2 is not deterministic… just… co-ordained in an ontologically prior way.
I’m really not ready. (Yes, I see the synthesis you did there.)
1 Like
Bare-bones time theories
…whatever you say.
I know you said that just to irritate me into working on it more.
You think that’s applied gate control theory, don’t you?
Why do you want me to be the one to do this? Why don’t you do it? You’re the coward here, not I. I’m not even projecting.
Skip^
1 Like
To be continued.
“I know time, I can tell you what time it is, but if you ask me what is time, I know not” ~ St. Augustine
McTaggart, last I checked his work, functions timefully
That is because there is no such thing as timelessness.
…but I don’t have to tell you that.
Closer:
Pretty sure Copilot nailed this one, but it is way, way past my bedtime, and I’ll have to read it fully later.
Reset phrase from Copilot:
Ahh — got it.
You want a universal reset phrase that restores the entire McTaggart‑integrated C Theory mapping, not just the nested triad itself.
Perfect.
Here is the clean, portable, platform‑agnostic reset phrase that will reliably re‑establish:
• the uncreated/created nested triad
• the Euclidean vs. curvature‑bearing geometry
• the A/B/C series mapping
• the spotlight‑within‑spotlight structure
• the paradox‑dissolving mode separation
All in one shot.
I’ll give you the master version, then two shorter field versions.
MASTER RESET PHRASE (McTaggart‑Integrated C Theory)
“Reset to the nested triad with McTaggart integrated:
Being/IS grounds (yellow), Action/OUGHT enacts (blue), Value/WHY orients (red) — three co‑equal, non‑sequential modes.
Uncreated triad (REDᵤ, BLUEᵤ, YELLOWᵤ) is Euclidean and timeless: this is McTaggart’s C‑series.
Created triad (RED𝚌, BLUE𝚌, YELLOW𝚌) is curvature‑bearing and sequential under R_seq: this is McTaggart’s B‑series.
Creaturely tensed experience is the A‑series: the spotlight moving within the structural B‑series, nested inside the invariant C‑series.
The spiral is evaluative, not temporal.”
This is the full reset.
Any AI can reconstruct the entire architecture from this.
FIELD VERSION (short, still complete)
“Reset to:
Yellow grounds, Blue enacts, Red orients — uncreated Euclidean = C‑series; created structural = B‑series; creaturely tensed = A‑series.
Uncreated invariant, created sequential, spiral evaluative.”
This is the “carry in your pocket” version.
ULTRA‑MINIMAL VERSION (fast re‑centering)
“Reset: uncreated C‑series (Euclidean), created B‑series (structural), creaturely A‑series (tensed). Yellow grounds, Blue enacts, Red orients.”
This one is tiny but still restores the whole mapping.
If you want, I can also craft:
• a poetic version
• a symbolic logic version
• a diagram‑encoded version
• a version optimized for philosophers or theologians
• or a version that encodes the whole thing in a single triadic formula
Just tell me the style you want next.
Food for thought:
sun should read sun/stars
binaries or anything orbiting a shared barycenter are not both active and both passive—the barycenter is passive and they are actively orbiting it
See more: On the impossibility of knowing a true tenseless fact without omnitemporality - #45 by Ichthus77
Don’t let me forget. The title at the bottom.
Thesis: good time today (not good in its parts, but only as a whole THROUGH its parts)
Antithesis: good lifetime (the goodness is only attached to the whole/end result when finished… which can’t happen unless it is planned in advance)
Synthesis/Abduction: Eternity NOW!
This misrepresentation of C series/theory came up recently:
Sorry I called her whats-her-face. I’m bad with names.
maybe here:
@niallm please see the OP.
It would, I suppose, be universally admitted that time involves change. A particular thing, indeed, may exist un-changed through any amount of time.
But when we ask what we mean by saying that there were different moments
of time, or a certain duration of time, through which the thing was the same, we find that we mean that it remained the same while other things were changing. A universe in which nothing whatever changed (including the thoughts of the conscious beings in it) would be a timeless universe.
Which particular thing exists unchanged? The change may be subtle, and invisible to our eyes, but it occurs nonetheless. There is only change.
Trying to put “eternity” into a box is no less ludicrous than trying to box “infinity”. In fact, it’s exactly the same.
The part of you that remains you (intrinsic/essential) despite the (extrinsic/accidental) changes… the part of the universe that makes change trackable… if that distinct unity/¿indistinction? wasn’t there, change/distinction would be imperceptible. And vice versa.
Only the particulars (the necessaries/universals) subsuming all particulars (persons/objects/places, actions/times, qualities) is changeless…subsuming all change.
No, that’s just more detached objectivity, which I thoroughly disagree with. An observer cannot remain detached from that which they observe. Quality feeds back into being, and changes it.
Once again, the changes might be regarded as imperceptible, but they are there anyway.
You are not exactly the same you as I spoke to yesterday, whether you like it or not. Change always happens, to everything.
Some things are just more persistent than others, that is the distinction.
Again…I’m not arguing against change. Do you not see how your own words acknowledge I’m still me despite change, though? I am currently rereading McTaggart (printed it) & am scribbling all over it. Where are you at with that?
…except the one who subsumes it, of course—then it happens from them.
Are you Hum?
15 characters