Universe and Time

Linguistically said: You use the distinction between the words “awareness” and “consciousness” in order to get a physical awareness and a cognitive awareness, thus consciousness. You use the linguistical distinction between the words “awareness” and “consciousness” because there is a distinction between living beings and lifeless things too. And your result is: animate and inanimate objects behave likewise.

And what is life, exactly?

Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.

?? What do you mean by “the overcome” of it???

Individually, or throughout society?

If you are talking about the Truth/Deception dichotomy as proposed by the Persians, overcoming it individually isn’t difficult, but to remove deception/magic throughout society would take some very serious expertize and time, but is doable. If the average IQ of the homosapian had been just a little bit higher, none of it would have been a problem to begin with. The past 10,000 years would have been extremely different. Technology would probably have been developed by someone like the ancient Sumerians.

Basically, you would be talking about banishing the Devil from humanity. It takes a few very special men for that. They would have to have a very strong desire for it and behave in a very precise manner. And that is why things have to go to hell before anything positive gets done, the desire for the positive is inspired by the negative against Life itself. Life only tolerates imbalance up to a point.

Oh, and;
Life ≡ Self-directed actions toward self-maintenance; anentropic effort.

It is distinguished from non-life by being self-directed. And that is why every time authority is given to a government, it is taken away from the citizens. They lose the ability to direct their own maintenance. They get disarmed, blinded, and caged (“golden handcuffs”). The ultimate all-powerful world government ends up being the only actual life on the planet, quick to become insane (even further).

One or the human beings should solve the subject/object dualism, but one or they probably can not. One or they would have been able to overcome the subject/object dualism, if one or they had solved it before. That problem is not merely a philosophical one, but before it can be overcome in “social” or other ways it has to be solved in a philosophical way. Who of the philosophers is able to solve the subject/object dualism?

Here is the one, and there are the others, the world.

Currently that average IQ is declining! You know the reasons?

What in my post did you disagree with or not understand?

You mean this post, right? If yes, I can say that I understand your post quite well, I do not really disagree with any point. The problem is the subject/object dualism itself. I or we human beings don’t know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.

Then there is something that one of us isn’t understanding about what the other is saying.
I don’t believe this part;
“I or we human beings don’t know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.”

Obviously I didn’t make it clear as to why I don’t. Logic resolves the “problem”.

Phlilosophemes or theories can be right or true without any solution of the subject/object problem beacuse we human beings merely decide and say this or that is true/right or false/wrong, but we probably do not know what is true/right or false/wrong. That decisions always change, but also repeat or recapitulate somehow, and only sometimes there is a moment of more wisdom. Maybe that this moment of more wisdom (of some philosophers or other thinkers - of course) can resolve the problem of the subject/object dualism, but it is possible too that this moment of more wisdom also indicates that the problem of the subject/object dualism can probably not be resolved.

Please don’t forget: We - the human beings - decide or say that this or that is true/right or false/wrong. And we believe in that - more or less. Ask some members of this forum, whether they really believe in logic or not. Most of them would say: “Yes, but …”, and with their “but” they actually say “No(, but …)” because they would rather believe in religious things, especially the so called “atheists”.

So there ist merely a small group of human beings who search for a solution for the problem of the subject/object dualism. And currently the average IQ of the human beings is declining. What does that mean? In any case: It also indicates that the most human beings do not want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid. Or, in the orther case, they want wisdom, but are not wanted to want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid.

But the greatest barrier is the human Geist itself. How can we really know that a subject “is” and that a object “is” without thinking that they are always different or even not existent?

Do you believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect?

OK.

Are you saying that time starts tickling exactly at the same time when an event starts to take place?
Or time is merely our metal construct that we assume to help ourselves while measuring the changes?

I am trying but it is not complete yet but has many loose ends.
Basic concept is something like that-

I see this universe made of infinitely small but unstable particles of time, which roam here and there, in all directions. Then, they slowly start forming some unstable and small congestions, which ultimately converts themselves into slightly bigger (yet very small) stable particles.

Now, these small stable particles use to float into the ocean of time and face resistence by that in moving within it. This resistence is what we define as time, thus it is not uniform but localized. Those small stable particles tend to grew bigger and bigger while tavelling in the ocean of time particles by accumulating similar particles and thus our physical matter is formed.

