The Problem of Time

i've been sorta drifting between the notion of time being change, and time allowing change. if you look at time as a plane, or dimension, on a graph, then time allows for change to occur. but then time itself is change and therefore change allows for time. i think rather than this being circular, it means that time has no beginning. time has always been. time is the dimension in which change occurs.

i think i said before that you exist in one point of time and that one point only, just like you exist in one point in space and only that one point in space. time is the dimension in which everything moves (not physical movement, or at least not physical in the way we think of). but that is a different definition than the everyday use of time being a measurement of change.

think of a 3d graph. now think of the points on that 3d graph being changed on each new page with respect to each other. each point has 3 coordinates for its location in space and each 'page' of change is a coordinate in time. those coordinates could then be graphed as well, a 4th dimension.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you think of time along those lines then an existence is shared by all dimensions to varying degrees. If you alter the degree of its participation in one dimension it affects its participation in all the other dimensions.

This participation determines how substantial matter is perceived by us. The more time participates in it the more ephemeral and incorporeal it appears, the least time participates in it the more substantial and solid it becomes to us.
The juxtaposition between our perceptive speed with that of temporal flux creates the conception of time and space.

The concept of ‘movement’, which is but a manifestation of change, is how the multi-dimensions interact with each other.

Matter is one way we interpret this dimensional interaction. Time is another.

Since some dimensions are not perceivable, that is they are not discernable to our sensual awareness, we become aware of them differently or partially or not at all.
Motion is one way Time exhibits itself to our sensual awareness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mosheh Thezion:

From the force exerted due to the spinning? Not necessarily. That is more a property of matter than it is necessarily of space and, ontop of that, there would necessarily be an upper limit. But yes, it is a possibility, I suppose.

Yet why would it resist such motion in 4 dimensions so?

Why would it be from the centre outward? Specifically if it is dimensional, would not it be impacting things at all points in space?

Let me ask you this: From whence do you imagine energy comes from? Would it be inherent in the space before the tension? Or be imparted upon it during?

Through what method?

Well, how precisely would it move in a four dimensional way? The problem with affirming a fourth spatial dimension, is that we haven't any way to truly imagine such a thing, nor even produce proof of its existence. I mean, how would you demonstrate it?

See above.

How are we getting all the way to 9 D now? That, once again, is all ready stretching beyond the capacity for us to likely ever validate through any empirical method.

Also, you're relating all of this back to dimensional spinning to create everything? Why are you making no recourse also to gravity and the like?

How is the sky in anyway beyond three dimensional motion + one time?

-16- for simplicity? That isn't very simple.

Let me ask you this: Can you even picture in your mind a fourth dimensional object?

Quantum Quack:

Yes, that last diagram was extremely baroque. Mosheh, think you can make them less so in future postings?

water:

The process of which I was speaking of allowed the potential for, at a later time, a reversal. But yes, initially it is linear.

There shall be but one understanding when truth is revealed. I intend to seek truth, not a prejudiced understanding.

Excellent point.

It was under the assumption that the observer would be timeless and could perceive things without time. That is to say, that it would appear to him as if a photograph.

Interesting linguistic connections, but not necessarily ones which speak of a similarity betwixt time and space on a fundemental level. Of course, ordering our conceptions of time necessarily can use the same terms as ordering in space as the similarities are there.

Either by or after tomorrow night, I shall offer compelling arguments - in my conception, naturally - that this Transcendental Idealistic skeptical position is inferior to a realist view.

Perhaps not impossible.

Yet does not a progression of states only exist within something more than a three-dimensional grid? For is not a three-dimensional gird itself fundementally static? Whilst yes, causality may be intimately connected - as I have agreed in part - with such a conception of time, the causal relation seems not be able to manifest itself save for in time.

Subjective inclinations are the bane of rational truth, yes, but this does not, in and of itself, imply an incapacity for truth to be known to man. We can overcome can we not? For instance, a shift in values towards truth itself, regardless of how it "feels", may allow us the necessary resolve, nay?

Yet it is not a subjective system, nor one that is not clear. It is a foundation which one need no longer search any further for verification. It is the ultimate reference.

Languages, like most other things, suffer from humanity being unwilling - or often seeing no point - in dragging something out to its logical conclusion or its fullest extent. This is due to an unphilosophical streak within humanity that generally is not needed for survival - is uneconomic as you would say - but does leave us with dissatisfaciton in the end.

Very little in this world of ours - and in the universe, really - could be construed as to not be inherently connected to our survival. But yes, we have certain limitations, rooted in our physical forms, that rob us of the ability to function adequately in all enviroments, although through our intelligence we have greatly expanded our range as creatures in order to encompase the entire Earth and near orbit.

More replies forthcoming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

one thing is clear Prince... if you had ever read any of the linked pictures and text i have presented.... then you would not need to ask these questions.

-MT

 

THE END OF TIME .. A Talk With Julian Barbour

 

Mosheh Thezion:

I have, actually, read the lion's share of the linked papers contents. But you do have to realize that any new theory is necessarily complicated enough to cause confusion. Once again, there is also the consideration that the concept itself is on shaky ground. Again: The problem with finding proof of a fourth dimension as I mentioned. How exactly would we even be able to find such?

Water:

Shall be responding to the rest of your post now.

 

Julian Barbour's so-called theories about time are seriously flawed. He assumes time is absolute and that one can view the universe from an external frame. Nonsense.

