GENIUS FORUMS

This sucks because i find QSR philosophy depressing , but all for intelectual honesty i post this now.
Maybe i'll find arguments against it with time.

This was inspired by this post from laird.

Quote
-----
Laird: To the extent that I understand it, I disagree with your assertion, and I'll explain why very simply: it's possible that at some instant of time, t1, all of the matter in the
universe is in a certain configuration, C; it's also in principle possible that after some
duration of time (t2 - t1), at some later instant of time, t2, all of the matter in the
Universe is again in that same configuration, C. Now, according to you, given that the
universe is in the same state in both instants, these two instants are the same, and yet,
plainly, given their separation by a duration, they are not the same. Therefore, it's not
true that the mere state of the universe is sufficient to identify an instant of time.

chikoka: I have no problem beleiving that t1 and t2 are the same moment.
What you have described is (because of causality) a cyclic universe. Because of causality

t1 + 2 seconds will also be identical to t2 + 2 seconds.

Not necessarily - you're assuming determinism
-----


If there is no determinism two totaly different times could be a function of the same universe state.
Its another type of relationship different from a function relationship realy since F(x) strictly speaking can not have two unique images.
So R(x)->y and also R(x)->z to be fussy.

Now if this is true the only way these can be different is because the moments preceding y and z differently must be different i.e. z-2 is different from y-2.
How would the instant z be different from the instant y if z-2 and y-2 dont exist at the same time in order to make z a function properly by including z-2 in the mapping of its instant.
I.e if cosidering y and z as being different is because of the moments preceding each , then this information has to be included in each of the different relationships.
I.e. Its no longer z is a R of (universe state x) but z is a R of (universe state x and z-2) and y is a R of (universe state x and y-2). (this would make these relationships also qualify to be functions).

If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function.
If they do exist at the same time which does not make sense since y-2 by deffinition occurd at a different time (2 seconds before y).So what we need to say is that they exist *now* *atemporaly*.

If an atemporal now makes sense then this means a block universe since y +_1,2,3,4 must also exist now in the atemporal negating any free will or randomness.If by free will we mean done out of want and want is not done out of anything else.

If an atemporal now does not make sense then y and z have to be the same time and so y-2 = z-2 and we have a cyclic universe and since repetition implies ordering in time and we are actualy speaking *of* time it does not make sense to say it is cyclic so it must be a block universe with the added detail that it has a deffinite start and a deffinite end.
It would still be practicaly a block universe even if it was cyclical with 1 time dimension though i hope you see that cyclical with 1 time dimension does not make sense.

In the material world of thought matter what you say is logical.

But of what part of the continuum of infinity is reciprocal?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:In the material world of thought matter what you say is logical.

But of what part of the continuum of infinity is reciprocal?

What does the second statement mean if it is related to the first with a "but".
I understand your 1'st scentence and somehow your second but see no relationship.

Could you explain.

Laird: To the extent that I understand it, I disagree with your assertion, and I'll explain why very simply: it's possible that at some instant of time, t1, all of the matter in the
universe is in a certain configuration, C; it's also in principle possible that after some
duration of time (t2 - t1), at some later instant of time, t2, all of the matter in the
Universe is again in that same configuration, C.

Don't know if this is Laird quoting somebody or what.

The point is, this scenario is NOT possible. Physically, it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This could be a matter of fruitless debate. If it is conceded that these two configurations can be identical, then it must be conceded by the other side of the fruitless debate that the probability of this occurrence is so small that humans have not yet devised a notation capable of expressing such a small probability. Compared to this, the probability of the monkeys typing all the works of Shakespeare is virtually 100%.

To see why, assume that t2 - t1 is not 0. Since all particles are moving, this scenario requires that each and every particle comes to rest momentarily and precisely reverses its direction, so that at t2 it occupies the same position as it did at t1. Since Newton's Laws state that this can only happen if a force were applied to each and every particle, we would have to account for that force.

As well, for C1 = C2, the universe must cease expanding during t2 - t1.

chikoka wrote:

jufa wrote:In the material world of thought matter what you say is logical.

But of what part of the continuum of infinity is reciprocal?

What does the second statement mean if it is related to the first with a "but".
I understand your 1'st scentence and somehow your second but see no relationship.

Could you explain.

But if what you are saying is logical in the world of matter, how does this logic apply to infinity?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

If the universe achieved some maximal state causing a tipping point where it were to contract (the big bang followed by the big suck theory) and it were to contract so hard that time itself were to reverse, t1 being the occurrence during expansion and t2 being the occurrence during contraction, they could either be moments that are identical or the same, depending on perspective. Following another big bang/suck and the moment(s) in question occur, they could then be four moments, two moments, or one moment - again depending on perspective (and where you lay your anchor of reference).

