Time and Life.

[Joe Schmoe]

(This started off as a reply to James S Saint, but I want to express it widely.)

We see 2D images. Length and Height.

We experience depth, through the accumulation of 2D images. We have two eyes, so we can bypass time, for in every instant, we have multiple frames of reference to comprehend and experience a dimension or facet, beyond just length and height.

Depth applies to objects that have length and height. It does not apply to the dimensions, but rather, the object. The dimensions are separated by the fact they are intersect one another equally.

If I had a cube, and said length intersects both depth and height, therefore a cube is 2L + 1W + 1D = 4D. What would be my mistake? I would have counted length twice, when both lengths are equal to one another, and not intersecting each other. Both lengths are actually, and therefore one dimension, not two. The confusion comes because they are separated by either depth, height or time, but we've already counted those.

Now, if we have a square pyramid. How many dimensions does it have? It depends where you measure. The tip is of 0 dimensions. The base is 2 dimensional (L*D). The faces are 2 dimensional (L*H). A dimension that intersects with itself, at the moment of intersection is equal, and therefore, not a dimension, for dimensions are inequality. It create a new dimension, but removes a dimension.

The programmer in me rejoices for what I'm about to say. In any instant, one comparison contains two alternatives. This applies to dimensions also. The point of comparison, is to merge two alternatives, into a single result. With this in mind, we measure an object.

Code: Select all

public static conclusion GiveExample(object a) //measures an object, returns conclusion
{
int dimensionCount; //holds the current dimension count

Result = Has_Length(a); //returns value of 1 if true, 0 if false - assigns value to result
dimensionCount = Result; //adds result to dimension count
dimensionCount += hasHeight(a); //returns value of 1 if true, 0 if false - adds to current count
dimensionCount += hasDepth(a); //see above
dimensionCount += hasTime(a);  //see above

return makeConclusion(dimensionCount, stealExplanation(victim)); //returns dimensionCount with a respectable explanation attached - 'conclusion'

}

Time is the range that all other relevant dimensions spread out from one point (equality/0D/intersection) until all other relevant dimensions collapse upon each other back into one point. The same could be said for all dimensions. If however, a dimension never collapses with another dimension, it is because they are equal and infinitely neutral in regards to each other.

So what is the conclusion we draw from the combination of dimensions? The volume of the object. The volume of the Universe. And this is what we want to know. This is what I want to know. Now, this is when I try to create hope within the confines of reality. (It's the only place hope exists).

Here's what I have. All dimensions are infinite. There's no beginning or end, in reality. The beginning is merely a point where all dimensions intersect. This is no true start, for before they intersected, they were apart. If they were never apart, we couldn't possibly be as we are. We couldn't possibly be.

Therefore, I put it to you, time is infinite. If time is infinite, and all reality is just affect : A pendulum being pushed back and forth due to the prior momentum, then we will once again emerge. Life will once again emerge, for it has infinite opportunity to. And with infinite opportunity, comes determinism. Life is determined to emerge and re-emerge.

We say life is finite, and we will lose all we love. This is true, but the loss is only temporary. Just as this cycle of our life, is only temporary. But this is where things become beautiful. We will never know a moment of death. Death, is nothingness. And nothingness can't connect to reality, for it is not part of reality. We are only energy, and energy fluctuates, but never truly dissipates. Energy just dances from one form, to another. We will die, and as soon as we're aware once more, it will be because we are alive once more.

In my heart, I'm starting to believe that we are blessed. We are energy, and we will always be energy. We mark a line in the sand and say this is where life stopped, but it isn't true. The line represents when energy changed it's form, but truly, it was always the same thing, and always will be. We are energy, and always will be.

What does this mean for life? Embrace love, embrace pain, embrace it all. There is nothing more to be found, for nothing doesn't exist. We have all that is of relevance and significance, and we will have it forevermore. We shouldn't live for fear, but love.



And if this life is all we have, and we will never know it again? Would you, would I still take the same path? Of course. Love is all that is of significance.

We are the same. Every single one of us. We are not enemies. We are one. We can do so much, but first, we must learn to love ourselves, and with that, life itself.

You are all beautiful and in my heart, I believe we can achieve anything we hope for. I truly love you.

[James S Saint]

Well...
I don't really know what that was a "response" to, but I can say;

Throughout the entire universe ALL things are formed by harmonizing the contention within.
And ALL things are maintained by the love of that harmony.