 

Water:

Good response, by the way. However, why I would not consider these properly sensory organs:

1. The inability for the computer programme to react meaningfully to the data, but instead its capacity to only present pre-programmed information response.

2. The inability for the stimuli to be, in general, wide-ranged. For instance, the perception of air pressure - specifically through the aforementioned limitations of the computer medium - may not warrant a classifaction as a sensory organ, which in turn would not spark a Cartesian subject within the computer.

3. The influence of software imposing human-made designated usages of the data instead of naturally-concordant usages.

Only Ockham's razor? I wouldn't call massive empirical proof simply a "theoretical construct based on Ockham's razor"?

Potentially it could be rooted back to an ontological truth, such as the formation of motion in the style of one of my "absolute opposite" arguments in a way potentially not unlike the existence-non-existence mid-point = emphmeral phenomena. Of course, I am -completely- conjecturing on this point now. Yet it is a valid question: What started movement?

Yesterday, I was helping someone put together a vacuum cleaner. It wasn't, ideally, a hard job to do: I simply had to put the handle on this thing, but considering she does not do good with tools and such, I was called in to provide my screwing services (I shan't make any joke about my choice of words!). Anyway, the threaded nut which was supposed to be connected to the anchorpoint kept coming out and, ontop of that, there was no mean to reattach it. I spent about an hour trying to fix this, but to no avail. In fact, we had to take back the vacuum due to this. However, I had no hard time whatsoever truly "losing track of time", as it were. It felt pretty much like an hour.

In that people would refuse to accept it? Or accept a semi-non-causal thing?

Or both have equal reasoning skills, if their names are not "St. Thomas Aquinas", "Erasmus", or "Jon Scotus", that is.

They'd probably have little exact ideas of time, yes. Or smaller increments.

Yes. Clearly it is not a time conception as our mechanical-clock related time, however, to not see the connection betwixt natural time would be foolish. It would do us well to cosnider the fact that creatures tend to develop a "biological clock" which governs their sleep/awake cycle, also. The ability for a body to judge a time-span equal to its usual amount of sleep is telling of the capacity to judge time.

One can't truly waste time. But yes.

Can do.

Yes, although not the majority. Moreover, these people do see colour, and when demonstrated what another langauge conceives colour, can point out what words correspond to which colours.

One's non-dawn perception of time would remain accurate - subjective and mechanical time - as would one's classification as "technically dawn" be similarly accurate. In essence, one would simply be defaulting to GMT as read on one's shuttle's clock or at the launch base.

"Strictly speaking, causal relationships cannot be fathomed. The best we can do is economical approximations -- approximations that tend to work in our world."

How do you figure they cannot be fathomed?

Moreover, how would naive realism lead towards insanity?

 

I just got to page 5 and havent finished yet. I havent found any serious problems yet. I see where he is trying to go. How is it, do you think, that his peers, of which, I would posit, you are not one, haven't pointed out his 'serious flaws' yet in his 'so-called theories'? He does seem to honestly mention some impressive names who would disagree with him, and why, and some impressive names who would be 'sympathetic'. You must be quite the genius! If I were you, I'd email him and straighten out his warped thinking! At very least you could do what Prince James does, start threads with your name in it (look mom!) refuting this and supporting that on internet forums!

I understand, though, how one can be tempted to dismiss as 'nonsense' that of which one cannot understand or conceive. To them (you), it IS nonsense.

By the way, how much have you actually read from that link?

I'm going to read the rest of the paper now. It doesn't appear to me that you are interested in a discussion of the matter as you cannot/will not understand the concepts put forth.
I'm not saying that I agree with everything that he is saying, but I am saying that I have been 'there' and he is on the 'right road'.

You can dismiss whatever you like. I do. Are you a materialist? I equate 'materialists' as being completely 'clueless' beyond the superficial; generally I dismiss them as a waste of my intellectual time.
Y'all still think that your senses evidence and describe an 'objective' reality. Clueless!

Ok, I have finished Barbour's interview, and from what I have read, you either have not read it or simply don't understand what he is saying (where he is heading). I could guide you, but you have already dismissed it after reading the first few paragraphs, so I sha'n't waste my 'time'.

That site has a wealth of 'cutting edge' thought and there might be some who are in a position to understand and appreciate it.

A 'materialist' will never understand 'time' and 'motion', any better than a paramecium can understand cataract surgery.

I apologize for the intrusion.
I just wanted to offer an interesting site (with different perspectives) relevent to the topic.
I realize that after as assinine an assertion as this,
"Yet clearly time exists (if you wish to argue otherwise do not take part in this discussion)",
which excludes differing opinions, it is nothing more than a 'circle jerk' of the terminally clueless, of which I have been (thank you!) excluded.
Carry on.

 

(Q):

Nice to speak to you again! I haven't seen you about.

Define "purely mathematical" in this regard? Are you saying it has no correlate to observed phenomena? Or are you claiming there is no ontological status to afford velocity, time, space, et cetera?

Interesting concept. I believe I have heard it before. Isn't it derived from the Law of Conservation of Energy?

Ha! Was right.

Interesting, interesting.

