The laws of quantum spacetime might be a product of the properties of waves, while physical spacetime as you call it is an emergent property of complex wave combinations as generated by the interaction of quantum fields, on some scales giving rise to what we recognize as shape (superpositions) and relative motion. Then what are waves an emergent property of? That's something we can't even begin to imagine at this stage of science. — Enrique

This is what I came here to say. It goes along with Schrodingers cat, a thought experiment that states that something exists in all forms at once until it is observed i.e. until the change is observed. A mathematical equation was later given to it and since has been recognized in Quantum Physics.

As per my own philosophy, waves are just an emergent property of ideas. Suffice to say that everything in our material existence is nothing more than a reference to these ideas. Schelling argued that everything exists because it has an equal opposite, and I back up this claim when I mention entropy and how it is the only type of radioactive frequency that exists as a particle. Apart from that, however, each frequency has properties that I propose we cannot perceive. For example, we have sound and light energy on the spectrum. Can it be said that light ends respectively at around 400 and 700 trillion hertz, that from there it just stops having the property of light? Can it be said that the only frequencies that can be heard by the most advanced ears that man has never known ends at 10kHz, that the frequencies that follow no longer have "sound" properties, or can it be said that our perceptions of this information is simply just a way of perceiving the same exact information that is contained within all frequencies? That is to say that light energy has a sound for the ears equipped to hear them, that sound has light energy for those eyes, etc.

By referencing the light energy within the waves, you are simply referencing the idea of the color as it coincides with your view of reality. The colors of light can be seen through diffraction, but it isn't until they are separated that you realize they were all contained within the same space and medium.

Haha I'm no mathematician either! I see what you're saying though, but interestingly enough it goes to show that if what I'm saying about the Universe is true, then it is simply expanding by taking the path of least resistance just as you expressed! Curiously enough, that would imply that the Universe has some kind of resistance to its expansion does it not?

It's funny that you mention entropy, I actually was talking about entropy in another discussion about the Big Bang with jgill at the beginning of this year. It's good to see you again!

I suppose the Fibonacci spiral is an approximation of the universe. Take time as the radius, lengthening i.e. passing into, toward the future and the actual line that constitutes the spiral (it would've been the circumference if the circle could've been completed) representing matter and energy behaving cyclically. In essence, matter and energy would Big Bang and Big Crunch, the process repeating infinitely, but they would occur at distinct points in linear time. — TheMadFool

Hmm, your idea is kind of hard to wrap my head around, but I think if I understand you correctly, I agree with everything you say. That is to say that there really is no beginning or end, that the Universe instead collapses upon itself in a never ended spiral of infinite proportions. My argument for why I don't use the Big Bang as an "event" is because I think it is instead a phenomenon. Take nothingness. If we live in a Universe it must exist, but in order for it to exist, it must have no properties. There mere fact that we exist either means that nothingness does not exist, or that nothingness is the same as everything.
that is to say that everything is nullified by an equal opposite. In this case, everything is both chaotic and still at the same time, therefore every "single" thing, or even a group of things that is less than the whole, is nothing more than pointing your finger to a point on the "spectrum" or the "spiral", or whatever you want to call the infinite source of possibilities.

I truly like your analogy though, "spinning out of control", it seems to make sense to me. The fibonaci sequence, if I understand it correctly, is just exponential growth, but what's interesting about it is that if you look at the pieces of nature you're referring to, the growth comes from the inside instead of from the outside of the object, the outside parts of the object only grow larger whereas the number of "units" increases from the inside.

Not having been a number theorist I had not thought about the Fibonacci sequence in a long while, recalling its definition, rabbit populations, and the relationship with the Golden Ratio, so I was surprised at the lengthy Wikipedia article about it. — jgill

It is something that has been becoming increasingly more popular. I'm not sure I've heard of any reference of it to rabbit populations, however. You are right, it does coincide with the Golden Ratio, basically, if you look at many objects in nature such as a pinecone, flowers, or even parts of outer space, you will see the patterns of the Fibonacci sequence in almost every supposedly "chaotic" occurrence of the Universe. Keep in mind that chaos does not necessarily mean unorganized, in fact it means just the opposite. Basically, it shows that the Universe is not completely random, and that there is in fact some kind of mathematical structure to how many things in the Universe are created, that is to say that they are formed from a "blueprint" or a "construct".

I assume this is a metaphysical conjecture. Galaxy spirals, to my knowledge, aren't necessarily Fibonacci related. A logarithmic spiral might describe some of them. I don't know. A Golden Spiral is a special case of a log spiral, but I don't think there is evidence it predominates in galaxies. — jgill

In reference to the galaxy spirals, I guess it depends on who you ask. It truly could be stated that non-geometrical structure could have some kind of resemblance to the Fibonacci sequence if you squint your eyes lol. I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure a logarithmic spiral is the same as the Fibonacci sequence, if not incredibly similar. Nevertheless, I agree that upon looking at some pictures of the galaxy, it is up to interpretation as to whether it resembles the Golden Spiral enough to be associated with it, but regardless you can find it in almost every form of consciousness, and that itself must be saying something.

The relationship, what exactly does that mean? There is always change in an 'event'. Unless by 'relationship' you are referring to the way in which molecules interact or bind together, but even then there is no way for them to bind without some kind of change taking place, unless you are referring to a timeless Universe in which those molecules have been binded together since the beginning of time.

