Philosophy Now Forum

jackles wrote:And in the beginning there was A and A was without form and nonlocal(because no time had yet existed) and then from A we had B created and behold locality came into being . ...

Not so as A must have a form for it to be an A and wherever A is it is local and has it's own 'time', i.e A's. If not and it was without form and no locality then it does not exist and you are talking metaphysical nonsense. Your A suffers from all 'God's' problems, i.e. infinite regress of cause. Now I understand how attractive this metaphysical thinking is but Philosophy has long abandoned such speculation, or at least those philosophers who did not wish to join the Natural Newtonian ones, and those philosophers culminated in Kant who called what you talk about the Noumena and pretty much nailed it that anything you say about it will be nonsense, as it is the Noumena.

And because A always had been in existence ...

Why? Why would A be any different than any A that exists and not have a cause and the answer is you need it to be so so you can solve the infinite regress but if you can have such a thing as 'always in existence' why can we not have 'infinite regress' as both are infinite.

it. A became naturally the timespace for the A B localised system event. And behold A+ B became light as physics in locality and moved and A new its self as light and it was good. Because A is good.

'Good' applies to moral agents who understand being 'bad' so your A is also 'bad'. I like your idea but think Cerverny has a better model in that there is this one substance that is undergoing entropy in the form of a 'crystallisation' and the phase-space of this event is where we exist, this phase-space can be understood as the juncture between what the substance was, i.e. the future, and what it is becoming, i.e. the past, with our reality being in the 'laying' down of the past. Me, I'd go for us either running in an ancestor-sim or its all being run on a Planck-sized bit holographic cellular automata but then I like my metaphysics culturally up to date.

But all such thinking still suffers from the problem that unless you can come-up with some way of testing it it's all just conjecture and for all we know its turtles all the way down or at least until we get to the disc, elephants, and Great A'Tuin.

Not so arising. A is just a symbol representing nothing and so A has no form. Form needs time space to be a form in.A has no size because size is not in existance before B is created. B is the first size to exist and so A B is the first form and it the local form of A plus B must exist inside the nonlocal A.

jackles wrote:Not so arising. A is just a symbol representing nothing and so A has no form. Form needs time space to be a form in.A has no size because size is not in existance before B is created. B is the first size to exist and so A B is the first form and it the local form of A plus B must exist inside the nonlocal A.

You're talking about something you can't talk about then? As if its no thing then you can't talk about as you are of B. If A is no thing than how can anything be 'inside' of it? And if there is an 'inside' then there is an 'outside', so what is 'outside' of A?

A pre exists there being a limit or size so B is a limited illusion of A. So something A B is an illusion of A. A B exists only in side timespace which is in actual fact A.A B is a fiction event inside an absolute limitless fact A.B is always really a localy limited A.A being omni present to the AB limited abstraction of the fact A. B is a limited A so A plus B is a mixture of limit and nonlimit.

Show me this A?

Prove to me this A exists.

For where I sit this B appears to be infinite so what does that make A?

jackles wrote:A pre exists there being a limit or size so B is a limited illusion of A. So something A B is an illusion of A. A B exists only in side timespace which is in actual fact A.A B is a fiction event inside an absolute limitless fact A.B is always really a localy limited A.A being omni present to the AB limited abstraction of the fact A. B is a limited A so A plus B is a mixture of limit and nonlimit.

jackles, it seems to me that you are a Pythagorean. Philolaus, the first Pythagorean to write a book, argued that the universe is made of unlimited things and things that limit. I wrote about it for Philosophy Now not long ago: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches

A is the nonlocality in spooky action. Spooky action is local action in A only bypassing the A plus B spacetime needed in A plus B action. A is also the relativity in all A plus B action events.

jackles wrote:A is the nonlocality in spooky action. Spooky action is local action in A only bypassing the A plus B spacetime needed in A plus B action.

Do us a favour, jackles: take a bit of time over this and explain what you mean without using the words spooky action, local, non-local and preferably without A and B. It is really hard to understand what you are on about when you use words in ways that no one else does.

Well uwot I cant explain it in any other way. What I am saying is A exists as eternity and eternity is nonlocality. A+B equals locality in eternity. Spooky action is action across eternity by passing the timespace usually needed for imformation . Eternity has no size or begining or end it never happened because A + B means happening in timespace action. A dosnt move but is the real mover in A+B as in aristotals unmoving mover.

jackles wrote:Well uwot I cant explain it in any other way. What I am saying is A exists as eternity and eternity is nonlocality.

Right. So do you mean that before there was anything 'in' the universe, it had existed an infinite amount of time? If so, you get into the sort of muddle that makes Parmenides and Zeno confusing. (That's in my article too.)

jackles wrote:A+B equals locality in eternity.

Is B a different type of thing to A? Are we talking about matter?

jackles wrote:Spooky action is action across eternity by passing the timespace usually needed for imformation .