There is one more type of entities exist in the ocean of time, that is particles of consciousness. It interacts with some specific type of physical matter and newly formed amalgamated entity is life. This life may exist in different varities and that depends on the ratio of the consciousness and physical matter in the unified entity.

So, basically what we see around us in the form of matter and space is nothing but time in different forms, with some of its portions amalgamated with consciousness. That is how different life forms like plants, animals, humans and even deities come into existence in different densities of time ocean.

with love,
sanjay

Your question whether I believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect can be a rhetorical question because you are referring to your theory, but nonethelesse: generally I believe that I “am” or the world “is” or both: I “am” and the world “is”. What really “is” is basically undecidable - scientifically and probably also philosophically. As I said:

It is possible that particles do not exist and that they are merely in the perception or cognition of the so called “human beings”.

According to the current mathematicians it is possible that the time run forward and backward, according to the current mainstream physicists it is not possible, but perhaps the current mainstream physicists are wrong because the universe is huge.

If we think and talk about the universe and the time we should keep in mind what that actually means, shouldn’t we?

No, I wasn’t referring to my theory. I was asking if there can be anything that YOU would say exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect. I am talking about the concepts of having affect and existence, not anyone’s theory.

And to say that “what is, is undecidable” or unknowable, seems a strange thing to claim. I happen to know otherwise, but realize that everything we “know” is actually just a naming of things. And you are saying that we can’t even name it. That just seems odd.

But my question is simply, “Would you ever say that a thing exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect?

:laughing: Well, that is more than just a little familiar. But a few concerns;

) First, just an issue of language, you can’t use both “particle” and “infinitely small” to refer to the same thing. “Particle” implies size. You can say that it is “almost infinitely small” as the Quantum Magi do. In their ontology, their “particles of space” are 10^-31 meters (almost infinitely small to us). Or if you mean that it can truly be infinitely small, then it is a “linear substance” or a “property”, not a particle.

) So you are saying that in your ontology, there are two basic elements; time and consciousness, both infinitely divisible?

) But I have to ask why you are calling it “time”. What about it makes it time rather than orange juice, pickles, beauty, or light?

) What is between the “particles of time”?

) You have this time-substance/particle congesting, which means that you have “time-density” that varies from place to place. What makes it move? Why does it move?

) And you seem to have two definitions for “time”; a fundamental element and the resistance of that element moving within an ocean of itself.

I said it can be, not it must be a rhetorical question. And b.t.w.: I have nothing against your theory.

Everything we “know” is actually just a naming of things, that is what I say too. But we are talking about the problem of the subject/object dualism or dichotomy, and we know not very much about the solution of that problem, but we name it. I am not saying that we “can’t even name it”. We should name it, we have to name it - that is what I am saying. If we say “what is, is undecidable”, we do not say “what is, is not nameable”. That’s not the same.

Your question: Do you believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect?
I have answered that question with the following words:

And I have never said that we can not name anything. Never. I love linguistics very much, so I would never say that we can or should not name anything.

Well, I think those really are the same, but my real concern is why you think it is not decidable, “indiscernible”. I say that it is.

So are you arguing that no one can ever know anything with absolute certainty?
Is that what this is about?

I am arguing that no one can ever know anything with absolute certainty, and because of the subject/object dualism as a problem which probably can not be solved, we can even not know with absolute certainty whether the subject(s) and object(s) exist or not and what they mean. But if we do not name them, we have no chance to come closer to any solution of all scientifical and philosophical problems.

And b.t.w.: If we do not name them, we would be no human beings anymore.

Can you know with certainty what you think?
When you say or think “box”, do you know for with absolute certainty what it is that you are talking or thinking about? And I am not asking if the box exists. I am only asking if you know your intended concept?

And also, can you know with certainty that “A is A”?

Can you? :slight_smile:

That kind of response doesn’t help. I need YOUR answer.

You do not need my answer, James, because you probably know the answer, whether one can know with certainty what one thinks, what it is one is thinking about, and that “A is A”. Right? :slight_smile:

Then I guess it all goes back to my question of whether you meant whether a single individual can know or people throughout society can know. Those who don’t find out how to know will never know whether anyone else ever found out how to know and thus remain in their doubt and dream until someone wakes them up.

Some people just don’t care enough to find out.
No one is more blind that he who wills to not see.