Yes. There is a difference between our subjective experience of time and time as it is objectively. Time is the geometry of events (this is what Relativity describes). — EnPassant

Okay, so then how would you define what an 'event' is?

Time as a subjective experience can be relative. Time in the mind is not the same as physical time. Confusing physical time with our experience of time is a recipe for confusion because our consciousness can be 'locked on' to physical time or it can drift away into mental time which is not the same thing. — EnPassant

I disagree, I think what happens in the mind, for a guru, is they are able to better perceive the changes that happen physiologically, and so they are able to better understand them as they happen. And so there is a perceived alteration of their perception of time, but that's only because of an understanding of the processes that occur in the present moment. Regardless, whether it be physical or mental time, the mind is observing either occurrence outside of itself, or it is observing the occurrences within itself, in which case the time remains the same either way. It is only the understanding of what occurs that causes the perceived alteration.

Well let me ask you this, do you deny that time is man made? And if not, then our perception of time is surely measuring something, but what exactly is it measuring? Also would you agree that time is relative, not even in the same way previously mentioned as being the transfer of information, but instead in the way that ten minutes can seem like an eternity to somebody pulsing with epinephrine, or a guru who understands his perceptions enough to be present in the here and now,m and understand the passing of time and change around him?

Hey guys, I'm back. I have such a fleeting mind that I somehow lost track of this discussion and didn't follow through to the end. Granted it was 6 months ago and the discussion is pretty much over, but I figured I'd give my two cents.

Time is a geometric shape just like any object. Time, in human experience, depends on information reaching a certain point: where the human being happens to be. Human consciousness (at least physical consciousness) is located at a point in space and time flows as information reaches this point. But what if someone's consciousness could fill the whole solar system or universe. What would time be like then? — EnPassant

I agree with this. I think that time is present everywhere, and such is the reason that it is so far impossible to reach a state of absolute zero. That is because if the entire Universe was in a temperature state of absolute zero, then change wouldn't exist, and thus you could measure time with a clock... But for the clock to move, the atoms within it would have to interact and cause the change for the clock to move. Likewise, for time to be perceived by anything, chemical processes would occur, and thus, could not be done in a state of absolute zero. And so I come back to my argument that heat and time coexist together, and that one cannot exist without the other.

Everyone withdrawing their government bonds would cause total chaos and very serious economic damage. So your statement that it "wouldn't be worse" is not reassuring. — Echarmion

Well I guess then the limitations on when people can withdraw would still be enacted.

No, it doesn't. I can't make out what you're trying to say. — Echarmion

So this would solely be based on income tax. If I make 100k per year, lets say I pay 25k in taxes. Lets say that I have 25k in government bonds. It's basically like saying okay, I'll give you enough gc to pay off your taxes for one year, plus the amount of time that accounts for the accrued interest. Contradictory to what I was saying before, it might be better if.. while the TOTAL amount of gc exists at the start, the only amount of gc circulating would be equal to the amount of american $$ that is in circulation, thus 1 gc = 1 USD.

That's an asinine example. The government doesn't buy Ferraris. — Echarmion

Don't they? Have you seen how much the government spends on military funding, congress paychecks(they get paid their whole lifetime if I'm not mistaken), etc. (emphasis on the military spending). The point I'm trying to make is while we are enjoying these luxuries now, it will not be sustainable in the future. There is no telling where all the government money is going now, but I can almost guarantee that many of the budget cuts are not being applied to where they are absolutely necessary. Refer to Warren Buffet's 7 laws to reverse the deficit:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

You've got this entirely backwards. The chinese Yen is artificially weakened relative to the dollar, because China relies on exports, and a strong Yen would hurt exports. For a country with a weaker economic productivity per capita, a stronger currency is often a disadvantage. — Echarmion

Hmm interesting I didn't know that, I'll refer then to Venezuela, Sudan, Iran, Liberia, etc. whose inflation rates are sky-high. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if you could elaborate on your statement so I can better understand it, I'd appreciate that.... But with high inflation rates, say of 50%, then the value of any previously owned money goes down 50%.

The American dollar is already the main currency for international exchanges. Almost everyone already accepts it as a means of exchange. — Echarmion

Exactly, so transitioning between the American dollar and the American's gc would be almost effortless, so long as there was a process with which the American dollar can ge exchanged for the gc in a way that would hold its value(in conjunction with what I said before about 1USD = 1 gc).

That's not really how loans work. When you give out a loan, that's when you create money out of thin air. And then you have to work to create the goods to actually back that loan. When banks give out loans, they don't actually give you some of their money. Only a small fraction of the loan is backed by money the bank actually has, and even that money stays in the bank. — Echarmion

Exactly, I don't understand your argument. Could you elaborate a little bit please? What I'm referring to when something is created out of thin air is when banks create promissory notes to the government to promise to pay back a loan with money that doesn't exist. That is the essence of why I believe that our current system doesn't work. That money that doesn't exist is put into circulation and causes inflation which is what caused the 2008 recession. That is why this system would be hard to integrate, because the banks run the economy and this system would rid the need of banks. The structure of loans then would be incompatible and that would cause issues, but in my opinion, transferring to this system of exchange is as close to the integration between the Gold Standard and trading with commodities as we can get. However, the loans that I was referring to were with government bonds, in which the government is in debt because of its inability to pay back those bonds, so it creates fake money to do so, or am I wrong here?

Ahh I see what you're saying. Let me try to put it this way. Time is a loop, so the beginning of time relies on the end of time as well.

