Existence Without Time: Immaterial Universe & Time

[RingoKid]

Physics has no physical ideas priori to physical phenomena.

If this is true then therein lies the flaw in physics and the way it is taught as before spacetime at T= or < 0 there was no physical phenomena.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I did not say that time is not a measure of anything. I said that time is not "how we measure". Time is much more that.

It seems you are nitpicking. If you claim time is not how we measure, and I say time is a measure of things, that is essentially using time the same way (though our interpretations are in dispute). Just think with me for a second. What exactly do you believe brings about the concept of time in the human mind (and make no mistake, we invented the concept)? Probably most people get a notion of it as kids while they age, and as they watch things in their environment rot, wear out, disappear, die . . . and then some adult relates that to "time." The meaning is, those things had only so much "time" to exist or flourish.

If you are objecting that I want to measure the rate at which reality is disintegrating, okay then, let's not measure it. Now, tell me what time it is, how much time I have before dinner, how long I have to finish my test . . . What use is the concept of time if it has no standards or units by which to give us markers?

I agree. That is why I am offering you this opportunity. You certainly need not agree with me or accept it.

Opportunity for what? You said I should "investigate modern physics," implying you know something about physics which my characterization of time is in disagreement with. Okay, explain what you see I need to learn.

You are taking shots at my definition without giving me something to consider as an alternative. I am not a shallow person, I see there are deep things to existence, I don't think reality is all physical (no insult intended to physicalists), I believe there is "something more." But I just can't see time as one of the deep things unless you want to talk about what time means to a human life, or something similar.

I agree that this is simple, as you say. This is very simplistic, in my opinion.

Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with reality we are observing losing its structural integrity? Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with what it means to us to die? How things got organized and our reason for being alive is what is "much more than that," as you put it, not time itself. Time is ordinary (even if a bit tricky), why try to make it profound?

You deny that time has the most important of its meanings. Based on your misunderstanding, you then question why people use the word dimension in the context that you have denied it. Perhaps if you were to investigate the concept of dimensions further, you might realize that it does apply.

I have investigated it, and time is one of the very few areas of physics where I feel comfortable saying it is total nonsense to see time as an actual dimension of the sort where one can move around. The entire concept of a time dimension, beyond its usefulness as a realistic metaphor, has grown from imaginative thinking. It is science fiction, not science. It stemmed from the fact that the rate of time (entropy) can be slower than our current frame of reference, or faster than our current frame of reference. So some surmise that means if we can manipulate reality enough, we might go back or forward in time as though it is really a space dimension!

Think about the absurdity of it. If we could time travel, that means a complete universe would have to exist at every moment we travel through. Where is all that energy and matter going to come from to maintain all those universes? We can't even figure out where the stuff of this universe came from!

No, as Iacchus said, the past and future do not exist as real. Only the present exists, only the present has ever existed, and only the present will ever exist. Because the present includes incessant change, it means the present never stays the same, and that change from what it was to what it will be is what we think of as time passing.

Speak for youself, and do not say "we" when speaking with me. I see no reason to accept this statement at all. . . . Again you say we, as though you think that you are speaking for more than yourself. You are not.

The term "we" is just a grammer thing. Don't get hung up on it. It is mostly a way to not say "I," as well as to suggest there's some common agreement about where I apply the term "we."

I believe that this is a temporary phenomenon.

Okay, make your case. Are you just going to make statements without showing how it might be so? If you can't give direct evidence, can you at least provide some sort of facts from which one can infer that the physical universe is only temporarily headed for disorder? If you can't do either, then you are just speculating and so no different from anyone else who offers factless opinions.

You know, I don't mind at all being disputed if when you do it you show me where I went wrong, and/or why your view is better. Just labeling my views as wrong, simplistic and replacing them with your own unsupported opinions makes me kind of testy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

We seem to have no other choice, metaphysical ideas give birth to physical phenomena, that is the way we assume the world is at the present. Physics has no physical ideas priori to physcial phenomena. The physcial world is born of relationships not bricks.

Nice exchanging ideas with you again Radar.

I am not sure if you wrote what you mean. It sounds backward. Isn't it that observed physical phenomena have given birth to metaphysical ideas, such as physicalism? I agree the physical world is about relationships, but might you agree that we don't know if we see all the things involved in that relationship? With physicalism, for example, the assumption is that if the senses don't detect it, then it doesn't exist. So there actually is an a priori assumption there, even if it is, as you say, due to the [experience of] physical phenomena.

Is it?, let's examine this. Special Relativity does demonstrate to us, through our experience, funtional endevours, that are faltless and demand time and space to be unified. As time passes entropy increases. That describes the physical functionality of the macro world. At the micro world level, there is no entropy, time appears to be at standstill.

Hmmmmm, I don't think you are quite right there. What about radiation, nuclear decay, the prediction of the proton's eventual decay, the observed loss of energy in EM oscillation as the universe expands?

Yet if you ask a physicist working on his particle accelerator, was there a particle or not? It was not always there. How can you have a particle if there is no time? By having a new theory to explain it. Quantum mechanics, shows us how and the machines that are designed from it, again have functionality. Time and space is still there even if it is a different set of relationships to explain it. We will attach a new prefix/suffix, like time is anytime and space is anywhere. OK so now we go all the way back to where we know nothing about our universe the BB, just before that initiates. We have no known evidence to believe something comes from nothing unless nothing was something. In fact virtual particles come from nothing which would have to be something since we experience just that. There is no evidence to suggest that either time or space or the laws that govern this world we live in are anything more than a priori existence in a state of which we do not know anything about yet. All these concepts unfold in a natural way due to specific verifiable and measureable anthropic fine tuning. So put a new prefix/suffix, intrinsic time and space in a limbo state. If there is any validity to your experience Les, this indicates just what I am saying. Now here is a question that maybe only you know what it means. How can you experience Essence and describe it as you have in a spatial way and timeless notion if it did not possesses these qualities?

I probably agree with more than I disagree (I think ). Lately I've been trying to stay away from assigning any non-physical metaphysical significance to what has already been taken possession of by science thinkers. I am not saying that the change relationship described by "time" is all there is to existence. I am simply letting time stand for the rate of entropic change of physical stuff.

Regarding my inner experience, I do not think it is something physical I am experiencing. And while time might be a physical concept because we can see physical processes acting in time, spatial characteristics cannot yet be fully claimed by physics. There are physical aspects we can observe, but how do we know what is present in "space" that we can't see? In fact, those who've become accomplished at the inner experience have many times claimed there is an illumination there, undetected by the senses or mechanical machinery. So I don't see why an uncreated, forever existing Essence can't have spatial characteristics, and can at the same time be timeless. I simply see the shapes that Essence takes as temporary, not the Essence itself.

 

[Prometheus]

It seems you are nitpicking. If you claim time is not how we measure, and I say time is a measure of things, that is essentially using time the same way (though our interpretations are in dispute).

Not to me. You are saying that time is nothing more than a way to measure. I am disagreeing completely.

Just think with me for a second. What exactly do you believe brings about the concept of time in the human mind (and make no mistake, we invented the concept)?

Sorry, but I can't. You ask me to think with you for and second and believe that it is not mistake that we invented the concept. I could not disagree more. In my mind, you have a completel mistaken understanding of time. What do I think brings about the concept of time in the human mind? First and foremost, the existence of time in the universe. How about that? Time was not invented. Ways to measure time were recognized by mankind.

Probably most people get a notion of it as kids while they age,

Here we agree. As people evolve through time, or age, their greater experience with time gives them a notion of time, as you phrase it.

Now, tell me what time it is, how much time I have before dinner, how long I have to finish my test . . . What use is the concept of time if it has no standards or units by which to give us markers?

I am not denying your use of time. I am only stating that you are expressing superficial relationships that exist in time, and are missing the much more important and deeper picture.

You said I should "investigate modern physics," implying you know something about physics which my characterization of time is in disagreement with. Okay, explain what you see I need to learn.

Newtonian physics, where you seem to be stuck, recognizes time as a way to measure motion through space, and nothing more. In modern physics, time is much more. In the universe in its present state, all of space is bound up in time, as space-time. Space by itself, outside of the context of time, is not a meaningful or useful concept. Time is as fundamental to the structure of the universe as space. For you to eliminate the concept of time is to destroy any chance you have for understanding about the structure of the universe.

Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with reality we are observing losing its structural integrity? Why confuse the issue of the human concept of time with what it means to us to die?

I don't know why you are doing so.

Time is ordinary (even if a bit tricky), why try to make it profound?

Your understanding of time is ordinary, and you do not want to make your understanding profound.

Do you not recognize that physicists talk about time as though it is much more than you claim? Do you not realize that your idea is way outside of common thought? Where do you get the basis for your idea?

I have investigated it, and time is one of the very few areas of physics where I feel comfortable saying it is total nonsense to see time as an actual dimension of the sort where one can move around.

Oh, you have investigated it. Well, that decides it. Wait. I have investigated it as well, as have all of the scientists who have investigated it. I am sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusion.

The entire concept of a time dimension, beyond its usefulness as a realistic metaphor, has grown from imaginative thinking. It is science fiction, not science.

I got it. Replace your word time with the word god. Now, you make sense. Perhaps you were just using an unusual wording. God is science fiction. Not right, but you are much closer now.

Think about the absurdity of it. If we could time travel,

Time travel into the future is unavoidable. Time travel into the past is not possible. I am not sure what you are saying or how it is relevant to the previous points.

Okay, make your case. Are you just going to make statements without showing how it might be so? If you can't give direct evidence, can you at least provide some sort of facts from which one can infer that the physical universe is only temporarily headed for disorder?

The universe is cyclic.

You know, I don't mind at all being disputed if when you do it you show me where I went wrong, and/or why your view is better. Just labeling my views as wrong, simplistic and replacing them with your own unsupported opinions makes me kind of testy.

Where did you come up with your idea, and what sort of investigation did you do, that would lead you to the idea that the concept of time in modern physics is wrong, and that instead that time is a meaningless concept invented by mankind?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Not to me. You are saying that time is nothing more than a way to measure. I am disagreeing completely.

Look, I am not saying that the time concept doesn't have a corresponding aspect in reality. But every reference to time in the real world is one of measurement, and that's because the concept was invented to represent the rate of something.

Sorry, but I can't. You ask me to think with you for and second and believe that it is not mistake that we invented the concept. I could not disagree more. In my mind, you have a completel mistaken understanding of time.

LOL! Who/what the heck do you think invented the concept? Rocks? Trees? Lizards? If humans didn't exist, would there be a concept of time?

What do I think brings about the concept of time in the human mind? First and foremost, the existence of time in the universe. How about that? Time was not invented. Ways to measure time were recognized by mankind.

I said entropic change was represented by the human mind with the concept of "time." The concept is totally different than the reality the concept strives to represent; we invented the concept not what time corresponds to in reality.

I am not denying your use of time. I am only stating that you are expressing superficial relationships that exist in time, and are missing the much more important and deeper picture.

Would you care to share what your concept of "deeper" is? Better yet, tell me what my model of time can't account for, and I will defend it. Send anything you please my way.

Newtonian physics, where you seem to be stuck, recognizes time as a way to measure motion through space, and nothing more. In modern physics, time is much more.

In the universe in its present state, all of space is bound up in time, as space-time. Space by itself, outside of the context of time, is not a meaningful or useful concept. Time is as fundamental to the structure of the universe as space.

I haven't disputed any of that, but so what? Why do you think that makes time profound? Still seems ordinary physics to me.