Well, before I continue, let me reask my question from above: Are you willing to claim that these have no ontological importance whatsoever? Moreover, isn't it a bit ridiculous to say that there is no change present even when energy is conserved? For instance, are you willing to say that "nothing changed" when a car ignites its fuel and produces the internal combustion necessary to propel itself down the road? Whilst clearly the energy is not destroyed, putting it to use fundementally changes things. There may be no "change in the amount of energy in a system", but that energy causes things to move, to do things, et cetera. Similarly, resorting to relativity for time does not tackle the issue of what facillitates motion in time, or rather, motion at all. How do you propose time "came to be", as it were?

RoyLennigan:

Why do you support such a skeptical viewpoint?

Satyr:

Then riddle me this, Satyr: How can change be time if all change must take place in time? Change cannot happen within a static moment. It requires that fourth dimension that allows for the very movement which is change. Can you show me a change that exists only in a static moment?

Are you suggesting change could be non-linear?

RoyLennigan:

As you might have guessed, I am closer to this view.

This seems reasonable on many levels.

Satyr:

Incredibly fresh and interesting view! Can you elaborate on this?

How many of these dimensions exist?

How are you then aware of its existence?

 

Temporality

Prince_James

All change happens in Space, which is the temporal representation of possibility (As much as there is an in, at all), not in time, where Time becomes the movement towards or away from possibility (As much as there is movement at all). In our case our temporal movement is towards one-directional possibilities.

I would think an opposite direction would be impossible. This because our entropic direction necessitates an ordering in opposition, whereas an opposite direction would necessitate a disordering in opposition, which makes consciousness impossible because consciousness depends on ordering and a succession of moments connected through memory - memory being the ordering, simplifying and storage of moments.

The concept of IN depends on our awareness of our own participation within what we perceive to be other-than-us.
We are not IN Time/Space as something different. We are manifestations of it.
We are Time/Space that has superficially separated itself, or conceptualized itself away from the main, so as to gain control over its tiny temporal/spatial Being and begin to explore and understand itself.
When we explore our selves, we explore the universe, and when we explore the universe we explore our selves.

Space can be seen as just another manifestation of Time - the notion of a 'here', corresponding to a 'now' where the titles of SPACE and TIME are but arbitrary definitions of the same conception expressing itself in multiple ways.
Our perception consisting of successive ‘nows’ with no definite boundaries.

SPACE/TIME is how we interpret our perceptions, given that we are representative of them.

All we know is that things appear to change, or move/alter through Spatial and Temporal referenced points. We measure these changes/movements, give them dimensional measurements (coordinates) and establish reality (here/now).

This succession of here/now is ambiguous and indefinable, only recognizable in hindsight or through foresight.
It is this that makes the Self nothing. The Self is a succession of temporal moments, as they are unified through memory or patter recognition, but never definable since here/now can never be defined. Therefore the concepts of a here/now and the sense of Self they create are but emptiness encompassed within a temporal succession

I once heard a lecture where God was placed in this in-between state.
What connects one thought to another?
As far as we know, and according to some nothing. We are nothing cocooned between thoughts or temporal interpretations of here/now.

Some would say spirit, or God, or soul as the unifying fabric of individuality.

I am suggesting that what man commonly refers to as change is one-directional - that is we perceive change in the direction of our own alteration (Becoming).
Theoretically we exist within all moments of our Becoming.

Our existence itself is as Beings in Time – as Heidegger contended – and, as such, our perceptions are determined by the uni-directional forces that enabled us to be.

We are children of decay (change), life itself the condition of constant decay, resisting it, coming to terms with it, defined by it.
Need personified.
Life-unto-Death.
We are the living-dead, distracting ourselves from our ‘true’ Being and attempting to expand our sense of Self to encompass totality… and to cease. This is our ambition.
We are incompleteness seeking completeness. We call it Love or God
In essence we dream of our own obsoleteness.

Life can be thought of as a material strategy of seeking stability - consciousness being the focusing of resistant, ordering energies towards this end (WILL).
A tool of efficiency and compensation.
This is why life is so “special”, or considered so by us as prejudiced participants in it.
It is an exception to a rule becoming possible within specific, chance conditions.

Our conceptions of positive/negative are established by using these ‘special conditions’ as our standard.
Chance is what we call: Faith or Luck – circumstances we cannot foresee nor comprehend but only submit to.

Because of this self-consciousness is burdened with the awareness of its own demise. Even when it denies itself this certainty, it is what underlies all our interest and actions.
Within this Birth-Becoming-Death, we find Self, as the unity of moments/nows/heres, tied together with memory. A memory which is limited to understanding backwards – as Kierkegaard put it.
Since we can only interpret and store experiences and information after we have perceived them – that is after our temporal direction has made them accessible to our sensual possibility given that we are decaying we perceive in the direction of decay - we are forced to live life forwards but understand it backwards.
This looking-back on our selves created the dichotomy between Self and identity.

Perhaps it also creates the division between Time/Space. In other words, even if we are constantly temporal, in looking back we fix ourselves within an abstracted temporal plane, where each dimension represents a coordinate of our existence.

The hidden anxiety behind every human interaction and action.
Sexuality, being a current popular method of overcoming mortality and so a fundamental part of our psychological make-up.

Action, itself, is a product of Need, which is an expression of weakness and universal flux. We act because we are weak and powerless, and so incomplete and needful and unhappy.
An imagined satiated, perfectly contented being would be characterized by its inertia and disinterest.
Human creativity exposes human dis-ease.
Life reliant on constant action; constant alteration.