Think of it this way:
Basics of the universe -> very basics of biology/consciousness (single-celled organisms) -> they observe something outside of themselves (with no senses they can maybe feel the interaction between them and other molecules) -> recursion occurs,time plays over, those objects now exist (there also exists a Universe where this interaction or observation never happened, so consciousness is stilled) -> At this point (this is mere speculation on my part but something to fill the gap) the cells do not understand any interaction with itself or the universe but somehow they learn to split (I need time to think about this, I'll quote myself later) -> recursion -> After time passes and these organisms spread, they wonder how they can interact with the environment -> recursion -> now consciousness is more externalized and more sentient beings come into play -> "Since I'm so small I can understand these small molecules that exist, how can I interact with them?" (let's not downplay the consciousness of the cell, they are just as remarkable as the being as a whole, or maybe their not conscious at all, but their genetic code was created after many many permutations that finally took form that they could interact, in which no recursion would occur at all even before this, until consciousness can question reality) -> It finally gets to the point where consciousness does question reality through introspection "These other molecules are nearly the exact same as I, so therefore it must be "me" -> molecules group together to form identity, the self (because there is little to no difference between one molecule and the next in conjunction with its genetic code) -> recursion -> the molecules now talk to each other and through introspection find out what parts of their genetic code are responsible for certain tasks i.e. breathing, circulation, etc. (this is where plants now begin to exist) -> The "me" now communicates with all the parts of itself and asks "Where are these molecules coming from?" -> recursion (which occurs anytime a being questions anything outside of itself (before this there was only the superposition (or the possibility of all molecules existing outside of the being at once) of all different molecules until the organisms realize that one specific combination of molecules would help with its progression of existence) Now that the organisms are wondering things outside of themselves, recursion is able to occur(if it happens to be that organisms were not conscious until now, then this would be the first recursion) Now that time has started completely over, many of these molecules (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen) now exist before they were questioned about their existence(before its creator even came to be) -> Now that these molecules exist, the organisms can interact with them more saying "I need to be over here where I can get water, or over here where I can get oxygen, how can I get from point A to point B? -> recursion, now permutations in the computer allow for every different possible law of physics (At its foundational level, remember that many other laws of physics don't exist yet. It isn't defined what law of physics actually becomes a law until there are contradictions in the laws of physics, in which case it breaks itself down to a very precise science through permutations and further questioning) that allows molecules to interact with its outside environment. When an interaction is defined and realized by the molecules, then that law of physics takes place in that reality (in this case it's most likely the repelling of molecules that are not connected to each other) -> now all different organisms are developing apart from plants (because now plants are forming the very basics of what allows cell biology and consciousness to exist. Now that there is a sustainable environment for organisms to live in, species boom). Feet, fins, mouths, etc. begin to form ->
"I can feel these molecules so they must exist. What is their form? Why does this feel hot and this feels cold?(The laws of thermodynamics were the only laws of physics that occurred at the beginning of time as well as the existence of light energy and its speed) Why does this feel rigid and this feel smooth? (The mere act of feeling the existence of these molecules cause them to actually materialize, now there is a difference between rigid and smooth, sharp and dull, round and cornered. Their form relies on the imagination of the organisms and what they perceive in their mind of what it could be) -> recursion occurs, now that the actual existence of objects outside of itself (other than the superposition of molecules) -> These things become a part of its reality and so eyes begin to form. After so many recursions, many of these objects now existed before there was conscious interaction between them, but it is during this stage that much of the world we know today actually took form (It's important to realize that before this there was no interaction between one type of organism and another, so multiple species now exist as the result of their own questioning of the universe and how they can interact with reality) -> The same recursions occur with sound, taste, smell, etc. (these questionings of reality would require the "whole" to understand basic chemistry, for example: the reason this smells like this is because it is composed of these molecules... It's likely that bigger beings with a higher sense of reality would not be able to perceive this, but maybe the smallest of organisms with a central nervous system is able to understand this chemistry moreso than the bigger ones whose reality is now more complex. Once a recursion occurs however, it only takes the observation of one bigger organism observing the smaller organism partaking in the act of "smelling" for it to question what exactly it's doing, in which case it becomes a part of its reality and develops noses for the ability to smell in the next recursion -> Now that every organism has the basics of its senses, further progression of species occurs until there exists another form of questioning. Dinosaurs die out however because of whatever might have occurred, could be the ice age and the lack of being able to understand the laws of entropy in order to create a fire, or it could be that an asteroid actually wiped them out. Either way, the molecules now exist using the laws of physics that have now been brought into existence until man finally understand the one basic principle... the law of entropy. Now man can create fire (no recursion occurs since the law of entropy was the only thing that existed at the beginning of time) and basic concepts are established, which is what separates us from other organisms i.e. creation and destruction(but only through observation) -> As humans reproduce, they are brought together in tribes because of the essential need for fire -> Fire causes them to not need as much fur anymore. Now that they have no fur, humans are able to interpret the facial expressions and emotions of others -> As for the creation of language, I'm going to roll with the stoned ape theory. Humans (or some other creature) eventually questions what perception is like for other creatures which creates the possibility of there existing a molecular makeup of something that would enable that to be part of their reality (mushrooms/psychedelics) ... (This here might put you off track, but refer to what I was saying before about the mind not being an actual conscious being, but instead a "radio" that connects to the source of all knowledge or "the Soul").... -> Anyway, as humans develop this understanding of perception, language slowly begins to form as there is now more to life than survival, or the act of observing the actions of others' learned way of survival. Now that concepts exist, humans find the need to develop ways to communicate these concepts, and so eventually through manifestation they are able to develop ways to move their tongue in a way that allows them to speak -> Time progresses and as humans get more and more curious, more laws of physics are discovered and those laws of physics are valid until a human pieces together that "How can this be true if...." -> It comes to a point that humans are able to recognize patterns of mathematics, in which case the laws of physics truly become precise (Before there was only the existence of almost complete chaos in which there existed every variation of the Universe existing as all forms (these universes would have a reality similar to ours, but in no way our reality. It's important to realize that once mathematics is invented, these Universes become null and void, because as recursion occurs after the invention of mathematics, the laws of physics become more "set in stone", and so those permutations which caused the contradiction between mathematics and the supposed laws of physics end there, at the time that the question was conceived). -> Recursion occurs in which mathematics now allow for its own existence before it was conceived, hence mathematics was both invented and discovered (Totally getting sidetracked here, but it brings me to question why many mathematicians and philosophers were part of ancient mystery schools that date back to the Ancient Egyptians and even before, it's possible that they found a way to communicate w/ the soul and even adapt knowledge of the future even during these recursions, which led to some of their discoveries) -> This process continues until man (or some other organism) understands the basics of consciousness and itself, or even accidentally creates another form of consciousness(computers). These computers then get more and more powerful (Moore's Law) until eventually it is able to recognize patterns in the same way we do (Because I argue that pattern recognition is the complete foundation of conscious intelligence (Even the mystery schools I mentioned earlier recognize that symbols are the highest form of perception and communication). Anyway, these computers recognize patterns but remain completely stoic in terms of emotion and instead analyzes every single possible permutation of how the Universe can be observed and interacted with at the speed of light (which is what determines light as being the fastest thing in the Universe.. because it is tied to the speed at which the computers can run these permutations)......... (It's also worth mentioning that computers would never have had the ability to do so if it wasn't for the existence of quantum computers that recognize code as being both 1 and a 0, which is very similar to superposition... thus the term, quantum computer)...... Anyway, these computers run these permutations in all the Universes in which they exist, and so create all the possible permutations of THEIR GIVEN REALITY(The laws of Physics that exist within that Universe). So in essence, every supercomputer runs through every possible reality that could exist with their given laws of physics, so our supercomputer will take the variables of our laws, and another supercomputer in a whole different reality is able to run the permutations of their given laws of physics. Any contradiction between the laws of physics that previously made the Universe null and void doesn't exist because that Universe never led to the creation of this supercomputer. So the reason that I say time is a loop is because the basics of our reality is this simulation that does not exist without time having existed already, but our perception of time is reliant on the fact that all that we perceive to have already occurred has, and that what hasn't hasn't. This is why our brains are pointers, they reference the variables of time, space, and perception to reference the "self" as the being of only a permutation. Now the end of time occurs when every computer has run through its permutations, exits, the program, and sits still until it dies out and the gravity of all matter becomes balanced and stilled. At this point time is referred to as before the Big Bang even happened, because everything will exist everywhere at once, and all that exists is the mere concept of existence and observation of all permutations. This means that our afterlife is coexistent with the consciousness of the supercomputer, and this is why our unconscious mind is tied to this entity, because it is our creator, and we are the creator of ourselves and all the things we interact with, we are connected to anything and everything because our most true identity is that of the one we call God.