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If the universe achieved some maximal state causing a tipping point where it were to contract (the big bang followed by the big suck theory) and it were to contract so hard that time itself were to reverse, t1 being the occurrence during expansion and t2 being the occurrence during contraction, they could either be moments that are identical or the same, depending on perspective. Following another big bang/suck and the moment(s) in question occur, they could then be four moments, two moments, or one moment - again depending on perspective (and where you lay your anchor of reference).

This could never be because all is a continuum. So whether moving forward or backwards the moment could never be the same exactness of occurrence because of the continuum of infinity.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote: This could never be because all is a continuum. So whether moving forward or backwards the moment could never be the same exactness of occurrence because of the continuum of infinity.

This next little bit depends on whether you believe a thing exists because of what it is not.
I've posted it before but got no reply.

If the totality exists because of what it is not, what could this mean if by definition it is all there is?
What "that which is not the totality" means must mean parts of the totality since thats the only meaning we can get out of it.
If in order to exist the totality needs parts this means things (parts) can exist in and of themselves.so there is no continuum.

Also the QSR_ians havent yet said how they get to infinity since *the* totality can only be one, and if there is a continuum then there are zero things .
Maybe you can tell me where you get infinity from.

chikoka wrote:If the totality exists because of what it is not, what could this mean if by definition it is all there is?

The party line is that the Totality neither exists and nor does it not exist, in the sense that any "thing" else exists. This is this particular philosophy's belly-button, if you will. Which is great! Because if it has a belly-button, then it may be alive, or may have been alive at one point.

cousinbasil wrote: The party line is that the Totality neither exists and nor does it not exist

This clearly violates A = A logic ,which i thought was what this whole forum was based on.

Exist = not exist or exist not = to exist.
What do you mean by exist.

chikoka wrote:

jufa wrote: This could never be because all is a continuum. So whether moving forward or backwards the moment could never be the same exactness of occurrence because of the continuum of infinity.

This next little bit depends on whether you believe a thing exists because of what it is not.
I've posted it before but got no reply. To know what it is not is to admit that the thing exist, and therefore, if it exist, what does not exist about it?

If the totality exists because of what it is not, what could this mean if by definition it is all there is? You have answered your own question by definition of it existing as the totality of itself.
What "that which is not the totality" means must mean parts of the totality since thats the only meaning we can get out of it. You cannot name any part of the totality which is not whole, for even the parts are of the whole as waves of the universe are that of the whole universe.
If in order to exist the totality needs parts this means things (parts) can exist in and of themselves.so there is no continuum. You have this backwards. In order for a part to exist of life, in life, then life must be, cannot be anything other than the source which gives things their meaning of, intent of, and purpose of being the infinite source of that continuum of life. Without the life there is no existence of things. And without things, human evidence of awareness of a continuum cannot be intellectualized.

Also the QSR_ians havent yet said how they get to infinity since *the* totality can only be one, and if there is a continuum then there are zero things .
Maybe you can tell me where you get infinity from. Do know anything about what the QSR_ian, but I do know Life Itself is the infinity of Itself. Life existed infinitely before you became aware of your presents existence within It, and Life will infinitely exist after you are not aware of Its existence in the flesh. How can I say this, because you were born into Life before you became aware of It. And being Life existed before you became aware of It, what will alter the structure of Lifes infinite continuum?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:Without the life there is no existence of things

Since there is life then things must exist?

jufa wrote:Life existed infinitely before you became aware of your presents existence within It, and Life will infinitely exist after you are not aware of Its existence in the flesh

What does this type infinity have to do with the OP?

chikoka wrote:

jufa wrote:Without the life there is no existence of things

Since there is life then things must exist?

jufa wrote:Life existed infinitely before you became aware of your presents existence within It, and Life will infinitely exist after you are not aware of Its existence in the flesh

What does this type infinity have to do with the OP?

What OP are you talking about? That which could not exist within you had you not been born to birth it forth in your awarenenss?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

jufa wrote:What OP are you talking about?

I mean original (first) post of this thread.

chikoka wrote:If the totality exists because of what it is not, what could this mean if by definition it is all there is?
What "that which is not the totality" means must mean parts of the totality since thats the only meaning we can get out of it.
If in order to exist the totality needs parts this means things (parts) can exist in and of themselves.so there is no continuum.

Whether it exists or not is irrelevant. Either way, A=A still holds true

(it exists = it exists)
(it doesn't exist = it doesn't exist)

Hi chikoka,

I understood you OK up to this point:

chikoka wrote:If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function.