For you to eliminate the concept of time is to destroy any chance you have for understanding about the structure of the universe.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? I have NOT tried to eliminate the concept of time, and I DO think time is necessary to understand the structure of the universe (as I have stated a couple of times already). I merely have said that time isn't anything magical and, in fact, is quite ordinary.

Your understanding of time is ordinary, and you do not want to make your understanding profound.

That's right. I also ain't buying the miracle of the loaves and fishes as "profound." Assuming something cool happened with Jesus and the people there, then I think it was probably that everyone was very surprised to find out how much food people came up with when before that it appeared little food was present. Maybe the "miracle" was how everyone suddenly shared. Now that makes sense, but given the confirmable incidents of supernatural occurances on planet Earth, a miracle that reproduces lots of food from a little doesn't.

Same with time. My, experiences, and everyone else's you can cite, have been quite ordinary. If you don't want to believe in God, and want to make physics some big mystical thing with all kinds of miraculous things happening, then why not make time "profound."

Do you not recognize that physicists talk about time as though it is much more than you claim? Do you not realize that your idea is way outside of common thought? Where do you get the basis for your idea?

You might want to do a search of this site for all the threads started on time. It's a highly contemplated subject. You will find I am not the only one describing time as only a measurement, nor the only one turned off by attempts to make it just this side of magical.

Oh, you have investigated it. Well, that decides it. Wait. I have investigated it as well, as have all of the scientists who have investigated it. I am sorry, but I do not agree with your conclusion. . . . I got it. Replace your word time with the word god. Now, you make sense. Perhaps you were just using an unusual wording. God is science fiction. Not right, but you are much closer now.

I didn't say I was right, you are the one who in your first paragraph said I was "wrong" and then didn't feel the need to explain how/why I was wrong. And my view of time has nothing to do with the belief in god. As most people who know me know, I am not religious.

Time travel into the future is unavoidable. Time travel into the past is not possible. I am not sure what you are saying or how it is relevant to the previous points.

Unavoidable? Would you care to give evidence of that?

The universe is cyclic.

True, and that could mean it will recycle once its run down. I recognize the possibility. But right now there is nothing counterbalancing entropy. Wouldn't you agree? Few if any experts are willing to say the universe will for certain recycle. What makes you so sure?

Where did you come up with your idea, and what sort of investigation did you do, that would lead you to the idea that the concept of time in modern physics is wrong, and that instead that time is a meaningless concept invented by mankind?

See, you think I am saying something really contrary to science, but I am not (I hope). My way of describing time is completely derived from my understanding of science. There is change, overall change is entropic, entropic change is occurring at a pace, that pace can be altered by gravity, etc., pace is measured by cycles, time is represented in human concepts by cyclic data . . . I mean really, how far out in left field is any of that?

 

[Prometheus]

every reference to time in the real world is one of measurement, and that's because the concept was invented to represent the rate of something.

Before mankind was around, I assume that time had not been invented yet. Yet, the Earth still moved around the sun, and the sun still moved through the galaxy. Such movement required time, in my opinion. Do you disagree with this?

LOL! Who/what the heck do you think invented the concept? Rocks? Trees? Lizards? If humans didn't exist, would there be a concept of time?

I agree that it requires people in order for there to be a concept of time. Is that what you are arguing? Without people, there is still time, but no concept, as concepts are formulated by people.

The concept is totally different than the reality the concept strives to represent; we invented the concept not what time corresponds to in reality.

I agree with this.

Would you care to share what your concept of "deeper" is? Better yet, tell me what my model of time can't account for, and I will defend it. Send anything you please my way.

With your use of the word concept, I am not sure if you are saying that time is no more than measurement, or that the concept of time of most humans is no more than measurement. Time is as fundamental to the universe as space. All of space, now, is bound up with time. Does your model of time account for this?

I haven't disputed any of that, but so what? Why do you think that makes time profound? Still seems ordinary physics to me.

Ordinary, yes, yet profound in relation to the understanding that most people have.

You might want to do a search of this site for all the threads started on time. It's a highly contemplated subject. You will find I am not the only one describing time as only a measurement,

I agree.

Unavoidable? Would you care to give evidence of that?

Every second of every day, you move into your future. You cannot avoid it. Previously, you were young. Since over time you have moved into your future, you have now evolved to a point in your life where you weren't in the past.

Few if any experts are willing to say the universe will for certain recycle. What makes you so sure?

A fair question. I have accumulated quite a bit of evidence, which is sufficient to convince me. It is not easy to present the evidence here, and of course you would be under no obligation to accept it.

See, you think I am saying something really contrary to science, but I am not (I hope). My way of describing time is completely derived from my understanding of science. There is change, overall change is entropic, entropic change is occurring at a pace, that pace can be altered by gravity, etc., pace is measured by cycles, time is represented in human concepts by cyclic data . . . I mean really, how far out in left field is any of that?

I see that you place quite a bit of emphasis on cyclic data. If you place such emphasis on this cyclic data and on the cyclic nature of time, are you therefore open to the idea that the entire universe follows a similar cycle?

 

[Iacchus32]

In my opinion, time just kind of goes along for the ride, and wouldn't exist if, in fact there was no-thing to measure ... in relation to other things that is.

As far as time being a concept, time is exactly what it is (in essence), and the concept, no matter who or what came up with the patent, is merely acknowledging this.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Before mankind was around, I assume that time had not been invented yet. Yet, the Earth still moved around the sun, and the sun still moved through the galaxy. Such movement required time, in my opinion. Do you disagree with this?

True. I have acknowledge that the concept of time is related to something going on in reality.

I agree that it requires people in order for there to be a concept of time. Is that what you are arguing? Without people, there is still time, but no concept, as concepts are formulated by people.

It is partly what I am saying, but not quite. Without people's concepts there is something happening, and you can call it time, but what it is describing is what we are debating. I'll explain more below.

With your use of the word concept, I am not sure if you are saying that time is no more than measurement, or that the concept of time of most humans is no more than measurement. Time is as fundamental to the universe as space. All of space, now, is bound up with time. Does your model of time account for this?

Yes, I am saying time is a measurement, but I am also saying it is related to something going on in reality. Let me offer an analogy.

Say all that exists is an infinite ocean of water. This ocean has always existed and always will exist. The general, enduring condition of the ocean is one where everything is the same; it is homogeneous, blended, undifferentiated H20. But every once in awhile some spot freezes for awhile creating an ice world.

Okay, so one spot in the ocean does freeze into a large ice sphere, and then on the surface of the ice sphere little ice shapes form which are conscious they are bound up in ice. Now, the ice shapes observe the sphere they are part of and notice it is slowly melting; and they observe themselves and notice they are melting too. In a spot a zillion molecules away another ice world is melting too, but at a slower rate because the ocean is colder there. Somebody wants to know the relation of all things melting in the ocean. They find out how many crystals their world is made of, how many they themselves are made up of, and how many their world and they can lose before disappearing. They learn how to count ice crystals, measure temperature, and then can calculate the pace at which ice crystals will melt in a given situation. How do they decide pace? While the melting is going on, they observe waves in the ocean oscillating regularly, and they use that regularity to mark how often on average ice crystals in their region melt. They say, "every 100 oscillations, a crystal melts," and by that means keep track of the melting.

So there are two things -- there is the rate of melting and there is keeping track of the melting. In terms of space, since the ocean water represents that, as ice melts, then space increases; or if in an area of the ocean lots of ice worlds form, then there is less "space" in that spot. So yes there is an intimate relationship between space and the structured forms in it.

Every second of every day, you move into your future. You cannot avoid it. Previously, you were young. Since over time you have moved into your future, you have now evolved to a point in your life where you weren't in the past.

Now this, IMO, is exactly how people make the concept of time "mystical." There is no future! You are talking about time like it's some place or dimension or kingdom. All that exists is just so many entropic events (ice crystal meltings) left in the universe/your body. There is no past, there is only whatever structure that's been and what happened to it.

Don't you see that it's consciousness which is creating this "realm" of time. It is a conceptual "world," built from our imagination and our memory of events. But as an actual dimension, in physical reality it ain't there. There is structure, there is change, there is the fact that overall change is entropic, and there is the rate of change. That's it. Show me something more and I'll believe it.

I see that you place quite a bit of emphasis on cyclic data. If you place such emphasis on this cyclic data and on the cyclic nature of time, are you therefore open to the idea that the entire universe follows a similar cycle?

Sure, but if we are going to guess what will happen then as I said in another post, the fact that the universe's cycles are running down isn't exactly an indication it will keep recycling.

 

[Prometheus]

It is partly what I am saying, but not quite.

Les,

It is clear that you have given this a lot of thought. That is a good thing.

We are in significant disagreement, but that is not a bad thing.

I think that you should continue with your idea unless and until you find evidence that convinces you otherwise. It is clear that my arguments cannot supply sufficient evidence to do so. As well, my position is fixed to the point that it would require significant evidence to cause a shift. This forum seems to not provide us the opportunity to make sufficient points to do other than to spout our positions.

I appreciate your postings of your position and the fact that you hold it. I still do not consider that i can accept your position as my own. Perhaps we can continue this discussion later from other angles.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les,

It is clear that you have given this a lot of thought. That is a good thing.

We are in significant disagreement, but that is not a bad thing.

I think that you should continue with your idea unless and until you find evidence that convinces you otherwise. It is clear that my arguments cannot supply sufficient evidence to do so. As well, my position is fixed to the point that it would require significant evidence to cause a shift. This forum seems to not provide us the opportunity to make sufficient points to do other than to spout our positions.

I appreciate your postings of your position and the fact that you hold it. I still do not consider that i can accept your position as my own. Perhaps we can continue this discussion later from other angles.

Thanks for providing the opportunity for me to work out some of my developing thoughts on the subject of time. If it seems I came at you hard it was only because of your opening paragraphs where you seemed to think I had only thought about this superficially. Usually when I stick my neck out, I've thought about the subject somewhat.

As you wisely suggest, it might be best see what comes of our exchanges in future (which doesn't exist of course ) discussions.

 

[Rader]

Nice exchanging ideas with you again Radar..

Les, pleased to do the same. It has always amazed me why, it is so hard to get across ideas and really understand, others views. I really do make the effort when I think its worth the time. Its important to understand others, to understand ourselves further. We are forced to use current knowledge to further a better understanding of the way the world is. I always wright what I mean, its just that because I can only be in my head, everyone else has to figure out what I meant.

I am not sure if you wrote what you mean. It sounds backward. Isn't it that observed physical phenomena have given birth to metaphysical ideas, such as physicalism?

I think, I understand why you interpreted it this way. In that case mind would be all that there is. I have fought with this thought for much time now.

I agree the physical world is about relationships, but might you agree that we don't know if we see all the things involved in that relationship?

Yes I do agree. If you would compare what we know, to what there is, we do not know much. If you compare though, when we did not know much to what we know now, we know quite a bit and knowledge grows in quantum leaps.

With physicalism, for example, the assumption is that if the senses don't detect it, then it doesn't exist. So there actually is an a priori assumption there, even if it is, as you say, due to the [experience of] physical phenomena.

I am not sure exactly what you assume here, so I will give you my ideas. To know substance you must sense it, physically. The question is, what does the sensing? The substance; that does not correlate with subjunctive experience. So that leaves us with consciouness, does consciousness do the sensing? That leaves the door open to explaining why, you think who you are and I think who I am. Heller Keller thought whos she was. For that matter anything else might know what it is. That could be why when all the senses are stripped away there is still something left. So this is why I said, metaphysical ideas give birth to physical phenomena, that is the way we assume the world is at the present. Physics has no physical ideas priori to physcial phenomena. The physcial world is born of relationships not bricks.
The relationship Essence has with the physical world, is what anything could experience. Thats the best I can do I hope you understand my view.