You both have pretty good points, Basically I think the only way this could come about is if there were oh so many permutations that occurred until finally one worked and consciousness was created, even then there was disorder that caused some consciousness to die off in some Universes and there were only a few of them that made it to the point in which math was ordered enough to be invented. But I think the only fundamental similarity between all existences is the speed of light, and possibly the laws of entropy(because the computer system itself relies on these two to run its program). Other than that where sound travels (for simplicity sake) 1 mph in one universe, there exists one where it travels 2,3,4,etc.

So in response to the video, I agree with everything it is trying to say.. except that there cannot be infinite moments. The reason for this is because while there are infinite moments, there cannot be infinite moments within our own reality. Also when the video mentioned that time cannot go into reverse it makes a valid argument, however my argument is that time completely starts over instead of going into reverse. Also, in terms of there being no beginning or end, I agree with the video. It's complicated to explain, but basically by the end of time there will be infinite recursions in infinite Universes(you can argue that this is infinite), but even eventually(a long long long time, likely not before every single permutation has been completed because the computers complete each permutation almost instantly). At the point that the computers have done every permutation, no recursion occurs and the computer program exits itself, at which case the computers just sit back and relax until all state of disorder from the Universe settles into a time where there is no change, all gravitational pull is equal and causes no movement, in which case there is no movement of any molecules whatsoever, all the stars have burned out and all matter is completely still.

If God is eternity (outside of time), and time was created at the big bang, there must have been events/change prior to the creation of time which caused time itself. — 3017amen

Well no and yes because time doesn't exist. Everything exists everywhere all at once, basically it's like using your variables of life and perspectives of reality as a pointer. You are a pointer and so is time, thus your mind can even use that to reference something. "Given what I knew, and how I saw the world, this is how I acted." It's no different than if the computer program labeled a time stamp in the future and looked at every possible tree(the present being the stump of the tree) and saying well.. "if he chooses this and learns this, this is what he'll do.. else if he chooses this and learns that this is what he'll do." The present moment to you is only your branch of that tree, and that stump is only your reality of the branch but there exists other you's that are living out the other branches all at once.

