"Instantism" - The Act of Being

Time, as you all know, is a human creation to deal with our human condition; finality. Everything in our existence has a "shelf life", even the universe. Imagine our arrogence in attempting to put an age on the most infinit and intangable concepts in human science. The "Big Bang" Theory is an insult to me.

The human condition is a result of our own 2D thinking. Sperm combines with ovum and a complex, cascading chemical reaction ensues. The result... a birth, a creature. This creature ages (growth, experience, interaction) and, due to additional chemical processes the cellular rate of mitosis slows to a negative rate. The cellular structure slowly begins to degrade to the point of conclusion (death). That is the natural lifecycle of all living creatures on Earth.

We have observed that stars are created, and eventually reach their conclusion (super nova). We have observed astral widening (the universe is expanding) This leads scientist to believe that the process works inversely. By that I mean if it is expanding then there must be a point of oragin. A place where all matter in the universe started. Simple right? Wrong, too linear.

The univers is 3D, and I have yet to see proof that all the exapanding movements follow an intersecting vector. They (heavenly bodies) may be getting further apart, but who says they all originated in one place? And furthermore which heavenly bodies did they measure to conclude they were drifting apart?

All too linear. Too finalistic. As humans we like to think of ourselves as superior, and that all the universe follows our pattern. I'm sorry but I can't accept that.

In a posting I read earlier this week, a gentleman was talking about the relationship between thought and time. Very good idea, though he didn't get much approval of his theory. But it got me to thinking, and now, after much ado (sorry) I will attempt to explain my theory, though it should probably be posted in the philosophy section.

To exist in our realm (dimension, plane etc.) we percieve the world and evrything in it with our 5 senses. Everything is relative, the tree I see isn't the tree you see, even though we are looking at the same tree. What happened before now is gone forever and what just happened is also gone.

We live our lives in a sequence of instants. We exist "NOW". We developed pictures and books to transcend that instant. To capture a moment and keep it. Our world consist of what we can sense now. We forget about the other side of the street let alone the other side of the universe.

At any given point in time there is existence, but not us. We live in a instant. To us there is only now. The present. But what about just a moment ago? Did it happen? Is there proof that just one minute ago you were reading this? As you read, you hear your own voice in your head deciphering my typed charecter into sounds that mean something to you. As you read each word, nay, each letter you are traveling "forward" in time. Existing in this moment then the next. You read this and my idea was transfered to you conciousness. Your perception of your current reality. That's our instanism.

I believe there are greater being then us in the universe. Awarenesses that can coexist in more than one moment simutaniously. Imagine being able to be at work and at home in bed with you partner at the same time, expiriencing both places, both sets of people, sounds, temperatures, light levels, smells etc. Just being able to be be in 2 places at once is incredible enough, but now imagine exisiting throughout all of existence simutaniously. Never having a begining, or end. Feeling everything, hearing everything, even tasting everything simutaniously. I don't say "all at once" because that denotes linear time.

That state of infinit parallelism is what being either dead or god would be like. Being a part of everything, always. Hard to grasp? I don't blame you, it's my idea and I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it sometimes.

Now here's an exercise to help you understand this concept better. Pick an instant, any instant and stop and analyse it. what do you smell? How bright is it? Where is the light coming from? Are you warm? What are you wearing? How does it feel? Make a detailed mental record of what it is like to exist in that instant. Then go change your instant. If you're inside, go out, if you're in a T-shirt, put on a sweater. I the lights on turn, it off. Now map out this instant and try to relive the first in memory while currently experience this one.

Congradulations you are now attempting "multi-instantism" double that, square that, cube that then raise that experience to the infinit exponent and you will have reached ascension. Trans-instantism. You will be god.

Not really science, but worth thinking about I think. I would appreciate all constructive criticism, but no insults or ridicule. If you can't be constructive, you're on the wrong web page.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time, as you all know, is a human creation to deal with our human condition; finality. Everything in our existence has a "shelf life", even the universe. Imagine our arrogence in attempting to put an age on the most infinit and intangable concepts in human science. The "Big Bang" Theory is an insult to me.


i like that part of your speech very nice

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time - a measure of the 4th dimension

I believe dimensions to be varying level of existence. Not my existance, but the existance of the universe. Just as with the infinite possible futures depending on choices and actions made in the present, there are infinite layers of existence layed on-top-of, beside, below etc. of our dimension.

This is how ghosts and other such supernatural phenomina can be explained. It is a narrowing of the gap between different dimensions. Just as the universe is a 3D spherical object, so too is existence.

This is where it gets difficult to deal with. Time is linear, two dimensional, straight and flat as if it were a road we were traveling along. But the Human concept of time is a device to measure the 4th dimension. W=d/t right? It's all so 2D, we need to start thinking of things in a more 3D, if not 4D perspective.