[Joe Schmoe]

The only thing that exists is space. All dimensions are arbitrary division of space, based on our illusion that space isn't static and one. Space is a point. A single point.

Imagine a string circle and a bead that moves at a fixed rate around that string. Let's say this bead, is only aware of the point of the string which it touches. For the bead, when it moves around the string, it experiences change. The bead believes that it is moving in a straight line, and that it will never once again access the point it just moved beyond.

The illusion is that the bead is going in a straight line and wont return to the same place. Space is the circle, and we are the beads. The string (space) is actually a point, and the bead (us) are not on the outside of the string, but on the inside, looking 'out'.

Space is completely static, but we see movement because we make distinction based on our illusion and bias.

Where does a point end? It doesn't end, for it never truly started. It has been, as it always will be.

Why is there anything at all? Why is there space?

Dunno.. ...because there's always been something to make a false distinction?

We create nothing, just as we create something. They don't impact each other, they impact us. We are. I think, therefore, I am.

What if there is only one thing that exists. 'I'. And 'I' cycles through all possible alternatives until it reaches the point that it began, and restarts infinitely. What if the Universe is actually the accumulation of all the paths 'I' has taken, and 'I' is actually surrounded by itself infinitely.

[James S Saint]

Emmm.. okay...

You DO realize that I am the creator of Rational Metaphysics, right?

[Joe Schmoe]

Does that mean you think my posts are aligned with your beliefs? If so, I'm flattered. It's clear for me to see how much I've been influenced by you.

This post was initially intended to be in response to your topic on dimensions, but went on a few tangents which I thought were neat, so I gave it a thread and am expanding the tangents. In these posts, I'm trying to articulate my thoughts and get feedback.

[finishedman]

You see, it’s difficult to understand. And I don’t know if it can be clarified because thought has taken over the whole thing that’s happening. Thought is the only tool we have.

Wanting to understand is what creates time. It creates the space. How to find out where you are through the instrumentality of thought forces you to come up with a starting point -- and an ending point that you will someday arrive at. Thought is limiting you; it has a confining effect within the time it takes to arrive at an answer. When caught in its cycles of experience and knowledge you begin to feel this choking it has on you. So you begin to set out to find a way to relieve this problem by using the only instrument you have which is thought again. That’s the predicament that humans are caught up in. Thought is trying to get out of the trap it has created by itself.

We think there is wisdom to be found in discovering the peace and harmony in life by utilizing the very thing that got us into the problem in the first place: thought. Thought in this area can only create the problem. It cannot be used to solve it. Persistence in thinking there is something more peaceful and more harmonious is precisely what is destroying the peace that is already there when the search is not there anymore. The attempt to free oneself of some obstruction created by the self is the grand illusion. There is nothing there to be freed from.

It seems that we're trapped in the prison of our own thoughts, and this prison creates the illusion that we are separate from a natural state of peace/harmony, that we are not part of it, and yet the prison itself is also an illusion. The prison also is created by the thought, and that is the reason why it is trying to get out of that trap it has created by itself.

[Joe Schmoe]

I know how to articulate one of my thoughts better.

There is existence and there isn't nonexistence. Therefore, Existence is all that is. Nothing doesn't have affect, therefore, Existence will always be static insofar as it will continue to be as it is and always has been, regardless of whatever time interval you'd like to apply. Time is a description, not an affect.

@finishedman

I agree with what you said.

[finishedman]

The purpose of life is to survive. We don’t have to ask why because the intellect cannot touch anything living there nor can it improve on how life and the existence of you are functioning as one unitary movement in an extraordinary way. You are not one thing and life another. Existence is all that’s important. You cannot be separated from life, yet when you look at life you are separating yourself from it. That is the way that thought identifies with a separate self. As long as you continue to think about life, you maintain the separation. You isolate yourself from life. Then, when you realize the fact that you can’t separate yourself from the life, there is uneasiness and you try to free yourself from the uneasiness. The same instrument that caused the uneasiness is now called upon to help you to be free of it. ……. In that process the separation is constantly maintained in you. There is no way out.