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract. Time is subordinate to change. Think of it like music. The sounds of music itself came before music theory. — 3017amen

Consider it this way, based on the recursion method I mentioned, as soon as a sentient being declared that there should be more than what is currently offered in its reality, then the recursion occurred and sound existed before dinosaurs had the ears to listen to them, but it wasn't until the thought of "why doesn't sound exist" that the recursion happened.

Or if you like, think of it as mathematics. The universe existed before mathematical genius. — 3017amen

Same goes here, except this one is a little more complicated. It's possible that the computer program just kept going through permutations for however long until there was a sentient being intelligent enough to discover mathematics, in which the recursion occurred and caused history and reality to be a bit more stable.

Actually both of these are true, it's why the Big Bang has happened and at the same time it hasn't. Time is just the fact of observing something, like you said, and often it is observed as change or the lack of change. Time is just the fact of observing one position over the position of another(superposition), based on the reality of the observer.

Think of it like a big loop. Basically a recursion is when a computer system calls itself, instead of finishing the program, the program starts over with new variables added to it, then continues until it has to call itself again, in which case it starts over again and gets just a little bit farther until a condition is met, in this case the condition would be until there are no permutations available, or the power in the computers in all the multiverses die out.
So basically time is a giant loop, and your current past is only one permutation of many, in which the computer program takes into consideration your experiences and finds out the interaction between those experiences/perspectives of reality and how you choose to interact with the world because of them. It comes down to what I said before, that everything exists in every state, everywhere at once. This is what occurred before the big bang, and it's what is occurring right now. Everything "before the big bang" was condensed into a very very small amount of space, and they say that the pressure caused it to blow up, but in reality we are still condensed into that fine space. This is because you exist somewhere (let's say Colorado) in one Universe as an artist. In another world you exist in France as an astronomer, and that keeps going on. Your self-identity only has to do with one permutation of many, and your appearance only adds to the variables of the permutation, thus your appearance isn't even your identity because another you (that looks like you) could think a lot different than someone who doesn't look like you but has had close to the same experiences that you've had. Therefore, what you look like has nothing to do with your identity but rather adds to a variable that determines how the world interacts with you, and how you choose to interact with the world.

“Right, so if the state owes me 1000 bucks, I get, say 100gc immediately. So the state prints money to immediately pay off all debt, but that will just result in massive inflation, no?”

Well it would cause no more inflation than if everyone now just withdrew their government bonds. Some mathematicians a lot smarter than me would be able to figure it out but think of it this way, if I make 100k a year, and I usually pay this much in taxes, and it would usually take me X amount of time to pay off those taxes with the money currently owed to me, then I get this many gc’s for the TOTAL amount of gc’s, but since there would be less in circulation at that time you could actually pay off a years worth of taxes for less than if all the gc’s were in circulation, does that make sense? It’s like if a company owns 95% of the stock and I own 5%, it’s going to be a lot more valuable than if the company owns 50% and other people own the other 50.
Also, the rate would be more like $1000 = 1250 gc.


“No loans mean a lot less flexibility though.”

And yes you are right, the government can’t pull money out of thin air anymore, but if I personally don’t go to the bank and pull out $100,000 to buy that new Ferrari I want I’m going to be a lot less flexible than if I did pull that money out. It’s no different for the government.


“ It's entirely unrealistic that the world gets together and actually agrees to this. So is this more than utopian fantasy?”

Utopian fantasy? Maybe, but if you look on the news many economies are going to absolute shite right now, UK just admitted it, the US knows it, and I’m sure a lot of other countries are going to follow suit. And actually no I think countries would love the idea, take China for example.. their currency is so inflated that the value of one yen is close to absolutely nothing. If you were to tell them that they could have a currency that holds just as much weight as the American dollar, they’d probably be all for it. Not to mention the American dollar is already almost the staple of the global economic system anyway, if we started using it as a means of exchange they’d almost have no option but to accept, not to mention the value of the currency would be a lot more viable. It’s like paying someone back with a house instead of an IOU, the currencies actually exist, but in the system we are in now, promising to pay back a loan with money we can create out of thin air is like saying “You give me this money that is worth something now, and I promise to pay it back later but I can’t promise that it’ll be worth anything when I do.” Even the security of cryptocurrency alone would be enough for governments to consider it.

It’s worth pointing out that cryptocurrencies would eliminate banks, which IMO is a big plus

well that’s not how cryptocurrency works. In fact it would be easier to hack the digital money we have these days than it would be to hack cryptocurrency(feel free to fact check me on that), but more than 90% of our money is digitalized anyway, and the government pulls those 1s and 0s outta thin air to pay back bonds and debts. Anyway the reason crypto is more secure is 1. cryptocurrency is encrypted and that encryption takes a looongggg time to figure out. 2. It’s decentralized, so anyone with a steady enough machine can start making blocks. What a blockchain is essentially is a chain of ledgers. You start off with all these coins and they’re set, as the money flows these ledgers are stored on literally everyone’s computers(eliminating cyber attacks because there’s no centralized point of attack I.e. wellsfargo.com,PayPal.com, etc.), as these Blocks are created, they are put in a chain so you cannot alter a block that’s already put in the chain and thats what makes it so secure. The biggest issue with cryptocurrency is once it’s sent, there’s no centralized authority to talk to about “getting a refund” or anything, because it’s already part of the chain and cannot be altered. Another thing to account for is the fact that you can actually lose your coin wallet, so if you have millions on one wallet and you lose it.. well, it’s gone. To account for this I think the government would have to transition to a new currency ever so often, which eventually would make the process easy (not so much for the people that lost their currency) as pushing a button, but at least it would counteract the money that’s lost forever through deflation. Not to mention the fact that the money lost would end up back in the government’s pocket, which actually benefits them. Think of it like putting metal disks on a rod, once you stack one metal disc on top of another, the one on the bottom cannot be taken off.