Hmmmmm, I don't think you are quite right there. What about radiation, nuclear decay, the prediction of the proton's eventual decay, the observed loss of energy in EM oscillation as the universe expands?

What is the problem here, that your referring to, the difficulty in explaining assumed physical locality? If any of these have a usefullness inside of our current or future theories, and they should, we will have someday explanations for them.

I probably agree with more than I disagree (I think ). Lately I've been trying to stay away from assigning any non-physical metaphysical significance to what has already been taken possession of by science thinkers.

You do not have to, Bohr did that years ago but again that depends how you intrerperete things, others would be of there own opionion.

I am not saying that the change relationship described by "time" is all there is to existence. I am simply letting time stand for the rate of entropic change of physical stuff.

Thats fine but its not that simple, it is my opinion that time and space are eternal and present science demands and confirms it by current theory.

Regarding my inner experience, I do not think it is something physical I am experiencing.

I never said or thought it was, although I came to that understanding in a totally different way.

And while time might be a physical concept because we can see physical processes acting in time, spatial characteristics cannot yet be fully claimed by physics.

No, time and space must be eternal, this is the main reason for posting to you here. What reason or evidence can you put in favor of this. The fact that you experience something, sometime, somewhere without senses, is a reason for you believing this, not me. My reason is from what we know of science today. Time and space are inseperable, in GR or QM, so I have no reason to suspect otherwise before the BB.

There are physical aspects we can observe, but how do we know what is present in "space" that we can't see?

Well we can weight the universe and we have done that and we can not see or account for all its weight.

In fact, those who've become accomplished at the inner experience have many times claimed there is an illumination there, undetected by the senses or mechanical machinery. So I don't see why an uncreated, forever existing Essence can't have spatial characteristics, and can at the same time be timeless. I simply see the shapes that Essence takes as temporary, not the Essence itself.

I agree with you but you must understand that timelessness is still TIME, you can not rip it away from space even if space has no dimension.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is the problem here, that your referring to, the difficulty in explaining assumed physical locality? If any of these have a usefullness inside of our current or future theories, and they should, we will have someday explanations for them.

I should have limited my comment to your last sentence in the paragraph where I quoted you saying "At the micro world level, there is no entropy, time appears to be at standstill." I was giving you examples of entropy at the "micro world level" (radiation, nuclear decay, the prediction of the proton's eventual decay, the observed loss of energy in EM oscillation as the universe expands . . .)

My reason is from what we know of science today. Time and space are inseperable, in GR or QM, so I have no reason to suspect otherwise before the BB. . . . I agree with you but you must understand that timelessness is still TIME, you can not rip it away from space even if space has no dimension.

I am looking at it primarily from the science point of view as well when I say it seems contradictory to say time and space are eternal.

I hope somebody solid in physics reads this and tells me if I am wrong, but I think the only reason time and space are treated as inseparable in physics is because of where and with what change takes place. In physics, the only change anyone is concerned with is physical, and physicalness requires space in which to both exist and to change. Also, all time and space attributes are assigned to what was created by the Big Bang; time and space, like us, are within that creation. Space has expanded with time, so there is that relationship too, and if we trace space back to the instant of the big bang, it seems there was no space and there was no time (at least at that point of where the BB was about to occur). So as far as we know, the time and space we find here did not exist before the BB.

I agree with you that intuitively it is difficult to image "nothing" was prior to the BB, or that "nothing" will be around after the universe completely disintegrates. But you are insisting we keep the definition of time/space within the principles of physics, and so it seems to me you cannot then also say time and space are unending when the only indications we have is that since they had a beginning, they will have an end.

See, I am simply distinguishing between the physical-scientific meaning of time and space, from say a spiritual meaning where we might surmise the universe has happened within some infinite and eternal expanse of existential stuff. I think when you say time, you really mean there is something which does not disintegratively age behind that which is disintegratively aging. But time is the term we apply to that which is disintegratively aging. That in fact is exactly the meaning of it, so it is a contradiction to say time is timeless! Same with space. In the physical-scientific meaning, space is considered in relation to that which is disintegratively aging (matter), so if all matter one day fully disintegrates, then there will be nothing to be in relation to and so the concept of space becomes meaningless.

 

[Rader]

I am looking at it primarily from the science point of view as well when I say it seems contradictory to say time and space are eternal. I hope somebody solid in physics reads this and tells me if I am wrong, but I think the only reason time and space are treated as inseparable in physics is because of where and with what change takes place. In physics, the only change anyone is concerned with is physical, and physicalness requires space in which to both exist and to change. Also, all time and space attributes are assigned to what was created by the Big Bang; time and space, like us, are within that creation. Space has expanded with time, so there is that relationship too, and if we trace space back to the instant of the big bang, it seems there was no space and there was no time (at least at that point of where the BB was about to occur). So as far as we know, the time and space we find here did not exist before the BB.

The quote below is from someone who understands this better than we do, earlier in the thread. Its pretty clear to me what it means. What is not clear is what was before the BB, nobody can give you an answer. My argument is if time and space are necessary extrinsic qualities of substance why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence?

What SR does entail is that time and space do not exist independently of each other, not that they don't have meaning independently of each other. And what GR further entails is that time and space do not exist independently of matter and energy.

Is this what you are not sure of?

I agree with you that intuitively it is difficult to image "nothing" was prior to the BB, or that "nothing" will be around after the universe completely disintegrates. But you are insisting we keep the definition of time/space within the principles of physics, and so it seems to me you cannot then also say time and space are unending when the only indications we have is that since they had a beginning, they will have an end.

There is no way to know if there was a beginning or if there will be a end, except if you are talking only about physical states and were are not even sure if this is just a cylic process. What had a beginning was substance and to have that, it is necessary time and space. What is not known and that is the debate, can time and space exist before substance. Can there be existence without time? That is not possible and has been more than once said, time and space are inseperable for a physical existence.

See, I am simply distinguishing between the physical-scientific meaning of time and space, from say a spiritual meaning where we might surmise the universe has happened within some infinite and eternal expanse of existential stuff. I think when you say time, you really mean there is something which does not disintegratively age behind that which is disintegratively aging

.

Correct

But time is the term we apply to that which is disintegratively aging.

Only when it pertains to the physcial world.

That in fact is exactly the meaning of it, so it is a contradiction to say time is timeless! Same with space.

Why? You know the latest studies on this matter, plank length keeps coming up in the formulas. Plank length to my knowledge is not an infinite point that bends to infinity. To give you a example of its size, it is as the distance from end of the universe to the center of the earth, the center of the Earth to the center of an atom and then the center of an atom to plank lenght.
No time is timeless, no entropy is timeless, no movement is timeless. I thought you might be able to comprehend what I am saying, you said you had a notion of this state. You also said that this state seemed to exist.

In the physical-scientific meaning, space is considered in relation to that which is disintegratively aging (matter), so if all matter one day fully disintegrates, then there will be nothing to be in relation to and so the concept of space becomes meaningless.

Or maybe it just returns to timeslessness and spacelessness from whence it came. I have read many of the books on this and there is a variety of opinions. Its quite interesting to contemplate the fate of the universe.

 

[balkan]

It is meaningless to discuss time without spatial dimensions. They are covariant. Neither concept is meaningful without the other. Multiplication by zero can yield any result desired.

no... it is meaningless to discuss with Iacchus32... i think he might be putting us on...

 

[Les Sleeth]

The quote below is from someone who understands this better than we do, earlier in the thread. Its pretty clear to me what it means. What is not clear is what was before the BB, nobody can give you an answer. . . . . Is this what you are not sure of?

It seems like we never quite understand each other the first time around. I think if I spoke Spanish we’d need to exchange a lot fewer posts! I’ve haven’t disputed the current link between time, space, energy and matter, as Tom’s post states. I am not unsure about that even if I don’t understand all the known facets of the relationship.

My argument is if time and space are necessary extrinsic qualities of substance why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence?

I cannot see how your logic about extrinsic and intrinsic follows. For example, if physicalness is a manifestation of some deeper, more basic conditions and/or substance, then while physicalness is dependent on the deeper thing, the deeper thing would not be dependent on physical manifestations.

Can there be existence without time? That is not possible and has been more than once said, time and space are inseperable for a physical existence.

Time space, energy and matter are necessary for physical existence, but is physical existence all there is? Carbon and oxygen are necessary for the existence of carbonated water, but are they necessary to existence of sun spots or quarks or aluminum foil? In other words, we can’t assume that all levels of existence must have the same traits found in physicalness.

Remember, I have ONLY been relying on the physical interpretations of time and space, but it seems you to want to take those terms and apply them outside the context of physics. My experience here at PF has often been that that causes confusion, as well as disagreements where there need be none. If, for instance, we first create distinct categories for our notions of existence, and we start with physical existence, then we would say that time, space and energy are terms that apply to conditions within the universe. Time helps describe the way physical conditions change in our universe, while energy is what drives change.

And space? It is not simply emptiness where matter isn’t, space is quite physical. Consider what astronomer Donald Goldsmith says about space in his book, The Runaway Universe, where the universe “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy. This energy, concealed from any direct detection by its complete transparency, permeates seemingly empty space . . . amazingly, every cubic centimeter of the new space that ongoing cosmic expansion creates likewise teems with this invisible energy, the existence of which endows each volume of space with a tendency to expand.” German physicist Henning Genz writes in his book Nothingness, “To list some the terms that contribute to the energy of the vacuum we have, for starters, that of the Higgs field . . . there is the zero-point electromagnetic radiation of photons . . . vacuum fluctuations into electron-positron pairs and other particle-antiparticle pairs, which we know to be responsible for the experimentally observable effects of vacuum polarization.”

Or maybe it just returns to timeslessness and spacelessness from whence it came. I have read many of the books on this and there is a variety of opinions. Its quite interesting to contemplate the fate of the universe.

This gets us back to the idea of freely interchanging physcial terms with other states of existence. Continuing with time and space as examples, if time describes the rate of physical change toward entropy, but if outside our universe there is some condition/state where there is no entropic change, then how can we apply the word “time” to that situation? If space is the finite distance between matter-forms that has grown/expanded since the Big Bang and is a meaningful participant in the universe’s physics, but if outside our universe there’s an infinite expanse of some eternal existential stuff which is not involved in any sort of physical situation, then how can we equate the universe’s space with that infinite expanse of existence?

My point is that to avoid confusion, we should try to set up philosophical discussions better by making iron-clad distinctions between terms we use to describe physicalness and those possibilities we wish to ponder which are not essentially physical (like, say, consciousness which some propose is somehow entwined with physicalness).

 

[Prometheus]

Consider what astronomer Donald Goldsmith says about space in his book, The Runaway Universe, where the universe “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy. This energy, concealed from any direct detection by its complete transparency, permeates seemingly empty space . . . amazingly, every cubic centimeter of the new space that ongoing cosmic expansion creates likewise teems with this invisible energy, the existence of which endows each volume of space with a tendency to expand.”

What does this tell us about dark energy? The only thing that it really tells us is that he, and scientists in general, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What does this tell us about dark energy? The only thing that it really tells us is that he, and scientists in general, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Well, he/they might not yet know what is going on, but I don't see anything he says as over-speculative. He is saying something is causing the expansion of the universe, as well as the increase in the rate of expansion, but so far whatever it is that is causing that can't be observed (it's "dark"). To me that is the opening thoughts about a mysterious situation. I'd also say he is being generally conservative since all other situations involving movement are known to require energy (i.e., it is logical for him to assume that some sort of energy is involved in expansion whether he can observe it or not).