Wilful action, furthermore, depends on ignorance. The more you know, the less you act, the more your actions become burdened by trying to meet every perceived contingency.
The most unaware are, due to their obliviousness, the most active. They act first and evaluate later.
It is, for this reason, that life’s value is dependant on some degree of risk and recklessness.

Current existential angst, the sense of meaninglessness and nihilism, as a relatively new human intellectual condition, is caused by man’s own success within this given, specific environment.
The mind freed from its burdens turns on itself and asks the unanswerable: Why?
Shielded from the worse consequences of their risks, they grow bored, arrogant and soft.
Their sense of pride inherited and ensured. As a result they seek artificial confrontation as a way to challenge themselves and prove, to themselves and the world, their true value. Knowing no sense of balance, they mock it, since their excess holds no real existential repercussion, and they grow artificially brave and confident.

For most, simply existing in accordance to their natural inclinations, enjoying the reward/pains of their nature, is enough.
Others find themselves in the void of their own meaninglessness and either submit to their intellectual realization or find the Will to re-establish a new relationship with their own nature, governed by choice and not decided primarily by Need.

We began at some point in Space/Time, Time pushing us forward (Or what we call forward) and our consciousness: a series of constant temporal changes.

Our material ‘reality’, our perceptions and mental interpretations of Time and Space (And perhaps many more dimensions) interacting and becoming sensualy percievable. Then sensual interpretations are translated, simplified, abstracted mentally and we get the world, within our mind.
Our shared world, we call: Real, Logical.

Our perception, that the universe is reaching some entropic limit or that it is decaying/disordering is determined by our linear perceptions, which, in turn, are determined by our perceptions being, themselves, products of and participants in this very decay.

Our individuality, a simplification of multiplicity and an autopoetic force, which encapsulates itself and separates itself from the Other – creating the concepts of internal and external. This, necessity, creates the possibility for pockets of order – or what we call order – within a chaotic, constantly changing reality. Knowledge but an ordering of information, linearly, through the perception of patterns.
Patterns being but the Self projected outwards. The seeking of Self in the Other-than so as to gain understanding.

Our linear perception is in our nature as life – life being matter (Animated matter which achieves some efficiency through consciousness - Will) in resistance to dis-assimilation or a congruence of dimensional unity attempting to become more-spatial and time-less – in other words eternal or stable or perfect.

Under this light, we can see how God represents our aspirations, and in some cases our way of dealing with our own individual temporality and weakness. It is the projection of our own perceived pattern upon a hoped-for, grander Self.
God is man looking at himself in the future. The nature of this God(s) projecting our current psychology upon an idealized Self and thusly exposing our deepest insecurities.

This would also explain our social nature. As individual beings we are helpless and ineffective, when compared to other beings, within our immediate environment. Due to this we join with each other, sacrificing parts of ourselves to be fully integrated within a greater and, perhaps, more successful whole. We are driven to make ourselves attractive (appealing to others) and desirable (helpful to others) so as to become part of something larger than ourselves, which our original autopoetic(self-realization) necessity, cut us off from. Our conceptions of creativity, meaning, purpose, happiness become interlinked with the group and how it reflects us back to us. Our identity constructed through this.

Well, I once heard a physicist – I think it was Brian Greene – say that if we could imagine reality as being shared by a multidimensional plane – to whatever degree each dimension gets a cut of the 'reality' pie – then as a phenomenon’s (objects) participation increases in one dimension it decreases in another, and vice versa.

So, when we imagine a phenomenon (object) reaching the speed of light, for example, this is an increase of participation within one dimensional plane and so the other dimensions lessen their participation in that phenomenon, or rather the phenomenon lessens its participation whithin them. In this case the phenomenon gets stretched into a spaghetti string (theoretically) and its temporal character shrinks or slows.
Relativity.

Given this, we can imagine a phenomenon which is more temporal and fleeting. This phenomenon would be perceived as lacking the other spatial-dimensions or it would not be perceived at all, because our corporeal existence is determined by a certain dimensional participation which establishes our substantiality, our temporality and our perceptual speed.

Another way to imagine it – because we can only imagine it – is using the Superstring imagery: The string itself represents the fabric (space) and its vibration its temporality (time). In this case Time/Space are inseparable.
A vibration needs a string and a string is inert without a vibration.
The rhythm of the vibration determines its temporality. It’s degree of alteration.

I’ve been told by science 10 or 11, at last theoretical count.

But who knows?

In the case of time we perceive it as change.
There is no moment without movement and alteration. Our very conception of a moment, of a past/present/future is determined by our temporality.

We can never be in the present, since we are always forced to look back on it or look forward to it. In so doing, we look back on ourselves and we can perceive Self as something other than. We become confused by our ability to be Self and see Self externally, because we are forced, due to this constant temporality, to perceive ourselves and the world in a temporal time-lag. We know ourselves, as an immediate or historical past, or as a projected, and hoped for, future, which we anxiously await and imagine.
This results in the delusion that Self is more than it is or that it is something totally alien.
But I digress.

In the case of space we perceive it as a three-dimensional plane within which we encounter objects, which are manifestations of temporal/spatial interactions to varying speeds. These varying speeds determine how hard/soft, substantial/insubstantial, the object is perceived by us. That is its temporal/spatial character, in relation to our own, establishes our perceptions of it.

Of course time and space, themselves, are ways of interpreting phenomena and may correspond to conceptions we cannot fathom nor perceive. But given that our existence and our brains are products of the universe we can say that our perceptions correspond to something.
Whether this something is understandable or whether we are completely aware of its totality, is another matter.