[volchok]

We say life is finite, and we will lose all we love. This is true, but the loss is only temporary. Just as this cycle of our life, is only temporary. But this is where things become beautiful. We will never know a moment of death. Death, is nothingness. And nothingness can't connect to reality, for it is not part of reality. We are only energy, and energy fluctuates, but never truly dissipates. Energy just dances from one form, to another. We will die, and as soon as we're aware once more, it will be because we are alive once more.

This is obviously true. Matter comes together to be "you" and after some time it becomes something else. Regarding consciousness, there's a subjective continuity like you said. We will never experience death. But I do have a problem with this bit: " ...and as soon as we're aware once more".
We will never be aware once more, because there is no I.

Take the following thought experiment; John is dying. Before he dies, his doctor manages to upload all his memories and mental content into a super computer. He then creates a physical copy of john (same body, same brain, same age...) and downloads all the memories and mental content to this copy of John.

"The copy" wakes up and he is john. He talks like john, he acts like john, he has the same memories, he's really happy that he didn't die after all and decides to continue to live life.

Question: Is this John ? Is it the real John ? Is it a copy ? And what does it mean to be a copy in this context?



I posted a talk a few months ago on this exact topic. let me know if you want me to link it again.

[finishedman]

Consciousness is like awareness. Does it come first? What about mind and thoughts? What about the energy of life, the way life has its own programming in its various physiological systems? That’s awesome beyond belief.

Some would say consciousness is common to all. To me, it is incomplete to think that when life recurs cyclically consciousness will occupy a person in the exact same manner it did in a previous life. Yes, consciousness, if taken as something vast and not yet containing memory, will most likely come back again; in that manner we function the same. But part of being aware or conscious of one’s surroundings involves being conditioned in a certain way. Also one’s immediate experiences and unique arrangements of thoughts influences how one sees and perceives the world he lives in in his mind.


So I would say you only live once as a member of an ongoing present species. This is it and there is no other life for the combinations of perceptions and experiences that make you what you are here and now.

… there is no I.

That’s right and when that is understood, you have no way of finding out what you are left with.

[Joe Schmoe]

This is obviously true. Matter comes together to be "you" and after some time it becomes something else. Regarding consciousness, there's a subjective continuity like you said. We will never experience death. But I do have a problem with this bit: " ...and as soon as we're aware once more".
We will never be aware once more, because there is no I.

My assumption is, "I think, therefore, I am". When one says, 'I' is but an arrangement of matter and social environment ect., that existence is static, that time is a description of life's illusion, Newton's law of motion, and that nothing can affect something (existence)... with these snippets, one can say that there's infinite opportunity for life as we know it to re-emerge. We are, therefore, our odds of being are greater than 0. If one looks at existence as a static circle, one can say that whilst there's an interim for what is not you, there isn't an interim for you because you'll be unaware/non-existent. That the arrangement that brought upon your existence, will come back around, because there's infinite possibility for it to do so, and the odds of doing so, are greater than 0 because again, it is at the moment.

Take the following thought experiment; John is dying. Before he dies, his doctor manages to upload all his memories and mental content into a super computer. He then creates a physical copy of john (same body, same brain, same age...) and downloads all the memories and mental content to this copy of John.

"The copy" wakes up and he is john. He talks like john, he acts like john, he has the same memories, he's really happy that he didn't die after all and decides to continue to live life.

Question: Is this John ? Is it the real John ? Is it a copy ? And what does it mean to be a copy in this context?

It's an interesting question. I haven't the knowledge of the balance/composition of all factors that define one's identity to the dot. One could say, if it's a replica of John, then it's not the same instance of the composition as the man previously known as John. However, higher up in this topic I asked a question that seems relevant.

"What if there is only one thing that exists. 'I'. And 'I' cycles through all possible alternatives until it reaches the point that it began, and restarts infinitely. What if the Universe is actually the accumulation of all the paths 'I' has taken, and 'I' is actually surrounded by itself infinitely."

If one says energy is equal, then we are all rediculously similar and with that, the question is, how different is our consciousness/identity? Is it but one more false line in the sand? Is our experience of consciousness nearly identical to each other? Is the difference only that we emerged from a slightly 'unequal' composition of matter and have slightly different experiences?

What's the difference between an artificial clone and a 'natural' clone? We all define ourselves as natural clones.

I posted a talk a few months ago on this exact topic. let me know if you want me to link it again.

I think I may have read it, but it couldn't hurt seeing it again.

[Joe Schmoe]

The purpose of life is to survive.

