"Eternity": Foundation of Time.

[PoPpAScience]

Before there was "Motion", there was "IS". This "IS" consisted of 'Three Fundamentals',
"Potential"(Fundamental Substance), "Infinity"(Volume), and "Eternity"(Continued Existence).

It is this 'Continued Existence' called "Eternity" that is the 'Foundation' of all that is perceived in the 'here & now', not to mention 'Why', there is a 'here & now'.

What we perceive right now, is "Eternity"(Continued Existence).

Then came "Motion"! "Motion" stirred up "Potential of Infinity for Eternity"(Continually Existing Volume of Fundamental Substance), creating a "Finite Reality of Space for Time".

'Finite Reality'(Measurable Substance) of 'Space'(Measurable Volume) for 'Time'(Measurable Existence). Measurable only because of "Motion" and a 'Perceiver'.

"Eternity", is 'Continued Existence'.
"Eternity". is the 'now'.

'Time', is a 'Measurable Quantity of Existence'.
'Time', is a 'Perception' of the 'now'.

"Infinity for Eternity", is the 'here & now'.

'Space for Time', is a 'Measurable Perception' of the 'here & now'.

"Infinity for Eternity", "IS"!!!!

'Space for Time', 'is' because!!!

[SteveA]

There are probably different words and contexts that could be used ... but yes, they really all just describe the same thing.

There are also ways that we could describe these in finer detail with more components ... but 3 orthogonal properties appears a nice sweet spot to begin with and there are many examples of this - not much to say about a single thing and we could go back and forth regarding dualities and paradoxes all day long ... ah, but when you add a third party, well it really appears to mix things up and generate a lot of diversity.

I do agree though that it all has to begin with a single concept thought, otherwise the pieces never fit together - just like we can never solve for a precise solution to an equation that still has a degree of freedom left. (Not that reality doesn't have at least one, but there's not much to be said about such - it's present along with everything else and appears to be a component that is just experienced but not precisely describable or provable etc. - it's the variable or unknown, though it can also be an arbitrarily large quantity of unknowns - not knowing what the influence of one thing will be is rather indistinguishable from not knowing what the influence of many such unknowns would be ... except that in one scenario we'd need to describe a lot of mechanisms to allow multiple such unknowns to coordinate within a single space, but that's already a capability present in the originating unknown and it would just be unnecessary confusion, obfuscation and cause paradoxes to consider that multiple independent unknown influences can operate simultaneously in a space - that scenario can be constructed by interleaving the influences of a single source throughout space and it avoids those conflicts and still retains an arbitrarily large or pervasive influence).

That's just the only way that appears to personally make sense. (Not that anyone ever said reality had to make sense, but at least any components that have the hope of being logically describable appear to require a common foundation and the minimal amount of randomness or unknowns that's required is just a binary coin toss, though there are uses for non-binary values but they're more of conveniences and not requirements)

It could have begun with just a continually growing binary string and all the logical operations that could be performed across it (fold it back on itself - a.k.a. warp "spacetime" and do bitwise computations between two segments, such as a NOR operation and that's the beginning of a structure that's capable of universal computation and much like how a PC operates).

(either) NAND or NOR are "Universal (binary) Gates"
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/02-21-08.pdf

For example, if we want to compute PHI (the golden mean), we can just recursively fold a section of this string in half:

If we assume that we begin with a binary string of n bits length and we simply continually wrap a length of this binary thread/string around a loop, if we begin with 1/2 or 50:50 probabilities, then these transition after each revolution and converge toward a PHI/golden mean/fibonnacci distribution:

Given the "truth table" for a NOR operation for two inputs A and B as:

AB -> Q
00 -> 1
01 -> 0
10 -> 0
11 -> 0

If the probability of each input, A and B being a 1 is respectively pA and pB, then we can determine that the probability of Q being a 1 (pQ) is:

pQ=NOR(pA,pB)=(1-pA)*(1-pB)

if pA and pB are both probabilities of 1/2, then:

pQ=(1-1/2)*(1-1/2)=(1/2)*(1/2)=1/4=.25

If we then take our new 'NORed' segment and roll another length of this string around it, the new probability becomes:

