[Robert]

Great chat guys! I believe we had a record turnout of around 15. The transcript should be posted later tonight for those who arrived late or were unable to attend. The next chat will take place in two weeks, same day, same time. The topic has not been decided yet but you can be sure it will be interesting. Thanks again for those who were able to make it. Many others wanted to come but for various reasons were unable to do so. Hope to see you all again in a couple of weeks.

--Robert

[Profpat]

thanks Robert

[Mike Mahalo]

I have been lured back in the TOE quest by an email from Robert and the subject of WHAT IS TIME.

And here in the chit chat of "I'll be there" is this long post from Neri, 14 months joined and only 5 posts. I am intrigued. Hello Neri! Thank you for your post.

I find this stimulating because my own findings are not so far away from these. however I decided that truth is multiple, it is merely point of view from the happenstance of who is where and sees what, and so every truth has perhaps an equal and opposite truth, so any theory - including TOE - cannot be ultimately true if truth is multiple.

But my own views are close.

Neri says THE IDEA THAT SPACE MAY BE QUANTIFIED NECESSARILY PRESUMES THAT SPACE CONSISTS OF INTERVALS THAT MAY BE MULTIPLIED OR DIVIDED.

This is the essence of our thinking since classical times about space and time, and my view is that this PRESUMTPION is an ASSUMPTION and it is homo sapiens centric and ultimately false.

If time and space are only what homo sapiens thinks they are, then that makes the discussion simpler, but totally unsatisfying, for what truly is Time and Space from beyong where homo sapiens can look and think about it?

In my own work (fractal dialectics) I propose that intervals may NOT be multiplied, only bifurcated, and then bifurcated again. This is in my view a valid alternative and exactly the solution that nature and reality always shows us in all observed things. Rivers are dendritic, like tree branches, and this is because biology constructs living tissue through cell splitting over and over and over.

Reality, space and time may be exactly the same, a single original cell split over and over. The appearance of intervals that are consistent may be just the way things are around here, and now. I prefer to think through this idea for several years now, it is very fruitful and liberating and occupies my mind in the most delightful way.

However I am influenced by the only, the only seriously wide ranging Theory of Everything ever seen by the Human Race, imperfect and truly lousy with crap though it is, and that is the Human Design System. I see that HDS is full of crap because too many idiots fail to apply rigour, prefering esoterics and ego to truth and systematic evaluation. However the seed ideas are too fascinating, especially that the original seed of all this universe is a duality, not a singularity, that consciousness and material form remain unmixable because of that original duality, and yet mysteriously the interpenetrations between consciousness and material forms are so deeply intertwisted that for repeated lengths of time - let us remember we sleep and wake and sleep and wake - the oscillations run parallel enough for the appearance of consistency and things like will and consequence etc.

I suspect that everybody conveniently forgets that all space and time are experienced ONLY by living beings, and we cannot truly be sure beyond that because there is no way to get inside anything inanimate without taking our consciousness to interpret our instrumentation and so on. But our own experience of SLEEP is that space and time dissolve.

This is for me a fifty fifty thing - sleep and awake, and then death. We all assume that reality is the awake bit, and sleep is just nothing, death is just, we cannot talk about that. I disagree. When I say 50/50., that is a startin g point to say, what about death, what about sleep, what about time and space in that, and of course, reincarnation is a basic to reject or accept because if consciousness rebounds into material form over and over then perhaps ALL aspects of time and space and subordinate to consciousness. Which came first? consciousness or material forms?

I return to the duality, and here I do thank HDS for the original and mathematically beautiful idea that this universe is a foetus within a womb, and beyond the womb is existence where this universe will one day be a member of a community that is nothing like all this. Our role within that? Our consciousness? OUr ideas? Well, I prefer to think existence is very economical, and that our own lives are mirrors or microcosms - and so putting aside the apoparent scale of how small science tells us we are, and yet how huge compared to microorganisms and atoms, why not balance all the scales and say, scale itself is a delusion of appearances, it is "maya" in the esoteric explanations.

And so why not say that this like, my life, is truly one aspect of the universe I am within, it's potential to develop from a foetus now, into a walking being, and through the twisting mirrors of my current consciousness and the meat body in the appearances of reality I now experience, this, my life, is one future of the cosmic foetus that is this universe. Then every person may be a walking future of this universe as a complete thing, a living being, and the mundane existences are all there is.

I spend a lot of time in very poor countries - I am currently between Cambodia, Northern Thailand, and Laos, and life is very very basic for millions of people. Yet these people are the actual futures of some embryo, that once was, on TIME before, and here, maybe our universe beyond us is our own multiple take on our own foetus within it's womb.

Inside and Outside.


These are the true, the true parameters of ALL. Not distance not time.

and who first discussed inside and outside, the Chinese, with Yang, that which penetrates into, and Yin, that which embraces around...

interesting.


Ciao for NOW

Mahalo

Udon Thani, Thailand

[dipayankar]

Hi Robert, next time lets have a chat on String Theory, I am sure Prof would be delighted..

Originally Posted by Robert Great chat guys! I believe we had a record turnout of around 15. The transcript should be posted later tonight for those who arrived late or were unable to attend. The next chat will take place in two weeks, same day, same time. The topic has not been decided yet but you can be sure it will be interesting. Thanks again for those who were able to make it. Many others wanted to come but for various reasons were unable to do so. Hope to see you all again in a couple of weeks. --Robert

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi Robert, next time lets have a chat on String Theory, I am sure Prof would be delighted..

A string theory chat could get a little technical. Plus, I know a few members abhor strings!

[Neri]

I should point out that the positing of irreducible atoms of time and space, while it may solve Zeno’s paradox, introduces a rather serious problem of its own, which I will now endeavor to explain.
If t and d are irreducible atoms of time and space, all ordinarily used units of time and distance must be multiples of t and d. However, it is the ratio of t to d that determines actual speed, not the multiples of t and d. By definition, neither t nor d may be decreased, since they are indivisible. Yet, both may be increased. The important point is this: an increase in d increases speed, but an increase in t lessens speed. Thus, xd/t=d/xt, where x is any number. Therefore, whether d or t is irreducibly multiplied for any given speed, depends entirely on whether the matter is conceptually taken from the point of view of time or distance. This would seem to deny ontological footing to both t and d. Indeed, the ideality of these “atoms” seems inescapable in the light of these observations.

[Robert]

A transcript of the chat has been attached to the first post of this thread.

--Robert

[dipayankar]

Lets be democratic Neutralino... We have to accept the fact that this theory is probably the best candidate for ToE. So lets debate this theory...

Originally Posted by neutralino A string theory chat could get a little technical. Plus, I know a few members abhor strings!

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Lets be democratic Neutralino... We have to accept the fact that this theory is probably the best candidate for ToE. So lets debate this theory...

Well, that depends on who you ask! Anyway, I never said we shouldn't have a chat on the subject; I wouldn't be adverse to one.

[dipayankar]

Right, lets fight it out in a chat room...

Originally Posted by neutralino Well, that depends on who you ask! Anyway, I never said we shouldn't have a chat on the subject; I wouldn't be adverse to one.