Well, that's what is usually, and confusingly, called nonlocality.

jackles wrote:Eternity has no size or begining or end it never happened because A + B means happening in timespace action.

That sounds like Parmenides again, at least insofar as there is demonstrably not nothing.

jackles wrote:A dosnt move but is the real mover in A+B as in aristotals unmoving mover.

The idea of an unmoved mover goes back to (at least) Anaxagoras. It was picked up by Aristotle and appropriated by early mediaeval theologians for their version of god. It looks like what you are describing is a slightly different take on the trinity, in that you have the unmoved mover, god the father conflated with god the holy ghost, and then two versions of god the son, ie the body of god is made up of 'spacetime' and matter. Funnily enough, modern quantum field theories can be interpreted as closer to the original theory, in that, for all that QED and QCD, and Higgs for that matter, postulate different fields, 'matter' is 'made of' them, being condensation or excitation of the various fields; with or without god the father, take your pick. That's not in my article, but it is in my blog http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... chive.html

Well ill tell you wot I do know uwot . You as in you your conscience or consciouness is A. The event is A + B including your brain and thoughts. A is believe it or not is love without the emotions of A+ B. So your consciousness is part of A your brain and its thoughts are with the event as A+B. And if you are content in A+B then AB and A are indistinguishable.

Arising_uk wrote:...'Good' applies to moral agents who understand being 'bad' so your A is also 'bad'. I like your idea but think Cerverny has a better model in that there is this one substance that is undergoing entropy in the form of a 'crystallisation' and the phase-space of this event is where we exist, this phase-space can be understood as the juncture between what the substance was, i.e. the future, and what it is becoming, i.e. the past, with our reality being in the 'laying' down of the past. Me, I'd go for us either running in an ancestor-sim or its all being run on a Planck-sized bit holographic cellular automata but then I like my metaphysics culturally up to date.
...

Arising_uk, I noticed that you have praised my "model". Thank you for that :) and I also feel that it would be useful to try clarify it for potential newcomers (Oh my English :()

- There are two different phases of reality: the History and the Future
- History is a 4-D solid and elastic phase (for simplicity, let's say 4-D sphere)
- Future is not arranged, odd causal, perhaps more dimensional phase
- History is growing, condensed, crystallized from the Future
- "Before" the BB was only the Future
- BB was peaceful establishment of the first grains of crystal of physical space
- Vacuum=physical space (space)=aether has a firm, crystalline, structure
- Elementary particles are defects in the regular structure of space (eg. screw dislocations)
- Antiparticles are opposite types of defects (they arise simultaneously out of principle)
- Antiparticle (antimatter) has a different gravitational property (repulsion?)
- No dark matter/energy exist - there is only wrong (:dark:) theory of relativity
- Physical fields are elastic stresses in the structure of physical space
- Naturally, tensions accompanies defects
- Elementary particles are replicated (during growth of History) into the next, new, layers of the time
- Our (3-D) “being” takes place on the growing surface of condensed History
- The time of "now" is thus a thin, "live", layer of not-established (yet) History
- The concrete form of the ("frozen") History is born in quantum interactions (inaccurately during "measurement")
- Time, a speed of condensation, may run differently in different places of the space
- The surface of History, of our 3-D space, may undulate
- Energy, surface tension of History, regulates the different speed of time, of changes, (minimizes the size of our 3-D space)
- Generally, speed limits (changes) eg. c, are given by the rate of condensation (nothing can overtake the time)
- As a negative-entropy, the structures, fall from the Future, the Future is offered as kingdom of Ideas :)
- The lack of present physical theory is gravitational "magnetism", hence the gravitational repulsion (it may be responsible for inertial motion)
- Real singularities or infinities can not exist, of course

Sorry for annoying again and thanks for consideration
Z.

Not at all it only implies perception of time, sorry if someone has already said that I am bookmarking.

Time could be a ripple on a pond only humans can perceive, what lies under the water who knows..?

Cerveny wrote: ...
- Future is not arranged, odd causal, perhaps more dimensional phase
...
- Our (3-D) “being” takes place on the growing surface of condensed History
- The time of "now" is thus a thin, "live", layer of not-established (yet) History
...

- "Stem" elementary particles "raining" from "Future" and "freezing" on the causal patterns of History
- The thinner layer of time we examine (the more we approach the "Future"), the less rigid information about reality we get. This is due to the increasing influence of elusive "Future" :)

Ok lets get this right then. A existed it did not happen to gain existance.Bs existance happen from A(time) . So A B is a fiction from the fact A.Bs time is an illusion of A to accommodate the fictional presents of Bs movement away from A . Bs existance and therefor movment is the cause of the actualisation of A as timespace .B has to be moving in A. It B cannot ever be stationary it can only exist as a moving thing having locality in A.