Would you suggest stiffling theorists?

 

[RingoKid]

consciousness is a dimension that we as entitites tap into.

We project consciousness onto a screen of energy

the screen is in 3d and only lasts as long as the batteries in each projector.

If there were no more projectors would the screen still exist ?

would the observed be observable if there were no one to observe it ?

 

[Rader]

It seems like we never quite understand each other the first time around. I think if I spoke Spanish we’d need to exchange a lot fewer posts! I’ve haven’t disputed the current link between time, space, energy and matter, as Tom’s post states. I am not unsure about that even if I don’t understand all the known facets of the relationship.

No one ever understands anyone the first time around and sometimes never. Take a look at a good thread in QM by Vanesch and Nighlight, you will see what I mean.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=342267#post342267
English is my first language although it makes no difference if we communicate in Spanish. Its not a problem of language its a problem of conceptual understanding. I would like to try and understand your reasoning but it must have to be based on known knowledge. Do we then agree that time and space, are essential for physical existence? This is fundamental, time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world.

I cannot see how your logic about extrinsic and intrinsic follows. For example, if physical ness is a manifestation of some deeper, more basic conditions and/or substance, then while physical ness is dependent on the deeper thing, the deeper thing would not be dependent on physical manifestations.

Matter is a manifestation of time and space, within this parameter conscious physical beings exist, all are naturally bound together and a physical existence is its result. What I question is, why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence? I will explain below.

Time space, energy and matter are necessary for physical existence, but is physical existence all there is?

No, we know space is not empty as once thought, there is evidence and we both agree on that. You can measure the universes weight but you can not account for all of it in physical matter, we agree also on that. No again as there is much evidence that consciousness does not need matter to exist, there is evidence and we have both have given our reasons on a number of threads.

Carbon and oxygen are necessary for the existence of carbonated water, but are they necessary to existence of sun spots or quarks or aluminum foil? In other words, we can’t assume that all levels of existence must have the same traits found in physical ness.

Time and space could harbor an existence that is not physical. I assume we both make that assumption also.

Remember, I have ONLY been relying on the physical interpretations of time and space, but it seems you to want to take those terms and apply them outside the context of physics. My experience here at PF has often been that that causes confusion, as well as disagreements where there need be none. If, for instance, we first create distinct categories for our notions of existence, and we start with physical existence, then we would say that time, space and energy are terms that apply to conditions within the universe. Time helps describe the way physical conditions change in our universe, while energy is what drives change.

I am not trying to go outside the context of physics. The physical world that physics studies is born of metaphysical concepts.

And space? It is not simply emptiness where matter isn’t, space is quite physical. Consider what astronomer Donald Goldsmith says about space in his book, The Runaway Universe, where the universe “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy. This energy, concealed from any direct detection by its complete transparency, permeates seemingly empty space . . . amazingly, every cubic centimeter of the new space that ongoing cosmic expansion creates likewise teems with this invisible energy, the existence of which endows each volume of space with a tendency to expand.” German physicist Henning Genz writes in his book Nothingness, “To list some the terms that contribute to the energy of the vacuum we have, for starters, that of the Higgs field . . . there is the zero-point electromagnetic radiation of photons . . . vacuum fluctuations into electron-positron pairs and other particle-antiparticle pairs, which we know to be responsible for the experimentally observable effects of vacuum polarization.”

So space should not be called a vacuum anymore or the word vacuum be reworded in the dictionary.

This gets us back to the idea of freely interchanging physical terms with other states of existence. Continuing with time and space as examples, if time describes the rate of physical change toward entropy, but if outside our universe there is some condition/state where there is no entropic change, then how can we apply the word “time” to that situation?
If space is the finite distance between matter-forms that has grown/expanded since the Big Bang and is a meaningful participant in the universe’s physics, but if outside our universe there’s an infinite expanse of some eternal existential stuff which is not involved in any sort of physical situation, then how can we equate the universe’s space with that infinite expanse of existence?

This is my reasoning on existence with no time and no space. At sub light speeds matter is unfolded by and in time and space, the universe is in expansion and entropy increases. We measure time on clocks, that are relative to the observer due to matter affected by gravitation. All points have time frames and space frames to locate matter within the universe. Conscious humans experience all this in physical and measurable way. I experience and know that I exist. When I look to the edge of the universe I see time and space as it was billions of years ago. If I look at closer distances, time and space is relative to distance and has a distinct visual look to it. The physical world seems to be perceivable due to its slow cosmological expansion. We interpret the beginning of this expansion to be in a very small unit of space and time to be non-existent. The measuring stick we use to interpret all this is in a local time frame. Now what if we take a look from the outside in, instead of the inside out. A view of non-local measurements. At light speed, time and space are in all places at once. The yardstick shrinks to 0 and the measuring stick does so also. So far away and close-up have no meaning. Timelessness and spacelessness is all of time and all of space. What occurred in the beginning is the same as the distant future. If we look forward in the past, at light speed, deep in space we see the present in the future and we see time and space nowhere. Time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence.

My point is that to avoid confusion, we should try to set up philosophical discussions better by making iron-clad distinctions between terms we use to describe physical ness and those possibilities we wish to ponder which are not essentially physical (like, say, consciousness which some propose is somehow entwined with physical ness).

Agreed.

 

[Prometheus]

Would you suggest stiffling theorists?

Of course not. But I would recommend recognizing what is going on. Dark matter is not understood. That is why they call it dark. Something is happening, and scientists do not know what. They give it a name, and describe its attributes. However, we should recognize that their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong, which is why they don't understand it. We should not pretend that they are "probably" pretty close to being right.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Of course not. But I would recommend recognizing what is going on. Dark matter is not understood. That is why they call it dark. Something is happening, and scientists do not know what. They give it a name, and describe its attributes.

What is "going on" isn't all that difficult to grasp, I realize dark energy (not, BTW, dark matter) isn't understood. What did I say that made you think I don't see that? Your point seems non sequitur, at least in the context of my original comment to Radar. I was trying to make a case for limiting the definition of the term "space" to a physical definition. I sited Goldsmith simply to point to the fact that "space" is actively participating in the physics of the universe. In that context, it doesn't matter whether we understand what exactly is causing the rate of increase in expansion, or if we use the term "dark energy" for what's causing it for now until it is better understood.

However, we should recognize that their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong, which is why they don't understand it. We should not pretend that they are "probably" pretty close to being right.

How can you know "their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" if nobody understands dark energy? It might be their ideas are almost definitely extremely correct too! And who is "pretending" those scientists are close to being right? Certainly you aren't referring to me. I quoted them for the reason I stated above. Now, after more than one offence, I suggest you read up on what a strawman argument is.

But since you've brought up the issue of credibility of my quotes, show me how the quotes I provided aren't 100% correct. Goldsmith might be being a bit creative in his description, but there is no doubt that "new space [is undergoing] cosmic expansion" is there? And are you going to dispute Genz's list of attributes of space ". . . the Higgs field . . . there is the zero-point electromagnetic radiation of photons . . . vacuum fluctuations into electron-positron pairs and other particle-antiparticle pairs . . ."? What is in question there?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Its not a problem of language its a problem of conceptual understanding. I would like to try and understand your reasoning but it must have to be based on known knowledge. Do we then agree that time and space, are essential for physical existence? This is fundamental, time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world.

Yes, we totally agree that "time and space, are essential for physical existence." Also we agree that "time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world," except I'd say the relationship is much stronger than "co-exist."

Matter is a manifestation of time and space, within this parameter conscious physical beings exist, all are naturally bound together and a physical existence is its result. What I question is, why would time and space not be necessary intrinsic qualities of existence? I will explain below.

Before your explanation I will just quickly inject a couple of thoughts.

You haven't defined what you mean by existence, but the way you are using it I am sensing you mean something like "absolute existence," and not for something temporary/relative to exist. Matter needs time and space, but is there something more basic which requires neither? However, this "something more basic" would have to have the potential to manifest as time and space.

From that idea then we can say that logically speaking, it isn't necessary that time and space be intrinsic qualities of absolute (i.e., most basic) existence. They might be, for example, traits brought about by certain conditions unique to our universe.

Time and space could harbor an existence that is not physical. I assume we both make that assumption also.

Yes.

This is my reasoning on existence with no time and no space. At sub light speeds matter is unfolded by and in time and space, the universe is in expansion and entropy increases. We measure time on clocks, that are relative to the observer due to matter affected by gravitation. All points have time frames and space frames to locate matter within the universe. Conscious humans experience all this in physical and measurable way. I experience and know that I exist. When I look to the edge of the universe I see time and space as it was billions of years ago. If I look at closer distances, time and space is relative to distance and has a distinct visual look to it. The physical world seems to be perceivable due to its slow cosmological expansion. We interpret the beginning of this expansion to be in a very small unit of space and time to be non-existent. The measuring stick we use to interpret all this is in a local time frame. Now what if we take a look from the outside in, instead of the inside out. A view of non-local measurements. At light speed, time and space are in all places at once. The yardstick shrinks to 0 and the measuring stick does so also.

I'm with you so far.

So far away and close-up have no meaning.

Whoa, pull the emergency brake! Have no meaning where? In an area defined by physical processes, far away and close up do have meaning. True it is relative meaning because we need circumstances to compare other circumstances to (e.g, "far away" from what, or "close up" to what?). If you said they have no meaning to the existence of the absolute, then I could agree.

Timelessness and spacelessness is all of time and all of space. What occurred in the beginning is the same as the distant future. If we look forward in the past, at light speed, deep in space we see the present in the future and we see time and space nowhere. Time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence.

It isn't easy to understand that paragraph. I've read it over and over trying to see what you mean (is it missing commas? I can't figure out where to pause like, for instance, when you say "if we look forward in the past" or "we see the present in the future"). And it seems contradictory to say we "we see time and space nowhere," and then to say "time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence." Although I am not sure I understand what you mean,I am quite certain you are trying to make logical point.

My interpretation would be that it seems you are trying to say that the true reality is eternal and infinite, and that time and space in our universe are local, relative manifestations of that. I think Wuli might say there couldn't be temporalness and finiteness without a timeless and infinite constrast. Also, I don't know if you meant to say "what occurred in the beginning." In timelessness, there is no beginning (or end), there is just existence. In time however, beginning is part of the definition, as is end.

You said you agreed that we should make ironclad distinctions between physical terms and deeper issues we want to discuss. But it seems to me you are doing just the opposite by insisting time and space be applied to absolute existence. Time in our universe is the rate of entropic change of physical stuff, and space is the areas between mass concentrations where physical processes can take place and which actively participates in physicalness. Space in our universe is finite, and physicalness is subject to time. These are just ordinary physical concepts to help explain the workings of the universe.


If you are trying to say there is some dimension or state of existence that lasts forever, and that is the true meaning of "time"; and that same dimension or state of existence is also an infinite expanse where things can manifest, and that is true meaning of space . . . then I see what you mean. I just think that is a different discussion than what time and space are in our universe.

 

[Prometheus]

How can you know "their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" if nobody understands dark energy? It might be their ideas are almost definitely extremely correct too!

You seem upset. I did not challenge you. I made a recommendation based on my opinion of your post.