It all becomes much easier to accept. But the first thing you have to acknowledge is that the Human concept of time is a device for measure of the 4th dimensional distance between two instances of existence. As in what happend this morning and what happened just now are 3 hours apart just as Toronto is 786km from Ottawa. Time is a measurment. When you can think of it like that you can better undstand the relationship between dimensions.

Energy for example, by removing energy (be it translational, rotational or vibrational) from sub-molecular particles a slowing occours. Therefore, the less energy, the greater the difference between my interaction with time and that of the energy reduced particles. Inversly, the more energy the faster the movement. Which leads one to believe that the popular idea of traveling at greater than light speed would cause one to experience no passing of time, is backwards. The closer to the speed of light, the faster the affect of time would be.

Traveling at the speed of light we could live entire generations in a blink of my eye at this level of interaction with time. Going with that train of thought it becomes concievable to believe in God. Is it so hard to believe that god is a creature whos' interaction with time is so great, "he" is infinatly old and moves too fast for us to detect with our senses and tools? When you start thinking of time as a measure of distance between two points, a great many things become not only possible, but logical. Thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It can be that you percieve a change of existence, because you (your mind) are/(is) moving between the (different) states of the universe which are states (not a process). (Imagine a big hall full of domino stones(cq "states"), push one and consequently (in a wave) they all fall. The top of the wave of the falling stones is you moving (metaphorically through the "states"). Now the same metaphor. The domino stones do not move/fall but you wave through the hall the same. You are the time. Only you move.) (There are many universes/states.) Time is a form of human percieving the (timeless) states/universe.

 

I like that, good addition. This definatly needs more exploration. I'm going to try and incorperate your idea together with my own, and I invite you to do the same. I will post it up as soon as I feel it is coherant. I'm looking forward to discussiong this further with you.

 

Im too tired to refute your idea Alex, bu soon enough, oh soon enough.

 

Hey Chris man, good to see you on here. I'm looking forward to banging heads together on this site. Don't take off to BC without letting me know okay man? peace!

 

Mr. Anonymous

Hi Mr. A:

Long time no see! So, how are things going? Things are going well here. I'm waiting for your post on this thread.

 

Re: Mr. Anonymous

deleted

 

How can you be certain the ruler measures 12"? We are told it is that length but do we have proof? Who decided 12" was 12" anyway?

 

deleted

 

Hello old chap, nice to see you again. Was thinking of it, relplying that is, then I realised I simply didn't give a crap......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You don't?

And as for providing proof that it is in fact 12", I could very easily upload an attatchment giving testiment to that exact fact. But Sciforums isn't that kind of internet board. LOL

What are you trying to imply here, Mr. A?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The univers is 3D, and I have yet to see proof that all the exapanding movements follow an intersecting vector. They (heavenly bodies) may be getting further apart, but who says they all originated in one place? And furthermore which heavenly bodies did they measure to conclude they were drifting apart?

You know, this could very well be true. Who says they all came from one spot? Maybe clusters of galaxies were caused by their own little 'bang'? You bring up an interesting concept here. I like it, but whether or not this is correct is another. They haven't proven the 'big bang' yet. So, maybe there was no big bang to begin with. Work with this and see what you can come up with.

 

deleted

 

deleted

 

Yes, I read about Fred Hoyle, didn't know he was Stephen's student though. There is the question of clusters of galaxies. For instance, if one fires a b.b. into a bucket of sand, the sand spreads out relatively evenly, but in the realms of the universe it isn't really even. I know, scientists have used dark matter as the force holding clusters of galaxies together, but I still don't understand how the hell there could be clusters in the first place. With an explosion of that kind of magnitude I would imagine that everything would be spread out uniformly! Scientists thought that too, but went to dark matter for answering something that they couldn't really understand either.

I'm going to read up a little here right now, and will post later-see what you think.

 

Mr. Anonymous

And as for providing proof that it is in fact 12", I could very easily upload an attatchment giving testiment to that exact fact. But Sciforums isn't that kind of internet board. LOL

I think you missed what I was driving at, did you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You left out a couple of other fellows with Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. Steady state theory. The idea here is as galaxies move away from each other, new ones being created, by new matter. This steady state theory needed a modification of general relativity. Now, this is what I don't understand. Why modify another theory just to make yours fit? That doesn't make sense, and to me, that's cheating!

 

deleted

 

Two scientists that tried to prove the big bang didn't happen

....but they withdrew their claim in 1970. Lifshitz and Khalatnikov. They withdrew it because they argued that there were an infinite amount of Friedmann-like models that did not have a big bang singularity, but realized later that there were general classes of Friedmann-like models that did have singularities, and which the galaxies did not have to be moving any special way. So, they withdrew their claim. Could these models be wrong?

 

Re: Two scientists that tried to prove the big bang didn't happen

deleted