NOR(pQ,pA)=(1-1/4)*(1-1/2)=(3/4)*(1/2)=3/8=.375

and if we do this fractally by continually taking the last two probabilities (which actually requires an asymmetrical "tree", or alternately we can use relatively prime "wavelengths" to extract or impose an additional entropy, otherwise we arrive at coherent interactions that are not chaotic), this proceeds as:

NOR(3/8,1/4)=(1-3/8)*(1-1/4)=(5/8)*(3/4)=15/32~=.469
NOR(15/32,3/8)=(1-15/32)*(1-3/8)=(17/32)*(5/8)=9/32~=.332
...
This recursive operation approaches a probability of ~=.3819, 1-(phi^-1) or 2-phi

Notice that at each point we're combining two binary units (male/female?), which gives us 1 of 4 possible combinations and we could consider these similar to the base pair codings in DNA of A, G, T and C.

And then if we look at a strand of DNA, the double helix has many phi relationships embedded within it:

http://goldennumber.net/dna.htm

I believe there's another form of fractal growth that, in theory, would have the equivalent of all binary computations embedded within it - that could be an interesting structure to do a little studying about.

But basically this model would also have 3 significant components - a space/memory, with information embedded within it and the "warping" or folding of that space to perform computations and construct the non-linear or informationally selective (masking) components.

[SteveA]

Wow, that could even tie in with some other ideas as well.

There are basically ~6.2 billion bits of information inherited via. DNA.

We need a manner to describe spacial dimensions via. perceptions, which appear inexplicable by information content alone - there's more to things than "just the numbers".

Well if that above structure was used (which is how nature appears to work - you have two parents pass on genetic information and the sexual male/female compliments assures these are not from an identical source).

If we simply selected the past two generates of DNA to combine, this gives an ancestral dependency that grows as the fibonacci sequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,...

If each of these also passed on a single form of perception, then in terms of the quantity of distinct spacial positions that could be referenced by reordering these perceptions, this would be a factorial growth (for example, imagine all someone could detect was an ordering in space of 3 different colors of light from left to right, this gives 3!=3*2*1=6 possible orientations that could be detected in that space - for example, rotating around the object could reveal up to 6 unique configurations of it via. these perceptions).

There are a couple reasons why the body appears to be related to 13!=13*12*11*...*2*1~=6.2 billion, which is quite close to the same number of bits that could be accessed in such a fundamental informational space (DNA is measured as having slightly less and that could be expected).

Atomic configurations should also be related to how this tree is constructed and I believe that atoms are not predetermined to be a specific element in and of themselves, but instead as the position in space, relative to an observational perspective that they appear to reside at (basically atomic traits aren't "what" an atom is but instead "where" it's located in a spacial network of communication and "how" it's connected - and I believe this structure is seen similar to the symmetry around the center line of DNA - which I believe is where the source of information arises - it's a 1-D singularity in our space - a time line of information placed within the context of conscious awareness).

Yes, I know this stuff is "off the wall", but it actually makes a lot of sense and I've been finding enough links that keep reinforcing this view that I'm rather certain it's pretty close.

Another interesting correlations with physics - if we took this binary string and folded it into a 3 dimensional cube, the lengths of each side would be: (13!)^(1/3)~=1839.755

If we were to measure the width of this relative to one unit in a dimension, the ratio should appear as:

1838.755:1

Now here's an interesting correlation as well:

Neutron to Electron Mass Ratio
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mnsme

1838.683 : 1

(If this view is correct, we could be at something like 7 layers "deep" in this tree, from a common origin)

[PoPpAScience]

Steve, Steve, Steve my friend, you sure like to give me to much to read. I have to head out on the road, and will read your response in detail on my IPhone.

