Existence Without Time: Immaterial Universe & Time

[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