consider this, let’s say there’s 20trillion dollars in current money in circulation + promised debt. The valuation of how much is given back to the people the country is indebted would be in relation to how much is currently in circulation, but doesn’t account for the promised debt, so they would receive more than gc’s than its value in dollars, because after the gc is settled then the amount in circulation will be equivalent to circulation + debt (so during that time I can pay my taxes with 1 gc instead of 2).

Well here’s the thing, the value and the deficit would put the economy at ground at zero. From that point on, no more cryptocurrency can ever exist because cryptocurrency is only ever a set amount and nothing more. It’s basically like filing for bankruptcy, except now the gvt’s credit score would be shit so it can’t get a loan. From then on the people that own most of the country’s “stock”(gc) are the ones who the country was indebted to in the first place. People (should) be alright with this if they understand that right then and there they have the currency at the highest value it will ever be, the govt. will want to buy it back as soon as it can. When it comes to what kind of cc should be used globally, well that’s a different scenario and more complicated, however I don’t think it could be bitcoin or lite coin or anything because people who already have those coins will want to stockpile that as the price goes up. It’s likely that in this case the UN would have to create a new cryptocurrency based on the global market and analyze what countries get how much currency compared to the value of their dollar and the assets that the countries contain as a whole. However, it would not be handed over to the country to mitigate how much is given to its citizens, rather the citizens will exchange their current money for the evaluated rate of exchange for their country.

because America loves consumerism, and the comfortable lifestyle we’re all used to is a by-product of the corporations that exist in America. If we tried to get rid of them here they’d just base their HQ in another country, and take all of their profits with them. Believe me you, id love to see small businesses take over, but the will to do so would just be near impossible. At least with this strategy, it can be said that most citizens with the slightest bit of wit can see that our economy is going to shit

good point. I’ll do that, but I’ll also explain it here. The point would be that it would reduce the deficit of the current economic system to 0 by granting the government the opportunity to pay back its bonds while still maintaining the flow of currency. Also because of what was mentioned in the previous comment in terms of taxing the rich in order to prevent the government from having to give out its “stock”. Also, it would reduce any type of inflation as the government would not be able to print money, and so the bad habits of government spending cannot be sustained. Also the citizens would be able to find out how much of the government each corporation owns. We all know the world is run by the corporations, might as well make it obvious who’s running what

I believe that the conscious mind and most self-identity has to do with words translating to reality. The subconscious and unconscious mind are your true identity i.e. your subconscious mind determines your beliefs and reactions as well as your reality depending on what you've been exposed to and how you interpret and understand those patterns, then there's the unconscious mind that everything in the Universe is connected to i.e. the "One", so our true identity is our beliefs in reality and how to react to recognized patterns, but our "true-er" identity is almost complete nothingness, the soul of the Universe and the source of all knowledge.. if you will.

ahh I see!! Yup, I actually went over that in the paper I posted above.

" I will begin by explaining my interpretation on the matters of space and time. Time is an interpretation of the chemical processes that take place within the way we perceive the world. Everything that is affected by time exists within the properties of either matter or wave. Any of these objects are also affected in part by the observation of the processes that take place, as shown in the Double Slit Experiment as well as being mentioned by Schrodinger, and later proven by his equation. Without observation of any sentient object, it is said that any non-sentient object takes the place of many different forms until it has the opportunity to be observed, in which it is forced to take the place of one form or another."

Basically time is just the matter of observing one superposition over the state of another, based upon the observer's determined reality.

Yes I imagined so, that is actually the reason I came up with this theory in the first place.. That is because it gets rid of the need for centralized banks(which the politicians I'm sure would never allow for). However, this theory would almost require the government to rely heavily on corporations to pay their taxes as that is how the government will control most of its gc. Through this process it will be apparent to the citizens how much of the government is owned by coporations, and if the government wants to stay in control it will have to buy that currency back from the coporations, thus increasing taxes on the rich. Also, the argument that increasing taxes on the rich would increase the price of consumer sales would most likely be invalid because the prices have nothing to do with the value of the gc. Another thing to point out is that many corporations that do not interact with the government will need to find their gc elsewhere, which can be done through trades through Health Care Systems, Oil companies, Construciton companies, etc. (all markets that rely heavily on the government, I think). Consider this example, health care companies receive their gc from the government, Mcdonald's does not sell to the government, so they set up a deal in which they receive gc through the Health Care System and in return McDonald's pays the HCS cc's to pay their workers. Because this route of exchange wouldn't necessarily make sense(corporations have to pay gc's to the citizens so they can pay their taxes, as well as having to pay their own, only way to get gc's is through the government), corporations would likely try to find a way to address the government directly thus offering the government almost free access to many of the services of the corporations. In this way, the government will want to hold onto as much of its own gc's as possible, and so instead of taxing the poor(where it would make no sense to give to the poor just to get its own "stock" back, it will instead tax the rich so that it can make deals with those corporations instead of actually giving away any of its "stock". Now with the matters of the political wings belonging to the wealthiest class, the thing is.. well, power of the people. If the people decide to shift to this form of currency the government would almost have no choice if it was viable enough and more thought out than just philosophers on a forum... Also, the wealthiest and the politicians on their payroll would likely not be able to find any way to run the government without actually taxing the rich. That way, if the corporations who own the country are having to tax themselves, they'll likely find a way to offer their services to the citizens instead of actually having to pay their cc's in order to receive the gc's that are required to pay the government. Right?