Your citation says “undergoes a continuous acceleration from the presence of a mysterious form of energy". What does this say? Nothing except “undergoes a continuous acceleration". The rest is meaningless.

Sure, his idea might be 100% correct, as any wild guess might be. I doubt that you think so. I never suggested that you do. You need not get defensive, as though I were challenging you. I am only giving my opinion of current ideas of dark energy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sure, his idea might be 100% correct, as any wild guess might be. I doubt that you think so. I never suggested that you do. . . . I am only giving my opinion of current ideas of dark energy.

What wild guess are you talking about? I honestly cannot see the reason behind your statement because I can't see how anything I quoted is particularly speculative. Can you point to something you think is a "wild guess"? Goldsmith doesn't claim to understand what is causing the expansion and increase in the rate of expansion. In fact, his statement expresses surprise at the mystery. That he used the term "dark energy" to describe the cause is completely within the boundaries of the use of the word energy, and what he is using it to describe has been observed about universal expansion. So where's the wild guess?

You seem upset. I did not challenge you. I made a recommendation based on my opinion of your post. . . . You need not get defensive, as though I were challenging you.

I wasn't upset so much as showing you my attitude toward someone who I believe is acting opinionated. The problem I have with that is first, the opinionated rely too much on their own views without giving open consideration to others' views; second, often they don't bother to defend their statements; and third, they like to go about taking pot shots at those who are willing to explain themselves. Having an opinion is one thing, being opinionated is something different.

Your original statement was "we should recognize that their ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong." How would you know that? And why say "extremely wrong"? To me that indicates you know what you are talking about. Yet if you are so expert that you can judge that, then why don't you explain so the rest of us can understand what you see that we don't? Before that you said my view of time was simplistic, and that maybe I needed to study modern physics. Did you bother to explain yourself, or where you saw the flaw in my model? I offered to defend my model if you provided the critique, but you declined. It's easy to float around forums saying "simplistic" or "wrong" or "meaningless." It is a lot more difficult to then make your case.

Something that goes on around here all the time is people pretending to know/understand more than they really do. They try to act wise or expert instead of being willing to openly learn and share ideas. I hope you aren't going to be one of them.

 

[Prometheus]

What wild guess are you talking about?

The observation is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The wild guess is that there is some force, which makes up the greatest percentage of the universe, which we do not understand at all and so call "dark", that is mysteriously (in his words) causing the phenomenon.

Yet if you are so expert that you can judge that, then why don't you explain so the rest of us can understand what you see that we don't?

This is not a forum for that. Here, some people talk about ideas that they cannot prove, and others giving their own pet ideas or dogmatically defend mainstream arguments that they did not develop and/or do not understand well. You told me your idea. You certainly have the right to the idea. I do not agree with it. Can I prove that you are wrong? Of course not. You want my idea. Why? Will you like it? I am sure not. Can you prove that it is wrong? I think not. Others might jump in and give a superficial gloss of how it is not mainstream, as though that means everything to them. So, what is your point Les?

However, since you asked, I will give you somewhat of an outline of my thinking:

The speed of light is constant in space-time. The rate of motion through space and time is symmetrical. Therefore, as an object increases in its rate of motion through space, it decreases in its rate of motion through time, and vice versa. The Big Bang caused a binding of space and time, to form space-time. Space and time became bound AFTER the Big Bang, not during it. Our part of the universe is far out in space from the location of the Big Bang, and this great distance in space caused time to begin relatively recently in this part of the universe, some 15 billion years ago. Since the time that time began here, all of space is bound up with time, and all of time is bound up with space. There is only space-time. As space-time ages, motion through space decreasses and motion through time increases. The speed of light therefore changes over time. At the very edge of the univese, where motion through space is greater than here and time is therefore less than here, the speed of light is greater. Since motion through space is greater than here, we believe that some force is responsble for this, and that expansion is accelerating. I believe that this is incorrect. It is not that expansion is accelerating, but that deceleration has yet to reach the very edge of the univserse, where the Big Bang is still occurring, as time has yet to begin there. This theory, which I expect will not be welcomed here by you or anyone else, not only explains dark energy, the seeming accelerating expansion of the universe, but also dark matter. In other words, I believe that this can explain why we can only "see" some 4% of the universe that we believe exists. Given the missing mass that this theory makes "visible", it is clear, in my mind, that the universe is cyclic, and that the current cycle that did not begin with the Big Bang but well before it will go through a Big Crunch before the end of the cycle.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is not a forum for that. Here, some people talk about ideas that they cannot prove, and others giving their own pet ideas or dogmatically defend mainstream arguments that they did not develop and/or do not understand well. You told me your idea. You certainly have the right to the idea. I do not agree with it. Can I prove that you are wrong? Of course not. You want my idea. Why? Will you like it? I am sure not. Can you prove that it is wrong? I think not. Others might jump in and give a superficial gloss of how it is not mainstream, as though that means everything to them. So, what is your point Les?

My point is that you don't use terms like "simplistic" or say someone's "ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" unless you are ready to explain why/how. That is mere potshot taking, and not in the spirit of an intelligent exchange of ideas. If you aren't going to explain the faults you see in a proposition, then why not just leave graffiti around town instead of dropping into discussions with nothing constructive/instructive to contribute?

It is not that expansion is accelerating, but that deceleration has yet to reach the very edge of the univserse, where the Big Bang is still occurring, as time has yet to begin there. This theory, which I expect will not be welcomed here by you or anyone else, not only explains dark energy, the seeming accelerating expansion of the universe, but also dark matter. In other words, I believe that this can explain why we can only "see" some 4% of the universe that we believe exists. Given the missing mass that this theory makes "visible", it is clear, in my mind, that the universe is cyclic, and that the current cycle that did not begin with the Big Bang but well before it will go through a Big Crunch before the end of the cycle.

I am not prepared to challenge your theory, but there is one question I have. Do you have observational evidence to support your theory? If not, I would suspect you are proposing it to support your a priori belief in the Big Crunch. Most of the cosmologists I've read, Goldsmith included, were not at all comfortable with the notion of an ever-expanding universe, so it's not like they were dying to find an excuse to resurrect the cosmological constant! They simply have no better explanation for what's been observed.

 

[Prometheus]

My point is that you don't use terms like "simplistic" or say someone's "ideas are almost definitely extremely wrong" unless you are ready to explain why/how. That is mere potshot taking, and not in the spirit of an intelligent exchange of ideas. If you aren't going to explain the faults you see in a proposition, then why not just leave graffiti around town instead of dropping into discussions with nothing constructive/instructive to contribute?

OK.

I am not prepared to challenge your theory, but there is one question I have. Do you have observational evidence to support your theory?

Dark matter and dark energy are 2 forms of evidence that are observed yet not explained adequately without a theory such as this. There is also a large amount of evidence in other fields than cosmology that led me to this conclusion.

If not, I would suspect you are proposing it to support your a priori belief in the Big Crunch.

Not true. It was evidence that led me to consider that the universe must be cyclic, and not the other way around.

Most of the cosmologists I've read, Goldsmith included, were not at all comfortable with the notion of an ever-expanding universe, so it's not like they were dying to find an excuse to resurrect the cosmological constant! They simply have no better explanation for what's been observed.

Not yet. It would be nice to be able to hold a discussion with some of them. Oh, well.

 

[Rader]

Yes, we totally agree that "time and space, are essential for physical existence." Also we agree that "time and space, energy and matter, co-exist in a physical world," except I'd say the relationship is much stronger than "co-exist."

OK then, within the physical world we have two hard problems to resolve. Both can be examined through the eyes of philosophy and physics.

Where does subjunctive experience come from, if it is not the result of brain parts?
How does relationships and concepts form our physical world?
These two questions might have a common answer, if there is no answer found in physics, with a physical explanation, then there is something that exists outside of the physical world.

You haven't defined what you mean by existence, but the way you are using it I am sensing you mean something like "absolute existence," and not for something temporary/relative to exist. Matter needs time and space, but is there something more basic which requires neither? However, this "something more basic" would have to have the potential to manifest as time and space.

Existence is consciousness. I am conscious and I assume the way the physical world acts, it is also conscious. We assume by deduction through studies in physics and astronomy, that the physical world came into existence, so I have no reason not to assume that whatever the physical world came from or out of, there also was a existence and consciousness. The evidence I would use to backup my reasoning is the most peculiar way the physical world goes about its business of knowing just what to do next.
So then it appears that something, that seems to be around sometimes, only temporarily, might have been around eternally.

From that idea then we can say that logically speaking, it isn't necessary that time and space be intrinsic qualities of absolute (i.e., most basic) existence. They might be, for example, traits brought about by certain conditions unique to our universe.

I can not get passed this point that you keep bringing up. You seem to want to hold on to it. Why do you want to eliminate time and space before physical matter came into existence? I can not conceive of time and space not being intrinsic properties of existence. I can conceive of the extrinsic properties of time and space, in our physical world, as we experience them everyday.

Whoa, pull the emergency brake! Have no meaning where? In an area defined by physical processes, far away and close up do have meaning. True it is relative meaning because we need circumstances to compare other circumstances to (e.g, "far away" from what, or "close up" to what?). If you said they have no meaning to the existence of the absolute, then I could agree.

No meaning in a non-local time frame at light speed. Yes you could call light speed the existence of the absolute. Absolute oneness, timeless and space ness. Take a look at this link and you might understand where my reasoning comes from.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/cship.html

It isn't easy to understand that paragraph. I've read it over and over trying to see what you mean (is it missing commas? I can't figure out where to pause like, for instance, when you say "if we look forward in the past" or "we see the present in the future"). And it seems contradictory to say we "we see time and space nowhere," and then to say "time and space would then be intrinsic necessity of existence." Although I am not sure I understand what you mean, I am quite certain you are trying to make logical point.

Sorry I know what I mean and thought you would, my mistake for not being a little more clear. Look through a telescope to the farthest quasar. Light is coming to your eyes from the distant past, many billions of years ago. That light is from the past, look forward in the past. If we could instantaneously go to where the light was when it left before it got here billion of years later, what would you find. You would find the present in the future. That quasar would be in the same time frame as Earth. Time is relative to the observer in a physical existence but not at light speed. Do you think that if you were on a photon C-ship, there would be no time and space experienced?

My interpretation would be that it seems you are trying to say that the true reality is eternal and infinite, and that time and space in our universe are local, relative manifestations of that. I think Wuli might say there couldn't be temporal ness and finiteness without a timeless and infinite contrast. Also, I don't know if you meant to say "what occurred in the beginning." In timelessness, there is no beginning (or end), there is just existence. In time however, beginning is part of the definition, as is end.

You understand me correctly, except for one point. You use the word time as if it was really a clock, as if it was a physical clock. Time is a concept in the physical world, that is essential for matters existence, it only seems logical that this same concept would be essential for existence, where matter does not exist.

You said you agreed that we should make ironclad distinctions between physical terms and deeper issues we want to discuss. But it seems to me you are doing just the opposite by insisting time and space be applied to absolute existence. Time in our universe is the rate of entropic change of physical stuff, and space is the areas between mass concentrations where physical processes can take place and which actively participates in physical ness. Space in our universe is finite, and physical ness is subject to time. These are just ordinary physical concepts to help explain the workings of the universe.

I am trying to equate time in a non entropic state where space and time are one.

If you are trying to say there is some dimension or state of existence that lasts forever, and that is the true meaning of "time"; and that same dimension or state of existence is also an infinite expanse where things can manifest, and that is true meaning of space . . . then I see what you mean. I just think that is a different discussion than what time and space are in our universe.

