Time is Unstable Space?

[Eodnhoj7]

Presented argument:

1) Time consists of particles moving in relation to eachother. (The definition of a particle in this respect is a "part of something". A physical atom or cow in herd would both be considered particles in this respect)

2) These particles exist if and only if they relate as they are incomplete due to their particulate nature.

3) In this respect the nature of these relative movements in turn form both eachother and further space as further particles (atoms bond with atoms, cow with further cow with herd and further herd)

4) The nature of these particle relations in turn defined the relations of further particles however these relations are continual source of flux.

5) The nature of the relations between particles is how we measure time, we observe time through a flux.

6) The actual relations (flux) exist if and only if there are further potential relations (flux). (atoms that are in a state of flux can only continue fluxing if they have the potential ability to flux. If an atom ceases relations, its ceases existence and in this respect all actual flux without potential flux, is not flux at all)

7) Time is actual flux and exists if and only if their is potential flux. Flux implies the necessity of relationship and therefore an instability. Time exists as an observation instability. With the premise all being is composed of space folding upon itself (which most physicists disagree with) all time is an observation of flux in being and in this respect time is unstable space.


Agree, Disagree?

Why?

[uwot]

Yea though it will provoke much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the cohort of contributors who believe that philosophy should be done without reference to what philosophers have actually said, Plato was the first to suggest that time is nothing more than things happening; although Aristotle said he was alone in this belief. 2000 years later, Kant conceded that we create concepts, like time and space, to help us make sense of things. Whether 'time' exists other than conceptually, is a moot point, but if it does, we currently have no means of detecting it. Every method we have of marking time depends on our counting periodic events, the orbit and rotation of Earth for years and days, to the swing of pendulums or the vibration of atoms for seconds.
So, if what you are saying is that time is simply a measure of things going on, I think that is probably true, if only because Occam's Razor neatly severs any need for an abstract entity called 'time'.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I think Consciousness is Time itself, without it there would be no movement.

I mean, things exist because we are there to perceive it...we weren't there 100 billions ago, so those the statue of liberty, which did not exist 100 billions ago, did not exist, because we weren't at that particular point in time. Our consciousness decides what state of matter it is going to be in. If our consciousness is in the summer, the ice cube is a puddle, but if our consciousness is in the winter, the puddle is an ice cube.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yea though it will provoke much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the cohort of contributors who believe that philosophy should be done without reference to what philosophers have actually said, Plato was the first to suggest that time is nothing more than things happening; although Aristotle said he was alone in this belief. 2000 years later, Kant conceded that we create concepts, like time and space, to help us make sense of things. Whether 'time' exists other than conceptually, is a moot point, but if it does, we currently have no means of detecting it. Every method we have of marking time depends on our counting periodic events, the orbit and rotation of Earth for years and days, to the swing of pendulums or the vibration of atoms for seconds.
So, if what you are saying is that time is simply a measure of things going on, I think that is probably true, if only because Occam's Razor neatly severs any need for an abstract entity called 'time'.

That is my point, time is movement, all movement implies a deficiency in stability as their is actual "being" and potential "being" (which equates to non being.

That which is not unified, in itself must move in order to relate as it is only a part, not a whole. All deficient structure must move toward unity, which is in this case is potentiality.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think Consciousness is Time itself, without it there would be no movement.

I mean, things exist because we are there to perceive it...we weren't there 100 billions ago, so those the statue of liberty, which did not exist 100 billions ago, did not exist, because we weren't at that particular point in time. Our consciousness decides what state of matter it is going to be in. If our consciousness is in the summer, the ice cube is a puddle, but if our consciousness is in the winter, the puddle is an ice cube.

I would think that time is a deficiency in consciousness considering that the past and future are obscure and the present is only a shadow of the immediate surroundings considering all things are continually moving and never stable.

[Impenitent]

free horses exist in unstable space...

-Imp

[EchoesOfTheHorizon]

1) Time consists of particles moving in relation to each-other

No. The moving would require particles outside of time to cause the move and the connection of relativity.

But I like the attempt to originality in the title. It sounds a bit like theories of Matter having symmetry and ordered complexity prior to the Big Bang, and then breaking down. Salt and Diamonds are relatively structured molecules, crystals, while boiling water isn't.

But even that theory is crapola. But hey, A for effort, you gotta take solid stabs and make a effort to explore things, even if wrong.

[uwot]

1) Time consists of particles moving in relation to each-other

No. The moving would require particles outside of time to cause the move and the connection of relativity.

I think you are missing the point. What is this thing called time, that particles would be outside of?

[EchoesOfTheHorizon]

If particles are moving relatively, and if particles make up everything, in terms of the classical atomic theory we inherited from Ancient Greece of something being the smallest particle, and no smaller than that, then we gotta ask what the hell is doing the moving.