Purpose is relative. The universe doesn't have intent, therefore it can't have purpose. I, as an individual, intend to experience. My survival is required for me to experience, but it is a means to an end, as opposed to an end in itself. The purpose of me surviving, is so I can experience. The purpose of my experiece, is so I can be happy. The purpose of happiness, is survival. The purpose of survival... ad infinitum.

We don’t have to ask why because the intellect cannot touch anything living there nor can it improve on how life and the existence of you are functioning as one unitary movement in an extraordinary way. You are not one thing and life another. Existence is all that’s important. You cannot be separated from life, yet when you look at life you are separating yourself from it. That is the way that thought identifies with a separate self. As long as you continue to think about life, you maintain the separation. You isolate yourself from life. Then, when you realize the fact that you can’t separate yourself from the life, there is uneasiness and you try to free yourself from the uneasiness. The same instrument that caused the uneasiness is now called upon to help you to be free of it. ……. In that process the separation is constantly maintained in you. There is no way out.

Thinking is a product of life/existence and constructs a bridge from the system of one's body, to the system that sculpted one's body. To reject thought, is to reject an integral part of one's identity. I say accept and embrace, not deny and suppress.

Some would say consciousness is common to all. To me, it is incomplete to think that when life recurs cyclically consciousness will occupy a person in the exact same manner it did in a previous life. Yes, consciousness, if taken as something vast and not yet containing memory, will most likely come back again; in that manner we function the same. But part of being aware or conscious of one’s surroundings involves being conditioned in a certain way. Also one’s immediate experiences and unique arrangements of thoughts influences how one sees and perceives the world he lives in in his mind.

I'm thinking of a larger circle. When all alternatives of the energy which composes you has ran it's entire cycle, the result will be alligned with all the other energy of the universe. Therefore, it will be the exact same, for all dimensions and distinctions are an illusion. If all is returns to what it is at the moment, then it is this moment.

It takes into consideration determinism and that there is no other influence than existence. So our re-emergence is determined.

[volchok]

The universe doesn't have intent, therefore it can't have purpose. I, as an individual, intend to experience. My survival is required for me to experience, but it is a means to an end, as opposed to an end in itself. .

This.

[Dan~]

I think only a minor percent of reality is a dougnut, as other parts are a a singularity.
But all around it is infinity, but we're in a condition where we try to consume eachother and derive some inner essence out of the dead bodies instead of recieving an overwhelming blast of infinite free pure eternal energy. The 'evil gods' are in this system for a very long time and they entrap and consume many.

[Joe Schmoe]

The donut is singularity, and the donut asks what else is there? Without realizing, it is a lone ranger. It is all that is and all that ever could be. ( ??? )

[Dan~]

The donut is singularity, and the donut asks what else is there? Without realizing, it is a lone ranger. It is all that is and all that ever could be. ( ??? )

Empty space is a form of potential energy in my mind and I hold to the belief that the void has its own population of souls and lords. It's not the highest population out there, but it's there and it is a valid thing.

When outside of magnetic, gravitational and other such bindings, space will tear and be overpowered by the void which will then absorb it.

[Joe Schmoe]

I don't believe in a vacuum of space. Also, stealing from the Stem Cell thread, potential doesn't equal actuality. Actuality equals actuality.

-----

I had a profound idea just now. People ask, 'What is the point in Life?', this is a really fitting question. Based on my definition, there is only one point and that is existence. Life is a product of existence, therefore, the point of life is the same as the point of existence. Which is, it is, and couldn't be any other way.

[Dan~]

I don't believe in a vacuum of space.

Why not?

Also, stealing from the Stem Cell thread, potential doesn't equal actuality. Actuality equals actuality.

I know potential is there, even when it is not yet actual.
Potential energy is far superior to actual energy. Actual energy tends to be fairly linear but potential energy just sits in its stability and when it does get released it can possibly go many different ways. The physical realm especially is a very dormant and slow realm. It wreaks of potential that remains potential instead of actual.

[Joe Schmoe]

I don't believe in a vacuum of space.

Why not?

I should step back.

If you define a vacuum as absent of matter only, then yes, I'll agree. But if you define it as absent of anything (ie Matter/Energy) then I must disagree with you, for if it was absent of both, it couldn't possibly exist.

[Dan~]

I don't believe in a vacuum of space.