You understand what I am trying to get across then. I am trying to use analytical reasoning of what is known to know what is not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You understand what I am trying to get across then. I am trying to use analytical reasoning of what is known to know what is not.

Okay then, I think I get you. As I suspected, I believe we agree in spirit but disagree about certain communication issues.

This is just my humble opinion, but I believe those of us who think there is "something more" besides physicalness will do better talking to those who don't if we stop using terms and concepts which have precise definitions in physics. If we try to squeeze the idea of "something more" into physics, we are trying to fit into an area of knowledge which produces, and demands, very concrete results. If there is "something more," it will never meet that standard even if it is something we can feel with the deepest, most sensitive part of our being and produces an inner satisfaction like no other.

Take, for example, your comment, "You use the word time as if it was really a clock, as if it was a physical clock. Time is a concept in the physical world, that is essential for matters existence, it only seems logical that this same concept would be essential for existence, where matter does not exist." In the physcial world as we know it, there is no time that doesn't involve aging (i.e., discounting exotic time manipulation theories). We can slow or speed up the rate of time relative to another frame of reference, but there is not one single example showing that time can be other than entropic.

Now, you are talking about applying the concept of the aging-type of time to an area we are supposing is ageless. How can that be? To someone solidly schooled in physics, they must see our view as confused or even nonsense. In fact, if you review some of the most heated debates in the philosophy area, very often it has been philosopher types challenged by conservative science types for being sloppy about how they use physical concepts. This is what you seem to do here: "I am trying to equate time in a non entropic state where space and time are one."

Not only do I think leaving established physical concepts alone would allow us to communicate better with those who don't think there is "something more," I also think it helps a thinker understand things more clearly. I know it has really helped me to conceptually separate physical concepts from my inner experience. I've become convinced that although the physical and non-physical might share something most basic, at the level of physical existence here where we now live, the principles which govern each are too different to join. Maybe in the future . . .

 

[Rader]

Okay then, I think I get you. As I suspected, I believe we agree in spirit but disagree about certain communication issues.

This is just my humble opinion, but I believe those of us who think there is "something more" besides physical ness will do better talking to those who don't if we stop using terms and concepts which have precise definitions in physics. If we try to squeeze the idea of "something more" into physics, we are trying to fit into an area of knowledge which produces, and demands, very concrete results. If there is "something more," it will never meet that standard even if it is something we can feel with the deepest, most sensitive part of our being and produces an inner satisfaction like no other.

I have to disagree with you on several points. First we have to define "something more". This term can mean many things. In physics, in its most basic form something more is QM. The results are verifiable and there is most certainly something more than the physical. Now we then have to divide the physical into two parts. Either the "something more" really produces physical objects from that which is not, or the physical world is a Matrix, and invention of mind in which case that "something more" is also responsible.
Second, it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that "something more" is. Thirdly, within the scope of physics the search for that "something more" has evolved and will continue to evolve, physics is not a waste of time on a dead end street, we humans have been around for a few seconds in eternity, we have a long way to go. Now for those who can accept the world for the way we assume it exists, that "something more" can be researched deeper.

Take, for example, your comment, "You use the word time as if it was really a clock, as if it was a physical clock. Time is a concept in the physical world, that is essential for matters existence, it only seems logical that this same concept would be essential for existence, where matter does not exist." In the physical world as we know it, there is no time that doesn't involve aging (i.e., discounting exotic time manipulation theories). We can slow or speed up the rate of time relative to another frame of reference, but there is not one single example showing that time can be other than entropic.

I disagree, consider the following. The physical macro world is within time and space and entropy does increase. The micro world is also within time and space and does not show entropy. In both states time and space would seem to be necessary for existence. So the question here is, does the micro world exist? If it does, then time and space are essential for existence. Time and space in the micro and macro world would then have a totally different concept, in another state of being.

Now, you are talking about applying the concept of the aging-type of time to an area we are supposing is ageless. How can that be? To someone solidly schooled in physics, they must see our view as confused or even nonsense. In fact, if you review some of the most heated debates in the philosophy area, very often it has been philosopher types challenged by conservative science types for being sloppy about how they use physical concepts. This is what you seem to do here: "I am trying to equate time in a non entropic state where space and time are one."

Ok I am will to listen if there is anyone out there to correct me. What your saying then is that the micro world does not exist because it has no entropy and therefore no time or space either. What I am saying is the macro world does appear to age and the micro does not appear to age and time and space are necessary for both. I seems the problem here is applying a concept in two different states of being.

Not only do I think leaving established physical concepts alone would allow us to communicate better with those who don't think there is "something more," I also think it helps a thinker understand things more clearly. I know it has really helped me to conceptually separate physical concepts from my inner experience. I've become convinced that although the physical and non-physical might share something most basic, at the level of physical existence here where we now live, the principles which govern each are too different to join. Maybe in the future . . .

I can understand what your saying but I do not have that tool. We seem to have the same agenda with a totally different approach to meet its requirements. Also, I think that not to far in the future, physics will provide the leading edge along with other multidisciplinary tools, to find that something more. Weinberg once said, something to this effect. I think it is incomprehensible that we will ever find the answer to the last why and maybe even more incomprehensible to that we will not try.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have to disagree with you on several points. First we have to define "something more". This term can mean many things. In physics, in its most basic form something more is QM. The results are verifiable and there is most certainly something more than the physical. Now we then have to divide the physical into two parts. . . . We seem to have the same agenda with a totally different approach to meet its requirements. Also, I think that not to far in the future, physics will provide the leading edge along with other multidisciplinary tools, to find that something more. Weinberg once said, something to this effect. I think it is incomprehensible that we will ever find the answer to the last why and maybe even more incomprehensible to that we will not try.

I don't think we are going to agree because it seems you want to start with physical principles and go from there, but I want to start from the non-physical.

Either the "something more" really produces physical objects from that which is not, or the physical world is a Matrix, and invention of mind in which case that "something more" is also responsible.

Those are not the only choices, as I argued in my panpsychism thread. I'm not sure if you read my substance monism contemplation.

Second, it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that "something more" is. Thirdly, within the scope of physics the search for that "something more" has evolved and will continue to evolve, physics is not a waste of time on a dead end street, we humans have been around for a few seconds in eternity, we have a long way to go. Now for those who can accept the world for the way we assume it exists, that "something more" can be researched deeper.

I don't don't think physics is a waste of time at all. But I do think it is a dead end if we are looking for the origin/basis of existence and consciousness. You say, "it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that 'something more' is" . . . but what if "something more" can only be felt, and never grasped with the intellect? In fact, those I've cited in other threads who are famous for their descriptions of something more have clearly stated that it was through the deepest, most inward part of their feeling nature that they became aware of "something more." Of course, people will continue to search for it intellectually and/or scientifically. I just don't believe "something more" makes itself available to that sort of search. But good luck trying!

What your saying then is that the micro world does not exist because it has no entropy and therefore no time or space either.

? I never said that. I think the microworld of physics DOES exist, but as processes, activities and forms of something far more basic. In other words, I don't think the microworld inside physics appears the same as it does outside physics. You seem to think the microworld of physics is the most basic condition of existence, just like most physicalists believe. Whereas I believe even the microworld of physics is a highly structured form of something that pre-exists its entrance into physics.

I disagree, consider the following. The physical macro world is within time and space and entropy does increase. The micro world is also within time and space and does not show entropy. In both states time and space would seem to be necessary for existence. So the question here is, does the micro world exist? If it does, then time and space are essential for existence. Time and space in the micro and macro world would then have a totally different concept, in another state of being. . . . What I am saying is the macro world does appear to age and the micro does not appear to age and time and space are necessary for both. I seems the problem here is applying a concept in two different states of being.

I don't understand why you believe the microworld doesn't show entropy. Earlier I cited the examples of nuclear decay, radiation, the prediction of proton decay (true, it's not been observed yet), and the fact that the oscillation rate of the universe's background radiation slows down as the universe expands. What's that if not entropy? If you are referring to how an atom appears to expend no energy while it oscillates, for example, that is not the only kind of entropy.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Existence without time cannot be imagined by the human brain which is rooted in an ambient universe possessing the persistent illusion called time.

 

[Rader]

I don't think we are going to agree because it seems you want to start with physical principles and go from there, but I want to start from the non-physical..

Is it so important that we agree? I would be satisfied to learn something, that maybe I had not thought about yet. It is of my nature to think as I do, proceed if you like; just how do you expect to start at the opposite end first?

Those are not the only choices, as I argued in my panpsychism thread. I'm not sure if you read my substance monism contemplation.

You seem to identify that "something more" maybe closer to what it really is but it permeates everything all the way to where I am most interested in discussing it. You only have to hold a dying person in your arms and watch the life leave it body.

I don't don't think physics is a waste of time at all. But I do think it is a dead end if we are looking for the origin/basis of existence and consciousness.

Well, that would not be so, if and when consciousness is recognized as a fundamental property of existence and not a byproduct of physical processes.
How else can we determine this if not through physics?

You say, "it is of my opinion that we humans have intellect and are consciously aware to search, investigate, reason and evaluate what that 'something more' is" . . . but what if "something more" can only be felt, and never grasped with the intellect?

I believe that "something more" will someday be one with human intellect. Can you really separate the feel of any subjunctive experience you have, from your intellect?

In fact, those I've cited in other threads who are famous for their descriptions of something more have clearly stated that it was through the deepest, most inward part of their feeling nature that they became aware of "something more." Of course, people will continue to search for it intellectually and/or scientifically. I just don't believe "something more" makes itself available to that sort of search. But good luck trying!

I am and enjoy the study very much. "Something more" is not understood by everyone as you might understand it. I started to define it from the physical end, so now you can have a stab at it from your view.

? I never said that. I think the micro world of physics DOES exist, but as processes, activities and forms of something far more basic. In other words, I don't think the micro world inside physics appears the same as it does outside physics. You seem to think the micro world of physics is the most basic condition of existence, just like most physicalists believe. Whereas I believe even the micro world of physics is a highly structured form of something that pre-exists its entrance into physics.

Ok, so that was the way I interpreted it, now I understand you but do not misinterpret me either. What I think is the micro world is a maize of relationships that hold the secrets of how "something more" links itself to the macro world.

I don't understand why you believe the micro world doesn't show entropy. Earlier I cited the examples of nuclear decay, radiation, the prediction of proton decay (true, it's not been observed yet), and the fact that the oscillation rate of the universe's background radiation slows down as the universe expands. What's that if not entropy? If you are referring to how an atom appears to expend no energy while it oscillates, for example, that is not the only kind of entropy.

Heat could be treated as a loss of information, information is physical, temperature connects information and erasing one bit of information dissipates energy as heat. The micro world is not in a collapsed engine state like the physical world, therefore information is in a free state, no heat loss. The conditions you are describing are macro states not micro states, the universe as a whole does show entropy, radiation is entropy of a macro state.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The micro world is not in a collapsed engine state like the physical world, therefore information is in a free state, no heat loss. The conditions you are describing are macro states not micro states, the universe as a whole does show entropy, radiation is entropy of a macro state.

You lost me. Is the microworld something you are hypothesizing, but not yet observed? I thought you were talking about mainstream quantum principles.

 

[Mk]

Existence without time cannot be imagined by the human brain which is rooted in an ambient universe possessing the persistent illusion called time.

According to we guys up the page, in the physics sections there is no time without existence and no existence without time, they are dependent on each other. Though also, phoenixthoth is right, there is know way to imagine it.