How does one perceive the remaining dimensions, if there are some, I don’t know.
One can perceive things directly or indirectly, in how it affects and interrelates to what is perceived.

Whew!!!!
That was long.
Sorry.
But I'm only thinking out loud.

Truth is: I don't really know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Satyr:

From whence comes possibility? Moreover, are all things possible? Even what would be classified as impossible? What about actuality? If something actually happened, is this time bringing it towards actuality fully?

I would agree.

A valid point.

Through what method did we do this? Through having a mind? Or do you mean something fundementally more ontological?

So you view the notion of temporal and spatial conceptions as one in the same?

All right.

Yet why this continuum if it is "emptiness"? Moreover, can one not define time/space in terms of infinitely small points? Or do you mean we are not fully aware of such things in general?

Nothing as in nothingness, an ontological construct, or nothing as in "there is no connection"?

Do you conceive this as valid?

And cease after our becoming?

Understandable.

So in essence: We attempt to transcend to become God? Do you think this is possible? Do you think it is positive? Or would you prefer we accept the potentiality for decay?

Interesting, interesting.

The special consideration of "my life"?

Exceedingly interesting and quite true as regards the backwards cogitation on things. However, what specific dischotomy do you think arises betwixt the Self and identity? The idea of a soul or "Self" that transcends?

Yet would not this capacity to be able to think of a prior time speak of an ontological validity to the notion of a fourth dimension of time?

So you consider the fear of death as being at the root of all these things?

Quite true. All action is a symptom of imperfection.

Extremely intriguing.

This would seem to be the great struggle of the modern man, yes. I am rather fond of Nietzsche's considerations on the topic.

Choice in what manner? A choice that requires a free will?

Fair enough.

Such would seem to be the case.

Chaotic to what extent? Chaotic in the sense that many things are happening at once, that things are shifting? Or do you mean chaotic in the sense of randomness?

Essentially: A Will to Divinity?

Extremely fascinating and a view, in fact, I was discussing with Dr. Cello (a poster here on SciForums) on MSN last night.

Very true. The impact of the group on the individual is immense. Yet let us also consider the impact of the individual on the group. Although like all relations, there exists something in a group which is not contained within the individual, each part imposes upon the group its own peculiarities.

I shall respond more soon.



Choice in what extent?

 

Continued with Satyr:

I believe I heard such a theory on "Nova" once. This would seem to be so as regards regular objects of the same mass. In order to stretch in one direction, one must contract in another.

Very intriguing! Very!

Do you think it would be possible to have an object which only consisted of time?

Very intriguing.

Indeed. However, my current theory as regarding them conceives of them as very, very suspect. Specifically in that I can think of no way that we could actually perceive these dimensions at work, it would seem impossible to say they exist (or do not exist) as they could only be known via empirical methods.

It would seem so.

Consider this: Do not we have an immediate perception of the self when we sense something? The "now" present as we view things around us?

Such would seem to be the case, yes.

I shall be writing about this sometime later this evening. I look forward to your eventual response!

Which would be a strong argument - at least in most things - of the interference of other spatial dimensions in what we view. We do not perceive their interactions whatsoever.

 

Prince_James
All this is from my perspective. I need to say this as a disclaimer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As the potential to occupy any given space/time, which we become aware of.

Theoretically and within the space/time continuum, yes.
But possibility is limited by our own awareness, our own potentials and how they interact with those of others (objects or minds).

I may want to fly but the space/time possibility of the unity of matter I occupy (planetary body) determines if I can or not and my potential, as it has been shaped by my history also determines my potential.

That which does not lie within the realm of my cognizant possibilities.

As temporal we are always in the process of bringing something into actuality.

Actuality would be the end of action. Stability, or perfection.

Or actuality means that we would occupy the space between moments, the end of time, and therefore we would occupy nothingness.

It can be seen in that way.
The relationship between Time/Space isn’t accidental.

It is our temporal nature that bridges emptiness.
We are never in the moment, but always in the process of leaving behind one and expecting the next.
Our consciousness is merely a constant stream of thought. This is why we dream. There is no gap.

Self is always potential, never actual. We are always striving to be Self, when we are tumbling towards disintegration.

We can define it in terms of points of space/time (I think Hume did so) which are determined by our temporal perspective and are never actual. The points are potential points we move towards but never fully occupy.

Nothing as “Nothingness”.

Our something is our temporal nature which pushes us forward, as we look back.
Self is a Becoming because to actually Be would mean an end.
Life is characterized by Need, that is a disease or dissatisfaction or incompleteness.

It is this incompleteness that characterizes Need and makes life necessary as a way to satiate it.
Put another way Need is the universal flux made conscious.

These terms are ambiguous. It all depends on how they are defined.

At the core I believe time is what creates unity of thought and Being. Time flowing towards disintegration, which makes memory and knowledge, and therefore experience possible.

This is why Life can only exist in opposition to death. It is the act of resisting death.
So all ideas concerning the end of suffering (the conscious interpretation of Need) are not only absurd but a secret, sometimes subconscious, death wish.
Those dreaming of paradise are really dreaming of not-Being; ironic given that they mostly claim to love life and of being “happy”.
Embracing life, means embracing suffering.