I wrote this thread with you in mind, and you did not even respond to "Eternity" being the foundation of Time. Well maybe you did and I have not read it yet.

[SteveA]

Steve, Steve, Steve my friend, you sure like to give me to much to read. I have to head out on the road, and will read your response in detail on my IPhone.

It'll probably crash yer phone!

I wrote this thread with you in mind, and you did not even respond to "Eternity" being the foundation of Time. Well maybe you did and I have not read it yet.

It's in there - it's how many units of time long that thread fundamentally is ... (I think that ultimately perceptions can't be a static thing though as they determine the visible "length"/volume/complexity of this and they'd need to either change gradually or suddenly or a combination of both ... though consider that if some new sensation came along and had no previous correlation to anything, "where" would it most likely appear to be? Probably anywhere and nowhere specific, though over time it could be possible to assign relationships between it and previously existing things - I think stuff like that happens on occasion in life, so there could be a continual "perceptual evolution" that's going on as well as new experiences, emotions, thoughts, concepts etc. arise and become included with previous things ... a way to add new "digits" of "Potential" space for "Infinity" so you can count "Eternally" ... now what's a good "numbering system"? It's got to be a real cool way of counting with tons of directions, exploratory constructions, with a trail of bread crumbs for backtracking and capable of universal computation with arbitrary I/O remapping, automatic search algorithms etc. etc. etc. every bell and whistle that adds to that "coolness" factor and pulls out all the stops, convenient, robust and fundamentally simple and able to squeeze through a single dimension to boot! (ok, maybe two if some compromise has to be made - it might be tough to time the construction without a clock available ... and I believe we need at least two dimensions to deterministically pass a quantity, though that quantity could be a large composite number that factors itself into a higher dimensional space of "Potential") ... I don't know, I'm still just kicking around ideas )

Yes, I recognize those concepts are quite abstract but basically that last comment was regarding converting a 2 dimensional surface into a higher dimensional space by selecting a subset of it that possesses a quantity of space that is factorable into multiple independent (relatively prime) wavelengths. The communication with this "space" could potentically occur as if it had more than 2 dimensions ... a possible way to sort of break a chaotic superposition of information (this could likely correlate with constructing a chaotic, multidimensional reference for time that matches the spectrum of an atom and then you could "tune into" that space).

I've done some experiments with chaotic functions in manners similar to this idea (though quite a bit simpler) and it's interesting how much stuff can be found in "noise" - there's structure and that structure exists in matter. The properties of it aren't understood well though one of my recent experiments using a 3 body chaotic source to interleave information in space turned out this image :



That was the 4th image that popped out and I didn't touch a thing to edit it. Now it could be a fluke (like I really believe that anymore) but to me it looks like a planet with oceans, continents, an atmosphere, day and stars in a night sky and clouds - coincidence? I seriously am becoming quite skeptical of coincidence and randomness etc. (I'm working on a way to remap this space into something capable of universal computation and the above ideas could be a decent start)

[SteveA]

Here's something else that might be interesting to consider:

In many ways, we live in an environment that's very mentally free, yet physically restrictive. If we look at the internet, it's primarily a "virtual" environment with a lot of mental freedom, yet that also can come with similar mental bumps and bruised - there are actions and consequences to most everything (I believe these fundamentally arise from actions that lead back toward causation - past actions determine the present and the present can't alter these. Actions that are solely related to a finite set of past events would inevitable become impossible to sustain as that would become an act of "space filling" a finite volume and hence something "outside" those references would have to "bump" things off-course).

A child is born with a lot of safety nets - generally there are parents and a child doesn't need to know how to change their own diapers and there's lots of soft baby fat for padding , but these same "safety nets" can also be confining, restrictive and they aren't sufficient or intended to remain present as a child grows. An adult who still had to wear diapers or couldn't clean up would likely find themself "knee deep in stuff" quite quickly

Anyway, the main thought here is that greater freedom comes with greater risks. Though also, "safety nets" aren't really that safe either (for example, how often is it that we find democratic and government "safety nets" failing to perform up to expectations? ... How "safe" are these really? Personally, most the time I wish there was less "assistance", then again I can't complain about it being a learning experience. That part was done well and I owe some thanks ... ok, truly it was all done well)

That's just a few more things to consider as part of the mix ...