 

[Iacchus32]

According to we guys up the page, in the physics sections there is no time without existence and no existence without time, they are dependent on each other. Though also, phoenixthoth is right, there is know way to imagine it.

Does the sun cast a shadow? Or, does the rock which stands between you and the sun cast a shadow? Why couldn't time have always been, except without a means by which to measure it? ... the physical Universe in other words.

 

[Rader]

Existence without time cannot be imagined by the human brain which is rooted in an ambient universe possessing the persistent illusion called time.

Yes and since you are here and have your watch handy you have come back to PF. Have you been time travelling?

 

[Rader]

You lost me. Is the microworld something you are hypothesizing, but not yet observed? I thought you were talking about mainstream quantum principles.

QM is not a hypothesis it is a working theory. Although there is much hypothesis, on its unknown variables. The Copenhagen Interpretation, as my view, needs a projection up to conscious observation, all information is probabilities until that occurs. Somewhere along the chain, you need to postulate "an observation", so what does the observing? Is consciousness the projection of the wavefunction.? Is that mainstream,? depends who your talking to.

The mircroworld is not observable except through maybe a electron microscope. Although a photon could interact with a individual atom and reach the retina, causing information exchange, it is beyond the capacity of human awareness, to know and interpret the information, in a coherent way.

If a consciousness observes a device that measures, it decides if or if not in what state it is. Decoherence theory then simply states that all possible measurements you can do give exactly the same results. So then is it the consciousness who decides? Some interprete it this way.

 

[Les Sleeth]

QM is not a hypothesis it is a working theory. Although there is much hypothesis, on its unknown variables. The Copenhagen Interpretation, as my view, needs a projection up to conscious observation, all information is probabilities until that occurs. Somewhere along the chain, you need to postulate "an observation", so what does the observing? Is consciousness the projection of the wavefunction.? Is that mainstream,? depends who your talking to.

The mircroworld is not observable except through maybe a electron microscope. Although a photon could interact with a individual atom and reach the retina, causing information exchange, it is beyond the capacity of human awareness, to know and interpret the information, in a coherent way.

If a consciousness observes a device that measures, it decides if or if not in what state it is. Decoherence theory then simply states that all possible measurements you can do give exactly the same results. So then is it the consciousness who decides? Some interprete it this way.

Interesting, but I am not sure why you gave that answer. I was trying to find out why you don't think nuclear decay or background radiation's diminishing oscillation rate aren't the microworld (since I listed them as examples of entropic behavior in the microworld). What have we observed that is more micro than what goes on in the particle realm?

 

[Rader]

Interesting, but I am not sure why you gave that answer. I was trying to find out why you don't think nuclear decay or background radiation's diminishing oscillation rate aren't the micro world (since I listed them as examples of entropic behavior in the micro world). What have we observed that is more micro than what goes on in the particle realm?

How many atoms do you have to bunch together to simulate a entropic state?
In the micro world, nuclear transitions are just jumps from one quantum state to another, just like atomic transitions, I think not entropy.

I gave that answer to try and demonstrate, that there is a quite big difference between micro and macro and something shakes hands in the middle.

Why is it, you insist that micro states might have entropy? Is it that you can then justify some sort of an argument? What’s your reason that they might or could have? I am interested in what you might think. Does it have something to do with your theory?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Why is it, you insist that micro states might have entropy? Is it that you can then justify some sort of an argument? What’s your reason that they might or could have? I am interested in what you might think. Does it have something to do with your theory?

What I am saying has nothing to do with my theory.

How many atoms do you have to bunch together to simulate a entropic state?

I don't understand why you would think bunching atoms would simulate an entropic state.

Maybe I should make sure we are talking about the same thing. Entropy was first applied to descripe energy transformations in thermodynamics, and now we are loosely using it to describe the general increase in disorder that results as the universe changes.

In the micro world, nuclear transitions are just jumps from one quantum state to another, just like atomic transitions, I think not entropy.

This is wrong Rader. There are no transitions without entropy, this is fundamental to the 2nd law.

Think about it, if the microstate weren't entropic, there would be no universe as we know it, and certainly no life. Consider the fusion that goes on in the sun. Although hydrogen atoms are fused to create helium, it is at the expense of an overall increase in disorder evidenced by the sun's heat, the solar wind, etc. Without that microstate entropy there would be no sun, and without the sun no life. For zero entropy, it seems to me like the universe would have to exist at absolute zero, so nothing would be happening.

Consider beta decay where the disintegration of an atom's neutron occurs. It is caused by the weak force, one of four fundamental forces, which means the weak force is fundamental to the microworld.

After background radiation was discovered it was observed that as the universe expands, that radiation's wave length stretches. This lengthing is accompanied by a slower oscillation rate, the slower oscillation rate means energy was surrendered, and that in turns tells us background microwave radiation contributes to the universe's disorder.

 

[Rader]

What I am saying has nothing to do with my theory.

OK then, let's just back step a moment. This thread is about the existence without time. We agree, time and space, entropy and existence are all part of the physical macro world. Were we disagree is, in the micro world, I say time and space is but without entropy and there is a existence there also. You say there is entropy in the micro world so fill in the rest... is there time? is there space? is there a existence? If entropy exists in the micro world, then it is no different than the macro world, except for the fact we can not see, that small.. Is that what you want to argue?

I don't understand why you would think bunching atoms would simulate an entropic state.

Physical systems are a bunch of atoms. Physical systems show entropy. Physical systems are not individual atoms.

Maybe I should make sure we are talking about the same thing. Entropy was first applied to describe energy transformations in thermodynamics, and now we are loosely using it to describe the general increase in disorder that results as the universe changes.

You can use any definition below, it does not change the meaning just adds to it.
For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message. A hypothetical tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

This is wrong Rader. There are no transitions without entropy, this is fundamental to the 2nd law.

There is no violation of the 2nd law in micro states. You can not isolate a position or velocity in a micro state, there are only probable vectors. There is no information loss, information is in a nowhere state. You can not have entropy if there is no information loss and no lost information means, no heat loss. Entropy is a manifestation of physical world. This is the mystery, how information in a nowhere state, fixes its coordinates to become the physical world. This is what my last post is about, there is "something more", something has to project a "consciousness" to collapse the wave function.

Think about it, if the microstate weren't entropic, there would be no universe as we know it, and certainly no life.

You talk about the microstate as if it was a physical state, it is not that way. There would be no universe and no life it there was no physical world but that does not mean there is no existence in the micro world.

Consider the fusion that goes on in the sun. Although hydrogen atoms are fused to create helium, it is at the expense of an overall increase in disorder evidenced by the sun's heat, the solar wind, etc. Without that microstate entropy there would be no sun, and without the sun no life. For zero entropy, it seems to me like the universe would have to exist at absolute zero, so nothing would be happening.

The sun is a physical structure and the entropy it shows is treated as such. You are treating physical structures as if they were micro states. The universe is a physical structure and will show entropy, loose information and heat and eventually reach absolute zero, evolving toward a state of inert uniformity. You can not pinpoint position, velocity or entropy of a micro state; you have to look at it first. I said this in my last post, humans can not observe micro states, only the machines that observe them and then the projection is us though the machine, to do the projection of a consciousnesses. Until that happens there is no physical.

Consider beta decay where the disintegration of an atom's neutron occurs. It is caused by the weak force, one of four fundamental forces, which means the weak force is fundamental to the micro world.

The weak force, is fundamental to the micro world. What is not known fundamentally is why certain combinations of neutrons, proton and electrons, in different energy states, demonstrate gas=like, liquid=like, solid,=like metal=like or radioactive=like properties, when they are physical structures and when you examine them individually you can not come to that conclusion.

After background radiation was discovered it was observed that as the universe expands, that radiation's wave length stretches. This lengthing is accompanied by a slower oscillation rate, the slower oscillation rate means energy was surrendered, and that in turns tells us background microwave radiation contributes to the universe's disorder.

That tell us the universe shows entropy. That all.
We can not get to talk about what you want to until you can understand there is no entropy in micro states. Or you will not understand anything else I want to say beyond that point.

 

[Les Sleeth]

OK then, let's just back step a moment. This thread is about the existence without time. We agree, time and space, entropy and existence are all part of the physical macro world. Were we disagree is, in the micro world, I say time and space is but without entropy and there is a existence there also. You say there is entropy in the micro world so fill in the rest... is there time? is there space? is there a existence? If entropy exists in the micro world, then it is no different than the macro world, except for the fact we can not see, that small.. Is that what you want to argue?

. . . . We can not get to talk about what you want to until you can understand there is no entropy in micro states. Or you will not understand anything else I want to say beyond that point.

I just don't think I understand what you mean by "microworld." When you said "The mircroworld is not observable except through maybe a electron microscope" I assumed you were talking about particle physics.

I have in the past distinguished between whatever is the essence or ground state of physicalness, and the processes and structures of physicalness.

If by "microworld" you mean that which is the ground state from which everything physical arises, then I do not think it is subject to time or space limitations, as I have said many times.

If by microworld you mean ANYTHING physical no matter how small -- from quarks and nuclear forces to any and all quantum processes -- then I do think every bit of that is subject to limitations of time and space. That is, it is temporal and it is functioning within a finite area we call space. I have only been using the terms "time" and "space" to describe the temporary and confined spatial characteristics of physicalness.

I can say it another way. I think every single aspect of the physical universe will at one point in the future disappear and blend into an undifferentiated, unstructured essense-like condition that is time-less and spatially unbounded. If that is what you mean by the microworld, then we might be talking about the same thing from different perspectives.

 

[Rader]

I just don't think I understand what you mean by "micro world" When you said "The micro world is not observable except through maybe a electron microscope" I assumed you were talking about particle physics.

The micro world is that which neither has a precise position or velocity an entangled state of nowhere ness. Only when it is observed, can we say, the diameter of an atom ranges from 1 x 10-10 m to 5 x 10-10 m. We then have the micro world of physical structures. The human eye is coherent to exchange information with a photon but only that which projects can interpret this information. The projector would have to be a consciousness.

I have in the past distinguished between whatever is the essence or ground state of physical ness, and the processes and structures of physical ness.

This is where I am not sure I understand you completely. Essence as I see it, has to be differentiated from the micro world and the micro world differentiated from macro world.

If by "micro world" you mean that which is the ground state from which everything physical arises, then I do not think it is subject to time or space limitations, as I have said many times.

In you mean by the ground state the quantum micro world, then yes, if you refer to the ground state as essence no. I think we mean something quite different here. Essence is the last "WHY" that ultimate "Something More", quantum states, the micro world are the tools and the physical structures, the macro world, we assume exists, the result. That’s the only way you can explain the unexplainable, all the variables are in quantum states, "something more" has to do a projection, into the quantum micro world.

If by micro world you mean ANYTHING physical no matter how small -- from quarks and nuclear forces to any and all quantum processes -- then I do think every bit of that is subject to limitations of time and space. That is, it is temporal and it is functioning within a finite area we call space. I have only been using the terms "time" and "space" to describe the temporary and confined spatial characteristics of physical ness.

I agree that once a postulated projection of observation occurs, you have a micro world of physical states. I understand your use and a have been trying to differentiate between quantum and physical states but understand me, I think that "Something More" is above and beyond both.

I can say it another way. I think every single aspect of the physical universe will at one point in the future disappear and blend into an undifferentiated, unstructured essence-like condition that is time-less and spatially unbounded. If that is what you mean by the micro world, then we might be talking about the same thing from different perspectives.

