also seems to me to be causal due to deliberate act of extracting info from memory and deliberately judging.

Well memory is causal at least in effect [we can add non-causal elements to it perhaps], the ability to judge includes/is the ability to know/understand and hence is the faculty of consciousness which is the knower and is a-causal.
Not to mention that in order to have specific and exact cause, there has to first be absolutes which I’d argue there is not [qm X beginnings, masslessness etc]. you NEED a knower to arrive at more specific informations than what are actually presented!

Yes, we constantly utilize thought to maintain a ‘self’ internally, mentally. But what if thought backs off and is not utilized continuously?

If the self is not maintained you mean. then we get onto the more universal aspects of mind and consciousness. Timelessness and statelessness I’d say are some of the fundamentals of what time is.

Essentially there are three things in reality; 1) the fundamental universals/thinglessness, 2) thingness/potential/archetypes, 3) ability/motion/operation/process. Or emptiness, thingness and the hand which moves them. Each applies to the notion of time in different ways just as they apply to consciousness and every other facet of reality.

.

[north]

@quetzalcoatl

north

if time has or is something
then the change(s) in any mathematical equation that includes time should then change the physical object you are investigating
without disturbing the physical object first or before the changes in the equation

Do dimension change objects? Or do they allow objects to take on their properties I.e. become 3D objects, to gain momentum etc. time then allows things to move in it just as spatial dimensions allow depth, height and length.

dimension(s) don’t change the object , nor do dimensions ALLOW objects to take on their properties

the essence of dimensions is the result of the objects themselves

inotherwords , it the object that creates the dimension , since without the object that is in this said dimension , the dimension would be non-existent

dimension(s) don’t exist in a void , the reason that the dimension exists is because there is SOMETHING in this dimension

time allows , nothing

time is the mathematical product of objects movements

without movement by objects , what does time have to measure , nothing or void , you can’t measure the movement of a void

[Amorphos]

the essence of dimensions is the result of the objects themselves

I am torn between that and the idea where for a form to take shape it has to expand into an environment, like a mould is to jelly. If we changed the environment the container, then that which is contained within would have to change relatively. If say we had a lump of clay and a box, we put that in the environment and it forms to its shape, if we changed the environment to a sphere then it has no choice but to change to that.

In other words, it’s the object that creates the dimension , since without the object that is in this said dimension , the dimension would be non-existent

I agree but I think it’s a relationship, an object would expand and be defined by the environments it is in even if that expansion is creating that. What’s to stop the first particle in existence from expanding into infinity? Surely it must be presented with limits? I understand that it would have a given amount of energy which would determine its effect and proportions in the universe, but you’d need an equal and opposite force to determine that, otherwise even the most miniscule amount of energy would have nothing to stop it expanding indefinitely and possible immediately into the infinite.

dimension(s) don’t exist in a void , the reason that the dimension exists is because there is SOMETHING in this dimension

What are the dimension of the void then [infinite surely]? what ultimately is ‘something’ and nothing’.

time allows , nothing
time is the mathematical product of objects movements
without movement by objects , what does time have to measure , nothing or void , you can’t measure the movement of a void

You need the universal medium to measure specifics against, just as in relativity you need the medium of light being everywhere, prior to particles existing you need another medium. How else can one make comparisons on a universal scale?

[finishedman]

Well, quetz, you would not be able to think up your limitless ideas of the infinite without the life energy necessary to sustain a living thinking cerebral apparatus that creates them. No living human = no particles arranged in such a fortuitous concourse so as to possess a brain that can undergo a learning and expanding process of understanding. So …. now we have to look into the object (human organism) to see if there are restrictive (conservation, permissive) laws governing its existence.

Above the chaos and freedom of particles, limiting the forms that it can take, are a set of conservation laws. They don’t specify what must happen, rather what cannot happen. They are permissive laws. At the subatomic level, absolutely everything that is not forbidden by the conservation laws actually happens.

[Amorphos]

Well, quetz, you would not be able to think up your limitless ideas of the infinite without the life energy necessary to sustain a living thinking cerebral apparatus that creates them. No living human = no particles arranged in such a fortuitous concourse so as to possess a brain that can undergo a learning and expanding process of understanding.

Perhaps. Can we be sure that once that apparatus has derived consciousness, that that doesn’t take on its own life - so to say? Everything I experience about the world from info to feelings, colours and general experiential objects of consciousness, are within that conscious sphere of being. …and not in the material sphere.

As such I think it reasonable to assume that if you took the human form and hence brain out of the equation, then as said consciousness is not of the material then there is no reason why we shouldn’t assume it still has the same abilities and qualia!
The human form is simply [in this theory] a vehicle, a medium by which our consciousness can interact with both the world and other consciousnesses in the world, period.

If we cannot bring consciousness and awareness into the material [as with the ‘life =’ thread], then we have to assume it is its own entity. Even if we bring it into the world [as per suggestions in that thread] it seams to be a universal and as such we are left with the very same apparent duality in either scenario.

[finishedman]

@quetzalcoatl

Perhaps. Can we be sure that once that apparatus has derived consciousness, that that doesn’t take on its own life - so to say.

There has to be a division in consciousness for you to claim that. Consciousness cannot be experienced, cannot be claimed to exist unless there is a subject outside the objectification of consciousness. The subject recognizes consciousness and talks about consciousness and comes up with a realization of self consciousness. It is the maintenance of ‘self’ in consciousness that takes on a parallel existence of its own. An existence far removed from the physical actual self.