Yes

I believe the desire to be God or be with Him, is a secret desire to cease being.
If God is omnipotence and omniscience personified (impossible by the way) then he represents an inert state of perfection, with nothing more to Become.
The end.
Furthermore He is unconscious and a non-Being since life is characterized by Need and consciousness is but a flow of thought, driven by flux.
To exist outside of Time - as far as this is even possible – is to cease all action.
Stability- Harmony-Inertia-Self-sufficiency.
There would be no reason to become or do anything.

This is why Christianity and most religions are nihilistic at heart. The hope for a cessation of life’s suffering. They dream of inertia. They condemn to hell all instances of Need and anguish.
As the state of constant suffering Hell represents life and Heaven represents death.

Yes but of all life, as we know it, since all life shares the experience of living.
We relate to other living beings by relating to our own being. We recognize our self in them. Most of the time we lose our self in them, as a way of distracting ourselves from the reality of our Becoming.

The dichotomy consists in looking back at ourselves and – because all moments can only be understood looking backwards – seeing ourselves as objects within the space/time continuum.
Often our judgments about ourselves come from others who experience us in the same manner, but more superficially. We accept their judgment about us, as being us.

So, when the Self – streaming through temporality – looks back at the moment or the self in the past (immediate or historical), it perceives itself as an object in space/time.
This is why we can converse with ourselves mentally and we can become self-conscious.

When we ask “Who am I?” or “What am I?” we inevitably seek the answer in our temporal manifestations or through our social/natural interactions.
I am life – I am animal – I am thought - I am man – I am human Being – I am my job – I am my history - I am my family and so on.

Our identity becomes a reflection of our self to our self. This reflection can come from any surface – because surfaces is all we have to go by.
Furthermore our Self intuitively knows that it is Life-unto-Death and attempts to distract itself from this, always possible moment. We are always in the possible state of ceasing to Become. Our every moment does not guarantee the next one.
This fundamental, underlying existential fear is what resides behind every emotion.
Every emotion can be traced back to an anxiety concerning our own existence or back to an answer to it.

How so?
Our capacity to think of a prior time speaks of our ability to remember, as the ordering mechanism of experiences and information, our brain offers us, in resistance to decay.

Of all conscious things.

The unconscious is driven by its search for stability. It feels nothing and knows nothing.

Considering this topic further, we can witness examples of this right here on this forum.

Shielded from the repercussions of their action, not only by society and the rule of law&order but by the mediums distancing character, the participants here become arrogant, smarmy, courageous, intolerant, prodding and unnecessarily challenging.
They vent their helplessness and sense of entitlement and subdue their boredom by attacking and insulting.
They speak of “excess” as a from of entertainment, subconsciously knowing that they are at all times protected from the worse consequences of their own stupidity.

The current credit-card debts also expose this phenomenon. The individuals, driven by their Needs and their desire to be considered socially acceptable, spend thoughtlessly, they live beyond their means, knowing that the system provides them with safety-nets and alternative solutions.

Excess in nature is punishable by death. Yet, nature is driven by replication and continuance and so most species exhibit excess as proof of genetic value. Here the individual becomes secondary. He is to prove his genetic worth and then perish.
Individuality here determined by reproduction.

Nature is characterized by frugality and caution. It therefore nurtures awareness and strategizing.
A mind brought up in relative safety and abundance never develops either and so remains adolescent and lost in its search for identity.

Yes, to whatever degree “Free-Will is possible.
In the end we are always temporally and environmentally determined and so never absolutely free.

Well order and time are a matter of awareness themselves.

Entropy seems to increase randomness and eliminate patterns.
Man uses his mind to become an agent of order- order as he understands it.
So, man creates so as to order and is attracted by it.

Divinity as in Order.

I think it’s possible.
Although how would we become aware of it.

Perhaps some of these mysterious particles we know little about, are such objects.

I agree.
What man does is construct a theory which ties up all the loose ends of his perceptual awareness and then attempts to justify it with experimentation and prediction.
M-Theory is such a hypothetical.
It’s “validity’ will be decided by how it can integrate all of physics under one umbrella using mathematics.

We are never now/present. We are always looking at ourselves in the past.
Our conception of now/present is determined by our temporal speed, where we place brackets around an unspecified moment/time/place and call it now.
It would look like this ( ).
The idea of self/now/present the inside of these temporal coordinates.

Looking forward to it.
I’ll try to respond within the week.

 

How is it, do you think, that his peers, of which, I would posit, you are not one, haven't pointed out his 'serious flaws' yet in his 'so-called theories'?

They have. Yet, some people still take him serious. Curious.

If I were you, I'd email him and straighten out his warped thinking!

He's refused to listen to his peers, what makes you think he'll listen to me?

I'm going to read the rest of the paper now. It doesn't appear to me that you are interested in a discussion of the matter as you cannot/will not understand the concepts put forth.

And you say that right after saying you'll read the paper, not after you've read the paper. Curious.

You can dismiss whatever you like. I do. Are you a materialist? I equate 'materialists' as being completely 'clueless' beyond the superficial; generally I dismiss them as a waste of my intellectual time.

As they must consider you a waste of time as well, that is, if they are of the mind to over-generalize and create strawmen arguments.

Ok, I have finished Barbour's interview, and from what I have read, you either have not read it or simply don't understand what he is saying (where he is heading). I could guide you, but you have already dismissed it after reading the first few paragraphs, so I sha'n't waste my 'time'.

In other words, it is in fact you who didn't understand the material and cannot refute what I've said, and in essence are just blowing smoke out your ass. Yeah, don't waste your time, please.