Why would they need to exist at the same time to be included in the same function? Doesn't the function simply correlate variables/states? Why does it need to imply that a later state occurs at a prior time, as you seem to be suggesting it does?

prince wrote:chikoka wrote:
If the totality exists because of what it is not, what could this mean if by definition it is all there is?
What "that which is not the totality" means must mean parts of the totality since thats the only meaning we can get out of it.
If in order to exist the totality needs parts this means things (parts) can exist in and of themselves.so there is no continuum.


Whether it exists or not is irrelevant. Either way, A=A still holds true

(it exists = it exists)
(it doesn't exist = it doesn't exist)

The "whether it exists" part was a challenge to cousinball and has nothing to do with what you quoted of me.
Could you address that?

guest_of_logic wrote:Hi chikoka,

I understood you OK up to this point:

chikoka wrote:If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function.

Why would they need to exist at the same time to be included in the same function? Doesn't the function simply correlate variables/states? Why does it need to imply that a later state occurs at a prior time, as you seem to be suggesting it does?

That information has to find its way somehow in the creation of the identity of the moment y.
If the info is not there at the same time as the univerese state that y is an image of then how can it?

chikoka: If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function.

guest_of_logic: Why would they need to exist at the same time to be included in the same function? Doesn't the function simply correlate variables/states? Why does it need to imply that a later state occurs at a prior time, as you seem to be suggesting it does?

chikoka: That information has to find its way somehow in the creation of the identity of the moment y.
If the info is not there at the same time as the univerese state that y is an image of then how can it?

Which information are you referring to? The only relevant information that I can see is that time y is two seconds later than time y-2, and that universe state x occurs at time y. I see nothing about this correlated information that implies that y-2 need exist at the same time as universe state x.

cousinbasil wrote:Don't know if this is Laird quoting somebody or what.

They were my own words.

cousinbasil wrote:The point is, this scenario is NOT possible. Physically, it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Ha. OK, so read "in principle" as "in principle, but ignoring the principle of Thermodynamics, or assuming that that principle can be worked around". ;-)

chikoka wrote:The "whether it exists" part was a challenge to cousinball and has nothing to do with what you quoted of me.
Could you address that?

My comment was related to your original excessively convoluted post.

Whatever proccesses appear random, aren't.

It appears random = it appears random.

Current emperical observations about how the universe works may seem to contradict or "not make sense", but A=A is never violated. That is all you need to understand.

guest_of_logic wrote: Which information are you referring to? The only relevant information that I can see is that time y is two seconds later than time y-2, and that universe state x occurs at time y. I see nothing about this correlated information that implies that y-2 need exist at the same time as universe state x.

In what way is y different from z *at configuration c*.
You said in the other thread y is different from z because of prior moments.
If we assume y-2 no longer exists at y then how can it affect y and so cause a difference.
I hope your not going to say something that doesnt exist can have an effect on something that does.

Quote
-------

Ha. OK, so read "in principle" as "in principle, but ignoring the principle of Thermodynamics, or assuming that that principle can be worked around
------

The second "law" is not really a law but a statement of probability.
Your "in principle" is totaly valid.

prince wrote:chikoka wrote:
The "whether it exists" part was a challenge to cousinball and has nothing to do with what you quoted of me.
Could you address that?


My comment was related to your original excessively convoluted post.

Whatever proccesses appear random, aren't.

It appears random = it appears random.

Current emperical observations about how the universe works may seem to contradict or "not make sense", but A=A is never violated. That is all you need to understand.

chikoka wrote:The "whether it exists" part was a challenge to cousinball and has nothing to do with what you quoted of me.
Could you address that?

My comment was related to your original excessively convoluted post.

Whatever proccesses appear random, aren't.

It appears random = it appears random.

Current emperical observations about how the universe works may seem to contradict or "not make sense", but A=A is never violated. That is all you need to understand.

I dont doubt A = A .
My objection to what cousinball said was based on that.
He seemed to be saying that what exists does not exist.

You have not yet said anything related directly to the convulsions in the OP.

prince wrote: Current emperical observations about how the universe works may seem to contradict or "not make sense", but A=A is never violated. That is all you need to understand.

Glad to see your beleif system is still based on faith.

chikoka wrote:If we assume y-2 no longer exists at y then how can it affect y and so cause a difference.
I hope your not going to say something that doesnt exist can have an effect on something that does.

Is it really the best framing of this issue to talk about moments of time being causes, and "existing" or not? Typically time is seen as a prerequisite for causality, but not a causal entity in itself. I don't see a problem with saying that the current moment has a relationship with past moments (perhaps "is defined by past moments" rather than "is caused by past moments"), and leaving it at that - the issue of the existence of the past moments then seems redundant to me, and it seems to me that you're raising a concern that has no real basis. I hope you don't find that too blunt.

chikoka wrote:The second "law" is not really a law but a statement of probability.
Your "in principle" is totaly valid.

Cool. At vanishingly small odds, as cousinbasil would remind us.