Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, I was being serious. I have talked with him about that.
From: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81450&highlight=dream+time
Does Distance exist without time?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
No, I was being serious. I have talked with him about that.
Reiku:
If the space around one and not the cloak is slowed, then the clock's atomic movement ought to remain constant. Rather, it is slowed, as part of the whole slowing effect of moving into great gravity wells and/or going fast.
If the space around one and not the cloak is slowed, then the clock's atomic movement ought to remain constant. Rather, it is slowed, as part of the whole slowing effect of moving into great gravity wells and/or going fast.
Quantum Heraclitus:
Well once again...this doesn't mean that distance disappears. Even if space becomes unbridgeable without time (thus distance has no meaning in giving a measurement of how long it takes to get somewhere).
I fail to see the "spatial collapse" that time is supposed to be able to produce when it is removed.
Well once again...this doesn't mean that distance disappears. Even if space becomes unbridgeable without time (thus distance has no meaning in giving a measurement of how long it takes to get somewhere).
I fail to see the "spatial collapse" that time is supposed to be able to produce when it is removed.
No, i don't. The observer gives life to the universe. Without this life, its devoid of meaning.
God needed man too, or He would not have created them, as much as the human requires God. This is analogous to the laws of quantum physics concerning the observer effect.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
'Devoid of meaning' is not the same as non-existent though, the distinction is fairly large.
Also, meaning is completely subjective i.e. dependent on a perceiver/interpreter.
Objectively, the universe is utterly meaningless.
Maybe a better approach is to ask you to describe the following:
1] Without objects of mass in the universe what do we have remaining [ item A]?
2] What is it's [item A] dimensions?
3] By replacing the mass does this effect that something [item A] or can it effect that something [item A] in any way?
4] Even with mass replaced what are the dimensions of item A.
Maybe you can self derive a solution using your own language.....
btw this is only a part of the theory that we usually have to consciously deal with. There are other aspects that are even more fundamental. But to get to a point of understanding there needs to be a journey undertaken.
Last edited:
so you do not agree that the universe is actually a "simple" self consciousness that has humans to complicate things with their individual self consciousness?
Mind you this is more philosophy so maybe a thread should be started there.
well for what it's worth I happen to think that you are correct. However coming up with a unified theory that incorporates a "living" universe is no easy task. Maybe in 2 or three weeks we can colaborate a little and see what happens.No, THAT'S EXACTLY WAT I BELIEVE in.
Quantum Heraclitus:
Space itself. In essence: An infinite physical Cartesian grid.
3.
All the mass "lumps" in its "fabric" would be ironed out.
Still 3.
Space itself. In essence: An infinite physical Cartesian grid.
3.
All the mass "lumps" in its "fabric" would be ironed out.
Still 3.
an infinte cartesian grid? explain if you wish...and why you think this is so?
Quantum Heraclitus:
The idea of space is fundamentally dimensional and extended. A physical correlate to the "paper" upon which a Cartesian grid is "drawn" upon, would seem to be more reasonable for the emptiest of spaces imaginable. Consider the fact that any room is comparatively "empty" (really filled with oxygen) and yet it is not "nothing" but a "space" that is essentially an empty grid. This "empty grid" is physical, yet has nothing within it otherwise. And it differs from pure nothingness (which it is one step away from as it has no mass or energy or anything else) because nothingness cannot be.
The idea of space is fundamentally dimensional and extended. A physical correlate to the "paper" upon which a Cartesian grid is "drawn" upon, would seem to be more reasonable for the emptiest of spaces imaginable. Consider the fact that any room is comparatively "empty" (really filled with oxygen) and yet it is not "nothing" but a "space" that is essentially an empty grid. This "empty grid" is physical, yet has nothing within it otherwise. And it differs from pure nothingness (which it is one step away from as it has no mass or energy or anything else) because nothingness cannot be.
ok..I don't see any problem with that...although I do not see the need to claima grid exists however it does allow the dimension to have a virtual or imaginary volume so to speak. [ imaginary I mean "pigs that fly" type imaginary - or no-existant except as pure imaginary.]
So according to your cartesian grid description how much distance is involved and why do you feel that this empty cartesian grid should have distance at all other that virtual or imaginary distance.
"in a sense a vacant space universe is an imaginary dimension of what ever volume you wish to subscribe to as distance is a measure of mass ie 12 feet of what? it is hard to imagine 12 feet of vacuum or vacant space. After all what is a foot any way?"
Also it is nto nothingness in reality because mass will always be present in this universe [ while it lasts that is] so therefore it can never be claimed as absolute nothingness because it has something to be relative to. Absolute nothingness is non-relative as it doesn't exist or to use your word "noexistant"
but in this case nothingness exists because it IS relative to somethingness.