That site has a wealth of 'cutting edge' thought and there might be some who are in a position to understand and appreciate it.

I hear the crackpot train a-comin' - "woo-woo!"

 

Define "purely mathematical" in this regard? Are you saying it has no correlate to observed phenomena? Or are you claiming there is no ontological status to afford velocity, time, space, et cetera?

I'll leave it up to you to check out the definition of 'purely mathematical.'

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no correlate to observed phenomena?' Time has no effect on observed phenomena, if that's what you mean.

Ontological? What do you mean? One can only apply an ontological argument to that which physically exists.

 

Moreover, isn't it a bit ridiculous to say that there is no change present even when energy is conserved? For instance, are you willing to say that "nothing changed" when a car ignites its fuel and produces the internal combustion necessary to propel itself down the road? Whilst clearly the energy is not destroyed, putting it to use fundementally changes things. There may be no "change in the amount of energy in a system", but that energy causes things to move, to do things, et cetera. Similarly, resorting to relativity for time does not tackle the issue of what facillitates motion in time, or rather, motion at all. How do you propose time "came to be", as it were?

Changes in the physical are not affected by time. Time never did 'come to be.'

 

Satyr:

Yes, but from whence does this derive? What allows existence to have potential?

Would you then allow for even such a statement as "there is no truth" to be valid despite its contradiction? Or for any other logical law, which seems to be irrefutable, to have a capacity to be wrong in what you consider to be a potential-driven universe?

So actuality could only be an eternal thing? Something which transcends the temporality?

Is there such a thing as a space that would exist in such a position? Would not a gap necessarily have to be nothing? And then not a gap at all?

Who said this? A very, very interesting concept is presented here.

Would you say they are in fact one? Or do they retain a uniqueness?

So the essential flow of the river of self, as it were, is not to be considered substantial? By not being eternal? Also, must we not be in the moment to experience a moment in the past and expect a moment in the future?

Would not we have to occupy them if we are in flux?

If nothing as nothingness exists betwixt each thought, or each moment, or each point, would not this simply mean that "there is no gap whatsoever"? As nothingness could not properly be said to exist at all - it is the opposite of existence - and thus there'd be no actual gap? For instance, we could not "be" nothingness, as to "be" is to exist, not to not-exist.

This would indeed seem to work on the level of the temporal.

I would agree with this statement wholeheartedly, specifically as it regards such belief systems as Buddhism and Hinduism. Both essentially are nihilistic in nature, seeking a result which can only be found in utter annihilation, a removal from the game of suffering and enjoyment.

The conception of time giving unity to thoughts and space is a very interesting concept. It seems to me to go back to Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow, where it would be quite impossible to be able to see whether or not an arrow, at any one point in its flight, would be in motion.

I would agree with all but one thing: Omnipotence being impossible. By definition, existence itself is omnipotent, as all things which are possible is within the capacity to manifest within existence. Omniscience, on the other hand, is impossible as you are right, God cannot be a being, and only beings can be conscious.

Now, it would be your affirmation that our will towards eternity and Godhood is, in fact, a will towards annihilation? To become eternal, you would imagine, is the same as becoming nothing?

A fascinating analysis!

Thank you for the clarification. This most assuredly seems true.

So in essence, you postulate that through our capacity to treat ourselves as an object of observation, of essentially looking towards ourselves in the past, we disconnect ourselves from ourselves, by creating the separation from the observer and the observed? Would you then affirm that self-analysis is not fruitful?

An intriguing consideration.

True.

Through embracing it, may we transcend it? Or is it a fear which we must accept so long as we exist?

To remember is to recollect a prior spatial configuration which is no longer apparent, yes? That is to say, a recognition that the present moment is different, yes? So if memory is to be considered accurate - which we can generally check through concordance with another mind's memory or with such things as video tape and tape recorders - would not this speak of a necessity for there to have been a past, thus requiring that fourth dimension of time that would speak of the capacity for the third-dimension to change?

An interesting analysis! Your consideration of credit-card debt is similarly so.

A piercing insight. Would you then say that the majority of modern man is, in essence, a perpetual child?

To what extent would you postulate we could have free-will? Or do you view the concept only as a hypothetical?

Then I must disagree in part with this point: Even entropy cannot violate causality, and owing to this, nothing can truly be chaotic. Entropy simply disallows for things to remain stable, disallows them to have a "free lunch", but does not destroy cause-and-effect, and thus everything still has a reason which makes them essentially ordered.

Hmm, consider this: If all space is divisible into an infinitely-small particle, can a dimension cease to exist fully? For one cannot reach that infinitely-small level, as it is infinitely small, which necessitates it being infinitely away from us. If such is the case, nothing which is temporal or transient can lose any of the four dimensions fully, they'd always have to have a miniscule existence within the first, second, thid, and fourth dimensions, even if it has reached a point which could be construed as infinitely small. However, it would not be improper to speak of certain objects as predominately bieng composed of one dimension over the other.

M-theory may be a dangerous segway into non-empirically verified science which is nonetheless considered proof. Of course, one could speak of its empriical proof being found if we can relate phonemena back to it, but even so, I remain skeptical, specifically considering some of my dimensional considerations.

So due to the fact that we cannot perceive a true moment - an infinitely small period of space - even then we view things in a timelag, as it were? In recollection? Yet even if our moment is really an infinite series of infinitely small moments, would not we be given each moment that encompases that? And thus, theoretically, each moment would be separatable to us?

