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?”
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? 
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?
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.
Yes, it is because i included your concept of RM ( not AO ) in it as i found it quite useful in explaning the formation of particles.
Yes, you are right as my language is somewhat confusing becasue i do not have any proper name for Infinitely small Particles ( not particles yet ). They are almost in the state of concept or property (metaphysical level).
To be more precise, it is the concept of Will that forms the basic structure for the existence of physical matter. To me, will and time are the same things. When one will comes in the way of another will, both tend to face resistense and delay. That is what time is. Will is omnipresent. It is some sort of the radiation that consciousness use to omit in initial phase.
Actually, there is no space but timespread or willspread only.
If we move one more step backwords from this stage of time (will) and consciusness, there would a stage when all those would be one. That would be the stage of perfect unentropy, no changing at all. But, something happened and some chunk of consciousness saperated from the mother part and its will scattered all around, leaving some of pure consciousness behind roaming in the ocean of will/time.
Scripures describe this moment as - Let there be light.
No, there are limits, though technically only.
For time (will) the will to exist is the lower limit, because without it, it can neither maintain its existense nor manifest anything else. Everything else is built upon this primary will to exist.
I am not sure about the consciusness but my assumption is that there must be some fixed lower limit also for it.
For others recognition. After all, we have to name it.
Nothing. Time/will is omnipresent because it is a concept and starts from the metaphysical level and then converts itself into physical form.
Yes, time-density varies from place to place and i think that is necessary to form a complete ontology.
It moves because of its very nature. As time starts from the will at metaphysical level, thus it cannot be stable even for a moment. Its energy is eternal. The perfect example is our mind. It cannot stop itself from willing (thinking), no matter how hard we try.
It is what it is and so the consciousness. We cannot deduct it further.
Yes, that is true.
Actually, fundamental metaphysical elemant is will, not time. Time is merely our mental construct or measurement issue and comes into existence when two different wills interact and face resistence by each other.
with love,
sanjay
Your guess is wrong.
That is right.
Do you know whether there is symmetry of time in our universe or not?
Have you ever observed time symmetry?
Have [size=104]you[/size] ever observed time symmetry, Phyllo?
And have you ever been to other places outside of the planet Earth, Phyllo and the other members of this forum?
I don’t think so. I honestly don’t know what it would look like.
Why ask me the question? You are proposing it, so you should have a reason why you think it exists. A reason like … you, or someone else, has seen it.
No . And I don’t need to go outside of the planet Earth. What you are proposing is contrary to one of the principles of physics - which is :
We do not occupy a privileged position in the universe.
IOW, physics operates the same everywhere.
We can’t prove it but without that principle, there is no possibility of knowledge about anything : everything which is observed could just be a local anomaly.
I thought that I made it pretty clear that I know that time cannot run backwards. I can know it as an absolute fact because it is merely a logic issue.
Time, Distance, Mass, and Energy are things that cannot have a negative value except with respect to an arbitrarily chosen standard.
Time is the measure of change. There cannot be negative amount of change, only a negative-direction of change.
Distance is the measure of immediateness of spacial contact. There can be no negative immediateness of contact.
Mass is a measure of existence. There can be no negative existence.
Energy is the measure of ability to cause change. There can be no negative of the ability to cause change.
Each of those have a range of zero upward to more. None can have a negative, from zero to less than zero.
There cannot be a less than zero;
Change,
Immediateness of contact,
Existence, nor
Ability to cause change.
Reversal of time could be crudely simulated by reversing the direction of motion of some items of concern. A ball rolling “forward” could be reversed such as to roll “backward” instead. The spacial direction of motion, vector, can be reversed for specifically chosen objects. That would give the appearance of motion moving backward as long as someone knew of a “forward” with which to compare it. But it is limited to the chosen objects and their situation.
Time can be circled such as to advance objects in spacial directions that lead to their return to a prior state that can then be called “a state of history”. Chosen situations can be returned to a prior state. But their prior state cannot automatically advance to yet a pre-prior state in most cases due to the combinatorial effects of interaction.
Because there is no negative mass, there can be no negative gravity (mass and gravity being essentially the same thing). Thus an object such as a meteor being affected by gravity and striking the Earth could be given a reversed vector, but will not be able to find or maintain its prior course. The following situation cannot be reversed. Reflecting the photon will not cause the photon to reverse its path.
Logic is omnipresent and omnipotent. It applies to all of reality regardless of location. So you could be teleported 1000 trillion light-years away and logic would still apply and still demand all of the same “laws of physics”. A totally blind, deaf mute bestowed with logic and enough intelligence can discern the laws of physics without the slightest observation of them. If he was teleported far away and inside a steel vessel with no portals or outside measuring devices, he could still tell you a great many things that would necessarily be true about what was outside the vessel.
And that is the situation of every mind. It is inside a vessel from which it must deduce what is outside the vessel. The sensory ability it has merely reports on the current situation, not the eternal laws governing it. Those senses can be flawed and thus cause a misrepresentation of his current situation. But if his logic ability is not flawed, he will still know the laws of physics - “God is within you”, but cannot be seen, merely known.
The Gordian Knot can be untied from within. In the film The Matrix, the superhero, Neo working for the Zionists, defeated the evil System agents by revealing “the light of God” from within them, “The Light of Logic”.