[Meem]

The way I have been considering my mash of "is-eternal-ness," has strokes of field theory in it. Is eternity it's own field, or the one sum of all, and ... it's own field? If it's possible for particles to be popping into/out of one field into another (never mention "reality," whatever that is), to include perhaps being in them both (all) at the same time .... well yeah, that's a lot of such a nasty word these days, possible. If one prefers, let us just imagine probable, and this is so. Well, would that not mean ... we do too? We are fundamentally made of particles, yes?

If all particles are made of "ground" particles, and ground particles make everything .... well?

If, such a sum-one-all-ground field .... were .... would it have structure within it? Would things from "here" keep their structure "there?" Is it more like a blank white or black paper-wall? Would things structure differently "there" than they do here? Why is there even structure anywhere to begin with? Some speak of QM having a fundamental of random-chance being at it's core. Then why do we look for smaller and smaller structures (ironically, for the big picture) which are not random at all.

If there is such a field, there is no math that can depict it.

Well, possibly, probably, perhaps we should give 8 a nice push,

Motion in the ocean of space time.

[SteveA]

The way I have been considering my mash of "is-eternal-ness," has strokes of field theory in it. Is eternity it's own field, or the one sum of all, and ... it's own field? If it's possible for particles to be popping into/out of one field into another (never mention "reality," whatever that is), to include perhaps being in them both (all) at the same time .... well yeah, that's a lot of such a nasty word these days, possible. If one prefers, let us just imagine probable, and this is so. Well, would that not mean ... we do too? We are fundamentally made of particles, yes?

There are many ways that things could exist and there's really no manner to know anything about whatever may be fundamentally disconnected, now and forever without any possibility of it ever being related to oneself. In that respect, anything "else" is entirely irrelevant.

If we look at what does or can exist as something that has some possible relationship to oneself, there are many possible classes of things and these might be seen in different contexts of past, present and future, though it appears that none of these things actually come into existence spontaneously, nor as soon as they're no longer recognized as present do they become non-existent, but instead that all these things remain related and connected by the "mechanism" of time, which is really a component of oneself and this can be synchronized with time for other things as well, but the exact manner in which this could be occuring at any moment doesn't appear something that could actually be verified (events in time between multiple observers aren't necessarily synchronized in the manner they're perceived to be - specifically when and where someone/something else is in an external/objective sense isn't something that appears knowable with certainty and things might as well instead be considered to be precisely as they're beliefed, seen, experienced etc.)

I think there's are three main categories of "phenomenon" that summarize most all of it:

1) There exists something beyond an ability to describe precisely in any specific context. It can be experienced as time and change, but this time and change arise from properties of oneself exploring it - it would be redundant to assume that both components change, there's only one source of time required and there doesn't seem to be a logical manner that two forms of change or time can exist coherently together without unknowns, and we already have unknowns present in that exploration, hence there's no reason to assume that those unknowns arise from anything more than these preexisting things "passing through" ones knowledge.

Also the capabilities of this motion through time and abilities to perceive and experience it appear to be required to also have been in existence before this and so these two components of an unchanging infinite landscape and the experiencing of time viewing and rearranging/reordering how those components are seen, are actually connected together by both perceptions in one direction (the current experience) and actions in the other (the current action - though these actions do not necessary occur continually right here and now and like inertia to matter, actions have an enduring influence upon that motion - if you throw a ball, the ball doesn't stop moving as soon as you stopped throwing it, nor does the influence of that thrown ball stop when it hits the ground, but it sends reverberations through the ground and continues to influence the environment because it is no longer where it was and its influence, due to your action(s) has altered it).