Why not?

I should step back.

If you define a vacuum as absent of matter only, then yes, I'll agree. But if you define it as absent of anything (ie Matter/Energy) then I must disagree with you, for if it was absent of both, it couldn't possibly exist.

There's a very fine line between potential existence and non existence.
The line is so fine that you may not have noticed it and decided that potential isn't there, it's not real.

[Joe Schmoe]

Emmm.. okay...

You DO realize that I am the creator of Rational Metaphysics, right?

I wasn't sure how to respond to this.

You do realize that we're dwarves on the shoulders of giants, right?

You did not create Rationality, nor did you create Metaphysics. I googled rational metaphysics and found this.

Definition of RM

What you did is rationally define metaphysics, and then built upon that foundation. Quality work, but not any sort of ownership of being rational and using metaphysics.

I think you offended me by, in my eyes, dismissing my words as though they'd all been said before, or even more, stolen from you.

[Joe Schmoe]

There's a very fine line between potential existence and non existence.
The line is so fine that you may not have noticed it and decided that potential isn't there, it's not real.

What is energy but the potential to be affected?

If one says there's energy, then one's saying there's existence. If one's saying there's no existence, one's saying there's no energy/potential for affect.

My argument is that since existence is defined by it's affectance, it will always have affect.

[Dan~]

There's a very fine line between potential existence and non existence.
The line is so fine that you may not have noticed it and decided that potential isn't there, it's not real.

What is energy but the potential to be affected?

If one says there's energy, then one's saying there's existence. If one's saying there's no existence, one's saying there's no energy/potential for affect.

My argument is that since existence is defined by it's affectance, it will always have affect.

In the physical universe, all is motion. There is no mass and no object, but the different forms of motion effect eachother.
There is no energy but instead there is vibration and movement and heat and sound, all are motion.
When we percieve its surface it has a tangible quality. It moves and feels solid.
This aspect of reality is most commonly considered to be known by humanity.
As for the silent forces which don't move, or only move slightly, or are too far away, nobody can experience those, but we can estimate that they do exist.

My definition of the void is like the undestirbed surface of a lake. It has a quality which means it is desterbable. We experience the desterbed and desterbable reality. This is considered actual and potential. Hopefully I've clarified myself.

[Joe Schmoe]

We have different definitions of void. I say a void doesn't have affect, and can't be affected, therefore, doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because existence is defined as the ability of affectance.

Your definition of a void seems to be that of energy (potential) which isn't actuating to anything 'significant' at a given moment.

[James S Saint]

I think you guys are saying the same thing but merely with difference emphasis and different words.

I don't know why I keep missing your posts, Joe..

Emmm.. okay...

You DO realize that I am the creator of Rational Metaphysics, right?

I wasn't sure how to respond to this.

You do realize that we're dwarves on the shoulders of giants, right?

I'm thinking more like ants, under their boots, but...

You did not create Rationality, nor did you create Metaphysics. I googled rational metaphysics and found this.

Definition of RM

What you did is rationally define metaphysics, and then built upon that foundation. Quality work, but not any sort of ownership of being rational and using metaphysics.

Well, that reference isn't up to my standard (especially when you look at his definition for "existence").
And I named what I created "Rational Metaphysics" for more exacting reasons.

Rationality refers to the logic that leads to a goal. My "Rational Metaphysics" is founded on Definitional Logic and the rational declaration that existence = affect (just as you have been stating). It is irrational to worry about anything that has no affect at all, thus what exists == what has affect, whether anyone wants to claim otherwise or not. If it has no affect, I don't care about it (hence being "rational").

Unlike Science and so very many other ontological endeavors, RM doesn't presume axioms concerning existence. It begins merely by defining what anyone would care about and see where the logic takes it. From that I got Rational Metaphysics: From Void to Inertia, Mass, Momentum, Particles, and Gravity. My claim right now is that work is irrefutable (once you go through he math anyway) and exactly explains why gravity exists and how it works even more precisely than Science.

I think you offended me by, in my eyes, dismissing my words as though they'd all been said before, or even more, stolen from you.

I apologize for such appearance. That certainly wasn't what I meant.
Actually I had too much trouble discerning what you were trying to say, and thus underscored "rational"... as in "emm.. is there some rationale to this OP?"

But from your continued posts, I can agree with just about everything you have said.