Last edited:
Quantum Heraclitus:
Infinite distance. As it cannot ever not be, it must extend ad infinitum. For the only alternative is nothingness and therefore the opposite is impossible.
The distance is quite real, but meaningless.
Infinite distance. As it cannot ever not be, it must extend ad infinitum. For the only alternative is nothingness and therefore the opposite is impossible.
The distance is quite real, but meaningless.
I can see where you are coming at.
And yes the distance is meaningless but we are left with a conundrum yes?
ok lets try another approach...hmmm
we have an infinite volume of vacuum in your cartesian grid....what stops it due to it's low pressure from collapsing into a zero point?
see edit to post three up...
Whilst i am reluctant that we can never reduce the universes complexities to a single set of sceintific notations, that has been speculated to be worn on the T-Shirts of thousands, i do concur with you however.
It may be possible, to integrate the Vendantic Thought of a Single Mind, which by the way, is considered a quantum proof that there can never be an independant mind, to Bass' proof of a single consciousness, who was a student of the famous Schrodinger.
If we could use this notion of one-mind, of the Mind of God, as Dr Wolf calls it, then it is also possible that there may be nothing arising in the imaginary time dimension, and only in real time focal points, using probability graphs.
We would also need to take into consideration, thoughts, neurological processes, perhaps even Zero-Point Energy Vacuum>?? It has been speculated by Shiuji Inomata, professor of physics in Japan that thoughts and emotions may come out of the zero-point field, much the same as matter and energy, and even information does... The zero-point field, is a subspacetime negative space filled with spinning negative particles.
If you tried to remove a small bit of this stuff, the space would instantly refill. The energy in infinite therego. It maybe also here the single mind resides... If conscious thoughts are speculated to perhaps go through the same processes, then perhaps consciousness itself? The zero-point energy field would be a perfect place for the mixed potentia of conscious states creating a single mind.
Just a few thoughts.
Quantum Heraclitus:
There is a big difference between the two: Nothingness would have no-spatial extension or dimension. As such, suppose we magic a baseball into this infinite nothingness, then fling it at whatever speed in one direction. It will be able to pass. Were it nothingness, we could not throw it, as there'd be nothing to throw it in nor would there be any distance for it to be thrown.
Nothingness does "noexist" relative to somethingness as absolute opposites, but it cannot "noexist" as something which anything can interact with (or it would cease to be nothingness). To think of nothingness, for instance, is not to think.
There is nothing massive to collapse. Only mass is subject to collapse. Were this blank existence to collapse, we'd be left with an impossibility of nothingness. So we could say that metaphysical necessity prevents a collapse even more surely than the fact that no mass is there to collapse.
There is a big difference between the two: Nothingness would have no-spatial extension or dimension. As such, suppose we magic a baseball into this infinite nothingness, then fling it at whatever speed in one direction. It will be able to pass. Were it nothingness, we could not throw it, as there'd be nothing to throw it in nor would there be any distance for it to be thrown.
Nothingness does "noexist" relative to somethingness as absolute opposites, but it cannot "noexist" as something which anything can interact with (or it would cease to be nothingness). To think of nothingness, for instance, is not to think.
There is nothing massive to collapse. Only mass is subject to collapse. Were this blank existence to collapse, we'd be left with an impossibility of nothingness. So we could say that metaphysical necessity prevents a collapse even more surely than the fact that no mass is there to collapse.
interesting..the accumulation of over 5 thousand years of philosophical endeavour....now conjoining with modern science... to present a complete picture of life.
In the process of writing my book "The Physics of God" I found that discussing in too much detail tended to drive people quite crazy as certain truths have profound effects on those not adequately prepared for them. In Yogic terms this is considered as unwanted or unprepared awakenings that cause great confusion and usually paranoia. The book s it stands is unfinished and unpuboished as it feels to dangerous to the pysch to proceed at the moment.
So I tend not to discuss anything that may trigger serious episodes. With a few exceptions when teh shit really has to hit the fan like recently [ referring to the thread in pseudo science. regarding quantum entanglement use for mind control etc...]
I have learnt I guess the hard way as you no doubt are also in some way finding that shoving truths, even accidently down peoples throats can have devistating effects. Poeple love their beliefs which is why they defend them so vigourously...it is tied in with self esteem and ego and it takes a very brave man to allow him self to be vulnerable to belief changes.
Some persons on this board are that courageous some are not.
To put a belief aside even for just a moment is to big a task for some...
So whilst i tend to concur with your interesting thoughts I await further research and development before commenting too heavilly.
Last edited:
yep I agree to the intent but not necessarilly the words...
with regards to our cartesian space what would stop something from switching locations with in the grid with out transiting or traveling? [ given that there is nothing to travel through]
there is a principle : I call the "AT" principle which is distinct from the "TO" principle.
To go TO somewhere as distinct to appear AT somewhere.