Take your time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Q), I'll respond to you when I come back in about half an hour.

 

(Q):

Oh? It doesn't? Then why do things decay? Why do thinks grow? Why do stars run out of fuel? These processes could not exist in a static moment, which is necessitated by a timeless universe.

Are you willing to then say that nothing, whatsoever, happens?

 

Prince_James

Time itself.
We are thrown into life – as Heidegger said – and being thrown into life means being thrown into temporality.
Therefore we are always attaining a potential. Whether this potential is our fullest or not, is another matter.

The way I think of “truth” is the way Hawkins thinks about determinism.

He said (paraphrase): “Is everything determined? Yes, but it might as well not be, since we can never know what is determined”

For me “Truth” represents the fleeting configurations of particles, at any given moment.
Even if we could know truth, that is know the approximate position of every particle in the universe, it would be obsolete the very next moment.
Flux makes ‘Truth’ fluid.

What we have instead is a shared approximation of general rules of particle behaviour.
Rules that are themselves deteriorating or falling apart due to entropy.
Nevertheless they seem to remain relatively stable for longer periods. Perhaps due to some fixed rate of flux.

Yes.

Yes. But human language has no concept of what this might be. So we use the closest approximation drawn from our own perceived reality.

It comes from a book by Maturana and Varela called: Autopoiesis and Cognition

Well, given that physicist believe in the breaking apart of forces into the ones we know of presently, we could speculate that space/time are part of the same phenomenon, that has broken apart.
Perhaps the dimensions are the product of some rift – we call the Big Bang – which has split apart this “Nothingness”, this void.

But the moment is characterized by a gap in thought. An emptiness. Perhaps also the moment is the interlude between String vibrations.
We can say that we are never in the moment but attempting to attain it.
This would account for our restlessness and disease with our being.

That is, in every momentary gap, we are not-Being, before Time forces us into the next moment.

We owe our existence to Time and yet we struggle against it, because it is characterized by the sense of our own cessation or our own nothingness, in other words our Need.

We can never occupy the moment which is a void.
We are thrust from moment to moment struggling to attain it fully.

I agree.
But we have no experience with this state and so we cannot conceptualize it or give it a term.
Maybe we can invent one or someone already has.

I think it can be traced back to the pre-Socratic Greeks, in general.
They must have taken it from the east.

You are right.

Yes.
The way I understand it is that our particle structure must have some residual memory of its past state of inert stability.
An inert stability with a flaw, perhaps.

It is this residual memory which we strive to return to.
To be at peace, to be fulfilled, to achieve nirvana.

I believe introspection is the only way to understanding.
This unity of parts we call Self, is the closest thing to our consciousness and so the most intimate thing we know or can know.

It is a characteristic of higher animal natures to be self-conscious but I believe there are minute differences in self-consciousness within the same species.
This would account for higher and lower intelligence and wisdom.

In most cases human being do not look back on themselves but look to others to assess their Being.
It takes more than perspicacity to understand. It takes the courage and the ability to look into the void, even when it looks back.

I believe there is a necessary journey through Nihilism and despair that confronts any exploring mind.
One must survive and remain sane at the realization of ones own nothingness so as to be able to come out the other side of despair and fully accept ones self.

The terror of ‘freedom’ lies in losing everything; in being willing to lose it all and have nothing. Disconnecting from everything. Accepting the emptiness, before choices become apparent. Being Self completely, before social and emotional and natural environments dictate our existence.

I’ve repeated this quote many times because I think it expresses what I’m talking about the best:
Kazantzakis said: “I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free.”

Anxiety is the unavoidable companion to life.
Courage isn’t an absence of fear. That’s indifference or ignorance.
In most cases courageous acts are instances of instinctive action, before rational thought.

Courage is the overcoming of it; the toleration and acceptance of it.

One is not courageous when they are not aware of the possibilities. That’s stupidity.
One is courageous when he acts despite the possibilities.

There are multiple socio-economic consequences to this position.
In the west, driven by capital flow, the risk-taker is glorified. In fact the risk-taker is made possible by keeping him as oblivious to repercussions as systemically possible or by shielding him from the full consequences of his actions so as to maintain him as a viable participant and consumer within the system.

Every social system relies on its parts to maintain it. Because of this it promotes activity.
It does this by:
1- Creating a specific ambitions and ideals to be strived for
2- Keeping the individual as unaware of information or ideas that would make it apprehensive or sceptical, and keeping the individual as docile and ignorant as possible. The only information promoted, that which is necessary towards the attainment of his socially prescribed ambitions
3- Sheltering the individual from the worse possible consequences

Ah yes. I agree.

That is, in fact, what domestication entails.
I’ve also labelled it Feminization.
The individual is prevented from becoming self-sufficient, in accordance to his/her nature, and becomes totally dependant on the group and in his role within it.

We can have ‘free-will’ only as far as we can choose between possibilities within our temporal necessity.
Time is our cage. But also our creator.

So, you are saying that there can never be a particle which is fully within one dimension and not in any other or that parts of it must occupy all dimensions at any given moment, to whatever degree?

Each moment is separable to us, but to whatever extent we perceive or understand it. Our mind simplifies and abstracts.
We can never be sure that some information isn’t being discarded or ignored due to its incomprehensibility or our inability to simplify it.

I hope I made sense.
It’s late and I should be sleeping.