Ichthus77 wrote:
Time can be infinite and whole, while one configuration of the physical can have a beginning.
Ah, yes. This describes our universe as depicted by modern science. We don’t typically have a sense that when something comes into existence, it must also disappear from existence. When something comes into existence, it may stay forever. So a thing’s lifespan may be eternal yet also have a beginning.
Ichthus77 wrote:
I compare that mind ← That mind? So you think of the timeline as a mind?
gib wrote: ← So the law of conservation of matter and energy.
Do you think the body of the universe (mass/energy) is the timeline?
Seems you do:
It just started whole ← Sure, in the sense that all matter and all energy that ever existed was there at the beginning.
I don’t know if my statement means that I believe the universe’s mass/energy is the timelines, but I don’t think time can be separated from the physical goings on in the universe. Time is just the manner by which change unfolds. It is the order of events that the universe goes through in its evolution. In terms of my theory, time is the order of experiences had by the universe as it evolves. And since these experiences are connected by entailment, one could even say time is entailment.
But does this mean that time has a mind?
Ichthus77 wrote:
gib wrote: they don’t quite mean the same as what they mean in the human context
Why?
Take omniscience, for example. In the context of my theory, one can say that God is omniscience, but only in a particular sense. Meaning that God experiences everything, but not necessarily that all experience is known. Experience has to lead to knowledge in order for the experience to be known, and I don’t believe all experience necessarily does. We know all of our experiences because the brain parts associated with each of our experiences sends signals to the cognitive centers so that we can know it as well as feel it.
Another way to define God’s omniscience is not that He knows everything but that all knowledge there is to be had is had by Him. This makes sense if God is all experience and knowledge is one form of experience. Wherever there is knowledge, therefore, God has it.
Ichthus77 wrote:
How were you led to your concept of a not-love god? I hope know you’re wrong. Does your philosophy rule out a God of love (if so, how/why?)? (And) If so… doubt your philosophy.
Fortunately, my philosophy does not rule out a God of love. It just doesn’t arrive at that conclusion explicitly. But nothing in my philosophy negates a God of love, so there is room for it in my theory.
Here’s something I posted in my other thread (My Theory of Consciousness) that summarizes my take:
gib wrote:
…this isn’t the Christian God, or any personal God, it is the universe itself–the physics of the universe counting as its body, the subjective qualities of experience accompanying every action counting as it’s spirit. It’s difficult, however, to attribute to this God the usual characteristics, like counting as a person, or hearing prayers, or intervening in the physics of the universe to suspend the laws of nature. It is questionable whether it even knows about us, and to the extent it knows, it’s questionable whether it cares. This God follows the laws of nature–even if that means allowing for great and catastrophic natural disasters, disease, war, and other horrors of our reality. Expecting it to answer your prayers, or to show mercy to the suffering, or to demonstrate its supernatural powers by performing miracles, is naive at best–about naive as expecting the same out of the material universe that atheists believe in. Our God is nothing more than the atheist’s universe except with a soul. The only catch with my theory is that the events that happen in the universe represent different qualities of experience and the way they flow. ← These experiences are what God is experiencing, but they are in all likelihood incomprehensible. This God does not experience love or hate, or concern or disdain for His human children, or thoughts and emotions, or memory, or dreams, or sensations like touch, taste, or smell. These are human experiences that must correspond to some kind of neuro-chemical events in the brain. That’s not to say, however, that other physical phenomena can’t come along with similar experiences. Maybe certain chemical processes elsewhere in the universe feel like thought. Maybe weather patterns on Jupitar feel like emotions. But even if that’s the case, I would suspect that these would be very different kinds of thoughts and emotions than human beings are familiar with or could even imagine. It’s possible, in principle, to be sure, that an exact replica of some experience humans are capable of having is possible with some other physical apparatus–computers, for example, may in fact experience the processing of signals through their circuitry as thought almost indistinguishable from human thought. But for the most part, this God experiences a colossal diversity of experiences the vast majority of which are unknown and incomprehensible to us.