The Op invented a third unnamed force (at least three, could in theory be more) besides time and space, and didn't realize it.

We can also invert it and say space is just smooth time, and mathematicically prove it by running it past the Homunculus living inside out brain.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

What you are doing is just pairing off polarities with another set of polarities that determine the former's quality, and thus determining causality, but this causality doesn't do very much to push for a unique independent origin that allows it to be deterministic. Everything in our physics today makes this mistake, ever since we (re)adopted the idea of the Big Bang and the break down of forces. We haven't the slightest clue as a result how to calculate "particles" except insofar how they manipulate one another mutually. It lead to the awkward situation of having a ever expanding particle tree of bosons and quarks and anti-particles sitting opposite, and we haven't the slightest concept of where this stuff came from, how it exists in exotic forms outside the Big Bang (everything must of existed prior in some shape or fashion), etc etc. Look at how sloppy this list is, no physicist likes it, they all agree it is chaotic and unsatisfyingly ugly:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

We always assume there is a opposite, and when we test, we can generally find it. It encapsulates our theory of energy, much like the OP tries (which I admitted to, it is similar) but but absolute default, that can't possibibly be time, anymore than a explanation of gravity can rest on the idea that earth rests on the back of a tortoise, and that animal rests on the back of another creature, and so on.... you are not actually addressing what is gravity in the explanation. You can't find the root of independent origination that gives that force it's unique characteristic, but rather a place and function within the greater scheme.

This would be a great theory for engineers fixing finite things via formulas, as they don't need to know how the universe works, but just enough predictible laws so as to ensure machine parts work as they are rated to work, as very few engineers will be working on a engine on the event horizon of a black hole. But as philosophers, we need to not make the mistake and strive to push the boundaries a bit farther, be a bit more self aware of these mistakes. Occam's razor tends to fail in the drive towards origins, when categories and forces start switching determinants for linear causal causes due to the physics being so absurd. We haven't the slightest clue how to test for that shit, so that's why most universal models start with a dot and a explosion, and we see we don't know what happened on the backside of that dot..... but are damn good at guessing how everything relates since. We don't actually know what time and space time is, other than they are apparently default operations of the mind, and might not even exist in nature. We may be projecting it all, for a darwinistic necessity because it is expediently useful for nut gatherers and savannah hunters to think thus. We never had to figure out how something truely originated, just had to track a animals tracks back to a hole, and know babies come from mommies. Was and is still good enough for most things, just not when we start asking about the origins and nature of time and space. Been the fundamentally most universal hiccup mankind has had philosophically. I'm sure a good psychiatrist can determine how many steps towards cognitive origins a average human can hold before assuming it is good enough, just like humans and birds can naturally count to number four, instantly recognizing it and knowing the difference between 2 and 3 and 4, while struggling with much, much higher numbers. Seems we are a tad tarded species, and I exclude myself in that retard category, as well as all of you. I've never seen a theory on the origins of the universe that didn't cause me to face palm.

[surreptitious57]

I think Consciousness is Time itself without it there would be no movement

Time does not require consciousness to exist only objects of mass because the rate of decay of an object is one way in how time can be measured
Planets orbiting stars and the entropy of the Universe are temporal measurements too. But none of these require the existence of brains or minds And so in a Universe without life time would still exist as indeed it did before the evolution of life on Earth. For it not to exist the Universe would have to be an absolute and eternal vacuum at both the quantum and classical level. But this is not possible as it would violate the laws of physics

[Eodnhoj7]

If particles are moving relatively, and if particles make up everything, in terms of the classical atomic theory we inherited from Ancient Greece of something being the smallest particle, and no smaller than that, then we gotta ask what the hell is doing the moving.

Great question I will present an argument. It is up to you to debate its truth or falsity. If you read any of my previous posts, it may seem redundant, however it is the most "rational" argument I have observed yet....so bear with me for a moment...patience is the ultimate virtue of any true philosopher as it is the one most needed.


1) The Ether is stable unified space which contains not movement. It is best signified as a 1 dimensional point. This one dimensional point reflects upon itself (moves itself into itself; therefore does not "move") to maintain itself.

2) It reflecting upon itself it manifests further points as approximate of itself. These points are simply structural extensions of the one point itself. Considering the ether is stable in nature, it is not temporal, and therefore eternal. These infinite points are extensions of the one point as a "circle" around the point.

3) The point is causal in nature and the approximate points it forms as extension of itself as "effects" as approximate causes. These points in turn are causal and what we under stand of cause and effect is striclty cause and approximate cause...or cause reflecting itself infinitly as one.

4) This approximate nature between the points, as cause and effect, is observed strictly as the line. This line, as an extension of the points is not a structure in and of itself but a deficiency in structure which connects the points. In this respect it is equivalent to -1 or "randomness" as a deficiency in structure.