This is in line with what is currently observed in cosmology. The universe will continue to expand; physical time, without physical structures will no longer be able to be measured. Space will have stretched to infinity but there will be no physical structures to measure inside empty space. What concerns me is what will all the physical structures, be converted into really? Several things we can assume, time and space would be in very similar initial conditions, that the micro world was in, there would be no entropy, the difference, information will have infected the universe. All quantum states will have eventually collapsed into physical structures and those structures, entropic ally evolved, into a all knowing state. The difference would be that information, would be not in nowhere land, probability states, but everywhere land, like you say, an unstructured essence-like condition. Of course you realize that for this to have any validity, physical structures would have to be, a little piece of essence and eventually all the pieces, all of what essence is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Of course you realize that for this to have any validity, physical structures would have to be, a little piece of essence and eventually all the pieces, all of what essence is.

Yes, this is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

This is where I am not sure I understand you completely. Essence as I see it, has to be differentiated from the micro world and the micro world differentiated from macro world.

Okay.

If you mean by the ground state the quantum micro world, then yes, if you refer to the ground state as essence no. I think we mean something quite different here. Essence is the last "WHY" that ultimate "Something More", quantum states, the micro world are the tools and the physical structures, the macro world, we assume exists, the result. That’s the only way you can explain the unexplainable, all the variables are in quantum states, "something more" has to do a projection, into the quantum micro world.

I think we are mostly agreeing. Let me see if I can explain what assumptions I've been arguing from which seems to have created our disagreement.

The first most important point: we've been debating if time is necessary to existence. I didn't assume that had to be limited to a specific type of existence, but rather I've been talking about bottom-line existence, or what is left after all structure and function are removed from any particular “thing.” To me, the concept of "absolute essence" we seem to be tolerating in our discussion represents that, and everything else comes after.

I have been describing "existence" looking at it from my spot here in the universe. I have been reasoning from the assumption that there are several levels of existence involved between base-line existence and human existence. It seems you have added an additional level you are labeling the "microworld," which I didn't single out for a "level" in my assumptions. Here is how I interpret the levels of existence, including yours:

Level 1. Starting at the most basic level, base-line existence I see as some unstructured, uncreated and always-existing essence -- I've called it a sort of vibrant "illumination" in the past. I see it as existing in some infinite continuum, as unable to not exist, and as fundamentally UNconscious.

Level 2. This existence spot is the tough one to defend. I think consciousness accidentally developed in the unconscious ground state existence continuum (I’ll refer to it as “General” consciousness). This General consciousness may have found a way to eternally continue since its inception, but it has not always co-existed with the absolute stuff. I propose this General consciousness has played a role in the formation of our universe.

Level 3. However it happened, the accidentally-initiated General helped shape the base-line stuff to create the physical universe (as I suggested in another thread, it appears like the basis of structure is base-line stuff compression combined with a variety of oscillatory dynamics). This makes more sense to me than the physical universe developing accidentally first, and then life and bio-consciousness accidentally coming about without the extra organizing help life and bio-consciousness in particular seem to need to have evolved here on Earth.

Level 4. Inside the universe, General consciousness emerged from biology. With this model, General consciousness starts on one end and then by evolving ever more sophisticated nervous systems is able to emerge more and more. Each individual biological system (with a nervous system) provides a means for individuating a single consciousness from the General consciousness. Again, this makes more sense to me than attempting to account for something so un-physicalistic as consciousness with nothing but brain physiology and functionality.


Okay, now here’s where I think we might find the area where we’ve been not understanding each other. From your last post, and after recalling some of our exchanges about Gao Shan and QSC, I got the impression that by “microworld” you mean that part of the General consciousness that is present in the structure of matter, especially evolving matter.

For example, you said, “All quantum states will have eventually collapsed into physical structures and those structures, entropically evolved, into a all knowing state. The difference would be that information, would be not in nowhere land, probability states, but everywhere land, like you say, an unstructured essence-like condition.” It sounds to me like you believe to produce matter, a portion of the General consciousness has shaped itself into that, and so when we get down to the quantum level, and to the space between structures, there we will find the “information” provided by General consciousness that makes matter behave as it does. And that is where Gao Shan and others are looking for General consciousness, in those quantum spaces.

If that is what you mean, and if you think something significant to humanity will be found there, then I suspect we still don’t agree about that significance. Assuming that’s what you mean by “microworld,” I say the only information that would there is a “bit,” which is solely suited to the particular quantum function it is guiding. If the QSC researchers are successful, it might help them build more powerful computers or reactors, but I don’t think it will do a thing to enlighten human consciousness. While “bits” of information might make our intellects smarter if we discover them, my experience with my own consciousness has been that it is most empowered by the holistic experience of the greater General consciousness found, not in my atoms, but in the heart of my being.

Getting back to the original subject of time, space and existence, it might be more clear to you now why I think time and space, are meaningless at the level of absolute existence. In this universe, of course they are very meaningful to existence since the universe, we humans, and the consciousness we presently experience wouldn’t be here without time and space.

 

[Rader]

Yes, this is pretty much what I've been saying all along.
I think we are mostly agreeing. Let me see if I can explain what assumptions I've been arguing from which seems to have created our disagreement.

OK

The first most important point: we've been debating if time is necessary to existence. I didn't assume that had to be limited to a specific type of existence, but rather I've been talking about bottom-line existence, or what is left after all structure and function are removed from any particular “thing.” To me, the concept of "absolute essence" we seem to be tolerating in our discussion represents that, and everything else comes after.

Yes

I have been describing "existence" looking at it from my spot here in the universe. I have been reasoning from the assumption that there are several levels of existence involved between base-line existence and human existence. It seems you have added an additional level you are labeling the "micro world," which I didn't single out for a "level" in my assumptions. Here is how I interpret the levels of existence, including yours:

I see you give a special place for the moment of the origin of organic life. Whereas, I give a special place to the "micro world," where particle consciousness begins.

Level 1. Starting at the most basic level, base-line existence I see as some unstructured, uncreated and always-existing essence -- I've called it a sort of vibrant "illumination" in the past. I see it as existing in some infinite continuum, as unable to not exist, and as fundamentally UNconscious.

If I was to describe what I feel when I look into a star studded black sky with the Milky Way winding through it, yes that would be my feel of it. Although I can never be sure that my feel is even a close guess of whatever that is, I just like to think it is.

Level 2. This existence spot is the tough one to defend. I think consciousness accidentally developed in the unconscious ground state existence continuum (I’ll refer to it as “General” consciousness). This General consciousness may have found a way to eternally continue since its inception, but it has not always co-existed with the absolute stuff. I propose this General consciousness has played a role in the formation of our universe.

You should know the way I think by now, analytically. Accidents do not correspond to what we observe in our physical universe. Therefore there is no reason for me to believe anything prior to it, was an accident. I realize that I am making an analogy of something not physical, "a consciousness", to something that is "physical", so let me say this. So that which is not physical would have a purpose, the way things out to be. That which is physical, would have a reason, what is to be. We humans comprehend a evolution of both in this assumed physical world, so I assume this is correct, based on my own experience.

Level 3. However it happened, the accidentally-initiated General helped shape the base-line stuff to create the physical universe (as I suggested in another thread, it appears like the basis of structure is base-line stuff compression combined with a variety of oscillatory dynamics). This makes more sense to me than the physical universe developing accidentally first, and then life and bio-consciousness accidentally coming about without the extra organizing help life and bio-consciousness in particular seem to need to have evolved here on Earth.

Now this is where the quantum micro world, might hold the secrets we wish to discover. What any philosopher would just love to due, is solve the "hard problem". Do brain parts create consciousness or does consciousness use brain parts to perceive the world the way we assume it exists? When our computers are powerful enough and they will be. When we have built quantum computers and we will. When we understand that the human brain works like a quantum state and we will.Then we can investigate quantum entangled states of high complexity, like what is found in humans. What we will have to confirm at a deeper level, how does a projection of unitary consciousness into a quantum state produce the physical world.

Level 4. Inside the universe, General consciousness emerged from biology. With this model, General consciousness starts on one end and then by evolving ever more sophisticated nervous systems is able to emerge more and more. Each individual biological system (with a nervous system) provides a means for individuating a single consciousness from the General consciousness. Again, this makes more sense to me than attempting to account for something so un-physical as consciousness with nothing but brain physiology and functionality.

Well this is where we will have to have separate discussion someday, on bio-genesis. So where is this moment?, what happens?, what initial conditions have to be necessary for organic life to exist? What entangled quantum states evolve to meet the conditions? I think here you must separate the tool from the tool maker. The conditions are, that is, the projector "a consciousness" has looked enough times at the system, to create a complexity, sufficient to experience through, at that level. I will leave you with this to think about. Now you might wonder, why an octopus has a eye like a human. Yet it is suppose to be way down the evolutionary chain.

Okay, now here’s where I think we might find the area where we’ve been not understanding each other. From your last post, and after recalling some of our exchanges about Gao Shan and QSC, I got the impression that by “micro world” you mean that part of the General consciousness that is present in the structure of matter, especially evolving matter.

For example, you said, “All quantum states will have eventually collapsed into physical structures and those structures, entropic ally evolved, into a all knowing state. The difference would be that information, would be not in nowhere land, probability states, but everywhere land, like you say, an unstructured essence-like condition.” It sounds to me like you believe to produce matter, a portion of the General consciousness has shaped itself into that, and so when we get down to the quantum level, and to the space between structures, there we will find the “information” provided by General consciousness that makes matter behave as it does. And that is where Gao Shan and others are looking for General consciousness, in those quantum spaces.

If that is what you mean, and if you think something significant to humanity will be found there, then I suspect we still don’t agree about that significance. Assuming that’s what you mean by “micro world,” I say the only information that would there is a “bit,” which is solely suited to the particular quantum function it is guiding. If the QSC researchers are successful, it might help them build more powerful computers or reactors, but I don’t think it will do a thing to enlighten human consciousness. While “bits” of information might make our intellects smarter if we discover them, my experience with my own consciousness has been that it is most empowered by the holistic experience of the greater General consciousness found, not in my atoms, but in the heart of my being.

When we get that far and we will. We will have understood how bits of information in quantum states build the world the way we assume it exists but much more important we will have confirmed that, there is or there is not only "one consciousness". The "hard problem" in physics and philosophy will have been resolved.

Getting back to the original subject of time, space and existence, it might be more clear to you now why I think time and space, are meaningless at the level of absolute existence. In this universe, of course they are very meaningful to existence since the universe, we humans, and the consciousness we presently experience wouldn’t be here without time and space.

I believe I understand you.

 

[Alberto Knox]

To perceive an entity, you must perceive that it is.

Existence exists, there are things. Existence is identity, to be is to be what you are. Concepts are crucial to our existence. Time is an important concept that we must perceive.

We perceive the world through the past, move and change, and what dies. These changes differ, and some endure more than others, i.e. "how long" - is time.

Every existent can be measured by time, i.e. that man is 50 years old. Time measures quantities. Long story short, time is a measure of existence.Time is a measure of existence, but nevertheless we measure time by means of change, by means of things which come to be and pass away, and there is a reason for this. Something which always existed or existed unchangebly would provide no time markers for us to count, and measurement ultimately reduces to counting. Something that always existed and never ends cannot be measured by time. It cannot exist.

Can we speed up time?

Aristotle believed that time was a measure of rates. People thought that time could change its rate. Aristotle thought it was absurd to think that time could speed up or slow down. Time is not a change, and cannot change, because if time could change, it would not be time. Existence is what we measure by time.

Cheers,

Alberto