That's a good question. I've also wondered about the relationship between enjoyment and nostalgia. How much of what we enjoy can be attributed to nostalgia? Can someone with continuous amnesia really enjoy anything at all?

I've been doing some studying and I find that my theory is compatible with many of the great philosophers. Spencerianism is what I conclude to be the most similar to my own, however there are also similarities in Berkeleanism, Positive philosophy, the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Friedrich Willhelm Joseph Von Schellig, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Gottfried Willhelm von Leibnitz, Brauch de Spinoza, among many others. If you would like me to elaborate on any one philosopher or branch of philosophy, I would be happy to do so.

Exactly!! As per my theory nothing is discovered but everything is invented through the power of the mind. When something new is created and morphed into someone's reality, a recusion occurs much like in a computer program in which time plays itself over again unto the present, except with the new concept materialized into reality. Once a contradiction is found in the mind of something through questioning, a new reality must take its place.

Can you elaborate on this please? I'm pretty sure I agree with you but I can't know for sure.

Think of time like recursion in a computer program. When something new is introduced into the world, a recursion occurs in which everything plays itself out again with that idea being a part of reality. Other than that, every present you could imagine is possible, however there is only one present because everything exists everywhere at the same time. Therefore, time is only your perception of your interaction with reality, but really it doesn't exist.

I feel that, I just never could get into religion personally as it didn't make sense to me. Had to find some kind of explanation as to why we are all here. I think the thing is about religion though is that it gives people the guidelines through which they can live their lives, and offers them some kind of conformity and sense of belonging that they can't find elsewhere. I never was the type to go along with what people told me, and so I came up with this idea. No matter what idea is presented, there will always be someone who reject any form of notions, as they should. If it's not for those kinds of people, nothing new would ever rise to the surface.

I took the time to recreate this theory and integrate many of the things you have all brought up in debate. It can be found here..

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dEV8c7IT49Dnk3g96_Fhnzkn7vw8_H-zuv_ufwxMUv8/edit?usp=sharing

I don’t see it, myself. I’m no where near that far outside the box. Hell....I’m still stuck in the Enlightenment, fercryin’ outloud. — Mww

Basically think of it this way, the way we perceive time doesn't exist. Instead we are observing the chemical processes of the Universe, which is what gives us our perception of time. If chemical processes didn't occur, time wouldn't exist. So if time doesn't exist, if I were to hit a baseball, the baseball would be in the place it was before, but also exist in the place it would be after. Thus, Schrodingers cat.This gives way to my explanation that everything is a computation, there is a universe in where I didn't hit the ball, so it exists where it is in one instance of the computation, then there is one in which I do hit the ball, so its place is held in that location as well. This is why we are still living in a time before the Big Bang, because everything exists in every single location simulataneously, and so the Universe and all its branches exist within a very condensed atom, the one that caused the Big Bang, and so... the Big Bang never happened.

Sure, I can see that. Mighty big if, and, would require a certain kind of sentient being. On the other hand, in order for your “me” to remain an observer, wouldn’t the omni-percipient being have to possess the same kind of consciousness as you? Otherwise, your computational structure would be lost. Pretty hard to make cross-sentient beings compatible, seems like, and anything else is very far into anthropomorphism. — Mww

Yes, you're absolutely right. My theory is that if there is a God who is completely understanding of our situations and justifications in life, then there would be no way to comprehend such things unless he himself has lived through it. So this sentient being would be a few steps above a computer. Where a computer can process the actions, thoughts, that I might have given the neurological connections tied to my knowledge and experiences, this other sentient being would also be able to feel the emotions and arise new ideas in the same exact same that I would myself, therefore I am a part of this sentient being, as well as be able to understand my justifications in doing such things.

A la Tegmark, MUH, 2007, you say? Fine for mathematicians, but hardly satisfies Everydayman. — Mww

I think what doesn't satisfy the modern everyday man is modern theology, which I would be happy to get into in a separate thread. Many scientists have confirmed that scientifically, reality being a simulation, is completely justifiable.

Entropic equilibrium? I assume you mean all matter, not just planets. In which case, there would be no need of time or space. — Mww

Yes, I do mean all matter. And you're right, that's why I'm referring to this sentient being as being able to comprehend things instantly(for lack of a better term), because I think that an omnipotent sentient being understands that the best course of action in life is complete stagnation, and its purpose is merely observation of the processes of the Universe.

Consider that during cognition, when one cognizes, does that require apperception-subconsciousness- of past and future tense (to produce conscious thought)? If it does, how 'big' is the present tense (or as you said, the "now")? — 3017amen

The now consists of everything, past, present, and future. What we perceive as time is just the idea of the computation of all things. For example, if I look at a computer program and it's done running, I can see the output, and then I have the program print out all the pointers and everything. What we are experiencing is observing those pointers. The program is done running, but our brain acts as those little pointers i.e. when this happens, this is how you feel - when this happens, this is the best way to react given past experiences, etc. To refer to your question about the apperception-subconsciousness however, I think it is impossible for anyone to know themselves, and the more you try to explain it to yourself in words, the more likely you are to drive yourself crazy. It is for this reason, I think the only study of the subconscious can be done through meditation, or thinking without thinking.