5) The ether is observed fundamentally as a trinity of trinities:
a) Causality/1 as quantity/Point as quality.
b) Randomness/-1 as quantity/Line as quality
c) Reflection/0 as Quantity/Circle as quality
d) With its tenth element as "infinity".

6) The Ether in reflecting upon itself manifests a spatial dimension known as the Apeiron. The Apeiron is fluxing non-unified space which is in perpetual movement. It is best signified as a rotating line (or circle). These points cannot exist on thier own terms as they are individual points that exist if and only if their are other points and in this respect they are 0 dimensional.

7) These points are in a set of continual relations as they cannot exist on their own as they exist if and only if their are seperate points. These points are are in a continual state of relational movement as individually the are finite/temporal and therefore not eternal. These points are strictly the structural extensions of the ether taken that are observed as "individuals" reflecting randomness. These finite points are reflections of the line.

The points as particle are "actual relations" of points and are defined by thier "potential relations. These potential relations in turn defined the actual relations as actual flux can only exist if and if their is potential flux. Any movement without potential movement is no movement at all. What we understand of actuality and potentiality is strictly the observation of relations as time or multiplicity.

9) This nature of relation between the points, as actuality and potentiality, is observed strictly as the line. This line, as the relation of the points, is an actual particulate relation which forms the points as zero dimensional. In this respect it is equivalent to 1 dimensional (as a dimension is a direction of movement) and the points (as the exist only as relations) are zero dimensional. In this respect that line is observed as actual relations and the point as potential relations.

10) The apeiron is observed fundamentally as a trinity of trinities:
a)Actual relations/1 as quantity (however considering this is a dimension of "movement" or "deficiency" it is still equivalent to -1)/
Line as quality.
b)Potential relations/0 as quantity (however considering this is an absence of movement it is still equivalent to 1)/
Point as quality.
c)Relation/2 as Quantity (as actuality and potentiality are a set of points whose polarity results in the nature of "flux" or "movement")/Curvature as quality (a gradation of the point and circle)
d)With its tenth element as "temporality".

[Viveka]

EodnhoJ7, I think you are missing a fundamental point (pun unintended) when you say that a line is two points. A line would start off as a circle in 1-dimension of length, and 0-dimension of length would be the point in the middle of the circle. In other words, 1 and 0 dimensions are reciprocals of one another, the point being an infinitely small circle, and an expanded point a circle. This is why there is 'point everywhere, circumference nowhere.'

[surreptitious57]

I mean things exist because we are there to perceive it .. we werent there 100 billions ago so those the statue of liberty which did not exist 100 billions ago did not exist because we werent at that particular point in time. Our consciousness decides what state of matter it is going to be in
If our consciousness is in the summer the ice cube is a puddle but if our consciousness is in the winter the puddle is an ice cube

This is idealism which is completely false. Objects that exist are not mind dependent. The Universe is not of human
origin. It cannot be because it had to exist before we did. Because stars had to die before we could actually evolve

[Eodnhoj7]

EodnhoJ7, I think you are missing a fundamental point (pun unintended) when you say that a line is two points. A line would start off as a circle in 1-dimension of length, and 0-dimension of length would be the point in the middle of the circle. In other words, 1 and 0 dimensions are reciprocals of one another, the point being an infinitely small circle, and an expanded point a circle. This is why there is 'point everywhere, circumference nowhere.'

The line is a one dimensional "direction" and in these respects is an observation of "movement"...unless direction can exist without movement. That would be an interesting concept.

In these respect, under Relativity, it is an observation of "flux" where the points exist if and only if they are zero dimensional. These zero dimensional points as a "dividors" for the line in one respect. This help enables structure.

However considering the line is 1 dimensional it must "continue" and in these respects "actuality" and "potentiality" are points which it "moves" through.



The line is a "negative dimension" or "structural boundary" in the respect of "non-movement" or stability. In this respect considering the point is Unified, the line that extends between the points is not a thing in itself but and observation of "multiplicity" as "1" for the point is strictly reflecting itself.

This self reflection of through itself into itself maintains a unity through infinity.


The point is 1 dimensional under Reflection and 0 dimensional under Relativity.
The Line is -1 dimensional under Reflection and 1 dimensional under Relativity.

[Eodnhoj7]

I mean things exist because we are there to perceive it .. we werent there 100 billions ago so those the statue of liberty which did not exist 100 billions ago did not exist because we werent at that particular point in time. Our consciousness decides what state of matter it is going to be in
If our consciousness is in the summer the ice cube is a puddle but if our consciousness is in the winter the puddle is an ice cube

This is idealism which is completely false. Objects that exist are not mind dependent. The Universe is not of human
origin. It cannot be because it had to exist before we did. Because stars had to die before we could actually evolve

Under the ether everything would theoretically exists as 1 eternal moment and in this respect consciousness the the universe are strictly extensions of the other. Standard A leads to B does not apply.