So in many ways these two "landscapes" can be brought very close together - there are "things" that exist eternally, yet do not change, and these could be seen as the willed act - the moment the ball was thrown, and then time shows how that action becomes related to everything else. In a sense, that unchanging landscape could likely be described as points at which an action occured. The dimensions of that space would then be the contexts in which those actions could have occured and the experiencing of time could be a straight line motion through that space - the perceptions would then be continually showing how those points of action are related to the present moment and forms of physical laws that existed would be due to the manner in which those perceptions showed the relationship to those actions - though in a sense, we could also "rewrite" this as a single action that can grow.

Wow, I just had another great insight and this could tie in perceptions with actions and physical laws into a single dimension or quantity - there need not be multiple actions, but a single action that can be altered, or at least "grown"!

Consider that in the example of the thrown ball above, it has many influences that propagate over time, but fundamentally these arose from a single source. Let's say instead that we wanted to do many things in some moment instead. Well if you can only do one thing at a time, then the action needs to be such that it is equivalent to having done multiple things at once. For example, in the act of throwing the ball, its subsequent influences became many and varied, though if we wanted to throw two balls simultaneously this would not necessarily be possible unless we had previously acted to have a mechanism to allow for this, such as a machine to also throw a second ball at the same time and in a sense we can unify these "two" actions and subsequent influences to just being a single action (the initial decision to built a machine to throw a second ball and the decision to throw the first after building it - all the subsequent building of the machine and flying balls etc. could be seen as arising from a single act/decision/influence, though that action would not necessarily be limited to having finite influences in time and continual repurcussions could be observed).

Though these influences can be similarly altered or even potentially "undone" (at least in the present) if there had once again been a decision prior to those that had allowed for this, though it would still be a forward causation in more fundamental version of time as something is not undone, unless it was first done - and both of these can still remain existing and potentially compared, if a "metric" or manner to make measurements between these was available and this would appear to have to be a common metric that both contained and have causally preexisted both (otherwise it's an "apples and oranges" comparison).

I've got to head off to work, but overall, though things can appear to change and move around in time and become connected or disconnected, the fundamental properties that allow this to be possible and the components involved don't appear to themselves be things that change in time, but instead these remain along with other things that are have not been or are not currently known. That appears to be way in which both change and a continuity over time can both be present and make sense, though because not everything is known or currently experienced that always leaves unknowns on the horizon ... though in many ways they're not relevant to what's already present here and now - possibilities, realities and time mixing between these.

If, such a sum-one-all-ground field .... were .... would it have structure within it? Would things from "here" keep their structure "there?" Is it more like a blank white or black paper-wall? Would things structure differently "there" than they do here? Why is there even structure anywhere to begin with? Some speak of QM having a fundamental of random-chance being at it's core. Then why do we look for smaller and smaller structures (ironically, for the big picture) which are not random at all.

If there is such a field, there is no math that can depict it.

Well, possibly, probably, perhaps we should give 8 a nice push,

Motion in the ocean of space time.

It appears the most that such physical laws might be able to determine are the capabilities or relationships between these things, but not the specifics that exist at any moment.

If you look at a physical "law" or property like inertia, it basically shows that an object continues to move in the direction and at a constant ratio of motion relative to everything else that is also in motion.

Though this could be seen as true (at least as an approximation), it doesn't say specifically what, when, where or how any of these motions began or how they may be changed via. acceleration.

It takes an observer to actually determine what all these motions are and that's considered a measurement of time in physics - but time is also an observer specific quantity and can't be determined by another observer and that basically means that everything can exist in it's own universe and specifically when or where things happen to bump into each other arises by a mutual action to do so as the specifics of all these motions are unique to each thing - though that does not necessary mean that the specific perceived consequences are known, but that still a component of it is self determined

[PoPpAScience]

Humanbydefault posted this in a thread:

"As for TIME well I like Plato's philosophical image of time when he said" :

"Time is the image of eternity"

Way to go Plato!