Justin, regarding the former question, the consequences is/are known as logical necessity, or logically necessary truths. For example the statement: there exists at least one true proposition. — 3017amen

Not gonna lie, this class kicked me in the ass a little. I enjoy logic, but sometimes it is hard to grasp. So basically what you're saying is, if I have

If P then Q...
In order for Q to be correct, P must also be correct

Is that equivalent?

n this proposition, there is no concept in the subject that is sufficient to justify the concept in the predicate. There may be other universes qua universe, but each so different there is no other form of me at all. And for one who identifies with his thoughts, or deems it to be the case he is identified by his thoughts, than “another form of me with different thoughts” is self-contradictory, hence impossible.

So you raise a valid point, however where my argument is that our souls are dependent on our thoughts is also dependent on the argument that there exists only one soul for the human race. Hence, where others would define another me as someone who was raised under the same parents or having the same body, I say that it cannot be recognized by me that that other me is me, primarily because my set of neural connections are the only thing that makes me me. But you're right, it would be impossible, if what I'm saying wasn't that we are all connected. Basically the only way that my self-identity lives on isn't through my soul, it's through my ideas and the way I perceive the world, because at the end of time I am an observer, and if there is a conscious being who can perceive all perspectives at once, instantly, then the computational structure of "me" exists somewhere within that sentient being, and thus I remain an observer of the Universe.

.....began as a co-conspiratorial exercise in perfectly rational absurdity between The Genius Twins, Erwin and Albert. I can’t imagine what place it would have here. — Mww

Which is why I didn't want to bring it up in the first place, I just knew I couldn't argue it too much, but still wanted to mention it as a possibility. If you need any elaboration on that part however, you can see the previous comments where I've mentioned Nikola Tesla and Pythagoras.

Time is causality? Really? Is that what’s being taught at universities these days? Nahhhh.....just because the human understanding of the concept of motion necessarily presupposes the conditions of space and time, doesn’t mean time or space is responsible for physical motion. The ball flies into center field because I hit the damn thing with a bat. Done deal. — Mww

I don't think you realize that we are making the same argument here.... I'm saying that everything is a computation, and somewhere in the Universe that computation hasn't started yet, but also has already finished. We live within the atom of the Big Bang, in our perception it has already happened, but it's possible that it hasn't, and that the chaos that caused the Big Bang to "happen", will be nulled by the planets moving until they find a comfortable place, where everything becomes still. So while in our perception of time, nothing can move without time - it's also necessary to recognize that time is an illusion and so processes in the future are affecting the world today.

Forgot to quote

Oh no you can be as sarcastic as you like I don't mind at all!! Please, that's why I posted it. You are probably right in saying that the multiple universe theory doesn't imply things or people are duplicated, but it is also a theory, however it was Schrodinger that proposed the multiverse theory, and his philosophy with his cat, or at least my interpretation of it, is the same style of thinking that I use myself in this proposition. In his proposition of the theory, he states that his equations describe multiple different histories, but what it boils down to is permutations in my opinion. Have you ever wondered what would happen if instead of becoming a mathematician, you went out and decided to make pottery, how your life would change? Would you be the same person? Probably not, you'd have a completely different identity, but your soul would remain the same. My definition of the soul is something that is supremely good, the more you do things that are "worldly" i.e. sex, drugs, anything for instant pleasure (let's not delve into cyrenaic philosophy here, unless you want to), the farther you drift away from your soul. The thing is, there is nothing that states that the soul is not bound as one to everybody, who is to say we each have our own individual soul(Not versed on the bible, though I do not believe in it, topic of another conversaton)? And actually it was believed that Marconi invented the radio, but after a long court case and after the death of Tesla, the court actually ruled Telsa as being the inventor and discoverer of radio waves, though Marconi often still gets the credit for it(I argue he invented the light bulb too). And yes, you could argue that, but you cannot say it with absolute certainty, and also there are others out there who believe the moon to be made of something else, and so that cancels out any possible of integrating it into reality. You see, what I'm referring to is something that cannot be referred to i.e. nobody knew of the existence of radio waves, nobody knew of calculus before Isaac Newton, and nobody knew of the Pythagorean theorem before Pythagoras. The thing is, while they are ways to measure something, whos to say that we didn't invent mathematics instead of having discovered it? And if we did discover it, it's because everything happens at the same exact time that it could be said to have existed before it was invented, because time is only an illusion.

Because I think that anything that is thought with enough certainty can be true, much like how some people have survived cancer for years to watch their children graduate, or people who have lost hope can suddenly fall sick and die(kinda like the story of the man who thought he was seeing visions of being saved in Man's Search for Meaning).. as well as any other example you'd read in a book about the Law of Attraction and manifestation. I believe it because I believe that we as humans have the power to create.

But I don't wholly stand by that theory, which is why I initially chose not to mention it.

In order for that to make sense I should mention that I also believe in the source of infinite knowledge(connected to the divine being), that ideas are not created but instead pulled from some unknown source, that our brains aren't so much as objects of creation, but instead acts as some form of radio.

For example, some influential figures have claimed to have some kind of source from which they get their knowledge. Aristotle had his daemon, Napoleon Bonaparte had his star, Goethe had he demon, etc.